Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 24

May 24

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 keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Greg Sparks

Somebody's campaign worker, I guess. Orphan, only 7 hits on 5 sites for "Greg Sparks" "dick spring", and most can't even confirm the sparse amount of info given, raising verifiability questions. Niteowlneils 00:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. Dick Spring was leader of the Irish Labour Party for many years and Táiniste several times. Sparks is/was a senior Labour Party strategist, acted as agent for many candidates, has been published in Irish newspapers, subject of corruption allegations, etc. http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1999/11/19/ipage_10.htm and http://www.gov.ie/debates-98/27may98/dl270598.pdf - Ben-w 00:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but add to it. Mgstone 00:17, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand explaining significance in Irish politics as identified by Ben-W. Capitalistroadster 01:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep please and expand it too Yuckfoo 18:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fud

Do we really need an article that deals solely with Glaswegian dictdefs? →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 00:03, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

• No. Restore the original redirect to FUD, and place a {{wiktionary}}{{wiktionarypar|fud}} on the latter. Uncle G 01:12, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Redirect to FUD --metta, The Sunborn 03:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to FUD. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:07, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:05, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Sutu & Andrew Morrison

As the article says, these two are only up coming book writers, and their debut book has not been published yet. Thus, not noteworthy yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I also get zero hits on Amazon.com. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and good luck to you two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:47, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I am an up an comming writer but I don't have an article. Not notable. --metta, The Sunborn 03:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - lots of people are writing books, that doesn't mean anything. Article title is useless, as well. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable (yet). Megan1967 06:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wait until they are famous and worthy of a biography. I'd almost suggest that Benjamin Sutu and/or Andrew Morrison had a hand in writing it. Suggest they keep it to their user pages and personal web pages. Internodeuser 13:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and write two seperate pages if these two ever become notable. Jamyskis 13:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wait until you're notable, and don't write it yourself, guys. - Etacar11 16:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN Jayjg ^(talk) 16:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Swat 16:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. ROFLMAOACSOFMM (basically a very big ROFLMAO (roll on the floor laughing my ass off) I know these guys... lol... they are two 13 year old morons who do nothing bu vandalise the net... and they write about themselves?....

16:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I know this sounds a bit weird, but I am Andrew Morrison, and I did not in any way request for, or want for that matter, a Wikipedia page to be written about me. (I'm not trying to "shift the blame", so to speak, but Ben must have been the person who wrote the article.) Although I am trying to write a book, I don't think this qualifies as a Wikipedia entry. In fact, it is quite embarrasing... I sincerely apologise, on his behalf, for any inconvenience caused to fellow Wikipedia users.
• Comment. It's Andrew again. Sorry if this is irritating, but I do find it rather unfair that a previous user, with whom I am personally acquanted, stated that I "vandalise the net." For the record, I have done nothing of the kind. I did write the article on Adeline Yen Mah, but I hardly think this qualifies as "vandalism."
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so they should come back after they have successfully published a book. — JIP | Talk 05:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:05, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hypercircumcision

Looks like an anti-circumcision hoax page. Google doesn't find any results for the hyphenated or unhyphenated forms of the word. From an anatomical standpoint, the described etiology doesn't make sense. Delete this medical nonsense. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Definitely. I was going to recommend it for speedy deletion, actually. M412k 02:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Definitely POV, anti-semitic in fact. Detetion is warranted. Cyferx 02:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hoax. --metta, The Sunborn 03:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as anti-semitic vandalism/hoax. Geogre 03:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:08, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete cut it. Klonimus 05:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Hyperdelete the wub (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable (it is perhaps anti-semitic - but let us assume good faith) --Doc (t) 09:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsensical hoax. Sietse 10:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Fancruft Judvrd 11:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Too funny. Sorry, I laughed when I read this one. Yeah, and Delete it too. Obviously a hoax. Such a medically-sounding fact should be easily able to be backed up, but google has nothing - [1] Internodeuser 13:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, consider moving to WP:BJAODN qitaana 13:30, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to BJAODN with TenOfAllTrades' comment. Physchim62 18:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A certain hoax. Dr. D 23:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Hyperdelete. Hoax. JFW | T@lk 01:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and circumcise those responsible. — Phil Welch 06:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Joke article -Husnock 11:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:06, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

DTF

Just another high school garage band, near as I can tell. Zero hits for "Dark Tall Females"--allmusic.com hasn't heard of 'em either. dtf toronto adler cohen doesn't find anything relelvant either. Niteowlneils 00:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable by WP:MUSIC standards. --metta, The Sunborn 03:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: 100% advertising, complete with gig details and cover charge. Shabby, guys. Geogre 03:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, with emphasis for the quote above me. I suggest getting a life that doesn't involve writing encyclopedia articles about yourself. Harp Heaven 15:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN the above remark :) Radiant_* 07:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Oh, look, it's a band writing an article about themselves. Haven't seen a dozen of those today at all. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because I'm a hater who can't get laid. Gamaliel 04:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - because your sorry insult assumes we all want girls. You can keep 'em. --FCYTravis 04:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity/advertisment Columbia 04:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wastes of spaces...yeah, I be da hater, straight up punk-ass nobody! Repazent! Harro5 06:05, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Jamyskis 13:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not establish that my musical notability criteria are met. Kelly Martin 15:36, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Ahh, kids... - Etacar11 16:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. --Carnildo 19:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Still, clearly the article served a worthwhile purpose, since we're helping some poor, pathetic ingrate get a good laugh at how we're the "biggest losers on the planet". We love to bring pleasure to the lives of those who evidently don't have much of their own. Scimitar 21:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jacob1207 22:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Hfs991hfs 03:17, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Tznkai 16:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Xcali 00:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• "Don't delete"- i like DTF.....
• DeleteThis band is junk, the first song they played didn't even have instruments! - ZJ

---It didn't have instruments because it was a barbershop quartet! They wrote out all 4 parts with no help, tabs, score-sheets or anything - just a pen and paper! You don't even know what you're talking about buddy.

• ---Well nobody wants to see it at a rock show, who likes Phish anyway?!
• "who likes Phish anyway?!" !?!?!? Phish is the hugest band next to Led Zeppelin and DTF, idiot.
• Don't Delete!!! DTF are the next Amon Düül II!!!! (although I do concur Halfway is a superior musical entity in everything but breeding stock)

I jus't thought that I would point out the hypocracy here. All of these wikipedia members are arguing that we should get rid of this DTF page because it is not relevant and simply trying to promote the band. The funny part is that all of these people on the message board have a page written about themselves. THAT seems completely relevant to me. So it is alright for all of you to have a page about yourself, but not alright for a new band to post some RELEVANT and TRUE information about themselves?

...what are you talking about? -- Cyrius|✎ 07:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Dont Delete! This is completely relevant! Some people are researching information on the popularity of unknown teenage bands. The fact that DTF may not be as well known as some other bands does not mean that it does not have potential. DTF is worthy of a spot on the Wikipedia encyclopedia. There are many people interested, as you can see it has had a lot of viewers. I, myself, am a DTF fan. Please do not delete this page! It is gaining popularity to a wider range of people using Wikipedia by drawing attention to the encyclopedia. It is no harm to anybody!

Dont Delete! "What am I talking about?"...well, I am talking about the fact that you (for example Cyrius) would like DTF's page to be deleted because you find it to be irrelevant and for the purpose of self-promotion, yet you happen to have a page on wikipedia for yourself, describing yourself as "just some guy". Why should it be alright for you to post a page about yourself, but not alright for a new band to post a page about themselves? Personally, I do not have a problem with either.

Those are not encyclopedia articles, those are user pages. Anyone who signs up for an account gets a user page. Gamaliel 22:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Alright, sorry for my confusion. I still think that DTF should be allowed to keep this page, because they are a talented band that will make a name for themselves one day. I do not think that we should discriminate against bands because they are not as well-known as others. Every band has to start from somewhere.

This is not "discrimination", this is common sense. An encyclopedia documents famous and notable things, not every single minor thing that ever happened in the world. We have a set of consistent standards we apply to every article: see WP:MUSIC. When DTF becomes successful, you can write an encyclopedia article about them then. Gamaliel 14:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I will restate the fact that DTF has signed a deal with British record label Delerium to promote their EP in the United States, Continental Europe and Israel, and they have taken it upon themselves to deal with domestic distribution. That in itself is indicative of success, no?

