Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 5

April 5

Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – AB CD 00:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cina

Vanity page - actually sounds like a bad personal ad. SteveW 00:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. Trash-SHEE. --FuriousFreddy 01:38, 5 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). – AB CD 00:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FLESSAS FAMILY

Grenavitar marked this vfd on January 4 as a duplicate of Flessas Family, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'd just redirect, but since the same anon started both articles and there's thus no GFDL requirement, and this would be quite useless as a redirect, my vote is delete. —Korath (Talk) 00:05, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Delete --Fuzzball! 03:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete; redirect would be useless. —Sesel wa 04:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, geneology. Megan1967 06:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete duplicates. Useless as redirect once people learn how to spell Wikipedia article titles. Mgm|^(talk) 08:02, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete duplicate, unecessay to have two pages. Oliver Keenan 16:39, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Robinoke 15:16, 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. – AB CD 00:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fab lab

Atlantima marked this vfd on March 28, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just listing it here; do not consider this a vote. (Note that the first sentence has already been transwikied to Wiktionary.) —Korath (Talk) 00:08, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, encyclopedic. Kappa 02:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep I agree with Kappa --Fuzzball! 03:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. Megan1967 06:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, keep, cleanup, expand and grow. Oliver Keenan 16:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – AB CD 00:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fahed Abul Ethem Nsour

Not notable. Looks like a vanity or something close. --OU812 01:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:09, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep needs some tender love. Jordanian supreme court justices are notable. Klonimus 02:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable. —Sesel wa 04:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable - fails Google test. Megan1967 06:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep and don't rely on the simplest kind of "Google test" for Arabic names. Supreme court presidents and cabinet members of any nationality are notable. Fahed Abul Ethem Ensur is Jordan's Minister of State for Legal Affairs since October 2004.[1]. / Uppland 07:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- PS. Another variant: Fahd Abul Athem Ensour.[2] / Uppland 07:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Concur with that, keep. Radiant _* 07:16, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Secretary of State (of a real country), therefore notable. Average Earthman 12:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, of course, and cleanup. - Mustafaa 22:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep - if he were an American, he'd have a huge page on him for such a career. Of course, he's Jordanian, but nonetheless, this page could be a worthy addition. I say request improvement from anyone who can help! --Harro5 07:31, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Robinoke 15:18, 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. – AB CD 00:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Focal points

Delete - how-to essay concerning somebody's about how to decorate a room. Doesn't belong on wikipedia, and a very misleading article title, too. - DavidWBrooks 19:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:09, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Info doesn't match page title. --Fuzzball! 03:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete unencyclopedic essay. —Sesel wa 04:28, 5 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 Francis Schaeffer. —Korath (Talk) 14:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Francis Shcaeffer

This unmarked substub mispells its own title -- there is a real article on Francis Schaeffer. Clearly needs to be deleted.Zantastik 07:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:14, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Francis Schaeffer. There's nothing unique in this sub-stub that's not in the full article. Jonathunder 00:52, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Redirect to Francis Schaeffer. Klonimus 02:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete with no redirect. —Sesel wa 04:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect. This unusual spelling mistake is not common enough to justify a redirect. Megan1967 06:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. You would not believe all the different misspellings people can make. Sjakkalle 07:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirects are cheap. Mgm|^(talk) 08:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect - I can imagine someone making this misspelling. Firebug 09:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete I'm not convinced spelling errors should be redirected. Paradiso 12:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Plausible spelling errors should by redirected. The fact that someone misspelled the name this way suggests plausibility in my opinion. See WP:R. Sjakkalle 13:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete spelling error. Oliver Keenan 16:46, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Redirects are cheap. plausible spelling error. Dave the Red (talk) 18:26, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect Redirects are cheap, and you can do them without having to have a VFD. DJ Clayworth 18:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
CSD policy says to speedy delete typos. Delete, do not Redirect. Rick K 20:20, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

And WP:R policy says we use redirects for misspellings. Sjakkalle 06:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see no problem with a redirect. From WP:CSD, "This does not include common mis-spellings, as redirects from those are considered useful." I suppose we could debate whether this is a common enough mis-spelling, but is that really worth the time? Radiant _* 08:11, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. It simply doesn't matter and redirects are less controversial. I wouldn't object if someone did this immediately without waiting for conclusion of VfD; what do others think? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I decided to be bold and do the redirect. If the vote is for deletion, this may still be performed after appropriate consensus. Firebug 01:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 05:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. Robinoke 15:21, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fukuyama Masaharu

delete, vanity Wikipedian231 13:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:19, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
keep, amazon.co.jp has 63 music items, 56 books, 34 videos, and 17 DVDs under his name. [3] Kappa 00:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep Notable Japanese artist. Let's as someone from JP wiki to help on this. Klonimus 02:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. Allmusic.com listing, but no written entry. Article does not establish notability, but it seems perhaps there is some. Gamaliel 02:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep: Notable - the article just needs to be expanded. --Fuzzball! 03:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, such extensive Amazon listing shows sufficient notability. Mgm|^(talk) 08:04, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Very well-known Japanese artist. Allmusic is notoriously bad about its coverage of foreign artists, and its lack of a written entry is unsurprising. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:38, 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 merge and redirect to DCPlusPlus. —Korath (Talk) 14:41, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

FulDC

Delete. This article copies http://dcplusplus.sourceforge.net/ directly; while it might not be a copyright violation, it is practically a marketing page. Matthew Plough 08:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Fixed. The particular text has been replaced by a short description, not copied from anywhere. If anything should be removed now, it's the oDC page, as the client is too frikkin old and the article doesn't contain any useful info at all. Walter Doekes 14:21, 17 Feb 2005 (CET)
Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:20, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: How long has the software been around for and approximately how many people use it? --Fuzzball! 03:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Since its sourceforge project [4] wasn't updated since 2002, I believe this project was abandoned. Delete. Radiant_* 10:48, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The page you link to is the DC++ project page, not fulDC. Also, where are you getting the 2002 date from? --TheParanoidOne 21:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge into DCPlusPlus, fulDC is the most known and most used mod of DC++. bbx 16:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Agreed merge has been done, this page can be deleted safely. Sedulus 21:14, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
- If you actually used content in your merge, the correct resolution is redirect in order to preserve the attribution history, a requirement of GFDL. Rossami (talk) 06:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - Well yes, I used content, but _I_ wrote that content on this page earlier (see Walter Doekes 14:21, 17 Feb 2005 (CET)). But sure, I can live with a redirect just fine. Sedulus 14:06, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete CDC (talk) 05:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Big five record labels

A list of five big record labels, unencyclopedic.--nixie 00:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And an incorrect one at that, as there's only the Big Four now. Delete. Davelong 00:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Incorrect, and redundant with the Big Four article. Dave the Red 03:28, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete inaccurate. —Sesel wa 04:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Big Four. Meelar (talk) 08:56, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete not encyclodpedic, unlikely to be expanded. Dsmdgold 14:58, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Big Four. Alba 23:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Big Four would be unencyclopedic and record labels wouldn't be the main definition. List of record labels already has all of the information in this page Mozzerati 07:04, 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. – AB CD 00:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gen0journal

Ad for high-school students live journal diary, vanity and self-promotion, delete--nixie 00:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: at 00:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC), the article was blanked by original author. Zzyzx11 01:32, 5 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/redirect. – Radiant _* 09:58, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Squillion

Without the word history, which looks suspiciously bogus, this article shrinks down to a dicdef. -- Dcfleck 00:47, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Delete I agree, it looks like it belongs in the Wiktionary. --Fuzzball! 03:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. Dave the Red 03:27, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to zillion. Dave the Red (talk) 02:32, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

*Delete as neologism. I really had to do a double-take since that word almost looks like my last name! - Lucky 6.9 04:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- Guess this is real after all. Merge/redirect. - Lucky 6.9 07:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect this and all other (*insert any consonant*)illion words to Zillion. Sjakkalle 06:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect per Sjakalle. Radiant _* 07:13, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect. Its not a neologism though as it is in widespread use in the UK, particularly amoungst children, as meaning a very very large number. It also gets 13,500 hits on google and has a Wiktionary entry. Thryduulf 10:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- additionally merge the other articles in category:Indefinite large numbers into one article. Thryduulf 23:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment - We already have Gazillion, Bajillion and Jillion as articles, all of which are rarer in the UK than Squillion (and Bajillion is pretty rare anyway), so if this were to be merged, so should all those other similar terms. If not merged, clean up thoroughly (and in particular, lose the awful example. If you want an example, find a quote from someone in a newspaper). Average Earthman 12:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Good idea, merge the lot of them. I'll put it on my to-do list if there are no objections. Radiant_* 08:10, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  - I'd put a note on the various talk pages just to see if anyone who is watching them objects, but I'm all for it. Thryduulf 11:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment - agree with Average Earthman. If rare similar terms like Jillion and Gazillion have articles, the relatively commonly-used term Squillion should have one. This should either be a merge/redirect or a Transwiki to Wiktionary rather than an outright delete. Grutness|^hello? 23:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- note that wiktionary already has an entry for squillion. Thryduulf 23:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
All -illions now merged to Zillion, Squillion should simply redirect there as there's nothing new in that article. Radiant _* 18:08, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. Agree with Radiant. Robinoke 15:27, 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. – AB CD 00:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AmerikanSyko

No links, no Google hits, no indication this is anything other than one person's imagination. -- Dcfleck 02:19, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Delete unless documentation is supplied. Dsmdgold 02:36, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I agree with Dsmdgold. --Fuzzball! 03:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. —Sesel wa 04:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I get 15,800 Google hits if I search for "Whitey Bulger", so the killer himself is probably notable. But I have a distinct feeling that the term "AmericanSyko" is totally unrelated, especially if I take a look at clusty's hits. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 08:10, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Robinoke 15:28, 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 (blk-cmp error). – AB CD 18:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Black & White Records Part 2

Continuation of Part 1 which no longer exists... [5] srs 02:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge info with Black & White Records. --Fuzzball! 03:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not a very useful list considering the first half of it has previously been deleted offering no logical context. Megan1967 06:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Let part 2 go the way of part 1 Delete Dsmdgold 15:25, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopedic. Rick K 20:24, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – AB CD 00:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dhiraj Nallabelli

Vanity. Zzyzx11 03:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity. —Sesel wa 04:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
delete. Bubamara 08:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - NN, vanity. SteveW 12:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, beware, the author keeps reverting people's attempts to delete the article. --Deadcorpse 20:00, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - Mustafaa 01:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'd have speedied it. Robinoke 15:32, 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. – AB CD 00:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maps from 1700s A.D.

Delete. Not an article, and never will be. This was created as just a place to display images that couldn't be fitted into Liancourt Rocks. Of course deleting this page does not mean deleting the images, so they can be added to any relevant articles. Mark ¹ 03:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete unencyclopedic. —Sesel wa 04:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is a mere picture gallery. Delete, if this causes any images to become orphans they should be transwikied to the commons. Mgm|^(talk) 08:12, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep picture galleries related to articles or transwiki to commons. These are all old enough to be public domain. --SPUI (talk) 13:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Same maps and more also seem to be on the Maps of Korea from 1600 - 1800 page. It'd be good to keep them somewhere, I think. — RJH 16:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. All these maps were already in Maps of Korea when Jongbhak created this article. Possibly just finger trouble by the author. -- RHaworth 17:33, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Delete, let's not create galleries when they're not needed. Rick K 20:25, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Picture galleries are at least as useful and worthwhile as articles on obscure schools. Denni☯ 00:27, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
- Comment: "Collections of photographs" are explicitly listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Rossami (talk) 06:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Rossami. Radiant _* 10:09, 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. – AB CD 00:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maps of Korea to 1600

Delete. As per Maps from 1700s A.D. above. Mark ¹ 03:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete unencylopedic. —Sesel wa 04:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete and transwiki orphaned images as above. Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep picture galleries related to articles or transwiki to commons. These are all old enough to be public domain. --SPUI (talk) 13:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Contains one picture which has now been added to Maps of Korea. -- RHaworth 17:22, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Delete, duplicate article. Rick K 20:26, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – AB CD 00:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Trick'd Out

