Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 10

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
< May 9 May 11 >

May 10 edit

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 23:16, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Jeffrey W. Parker edit

Non-notable family-heavy bio of User:Tparker393's pa; principal author is User:Rad Racer, claimed by User:205.217.105.2 (accused sock of the blocked User:Iasson) as a sock of himself; other two edits are by User:159.169.57.3 and subject's son User:Tparker393, who claims to have authored one of 159's contribs (and is at this moment blocked as a vandal, for trying to hide info on a troubled VfD page about their relationship. Creation may be means of establishing background for sock that is inconsistent with sock-master's background, or just part of giving the sock a month's history (with 16 edit including VfD). (Or maybe someone is waiting for this to become another battleground.) This nomination is also a Del vote. --Jerzy~t 00:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change my vote to neutral. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:29, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. (Warning: humor attempt follows) Color me amused. Who would have thought that a Virginia Circuit Court judge was less notable than a breadbox? And to be completely fair, the article has undergone a much more than 100% improvement since Starblind's vote.)--Unfocused 21:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 02:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been asked to review the article and my vote - sorry although the article does look much better the question of notability still remains. Megan1967 06:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and remember to use the SMITE key. --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 02:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Virginia Circuit Court judge nominated VfD unsigned. Red herring of the day: His eldest son is a Wikipedian who has edited this article once while logged in. Important fact of the day: a brief Google of "Jeffrey W. Parker circuit court Fauquier County Virginia" would get you to the Fauquier County, Virginia Circuit Court page that proves this isn't a hoax. Circuit Court judges are inherently notable.--Unfocused 03:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it was unsigned when I loaded the VfD page. Now I see a big paragraph. Sorry. --Unfocused 03:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re your "Red herring" criterion, no, not just one. The Wp'ian
      • is known to have edited it once,
      • implicitly claims two one more edits, and
      • his misbehavior suggests he is another sock-puppet of the admitted puppet-master (205, mentioned above) of the contributor of all the other edits. (Or perhaps "Parker" is the real puppet-master, of whom 205 is just one more puppet.)
      There can be no presumption of the content being contributed in good faith or at arms' length.
    --Jerzy~t 08:05 & 08:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not sure that I would call state circuit court judges inherently notable. Depends on the setup of the state government - in my home state of Florida, the circuit courts are near the bottom of the pile. -- BDAbramson thimk 03:50, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  • Keep Semi-important public official and community leader. Maybe not as important as Alan de Jardin... ---Isaac R 03:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • County circuit court judges are NOT inherently notable. Absent any real sign of notability, delete. --Calton | Talk 07:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I, too, was asked to reconsider (in my opinion, spam, but whatever), and upon review am reaffirming my original vote. What was added was not evidence of noteworthiness, but legal trivia (lawcruft?) and it merely strengthens my view that this article is textbook case of vanity. --Calton | Talk 01:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN. Radiant_* 08:52, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I was asked to reconsider since the article was expanded, but I'm afraid the expansion doesn't make him any more notable, so my vote stands. Radiant_* 19:25, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. See [1]. A Circuit Court, in Virginia, has appellate jurisdiction over General District Court and Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, and also hears all felony cases for the county. It is also a court of record that sets legal precedents. A circuit court judge is probably at least as notable as a state delegate or senator. Jeff Parker is in fact the ONLY circuit court judge who sits in Fauquier County, Virginia. I cast this vote, by the way, with knowledge that votes from non-logged-in accounts may carry less weight than those logged-in accounts. As for sockpuppetry allegations related to Tparker393, I refer readers to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Formal_statement_of_User:205.217.105.2_.2F_User:24.54.208.177. Jerzy drew some reasonable conclusions about sockpuppetry, given the evidence, but he just didn't happen to be correct, and at this point I would expect him to withdraw the allegations by striking them through above. 205.217.105.2 12:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for some very useful comments. But you really should consider getting an account. Its not a lot of hassle, and would give your contributions more weight. ---Isaac R 16:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the long run it would help, but in the short run, it would probably lead to accusations of sockpuppetry due to newness of the account/small number of edits. 205.217.105.2 17:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The position of Circuit Court Judge is notable and this article does not deserve to be deleted. Parker is a former law partner of current U.S. Senator George Allen. His service to community, commitment to justice and leadership is worthy of an article about him here. Tparker393 16:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that Parker is a state trial court judge, a position which is at a relatively low level in the judicial hierarchy, as judges go in the U.S. A state trial court judge could be notable but there is no guarantee of that. For example, Wikipedia has an article about Lance Ito, but I don't think it has, or needs, articles about all the judges whose chambers are in the same courthouse as Ito's. Also, being a former law partner of a senator and presidential candidate is not inherently notable; Wikipedia has articles about Webster Hubbell and Vince Foster but not Hillary Rodham Clinton's other former law partners. I would need more evidence before I could support this article. --Metropolitan90 02:40, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This message is for Jerzy and those who are connected with him in this ignoble effort to delete an article that doesn't warrant such action. Yeah, you're right- he is my father, and I'm proud of him. He has accomplished more than someone who just sits behind his computer all day trying to incite arguments. Also, I'm not a sockpuppet, I didn't even know what that was until this morning. I often forget to login before making comments but I have nothing to hide and could care less about 'stuffing a ballot box'. Sorry if i caused any confusion. But your reckless bullying tactics that have spurred this article's vfd are nothing short of despicable. You are a terrible excuse for an admin and hopefully others will take notice- or perhaps they will be notified. Tparker393 16:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the structure of the nooks and crannies of the U.S. court system to evaluate whether a Virginia Circuit Court judge is sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia. I would remind Tparker393 that levelling threats and making personal attacks on other editors is neither persuasive, helpful, polite, nor permitted by Wikipedia policy. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appreciate that, but it's not my intention to 'level threats or make personal attacks' on anyone. I simply stated how i feel, which is what everyone has done. Don't blame me for being assertive when it comes to defending what I think is important. Tparker393 19:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not every judge is notable--there are tens of thousands of people who have served as a judge in the U.S. in one capacity or another. Has this judge worked on even one high-profile, notable case? No, there is no evidence given of that. True, he was college roommates with someone who now holds high public office, but the only way that would ever be notable would be if the judge owes his position to his friendship with the senator, which no one has so far suggested. The person who created the article has already admitted that the only reason he created it is because it's about his dad and he's proud of him. That's a nice sentiment, but it doesn't create notability. Furthermore, Tparker393's outbursts and violations of Wikipedia civility standards further damage his case through emotionalism, when he would be better off assembling and presenting independently verifiable evidence of his father's notability, if any indeed exists. --Stan 4.246.120.153 20:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Just to give an idea of proportion: The ratio of circuit court judges to citizens in Fairfax County, Virginia is one judge for 55,000 people. A similar ratio is found in Prince William County, Virginia – 5 circuit court judges for 280,000 people, or 1:56,000. Extrapolating that to a nationwide population of 300 million, that would be about 5,400 judges of comparable notability. So, Stan is right that there have been tens of thousands of judges of comparable notability in the entire history of the U.S. However, it is worth considering that the U.S. population was only 150 million as late as 1950, and was only 76 million on 1900. See [2]. So, it may not be in the high tens of thousands. And, I am not sure that anyone is contemplating writing an article about all of them. I think this is a borderline case as the article stands now. Perhaps more facts to establish notability will emerge. 24.54.208.177 01:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • LOL. Yes, by all means, let's get a grip on a sense of proportion here. According to the Fairfox County website [3], there is one dog catcher per every 41,304 county residents (950,000 divided by 23). Who wants to volunteer to write a Wikipedia article for each one of those dog catchers, mmmm? That's 23 "animal control officers" for us to research. Let's track down all of their sons and invite them to write articles about their dads or moms. Bear in mind that the animal control field requires years of study and preparation, that the officers' kids are very proud of them, and that at least some of those dog catchers must have once been friends with somebody more important than they are, perhaps even a U.S. Senator. --Stan 4.246.120.153 03:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The dog catcher analogy is poor, unless your dogcatcher authors legal opinions that are used as binding precedent to clarify and define laws and policies that you live under. My dogcatcher does no such thing, so he's not nearly as notable. How many similar articles might be written is conjecture, and conjecture is poor criteria for deciding the merit of any individual article. Compare and contrast this to all the minor candidates from obscure political parties for Congress/Parliament and Executive positions that have articles here: it seems that to run for a Legislative or Executive office and fail is more notable than to actually hold office in the Judiciary. If before I saw this VfD, I were seeking an unbiased view of the Circuit Court judges in my jurisdiction, I would have checked the official government page first, but Wikipedia for a second, NPOV opinion. --Unfocused 03:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Au contraire, the dog-catcher analogy is entirely apt. If a judge is notable because he serves 55,000 people within a certain county, then a dog catcher who serves a population of 43,000 within that same county is within the same range of notability. Furthermore, judges are liable to have their decisions overturned by higher authority. Almost always, the dog catcher has the final word. Whether we are judging judges or judging dog catchers, we must ascertain whether the individual is notable within his field. Harpo Marx, for instance, will always be more notable for playing a dog catcher in Duck Soup than Jeffrey W. Parker has ever been notable as a judge in real life. One must come to understand the essentials of notability. The Judge Parker who was the 1904 Democratic nominee for President is notable because, like Harpo playing a dog catcher, he was playing a notable role on a wide stage. According to what has been presented so far, the Judge Parker under discussion here (Jeffrey W. of Fairfax Co. VA) is very important in one small room in Virginia, but has done nothing that makes him especially notable among the 10,000+ people in US history who have been judges. Judge Parker needs to do something big, and he has only a few hours left to do it in. A high-profile case. The solution to the world's biggest crossword puzzle. A cameo on the Howard Stern Show. Something. And fast. C.W.MerchantC W Merchant 20:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hey Stan, no one asked you to research anything or write an article about it. Are you trying to mock the situation? I didn't write this article genius, did you see that or are you too busy trying to sound intelligent? Having an opinion is one thing but don't be a jerk- I'm certain that judges on any level go through more schooling and make more critical decisions than dog catchers. Geez, what an idiotic suggestion. 'Friends' with a U.S. Senator? Try former business partners. Tparker393 15:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, vanity, no evidence of independent notability beyond his office. I would change this vote if evidence of individual notability is provided. I agree with Stan, above, on all points. Barno 20:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Since I voted, descriptions of two court cases heard by this judge have been added to the article. Both cases were similar to ones heard by almost every state judge at almost every level. I saw no indication that their consequences or any surrounding controversy rose to nationwide or industry-wide significance. No change of vote, but thanks to that editor for trying to establish fact-based notability instead of repeating stuff about being proud of Dad or insulting VfD voters. Barno 18:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even all of the US federal Circuit Court judges are not notable, unless they become involved in high profile cases. We certainly don't need articles on every state judge, unless, he, too, is involved in notable cases. RickK 21:10, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, that's just empirically wrong. All U.S. Circuit Court judges are inherently notable (except maybe those who have only served for a year or two). Takes a lot to get to that position - you have to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate (and there's a lot more wrangling over these appointments than there is over regular District Court judges); and all U.S. Circuit Court judges are involved in at least some notable cases. -- BDAbramson thimk 01:49, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Delete as above - not all judges are encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By the way, anyone know if the article with the title Tparker393/Jeffrey W. Parker was intended to be in user namespace? --Tabor 22:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, a copy of it is being put there pending the results of the VFD. 24.54.208.177 01:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Mcfly85 22:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 06:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn.--Prem 03:17, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. A Circuit Court in Virginia has the "power to issue death sentences and empanel grand juries." and that's quoting Wikipedia (See Circuit court). Any judge overseeing death sentences is notable. Kingturtle 18:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I commented above, but didn't vote yet (although I disagree with Kingturtle on "any judge overseeing death sentences", as this would include brand new judges who had never done anything, but merely had the power to impose such a penalty, while not offering the same automatic inclusion to longstanding judges in states that had no such penalty. However, this judge is sufficiently notable. -- BD2412 thimkact 23:15, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable vanity page. Gmaxwell 01:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:41, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