I chose my words poorly. Good for them on being signed, and this is a measure of success. However, most editors of Wikipedia do not consider merely being signed as enough to merit an encyclopedia article. Please see the guidelines at WP:MUSIC for what most editors of Wikipedia consider the standards for inclusion here. Gamaliel 22:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they will make it big one day - for that, I wish them luck. However, I'm not convinced that you're being totally honest. A small quote from Delerium Records website: "Delerium records is no longer active and the website is now on-line for information purposes. There will be the occasional Delerium re-issue or limited edition." Over the years I've seen hundreds of bands that their record labels claimed would be huge, only they never did. Wikipedia doesn't really cater for speculation, and to say that they will be huge in the future is just that: speculation. Jamyskis 13:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to say.....DTF rawks the kazbah. My name is Regina Felangi, and i am a very important business woman in the business world. I know when a band is going to make it big. Just this morning, while i was in board room A, I was discussing with my fellow workers, the potential that said band had. Wikipedia is not being harmed by this link, that is my business perspective.

Dont Delete!!!!! DTF is my favorite band! They have the hottest guys ever! Have you ever seen Jacob Fox? His last name is there for a reason. HE certainly is a Fox. A really fine one. I'm sure that if everyone on this forum saw him, they would immeadiately change their mind about deleting this. Did I mention that he is also an AMAZING lead guitarist? He is.Wow.

Dont Delete!!! I love Jacob too! Even more than her!

• Speedy. Otherwise, this spam will just get out of hand. Deleting comments also. Kel-nage 23:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dont Delete! But I must disagree with that other fan. Ben is definitely the hottest band member. Seriously. He is gorgeous. DTF for life!

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 and delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Aeneid/Book I

This belongs in WikiBooks or some other reference. P0per 00:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• The actual text of the translation of the book into English, by an author who has been dead for three centuries now. Public domain primary source material. Wikisource (and Delete). The Wikisource:Author:John Dryden section is ready and waiting. Uncle G 01:25, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Wikisource. Megan1967 06:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Wikisource. Wikibooks is for how to guides. the wub (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

smart alec

This is a dictionary article about an idiom (one that Wiktionary had already had for a month, by the way — see smart aleck), not an encyclopaedia article about smart alecs. (This article was originally created as "smart alec".) It's difficult to see how one can have an (NPOV) encyclopaedia article about smart alecs, moreover; and no sensible place for a redirection to point to springs to mind. (If we had a biography of Alec Hoag, we could redirect there. But we haven't.) Uncle G 01:00, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

• Delete as it is already in wikitionary. --metta, The Sunborn 03:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as duplicate material. Geogre 03:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition, already in wiktionary. Megan1967 06:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Uncle G's opinion that it will not be NPOV rings true. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 19:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete before someone redirects to Alec Guinness or, even worse, Alec Baldwin. — Phil Welch 06:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Rhyanne Wheat

I'm not sure what ought to be done with this article. Submitted to request community review on the notibility of this article. It is possible it is vanity, but then again it does seem to have a least some claim to merit. -SocratesJedi | Talk 01:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Public-access TV hosts and the like. Just 8 Google hits 4 of which were Wikipedia and mirrors, and the other 4 looked irrelevant/coincidental. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:18, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Public access show host. There are gobs and gobs of these. (Besides, isn't it "British subject" and not "British citizen?") Geogre 03:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not a notable show host, no other established notability. Probably vanity or fan-vanity. Ryan Prior 03:31, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity drini ☎ 06:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• For a show that was such a "success", it gets zero Google hits. Delete. Jamyskis 13:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Allow Actually, the show did exist and was widely popular amoungst Richmonders. Rhyanne Elizabeth Wheat is a real person and this was not made out of "fan" vanity. It was made for educational purposes as many of teh show's callers asked who she was. I believe the page should be allowed as it shall provide further information for those interested in the show's history. Spwicy 11:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "...many of teh show's callers asked who she was"... I'm not sure I understand that statement. If I'm reading it right, you're saying that it was a call-in show, and people called in without knowing who the show's host was? Again, I might be misreading it, but that sounds pretty unlikely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind
  • Yes, it was a call in show. It was a live talk-show. If you read the page on the show you can see he info about it. It seriosuly was a legit show, and I dont think the oage was meant to be fan vanity. Spwicy 23:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to The David and Rhyanne Comedy Hour. Hermione1980 18:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Jacob1207 22:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity and non notable. JamesBurns 10:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Myriametre

Rarely used unit with an archaic SI prefix. Georgia guy 01:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to metre or something else, since it is archaic. --metta, The Sunborn 03:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• See an analogous discussion at Talk:Binary prefix#Consolidate_all_the_little_articles. Uncle G 03:38, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
  • Obsolete prefixes aren't really analogous, are they? - Omegatron 18:33, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I was referring to the discussion being analogous. Uncle G 21:19, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Redirect to myria. the wub (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to myria. I think anyone looking up this term is likely to be more interested in the prefix than the unit its prefixing (which is frankly a unit everyone should known). Plugwash 12:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested by User:Uncle G above. Useful to know, and you wouldn't necessarily know myria just because you heard myriametre. Also do redirect from myriameter for American spelling variation Internodeuser 13:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Myria. - Omegatron 13:38, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Myria. The last notable use of the myriametre was in Art. 1 of the French Civil Code, but it has disappeared even from there since 2004. Physchim62 18:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you have a reference for the old text? Uncle G 21:19, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
  • There are many examples of 20th century and 19th century usage (and a few 21st century), especially in the French language but also in English and other languages. Gene Nygaard 12:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Specifically, the myriameter and myriagram are part of current United States law, added by the Act of July 28, 1866 and codified in 15 U.S.C. §205. Gene Nygaard
• Merge and Redirect to Myria, though it should probably also be transwikied to Wiktionary as an archaism that might pop up (I saw it in an early 20th-century home improvement book, but that was about the only place I've ever seen it). Haikupoet 18:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Why should we transwiki it, considering that Wiktionary has a myriametre article that predates this one? ☺ Uncle G 21:19, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Myria, plus a Wiktionary entry. Urhixidur 20:44, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Redirect to Obsolete metric prefixes (formerly Obsolete SI prefixes), which is what myria and myria- and much more importantly myriameter, the other spelling of this very same unit, redirect to. I just renamed that article because these never were "SI prefixes". I probably should have renamed to singular rather than plural also, but didn't think of that. I only found this vote because I was wondering why myriameter redirected there, but myriametre did not, so was checking to see if there was anything at myriametre. Gene Nygaard 12:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:46, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Introductory Physical Science

Notability not established Samw 02:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't see non-notability listed as a VFD criterion. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 02:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• There are quite a few books with this title (or with this phrase as part of the title). This 13-word stub gives no clue as to which book is being discussed, and even if we were to pick one to expand the article around, there's not a whole lot of expansion to be done for a high school science text. Redirect to Physical science. This could probably have been speedied as a short article with little or no context. AиDя01DTALK 03:27, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Utterly useless substub that I would speedy delete under criterion #1 + nonsense. The article says that it's a book that's about what it's about. Nothing specific, just a user test of the "I made an article about my textbook" sort. Ridiculous to even debate it. Geogre 03:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I would have speedy deleted this as well, there's no content here. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, could be speedied for lack of context. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 05:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. As Wikipedia:Patent nonsense would define it, it's "meaningful after a fashion..." sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 09:00, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Physical Science and encourage author to add a bit more substance to articles. Internodeuser 13:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge what, exactly? The article has no content. AиDя01DTALK 14:10, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Looks like a newbie test to me. Absolutely no content whatsoever—the VfD notice is bigger than the article. Hermione1980 18:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- It seems to be a somewhat commonly used textbook. I used it, though I don't know just how widely used it is. (This vote is an average -- it actually amounts to "Keep if widely used, delete if not.") Haikupoet 18:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as content free. I believe CSD article criteria #1 covers this. --Carnildo 19:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Insufficient context to know which of many books with the same title is intended, and says nothing about the book anwyway. Quale 21:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can be heavily added expanded upon. Otherwise, it is not worth it. 23:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

135797531 (number)