Delete. An "independent" film that hasn't even been filmed yet. It seems quite a bit below the bar for an entry. Wikipedia is not intended to generate buzz and publicity. Joyous 03:25, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Buh-bye! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable/self-promo. —Sesel wa 04:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete self-promotion for future films. Mgm|^(talk) 08:19, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - NN, self-promo. SteveW 12:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - self promotion for a no-budget film with no wide distribution arrangement, nor is it likely to get one. And no, selling it yourself over the internet doesn't count. Average Earthman 12:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete W/P is not a crystal ball. And it's not intended to create publicity for your "film". Oliver Keenan 16:50, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Add to it. We have pages for pro films, why not indie films? Grounded 10:22, Apr 5, 2005
- User's only edits are to this page. Delete, not only do we not keep indie films which have failed to establish notability, we do not keep articles about pro films which have not been filmed yet. Rick K 20:27, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Probably also: vanity; advertising; non-notable. After the film is released and garnered enough press attention to provide evidence of notability, it can be re-created without prejudice. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
KeepThere is nothing wrong with a page for an amateur film. People might want to know more about it and other amateur films that don't get much coverage.AFLancaster 5:22, Apr 5, 2005
- The above is really User:69.225.49.231. Rick K 04:32, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The crystal ball argument is invalid due to the unchallenged existence of pages dedicated to unreleased movies, see Episode III. Additionally, while the lack of content may have been a legitimate argument originally, it is invalid at this point due to added information. Finally, the article does not violate any Wiki rules. OutcastJiob 2:33am GMT, Apr 6, 2005
- User's only edits are to the article and this page. RickK 04:32, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  - I fail to see the relevance of this. I'm a long-time Wiki user, but this is the first time I've felt the need to make edits.OutcastJiob
Keep. I agree with Outcast. it doesnt break any of the rules, so there is no reason to remove it from the site. It's not that often that you get to hear about these kinds of projects, and I find them interesting. And, just throwing this out there, does it really matter? its one page out of too many to count! Alex.Hotshot 8:10pm, Apr 6, 2005
- The above is User:69.225.49.231 again. Sorry, you only get to vote once. And votes from anonymous Users and Users whose IDs did not exist prior to the creation of the VfD page are usually discounted, so there's no point in your voting for a third time under yet again another name. Especially a false one. RickK 04:34, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  - Networks with multiple users look funny based on their WAN IPs. Rather than accusing people of being sock puppets, you may want to consider actually providing a reason why the page should go.OutcastJiob
    - If you look above, you'll see that I did provide a reason. And I will repeat: the votes of the anons will not be counted. RickK 05:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
      - Okay, I overlooked that. I can provide reasons why the film is notable, however, and I'll add them to the article once I've finished outlining them here. The first one that comes to mind is that the project is made completely by a group of non-professional teenagers aiming to produce a professional-level film. This is not "normal" either for independent films or Hollywood films. Second, the film is being shot entirely with entry-level consumer DV cameras, in order to demonstrate the potential of the format for films. While more common in independent filmmaking than in Hollywood, this practice is still notable due to considerable prejudice against using the DV format. Third, the film is being shot for sale with an extremely low to non-existant budget--also not a common practice in independent films, and certainly highly unusal in film as a whole. I could continue the list, but I hope this will be sufficient to establish the uniqueness of the project. OutcastJiob
        It sounds like it's all about the technology. But you're not making any technology breakthroughs yourself, you're just using off-the-shelf equipment. How notable can it be that someone unable to raise enough money for normal equipment would try to use cheap equipment? I don't see how a low budget makes a film project notable prior to release. The fact that Easy Rider or The Blair Witch Project was made on the cheap is notable only because those movies were big commercial box-office successes. I'm baffled by your "objective of proving that this eqipment [sic] can provide a quality film." If a 16mm blowup like Leaving Las Vegas can be a commercial success, I don't think there's much left to prove. All you need is a really good cinematographer. And really good lab work. But the big challenge is to get commercial-quality entertainment out of your "purely amatuer [sic] actors." Enjoy your premiere and the local press coverage I'm sure you'll get... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        Apologies for the spelling errors, I will go fix them. Your criticism of the film "project" due it using off-the-shelf equipment and low-budget is uninformed at best. That is the entire point of the technical side of the production: that professional-quality films can be made with consumer equipment. You've missed the entire point. The "breakthrough" is that there is no breakthrough with the equipment. The low budget does not make the film notable; rather, the low budget coupled with the high standard for quality and the objective of a commercial release makes the film notable. Additionally, comparing 16mm to DV demonstrates a fundamental ignorance about film in general and the merits of the various formats in particular. While not as desirable as 32mm, 16mm is generally accepted as a quality film format, unlike consumer DV. To say that a terrible film can be shot on 16mm and still be a success proves nothing, as we all know that terrible films are produced on 32mm by Hollywood and still have great popularity at the box office for unknown reasons. Your argument about only needing a really good cinematographer (I assume you mean director of photography) is also invalid--if DV is truly a useless format, cinematography will not save the film.OutcastJiob
I've seen hundreds of student film projects with no budgets that set out to prove the abilities of entry-level consumer cameras. I can't see how that makes this project unique. Also, about Episode III: this page is allowed to exist because it has already got significant press attention and it's part of a very famous film series. 131.211.210.12 07:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Actually User:MacGyverMagic while not logged in, I already voted above).
- True enough, but how many of those student films were made for sale? Regarding Episode 3, an unreleased film is an unreleased film--I agree that Episode 3 is special, but so is Trick'd Out. The popularity is nowhere near the same, of course, but just because it can't compete with one of the most anticipated films of the year doesn't make the project unimportant or non-notable. OutcastJiob
Delete as self-promo aka vanity. Radiant _* 18:09, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, the sooner the better. Vanity, self-promotion, not a crystal ball, non-notable, sockpuppetry, yada yada yada. And it's hard to take the promoter's gabble about technical issues seriously when he can't even get a standard film size correct (35mm, not 32mm) or doesn't seem to know the standard term "cinematographer". --Calton | Talk 00:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- O tempora, O mores. He probably does know how many pixels there in each video format. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Alright, I can have a laugh at myself, 32mm indeed, you'll have to excuse me, I was a bit tired at the time. That aside, all you experienced Wikipedians seem to have forgotten the rule about being polite and not calling people sock puppets unless you can prove it. Vanity is not valid, self-promotion is not valid (how on earth can it be self-promotion when there's no link to any associated website?), crystal ball is not valid (see above), non-notable is not valid (also see above), and sock puppetry is an unfounded and unproved insult. And 32mm was a result of exhaustion, not of an ignorance of film. Cinematographer is an extremely broad term. According to Wikipedia itself it means "A cinematographer (from 'cinema photographer') is one photographing with a motion picture camera. The title is generally equivalent to director of photography (DP or DoP), used to designate a chief over the camera and lighting crews working on a film, responsible for achieving artistic and techical decisions related to the image." That, however, is not the only possible usage, as the term can mean anyone who operates a film camera. And obviously just having a good cameraman--or even a good DP--won't cut it if the format is useless, as I said above. OutcastJiob
  - You seem to have forgotten the high-school debate team principle that assertion is not argument: simply declaring something "invalid" doesn't it make it so. In any case:

Vanity is not valid, self-promotion is not valid: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a chatroom, discussion forum, or vehicle for propaganda and advertising (emphasis mine). Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:...Self-promotion. While you are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. Strike one.
"crystal ball is not valid": "Of course, we do and should have articles about notable (emphasis mine) artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions." Strike two.
non-notable is not valid: Attempt to make film using cheap, off-the-shelf equipment? Done before, and -- I doubt I'm going out on a limb here -- done better. Strike three.
sock puppetry is an unfounded and unproved insult: using the same IP address to cast two different votes is prima facie evidence of sockpuppetry; duck, walk, quack, etc. Strike four. Whoops, you were out already.

Come back when you've got clippings from Variety, American Film, or The New York Times. Until then, your logic-chopping is irrelevant and my vote still stands.--Calton | Talk 04:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- No sock puppetry going on here...my little brother "Alex Hotshot" and I are on the same network so the router IP is the same. Also, Wiki's rules allow promotion that is unbiased, as this article is. While Wiki is not a crystal ball for indie filmmakers, apparently if you get enough press coverage, it is, as in the case of Episode III. It is notable as the field of amateur photgrahpy and filmography is an often overlooked topic that may interest many people and this article is an example of what amature filmmakers do.AFLancaster
- At dpbsmith: Film formats such as 16mm and 35mm have nothing to do with pixels. I assume, based on your previous remark, that you know this and are simply taking the opportunity to run down digital and this project. If that's the case, your remark is completely uncalled for. If this is not the case, it's not productive anyway.OutcastJiob
  - Actually, what I was intending to do was to point out that contemporary videographers might not think it was essential to know details of things like film gauges and Academy apertures... Dpbsmith (talk) 01:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - Oh, okay, I'm sorry for taking it in the wrong sense. However, I do keep up on "traditional" film, even though I think it's quite out of date, because of the historical aspects with regard to "film" as an art. OutcastJiob
Delete per Dpbsmith's original argument. No articles about future events. Rossami (talk) 06:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. no Pythoness business. Mikkalai 02:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment Nobody has yet suggested "userfying" the article, perhaps because it was created by an anon. But, OutcastJiob, you seem to be closely associated with this project and you have a currently unused user page. This material and other personal information is perfectly acceptable for a user page, and incidentally Wikipedia user pages are index by Google, so if the material is there people searching for "Trick'd out" will find it. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There you go. Perfect solution. Delete this; move info to a new user page. - Lucky 6.9 07:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Dpbsmith, that's a great idea. I'll stick it in my user page right now.

delete and user pages are not for advertising either, but, of course, if the person is closely involved in the film then that is legitimate information about that person. Keep it reasonable. Mozzerati 07:08, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Dpbsmith. Robinoke 15:35, 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. – AB CD 00:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evan long

Vanity stub page. Delete. Andrew pmk 03:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity. —Sesel wa 04:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - vanity, NN. SteveW 12:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - a single sentance vanity page (great). Oliver Keenan 16:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Who exactly was he expecting to expand this stub into an article? -- 8^D ^gab 22:22, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Robinoke 15:37, 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 NO CONSENSUS Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Similarities between Babylon 5 and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

Original research. Unencyclopedic. Delete. Indrian 03:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Easily checked, encyclopedic. Kappa 04:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like the purpose of this article is to accuse the producers of DS9 of ripping off B5. Even if it's not, it's still a pointless, unencyclopedic POV rant. /sɪzlæk ˺/ 04:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems to be unsourced speculation without a really encyclopedic purpose. Delete. Meelar (talk) 04:35, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unencyclopedic. —Sesel wa 04:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic. Fancruft. Slac speak up! 05:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I have very little against fancruft. Sjakkalle 07:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There are infinite possibilites for comparisons between TV shows, and this kind of trivial material is non-encyclopedic. Would make an interesting page on a Star Trek fan site (I'm a trekkie myself).Halidecyphon 07:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as apples-and-oranges comparison. Radiant _* 07:15, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. It could be merged into criticisms in the main B5 and ST:DS9 articles or a section called DS9 in the B5 article and vice versa. It's not really an apples and oranges comparison though, there was a fair bit of controversy about the similarities. I disagree that it's a POV rant, if you take out the bit about it being "doubtful that they were intended for a future series at the time" and "(DS9) began doing so in later seasons, though its producers contend that the entire series was one long story arc", then it's just showing you the similarities. Besides the article says that mostly they are only on the surface really and the TNG had already laid the ground work on Cardassian/Bajor stories -- Lochaber 14:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is fancruft. Just think of all of the rubbish this could start. "differences between Klingons and Darleks". "Similarities between sheep and cows". No. --Bucephalus 16:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oi! It's spelled "Daleks"! — JIP | Talk 16:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - WE WIRLL EXTRERMINARATE THRE FANCRUFT. EXTRERMINARATE. --Bucephalus 17:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge with the main B5 and DS9 articles, which already feature much of this information. The fact the two shows have similarities, and that fans of B5 accuse DS9 of ripping off the idea -- and vice versa -- was one of the major sci-fi controversies of the 1990s. I don't consider this to be original research. A little POV as presented, possibly. 23skidoo 18:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge the NPOV parts to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine article. DS9 has been notably accused of ripping off B5, and the DS9 article should have at least a mention of the similarities. Dave the Red (talk) 18:21, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. I agree with points mentioned above.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 20:19, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research, not encyclopedic. Unless you'd like my article on Similarities between lions and sponges. Rick K 20:28, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Merge factual info from the respective shows into their own pages but delete this article. --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete this fan discussion. Calling this a "major sci-fi controversy of the 1990s" is a real stretch. Rossami (talk) 06:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, merging salvageables. Mikkalai 02:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Note: you can't delete and merge. You need to redirect and merge to keep copyright history; I believe policies state your vote will be treated as keep and merge even though that's not what you said. Mozzerati
Delete original reasearch, cruft. --InShaneee 16:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete fancruft, original research, non-encyclopedic etc etc etc Jackliddle 16:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
delete but the author should consider suing someone about this, it would be a much more interesting way to settle the debate than writing a wiki page about it. Mozzerati 07:11, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
Merge the NPOV bits per Dave the Red. Similarities between Pokemon and Digimon this is not. —Korath (Talk) 14:45, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep but add the opposite opinion
- Anonymous users cannot vote. Please, log-in.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Otherwise similiar material will have to be duplicated in the main articles about each series. I don't see that this will lead to a number of comparison articles between different series; because this is a special case. B5 and DS9 are major TV series that came out at much the same time, sharing a surprisingly large number of features. :ChrisG 19:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Suggestion just put the material in the discussion of the one which is supposed to be copied, where it would have to be in a limited form anyway, and make a single reference (XXX has claimed that the other series YYY is a copy of this) in the article of the earliest series. This will not be a problem. (this doesn't change my vote to delete above). Mozzerati 10:39, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Keep This is a topic that many fans of one show or the other are interested in. The similarities are glaring. The article is NPOV IMHO. Robertbrockway 18:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alpines