First Baptist Church, Columbus, Indiana edit

Notability. I mean we can't include EVERY church in the world and I see nothing notable here nor can I find anything notable about it on google. --Woohookitty 00:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn. There's no need to have an article where we describe minute details of a building, unless the building is notable; but this level of detail would be too much for any building. --Idont Havaname 00:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't oppose the idea or including churches per se; but this is a terrible article and apparently has been so for some time. Reluctantly delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It might be borderline, but considering it is from a PD National Historic Landmark website, which says: "It is an outstanding representation of the work of distinguished American architect, Harry Mohr Weese (1915-1998), and generally thought to be his best work in Columbus, where he was the most prolific contributor to the body of Modern architecture that made the city famous." Seems like it's not just any church. --Dmcdevit 01:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup given its heritage significance as noted by Dmcdevit. Capitalistroadster 02:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. National Historic Landmark sites are by definition notable. --Unfocused 02:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with Unfocused, thanks to Dmcdevit for the research. JamesMLane 02:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for reasons noted above. -- BDAbramson thimk 03:51, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable chuuuch Klonimus 05:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You may not want to have an article about every church, but there is no reason why we can't. Gillian Tipson 06:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe this is a copyvio of some sort, even though the source is probably not on the web. Why else would this article have references to photographs which are not in the article? Sjakkalle 07:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So rewrite it... copyvio ≠ non-notable (often quite the opposite). Agreed, however, that it's suspicious. -- BDAbramson thimk 07:27, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
    • It was copied from a public domain source. Kappa 09:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • National Historic Landmark, and of architectural significance therefore an article is warranted. The article claims at the bottom 'US govt text, public domain'. I think I'd need to know where exactly it came from to believe that, so should be cleaned up. Most churches will not be separately significant, and are only of local importance, so would not warrant separate articles (this does not mean they warrant no mention whatsoever of course) Average Earthman 08:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For Dmcdevit's reasons. And tidy up. akaDruid 08:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dmcdevit has shown significant notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:08, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep and tidy sounds good to me Yuckfoo 17:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup, based on NHL status. (Playing hockey in a church?? No, the other NHL.) Most churches are not notable enough for separate articles but this one is. Barno 20:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Churches are not in and of themselves notable, but this is apparently a National Historical Landmark, so keep, but the article doesn't say it's a National Historical Landmark. There is nothing in the article which substantiates it as such, except the category, though it's clear from the title of www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/designations/ samples/in/1stbaptist.pdf that it is. RickK 21:13, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • We can and should have an article on every church, mosque, synagogue and temple in the world. Keep. --Centauri 02:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a ridiculous idea. Why not every building in the world? Where's the article on your house? RickK 05:11, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • All enduring physical and cultural institutions belong in Wikipedia, as do historic buildings - such as the one I happen to live in - thank you for prompting another good article idea. --Centauri 22:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just added some basic info to the top as requested on this page. Dreamingkat 04:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and cleanup. Churches, schools, city halls, stadiums, etc all have durability over time either as places or insitutions. As such they belong.
  • While I strongly object to having an article on every church, I do agree that this church is notable, so keep. Radiant_* 09:25, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep. —Stupid (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I will move it to my desk to cleanup. Linuxbeak 21:47, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I agree that WP should aspire to articles on all established places of worship. Centauri's house is probably not so important. Kappa 22:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Instutional vanity. --Gmaxwell 19:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- because it is surely more notable than some of articles on songs, movies, and music bands, some them known in their locality or to only to the creator of the article.--Bhadani 03:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - it is a national historic landmarks for crying out loud. Kingturtle 18:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:40, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Beyond life edit

Questioning:

  • Notability
  • Verifiability
  • Copyright (looks like copy+paste by no google result)

Looks like it might be spam. Joe D (t) 00:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I found one or two mentions of the movie; this one indicates that it will go into production this June. It may eventually become notable, one it's actually released; for now, I don't think there's much of a reason for the article--can it really be rewritten into something useful anytime soon, though? --Whimemsz 00:42, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, delete. --Whimemsz 20:40, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Advert. Guillotine! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heck, I can top that--Burn at the stake! Master Thief Garrett 02:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert/promo. Megan1967 02:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condemneth to Wiki-Hell!!!. -- BD2412 thimk 07:33, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert/promotional, not inherently significant. A lot of films just get made as a tax dodge these days (e.g. any Hollywood effects blockbuster that has several European locations will probably have got a large chunk of cash back already), so I suggest we wait and see if it is critically acclaimed or commercially successful before permitting an article. Average Earthman 09:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm in favour of keeping nearly any released movie, but not ones that haven't even started production yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:10, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Putting the cart before the horse, I think. --MikeJ9919 20:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, topic not yet factual. WP is not a crystal ball. Barno 20:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Mcfly85 22:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - the movie and Brian Alessandro are not even in imdb. Kingturtle 18:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:40, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Estes v. Texas edit

Doesn't look notable, but then, there's so little actual encyclopaedic info that I don't know. Joe D (t) 00:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Methinks court cases are inherently notable. That said, the article could use a HUGE rewrite. Keep, stamp on a cleanup tag. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...With some provisos, no? I mean, there are probably hundreds of Smith v. Smith divorce cases that aren't particularly unique or exciting. Supreme Court cases, though, are generally notable. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Notable US Supreme Court case relating to coverage of court cases by media. Billy Sol Estes was a former intimate of LBJ who was jailed in 1962 for fraud involving cotton allotments. He was freed after this case on the grounds that the presence of television cameras in the courts were prejudicial to his trial. Capitalistroadster 02:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep!!! The U.S. Supreme Court decides about 80-100 cases per year, and only takes them when important questions about the meaning of the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the U.S. are on the line. Admittedly, some of those are still boring (e.g. is there a constitutional interest rate for cram-down loans in a bankruptcy proceeding?) but this is not one of them. Any U.S. Supreme Court case that has been republished in a textbook as a means of teaching students the relevant law (and this one has - I've seen it!) is inherently notable. -- BDAbramson thimk 03:43, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  • Keep. JamesMLane 05:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:11, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Supreme Court case, notable for reasons outlined by BD2412. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep...I agree with the above. Supreme Court cases are inherently notable, as would be landmark appeals cases, in my mind.--MikeJ9919 20:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme keep and delist. Non-notability not established by nominator. —RaD Man (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since nomination the article has been considerably rewritten to actually include some information (note my OP wasn't actually vote so much as a question), and I wouldn't have nominated the article in its current form. Joe D (t) 23:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all supreme court decisions Sensation002 23:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reminds me of the case Concerned Inclusionists v Gang of Scruffy Deletionists. Klonimus 06:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - every United States Supreme Court case is notable. Kingturtle 18:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:38, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Jazmyne Smith edit

Article is vanity, probably autobiographical in nature. It's cute, but this eleven-year-old "future model" just isn't ready for a Wikipedia article. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pedro Sanchez 00:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crush by elephant. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crush by Llama! Master Thief Garrett 02:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One cannot be too cute to be non-notable and vain. Delete. --Idont Havaname 02:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then defragment the server and remember to empty your browser cache. --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 02:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but be nice. 11-year olds don't know any better. -- BDAbramson thimk 04:14, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity, but gently please. Let's not use "crush by x" terms about children. Sjakkalle 07:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absurd kiddy vanity, likely written by a parent. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:16, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with Wikipedia:WikiLove per BD2412 and Sjakkalle. Samaritan 12:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry kiddo.--MikeJ9919 20:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gorgeous, talented, amazing delete, vanity, topic not encyclopedic yet. Delete with wikipatience; your county District Attorney may be watching for editors using too much WikiLove around eleven-year-olds. Barno 20:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds like it's written by a stage mom who should learn how to spell "gorgeous." Ganymead 03:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - this should have been deleted immediately. Jazmyne Smith gets 16 google hits. Kingturtle 18:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 9 "delete" votes (one anonymous user discounted), 4 "keep" votes (one probable troll discounted), 1 "transwiki" and 2 "redirect". The transwiki vote also has to be discounted because it would create copyright problems. Despite it's week on VfD and a number of edits to the article, it has even less content than when it started and yet all the edits make sense. I can't find a better version to revert to. 9 to 6 is a clear majority to delete but does not reach the level of concensus necessary. The decision defaults to "keep" for now.

Because of the negligible content, I am going to exercise my authority as an ordinary editor to turn the article into a redirect. Rossami (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana edit

Article currently doesn't establish notability. Joe D (t) 00:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, someone link Eli Siegel. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google doesn't seem to say this poem is notable (165 hits). Delete, or at least redirect to Eli Siegel. --Idont Havaname 02:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, this poem is already in the Eli Siegel article. Megan1967 04:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, poem by notable poet. Kappa 04:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or put in WikiBooks if they want it. Radiant_* 08:55, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Yoda and... what, it isn't something he said? Oh, ok then, delete. Even notable poets don't need an entry for every poem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this please allow it to grow Yuckfoo 17:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup--this poem won the National Poetry Prize and was praised by William Carlos Williams. Meelar (talk) 17:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete barring a re-write. Six lines of a poem does not an encyclopedia article make. --Carnildo 19:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Carnildo. No evidence is presented in the article for the notability of these few little scratches of verse. --Stan. 4.246.120.153 20:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki...to Wikibooks or Wikisource? I'm not entirely sure where this would go, but though I think it's notable, it's not encyclopedic.--MikeJ9919 20:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't transwiki poems which are copyrighted. Don't transwiki the first six lines of any work. RickK 21:17, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Eli Siegel. Not enough content to justify a separate page, even as a stub, but assuming he's a notable poet, this seems to be a notable poem. Andrewa 20:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless somebody does an analysis of the poem. Just putting six lines in an article does not make it an eneyclopedia article. RickK 21:17, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Eli Siegel. Same reason as Andrewa --metta, The Sunborn 18:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mcfly85 22:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.--Prem 03:20, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP - i am sick of people who don't know about a topic saying something is NOT NOTABLE. this poem is VERY NOTABLE in U.S. poetry. i am also sick of articles getting nominated for VfD and then left unedited. Reminder to all of you: it is okay to copyedit and wikify items that have been nominated for VfD. By the way, if anyone has any extra time, can someone copy edit Eli Siegel? Kingturtle 18:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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; just because Foucault said it doesn't mean it's worthy of a redirect. Golbez 19:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Cipher of Peace edit

Odd, somewhat cryptic passage that explains "war is the cipher of peace", among other things. Original research, or soapbox, or just plain weird. Google only draws seven hits on the phrase "cipher of peace". --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Burn at the stake! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • d: I would have gone with {{nonsense}}. Joe D (t) 01:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems more like a candidate for speedy deletion. (M412k forgot to sign off)
  • Speedy Delete, I'd say this falls *just* under the "nonsense" category. Master Thief Garrett 02:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not at all suitable as an encyclopedia entry. --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 02:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This quote is from the 2003 documentary "NAQOYQATSI". I personally rented this film from blockfuster back in 2003 in the special interest section. Interesting movie, for a little while anyways. (66.177.178.81 did not sign off)
  • ...but not as good as Koyaanisqatsi. So war is kept at bay through peace that is not as peaceful as it seems? Who'da guessed? Either delete or redirect somewhere that this makes sense (Pax Americana, perhaps?) Grutness...wha? 08:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I recommend speedy. I definitely think this qualifies as patent nonsense. Wikipedia is not a Zen monastery, we don't deal in koans.--MikeJ9919 20:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Orwellian nonsense Stancel 00:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • REDIRECT to Michel Foucault - Cipher of peace comes from a Foucault quote: "Beneath the omissions, illusions, and lies that make us believe in the necessities of nature or the functional requirements of order, we are bound to reencounter war: it is the cipher of peace." Kingturtle 18:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Michel Foucault, although initialliy I thought this was some sort of supreme mathematics type nonsense. Klonimus 05:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jessicab 02:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 21:09, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Albany High School (moved to Albany High School, Georgia) edit

Appears to be being used as a message board/vanity site/school project. At best this page requires significant revision - at worst it is completely irrelevant. ESkog 01:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If someone feels as if the page Albany High School is a message board, it is not. No posting is allowed, and if that happens, which it hasn't than it would not be me that does it. It also is not a school project. This page is no way associated with Albany High School or the Dougherty County School System. I created it for one reason, and one reason alone; to inform anyone who cares about this school.