• Non-notable number. Georgia guy 02:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Gah. Delete. This one doesn't even provide any fun facts like 11111 did. AиDя01DTALK 03:20, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it does. But it's a fun fact that's already mentioned in Charles Bridge. ☺ Uncle G 03:33, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
    • <homer>Blah blah blah bridge... Bo-ring!</homer> Not what I would consider a fun fact. :-) AиDя01DTALK 03:42, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep very notable number. Klonimus 05:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep numbers if something encyclopedic can be said about them, as in this case. Kappa 05:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Charles Bridge. Not a notable number on its own. the wub (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, agree with the wub. — JIP | Talk 09:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Charles Bridge. Topic isn't substantial enough on its own. A picture of the foundation stone showing the craved number would be great. --NormanEinstein 16:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it seems notable to me Yuckfoo 18:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- number gamescome under "Deep thoughts". Also see Interesting Number Paradox. Haikupoet 18:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 18:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Already mentioned in the Charles Bridge article. No need to have duplicated info, plus no one is ever going to type that number in the search box! Sarg 19:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge entry into 10⁶ section Orders of magnitude (numbers), then delete. (The powers go up by three from 10⁶ onward.) — RJH 19:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's already covered in the Charles Bridge article, and I can't imagine anyone searching for the number by itself. --Carnildo 19:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ashibaka (tock) 19:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Charles Bridge. A visitor to the bridge could conceivably search on that inscription; unlikely, but redirects are cheap. The underlying story is barely encyclopedic for inclusionists at best; the story doesn't need to be two places, and there doesn't seem to be anything here distinct from the parent article. Is this Numbers Week or something? Barno 22:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and incorporate info into Bridge article. Jacob1207 22:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect Charles Bridge. --Unfocused 05:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. Radiant_* 08:42, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Charles Bridge. Sjakkalle 14:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep oh yes. Read the article. No question to keep. Internodeuser 20:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. You have got to be kidding that this in any way, shape, or form encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 13:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Charles Bridge. Oleg Alexandrov 23:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete come on... no need to boost an article count like that. Getting to 11 billion would be too easy. Grue 12:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, merge, etc. - vaguely interesting, yes, but not much more can be said about it than what's already in Charles Bridge. 67.101.113.10 June 01 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. —Xezbeth 19:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Allison Greenwald

Not noteworthy -- Sesame Street Live dancers are numerous -- it would be like listing everyone who has ever played Mickey Mouse. kmccoy (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete same reason as nominator. --metta, The Sunborn 03:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It is a place in show biz, but about like a cameo in a direct to video movie. The person is not notable enough yet. (If you're not speaking, and if you're not in the credits, you're not really noticeable, and don't even mention Boo Radley.) Geogre 03:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the above reasons. Jacob1207 22:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yram Rivera

Not noteworthy -- Sesame Street Live dancers are numerous -- it would be like listing everyone who has ever played Mickey Mouse. kmccoy (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Someone in the chorus. Good! Not really notable enough to be encyclopedic, though. Geogre 03:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the above reasons. Jacob1207 23:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IBMR

Just an acronym expansion, has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. — A.M. 03:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Rendering (computer graphics). --metta, The Sunborn 03:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete or make into a redirect. No use for a sentence fragment masquerading as an article. Geogre 03:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I count 1 "delete" vote, 6 "keep as redirect" to the band, 8 "keep as is" (one probable troll vote discounted) and 3 "keep as disambiguation page". The decision about what form to keep this article should now be moved to the article's Talk page.

I will, however, add my own vote. Reviewing the revised content, I consider this to still be a dictionary definition - that is, a discussion of the meaning, origins and usage of a word or phrase. If this is not substantially expanded in a reasonable period of time, it may be reappropriate to renominate the page for deletion after updating the transwiki to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 22:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Megadeath

The Megadeath page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. Should this remaining page be deleted? Ryan Prior 03:26, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Once upon a time, it was a redirect to Megadeth, and so it shall be again. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Megadeath, or dab with links to Megadeath and Megadeath. Nateji77 07:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

sorry. to Megadeth and Megadeath. Nateji77 07:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

change vote to Keep following changes. Nateji77 14:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Megadeth. Geogre 11:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Megadeth and rock on! the wub (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - is an entirely different term to Megadeth. This is the word, as opposed to the band, and they have different spellings. Needs expansion though. Internodeuser 12:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Martg76 13:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment was this term ever really used by the military? I never heard it until the band Megadeth came out. Can someone provide a reference? - Etacar11 16:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as Cyrius. The band's article already mentions this (though it could be moved to an earlier part of the article if deemed significant enough). Etacar11 may have a point as well. -R. fiend 18:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to keep now that it's been expanded beyond a dicdef. More expansion (if possible) would be good still. -R. fiend 00:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it is interesting Yuckfoo 18:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• redirect again unless proof can be shown. --InShaneee 19:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Megadeth. --Carnildo 19:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge content with Cold war, keep as a disambiguation page (with a minimal expanation) between that and Megadeth. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as is, or merge and redirect to any one of a number of articles on nuclear weapons. I am certain I recall it, because I thought "Oh, how unclever" when the band "Megadeth" came out. I also recall learning about and reviewing the fatality charts from the Cold War era in school. "Duck and Cover" era stuff. Here is a reference. More can be found by searching nuclear+weapon+megadeath. May also be used in relation to nuclear power disasters. Do NOT simply redirect to the hard metal band Megadeth. --Unfocused 05:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Change vote to Keep as Disambig per Vashti, below. Unfocused 04:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Megadeth. Plausible misspellgni. Radiant_* 08:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Regarding the term's prior use, it was quoted in Raymond Briggs's graphic novel When the Wind Blows, published in 1982. "It's called Megadeath, I think.... so many millions of people dead per bang. Any ketchup, dear?" According to the band's page, they were formed in 1983. So it seems like it was current before them. Oh yeah, disambiguate between nuclear weapons and Megadeth, since it's a dictdef. Vashti 08:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

  Changing vote to keep now that the page has been expanded. Could possibly use a pointer to the rock band at the top of the page, though. Vashti 07:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm certain I heard it before 1982. I think it might have been in Dr. Strangelove or some similar work. JamesMLane 07:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

  Aye, I'm pretty sure I remember it from all the old CND material I sifted through in the early 90s/late 80s, but that's the only source I have to hand. Vashti 08:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Gen. Turgidson holds a binder titled "World Targets in Megadeaths" in front of him in the War Room in Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964). The word was coined by Herman Kahn in his 1961 book "On Thermonuclear War." which was a major influence on the film, as well as on the conduct of the Cold War. Megadeath should not merely redirect to the band. I believe it has importance not only as a definition, but also as a neologism characteristic of a particular time and way of thinking. I vote to keep (and expand) as a definition and disambiguation page. Dystopos 23:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I've made a start at expanding the article. More could still be done. Dystopos 23:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Disambiguate per Vashti Christopher Parham (talk) 04:38, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
• KEEP encyclopedic content. Grue 12:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep interesting, verifiable. Dan100 22:56, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 per below. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 22:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Marc Ford

Current Revision Empty. Previous revision appears to be a vanity page with no notable substance. P0per 03:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted as newbie test/author request. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I count 7 "delete" to 9 "keep" and note that several people changed their votes following the expansion of the article. Rossami (talk) 22:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Muslim jew

Delete - idle speculation, dicdef at best. FreplySpang (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not encyclopedic. -- Barfooz (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC).
• Delete, not notable dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete speculation. could be worth keeping if the article referenced the existence of actual muslim jews, but it doesnn't. Nateji77 07:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

change vote to Keep following cleanup. Nateji77 05:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - lacks any useful information. Cedars 12:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - but the information needs to be expanded greatly. There are terms such as Christian Witch in regular circulation so why not have Muslim jew?Internodeuser 12:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, in severe need of cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, contradiction in terms. Radiant_* 13:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

i think in this case "muslim" is the individual's religion and "jew" refers to his/her ethnicity, rather than religion. Nateji77 06:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or rewrite including a link or redirect to Donmeh -- there really are Muslim Jews, but they're rare. Haikupoet 19:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Change vote to keep per Mustafaa. Vastly improved. Haikupoet 03:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for the above reasons. Also, it's an orphaned article. Jacob1207 23:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep POV as it stands - but could make an interesting article --Doc (t) 01:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The phenomenon certainly exists, and is certainly article-worthy, but I'm not sure this is the correct name. I've added a bit. - Mustafaa 03:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable contradictory term. JamesBurns 10:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but fix capitalization by moving to Muslim Jew. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Surprised that there is a VfD on this. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:25, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable phenomena.Yuber^(talk) 22:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Craptacular