~~Delete.~~ Defines a race of people in central Europe. After Googling on "Alpine racial" (because I didn't want to dig through a lot of Alpine ski races), I think this is a racial definition used by white power groups. FreplySpang (talk) 03:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) Change to redirect into Nordic theory. Thanks for the rewrite, Mustafaa. FreplySpang (talk) 12:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete racist neologism. —Sesel wa 04:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Alps. Megan1967 06:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV and racist, but certainly not a neologism. It is a concept used already pre-Hitler, when these type of racial classifications were mainstream in European physical anthropology and related disciplines. This is regarded as pseudoscience today, but is still of historical significance, and it should be covered somewhere, but probably not in its own article and not with such an ambiguous title. / Uppland 06:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If redirected, I'd think Alpine would be a better target. Average Earthman 12:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Although the pseudoscience this is based on should be covered, this is not usefull. Dsmdgold 13:13, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, speculation, not supporteed by scientific fact. Rick K 20:30, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Just a generation ago this was near-universally accepted scientific dogma. Like phlogiston or luminiferous aether, this is a valid topic, although its current content is stubby. - Mustafaa 22:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep/redirect Clearly jewish/zionist deletionists are attempting to hide evedence of discredited racial theories Klonimus 00:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This vandal has gotten on my last nerve. This personal attack is it. I'll be blocking you soon, I think. Rick K 04:28, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete in its current state. --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Uppland (Delete, replace with redirect to Alpine, reference this info in some other pseudosci article on races). Radiant _* 08:13, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Mustafaa's rewrite (or merge into a parent article on 19th century racial characterizations if we have one). Rossami (talk) 06:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. That's what encyclopedia for: to preserve knowledge. Knowledge of errors is preserved, too, if only not to repeat them. Mikkalai 02:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The topic of the "Alpine race" is already addressed in the article Nordic theory, and there is a discussion going on at the talk page there. I still think this article can be deleted. The whole larger subject of racial classifications needs some more consolidation, not more stubby articles. / Uppland 07:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd be fine with redirecting to that article as an interim measure, but I think that the long period of this idea's popularity generated enough literature to justify a separate page. I also note that Nordic theory currently has very little indeed to say about the actual content, as opposed to history, of this theory - barely more, in fact, than the stub under discussion. Surely this needs to be rectified? - Mustafaa 07:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - I agree. We just need someone to do this who has read enough on the subject without having a racist POV. While searching, I realized that there is a bunch of Wikipedia articles on racism, eugenics and related topics (Racism, Racialism, Master race, Eugenics, Racial hygiene and probably several others) and the whole subject matter probably needs better organization, rewriting and merging of some articles and various redirects to avoid additional duplication of stuff. Maybe I'll take it upon myself to write something on the Swedish Institute of Racial Biology, just to take a fairly well delimited topic. / Uppland 08:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - Another note: there is actually the article Race (historical definitions), which seems to have come to a good start and has a good, NPOV title. I would suggest perhaps merging the content of a few of the other articles into that one. / Uppland 15:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
keep there's just about enough to say about this to justify a separate article. There are all sorts of strange things that need to be simple to look up to help in reading old literature of various kinds. Mozzerati 07:16, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
Keep although a sensitive issue. PatGallacher 16:04, 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. – AB CD 22:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Michael Mayer

Vanity. No evidence of notability. Userfy.-gadfium 04:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be a clear case for userfy. jni 05:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Userfy. Obvious vanity. Phobophile 05:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 06:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Userfy. SteveW 12:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But he was great in all those Austin Powers and Halloween movies! Oh, wait... no. Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
- PS I'm not sure I understand the point of userfy-ing a vanity page if the author's sole contributions are to their own vanity page. If an established editor has a lapse in judgement and pulls a vanity, then userfying would make sense. But if someone comes here entirely and solely to promote themselves, I don't think userfying their vanity page is a good idea. At worst, it almost seems to encourage such vanity (Hey, guys, those wikipedia dudes deleted that page I made to promote my lawn-mowing business, but they just put it right back up again in another part of their site! Sweet!) and at best it just creates a page on Wikipedia that nobody, ever, will have reason to visit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
'Userfy' as it is a clear vanity article, but the user does have a registered account, and isn't using his User: space. Oliver Keenan 16:58, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy Regardless of the advertising nature of a page... isn't the whole point of a user page to give info on one's self? [Sheepishly goes to look at what he wrote on his own page...] --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Robinoke 15:38, 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. – AB CD 00:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jeffrey Rollins

Delete, no evidence of notability.-gadfium 04:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, possible personal attack. Megan1967 06:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. —Sesel wa 11:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - it's not like we're short of non-notables to whom "Nothing of consequence happened"... SteveW 12:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable, unverifiable, possible personal attack and utter rot. Average Earthman 12:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Frankly a pile of rubbish. Non-notable, appears to be a personal attack, and if this is the case I feel this is totally unwelcome on w/p. Oliver Keenan 17:01, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, unverifiable, may be a personal attack. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN and probably PN too. --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Robinoke 15:41, 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. – AB CD 00:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Montgomery

In spite of the deceptive title, this is a long page about the colorful life of Eva Silas Davis The format looks like it might be a download from a website like [http:www.soapcentral.com Soap Central] but I get no Google results on "Eva Silas Davis" or on various other names from the article. Hello? Unless someone explains this all, delete. FreplySpang (talk) 04:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Dsmdgold 13:25, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless somebody wants to create an article on the All My Children character of the same name. RickK 20:31, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
- I would like to but she started on the show back in 1987, and that was way before my time. If you do decide to start it without me, be sure to start an article like Travis Montgomery. Mike H 23:22, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Over the next day or two I will make an attempt to salvage the article, in the vein of previous AMC character articles like Donna Beck. Mike H 23:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Mikkalai 02:40, 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 NO CONSENSUS Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Samples of Baltic: Old Prussian, Latvian, Lithuanian compared to Slavic: Polish Language

Not quite encyclopedic. /sɪzlæk ˺/ 04:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Maybe not in and of itself, but comparative linguistics is a pretty important branch of knowledge overall, so if it was linked from the proper articles or merged into Baltic Languages it would belong. A shorter title would be wise as well. Haikupoet 04:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comparative linguistics is an important branch of knowledge, but there's no comparative linguistics going on here. Merge with Lord's Prayer (Old Prussian and Latvian aren't there yet)Transwiki each language's version to the Lord's Prayer at Wikisource (since the Wikipedia article Lord's Prayer shouldn't be filled with different versions in different languages) and delete. --Angr/_(comhrá) 05:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) (updated --Angr/_comhrá 21:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC))
- Merge with Lord's Prayer, no need to redirect, as no one will ever search for that title. If there really was comparative linguistics, or any kind of linguistics, or any useful content at all, in this article, it would be worth keeping, but all there article contains is copy-pasted samples of languages with nothing to merit their being there. — JIP | Talk 07:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, but cut/paste the prayers as Angr suggests. Radiant _* 07:14, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unencyclopedic. —Sesel wa 11:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge as above. SteveW 12:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge. - Mustafaa 21:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge as suggested before. --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:26, 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 CDC (talk) 16:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Superlove

Yes, I feel like a heartless wretch, but there's no actual encyclopedic content here. Delete. FreplySpang (talk) 04:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN. I feel the love. Phobophile 05:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, trivial, nonsense. Megan1967 06:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as patent nonsense. The article does not say what "superlove" actually is, only what it is used for, thus making its very existence questionable. — JIP | Talk 07:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Superlove cannot be known, it can only be experienced. Thus making this unsuitable for a compedium of all human knowledge. Delete. Slac speak up! 08:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. —Sesel wa 11:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nonsense. Does this mean we're all in need of some superlove? Perhaps BJAODN would make us feel less heartless but no other reason to keep. SteveW 12:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and I added it to BJAODN. --Kitch 12:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - but worthy addition to BJAODN for the picture alone. -- 8^D ^gab 22:12, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Delete lovingly. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, though I do love that image. A google search associates it with a band called "Julie's Haircut" (apparently Italian). Jonathunder 01:06, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
Delete article but keep pic if we can. An orphan anyone would love (superlove?) to take in! --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Since you have to have faith to harness the love, it is obviously religious POV. Delete. - Banyan Tree 02:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN it, then delete