And futher more, I would like to add, that both the articles that ESkog has mainly contributed to, appear to be about sports arenas. I don't understand about how explaining the structures and facilities of two sporting complexes is a less "vanity site" than a page about a respected high school.

I would ask that this page not be considered for deletion because I have worked very hard on it, and I believe that it can offer useful information about Albany High. If there are any revisions or edits to this page that I could make to make a worse candidate for deletion, please let me know. Twister3328

  • After a bit of discussion and looking further, I would actually vote that this should be revised or cleaned up rather than deleted. Apologies for the needless vfd - I know that's a pet peeve of many and, as Twister points out, I am still fairly new here as well. From looking at what I might consider a "model" high school entry, I think a great deal of the article may need to be removed, such as the list of faculty or the detailed descriptions of clubs which could be listed under thousands of high schools. ESkog 02:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Weak) keep and cleanup. Alai 02:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to more appropriate name, e.g. Albany High School, Albany, Georgia, U.S.A., because there is Albany, Western Australia and numerous examples of Georgia. Admittedly, there is no Albany High School in Albany, Western Australia, but it has an "Albany Senior High School" and a "North Albany Senior High School" [4]. Peter Ellis 05:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC) ... and on the other side of Australia, in Brisbane, Queensland, there is Albany Creek State High School. Peter Ellis 05:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All schools should have an article and this one already has lots of info. Gillian Tipson 06:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Probably needs a cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless they display some encyclopedic information rather than a loooong list of staff members. Radiant_* 08:54, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into the appropriate geographical article once all the extraneous info that is suitable for their website but not an encyclopedia had been excised. Average Earthman 09:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Albany, Georgia and delete. If this was written by someone in that school, maybe s/he could form a school project to expand the town article. - Skysmith 10:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, could be worth finding a better title as per Peter Ellis. -- Lochaber 15:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move - I agree with Peter Ellis. If this article is to be kept, it needs to be moved to a more specific article title. It may be located in a larger and more politically significant Albany, but it's still ultimately just a high school, so its location does not afford this article superior right to the article name over Albany SHS in WA. Also, although the Western Australian school is named "Albany Senior High School", it is common practice in these parts to just refer to these schools as "Albany High". - Mark 15:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC) Edit: I see the page has now been moved to a more appropriate title. Keep. - Mark 16:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • extreme delete. How is this article to be maintained? All it contains is a lot of boring info on after-school clubs. yawn. Dunc|☺ 16:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it seems to be maintained ok to me Yuckfoo 17:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if all the information on this page were relevant, I see it getting out of date super-fast. Best left for the high school's own website where it can be better maintained. Kweee 18:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Remember that you can remove out-of-date and hard-to-maintain information from the article *now*. There is no need to delete the article simply because you think some of the content is inappropriate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and Merge with the appropriate geographic or school district article. --Carnildo 19:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 119-year old school. Needs its BEEFSTEW factor jacked up, but surely a school this old has had some notable alums. -- BDAbramson thimk 20:51, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
    • I've looked at Beefstew, it's utterly pointless. It dismisses many perfectly encyclopedic facts that one would expect to want to know about a school. Whether a school is ancient or new or has notable alumni is beside the point--schools are inherently verifiable and hence encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • BECAUSE THE ARTICLE, Albany High School, Georgia HAS STIRRED SUCH A "CONTROVERSY" AMONG MANY WIKIPEDIA MEMBERS (THAT SEEM TO HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO THAN LOOK FOR INNOCENT PAGES TO DELETE), I HAVE DECIDED THAT IT SHOULD BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY. IT ONLY STARTED AS A SIMPLE SCHOOL PAGE, BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS WORTH ALL OF THIS DEBATE FOR SOMETHING SO UMIMPORTANT. SO TO ALL THOSE WIKIPEDIA MEMBERS: YOU CAN BE GLAD YOU STOPPED A "WORTHLESS" PAGE FROM BEING PUBLISHED TO AN ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA THAT HAS AN ALMOST "INFINATE" AMOUNT OF SPACE, AND MAY YOU HAVE A LIFETIME OF HAPPINESS EDITING AND DELETING PAGES THAT IN NO WAY AFFECT YOU IN ANY WAY. THANK YOU. Twister3328
  • Keep. I've restored the article from its history. Please don't shout. It's rude and unnecessary. I think you should take a little break now. Ground Zero 22:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make room for extra helpings of BEEFSTEW. Hardly a "message board" as the nominator suggests, unless I'm missing something in the edit history. —RaD Man (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Albany, Georgia, and delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You have to start out with an existing article to actually try to improve it. There are many ways school articles can be valuable, but you have to let them live first in order for those improvements to occur. -- Natalinasmpf 05:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BEEFSTEW score of 3 (ACE) (This does include the dreary, out-of-focus photograph). This is probably the longest list of school trivia I've seen. Thryduulf 09:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, *yawns*. James F. (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, low beefstew. Jonathunder 12:37, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Keep. On the contrary, this article has quite a satisfactory BEEFSTEW rating of 7.5 (ABCDeFIJ) in its present form. Verifiable and notable graduates include Ambassador Edward "Skip" Gnehm, Paula Deen, and Ray Stevens. Statistically speaking, any school with a history greater than 100 years will inevitably have a number of graduates worthy of encyclopedic note. Bahn Mi 21:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mcfly85 22:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fighting the power! —TeknicTalk/Mail 03:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but maybe pare down some of the small details in the body of the article. (Disclaimer: A cousin or two of mine might actually have gone to this school.) Samaritan 06:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 07:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well above the average school article, could use some cleanup/revision ... but otherwise worth keeping.  ALKIVAR™  07:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and continue to improve. High schools should not need to establish notability, plus this school has a great deal of verifiable information on it. --BaronLarf 14:07, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Albany, Georgia, and delete. Jni05 17:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Intrigue 18:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This high school is insufficiently noteworthy. carmeld1 01:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have been through this.--Prem 03:24, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 22:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all high schools. --Unfocused 06:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the angry Inclusionist outbursts in the world aren't going to sway my Delete! This is NOT noteworthy enough I'm afraid. I cannot possibly word it better than Gamaliel did. "Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world." My sentiments exactly. I'm beginning to think we need to launch WikiSchools to stop this angry "all schools are auto-notable!" idealism once and for all. Master Thief Garrett 05:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Part of the problem here is the presumption that there is consensus that "non-notability" is sufficient grounds for deletion. Deletionists toss around "non-notable" as if it meant something. Some don't even bother with that and shorten it to "NN". Let's be clear: no such consensus exists. See Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. The school may be insiginficant to you, but that does not mean that it is insignificant to readers living in Georgia. Ground Zero 19:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, there's no consensus, but notability is often the sole reason given for a deletion vote here on Vfd, so it's become pseudo-policy. While I am definitely a mergist by nature (in that I want any and all useful tidbits to be united together, see Wikipedia:Pokeprosal), when something can't be merged in order to make it more useful than it can ever possibly hope to be in its current form... I'm at a loss and choose Delete.
Conversely, what role *exactly* will an article about this school play on Wikipedia? Will it be a fascinating and detailed article, will it cover interesting things that non-Georgians want to read... or could one use speedy methods like Search and Replace to turn it into an article about any of dozens of other similar schools?
You say the school is not very significant to me; that is true, BUT the schools in my town are also insignificant to me. Are they interesting to me? Yes, quite. Would I expect to find them in an encyclopedia? No, because the vast, vast, VAST majority called the Outside World don't give a ****. Things that seem great to you are useless to others.
That is the key, really, who are we writing Wikipedia for, the entire world or selective groups? Is it supposed to be collective consciousness or "schools and streets and clubs in townnamehere" with selective readerships for each cloister? "oh, the whole world of course!" you quickly reply. But who is interested in a school outside of their state/province/country? Probably very few, unless it's Colombine or similar.
As with my work at Wikipedia:Pokeprosal, I'd be blissfully happy if we could have things like High Schools in Georgia with subsections for each one. On their own they are entirely non-notable to all but an extremely select few (i.e., those in direct contact with them) but when put together can become an interesting look at high-school education in Georgia as a whole. THAT would be interesting. WP pages that are virtually NPOV equivalents of enrollment handouts for parents aren't.
Please understand me when I say this isn't favouritism, that even my *own* educational institutions are completely and utterly unworthy of individual articles here. It does not matter how near and dear they are to me and others, but what the outside world knows of them, or cares of them. That is not to say you shouldn't seek to learn things you don't know (as I am increasingly doing thanks to Vfds) but... yeah... pretty much all I'm saying has been voiced before on every ****ing Schoolwatch topic to date.
We have rules about notability of books, websites, bands, people, fictional characters, songs, etc., but nothing about schools. As yet anyway. Well, there's BEEFSTEW but that doesn't necessarily help and isn't "carved on a bronze plaque" yet. This Vfd should be an open-and-shut case with people assessing it based on their own opinion and the guidelines. As it is, every one of them dissolves into an "ethical" battle between "Schoolwatch fanboys" and "deletionist cronies". Now, if you'll excuse me, I have vanity pages to cull. THOSE at least don't have hangers-on... Master Thief Garrett 07:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"No, there's no consensus, but notability is often the sole reason given for a deletion vote here on Vfd, so it's become pseudo-policy." So, because deletionists throw "non-notable" around as if it meant something, then it's a pseudo-policy? That would make it, in my opinion, a pseudo-argument, i.e., not a real one. Sorry, mob-rule doesn't work here.
"the vast, vast, VAST majority called the Outside World don't give a ****. Things that seem great to you are useless to others." I can assure you that Pokemon doesn't interest me in the least. I paid some attention to it while my nieces and nephews were into it, but now that they're all over the age of 9, it is too uncool for them. But hey, if it interests you, then why not include it on Wikipedia? My area of interest is not American high schools, but minor canadian political parties and politicians. It is great that there is a space like Wikipedia for those of us with that obscure interest -- which is not just uncool for 9-year-olds, it is uncool for people of all ages -- to share information.
"Is it supposed to be collective consciousness or "schools and streets and clubs in townnamehere" with selective readerships for each cloister?" With over 500,000 articles in the English version alone, Wikipedia is not going to be a summary of the most important collected knowledge, but a vast compendium of information that its editors want to write about. Endless articles on Pokemon, or even omnibus articles as you propose, do not, in my opinion, form a part of the collective consciousness. Pokemon will be gone in 10 years or so.
BEEFSTEW "isn't "carved on a bronze plaque" yet" - I don't think you carve bronze plaques, you engrave them. (Forgive my pendantry. It is an affliction.)
"As it is, every one of them dissolves into an "ethical" battle between "Schoolwatch fanboys" and "deletionist cronies"" Right you are. I think the best solution is for each side to retreat to their own corners -- let the schoolnuts have their articles, I can go back to my obscure Canadian political stuff, and you can have yours about Pokemon and whatever else strikes your fancy. There are lots of good reasons to delete: vanity, unverifiability, original research, etc. I see no need to add the controversial and inherently POV "non-notability". Ground Zero 13:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What is gained by deleting school articles? Err on the side of keeping such articles. --Zantastik 19:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia would not be improved by the deletion of this article. ~leif ☺ (talk) 01:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • Delete Wikipedia != Triviapedia, infinite storage does not change our charter. Instutional Vanity. Gmaxwell 06:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 21:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Parade Parade edit