Slang dicdef, already transwikied to Wiktionary. Cyrius|✎ 04:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Dictdef of a term used by Bart Simpson. Geogre 11:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 19:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or redirect to Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Jacob1207 23:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete slang, as well as the fact that it's more of a dictionary definition than an encyclopedic article Jtkiefer 06:56, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Dunky

Slang dicdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Definition also does not appear on urbandictionary.com, where one would expect such a word to reside. Cyrius|✎ 04:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Attempted cutsie ideolect article. Attempted insult. "Many black males have large butts." Yes, well, that's quite unique to African Americans. (sigh) Kiddie wiki, bye bye. Geogre 11:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the above reasons. Jacob1207 23:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Clan Doggus

Minor gaming clan vanity, with no evidence that it's not a vanity article provided. Cyrius|✎ 04:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Vanity, non-remarkable, unencyclopedic. --Durin 04:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - minor gaming clan. Megan1967 06:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Sorry I didn't catch the rules about Vanity but it was fun to write :) Hopefully this is how I vote. Found another clan page (clan-10) not sure how to mark it as a candidate for vfd Hoseroo its 12:43 pacific, 24 May 2005
• Delete: Clan stuff. Thanks for pointing out the clan-10 article. That should at least be listed on VfD for voting. Geogre 11:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unreferenced, looks like vanity. Internodeuser 13:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and I know some of these guys. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:29, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied. Author consented to deletion, see above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:30, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. (One probable troll vote discounted) Rossami (talk) 22:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Beer Hall of Fame

Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This place does not yet exist, and as such is inherently unencyclopedic. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball --Durin 04:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable (yet). Megan1967 06:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's encyclopedic in that "planning or preparation for the event is already in progress" [2]. Meanwhile I'm working hard to be included. Eixo 08:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable until it exists, and no article can be written until there is something to actually describe and discuss. Until then, all that exists is an announcement, and Wikipedia is not a noticeboard. Geogre 11:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as stub. Needs photos, references, and a bit of an article. It is encyclopaedic and will be built. Perhaps reword as planned Beer Hall of Fame? Internodeuser 13:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Photos? Photos of what? It doesn't exist yet. There's nothing to photograph. It is not slated to open until September, 2006. Please see above link regarding Wikipedia not being a crystal ball. I agree this seems like a good article to have, but the reality is it does not yet exist and as such is not encyclopedic. --Durin 19:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• keep' this please Yuckfoo 18:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sarg 18:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 19:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for now BrokenSegue 20:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Send planning committee to my house, then delete or userfy until article's subject has actual existence. Barno 22:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it actually existed it would probably be encyclopedic. However, the mere fact that someone is planning a "Beer Hall of Fame" is not encyclopedic (even if it will include a "micrbrewery") Jacob1207 23:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I say keep. Looks like something in the works. There are plans for the new world trade center - even links for people to be influenced and educated. the topic may seem trivial, but if its really underway, it merits an entry. Barrettmagic

• Keep, per Internodeuse, appears to be verifiable and notable. Kappa 06:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per crystal ball. Radiant_* 08:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a crystal ball, uninformative stub, yadada. --Calton | Talk 13:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete crystal ball. JamesBurns 10:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep you don't need a crystal ball to verify this information. Grue 12:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:33, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

David Snyder, Ph.D.

Seems to be the author of one self-published book, probable vanity. The foundation he links to appears to exist only to publish the book. Very few hits on google: it's not clear whether or not this guy is even the internet's most popular "David Snyder, Ph.D." or "David N. Snyder". - Nat Krause 04:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, self-promotion. Megan1967 06:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising. Nowiki'd the link. Geogre 11:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Etacar11 16:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, not notable. Jacob1207 23:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:36, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Secret order of khaxor

Reads like it's entirely made up or may be from some fictional universe. DJ Clayworth 04:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, zero Google hits. Not even any hits for Khaxor. RickK 04:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's because his name is Xenu. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Completely unverifiable. --Durin 04:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - hoax/vanity/something, whatever it is, that doesn't belong on WP --FCYTravis 04:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - yes, yes, we know that the story of Xenu is silly, but this doesn't belong here. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 06:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if can be verified. Looks interesting and useful. Ask author for links. Internodeuser 13:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Please explain how to verify something that gets zero search engine hits. RickK 20:20, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. --InShaneee 19:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What FCYTravis said. --Whimemsz 19:54, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Why can't this be speedied?Leithp 20:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• From the article: "After Khaxor is freed, he will destroy the Earth, taking all the OT3 to another planet, creating another civilization." Gee, I guess we'd better delete this fictional article with no cultural significance before all that can happen. No redirect to anywhere, otherwise he might destroy there instead. Barno 22:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons stated by Barno. Jacob1207 23:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No Consensus -> Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Berkeley High Jacket

Student newspaper for a school we don't have an article on. RickK 04:32, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand - Notable student newspaper in large California city. Alternately, merge into Berkeley High School (California) and redirect. --FCYTravis 04:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Until someone actually writes the school's article...delete. Harro5 04:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into an article about the high school, seems to have a claim to notability based on the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:22, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• keep this please a merge is ok too Yuckfoo 17:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect per FCYTravis. — RJH 19:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• I'm sure that the people who go to that high school are well served by this student newspaper. But it's a student newspaper. Delete. Jacob1207 23:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is a student newspaper inherently less notable than a professional newspaper? Is a weekly rag published to serve a county of 1,000 people worthy of an article because it's professional and a student newspaper serving a college of 100,000 not because it's "student"? I work for a student newspaper and while I'd certainly never start an article on it for ethical reasons, if someone did, our paper is clearly deserving of an article. --FCYTravis 07:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I could start an article about the way my friend's blog. That doesn't mean the blog is deserving of an article. Xcali 23:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Your friend's blog hasn't won 9 National Newspaper Pacemaker Awards in the last 11 years. (The Pacemaker is the Pulitzer Prize of college journalism.) --FCYTravis 00:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
        • You missed my point. Your argument was essentially, "This is deserving of an article because someone wrote an article." That circular reasoning doesn't fly around here. Regarding the awards, that might be notable, but how would I know that from reading this article? Xcali 15:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
          • No, you missed my point. I was arguing that student newspapers aren't inherently less notable because they're "student"-operated as opposed to professional papers. They *might* be less notable, but that's not clear simply from being student-run, as Jacob was arguing. --FCYTravis 16:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article makes a clear case for the uniqueness of the school paper and its notability. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge no reason to loose the text, but no reason for it's own article at this point. Vegaswikian 05:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, extremely NN. Radiant_* 08:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Most schools have a newspaper. I don't see how this one is notable. Xcali 23:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge when Berkeley High School article is created. This paper has attained widespread recognition. --Andy M. 20:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Karol 20:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep FCYTravis has a good point, which is rare for those who carry the argument deep into the indents. --Unfocused 04:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • For those who have said this article is non-notable, I encourage you to re-read it, specifically this passage: "In the late 1990s, the paper gained widespread prominence after breaking a story in Berkeley that resulted in criminal prosecution." I agree that we should perhaps consider merging this article once an article on Berkeley High School is written, but until then, it stands on its own as a legitimate article and the content should not be lost. --Andy M. 05:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• I never thought I'd vote keep on a high school VfD (much less a HS newspaper VfD), but given its apparent role in the Reddy case, this merits inclusion. (This was left by User:JosephBarillari)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:36, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ogbonnaya Agom-Eze

• • Keep I nominate that this article be kept on Wikipedia. The article can be verified via Ogbonnaya Agom-Eze's Book Publishers Website at [3]. The poster is not making things up about himself. He is who he says he is and also the Author of the book Acorns of the Soul.
  • A vanity press is not a reliable source. --Etacar11 20:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. He may be a prince, but he only has two Google hits, one to a guestbook and one a "website dedicated to reuniting Nigerian ex-schoolmates". Nothing to verify that he is a prince, and otherwise non-notable. RickK 04:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Some dude, unverifiable claims. Geogre 11:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Etacar11 16:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because (1) subject is not notable and (2) article is not verifiable. Jacob1207 23:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was move to a Wikiproject, then delete the subsequent redirect. This page will therefore be at a new location: Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Ocean Animals. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ocean Animals