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JT's Stockroom

Keep -- this entry deserves to exist in the same way that it would be mentioned at a museum. i used encyclopedias as a kid in order to research topics, their history, etc... if you wanted to research the origins of the sex toy industry, and this couldn't exist on wikipedia, you'd have to take everyone's word for it based on what is on their commercial websites. isn't this supposed to be an unbiased source of that information? i think the entry should exist. i think that there is not enough information on here yet, but that's what's great about wikipedia. its entries can be improved with time. Sugarego (talk) 01:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advertisement. May have a crumb of notability if claim to be "oldest sex toy company on Internet" is true/verifiable. But still an advertisement. Also has a redirect at JT's Stockroom. FreplySpang (talk) 05:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(and now a redirect at Www.stockroom.com) And if anyone is nitpicking, my vote is ~~delete~~. FreplySpang (talk) 05:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) Changing to keep based on M. Violet's contribution (but it really does need rewriting, at least pasting in some of her text from this discussion) FreplySpang (talk) 21:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, Advertising. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Slac speak up! 05:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as advert (no need for a VfD here). jdb ❋ (talk) 05:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I wrote this page for my company along with another staff member, after noticing that pages already existed for many other companies, including eBay, Amazon.com, Greenery Press, Daedalus Publishing, Baskin-Robbins, Playboy, Hustler etc etc etc. So I thought websites about companies were OK. The statement about being the first sex toy company online (and also one of the oldest e-commerce companies of any kind) is true and verifiable. You can search on deja.com for the original company name, JT Toys, and you will find references dating to May of 1990. jt@stockroom.com
Advert is not cause for speedy. That said, I only get 5000 hits for "JT's stockroom", which is awfully low for an Internet sex-related company (compare with 158,000,000 for eBay or 315,000 for Baskin-Robbins). Delete unless notability is proven. Meelar (talk) 06:15, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Try "stockroom.com" -- 24,600 hits on Google.com. We have 180,000 clients, and about $5M in annual sales. jt@stockroom.com 06:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertisement. No notable third party sources. And I also personally find it very inappropriate for a company to write its own article about themselves in an encyclopedia. Zzyzx11 06:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as ad and/or vanity. Radiant _* 07:15, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
We are a 15-year old internet company. We're well-known and highly regarded within the alternative-sexuality communities we serve, and have aspired to a high ethical standard for as long as we've been in business. As a result, I've become accustomed to a warm reception 99% of the time when we reach out on the net. In this case, I simply assumed that since there were so many entries for companies of all kinds (including adult ones) that starting an entry wouldn't be a problem. Others would be free to edit or add to it. But it seems people object to having an entry for my company, and we don't really want to be where we are apparently not welcome. So I'll offer no further comments or argument. jt@stockroom.com 10:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Let me assure you that it's nothing personal, and we don't mean to be hostile. It's just that we deal with dozens of deletion requests per day, so we tend to be a little short-spoken about them. It happens quite often that people create pages about their own websites or small companies, in order to promote them or simply to have a page here. I'm not saying that you did just that, but it is generally assumed that if you (or your company) are famous, someone else will write an article about you. Hope that helps. Radiant _* 10:45, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
- The company allegedly serves a pretty wide community, not just some narrow niche for toenail-fetishists. Therefore lack of authoritative references makes me feel uncomfortable with the claims of notability. Mikkalai 06:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete ad/promo. —Sesel wa 11:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - advert. SteveW 12:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is a reputable company and they were pioneers in the early days of online commerce. I found them online in the early 90s and still have one of the very first catalogs. It was sent to me via email after I found them in different bulletin boards I visited. The Stockroom has always been a good source of quality toys. I think they should stay.Trab 8:57am, 5 Apr 2005 (CST)
- The above is User:Trab's sole edit. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
KEEP: The Stockroom really is the oldest adult toy company online (started back in the time when .gov and .edu were the only networks). I think this gives it historical value and a reason to be listed on Wikipedia. As far as BDSM, Fetish, and the history of Sex Toys and the Internet go, the site would be incomplete without at least making reference to this trailblazing company. - Juli Crockett, 9:16am 5 Apr 2005
Provisional Keep If this information is verified, then this is notable sex toy company and thus encyclopedic. Klonimus 16:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
KEEP: The Stockroom is a fixture within the BDSM community, and has been since the beginning of the internet. They help BDSM/fetish/kink groups in countless ways, and have been a pillar of the community. They strive to educate people, and present a beautiful aesthetic which you don't see on the newer "sex toy" sites. They seem to work hard to be more than just a company selling the best BDSM products, they care very much about the community they serve. - JH 9:46AM 5 Apr 2005
- You don't get to vote twice, User:64.81.88.123. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Someone else inside the company was trying to help. So you may want to disregard one of the "Keep" votes.
Keep. Being the oldest adult toy company online makes them notable in my book. My keep vote is provisional upon evidence that they really are the first. Dave the Red (talk) 18:15, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Evidence: If you go to Google's "Groups" and search "JT Toys" there are postings that date back to 1990 from alt.sex.bondage and other usenet groups talking about JT's e-catalog. Try this link: http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=JT+Toys&qt_s=Search+Groups - Juli Crockett
Delete, age does not equate to notability. And votes from anonymous voters and people who create User IDs after the creation of the VfD page are generally discounted. Rick K 20:34, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep my thinking is the same as Klonimus. I see notability in the claims if they are properly proven. --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Is this to be undersood as "delete, if the claims remain unproven"? Mikkalai 06:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising, as illustrated by the sockpuppet defenders.. CDC (talk) 04:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep and I'll add that it needs additional writing or a re-write so the copy feels less self-congratulatory. Yes, this is my first Wiki Edit. I was also contacted by a friend telling me the Stockroom was up for deletion and I disagree with that choice so I've decided to comment. I use Wiki daily but haven't feelt comfortable editing - it's clearly not my forte. BUT! It's true that the Stockroom was a pioneer in selling sex toys online and most importantly, they made readily available BDSM basic supplies early in the game. While many of you may not be familiar with the BDSM world and how the internet has greatly changed the way we traffic in this business, I am quite familiar. I can say, although not encyclopedically, that The Stockroom has had a major effect on bringing BDSM into the glowy light of our computer monitors and basically out of the dungeon. Sex and the internet are tied to one another and it's quickly becoming true that BDSM and the internet are nearly inseparable - certainly if you're working as a professional Dominatrix, as I am. JTs is rather crucial to the BDSM industry and with their attractive catalogues, website, and ability to create catalogues for both men and women, they have really cleaned up the image of BDSM and made it more accessible and a lot safer for those looking to experiment. The impact that JTs and its imitators has on Joe Blow From Idaho is astounding - the dark and mysterious objects fantasized about secretly now have pictures, descriptions, improvements, and are at the fingertips and available for experimentation from the comfort of the home. I think that's important. Just like books and DVDs - or Cloisonne Boxes on Ebay - I believe the effect is there. The tools of the trade were exceptionally hard to come by in the 80s and earlier and there was very little variation - by opening the online doors for BDSM and sex toy sales it really brought the business up several notches as well as private interaction. It's hard to put this in terms I feel are best for shorthand and Wikipedia, so I'll stop. In my experience the impact has been felt in a prfound and positive way and if you have questions I'll be happy to try to answer those specifically. (I've 12 years in the business and 6 more privately before that time). I do think the entry needs re-working but not a full deletion. M. Violet 05:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The above is this User's only edits. RickK 05:29, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  - Which I stated in my long winded commentary already. Yes, it is my first/only edit. M. Violet 05:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep For the reasons given above by Mviolet. Notable, in its context. Article needs serious editing for NPOV, though. Perhaps some of Mviolet's comments could be adapted into an NPOV part of the article? -- Karada 16:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've been asked to write some on the article. I'll try - or at least add some of my text, but I do hope someone comes in and adapts the comments/edits. Anyone is welcome to use my above words/commentary for that purpose. M. Violet 18:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This company's alexa rank is currently running in the 40,000s. Looking at the history, alexa rank has been highly variable but never better than 20,000. $5 M revenues makes this a pretty small company. While there are no hard and fast rules for companies, these are smaller than we generally keep. I'm a bit skeptical of the claim that they were first to sell to this niche via Internet and changed the industry. There were anonymous mail order companies before. Finally, the fact that the article was started by the founder counts against it. I believe the logic behind no autobiographies applies here as well. I have to vote delete for now but I'll look at the article again toward the end of the discussion period to see if Mviolet's edits can change my mind. Rossami (talk) 22:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
delete. Don't you remember the no original research thingy? Is this company covered in authoritative publications? If Violet Dominatrix provides sources, other than online sexychats, the article is welcome. Otherwise whip it and slash it and tear apart. Mikkalai 02:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- While your sarcasm is irritating & smacks of what is distasteful about online "community", I agree that I don't have verifiable sources for their affect on the industry other than experience & observation. Reading the No original research article, we're back to square one of their being original sellers of sextoys online (provable) & the rest is experienced opinion. Which is all I'm offering - another side to this reactionary delete-fest. I'm just here to give perspective on a company & industry I'm familiar with and others are not. M. Violet 23:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - "Experienced opinion" is exactly is out of place according to the policy in question. As for sarcasm, didn't I say "welcome"? It means that I have nothing against the topic itself, nor against the contributor. You are a wee too touchy for a dominatrix. Mikkalai 06:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - read my comment again with reading comprehension in mind. I was agreeing with you - in light of the article you pointed out, all I offer is opinion. As for the rest, put it in my talk page if you want to bait me. 04:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete claims are unverified, smells of socks. Advertisement. --InShaneee 16:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, article seems fine, too much anti-commercial over-reaction. Also contributors from the company have not been hiding where they come from and are being open about these being theire first edits - don't see a reason to give them such a hard time about it. Pcb21| Pete 22:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. JuntungWu 09:11, 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 (blk-cmp error). – AB CD 00:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Student voice

Neologism/personal jargon. See also Meaningful student involvement. jdb ❋ (talk) 05:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, trivial. Megan1967 06:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-encyclopedic, jargon-filled. Slac speak up! 07:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete neologism. —Sesel wa 11:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A redirect to student activism wouldn't be totally out of line, but what's here is a bunch of buzzwords. CDC (talk) 16:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete this nonsense. --Coolcaesar 09:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Neologism maybe, but not personal jargon. Robinoke 15:48, 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 (blk-cmp error). – AB CD 00:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Meaningful student involvement

Neologism/personal jargon. See also Student voice. jdb ❋ (talk) 05:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. agree it's a neologism. --ScottMorrison 05:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, personal phrase. Megan1967 06:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete neologism. —Sesel wa 11:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not even a neologism. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete I agree with the above statements. --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Think I have to object again. Robinoke 15:49, 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 CDC (talk) 16:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Druïcca

vanity, non-notable, apparently just a webpage. possibly redirect to Neo-Druidism. dab (ᛏ) 06:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete no evidence of notability. --Sesel wa 11:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dont Delete Commend on this deletion suggestion by MoonCrow:

The Druïcca Tradition is a Dutch coven, the main site is in Dutch (druicca.nl) and more will be translated at druicca.org.uk. For the english countries the Druicca Tradition is indeed not more than a webpage. But also in the english speaking countries people have made their own synthesis between neo-druidry and wicca and this is called druicca. There is no athority who can say who is druicca or not, everony who had made his/here own synthesis between druidry and wicca can call him/here self a druicca. No need to be initiated by a coven or whatever. An example of someone with here own synthesis of druidry and wicca is Laurie Cabot (lauriecabot.com), she calls this celtic wicca, I would call it druicca.

Delete. Articles on a particular coven are no more notable than articles on a particular church (unless it's a particularly large or historically notable church). Articles on somebody's personal idea of how to synthesize druidic and wiccan ideas are also not notable. Rick K 20:37, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
I think I agree with the redirect to Neo-Druidism. An entry can be made there, and if it becomes more notable and a larger article, it can be moved out into its own page at a later time. --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- I object to redirecting neologisms anywhere. Rick K 04:27, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Dont Delete Druicca is just another term for celtic wicca, celtic wicca is an inacurate term for the synthesis of druidism and wicca, druicca is better. Druicca is not just one group in the Netherlands, its larger and known as celtic wicca. But I thought Druicca was a better name (celtic wicca ? http://cyberpict.net/tns/ntwcc.htm). It would be better to delete Celtic Wicca or redirect it to Druicca, and move the content of Celtic Wicca to the Druicca subject. MoonCrow.
- Such an action would probably result in your being blocked from editing for vandalism. You can't move real subjects to titles that you just made up. RickK 23:48, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm only suggesting, I'm not moving things (don't plan to also). It also could be the other way around, if you want to redirect Druicca, redirect it to Celtic Wicca; Druicca is a contraction of Druidism and Wicca. MoonCrow
    - What part of "we don't take made up words" do you not understand? RickK 04:15, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
      - Eh, what isn't made up? Gerald Gardner 'made up' wicca, someone 'made up' celtic wicca, of which serious students of the celtic culture say it is nonsence, it doesn't excist, just because you put celtic before wicca doesn't make it celtic. There is no celtic wicca, it is wicca with celtic elements, not celtic wicca. Most of the wicca traditions were 'made up' still I find a lot on wikipedia about these. I have not made up a tradition, I only thought of a better name for it, since there is no 'celtic wicca' because it is a synthesis between wicca and celtic ideas, a better name for this would be Druicca. It is a better 'made up' name for an excisting tradition. I don't understand why this is such a problem. I'm oke with the remarks above that it is to small to be noted as a separed subject. I'm asking all the people above who want to delete or redirect it, if it is oke with them to redirect the druicca subject to the celtic wicca subject, and if it is oke if I put a footnote under the page about my objections to the name 'celtic wicca' and my suggestion to rename it to 'druicca', that there are people in the Netherlands who already did that and why. If most people don't agree with me I realy won't push it, I thought this page was ment to discuss this subject? If most people want to delete the druicca subject, it will be so, if most people want to redirect it to celtic wicca, it wil be so, if most people want me to shut up about druicca on wikipedia, it will be so (just tell me), if most people think it's oke for me to put a footnote on the celtic wicca page, I will do so. I was just excited that I thought of a new name, I realy like the name, it has a nice sound to it. I also understand the value of people who guard the integrity of wikipedia, you have valid arguments, I give you mine arguments, you decide. It is up to you all. MoonCrow
gwannlath, DHYDHDHYRR, DELETE!!!. Mikkalai 02:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I found another 'made up' word about exactly the same subject on wikipedia: Druidcraft. I also improved the druicca article a bit if that is still oke? MoonCrow
- Druidcraft gets 623 unique Google hits, and is even used in the title of at least one book. Druïcca gets 13, including this page and the article that we're trying to delete. RickK 23:34, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  - Yeh that's right, Druicca is not that well know jet, to small for a page of it's own, I agree with that. Google: with Druïcca 13 unice hits, with Druicca you'll get a little bit more. But is the Druicca page still the vanity page you want to delete or is it a marginal subject that maybe could be redirected (maybe to Celtic Wicca)? Some of the Google hits for Druidcraft are for the Druidcraft Tarot, with is in Dutch translated as the Tarot of the Druids, a wrong translation, they thought Druidcraft means the Craft of the Druids. But it stands for the synthesis between Druidry and Witchcraft. I feel very strongly that Druicca is a better name for this. But maybe it's not the time to plublish this on wikipedia yet and should I first publish something in the Touchstone magazine of OBOD and write that book that I wanted to write for so long. MoonCrow, Apr 9, 2005

Delete. This article looks more like an invitation to convert to Druicca. It seems like a promotion to me. --Randolph 18:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Ofcourse I write positive about druicca, but there is no organisation you can join. Wicca, Druicca and Druidry don't look for people to convert; like they say in Hindoeism: all traditions are different like different rivers, but they al go to the ocean. Druicca is also much inspired on nature: the more varation there is (in nature, in traditions), the better. MoonCrow, april 12, 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all but Central Missouri State University Tower. – AB CD 00:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Five planned towers