Questioning notability. Joe D (t) 01:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Delete. I'm no Hentai buff (if I was, would I admit it?) but I'd say there aren't enough Googles to warrant notability. Master Thief Garrett 02:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, 5,000 hits with filtering, [5], borderline inclusion. Megan1967 02:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • that's strange, that link only gives me 666 hits (*gasp* it's a sign!) whereas, say, "Tokimeki Check-in!", which we don't even *have* an article about, gets 4510. What IS the borderline, anyway? Master Thief Garrett 06:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • With this particular Hentai, it does have an imdb entry, see [6], which tips my vote towards a keep. Megan1967 06:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does one line constitute a "notable" entry ? --Simon Cursitor 08:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable, but a stub. Nestea 19:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link Megan supplied only comes up with 267 unique hits, and of those, many, many, many of them are porn sites which have nothing to do with this anime. I'm abstaining, though, because I know nothing about hentai, manga, anime, etc. RickK 21:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per RickK's search. Porn is overrepresented on the web so this is obviously below the bar. Radiant_* 09:27, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: the first hit for パレードパレード on Japanese Google is for the movie, but a casual look at the first page of results shows that many of the other hits are for unrelated topics. It's also worth noting that Japanese Wikipedia currently appears to have no article titled パレードパレード. Exploding Boy 19:42, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Japanese animes which are popular enough to get an English language release are notable. Kappa 22:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Spinboy 16:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand. Leanne 03:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - it is legit. it is also in IMDB. Kingturtle 18:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

Bummer edit

Previously listed for deletion (see old vote) with the result to transwiki. It has since been transwikied. It's just a dicdef without further potential, so delete. --Dmcdevit 01:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bummer (Delete) since already transwikied. Master Thief Garrett 02:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, already in wiktionary, dictionary definition. Megan1967 02:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn it back into a {{wi}} tag. Kappa 04:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 19:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef already transwikied, no potential for encyclopedic expansion. Bummer, dude. Barno 20:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's a bummer but it has no encyclopedic potential. Physchim62 21:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn into a Disambiguation article - a bummer can be a Bad trip, a beggar, a lazy person, a homosexual, a 1973 film called Bummer!. Kingturtle 19:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:35, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Arie edit

Just a name dicdef that's already been transwikied. Previous vfd resulted in decision to transwiki (old vote), so it should now be deleted. --Dmcdevit 01:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • d Joe D (t) 01:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, already in Wiktionary. Megan1967 02:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've added another meaning. Please reconsider. --Davion 13:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with Steinsky/Joe D. Feel free to add the additional meaning to Wiktionary's entry, though. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 19:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one is a foreign language dictdef, one is a name with no other information. RickK 21:22, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the definitions are elsewhere on wiki. Physchim62 21:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The dicdef isn't even right; arie is just the Italian plural of aria (in English, arias is the usual plural). --Angr/comhrá 06:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - it is a legitimate form of music with a history to it. this article can turn into a lengthy article involving the history of the arie, its forms, etc. Give the article a chance. Why would you accept Aria as an article and not arie? Kingturtle 19:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our article on aria lists arie as a plural form of that word— should arie just redirect to aria in that case? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 19:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:34, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Amanda McDonald edit

not notable

  • Delete - Notability not shown. Samw 01:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • d Joe D (t) 01:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appears to be vanity. ESkog 01:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - she loves her equally non-notable boyfriend. Nothing against the girl; she seems reasonable, but not notable enough for an encyclopedia. --Idont Havaname 02:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • awwww...--Delete! yeah, it's cute, but not here. Just 'cause she's homeschooled doesn't make her *that* noteworthy. Though if it does someone write an article about me too please... Master Thief Garrett 02:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vanity page. --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 02:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. Nestea 03:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obvious hoax - you can't have strong love for Christ Jesus and have a boyfriend! Boyfriends are sinful! -- BDAbramson thimk 03:47, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
    • Girlfriends are sinful. Boyfriends merely got tempted by the woman. Source: Genesis. Barno 20:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wow she keeps fish , that must make her notable! /sarcasm --TimPope 22:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or Delete — As a fellow Indiana resident, I can guarantee that no one from here could possibly be notable, so this is clearly a hoax. Stephen Compall 05:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. you all are too kind to have let this article survive this long already. Kingturtle 19:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. The page is probably about the author or a companion of the author. --SuperDude 02:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:31, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Rajan Edapallath edit

Appears to be a minor govt functionary. Article does not present any information re. notability. --Lee Hunter 01:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article fails to establish notability. Sjakkalle 07:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unless someone can find more info on Rajan Edapallath. I tried to, but found close to nothing out there. Kingturtle 19:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:32, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Exodus in Peril edit

14 Google hits; first is a Myspace page. Band vanity; clearly not notable. Delete. --Idont Havaname 02:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Purge from the land of Pedia! Master Thief Garrett 02:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious vanity. The one working link to a band member goes to someone else with the same name (an Olympic medallist) and the names given are clearly not full names. After deleting, disinfect your monitor. --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 02:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - oooh, weird irony, I wrote that Calvin Harrison article. He stays. The vanity band goes to Wiki-Hellllll!!!. -- BD2412 thimk 07:35, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

Sir Anthony Beaumont-Dark edit

136 Googles, non-notable. Master Thief Garrett 02:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. Former Tory MP and I think it is generally accepted that current or former Members of Parliament are notable enough for inclusion. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even though he never ran for provincial party leader. ---Isaac R 03:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What on earth are you talking about? This is the UK Conservatives, not Canadian (although arguably they were an English-only party for a few years...)
  • Keep despite lack of notability google hits. Kappa 04:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Totally unambiguous keep. He was quite prominent for a backbencher I think, as I've heard of him, but that was pre-google. Gillian Tipson 06:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all members of parliament. Sjakkalle 07:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, UK MP for more than one term (got the Tory backbenchers long service award, otherwise known as a knighthood), prompted the end of the halfpenny. Average Earthman 09:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all MPs from non-micronations. Meelar (talk) 15:18, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NOT paper. —RaD Man (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable, so Keep. Radiant_* 09:28, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. James F. (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All British MPs within the past few decades are inherently notable, as are all equivalent politicians from other important countries. PatGallacher 14:49, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:26, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

David Goffin edit

Gibberish like this is an embarassment to Wikipedia. Over 1000 Google hits for the name, but none seems to be both verifiable and notable. One hit co-lists the name along with Carole King as the #18 greatest songwriter of all time - but then there's no allmusic.com page for this name, which raises my suspicion meter. Also, the name comes up as a producer for some of Mark Burnett's reality shows, but I'm not sure that cuts it anyway. Delete, unless one of these two is verifiably notable. -- BDAbramson thimk 02:30, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

  • Delete. Gerry Goffin is the notable songwriter who was married to Carole King and wrote some of the classic songs of the sixties with her. The article claim that David Goffin is the songwriter who wrote "Chains" later recorded by the Beatles but our Gerry Goffin article states that the famous Goffin cowrote the song with King and Allmusic.com credits the song to Gerry Goffin/King. [7]. No evidence that David Goffin meets Wikimusic Project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 03:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. JamesMLane 03:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 04:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burn with fire! Cleanse WP of this... um... thing. Master Thief Garrett 05:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article originally said:
    David Goffin is the son of Jerry Goffin, in 1977 grabbed Chains, by The Beatles, Bee Gees, Nat King Cole, Elmore James, Big Joe Turner, Ray Campi, Hal David, Barney Williams, and Edward Eliscu. In 1977, Goffin was grabbed 2 albums, The very best of David Goffin, and Love Songs. In 1917 died from cholera.
    I would have speedied this as patent nonsense. There are recognisable names and the word order resembles English, but the article makes no sense. Attempts to clean it up since then seem to have been hampered by the editors' evident unfamiliarity with English. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense carmeld1 01:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


  • NOTE: This page is now active as a tennis player bio. I wish to nominate the current page (too) for deletion as the player in question fails WP:Notability to tennis players (has not competed in a main draw ATP Tour match, has no Challenger titles, has not played in Davis Cup, not notable for his junior play Mayumashu (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:14, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sumantra Ghoshal edit

  • delete - not noteworthy - UtherSRG 02:41, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, cleanup - referenced book indeed shows up on Amazon.com, which leads me to think the rest is verifiable. See also this page, which describes to him as the "Founding Dean of the new Indian School of Business in Hyderabad, a new venture jointly sponsored by Northwestern University and the London Business School". -- BDAbramson thimk 02:58, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  • Keep, article could do with a cleanup. Information is verifiable, because a Google search for the two authors in the article returns over 3000 hits and the name of the book cited turns up. See also http://aib.msu.edu/fellow.asp?FellowID=23 --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 03:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable professor and author. Capitalistroadster 03:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A good example of why bio pages that aren't obvious vanity should get an {{explain significance}} instead of a {{subst:vfd}} ---Isaac R 03:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly not just an average academic. Gillian Tipson 06:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even "explain significance" would have been unnecessary if the person who listed this article instead simply googled the man. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:23, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Mgbada edit

Alleged Nigerian "pidgin" (slang?) word. Author is anonymous, and doesn't even specify which of Nigeria's 500 languages uses this word. Also, it supposedly means "victim" but Google seems to indicate that Mgbada is a common first name in Africa. Perhaps it should be transwiked over to Wiktionary, but I don't think this material is worth their time. ---Isaac R 03:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, looks like someone is claiming they are a victim of the scam? The only google hits which claim this means victim are wikipedia mirrors. Megan1967 04:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge from any and all Wiki projects! ...do not transwiki unless truth can be verified. Sounds like one of those "Watch out for evil evil tourist trappers!" chain emails. And how the crap do they know EXACTLY 419 scammers use it? Are they psychic or something? Master Thief Garrett 05:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • They mean 419 scammers. Kappa 09:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this is in fact true, then it should be added to the article 419 scam. It's too insignificant to need its own article Stancel 00:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonnotable. тəzєті
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:22, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Barnard, Joshua edit

Appears to be a personal or vanity page. Emiao 05:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm curious as to what a "45" is, but chances are I really don't want to know. Seems to be created entirely for a private joke. Master Thief Garrett
  • Um, yeah, Delete. -- BDAbramson thimk 05:39, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. I thought a "45" was a yo-yo trick. Megan1967 06:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought it was a record? Delete. Radiant_* 08:54, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • 15 years old? I'm betting it's a skateboard trick. Delete. Soundguy99 02:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - we really should change the policy so that such pages can be speedily deleted. Kingturtle 19:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Copyvio and delete. Golbez 19:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Home Business edit

How-to —Wahoofive (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:21, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Soc.history.what-if edit