This article apparently started as a school project for the kids to learn how to write and cite sources (see teachers explanation) Duk 04:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I'd move it to a project page and then redirect Ocean Animals so the kiddies don't get lost. Harro5 04:54, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Move: As Harro5 said, move to project page. But, I would not use the redirect. That leaves a vestigial trace that is not appropriate. --Durin 05:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Move as per Harro5, do not redirect. -- Lochaber 10:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Wrong namespace. Do what we did with Method Engineering Encyclopedia: WikiProjectify (either there or at Wikipedia:School and university projects) and mercilessly edit. Uncle G 11:29, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Keep. The term "Ocean Animals" has encyclopaedic value (it's not just fish, as many are mammals, etc). Needs to be expanded a lot, however. Add a stub tag to it, and wikifi. Internodeuser 13:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The content of this article is already covered elsewhere. Expanding it would be redundant. --Durin 13:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • So if I was looking for information on ocean animals, how would I find it? Kappa 16:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
    • One direct method would be to jump off the deck rail of a Cunard liner. Barno 23:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
      • (K, that's not really intended as a childish insult, but a straightforward if overliteral answer to your question.) However, I see there's not as much in Ocean#Ecology as I expected, and nothing in Animal that breaks out ocean-living animals. We might have need for an article describing the range of oceangoing life forms by family, with perhaps a section based on geography. But we don't need an article that simply lists and describes four species (out of hundreds of thousands) which happen to live in oceans, with no context or classification. So I vote to WikiProjectify or delete this article, which isn't a good starting point, and list on requested articles. Barno 23:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Try Anglerfish, Brain coral, Clownfish, and Humpback Whale. Are you suggesting we replicate information from other pages into a grand page that covers all species of ocean animals? That would GREATLY exceed the preferred maximum size for Wikipedia articles. --Durin 22:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• If I already knew about Anglerfish I could go straight there. I think I am suggesting something like what Barno describes. Kappa 23:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• I'm guessing Kappa means the sealife-by-classification-and-geography proposal, not the first thing I described in this thread. (grinning) Barno 00:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• The suggestion for a new article describing the range of oceangoing life forms has already been done. See Category:Aquatic organisms. This article, were we to follow suggestions as above, would merely be a replicate of the category article I referenced here. At best, if we keep this article, it should be a redirect to that category page. --Durin 03:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Move to project page.--Duk 16:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but add a stub tag.
• Move to a project page and encourage class to merge to real articles where and when applicable. I applaud the teacher for being bold and starting this project. We can always use future, good contributors who know how to cite sources for verifiability. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:38, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Lauren Ashley Wolfe

Delete: Apparent vanity. --Durin 04:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If there were a level below non-notable, this would be a level below that. Harro5 04:50, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Norvy 04:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Sjakkalle 10:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Almost no one (myself included) born after 1970 is notable (yet). - Etacar11 16:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, v, "Among Lauren's many interests are cake baking, reading Us Weekly, and watching The O.C.." She's 22 and writes (or tells a friend who writes) in WP that, as the most notable thing in your life between being born into a rich family and the things she plans to do in the future? I don't care how rich the Hallmark dynasty is, I won't date her. Nor her friend Mareth Collins-Wooley, who "considers herself a long lost member of the Kennedy family, Ted Kennedy more specifically", and is also listed for deletion. Barno 23:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If being an intern on Capitol Hill makes one notable I want to know where my article is. Jacob1207 23:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:39, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Mareth Collins-Wooley

Delete: Apparent vanity. --Durin 04:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. Norvy 05:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Prank, buddy page (n.b. the reference to the future president, another buddy page). Ugly waste of our time and resources. Geogre 11:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, just like her friend. - Etacar11 16:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Lauren. Barno 23:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Jacob1207 23:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

Simon F Baarbé

The result was 'Delete'. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 12:53, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Suzanne Rowntree

Not notable. DJ Clayworth 05:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nateji77 06:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. the wub (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Today I learned something new: Suzanne Rowntree has 4 brothers and sisters. We're not a genealogy wiki, so delete. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:57, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 04:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 12:53, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Matthew_Heroux

Delete Although it's a nice tribute, I don't see why this is notable enough to include. Xcali 05:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 06:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Eixo 08:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 04:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep as merge. Rossami (talk) 22:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A-Wing Slash

Plenty of things in the Star Wars universe are notable, but a battle maneuver? Firebug 05:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• There aren't that many real battle maneuvers that deserve an encyclopedia article, and they're even less notable in fiction. Delete as microtrivial fancruft. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:52, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I would think even most obsessive Star Wars fans would find this too trivial. Average Earthman 09:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to A-Wing to discourage re-creation, no need to merge as info is already in that article. -- Lochaber 10:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with A-Wing. Sjakkalle 11:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with A-Wing. Internodeuser 13:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with A-Wing. Why not delete? This particular maneuver is important to the plot of several books, first to establish competence of one character, and it is then used to identify that same character in another book. That said, it really isn't worth its own article -- Scimitar
  • Comment I've expanded it. I still don't think it's notable enough for its own article. Scimitar
• Delete -- trivial fancruft. - Longhair | Talk 16:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with A-Wing -- it's a slightly significant plot point, but only in the scene it's used in. It's kind of an interesting maneuver, but I agree with those who call it trivial fancruft, thus the merge vote as opposed to delete. Haikupoet 19:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (some of) the expanded bit into A-Wing per WP:FICT, significance (within the fictional milieu) better established. Still fiction trivia, but canon, and not completely irrelevant. Barno 23:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jacob1207 23:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with A-Wing -- I actually thought this would be another topic all together. -Acjelen 23:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with A-Wing. I can do it right now if everybody wants me to?--Kross 01:49, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with A-Wing. JamesBurns 10:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I've already added the info about the A-Wing Slash to the article about the A-Wing. It seems like Merge was going to be the end result anyways. Figured I should just take care of one part and wait to do the other. --Kross 10:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I count 7 clear "delete" votes, 1 "keep" vote (one very new user discounted) and 4 "keep as merge" votes (one probable troll discounted). Reviewing the article, I conclude that the content was in fact a fork from Islamophobia and find nothing that is appropriate to merge back. I also note that the article is an orphan.

On the principle that we should discourage the creation of forked articles that have the intent of pushing a particular point of view, I am going to exercise my discretion on this one and call it as a delete. Rossami (talk) 22:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Islamophobia and Islamism

POV fork. Firebug 05:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or else merge back into criticisms section of Islamophobia,Islamofascism,Islamism. I think this article is good starting point for documenting how charges of "Islamophobia" get bandied about by Islamists, similar to charges of antisemetism by some Zionists. Klonimus 05:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. User has created an awkward title just to push his POV. The issue - both sides of it - is covered well by Islamophobia. Eixo 08:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The article makes a good case for the right of free speech versus the effort to suppress it by association with racism.--Artoner 12:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • This is Artoner's first edit. Anyway, it's not the function of articles to "make a good case" for political propositions; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Firebug 13:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Islamophobia. Why do we need 2? Internodeuser 13:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• merge seems ok to me Yuckfoo 17:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Internodeuser. — RJH 19:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No need to merge any of this content. The issue is already covered in a reasonably NPOV fashion in Islamophobia. Leithp 20:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Internodeuser. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not another one. - Mustafaa 03:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Leithp carmeld1 01:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete duplicate content. JamesBurns 10:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Islamophobia --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:58, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge --Aesed 02:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was remove content and redirect to Western world. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Western civilzation

Procedural nomination. This article had been listed for VfD earlier, when I speedied it as nonsense. The deletion was disputed. I have agreed to undelete and allow it a chance on VfD. SWAdair | Talk 02:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The correctly spelled versions of this title redirect to Western world. This article is nonsense. SWAdair | Talk 05:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, patent nonsense and/or original research. (Yes, something can be both!) --Angr/_comhrá 06:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or misspelling redirect. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Megan1967 06:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No reason not to speedy. Eixo 07:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with the earlier decision to speedy as nonsense.-gadfium 08:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, OR, should be speedy. Borb 10:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and fully support speedy as nonsense and vandalism... it was created by a user who added many nonsense articles last week under several different usernames. I'm pretty sure I speedied another version of this article then, too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:34, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• I'll second that speedy - patent nonsense by vandal--Doc (t) 12:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite Article itself is all over the place, but the phrase "Western Civilization" is well used, often to describe the alternative to "3rd world countries". It should be written in that context. Is it worth editing it to make it worth looking at? Internodeuser 13:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • fine but look again at the title --Doc (t) 13:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Say what? I looked at the article and it looks like utter patent nonsense. Speedy delete. Hermione1980 18:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — apparently a big load of dingo's kidneys — RJH 19:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speedy Delete was the proper action. Recreate as a redirect to Western world. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:34, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under general criterion #1: patent nonsense. --Carnildo 19:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect at this misspelling. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite or Redirect to Western World. Falphin 22:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 00:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Patent nonsense. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. Possibly recreate as a redirect to Western world. - Mike Rosoft 11:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It sounds like something Douglas Adams would write. 69.205.224.242 12:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gregory Kleciak