All these were proposed by User:DaveTheRed with the reasoning: "A planned tower. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". This is a consolidation of all these into one entry. Sjakkalle 07:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My vote is an agreement with Dave the Red on all of these. ~~Delete all~~ Delete all except Central Missouri State University which can remain a redirect per dpbsmith's comment. ~~Sjakkalle 07:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)~~ Sjakkalle 06:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Concur, delete. Radiant _* 08:35, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable/non-existent. —Sesel wa 11:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:29, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, if and when they are built they could be valid articles, but not now. Dsmdgold 13:15, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Comment The Central Missouri tower was, in fact, built and is in operation. I've made it into a redirect to Central Missouri State University#KMOS-TV, which mentions the tower. Methinks whoever created the article wasn't being very punctilious about fact-checking. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete all but Central Missouri State University Tower for Sjakkalle's reasons. If any of the others exist they should be converted into redirects to appropriate articles and given brief mention there. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Plan to write an article about them if they're ever built. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Normally I would say merge into another document but I'm not sure what document these would go to... --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No crystal ball is being used here. We talk about possible future events all the time ... we write about the next month's UK general election, the Beijing Olympics, even the Freedom Tower :). So the nomination is really about importance, and as usual whilst planned radio masts are unimportant to most of us, I can imagine quite a few people care about them. Merge into List of planned radio masts anyone? Pcb21| Pete 07:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The UK general election and the Bejing Olympics are specific events that will happen on a specific schedule in the future. These towers are towers that are planned for construction at some nebulous point in the future. The freedom tower is a better analogy, but in that case, it has been covered extensively in the media to the point that is encyclopedically notable. I would argue that the freedom tower is the exception to the rule. Meanwhile, these towers are not yet built, and therefore violate the rule that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dave the Red (talk) 02:27, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
I hearby withdraw Central Missouri State University Tower as per Dpbsmith. Dave the Red (talk) 02:29, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

infraction

This is a dictionary definition, and I don't see how it can be expanded to be more than this. Thryduulf 10:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Week keep, since it appears as a term of legal art in Bouvier's Law Dictionary. Gazpacho 14:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - it's a dicdef of legal art. -- 8^D ^gab 22:18, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
- You probably never broke the law or have expensive lawyers, so that you can ignore this knowledge. Mikkalai 23:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless article is expanded. --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep You are going to have to delete all of the other legal definitions if you want to get rid of this one. The motivation for deletion here is political, so be honest about it.Mlorrey 05:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Not only is the nomination not political, I honestly don't understand how it could be. I landed on this page after following the random page link, saw it was nothing more than a dictionary definition. Following a quick google search nothing suggested to me any potential to expand it into an encyclopædia article and so I nominated it for deletion. I haven't read any of the other legal definition articles so I can't comment on them. Thryduulf 11:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well, even now it is a bit more than a dicdef: the sentence about fine. Mikkalai 21:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge/redirect into legal context. Radiant _* 08:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary does not yet have this word. I don't see a way to expand it either but if some future editor does, they can easily recreate it. Transwiki. Rossami (talk) 22:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
keep. Expandable. E.g., an important addition would be difference in legislatures of different states. Mikkalai 02:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have just transwikied this, see Wiktionary:Transwiki:Infraction; voters may amend their votes accordingly.--Dmcdevit 17:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And I expanded and cleaned some nonsense a bit, just enough to show that the topic is far wider than a dicdef, voters may amend their votes accordingly once more. And there is still more to say, but by legal experts. Mikkalai 23:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, encyclopedic, at least now. Kappa 23:59, 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. – AB CD 00:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Elanguest

Blatant advertisment for a school in Malta that teaches English--nixie 11:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless verification of the school's existence and evidence of the school's notability are provided. --Angr/_(comhrá) 12:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Abstain for now, this school article needs to be referenced and verified. —RaD Man (talk) 14:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What Angr said. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, school vanity. Dave the Red 17:53, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. —Sesel wa 18:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 18:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, concur with Carnildo. Radiant _* 20:16, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Noisy | Talk 10:35, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Not really sure how this could qualify as an advertisment - no superlatives or the like in the article. Dan100 20:27, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Schools are worth of inclusion! --Zantastik 07:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete: school vanity, notability not established. Jonathunder 23:53, 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 REDIRECT

The Ballad of Mulan

Public domain Chinese poem has been moved to Wikisource. The rest is an English translation traced to a 1976 book. It may be PD or not - it's all over the web - but is otherwise a copyvio. Most of what else can be said about the poem is already at Hua Mulan --Diderot 11:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it is commonly known by this name, redirects are cheap.--Samuel J. Howard 18:55, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Concur. Redirect. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:40, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nothing to merge. Megan1967 08:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment Okay, I can redirect it to Hua Mulan easily enough. My original intent was to do that after deletion in order to get rid of the copyvio part, which in this case comes to half of the content. Does the uncertain copyright status of the English translation merit a revision to the history, or is it just not big enough a deal? It is all over the web, so there is no one likely to sue anybody, but it is also unlikely to be public domain. If it's not a big deal that it's in the history, then this can be taken as a withdrawl from VfD. --Diderot 10:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, it is important to get the copyvio out of history if at all possible. But that should be resolved through WP:CP, not VfD. Rossami (talk) 22:15, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Brainchild Design

Defunt game design community, no potential to become encyclopedic, delete--nixie 11:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep, it designed some enduring games. Kappa 12:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Such as what? Note that Liero was created by Joosa Riekkinen, not by Brainchild. Radiant _* 12:30, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, Jump 'n bump is well known, and quadnet. Jump 'n bump was ported to the xbox, actually.Twisted64 13:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - Very well, keep then. I believe that if we keep authors who've published a book (other than self-publishing and vanity press), we should also keep video game companies who've published a game (other than self-published on some webpage, etc). Radiant _* 08:17, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
keep this game publisher Yuckfoo 01:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wasn't Chickens 2 quite a popular game? Robinoke 15:51, 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. – AB CD 00:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Griolus dmudus

Hoax. Zero google hits for "Griolus dmudus", "Botswana rope", or "Edgar d'Mude". See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Edgar d'Mude. —Korath (Talk) 13:07, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Hoax. Sjakkalle 13:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Probable hoax, unverifiable. Average Earthman 16:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax. —Sesel wa 18:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax. Rick K 20:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - definite hoax. "Jungles of central Botswana" is a giveaway - central Botswana is the Kalahari Desert. The country has no jungle. Grutness|^hello? 23:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, hoax. Megan1967 10:16, 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. – AB CD 00:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Photocryogenesis

Part of the same hoax as Edgar d'Mude and Griolus dmudus, both also on vfd. —Korath (Talk) 13:11, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Delete hoax. —Sesel wa 18:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No pubmed links. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 20:24, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax. Rick K 20:44, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – AB CD 00:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edgar d'Mude

Hoax. Zero Google hits. <KF> 13:01, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Delete this and all related fictitious articles. -- Dcfleck 13:43, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Delete any article that is unverifiable. Average Earthman 16:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax. —Sesel wa 18:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax. Rick K 20:45, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this hoax. Sjakkalle 06:46, 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. Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mary Willing Byrd

This person lived in a particular house in Colonial Williamsburg. Delete as too far removed from notability. Gazpacho 13:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Her notability is that she was a female plantation manager thus the note about the sale of her plantation and slaves are of consequence. Keep Clipartfan
She was executrix of her husband's estate. Was that unusual? Gazpacho
- Then also delete September 10 because it lists her as a notable person that was born on that date. Clipartfan
  - Delete the whole article because one person in it isn't notable? That's a bit extreme, isn't it? That would be like deleting the Colonial Williamsburg article, which has not been proposed. Delete Mary Willing Byrd, article does not establish notability. Rick K 20:47, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Clipart, an ounce of improvement in the article is worth a pound of spite. Now that I've had time to run a Google search, it turns out there might be more to this person. By all means, add what you know. Gazpacho 21:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless notability established. Radiant _* 08:22, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) Weak keep as rewritten; I assume that her situation was somewhat unique - has it set precedent? Radiant _* 09:14, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. notability. Hardly she was a single executrix. Accomplishments? Mikkalai 02:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep, interesting person and wikipedia:important. Kappa 23:19, 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. – AB CD 00:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Boy and shark

This band does not appear to currently meet the Notability and Music guidelines. This web page (unclear if this is a fan page or official home page) indicates the band is in the process of recording their first album (a number of MP3 recordings have previously been made). --Allen3 ^talk 13:25, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The article is underwhelming, appears to be a local band in a college town, and there are a lot of them about. Average Earthman 16:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. —Sesel wa 18:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
hygenicized? Delete non-notable Dsmdgold 00:34, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 10:14, 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 REDIRECT

Frederiksborg Castle

There is already an article called Frederiksborg Palace. This page should just be a redirect. Luis rib 13:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, you can do that yourself. Gazpacho

Ok, redirected it. Luis rib 14:14, 5 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/REDIRECT

Best Interest of the Child

This was proposed by Kine on April 3, but he failed to list it. POV rant. Delete Dsmdgold 13:39, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Delete POV and redirect to child custody. Gazpacho 14:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete strong POV and not even very informative, Wegsjac 14:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Cleanup, Expand. As currently written, this is an NPOV rant, but unlike Parentectomy, also on VfD below, it is not a made up term. Rather, "Best interest of the child" is the standard that most courts use in making decisions involving child welfare (and not just custody decisions). I'll see what I can do with it. -- 8^D ^gab 15:11, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Keep Important legal standard. Klonimus 16:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect as per Gazpacho. Arkyan 16:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Note that there's also Best interests. Niteowlneils 17:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. However IMO a better article would be "Children's rights", which is now a redirect to "Children's rights movement". The notion is not part of child custody and applicable in other situations. Mikkalai 17:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge the current content to Best interests. User:BD2412 did a good rewrite, but the information is already covered elsewhere. Dave the Red 17:50, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
- @#&$! Oops - didn't know there was already a Best interests article - I'll merge the info to it, and suggest that the page under consideration here be redirected there... and it's done. -- 8^D ^gab 20:53, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Keep. This is not a good article at the moment, but it's not so bad that all the content must go. Coupled with the fact that Best Interest of the Child is an important principle in family law, and that we should have an article on it, it should be kept, but improved.
Boldly merged with and redirected to best interests. -- 8^D ^gab 02:01, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
- Support, good work.Halidecyphon 08:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Support the merge to Best interests. Great job. —RaD Man (talk) 19:03, 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 12:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Krayt pearl

Game trivia, delete. Gazpacho 13:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant _* 15:18, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, minor game trivia, Wikipedia is not a guidbook for MMORPGs. Average Earthman 16:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. —Sesel wa 18:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)\
Merge to lightsaber. Alba 23:37, 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. – AB CD 00:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Big Al

This doesn't sound... real.DS 14:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete as hoax. Definitely NOT a released Factory Records artist, and neither of the two named albums google... at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Hoax. Google seaches of "Big Al" combined with the names of his two alleged albums get zero hits. Dsmdgold 14:47, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax. —Sesel wa 18:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Somehow, a guy named Jack Muncher doesn't sound like somebody from Russia. I was going to suggest redirecting to Big Gay Al, but he doesn't have an article of his own. Rick K 20:50, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
How about a redirect for now to Country Bear Jamboree? "Big Al" was the funniest animatronic to ever grace a Disneyland attraction IMO. - Lucky 6.9 21:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Follow-up: Wasn't that one of Al Capone's nicknames...? - Lucky 6.9 21:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Don't forget Big Al who owned the diner in Happy Days! Grutness|^hello? 23:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, hoax. Megan1967 10:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's funny though. Robinoke 15:57, 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. – AB CD 00:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Beyondananda

Stage name for a (non-notable?) humorist and motivational speaker DS 14:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Vanity Dsmdgold 14:55, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert/promo. —Sesel wa 18:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 10:09, 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 TRANSWIKI CDC (talk) 16:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outside gross area

This page is an orphan and doesn't really seem encyclopediac. I vote delete, unless there is a strong consensus for a transwiki to wiktionary, say. Jonathan Christensen 14:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

delete It would need a huge amount of work to bring it up to wiktioanry standards, as it seems to have been written using the grammar rules of legalese rather than English. Thryduulf 14:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
wiktionary. Hardly expandable definition. Mikkalai 03:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have just transwikied this, see Wiktionary:Transwiki:Outside gross area; amend votes accordingly.--Dmcdevit 17:52, 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 merge. I have added the Bastard Tetris information to a paragraph in the main Tetris article and converted Bastard Tetris into a redirect to Tetris. Firebug 06:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bastard tetris