Copy of a newsgroup FAQ list. Delete as unencyclopedic textdump. Newsgroup in question does not seem more notable than the average Usenet group. jni 07:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subject (alternative history) is quite notable, however. Not-sure if W-paedia is place for FAQ list, however. --Simon Cursitor 08:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nice newgroups, but not encyclopedic. Martg76 08:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "members of the non-existent cable". Keep - ah, now I get it (should've explained it that way in the first place). -- BD 08:49, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  • Delete - prominent newsgroup but even if it would require an article, this FAQ is not it - Skysmith 10:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a general knowlege base. --Carnildo 19:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE. SHWI is a useful newsgroup, and the new article actually gives accurate information about the forum. I'm still a little unsure of how all this works, but I orginally made the mistake of putting up the FAQ, but have now fixed it and written a short encyclopedic entry to it. SHWI is an interesting group that reminds me in a lot of ways of pre-WWI Vienna coffee houses. We've had lots of interesting folks from Profs to assistant govenors of islands discussing on our group. I think it is a very important part of alternate history, and that anyone interested in that subject would gain something by knowledge about SHWI. -anon
  • I'm a sometime contributor to shw-i, but it isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Delete. RickK 23:16, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A notable newsgroup. We have articles on other newsgroups such as alt.atheism. The language needs to be improved and there is a lot more information that should be added, but it could be a good article. Academic Challenger 03:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the original article is obviously VfD, the current article shows evidence of encyclopedic potential, and the subject of the newsgroup itself is noteworthy. I'd suggest people voting delete check back daily as the article is in flux. Fifelfoo 03:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm a subjective observer, so my vote is by no means unbiased. However, I must point out that SHWI is both a unique usenet community, and by far one of the best and the most vivid history forums in usenet. The contributors have included academic scholars, professional authors and government officials. The article will be updated still further.Jjalonen 08:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's no longer a text dump and there are articles on other newsgroups. Angus McLellan 08:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Worthwhile entry for a notable newsgroup. --Sanguinus 11:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now; this compares well with others in Category:Newsgroups. Samaritan 14:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is much improved from when it was nominated. It may not be the most notable newsgroups, but according to Google it is in the top 10 of soc. Jeff8765 22:12, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NOT paper. —RaD Man (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a pretty big and active newsgroup as these things go. Bryan 23:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep, but with an admonishment to not have a lower notability standard for internet topics than for other things. Everyking 00:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Deletion_policy doesn't have any notability standard for VfDs. "lack of notability" isn't listed as a reason for which a page can be listed for deletion. Bryan 03:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been much improved upon. I would have not thought SHWI notable enough but to judge by other accepted newsgroups [[8] list of newsgroups] it must meet Wiki’s encyclopedic standard. --Francis Burdett 16:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - it never should have been nominated for VfD. it should have been marked for cleanup. people need to do more research before they mark something as VfD. Kingturtle 19:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • *K*E*E*P* - it would be rubbish to claim that even all remarkable newsgroups *should* have an article on wikipedia (as a matter of preference rather than toleration). To claim that one of the very few newsgroups on usenet to be a genuine cultural phenomenon far beyond it's native ambit should *not* have an article on wikipedia; is a profoundly fallacious thought. -- Cimon 03:20, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 05:20, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hallum_division_algorithm edit

The subject of this page does not appear to exist; this page was created as part of a case of vandalism. Specifically, a user first added code to the Brainfuck page, which purported to be code to perform a division, but actually only prints out "I LIKE TO WANK SMALL BOYS", and moreover does so very inefficiently. Then the person made this page for the algorithm which the program purportedly uses to perform division. DanielCristofani 09:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Grue 18:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no potential to become encyclopedic. Does the editor or the program like to wank small boys? Barno 20:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence to say this actually exists --metta, The Sunborn 18:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. Golbez 05:19, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Steven gao edit

Probable vanity, possible speedy. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:17, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Marcelo Liberato de Souza edit

Vanity/hoax in Portuguese. The name of this "greatest thinker of Brazil" gets one Google hit. It's technically not speedy deletion material, I think, so I'm listing it here. The writer has also dropped a few references in other articles, see [9]. Sietse 09:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English
    • I think it's Portuguese, but I admit that is just my silly monoligual impression. --Dmcdevit 04:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it's Portuguese, and it's almost certainly speedy-deletable vanity. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:06, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, well writing it is other languages is cetainly a good way to try to get around RC patrol :) --Dmcdevit 04:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC) (Maybe I'll go write a page about me on the Bulgarian Wikipedia now...)[reply]
    • Well if it's not vanity then it's irretrevable POV! It starts: Marcello: the Brazilian Genius Marcello is considered to be the greatest thinker in Brazil... Surprizingly enough, there is no trace on pt: of this person who is claimed to be venerated by many people around the world, especially by those who need his aid. Speedy delete. Physchim62 09:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eliminação (Delete) - pt: has nothing on "the greatest thinker in the history of Brazil" and the one hit for this name in a google search is not relevant. At best this is vanity. SteveW | Talk 23:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 moink 03:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language adjectives edit

Basically just a list of dictionary definitions. The articles themselves are also pretty superfluous and all the of the information they contain is (and should be) covered by the articles on the individual languages. I propose to delete the listed XXX-phones together with this article. / Peter Isotalo 11:15, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

(added "subst:" to Peter's initial entry) —Wahoofive (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this page but merge and redirect Francophone etc. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful list. If we are voting on Francophone etc they should all be tagged. Kappa 18:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no chance to become encyclopedic. Francophone has the right to exist because it's use is widespread and because it's a historically significant notion (e.g. in the context of former colonies of France) (same holds for Anglophone and Lusophone). But I fail to see why we would need a "list of words derived using the suffix -(o)phone", which the present article boils down to. — mark ✎ 20:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So how could I find Lusophone from Francophone? Kappa 22:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • With a nice 'see also' section? — mark ✎ 22:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah yes, we could just duplicate this list as a "see also" section at the bottom of each article. Kappa 00:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please note that I was saying that only a few of them really are common and have the right to exist: Anglophone, Francophone, Lusophone (and, only in Canadian contexts, Allophone). — mark ✎ 07:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Useful list. Stancel 23:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need to find Lusophone from Francophone. You need to find it from Portuguese language, which is where it should be redirected and merged. But those don't need to be listed; they can be merged with their parent languages without VFD. Question, though: if those articles were all merged like that, would this list still be useful? —Wahoofive (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I didn't know I didn't need to know about Lusophone, I'm glad you know better than me. Kappa 02:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think Wahoo intended to condescending. Just consider that barely two or three of these terms really have that much value on their own. There simply nothing to them except XXX language. And I would really recommend against using terms in Wikipedia articles as they smack of peackockery./ Peter Isotalo 08:17, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this article and merge each term on the list with its respective language. (Though I'm not sure where to merge Allophone (Quebec) to... Quebec maybe?) --Angr/comhrá 06:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I can see no real distinction between a list of this nature and -phobia which is well-established. Maybe a move to -phone might be in order for the sake of uniformity? (Having said that, some of the terms seem thoroughly clanky: dutchophone?) --Phil | Talk 06:49, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wiktionary, that's what it's there for. Radiant_* 09:31, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most of them are not actual words and that's the end of the story. --Menchi 00:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - useful, although i like Phil's idea of moving it to -phone. Kingturtle 19:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - useful list, especially when categorized properly. 132.205.15.43 00:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

One last reason edit

Not notable musical group, entry should be deleted. Feydey 11:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC. But soon all the members will be over 18. ;-) —Wahoofive (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 03:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless promotion of obscure band --Freyr 03:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn--Prem 03:26, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Apparently speedily deleted. Golbez 05:15, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Patrick Grandaw edit

Vanity page, written by user:pgrandaw. Joe D (t) 13:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy. Run it through again if re-created. Dunc|☺ 13:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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, redirecting (not much to merge) Atom and His Package to this. Golbez 19:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Adam Goren edit

Already an article on Atom and His Package, article is unencyclopedic. Orange Goblin 14:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge,meets Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Grue 18:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is nothing much in this article which could be merged. Megan1967 03:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Atom and His Package. Remember, A&HP isn't a band; it's Adam and a drum machine. (I've removed the joke about rice sculptures and added a merge tag, and will merge this myself if it doesn't get deleted.) A Man In Black 03:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. Kappa 16:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but keep the main article under Adam Goren. Goren has been in 3 bands - Fracture, A&HP, and Armalite, and the A&HP information would probably be best included under the article on Goren (since he and A&HP are basically synonymous). Fadeblue 08:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the information is unencyclopedic. Luneraako 14:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Apparently speedy deleted. Golbez 05:14, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Kennedy Fried Chicken edit

Kennedy Fried Chicken: As the author of this page, I'd like to see it gone from Wikipedia. Thanks.

66.65.88.245 13:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Maybe Quaker Oats should start a chain called "Pennsylvania Friend Chicken?" Dpbsmith (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • All knock-off names from the original KFC should be merged into it. Damn, now I'm getting hungry... mmmm, that extra crispy chicken with flaky, golden skin... those warm, flavorful biscuits... creamy mashed potatoes with gravy... butter-drenched corn on the cob... back in 20. -- BDAbramson thimk 18:37, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as vandalism. JRM · Talk 21:26, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Update: created as a pseudo-blank page and protected to deter further recreation. Might eventually become a redirect to somewhere. JRM · Talk 22:00, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Suspicious edit

Not an encyclopedia article and contains personal info Cause of death 16:42, 2005 May 10 (according to history, Uncle G 17:05, 2005 May 10 (UTC))

  • Speedy delete (yet again) under criterion G3 (personal attack vandalism), and then re-create as Redirect to suspect. Uncle G 17:05, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and protect against re-creation. --Carnildo 19:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • extreme speedy delete --Doc Glasgow 20:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:04, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Mac Anderson edit

This article is vanity / advertising, and serves no other purpose. Please also note that there is a redirect to it from Mac_anderson. — Dan Johnson 18:10, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

  • Delete. Also largely a copyvio from his homepage[10]. Gee whiz, Mr. Anderson, you've already got that nifty website, why do you need the same stuff repeated here? -- BDAbramson thimk 18:40, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  • Delete. A Googling for "Mac Anderson" Successories turned up over 500 results, but almost every one of them is this exact same text! Kweee 18:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We're not in the business of providing free ad space. --Stan 4.246.120.153 20:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert, copyright vio. Megan1967 03:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. this guy has written over a dozen books - some of which are out-of-print, and still popular. it needs to be cleaned up. Kingturtle 19:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

FeeBay edit

Dictdef/pejorative/screed against eBay's pricing structure disguised as an encyclopedia article. Note that a Google search will find a couple of thousand references to the word; I'm not saying the term hasn't been used; rather, that it's not a legitimate encyclopedic entry, except perhaps in a list of "insulting nicknames for companies". Maybe redirect to ebayofascism or something. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with eBay, which is where both laurels and criticisms of that company belong (and I note that the content of this article has already been put there). -- BDAbramson thimk 18:44, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. No need to merge since the content has been added to eBay 's criticisms section. Barno 20:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a soapbox; no redirect unless we have a citation indication a substantial "number of its customers" actually call it that. CDC (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pejorative misspellings are rarely encyclopedic. Gazpacho 00:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to a more general page like Criticisms of eBay. The term gets 1,620 Google hits. Firebug 04:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. JamesMLane 05:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a number of searches come up with that term - and I only removed it to a new article because it seemed the target of selective "editing," for some of the same reasons above. Its a silly name that codifies a commonly held perception about ebay as stiffing its sellers and buyers with fees. Not worthy of an article, but also not worthy of being censored. -SV|t 09:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By that logic we should also have entries or at least references to Microshit (21,000 hits), Microscum (2300), Windoze (951,000)...but I'm not sure anyone who confuses editing with "censorship" will get my point. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • REDIRECT to Ebay - a google search finds that this is a legitimately used nickname for Ebay. there should be a section of the ebay article that discusses the term feebay and why it has come into use. Kingturtle 19:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to EBay which does discuss this term. FreplySpang (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:08, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