Vanity. "Gregory Kleciak" only gets one Google hit -- us. "Greg Kleciak" gets two hits -- non-notable ones (and his home page at http://wholenote.com/member/profile/profile.asp?i=25255 is empty). "Lame Ass Productions" gets 7 hits. No entry at imdb under Gregory or Greg. RickK 06:12, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Extremely likely hoax/joke/prank. Not notable, one could say. Geogre 11:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - DS1953 00:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 04:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. User: OBloom4378 I saw this guy in Guys and Dolls and he was great; keep him!
• Do Not Delete. User:RRichards5678 Keep him, this guys sweet. They're indie films so they don't appear on imdb.
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Xcali 01:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Phantori

Vanity Wolf530 06:16, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: DJ Vanity and advertising. A more straightforward press kit release than most of these things, so the deletion grounds is more advertising than anything. Geogre 11:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Etacar11 16:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 04:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Redirect to crucifixion since the content is already in that article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Patibulum

Has been moved to Wiktionary already. Wolf530 06:23, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, dictionary definition, already in wiktionary. Megan1967 06:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to crucifix or keep. Kappa 08:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Simple Redirect to crucifixion, where this information is already present. Uncle G 11:34, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Redirect - agree, no independent article required here --Doc (t) 12:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's already in wiktionary. JamesBurns 10:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:46, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Sea train

Falls closest into the category of original research. But also unverifiable and not noteworthy, considering it's still an "idea" that clearly doesn't have any actual backing, plans, or really any information on what it actually is. Wolf530 06:23, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless an external source can be presented. There seems to be a band [4] by that name. Eixo 07:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Until it exists, this can only be "it's an idea." Ideas are fine, but until they have an effect on other ideas or the world, they're not encyclopedic. No one writes an article on X-ray lasers for their own sake, but because they're existing and the subject of great debate. Also, the article contains very little information. Geogre 11:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jacob1207 23:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 21:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Azzelarabe Taleb-Bendiab

Vanity. Wolf530 06:23, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No proof of notability. Eixo 07:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• No vote I think University Professors are inherently notable, but I understand that isn't the consensus view. Scimitar
  • Nope, sorry. WP:BIO is the relevant consensual guideline. Delete as such. Radiant_* 08:49, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not appear to pass the "Average Professor Test" --Carnildo 19:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. He is in no way notable. Jacob1207 23:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No proof of notability. carmeld1 01:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle 13:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

People Like Us (musician)

Feel free to prove me wrong, but this seems like a vanity page. Are they notable? Wolf530 06:22, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. She has a listing at allmusic.com. People Like Us has released three albums. Seems notable to me. Megan1967 07:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable musician see [5]. I will have a go at cleaning this up myself. Capitalistroadster 23:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleaned up article although still needs a bit more work. Notable musician and/or modern artist. Capitalistroadster 10:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Capitalistroadster scores another VfD cleanup and save. Soundguy99 15:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 21:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DMRevolution

Advertising, non-notable multi-level marketing company. Article creator Mrcolj (talk · contribs) has linked to his "profile" page instead of the main page not only on this page, but also on Multi-level marketing and List of network marketing companies. Google shows that this person is supposedly the VP of the company. The company name itself returns 128 pages. Claims to be a matrix scheme, not a pyramid scheme. —Markaci 2005-05-24 T 06:35 Z

• Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 07:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising and misuse of our services (and we'd have to know what the postmaster general says about it to verify that it's not a pyramid scheme). Geogre 11:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unimpressive Alexa rank of 349,835 Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I should point out that, simply because this organization is obscure, un-noteworthy, etc, should NOT be grounds for deletion. The Wikipedia is a lifesaver for finding information on such topics. However, the content of the article, IMHO, reeks of self-promotion. Were this an article on a general subject, I would say the neutrality is in dispute. However, since it is a commercial organization, and the article is self-serving, I would recommend deletion.Markarian

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 to List of minor Star Wars characters CDC (talk) 21:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keyan Farlander

5-word substub (one misspelled) for Star Warscruft minor character. RickK 07:14, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Star Wars things will pop up everywhere as the movie is shown. Harro5 08:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. Fancruft to be sure, but there are many millions of Star Wars fans who might be interested in this article, even if it is about a minor character. I would have voted a flat out merge if I could find an article to merge this with. If someone cares to merge all the minor characters together to List of minor Star Wars characters I would be all for it. Sjakkalle 08:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow, we apparently do have that article... a straight merge from me then! Sjakkalle 08:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge / redirect to List of minor Star Wars characters as per WP:FICT. -- Lochaber 10:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as above. Nickptar 15:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• merge and redirect please Yuckfoo 17:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since/if not in movie(s). Merge/redir second choice. Niteowlneils 23:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think being in the movies makes a character more notable than a non-movie character. By that logic, R3-A2 would be included, but Mara Jade would stay out.-LtNOWIS 20:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with merge and redirect per WP:FICT. Barno 23:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• thefourdotelipsis Sorry, expanded. Is quite a major Star Wars EU charachter. more history than some charachters found in the films. but merge it with the minor charachters list if you must

• Merge Changed my mind, there are people on the List of minor Star Wars characters with a lot more background than Farlander. Farlander does have a larger role in in the Star Wars Expanded Universe (as well as possibly appearing in the original trilogy Battle of Yavin). I could see this article being expanded with more info from his role in the Star Wars books etc...--Fxer 16:41, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Where to merge Keyan seems to be a bit confusing, he is a rebel (List of minor Rebel characters in Star Wars), but also eventually a Jedi (List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters) or perhaps he just goes with the other characters that can't be categorized (List of minor Star Wars characters)--Fxer 17:28, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • He could be in one and the other could contain a link to his entry. Or one could talk about his role as a Rebel and the other about him as a Jedi. Nickptar 20:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Nickptar. Merge into the minor Jedi characters list and put a link in the other to it. --M412k 02:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of minor Star Wars characters. JamesBurns 10:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, reasons stated. Just FYI, I got 751 Google hits. The first 2 were from Wikipedia, but most of the next 20 are definitely valid.-LtNOWIS 20:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. 161.55.168.90 21:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: Because this discussion was closed by anon, the deletion log says that this article was in fact deleted at 21:23, 9 Jun 2005 by Cdc (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Monssfisch). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Monssfisch

Is it a joke or not? Is it notable or not? I don't know, but it sure looks shady. Eixo 07:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 08:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Joke band vanity. Geogre 11:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 21:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grote-Trek

I'm sorry Swedish Chef, but there's already an article on this; it's South Africa's Great Trek. Eixo 07:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Well that would make this a redirect then (rather than the current few words not in English). Average Earthman 09:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't know about a redirect, as only .se users would need it (or is this Swedish?). I can't see this being a popular misspelling in en. Geogre 11:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought 'grote' was a Dutch word as well - sticking 'grote' in Google produces a lot of .nl websites. Not being able to speak Dutch, I wouldn't know if this means something completely different to 'Great' of course... Average Earthman 16:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
    • ... or indeed whether Afrikaans would use a different spelling. Average Earthman 16:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Yep, "Groot" (and derivations "grote" etc) simply means "big". "Trek", interestingly enough, means either "pull" or "hunger", making this a rather silly bilingual contamination. Delete. Radiant_* 08:50, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Are English speakers likely to run across this name in advertising or newspaper articles? I lack this information, so if so, then redirect, otherwise delete. Barno 23:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• How about speedy delete? No context, no content. Quale 07:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. CDC (talk) 21:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Belongingness

If anyone can make sense of this article, please explain it to the rest of us. -- Beland 07:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but rewrite. It's part of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Eixo 07:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Based on Eixo's post, keep. Might I add, the fact that he has a theory on "belongingness" says very little of Maslow. Harro5 08:27, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Maslow's theory is based on a pyramid-shape hierarchy of human emotions - belongingness is on the third level and exists only when physiological and safety needs are met. Megan1967 08:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Belonging and expand both. AFAIK "Belongingness" isn't a word. Internodeuser 13:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur, mergingness. Radiant_* 08:51, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with belonging. Capitalistroadster 23:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Parent article cited by Eixo uses the term "Love/belonging needs" here, not "Belongingness". This article reads like it was generated by the research-paper-writing bot that was described on Slashdot. Author was anon 129.11.76.215 . Delete, no need to redirect this non-word. Barno's Theory is that any sound or unsound idea can be portrayed as a pyramid shape. Barno 23:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• It might not be in the Wikipedia article, but Maslow used it plenty: [6]. It's not our task here to decide on the soundness of Maslow's ideas, only their notability. Eixo 06:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete but without prejudice if someone wants to move the content to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 03:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of East African given names