Non-notable computer game. Using a Tetris AI algorithm to select hard pieces is not a new idea. Gazpacho 14:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Tetris. I think it is worthy enough to be mentioned. Sjakkalle 14:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Tetris and Redirect. Dsmdgold 14:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
I just added a summary of Bastet to the Tetris Variants section on the main Tetris page. Since redirects are cheap, just redirect this article to Tetris.
Merge and Redirect. -- 8^D ^gab 00:47, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
redirect with tetrix Yuckfoo 01:41, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 15:03, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Canuckistan

I actually kind of like this page (especially the flag), but I just can't make the case for keeping it. Too obscure. -Litefantastic 14:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This is a bizarre nomination. The nominator admits to using Wikipedia to propagate amerime, a term s/he claims to have coined to describe anime created in the United States. That article appears to have been speedy deleted after the article was re-created following a successful VfD. Now Litefantastic comes here to nominate for deletion a term coined by a well-known American broadcaster and former candidate for the presidency of the US on US television, and says that the term is "too obscure". Surely Pat Buchanan is not more obscure than Litefantastic, whoever he/she/it may be! The term itself received considerable attention in Canada, and was embraced by many here. Kevintoronto 15:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Objection withdrawn. You've got me boxed in. :) -Litefantastic 16:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Pat Buchanan page. (I can't believe the controversy section for Pat Buchanan is so short. :) — RJH 16:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep in case someone hears the term and wants to find out what it is. But it needs references, especially concerning the flag. (Who designed it? Is it Wikipedia-internal or is it independently established?) --Angr/_(comhrá) 18:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep well known here, eh comrade? DJ Clayworth 18:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Pat Buchanan page. --Spinboy 19:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Related to other well documented Wikipedia topics such as Jesusland. JoeHenzi 21:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Noteworthy. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's absolutely noteworthy and deleting it would be completely POV. -- Old Right 01:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Pat Buchanan. Megan1967 10:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep Notable communist country. Klonimus 08:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep Not obscure to thirty million Canadians. Denni ☯ 00:52, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Pat Buchanan. Political epithets should be discussed in context. Rossami (talk) 22:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect as above. Hardly even worth that, since claims of post MSNBC notability is unverified. --InShaneee 16:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge. It is material worthy of a sidebar discussion in Pat Buchanan.Gmaxwell 20:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is just plain stupid. 198.82.71.55 00:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This user just vandalized Pat Buchanan page. Pavel Vozenilek 01:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - You might think that his edit is not the best example of an edit on wikipedia, or that it has an unfortunate POV slant, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that it was a bad faith edit. It's not acceptable to label everything you disagree with 'vandalism'.Gmaxwell 17:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Robinoke 16:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Pat Buchanan. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Just as worthy of inclusion as cheese-eating surrender monkeys or Jesusland map, IMHO. I knew the term well before I learned it was associated with Pat Buchanan. - Seth Ilys 17:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep No plausible reason for deletion of this article has been advanced. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Mike H 06:06, 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

Simon hollingsworth

Non-notable. google search for '"simon hollingsworth" poker' gives no pages. delete. Jonathan Christensen 14:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

delete. prank IMO. Mikkalai 17:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. —Sesel wa 18:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence cited for the event nor any details given - not even so much as when or where. Note the talk page now has a note from the original IP address (anonymous contributer) referring to his friend Simon Hollingsworth who might have stuck it up on Wikipedia as a joke.--AYArktos 00:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 10:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The page has now gone and shows as a red link but the talk page is still there --AYArktos 09:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

done with. Mikkalai 03:03, 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 speedy delete. – AB CD 00:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Book of Clout

Non-notable, possibly false or vandalism. delete. Jonathan Christensen 14:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Please don't call votes on perfect nonsense. It takes many folks' time to work through this process, which is for deletions where there is a possibility of doubt. Just mark pages like this delete Anyone can object to a plain delete, and send it through this elaborate process instead. --Wetman 14:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, sorry. I'm still getting used to the whole vfd/speedy delete process. Jonathan Christensen 05:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dont delete. This page is obviously a creative outlet for some adolescents. They are simply exploring their religous and spiritual beliefs, and having some fun. We should support their creativity unstead of trampling it.
- If "they" want to explore their creativity, I reccomend doing so on a free webhost where they can post nonsense to their heart's content. This is an encyclopedia. Halidecyphon 15:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete — No such book or religion. It's not even particularly creative. — RJH 16:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Speedied this Patent nonsense. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dont delete. This page informing people of this religion which is what an encyclopaedia is for right? [User:BentGalaxy]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – AB CD 00:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Parentectomy

VfD banner but no corresponding VfD page. NPOV neologism, in any event. Same author as NPOV rant Best Interest of the Child (which has since been rewritten, but should probably still be redirected). Delete. -- 8^D ^gab 15:06, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Merge with Father's rights. Klonimus 16:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have heard this term used but not in the context on the page: it was a case where a child applied to the court to cut off all parental rights of one of their parents. The page itself is POV and the subject is adequately covered in other articles in NPOV, hence Delete. Dbiv 16:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism and POV to boot. Arkyan 16:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete neologism, propaganda. Gazpacho 17:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete funny but unnotable. DJ Clayworth 18:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete neologism. —Sesel wa 18:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. Rick K 20:54, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV, neologism. Megan1967 10:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Apologies for my poor protocol. I'll figure this all out eventually. Anyway, Delete. NPOV (even the title). Kine 20:21, 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. – AB CD 00:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Links to disambiguating pages

This collection of pages appears to be redundant with Category:Disambiguation. It seems pointless to have to maintain this index manually when the category does it automatically.

Of course, database queries that rely on these pages will have to be changed. -- Smjg 15:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The linkd to disambiguation pages no longer serve a purpose, as far as I can tell. The manual function of linking to disambig pages has been replaced by the automatic function of categorization. Kevyn 15:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I thought that the page's purpose was to prevent disambiguation pages to show up as orphaned pages. -Hapsiainen 16:07, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep. The first line says "the following pages are disambiguation pages linked here in order to avoid being shown in the list of orphaned articles." That is reason enough to keep. -- RHaworth 16:24, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Not to me. To me, it's a reason that the list of orphaned articles is one of the queries that'll have to be changed. -- Smjg 17:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Category:Disambiguation mentions it explicitly: "Links to disambiguating pages - manually maintained lists which "knowingly" point to disambiguation pages to prevent them becoming "orphans"." I read this as saying there are some special cases of disambig pages that need a different mechanism than the category, and that it is not necessary for every disambig page to be listed on the manual list. FreplySpang (talk) 17:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I agree with points made by FreplySpang and RHaworth. Mgm|^(talk) 20:22, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep for reasons listed above. If you make a habit of working on orphan pages, this is a significant aid in clarifying the work to be done. -- 8^D ^gab 21:42, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Keep I come there to disambiguate links within pages! Jaberwocky6669 02:59, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
This sounds like something that should be on the bugzilla log for future improvement. But in the meantime, keep it per above. Radiant _* 08:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe there's a better idea. Replace with automated list. AIUI the very existence of a manual list is a legacy from before the category came along. And FreplySpang, the only two kinds of disambiguation pages are those with "(disambiguation)" in the title and those without. -- Smjg 09:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep and replace with automated list ASAP. --InShaneee 16:58, 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. – AB CD 00:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Schismatik

A "net (record) label" founded in 2005 - looks like vanity or self-promotion to me. CDC (talk) 16:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

N.B. There's also a redirect at Schismatik records. Google only gives 35 results for 'Schismatik records' which suggests non-notable. SteveW 17:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good luck to them, but not notable. Delete.--Samuel J. Howard 18:32, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. —Sesel wa 18:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 10:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. notability. Mikkalai 03:04, 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 CDC (talk) 16:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hull-Breach

Spam, not notable (the game doesn't exist yet). Was previously deleted as a copyvio from [6]; the author has subsequently given a permission to include the text. Still, delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Correction: He didn't. Quoting from the talk page: "I give full permission for the information on hull breach to be displayed within these pages. As long as that info is kept generic, i.e. 'a sci fi war game for the halflife 2 engine' and a url linking to the site." - Mike Rosoft 17:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Sesel wa 18:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, replace with redirect to some Star Trek article as common concept. Radiant _* 08:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep: I was under the impression that projects that are in progress at the time of the writing are OK. Also, this page has full copyright permission. TheAbomb12. [edit] It is worth noting that there are compiled alpha binaries of this game already, and that there are other non-completed games on this Wikisite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coded_Arms [edit]
Delete. No future, non-verifiable, promo. Mikkalai 03:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hedley 03:05, 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 speedy delete. – AB CD 00:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Universist Movement Organization

Yet another surge of Universism, discussed/deleted by VfD twice, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Universism and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Universism 2. No further proofs of notability, verifiability, non-original research are provided. Mikkalai 16:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, tract. --Samuel J. Howard 17:11, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as re-creation of VfDed material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:01, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, or speedy it along with the newly recreated Universism. Xezbeth 18:32, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 18:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted by me as re-creation of material previously voted for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 5 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. – AB CD 00:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

D'Mude scale

Hoax (no google hits). Was originally marked for speedy deletion; for consistency, I changed it into a regular VfD. (See also Griolus dmudus, Photocryogenesis, and Edgar d'Mude.) Delete all of them, possible speedy deletion candidates as patent nonsense and vandalism. - Mike Rosoft 16:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete hoax. —Sesel wa 18:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax. Rick K 21:01, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP CDC (talk) 16:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John McDonald

User:139.142.154.129 keeps adding various rubbish. Probably a speedy, really as vandalism. SteveW 17:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep as it is now disambiguation. Hedley 02:48, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl

Yet another confirmation of the soundness of the wikipedia policy: no articles about future things. The release of the game is being delayed.

I say delete. No reason to serve as pre-release promotion for as game that cannot even be delivered as promised.Previous discussion (December 2004) is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl. Mikkalai 17:28, 5 Apr 2005

And to those who deleted my VfD note. I am ready and in my rights to relist this vote every three months, against shameless promotion of non-existing things that even are not done properly. Didin't it come to your mind that the thing may flunk altogether? Mikkalai 17:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep, as before. Xezbeth 17:54, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete DJ Clayworth 18:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. May be re-created without prejudice when the game is released and shown to be notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable/speculation. —Sesel wa 18:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete unreleased games, unless it can be shown without doubt they'll be released. Can be recreated per Dpbsmith if it's released. Mgm|^(talk) 20:20, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete until and unless the game actually exists. Rick K 21:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, plainly and obviously. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Slac speak up! 21:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, perhaps vaporware, but a notable game. Why not Duke Nukem Forever as well? K1Bond007 22:27, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
- How can vapourware be notable? I vote delete until the game really is published. — JIP | Talk 07:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - As stated see Duke Nukem Forever. I find it very hypocritical that many of you voted based on it being unreleased when countless television shows, films, books etc that haven't been released have their own article (ex. Inglorious Bastards, which doesn't even have a finished script! See also 2006 in film). STALKER is a very notable game with over 200K listings on Google including tons of previews, fan websites etc etc etc. The article merely needs a cleanup and expansion. K1Bond007 18:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
    - Then put them up for VFD as well, just because there is some cruft already in the wikipedia, that doesn't excuse adding more.Gmaxwell 20:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Speculation. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as vaporware. Radiant _* 08:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this is borderline. Cleanup and expand. Megan1967 09:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable vaporware. Kappa 20:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vaporware is not notable. --Calton | Talk 00:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Bucephalus 12:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No future events. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, interesting to some people RustyCale 18:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, or else remove all articles on to-be released, end-stage development stuff - movies etc. included. Be consistent! Erm, I also happened to be the one to remove the VfD note from the page, as it only pointed to the old (archived, non-active) VfD page. So it was not relevant. --TVPR 20:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- See for yourself what you've removed. And there is no "or else" here, as explained by others. If the process of development of a new thing is notable, then it makes an article. This one has only advertising (read: unverifiable guesswork and relying on author's words) about how cool it gonna be. Like I said, I will repost this vfd in 3 months and I bet my beard my reasons will not change. Mikkalai 21:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - Please define notable in this case? Also: Even now there is no consensus on what is notable or not, as there is policy arguments on wether or not "notability" is going to be an argument on speedy deletion. As per my knowledge, notability is not a valid VfD argument. As for the deleted link, I apologize again, but I assure you - I only got to the archived page. Though I cannot see why. --TVPR 16:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Please note TVPR's argument. ShadowHunter 02:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable/speculation. Gmaxwell 20:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable vapourware. JuntungWu 09:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. as per TVPR's comments. Robinoke 16:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Wait until E3 to see how far along the game is, then decide. Thunderbrand 17:16, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. As a non-notable gaming journalist, I'd say this game is notable for the ammount of attention it got and the randomness of its (not-entirely-confirmed) cancelation. Plus, it still could come out. --Asriel86 00:05, 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. – AB CD 00:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chicago Inner Circle