KOL Addicts edit

I forgot whether this is CSD or not, but this game clan is not notable. Delete Grue 19:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Kingdom of Loathing. Kweee 19:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There would have to be unusual evidence to convince me that a "game clan" is encyclopedic. Martg76 20:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, gaming clans are not generally notable, by precedent. No evidence for notability given beyond "one of the top" clans in that game system, without defining criteria for "top". Every MMORPG with clans has a few that are "one of the biggest" or subjectively "one of the best" or some such. Barno 21:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think it needs an entry... and I'm actually IN THIS CLAN! It truly is among the biggest, and might warrant a mention in the KoL article, but not its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:42, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, replace with redirect to KOL as a matter of principle. Radiant_* 09:31, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • REDIRECT to Kingdom of Loathing Kingturtle 19:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

Arabians & Mustangs edit

I left a message to the editor of this article informing him that both horse breeds exist; Arabian horse and Mustang (horse). I vote for Merge Svest 19:29, May 10, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up &#153;

  • Into which article should the info be merged? And then what do we do with this article? We can't redirect it to both articles, and if we move some of the info out of here into one article, some into the other article, then redirect this to one of them, it loses the edit history and is a violation of GFDL. Delete. RickK 21:36, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • merge into one article, and then merge from that article into the other one, thus preserving edit history. Kappa 22:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concur with Rick. Megan1967 03:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure how much new information would go into the other articles even if there were an easy way to merge to them. -- Grev -- Talk 06:46, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

Caliente Press edit

Delete as promotional. FreplySpang (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, though I do have a special place in my heart for websites with animated flames. Kweee 19:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They specialize in all genres? Adverts go to Wiki-Hell. -- BDAbramson thimk 20:03, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  • Delete this vanity press at once. Real authors work for years to learn to write well enough to earn money. Nobody needs vanity presses sucking money out of writers, and Wikipedia doesn't need to support such activity. --Stan 4.246.120.153 20:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need to moralise it... with just 18 Google hits and most of those unrelated, this is way below the bar. Unrelated to my vote, I think it's amusing that their website offers Web design services but several links point to files on C: drive, like the "flipbooks" link. D'oh! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:55, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't know if this how we vote on matters like this or not, but I went to their website and they seem to be everything they claim - and are not a vanity press. Perhaps, some of the complaints are by people they may have turned down for publication? I vote, lets keep them. What do they hurt? They are just a listing just like the others. Either get rid of all or keep all.
  • Delete. Non-notable vanity press. Quale 06:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:04, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area/Temp edit

Complete page currently exists at Sloan Canyon and Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area is already a redirect. Vegaswikian 20:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the edit histories it appears that this temp page was created to replace a copyvio, but not moved when the copyvio text was deleted. The Sloan Canyon article now contains all this information and more, so the temp page can be safely deleted. SteveW | Talk 22:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, temp copy. Megan1967 03:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:04, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Gast edit

Delete. Not notable, already transwikied to Wiktionary. Physchim62 20:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, seems to be genealogical speculation. Martg76 20:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect to Ghast as improbable mizpelling. Radiant_* 15:27, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

Paranoia song edit

A paranoia song is a song about paranoia. While I can see some big themes like Love song meriting articles, this one seems too narrow to be a legitimate genre.—Wahoofive (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google search doesn't come up with anything but individual songs by this name, and mirrors of this article. ESkog 22:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though on the tiny chance that this stays, it should include "I Think I'm Paranoid" by Garbage, "Too Much Paranoias" by DEVO, "Paranoimia" by Art of Noise, and "Paranoia" by Klaatu. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:25, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminds me of the songs in the Paranoia adventure Creatures of the Nightcycle. Nevertheless, Delete. Radiant_* 09:32, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a widely considered/discussed topic like love songs. And how could such a list exist without the Kinks' "Paranoia"? Barno 16:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT - how about moving it to List of songs about paranoia? Kingturtle 19:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

HIKE.RU edit

Its a Hitchiking News Portal with 1,800 hits. Why is this Russian one so important? The article is a poor dead end which I can't see expansion happening to. Delete unless significant notability can be proven. Hedley 15:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a web directory. If someone felt it was informative, not excessively commercial, and otherwise in keeping with external link policy, maybe it could go in Hitchhiking. CDC (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

C-Squared edit

I'm clueless about wrestling, but this seems to be entirely fictional. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - C-squared, of course, brings up lots of irrelevant crap on Google. Real name gets one irrelevant hit. Ambush Commander 20:55, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

Antonio Max edit

Potentially nonsense. The name and book titles bring up nothing on Google. The pseudonym brings up nothing immediately relevant.

--TheParanoidOne 20:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cept maybe a Flash Movie man... Real name hits == 0. Book title hits == 0 (so much for popular). And hopelessly POV.
  • Delete, vanity bordering on nonsense. Megan1967 03:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

Gary Strain edit

  • delete - not noteworthy - UtherSRG 20:47, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Silly hoax. -- BDAbramson thimk 20:53, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
    • Note - only article contributed by user, who has also vandalised Pierce Brosnan page, sticking a link to this article. -- BDAbramson thimk 20:59, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  • Delete as per BD2412. The creator of the page removed the VfD notice; I've just replaced it and warned him. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN and absolute rubbish. K1Bond007 21:49, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no notable content Samw 03:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep", Gary Strain is a notable thought leader in the business management community WikiGuru 21:49, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 04:53, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Jason Allentoff edit

NN. Rl 21:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for keeping the explanation so short for this nomination, I will try to make up for it by elaborating a bit more now: The IMDB entry lists in great detail an impressive number of mostly miniscule achievements (production assistant, web site designer, etc. for what seem to be NN movies). Thus, I suspect the IMDB entry is vanity. On top of that, the biography in WP which also reads like vanity is lifted verbatim off IMDB, so we have a copyvio on top of it (I only noticed that right now, hence no copyvio tag). Rl 08:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the faithful reader's entertainment, check out the trivia section of the biography at IMDB. His links to other people on IMDB include his dad, his mom, brother, cousin, uncle, and his grandma. His grandfather is mentioned but sadly has no IMDB entry yet. I am not making this up. Rl 08:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Article links to an IMDB entry which has been used as a measuring stick for notability before. Needs to be wikified/cleaned-up/expanded though. ESkog 22:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:VAIN. IMDB, like the Google test, is useful but not a strict rule. Radiant_* 09:33, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, insufficient evidence of encyclopedic significance. Some editors consider the mere presence of an IMDB entry to be sufficient for an article, while many (realizing that IMDB accepts anyone's entries) consider it to be just a source for possible notability. Barno 16:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. A textbook example of why existance of an IMDB entry alone doesn't establish notability. Quale 06:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable. Grue 17:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

Little Italy, Cleveland edit

Non-notable neighborhood, probably worth a visit for its many Italian restaurants but not worth a WP article. Of Cleveland's 39 neighborhoods, only 3 have articles, and the other two have content. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, real place. Kappa 21:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real neighborhood, though I'd like to see a naming standard on neighborhoods. This should probably be at Little Italy, Cleveland, Ohio, since there is also a Cleveland in England. RickK 21:38, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's necessary to move it. Cleveland in England is an unloved name for a level of local government in the area more commonly known and loved as Teesside. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good grief! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mmm, cassata cake. - EurekaLott 23:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Little Italy, Cleveland, Ohio. Stancel 23:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as per Stancel. Meelar (talk) 23:45, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Real place with real community of interest. Capitalistroadster 00:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and someone get to work on the remaining 36 neighborhoods. —RaD Man (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Neighborhoods do not have the governmental effects on people, the verifiable official information (city charter, election records, boundaries, legislation, etc.), or even the legal existence that cities, towns, villages, etc. do. Neighborhoods don't even have the verifiable census information that Census Designated Places (in the USA) have. They're not "real places" in the sense that Kappa and CR use the term. No vote since I don't know whether Cleveland's Little Italy is a CDP nor whether it has a notable "community of interest" (beyond the trivial amount that dozens of Little Italy's, Chinatowns, etc. all have) and the article doesn't tell me. Barno 17:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ravioli Klonimus 02:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not merge for now with Cleveland article (or list of its neighborhoods, if one exists) and then expand back out into a separate article if more information can be gathered? It's little more than a substub right now. But I'd rather see it kept than deleted outright. Postdlf 02:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 04:50, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Allen Lee Davis edit

  • Non-notable murder case, unfortunately. RickK 21:30, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete. A brilliant article. --Heywood Jablomie 22:40, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Another invalid vote by this anon. RickK 23:05, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but hardly a brilliant article — badly needs cleaning up , google shows this is a significant case --TimPope 22:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because his execution was part of the reason Florida abandoned the electric chair. Even if the murder was not "notable" ("notable" in quotes because murders are devastating to those concerned), the execution was. Sjakkalle 07:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename - article name should reflect that Florida abandoned the chair. Radiant_* 09:34, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and expand, do not retitle. The article content, not its title, should reflect the influence this case had on Florida's elimination of the electric chair. Barno 17:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable murder. Klonimus 02:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and by the way, here's a little slap on the wrist to each of you...it is irresponsible of you all to have left this article in its condition all this time without wikifying it or copy editing it or at least marking it with a cleanup tag. Just because something is on the VfD list doesn't mean you can't fix up the article to meet Wikipedia standards. Kingturtle 19:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. FUTHERMORE!! Less than 24 hours after this article was nominated for VfD, User:131.111.8.98 removed the VfD tag from the article! Please keep closer tabs on these things. For example, i think it is a good pracice for those who nominate an article for VfD to also add that article to his/her watchlist to insure tags are not removed. Kingturtle 19:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 following rewrite. Golbez 04:48, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

CICCU edit

Note: This debate was originally about the page Ciccu. This seemed generally agreed to be an incorrect capitalisation, so it was moved during the VFD and is now about the page CICCU. TSP 21:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable student group. See also the article's Talk page, which is a rant which needs to be deleted. RickK 21:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. CICCU was, I think, the world's first "Christian Union" when it split from the Student Christian Movement in 1877, kicking off the Christian Union Movement worldwide; and was instrumental in the formation of the British Intervarsity Fellowship (IVF), now UCCF (changed to Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UK)Paul foord 15:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC), which now contains 350 Christian Unions. CICCU is Cambridge's oldest continuously-running student group, and a very good article could be written about it. Of course, this isn't yet it, but that's not the point. TSP 23:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Megan1967 03:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:VAIN unless evidence provided that it was in fact the first Christian Union as late as 1877 (surely there were university unions earlier...) Radiant_* 09:43, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    I believe it was the first one called a Christian Union, and started that distinctive movement, which has now mostly eclipsed the earlier student movements it replaced. The main CU movements in Canada and the US both acknowledge their descent from CICCU.
    Incidentally, in case anyone's confused, I'm not a CICCU member and didn't create this page - I just stumbled across it on VFD and was surprised, because CICCU is a very well-known organisation in UK evangelical circles. TSP 10:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, loathe as I am to prop up religions, it is rather well-known. James F. (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should it be at CICCU? RickK 16:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. James F. (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it should - is it OK to move and let the VFD continue at the new location? TSP 21:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you move it, make sure the link to the VfD page is corrected. RickK 21:41, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
            • Moved... I've now realised this is one of the things you're told not to do during VFDs, but it's done now. It can be moved back if it causes serious headaches. TSP 21:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep after the rewrite, but I am not surprised the original stub was nominated for deletion. Uppland 19:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. CICCU is an unusually noteworthy CU. — Matt Crypto 22:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 04:46, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Limp edit

Delete. Dictionary definition already transwikied to Wiktionary, no encyclopedic scope. Physchim62 21:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, could be expanded to include causes and treatments. Kappa 21:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand... limps are used as stage devices by actors. -- BDAbramson thimk 01:57, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • keep. I've added some material on medical interpretation of limping. Sure, it's nothing but a stub right now, but has the makings of a great article. Robinh 12:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. generally speaking, just about every non-proper noun can be made into a decent article. Kingturtle 19:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
All I can say is Wow. We have entire textbooks on this single condition.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The current content is a mere dictionary definition which has already been successfully transwiki'd to Wiktionary. It has remained unexpanded for the full discussion period and, in fact, for two months prior. The article is an orphan. In my experience, its orphan status drastically reduces the likelihood that the article will ever be expanded.