I don't understand what the consensus supposedly is on names, since I see no consensus on the discussion of it, but it's been closed as having reached consensus. But this is not an encyclopedia article. RickK 07:45, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• That has been explained on its talk page. Bear in mind that it is a discussion, not a vote, and that virtually all people in the discussion agree. Radiant_* 13:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is NOWHERE near long enough or useful enough to stay. Harro5 08:25, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 08:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Look at all of those list redlinks at List of given names by language! And note the contradiction between the article title and the category name. Here's how to contribute to Wiktionary's list of given names:
  • Add a redlink to the appropriate index page of Wiktionary:Wiktionary Appendix:First names.
  • If you can supply the (attested) meaning, etymology, or pronunciation, create the article. Aim to be on a par with Wiktionary:James. Otherwise just leave the redlink red.
• Uncle G 12:09, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Uncle G's reasoning. Radiant_* 13:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - sorry. Changed my mind. Look at List of Slavic given names and List of Vietnamese given names. Quite useful. If they are prepared to do all of that, then it's encyclopaedic and worthy. Internodeuser 13:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, the old "If someone wrote a lot of text, it's encyclopaedic." contention. You might care to take a look at Talk:List of Vietnamese given names before getting too enthusiastic. Uncle G 14:11, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Delete, nonencyclopedic list. At least Vietnamese and Slavic are linguistic entities; there are four different language families in East Africa (five if you count Madagascar as part of East Africa). --Angr/_comhrá 06:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non encyclopaedic. JamesBurns 10:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, at least as disambiguation page for different languages. Grue 12:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, because of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Japanese given names... this just is a poor attempt to recreate something useful like that... if that verdict is changed then I may decide to change my vote, but I see no reason to specifically pick on this article just because it's the wilted brother of the Japanese page. gren 04:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 13:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Gray and Erin Grooms

User:Harro5 nominated the Gray article for speedy deletion. I disagree, even though the article is woefully stubby, Gossamer is a notable band with a large article. I think keep, merge or redirect but not delete. Sjakkalle 08:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Having seen the band page, merge. Same goes for Erin Grooms, and so I have added his page to this VfD. Harro5 08:23, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and unlink the names. This is what we get when band articles have every member of the band wikilinked. We end up with valid speedy delete articles that say "X plays Y for band Q." Nothing is learned at all from such a link, and the person does not need an article, as he or she is known only for being in the band. If one of these persons has a solo career or does stuff outside of the band that is notable, then she or he should be discussed in an article. Otherwise, mention in the band article is sufficient. Geogre 11:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep with a stub tag. If the band page is that long, then there must be a decent amount to say about each member too. Internodeuser 12:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (or Merge/redir the tiny bit that's therer). Band article has plenty of room for personnel info. Niteowlneils 21:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Either delete outright or merge/redirect (if there's anything useful that isn't already in the band's article). Joyous 23:35, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Xltronic

Advertising. Website 942,551 on Alexa. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 09:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 09:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. I didn't nowiki the article, but that would be procedure for articles on VfD. Geogre 11:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Referencing as your sole reference a web page that is "under construction" indicates that we are not yet ready for a wiki article. Wait until the web page gets finished, or until there's actually something worth saying. Internodeuser 12:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete. notable musical contribution and extensive database of release information in forum section

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. The community was ultimately unable to verify the alleged content. Rossami (talk) 03:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pathological Schizophrenia

• Unverifiable, original research, idiosyncratic, and unhelpful. Delete with extreme prejudice. -- The Anome 10:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • The author has now given a cite two cites. Unfortunately, it does they do not say what they think it means they mean. Yes, you can couple the words "pathological" and "schizophrenia" together. No, it does not imply "fake schizophrenia", as this article implies. -- The Anome 10:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

It is a condition well known to Psychologists. I noticed that you did't have an entry for it so I added one. Please feel free to edit it. Perhaps you'd prefer the term psychological schizophrenia? They mean the same thing. 203.26.206.129 10:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's break it down into short statements. Schizophrenia is a pathology. So the statement "pathological schizophrenia" is meaningful. Water is wet. So the statement "wet water" is meaningful. However, both statements are redundant, and the word "pathological" is being used merely as an intensifier. That's why you only find 23 mentions of "pathological schizophrenia" on Google, compared to 7,320,000 for "schizophrenia".

And over 10,000 for "psychological schizophrenia"... It seems like that usage is more common than pathological. 203.26.206.129 11:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

No, that's 821 when you look for the phrase, rather than the words: try using quotes. -- The Anome 12:31, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