Footbag club of 26 people. Somewhat vain. Delete. FreplySpang (talk) 17:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete non-notable. —Sesel wa 18:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, club vanity. Megan1967 09:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable Dsmdgold 23:03, 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. – AB CD 22:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Shroomery

Advertisement for a Web site. —msh210 18:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Erowid is also allowed. The Shroomery is what Google is in the search engine world.
- comment made by anonymous user:83.117.26.124
Del —msh210 18:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I was dubious at first, because it was presented as a poorly written advertisement, but cleaned up and wikified (and it needs more NPoVing), it makes a reasonable article about a genuinely existing site. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just because it exists doesn't mean we need an article about it. Rick K 21:05, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Alexa rank of 43,579 [7]. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Dave the Red (talk) 21:44, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. —Sesel wa 23:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deletionists are harsh, keep and allow for organic growth man. Klonimus 00:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep per ~~alexa rank~~ 210,000 google hits which seem mostly relevant, and uniqueness Kappa 07:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Kappa, I don't mean to affront your intellegence, but a high alexa rank is one close to 1, not one close to 43,579... Halidecyphon 08:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - So if I interpret this correctly, it's one of the top 50,000 sites on the web. Kappa 09:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - Actually, if you look at the alexa history page, they don't even do that well. For much of the past 2 years, they couldn't even make the chart. The 43k rank is a 3 month-average spot ranking and is comparatively poor as websites go. By the way, their average rank measured just over the past week is 85,057. I'm inclined to agree with DaveTheRed that this doesn't make the cut. Delete. Rossami (talk) 22:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) Please don't break up my comment like that.
      - See http://rankings.big-boards.com/?p=all
Delete and add as external link on relavent pages.Halidecyphon 08:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Halidecyphon. Radiant _* 08:27, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this is borderline for me, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 09:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep The article needs to be improved, but it definately should not be removed. The Shroomery is far more than just another website. Meanwhile the 'deletionists' could as well start with deleting DeviantART, Erowid, Worth1000 and many other Wikipedia articles... Ivi 23:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I believe this vote was made in good faith but it should be noted that this user has a light contribution history.
  - I find this information irrelevant to this topic. Is there anything wrong with being a newbie? 83.223.132.198 14:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - Comment: Unfortunately, on VfD discussions it is relevant. We have had such serious problems with users creating sockpuppets in an attempt to bias the results of various discussions that we were forced to put in a general prohibition on votes of anonymous and very new users. Facts and evidence that contribute to the discussion are welcome from anyone but value judgments such as "keep" or "delete" are subject to steep discounting by the deciding admin. See WP:GVFD for more discussion. By the way, I'm the one who moved the vote down so that it was in chronological order. Rossami (talk)
- For the record, anon user:83.223.132.198 has made edits to this vote and comments in the edit summaries which make it likely that they are the same person.
  - Well, duhhhh, smartass! I don't always care to log in.
Keep. pretty unique, hence notable. Mikkalai 03:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete The shroomery is a horrible excuse for an entheogenic community and it is about hard drugs such as crystal methamphetamine, cocaine/crack, and heroin. If one wants proof of this do a search in the other drugs fourm for these topics.
- unsigned comment by anon user:146.186.210.6
- Comment: The site is about mushrooms. There is a forum about other drugs though, but what is wrong with information about drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine and heroin? --AnnoM 17:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep its a great site many people come together on and make friends and even sometimes fall in love there is nothing wrong with the shroomery its a great site
- unsigned comment by user:KristiMidocean. This is his/her only contribution to date to Wikipedia
- I fail to see how a lack of contributions or a newbie status detracts from the relevance. I thought the whole point of this website was ANYONE can edit it and contribute? Not everyone registers for contributions and IP addresses change. --JeffM24 03:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is a primary resource for people interested in psychedelic mushrooms a large site with a large communitiy of users. I believe this to be notable Jackliddle 14:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is THE site in the magic mushroom world. It's like Erowid specialized on mushrooms. AnnoM 17:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- new user whose only contributions to date have been to this article and this VfD discussion
Delete feels like an advertisement/vanity, I don't see establishment of notability. --InShaneee 17:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Go delete Erowid as well. You have to be consistent. AnnoM 17:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - this reply was actually left by anon user:83.117.2.18
    - No, it was left by me, AnnoM 17:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep Just clean it up and make it sound less like an advertisement. Redstorm
- this comment actually left by anonymous user:148.61.241.141
Keep This place a-going! Regardless of the tangent these forums have taken, they still serve their original purpose of dispelling dangerous mis-information about magic mushrooms. ~Duk~
- comment left by user:ToiletDuk whose only edits so far are this vote. Please sign your edits using four tildes (~~~~)
Keep I edited it so it sounds less like an ad, and the ties to the Brandon Vedas story make it significant.
- unsigned comment by anonymous user:70.25.5.116
Keep Shroomery is THE resource for magic mushrooms on the net and I feel it deserves its own page. I've contributed to articles as an unregistered user so spare me the elitism JeffM24 04:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- this comment was actually left by anonymous user:24.14.63.3. I'm sorry you see it as "elitism". The rest of us see it as evidence.
- evidence of what? that is my IP address-- besides my IP changes whenever my ISP does major maintenence (in other words OFTEN) JeffM24 04:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep The Shroomery is a valuable resource for mushroom information and has a huge community of friendly people.
- unsigned comment by anonymous user:24.136.55.88
Comment. The history is a good addition. This article isn't much more deletion-worthy than JLF, and apparently a lot of people have heard of the Shroomery. Rad Racer | Talk 01:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep The Shroomery is a unique website with over 31,000 registered users. It definitely is a source of knowledge, and like Erowid and other sites, should be mentioned here on Wikipedia. It is primarily about mushrooms, and even though hard drugs like heroin and such are discussed for the sake of information, isn't it the same with Wikipedia? Wikipedia has entire articles on drugs ranging from the harmless like cannabis to the harmful like tobacco and heroin. Don't limit the exchange of information. -Ravus
- comment by user 68.9.232.120. This is his only edit. --InShaneee 18:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep The Shroomery is a very useful site that has been helpful to many people. The information given on the site has many people avoid bad decisions that could have led to death. If this article was to be deleted, then so should Erowid and such. 68.3.77.159 23:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- User's second edit. --InShaneee 02:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Erowid is well known. But the Shroomery? Not notable, unless someone can provide a link to the "negative media coverage" referenced in the article. --Sean κ. ⇔ 10:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/56497p-52905c.html http://www.brandonvedas.com/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2773547.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2724819.stm AnnoM 14:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

http://www.brandonvedas.com/press.html

Weak keep. I've heard of it before, and the website is apparently common knowledge among druggies. Not exactly on par with the cultural relevance of Erowid, of which one of the primary purposes of the site is to explore the effect of various drugs on consciousness. This seems to be almost entirely an informational resource, which is fine, but not necessarily wiki-worthy. However, the significance of the site in the drug-using community, it's uniqueness, and its overall popularity make it a keep. Quit with the sock puppets already, people. --Kaelus 23:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Advertising --Neigel von Teighen 23:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep The Shroomery contains a vast library of information, and makes a valuable contribution to the entheogenic community. Clean it up so it doesn't sound so much like an advertisement, but let it stay. --Paradigm 07:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete self-promotion on sight. Socks B Gone. —Korath (Talk) 14:32, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete CryptoDerk 00:33, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 00:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pak chooie unf

Probably nonsense. DJ Clayworth 18:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And probably not encyclopedic. Del. Note that the page author [User:66.157.162.119] deleted the vfd tag. FreplySpang (talk) 18:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A detail of Terrible Secret of Space, which is awaiting a merge. Gazpacho 20:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Should have been speedy deleted. Delete. Rick K 21:07, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nonsense. -- 8^D ^gab 21:17, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Delete. Nonsense. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. —Sesel wa 23:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense
It is nonsense, but it's nonsense that should be made a redirect to the moderately well-known silliness it came from, Terrible Secret of Space, so no one tries to create it again. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please don't redirect nonsense. Rick K 06:07, 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 speedy delete (three times). [8] —Korath (Talk) 15:08, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

OIYDWYMTTY(NY)G

Unencyclopedic. Dictdef. Possibly nonsense (I haven't Googled). Delete. —msh210 18:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Dave Barry. Googling shows hits on his website. Postdlf 18:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Looks like this was already done for Wbagnfarb—same issue. Postdlf 18:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just rubbish. Deb 18:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
MARTWPODBC (Merge and redirect this witty piece of Dave Barry-cruft). -- 8^D ^gab 21:16, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Merge to Dave Barry. Dave the Red (talk) 21:39, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. —Sesel wa 23:37, 5 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew Words

Well-meaning, but this is not an encyclopedia entry; could possibly be transwikied, but with just a few Hebrew words in idiosyncratic transcriptions to English, I am uncertain whether it would be useful in Wiktionary either. / Uppland 19:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to merge it with Hebrew language article. José San Martin 00:17, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This includes an interlingual dictionary. Delete, unless Wiktionary includes interlingual entries, in which case move to Wiktionary. —Simetrical (talk) 02:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. These word lists have no place at Hebrew language, and Wiktionary has articles on individual words, not lists. The individual words on these lists could be listed at Wiktionary, but would need to be entered in the Hebrew alphabet, with a conventional romanization, rather than "pro-nun-see-AY-shuns". --Angr/_(comhrá) 05:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this is what wikt is for. Radiant _* 08:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic, foreign dictionary defs. Megan1967 09:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Useful info, but where can we move it? Rad Racer | Talk 00:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
delete not useful. Mozzerati 08:27, 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. – AB CD 00:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chicken Fox

I wouldn't mind an article about Fanfiction.net or Fictionpress.com, but fanfiction authors aren't notable. If they are I demand my own article ;) Mgm|^(talk) 20:15, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Delete non-notable. —Sesel wa 23:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 09:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable, and given the subject's "famously arrogant and self-promoting nature", vanity Dsmdgold 23:06, 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. – AB CD 00:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mondaine

Heartwarming story, but this person gets only 19 Google hits, and the article reads like a promo, possible a copyvio (although nothing turns up on the internet). Improperly named, but I don't want to move it until notability is estabilshed, and not much in the article suggests encyclopedic notability. -- 8^D ^gab 20:24, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Delete - promo. Fuzheado | Talk 20:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is this only an encyclopedia for famous people? Or do the "unsung" heros of local communities have a place as well? It seems to me if this is to establish an internet community based encyclopedia, it needs to include information regarding people who are not yet well known, but still play a significant role in the grass roots development of our society. The organizations this man has established have already begun to make very significant impacts in Portland, Oregon. He has a substantial congregation, and is known by virtually every significant political leader in the city of Portland and the general state of Oregon. Perhaps the article needs to be re-worded in effor to not sound so much like a personal promo? (unsigned vandalism by user 64.122.245.169, moved here)--InShaneee 20:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The question, "Is this only an encyclopedia for famous people?" rather captures the point. This is an encyclopedia, not a directory, so indeed the "unsung" heroes get left out (at least until they get "sung"). However, if this pastor's prominence continues to grow (as the trajectory outlined in the article suggests), then he may certainly cross the bar of notability in the future. It would help if the article was not written in such a promotional tone. Frankly, most biographical articles about contemporary figures contain both the laudatory accomplishments of their subjects, and criticism of the same. -- 8^D ^gab 21:27, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. --InShaneee 20:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable promo. Dave the Red (talk) 21:58, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. —Sesel wa 23:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, replace with redirect to Ultima (name of the bad guy in the first game) Radiant _* 08:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 09:49, 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. —Korath (Talk) 15:09, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Short story: the fly

Mistitled book review. Bad idea for a redirect. I suggestion delete. Mgm|^(talk) 20:34, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Encyclopedic article on a short story. Should be moved to The Fly (short story). Article could stand to be cleaned a bit. Dave the Red (talk) 21:55, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
rename as per Dave's suggestion. Rick K 22:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
rename. Mikkalai 03:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
rename(d) leave redirect in place as cheap no links to clean up except in VFD, which I leave for clarity.Mozzerati 08:31, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yö