I am going to exercise my discretion to override the strict vote-count and delete this in accordance with my understanding of the transwiki process and WP:WIN. This deletion is without prejudice and should not be considered precedent for re-deletion if the article is re-created as an encyclopedia article (that is, more than a mere dictionary definition). Rossami (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoopsia edit

Delete. Dictionary definition already transwikied to Wiktionary. Limited encyclopedic scope. Physchim62 21:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with hallucination or keep. It seems to me that "limited encyclopedic scope" implies "some encyclopedic scope". Kappa 00:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, real term. Grue 17:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. it is legit. Kingturtle 19:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assclown edit

Dictionary definition

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Needs more cowbell. (Keep) Golbez 19:58, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

List of songs featuring cowbells edit

No no NO! --Conti|✉ 21:54, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, since it shows the variety of use of this distinctive instrument. Failing that merge with Cowbell. Kappa 22:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Guess what? I got a fever. And the only prescription... is more cowbell." Naturally a List of songs featuring cowbells is useful and informative to me.Klonimus 02:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Cowbell (which, incidentally, has one of the most annoying animated GIFs I've ever seen...) ESkog 22:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep. The kind of encyclopedic, useful reference Wikipedia does best. "No no no" is not a valid reason for deletion, btw. Jgm 01:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "No no NO!" is merely the natural horror at seeing this article, not a reason. --Calton | Talk 02:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote at the moment. If we keep, does it follow that we'd have to allow similar lists for other instruments? It would be bizarrely unuseful to have a List of songs featuring drums, since that would be really close to every song ever; however, cowbells are much less common and therefore remarkable (in other words, notable). On the other hand, cowbells are indeed a part of go go music, and, according to our articles, are also common in Latin and West African music, so I bet there's a large number of songs (even if it were restricted to recorded popular music) that could, theoretically, be on this list too. Tuf-Kat 01:55, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • A list like this is only useful if it's limited in some way, so if every go go song has them, it should just mention that fact and maybe one or two salient examples. Kappa 02:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We've got lists of radio towers and lists of stamps with people's faces on them. At least this one makes me laugh. ---Isaac R 02:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content into Cowbell and delete the list. And I find the GIF amusing ("Guess what? I got a fever. And the only prescription... is more cowbell"). --Calton | Talk 02:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Cowbell. Megan1967 03:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless list. --Angr/comhrá 06:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless (List of songs featuring guitars, anyone?). Wouldn't oppose a merge though. Radiant_* 09:44, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, concurring with Kappa's limitation above. Samaritan 12:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content into cowbell, no redirect. Uncompletable list without any real significance established (none even suggested in the article). Barno 17:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at the very least merge.-PlasmaDragon 22:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yay, Wikipedia!!! -- BDAbramson thimk 22:21, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Keep. Harmless article, though it should be cross-referenced somewhere if it isn't already. I just added a title, myself. As an instrument, a cowbell is unusual enough that this article is unlikely to become too far ranging (as opposed to one about guitars, for example). 23skidoo 04:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider adding to WP:UA (WP:UL?). —RaD Man (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preposterous. Unlikely to be of use to anyone. Makes people who think of Wikipedia as a serious reference work very nervous. Yet another useless list. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. However, keep. Wiki is not paper. If not us, who? JRM · Talk 22:35, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is what makes Wikipedia Wikipedia. Philthecow 22:37, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to cowbell. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 04:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to cowbell.--Prem 02:58, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP - but the name has to be changed. the word FEATURING implies that it is the main feature of the song - like the game, featuring 50 cent - or nelly, featuring tim mcgraw. i suggest List of songs containing cowbells or something like that. Kingturtle 20:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Granted, as the creator of the list I am biased, but I thought it relevant in, as is mentioned above, the various styles of music to which the instrument has been applied. I find the "domino threat" of list of songs with drums or list of songs with guitar to be a little over-the-top. Those instruments are so integral to popular music that it would be more realistic (though still, overall, unrealistic) to make a list of songs lacking drums or list of songs lacking guitar. The cowbell remains, however, an instrument suitably rare enough in the medium of popular music to warrant a list on Wikipedia; even if that list is not ever going to be fully comprehensive. We must not forget that Wikipedia is a free source for people who find other encyclopedias, online or off-, to be lacking in some way. If this list would help just one student at a conservatory write a paper on the use of such an a-melodic instrument as the cowbell, without hindering anyone who would not have such an interest -- then keep it. I would not, however, be opposed to a Merge with Cowbell, in principle; I fear, though, that this list would make that entry unwieldy and would still be scrapped in the future. Benn M. 16:31, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
    • A further note: I have put a more detailed and fleshed-out articulation of my position on the article's talk page. Benn M. 16:48, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 19:59, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Aionious edit

Delete, even if it means eternal damnation, this stub is PoV. Physchim62 21:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think what you meant to say was that it is also a dicdef that has already been transwikied. That's a better reason :) --Dmcdevit 23:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, POV is not a reason to delete. Possible merge candidate. Kappa 22:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • if there was only a place to merge it to. Bible translation issues? Could include "ecclesia" v. "congregatio" and similar items.—Wahoofive (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dictionary definition, already in Wiktionary. Megan1967 03:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, already transwikied (and it just screams WHEELERism anyway). Haikupoet 04:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef. Replace with redirect to some bible article. Radiant_* 09:45, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 04:43, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Erika May Pineda edit

Vanity. Delete. Lupo 21:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete though the phrase "stiff from cheerleading" is hilarious, definitely just a vanity trip --TimPope 22:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poor thing doesn't even realize she's being exploited for her Filipina hotness. Well, I refuse to contribute to that. -- BDAbramson thimk 01:43, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Delete but only because the Vanity Rule says we have to. ---Isaac R 02:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If only the author had really tried to exploit Erika's Filipina hotness by posting some photos.... JamesMLane 06:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete this boy's "I got a crush on you" page. The subject (victim?) is only fourteen years old!--Unfocused 12:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • d r3m0t talk 11:19, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Apparently speedily deleted. Golbez 04:42, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Mr. beans car edit

The title has poor grammar, and the topic might not be worthy of its own entry. Elpaw 22:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 00:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree edit

Weak delete, but is this really encyclopedic? Physchim62 22:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Blonk edit

Insignificant, seems to just be a plug for someone's blog. --TimPope 22:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems pretty pointless to me. I can't find any uses online outside of this one blog. (Delete.) ESkog 22:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, worthless blogging plug. Kryptops 22:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, slang. Megan1967 03:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Blogpluggingcruft. :) --Gmaxwell 19:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

3 "delete" votes, no evidence countering the assertion that this is a neologism except for one anecdote. 1 unsigned vote discounted. My own research turns up nothing to convince me that this word ever left the neologism stage. Rossami (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperculturality edit

This term appears to be a neologism recently coined by a German professor and it gets zero Google hits. Further, it is simply a definition. -Willmcw 22:12, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, zero Google hits. - SimonP 22:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I used the term in many of my writings in the late 80s & it was already in use then. But I don't understand why the term isn't hyperculture rather than hypercultuality. Ted Nelson, the great hypertext theorist was talking about hyperculture in the early 60s. - Memexikon
  • Delete, I'd suggest wiktionary but the word isn't in common use. --Gmaxwell 19:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article is convincing and it is a good definition. The culture of today has really a net-structure of hypertext (Ted Nelson).
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 then recreate as redirect. Rossami (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Saunière edit

Fancruft article about a character who has appeared in only one book and, due to his death in that book, is unlikely to appear in any others. Content can (and should) be easily merged with The Da Vinci Code.

  • Merge and Delete - Character is non-repeating in the series and does not require a separate article. - Tεxτurε 22:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep fictional things. See also WP:FICT. Kappa 23:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per Kappa. Meelar (talk) 23:22, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Stancel 23:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect; no need to merge as the information is already in The Da Vinci Code. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't care one way or the other. I just can't resist pointing out that dead characters get resurected all the time. Harry Lime gets killed in The Third Man, but he went on to be the starring character in the radio and TV series! And then there's Mr. Spock.... ---Isaac R 01:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing to merge. Megan1967 03:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A prequel to the The Da Vinci Code may be more likely than a sequel... (No vote.) Samaritan 12:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (since no information needs to be merged to the parent article) and redirect there per Texture and Ten. Barno 17:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to merge. Quale 08:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect Sholtar 08:05, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Character isn't notable outside of the book. --Gmaxwell 19:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Art journal edit

Delete. Not notable. Physchim62 22:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 04:39, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Diet Soda Addiction edit

The article has little encyclopedic potential, as the condition it purports to describe has little to no support in the medical or scientific community. Also, the claim that diet drinks cause cancer and other ailments has been essentially disproven and is overbroad in any event. Most of the article is original research. The article should be deleted. - Jersyko 22:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep real addiction. How about a peanut butter addiction article? ;-) Stancel 23:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless there is evidence this is a real addiction. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial. Radiant_* 09:38, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete not encyclopedic, there could be many more addictions that arent in wikipedia, no need for them all. Sensation002 23:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment check this link out [11] LOL A meetup group for diet soda addicts? ;-) Stancel 21:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 02:19, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Jimmy_Neutron_mini-episodes edit

This information belongs in the main Jimmy Neutron article. Kryptops 22:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept, could be merged - SimonP 02:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Rose DeWitt Bukater and Jack Dawson edit

Delete or merge to Titanic (1997 film). These are the Winslet and DiCaprio characters in the film and don't really have any life outside it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are the archetypal merge candidates--in the future, you're free to do this without going to Vfd, and then redirect them. Best, Meelar (talk) 23:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Articles could be improved. Stancel 23:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Titanic (1997 film). Nothing here is not covered in the main article and any expansion or "improvement" would need to be included in the main article so these are always redundant. --Theo (Talk) 07:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)See changed opinion below. --Theo (Talk) 16:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both, fairly well written articles about notable movie characters. — JIP | Talk 07:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, these are major characters in a major movie. Not a very good film mind you, but winning all those Academy Awards makes the "Titanic" major. Sjakkalle 07:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Titanic (1997 film). The movie is major, these characters do not exist outside it. Average Earthman 07:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redir as above. Radiant_* 09:38, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. They might be major characters but even so they don't merit their own articles. Not well written or complete. Also any article that contains the phrase "they fell deeply in love" has gotta go. Other character names are currently red linked, which suggests some future intention to create articles? Rossrs 10:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, major characters in a major movie, more convenient for users to have them in separate articles. Kappa 10:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain how the separate articles are more convenient. I cannot see how these articles can contain anything that should not be in the main article. What sort of extra detail do you envisage? This is a genuine enquiry; not a veiled suggestion that you are wrong. --Theo (Talk) 10:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    A separate article can tell the reader just about the character they are interested in, and can do that without bloating up the main page. How quickly can you tell she was fictional from the main article? Kappa 14:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep. I am persuaded by Kappa's argument. We need to watch that this does not spawn separate articles for every character, however; the two main protagonists are sufficient. --Theo (Talk) 16:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - the articles may be well written, but they're only a paragraph each, and the main Titanic (1997 film) page isn't too long to reasonably absorb them. Vashti 15:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect or delete. These characters are not notable outside of the work that created them. --Gmaxwell 19:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 (Turned into a disambiguation page). Golbez 04:35, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