And 10,000 if you try "pathological" AND "schizophrenia" and then look for relevant articles about pathological schizophrenia. I linked a few of them on the page. Internodeuser 13:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the psychological-only explanation of schizophrenia is also a busted flush: try Googling for it, and you find mainly accidental conjunctions of words, and articles explaining that it is a dead theory, like the miasma theory of disease. -- The Anome 10:55, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Pathological also means psychological. Pathological doesn't just mean science. I will see if I can find more references for you, since you're so upset about it. 203.26.206.129 11:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete never heard of the term. Fake schizophrenia would be an alternative though I have very strong doubts about verifiability and encyclopedic value of the alternative. psychological schizofrenia would be another alternative but I think that user:Anome is right that this is an obsolete/dead/abandoned theory and this should be stated clearly in the article. Or may be Hypochondric schizophrenia? I do not oppose to the latter if this is notable and verifiable. 11:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between it and "fake schizophrenia". Fake schizophrenia is when you don't have it. Pathological schizophrenia is when you have all of the symptoms and for all intensive purposes are schizophrenic - but with no medical symptoms. There's a difference. 203.26.206.129 11:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Such as? How do you diagnose "pathological schizophrenia", then, if its symptoms are identical to those of 'real' schizophrenia? Your cites so far have not been enlightening on this point. The actual literature on malingering and schizophrenia [7] seems to show that instruments such as the MMPI are pretty good at weeding out malingerers. -- The Anome 11:29, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • How do you diagnose it? Well, you may not be aware of this, but there is a medical way to diagnose schizophrenia, which is through analysis of spinal fluid. This is the only certain way of diagnosing schizophrenia. Pathological schizophrenia fails this test. Pretty simple really. Its pretty rare that pathological schizophrenia can't be cured through therapy, and the only examples when it can't is when it is attached to a mental illness with chemical roots, such as depression. Hope that that explains it. 203.26.206.129 11:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Fascinating. I must have missed the bit about needing to take a spinal tap in the DSM-IV. Do you mind giving me a cite? Please, don't dig yourself in any deeper. -- The Anome 11:40, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well I had to get one when they tested me for schizophrenia. I failed that, so they said I wasn't. Was pretty simple. Would take too long to look it up though. I'll leave it for someone else to do. I'm not quite sure of the correct methods that they do.
      • Comment. A lumbar puncture isn't used to diagnose schizophrenia. It is used to rule out certain other disorders (particularly infections like neurosyphilis) which may generate similar symptoms. Though there is some evidence to suggest certain neurotransmitter metabolites may be measured in cerebrospinal fluid drawn by lumbar puncture, such measurements are unreliable and not used in clinical diagnosis. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 21:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • Oh and you should look up Lumbar_puncture rather than spinal tap. They mean the same thing. I will change my wording in this page to match that of Wikipedia. 203.26.206.129 11:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
        • The formal medical term is indeed "lumbar puncture", and that's what we should use in articles. Spinal tap is medical slang; for example, a "champagne tap" is one so expertly perfomed that the junior doctor gets bought a bottle of champagne by their consultant. -- The Anome 12:18, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Look, in the spirit of nicey-nicey week, here's a ref to Factitious disorder with psychological schizophrenia symptoms. [8] Unfortunately, the only reference to it on the entire Web is a single page referring to the Morrison, Doe and Decker case. -- The Anome 12:35, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I've already read that page, so don't worry. lol. There's a lot of personal reasons why I know that this is a real condition. A real lot. Internodeuser 12:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 13:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article appears to be almost entirely bogus. The listed cites don't use the term "pathalogical schizophrenia". Quale 18:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — (Quale: It's "pathological", not "pathalogical".) There appears to be some legitimate work on this supposed disorder, so I think the page needs facts-checking, not deletion. Possibly also needs some clarification to distinguish it from certain pathological symptoms of schizophrenia. — RJH 18:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm blushing about the typo. First cite has a single mention of pathological schizophrenia but with no apparent connection with this article. The other cites don't mention it at all. Where is the legitimate work you are talking about? This article most definitely needs deletion. Quale 20:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The author says that it is a condition well known to Psychologists, but the term is certainly not general knowledge in abnormal psychology. Also, as Quale noted, the text is not really based on the referenced material. This looks like original research (at best) to me. Sietse 19:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be original research. --Carnildo 19:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; original research. The references in the article don't actually refer to pathological schizophrenia, except for the single self-identified personal account. At best, this article would seem to describe misdiagnosis with schizophrenia—psychologists, like other doctors, do make mistakes. Misdiagnosis and controversies about the nature and cause of schizophrenia are already covered in that article.--TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 21:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)]
  • Actually, they do all reference it. Try a google search if you dispute it. Its legitimate. 203.26.206.129 08:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I must disagree. The phrases "pathological schizophrenia" or "pathologic schizophrenia" do not appear in the last six of eight links. The first link uses "pathological schizophrenia" to refer to schizophrenia, full stop. The second link is a web page by someone who has self-identified with the disorder, but doesn't carry a clinical diagnosis of the purported syndrome. A Google search for "pathological schizophrenia" returns only 23 hits, many of which are referring to classic schizophrenia or to entirely unrelated topics. PubMed doesn't return any results for "pathological schizophrenia". I'm afraid this article still looks to be unsubstantiated original research. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 12:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I also checked a few additional sources: the term is not mentioned in two general textbooks on abnormal psychology and produces no relevant hits in a full text database which includes issues of most major journals in the social sciences for the past ten years. Sietse 12:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOR. Radiant_* 08:52, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I have never seen this condition listed in any psychological or psychiatric diagnostic system, and some of it is plainly false or incoherent - i.e. "Pathological schizophrenia can be described as the result when a person is diagnosed with schizophrenia through means such as the MMDI personality tests, but when medical tests such as lumbar_puncture finds that a person does not have schizophrenia" - schizophrenia is never diagnosed by either of these two methods. - Vaughan 13:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteI don't think this is in the DSM. At best, it should probably merge into schizophrenia. Xcali 23:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Unless someone can give me a good reason not to, I will be moving the personal attacks and discussion to the talk page for this VfD. I have no vote at this time while I research this topic.--Tznkai 13:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I will wait until 15:00 UTC for an objection before wiping the personal attacks and replies to talk page.--Tznkai 14:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Done--Tznkai 16:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• REDIRECT to Disassociative identity disorder. I think that that talks about the same thing. 203.26.206.129 14:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep US Socail Secuirty Document This term is used in atleast one offical document, even if described as Factitious. Reflag as ActiveDiscuss or other dispute tag--Tznkai 14:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The link above has an extra http:// in it; I believe the corrected link is here. It describes, as a potential mental disability, "Factitious disorder with psychological Schizophrenia symptoms". This is just a catch-all term for disorders with symptoms similar to schizophrenia. This isn't a false diagnosis of schizophrenia (the topic of the article we're discussing here) this is a correct diagnosis (or rather a description) of something that looks like schizophrenia but isn't. It covers patients with mental disorders or infectious diseases (like neurosyphilis) having schizophrenia-like symptoms. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 15:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • My vote stands, again I believe this should be tagged as disputed, not for deletion. The term has been used, and much of the conention here is on the CONTENT of the article as POV or unsupported. This is a dispute, not a deletion issue. I'd flag and contest it myself, but deletion should not be used as a tool to get rid of things that people might want to learn about.--Tznkai 16:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with all those above who have posted references to medical databases. I would like to add that currently the article redirects to Dissociative identity disorder, which states quite clearly at the top that DID is not schizophrenia. --bainer (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Eep. I'm getting slopy already. Page restored. However, I do note that all edits other than the addition of a VFD and my revert were made 203.26.206.129, presumably the author. If the author wishes to remove the article, he or she should speak up and save us all some trouble.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 01:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Howard Lieberman

Does not appear to be notable, judging from the article, his website, and a Google search. Sietse 10:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Personal biography, looks like a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. Average Earthman 11:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, they already have their own web page, that's where it belongs. Probably written by Howard Lieberman themselves. Internodeuser 13:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think the article is actually written by his son (see initials 'SL'), but if notability can be shown (accomplishments, not family tree), I will change my vote. -- Scimitar
• Delete unless notability can be established. --NormanEinstein 16:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. - Etacar11 16:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Belongs to a geneology site, not WP. Xcali 23:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is STevan Lieberman and yes I started this page about my dad. But I think he's phenomenal. I guess I'm prejudiced, but what makes some one noteable? He worked hard, rose to the top of his field as a neurosurgeon, has writtne thousands of poems, a number of plays and is learning to make pottery and has been a good human being along the way. I will of course abide by all of your decisions, but please do me a favor and read a couple of his poems before voting. THanks for your consideration. Stevan Lieberman

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was was keep. Reasoning: There is no consensus to delete. The question is whether to keep or merge. Since the article now actually consists of two sections one about Discworld another about Maskerade, unrelated to each other, I am calling this an outright keep for the moment. This does not mean that it cannot be merged later if somebody wants to do some rework, splitting this article into two pieces and merging both of them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

La Triviata

AFAIK this is some sort of TV show that will be published in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so delete. — JIP | Talk 12:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

FYI, it's also the name of a fictional opera in a Discworld novel. The name is a tweak of La Traviata. --Papeschr 13:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I've just edited the article. Added a note about the Discworld novel, and minimised the crystal-ball-ness. It's now a slightly informative stub, so KEEP. --Papeschr 13:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and link to Discworld, add stub tag and expand. Internodeuser 13:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Maskerade, the aforementioned Discworld novel. A TV show that hasn't yet been aired doesn't need an article. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 21:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Vegaswikian 05:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Maskerade. Vashti 08:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• It's a TV show in production by the guys behind Spaced and Shaun of the dead, due to be broadcast late this summer. Absolutely nothing to do with Maskerade or any other Pratchett books. For more info see [9]. Strong keep. Proto 12:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. At best, it should be dabbed to both pages. Vashti 12:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The crystal ball argument is to prevent pages being created about events that may or could happen in years to come, not pages about events that will happen (production is already underway, and the pilot is finished) ... by that argument the article on Star Wars Episode III shouldn't have been there until May 19th. Proto 13:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment, indeed, there shouldn't have been an article on the film until this month. An article on the rumors is one thing, but encyclopedias must be conservative in their coverage, and things must be verified. At this point, you could say one or another thing about a plan or about a production of a show, but there is no show until it is shown. When talking about plans and productions, we cross to making cultural announcements, and Wikipedia is not an advertising or announcement site. Geogre 15:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Maskerade. JamesBurns 10:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep you don't need a crystal ball to verify that information. (should I make it a template?) Grue 12:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gamaliel 13:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Sjakkalle 11:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Cannibal_Women_in_the_Avocado_Jungle_of_Death

Nonsense article. No relevance except to a tiny group having fun griff 12:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Reference [10], [11], [12]. Add a stub flag and wikifi. Internodeuser 13:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a real movie. 23skidoo 13:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• I've completely rewritten--the text here before was completely incomprehensible. Keep--very notable cult classic movie. Meelar (talk) 13:49, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep. While I can't quite expect everyone to have heard of it, it's definitely notable. It starred Bill Maher and Adrienne Barbeau, and was written (and directed) by the same writer as the blockbuster hit Pretty Woman. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable film. - Longhair | Talk 16:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep never seen it, but heard of it for years. - Etacar11 16:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• The writing in the original article [13] appears to be some trite written by a small group about themselves. Though I admit I'd never heard of the real film and I should have checked this. But the title did sound a bit out-there. - griff 20:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, real movie. RickK 19:46, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as real movie with cult status. Capitalistroadster 23:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Adrienne Barbeau. Rewrite is good for this cult classic movie. Barno 23:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, thanks for the re-write Meelar! -- Lochaber 11:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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