This band has just recorded a demo with two songs, nothing more. They can't be notable, so this article should be deleted. (Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines) If you are going to search the web about the band, be cautious. There is already a Finnish band Yö, which is very famous there. Also yö is indeed night in Finnish and thus a common word. -Hapsiainen 20:55, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. No web-searching is necessary - the article itself says "They still have not released any work", and notes their formation in 2003 and current lineup in 2005. Not possibly notable. -- 8^D BD2412 ^gab 21:37, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Delete. A band with one demo and no releases? Tedious vanity. Average Earthman 22:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete or replace with an article about the Finnish band Yö. bbx 22:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. —Sesel wa 23:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rewrite about the Finnish band Yö, which is far more notable than this Brazilian thingy. Don't delete. (Comment: Someone blanked the page after Hapsiainen VfD'd it. I've restored it.) — JIP | Talk 07:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 09:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
delete before the proposed rewrite (you should start at Yö (Finnish Band) then move to Yö once/if this VFD passes. It's premature to delete the information now and it's better not to keep irrelevant history information later.
- I agree, but I also want to add that if the VfD does not pass, then this article we're voting on should be renamed to Yö (Brazilian band) with Yö turned into a disambig page, as the Finnish band is more notable than the Brazilian one, and having the Brazilian band as the "main" article would be stupid. — JIP | Talk 12:52, 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 speedy delete (eleven times). [9] —Korath (Talk) 15:12, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Clout

probably a speedy candidate, but... (also created 3 times today). – AB CD 21:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've tagged it as speedy three times; the first couple of times it was created by an anon. The third time the creator had opened an account of the same name, and I moved the page to User:Clout; unfortunately, the VfD appeared while I was doing it. If Clout (talk · contributions) recreates the article, then it could be VfDed again (though I do think that it's a speedy candidate), but could this VfD be lifted now that it's a User page? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- It is a speedy candidate if it is recreated, since recreations of items that were VfD'ed can be speedied if deem fit to warrant it. Zscout370 00:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i am sorry if this is prying, but I ask that you allow the definition to be left up for 48 hours until I can put up a proper link which decribes Clout more. thank you for your time

Delete. It has been created four times, after two speedy deletions and one move to the creator's User page. It contains nothing that suggests that it's genuine, and the author (or authors) has had ammple time to produce something worthwhile. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it is genuine in the way that it is a real religion, other religions are allowed to be defined on this site, so i ask that clout is also given that right

Delete. I tagged it as a speedy a couple of times, too, as nonsense. The author is removing the tags, or else recreating it, and has also vandalized a few other articles related to religion. --BM 17:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've now deleted it a number of times (and its creator has vandalised my user page three times, and sent me abusive e-mails). The creator also vandalised other Wikipedia pages, and created another spoof article a cuple of times. He's now been banned for twenty-four hours, though he has at least two other accounts, so I'm not sure that that's a solution. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure that this person is only one person? mabey this is really a real religion and its followers have now chosen the time to speak out

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cincinnati Dentist

delete blog is barely over a month old, and is essentially a promo site. --Lxw21 05:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nothing against dentists (or Cincinnati), but this blog does not strike me as possibly rising into notability. -- 8^D ^gab 21:49, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

btw, Delete. -- 8^D ^gab 22:08, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. —Sesel wa 23:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --DirectorBlue 00:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Note: user's only edit, and signature is wrong since he is actually User:Directorblue
  - Clever trick to change the font color of the user name to blue, so as to avoid the dreaded red link. Would have beeb better to just create the user page though. Dsmdgold 01:51, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vaNNity. Radiant _* 10:10, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. notability. Mikkalai 03:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity Dsmdgold 01:51, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – AB CD 00:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No white residue

Appears to be vanity. Only two members. google search for "No white residue" "chengo" gives no results, which may indicate that they are quite unknown, or even nonexistant. chengo is the first word of one of their songs. -Frazzydee|✍ 21:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete (don't count implicit nomination). -Frazzydee|✍ 21:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - should have been speedy delete. The JPS 21:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I unspeedied it and listed it here because I thought it was vanity (and vanity isn't listed in WP:CSD) -Frazzydee|✍ 22:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You probably did the right thing, then :) The JPS 23:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- 8^D ^gab 22:07, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. —Sesel wa 23:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as vanity and unverifiable vanity at that. I'm the one who tagged it for a speedy after Google came back nil. - Lucky 6.9 04:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 09:45, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The 25 Greatest Games of All Time

No real notability whatsoever. Any relevant/notable information it may have should probably be merged at MobyGames. K1Bond007 22:12, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Irrelevant --Neigel von Teighen 22:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete given there is a page already on MobyGames.--AYArktos 00:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, title is inherently POV, and current content is irrelevant. Radiant _* 08:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, POV fork. Megan1967 09:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I would have said "redirect to MobyGames" but I think it should be a straight delete because the title, "The 25 Greatest Games of All Time", is not a likely lookup target. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not relevant. Unsigned vote was by Wbarnum. -Asriel86
Delete. Aren't there enough lists already here? Do we really need to start cataloging all the external ones? (someone say no) --Asriel86 23:41, 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 NO CONSENSUS. Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How to wash your car

An article of the kind many Wikipedians call "How-to"s. Georgia guy 22:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So what gives you the right to delete it? I call it a how-to article, or if not right now then one day it will be! Wikipedia needs time in order to grow. It can't just be complete all in one try. oppose Jaberwocky6669 22:25, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Oh well, I guess this means that my page is gone. I exercise my restraint in order to avoid calling people bad names! lol Jaberwocky6669 22:58, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~Transwiki to wikibooks, Wikipedia is not a place for how-to's.-gadfium 22:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep well-written and well intentioned. Could probably use some cleanup so that it reads less like a magazine article, and maybe a rename (perhaps into "Car-washing techniques"), but the topic deserves an article. If it absolutely cannot be kept, then at least transwiki it somewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:07, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Someone wanted to move it to wikisource! They thought it was copied from somewhere, but it is originial. Jaberwocky6669 23:14, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rename as per Starblind. This information does not appear to fit into car wash very well. --Allen3 ^talk 23:21, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
transwiki to someplace that takes howtos like this would be good, if they want it. Though you'll have to extend the text and explain all the tiny little details of how to wash wheels and so, and compare makes of soap etc etc. (not to mention waxes :-P ). Doesn't need to be done right away, but it does need doing then. Nicely written articles like this that don't quite fit encyclopedic criteria might be userfied too, and we could do so if Jaberwocky6669 requests it. Kim Bruning 23:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was in the process of fleshing out all of the smaller details until I saw that the article was opposed in its present state. Sorry, for all of the comments but this is my first dose of wikireality! Jaberwocky6669 23:29, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikibooks. Rick K 23:32, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Rename, but Keep - preferably as car washing... expand beyond techniques and discuss reasons for doing it, practical uses as a fundraising device for college clubs, depictions in popular culture (e.g. the famous car washing scene in Cool Hand Luke). -- 8^D ^gab 23:37, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
- Comment. This article already exists at Car Wash. "Car washing" is inappropriate because articles on nouns are preferred over verbs in an encyclopedia.Halidecyphon 07:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Provisional Keep If converted to an enecyclopedic article about car washing, and car washes. Klonimus 00:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Provisional Keep If it was re-written and more substance added, it could be a useful addition. As it stands, it's far too light-weight, quite parocial (clearly written with a N American audience in mind, references to warm weather but not cold) with dubious assertions like: " It is known that in a busy parking lot a dirty grungy car will accumulate more knicks and scrapes than a clean car." Well known? says who? Markb
- Comment. This article already exists at Car Wash.Halidecyphon 07:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Is it possible for an article of this sort to be NPOV? Certainly an article about car-washing techniques, or even about a particular car-washing technique, could be written neutrally, but it seems to me that an article that instructs the reader to do something necessarily advocates that that thing be done. Shimmin 00:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
COmment I have begun to work on the article, in my Laboratory, according to the ideas that I have seen here. Jaberwocky6669 03:34, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Jaberwocky, this article already exists as Car Wash, but could definatly use your improvements. Add the stuff from your "lab," but DO NOT turn it into a "How-to" please. If you want to write a how-to, write it for wikibooks.Halidecyphon 07:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep for reasons stated. I was the one who originally posted the Wikisource notice which seems to have started a misunderstanding, now straightened out. If Jabberwocky is ready and willing to wax this with the "Carnauba of NPOV," I'm for letting it stay. Remember the one about dishwashing a few months ago? That turned out pretty good after the how-to was excised and some history added. - Lucky 6.9 04:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge any non-"how to" information to Car Wash, and transwiki if desired. Halidecyphon 07:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki. Radiant _* 08:26, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki the how-to, any factual info that isn't in Car wash should be merged. Average Earthman 09:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Or redirect and merge with Car wash. Style is too breezy and informal. Content weak and could use work. As nearly as I can determine, the frequently cited statement that how-to's do not belong in Wikipedia is a legend. Note that the page How-to practically encourages their creation and notes that they supposed to be "informal." On the evidence of How-to, how-to's are valid topics for Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, according to Talk:How-to, a lot of the content there and the how-tos in Wikipedia predated the creation of Wikibooks, and many of the authors who had been writing how-tos in Wikipedia (such as theresa knott) decided around December 2003 to start moving instruction manuals over to Wikibooks, which has been happening since. Uncle G 18:28, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
delete. Original research. Factual info to be moved to car wash, but not to Car Wash :-). Mikkalai 03:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is just an article on how to wash a car! No research involved! Jaberwocky6669 04:58, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I.e., out of your head. That's exactly what "original" stands for. Mikkalai 15:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Robinoke 15:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep.- Anynomus
- Unsigned comment by 66.91.63.100 (talk · contributions)
Comment. This bears a very strong resemblance to a chapter in "How to care for your collector car," published by Motorbooks. Seems to paraphrase the book. Agwiii 20:34, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
- It was not paraphrased either... Look, you can go and reword anything you like. You can NPOV it. You don't need my or any one's permission to do that! Jaberwocky6669 22:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
It's a good article, but I don't think it fits in here. Either Create a WikiHow-To (alternatively, WikiDIY) or Delete but then feel bad about it for a while. --Asriel86 23:37, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Why don't we just keep it how it is. I have changed the article drastically in order to be more encyclopedic. Jaberwocky6669 01:19, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I've just transwikied Constructing school science lab equipment to the Wikibooks:How-tos bookshelf. I'd be happy to transwiki this. It's not an encyclopaedia article about car washing. It's an instruction manual, addressing the reader in the second person. Wikibooks and Delete. (And remember that there's nothing stopping an encyclopaedia article on car washing, when written as per BD2412 and Klonimus, from interwiki linking to the book on Wikibooks, just as beekeeping interwiki links to Wikibooks:beekeeping. Build the web.) Uncle G 18:28, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
Transwiki. There is a clear policy on this. remember to fix the interwiki links in doing so... -- Egil 04:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep: Rename, make "original" reserach less original by citing one of millions of places that talks about these issues... maybe even check out "Idiot's guide to carwashing" and use it as a source. You know... for credibility's sake. gren 19:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 00:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The mole sisters

Band vanity. "Striving to become famous" doesn't rate you an encyclopedia article. Rick K 22:34, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity/promo/non-notable. —Sesel wa 23:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I must say, I like the easy ones. -- 8^D ^gab 07:09, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
thats too bad that you want to delete the only chance that the mole sisters have to be heard, and i say that if you want to delete this for [your reason here] then why not ponder about the fact that maybe this should be deleted>>> Wikipedia:Are You a Wikipediholic Test >...One hand on the keyboard, and one on your food? (100 -- that's it, we're driving you down to the next Wikiclinic for treatment.) >>>look at this. is this something you would find in a regular encyclopedia? i did not think to imagine so. so why do you want to delete the mole sisters? do you have something against them? or is it because you have never heard of them. what ever the reason, they don't need to be deleted, they need to be heard.
- unsigned comment left by user:Kay Cee who also vandalized the two prior votes by removing the words "delete".
delete Mozzerati 08:46, 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. – AB CD 00:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 00:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Carrill Grove

Non-notable suburban cul-de-sac. Grutness|^hello? 22:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Non noteable, always a bad sign when an article only has links from itself and various VFD pages.Deathawk 01:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless expanded to show notability. --SPUI (talk) 02:10, 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. – AB CD 00:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Krueger

Vanity. Also argue that it does not meet the Notability and Music Guidelines. --Woohookitty 23:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not notable Delete Dsmdgold 00:13, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: NN --Fuzzball! (talk) 03:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 09:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, very probably a hoax: same author as Mentor Cahani (which is definitely a hoax) and unverifiable. Only hits for "Benjamin Krueger" + "Marzahn Warriors" are copies of Wikipedia content; the Marzahn Warriors seem to exist, but seem to be a hockey team. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 15:49, 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.