El presidente edit

Apparent vanity page for a student at University of Wales, Bangor who styles himself El Presidente. Delete, and I won't be bothered if someone can see how it fits one of the speedy criteria. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete : Tagged for speedy. Nonsense. Vanity. Wikibofh 23:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Nonsense. Vanity. Stancel 23:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE and REDIRECT to Dennis Martínez 132.205.64.152 02:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity nonsense. Megan1967 04:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It looks like this has been speedied, but I question the redirect as above that's been tagged to it. There are at least as many people who think of Fidel Castro as El Presidente as Dennis Martinez. It should probably stay blank, if not a disambig page. -- Grev -- Talk 06:29, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • COMMENT You could say that about any President of a Hispanophone country 132.205.15.43 00:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's already been changed to a redirect to Dennis Martínez, which I have reverted. As an ambiguous nickname it should probably be a disambig page, or possibly a redirect to President. sjorford →•← 08:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT redirecting to president will not preserve the link to Dennis Martinez. 132.205.15.43 00:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Replace with redirect to President imho, or possibly a disambig (Hobbes from Calvin and Hobbes also calls himself that, and possibly others). Radiant_* 09:41, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, self-promotion. CP 09:49, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Blank and dab —msh210 17:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT, I've turned it into a disambiguation page. 132.205.15.43 04:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

RPGscape edit

Looks like an uninformative stub without any potential to be anything but a web guide entry. Elpaw 23:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 04:26, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Brandon Burr edit

Vanity. All links to this article appear to have been created by the same anon IP address. -- llywrch 23:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity, and I mean vanity. Gazpacho 00:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Centre Rockland edit

Non-notable shopping mall, poster couldn't even bother to tell us what city or country it's in. RickK 23:12, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete no evidence of notability CDC (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legitimate inbound link from List of malls in Montreal. Three-level upscale mall in the Canada's second-largest city; there's precedent for other comparable malls. Keep and expand. Note that among its anchor tenants is a Chapters big box bookstore - an English bookstore in largely Francophone city, this is probably a major centre to the important Anglo-Quebecer minority. Samaritan 13:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Samaritan's assessment of notability. Failing that, merge with a list or local area. Kappa 16:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Spinboy 04:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 06:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN. Radiant_* 15:32, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - SimonP 02:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). I am not bold enough to make this a redirect myself, but that shouldn't stop anyone else. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian fascism edit

This phrase gets me less than a thousand Google hits. The article provides no evidence of notable usage, certainly not on the scale of major commentators. Delete as attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point (again) and as a pointless fork of Christofascism (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Christofascism). Meelar (talk) 23:19, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • STRONG KEEP Article is well-written and it is a notable term. Islamic fascism was kept after it's VfD. I see no reason why THAT article should be allowed to exist while this article is deleted. It smells of hypocrisy. Stancel 23:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It isn't our business as WP editors to determine if this exists, if it's good for the world, etc. However, at 447 Google hits, many of which reference a single speech, it doesn't seem to be in widespread use enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:08, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to Fascism (epithet). Gazpacho 00:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If I had known about Fascism (epithet) when I voted on Islamofascism, I probably would have opted to merge it as well. Why do we have both Islamofascism and Islamic fascism? VfD consensus doesn't keep obvious duplicates from being merged. Gazpacho 00:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV nonsense and . There might be an article to cover Christians who were fascists such as Josef Tiso a priest who ruled Slovakia between 1939-1945 and other such people, it might have a point. However, this article is currently a neologism whose retention would discredit Wikipedia. Redirect to Clerical fascism. Capitalistroadster 00:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - term gets 3400 google hits - and they ain't talkin' about Tito.[12][13][14] I voted to keep Islamofascism (and redirect Judeofascism to Zionism) based on similar criteria. -- BDAbramson thimk 02:03, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. The term gets 969 hits, not 3400. See my comments at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Christofascism. Mackensen (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article as it stands has improved marginally although it is still worthy of deletion. The first paragraph referring to fundamentalism and citing Rich Lang, a Seattle pastor who is not notable enough in its own right to make Wikipedia is irrelevant to the rest of the article and any credible attempt to address the topic. I will repeat that a worthwhile article on this topic will address people like Francisco Franco and Tiso (not Tito). It should address the resistance to fascism and Nazism by Christians such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer as well in order to avoid being POV. Capitalistroadster 03:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Terms "Christian fascism", "Christian fascists". Christofascism, etc, seem to be in reasonably common use. A quick google news search shows that the term turns up in National Review, there's an article by a history professor at Tufts, Gary Leupp, who is a self-declared libertarian, published by Counterpunch. He in turn points to statements by commentators as diverse as Lew Rockwell, the RCP, and a Methodist minister. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this nonsense and create a redirect to Fascism (epithet). There isn't anything legitimate here that isn't covered there. Sorry, the belief by nutcases that the divine will was on their side does not a link between Christianity and fascism make. A Man In Black 03:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, normally I would vote delete on this but I feel that in order to have some balance on Wikipedia, we either keep both Islamic fascism or delete both. Megan1967 04:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, but treading dangerously close to POV. May need some work, but I must reluctantly admit to there being a need for an article on the term, whether or not there is a reality behind it. (As an aside, I think there's more connection between fascism and Christianity than this article wants to let on, but apart from pointing out the obvious connection between the Roman Catholic Church and Mussolini and Franco I don't think such things fit into this article.) Haikupoet 04:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Much of the content seems to rather doubtful. Anything that is salvagable should be merged into Clerical fascism and Roman Catholicism's links with political authorities#Fascism. Martg76 08:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect per Gazpacho or Capitalistroadster. Radiant_* 09:45, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a valid term that has seen press usage and therefore deserves coverage. --Sanguinus 11:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV nonsense. Stereotek 15:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-PlasmaDragon 18:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN Islamofascism and Islamic Fascism were kept, people can stop disrupting wikipedia now. Klonimus 02:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not disrupting. Stancel 19:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't see a difference between Islamofascism and Islamic Fascism. I believe Islamic fascism is a shiny NN of Islamofascism and not as you put it up there. I hope someday people would vote with good faith. Svest 19:42, May 13, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
  • Delete. Quale 06:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect to Dominionism is tempting but probably inaccurate. I've asked Cberlet to comment on this, since he seems to know something about the topic. —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curiously, its a real concept, altho not discussed whatsoever in this ridiculous article. Redirect to Clerical fascism. See also Falange and Integralism. Sam Spade 14:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encyclopedic subject and could be useful as a link target for text on people who's critics accuse of being guilty of such a position.--Gmaxwell 19:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic. It needs enhancement. Svest 19:14, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to new article Neofascism and religion. I am on the road and away from the library where I work, but here are some thoughts. I just had an article related to this subject published in a journal, but the popular version is at: http://www.publiceye.org/frontpage/911/clerical-911.html There are multiple problems in constructing the issues in an NPOV way.
1) Most people have no clue what a legitimate definition of neofascism really is.
2) Even among experts there are disagreements over the definition.
3) Some folks are calling Islamic and Christian and Jewish fundamentalists "fascists" and it really is just a hyperbolic jingoistic epithet.
4) Some folks are denying there are any strains of neofascism in modern religious movements and act as apologists when there are serious scholars who have raised the issue in a cautious and appropriate way.
5) At Wikipedia we need to report on the last two points of view (hyperbolic Pro v. apologia Con), and then try to highlight the serious scholarship.
Ideally, the Islamofascism page and the Christian fascism page (which are both pretty badly written and probably pointless to try to fix) would be redirected to the larger discussion at Neofascism and religion.
This new page would start from the paragraph at Clerical fascism: "Some scholars consider certain contemporary movements to be forms of clerical fascism, including Christian Identity and possibly Christian Reconstructionism in the United States; some militant forms of politicized Islamic fundamentalism; and militant Hindu nationalism in India (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh/Bharatiya Janata Party)." I think keeping the page Clerical fascism for discussions of the European interwar movements makes more sense than expanding it to include neofascist movements...and we can move the appropriate book cites over.
The idea here is to avoid pages that are essentially battles between the hyperbolic and the apologia. --Cberlet 19:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to either Fascism (epithet) or to Clerical fascism. The same should be done to Islamofascism. --Lee Hunter 21:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Neofascism and religion. I don't fully subscribe to Cberlet's explanation, but I'm far from discarding it either. Ultimately, it serves as a feasible model to merge other problematic articles into, but I would like it to be consistent across the board. El_C 22:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Use of fascism as an epithet. Do the same with Islamofascism and stop this nonsense. Neofascism and religion? Come off it, El C. It's just mudslingers using the same old insult. Nothing neo about it.Grace Note 02:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh! I will do no such thing! At any rate, I argued all along that it's a term (and I have argued all along that there is grounds to write about the fascistic tendencies thereof; if it can conform to NOR/NPOV, obviously - but I'm willing to give it a chance). When I voted redirect to List of political epithets on Christofascism and Islamofascism and Judeofascism my chief concern was the O. Philologically crude? Perhaps. But not inconsistent. El_C 03:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until this whole fascism epithet thing can be solved by a redirect to fascism as an epithet.Yuber(talk) 15:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fascism (epithet). Tomer TALK 17:32, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Fascism (epithet) seems like a good idea. The current article has a single author, who has a point to make. If it is kept, someone should really reformat this article. It's just a single boring block of text. It should also include a bit more than just a few quotes, and more on fascism (less on Hitler). -- Ec5618 15:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
MERGE The article should be redirected and absorbed into Neofascism and religion. Weirdoactor 13:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the following argument from my post on the discussion page, with minor changes/updates:
1) The term gets a huge number of search engine hits (see: link to search for term "Christian Fascists" as an exact match)
2) The Christian Right Wing has fascist elements (e.g., the Ku Klux Klan, the Westboro Baptist Church, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson). These are not fascists in the epithet use of the word; one definition of fascist is "a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views". As fascism is "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism" and more the point of this discussion, “a political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government”, and the examples mentioned before are fascists by that definition (as judged by their actions and statements), and all are Christians, the term is legitimate, and not solely an epithet.
3) Epithet vs. Legitimate Term: One example of a word that is both legitimate and an epithet: liberal. Conservatives use this word as an epithet to inspire their base. Should we delete the liberal article as well? How about redneck, which is also both a legitimate term (often used by those it describes in a positive way) and an epithet? And let us not forget nigger, which possibly the gravest insult a white person can call a black person…but a word used over and over again in rap music, performed mostly by blacks. It’s both a legitimate term, and an epithet; should we delete that article as well?
4) If the term is legitimate, and not solely an epithet, the article is legitimate. If the article is legitimate, it should not be deleted. At most, it might be redirected/absorbed into Neofascism and religion, Neo-Fascism or Clerical Fascism (or all three), a move I would agree with more than a pure deletion. Weirdoactor 13:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So now Weirdo has switching from arguing that this article should stay because he thinks I'm religious to that it should stay because there are insecure people out there to call people like Pat Robertson fascists although, like has been made clear earlier, they are clearly not fascists. Itake 18:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Let's be clear and honest, Itake: it is YOU who have switched arguments, from "POV" to "the term is misleading". I've never made the argument that the article should stay because a) I think you are religious (your obvious bias is my issue, not your religion), or b) "insecure people out there to call people like Pat Robertson fascists" (sic) (this is, ironically, a POV, yours to be exact, and it merely proves my point of bias). My argument for keeping the article is very clearly stated above. Should you need assistance understanding my argument, feel free to ask me specific questions regarding the points I've made, or answer those points. And please refrain from freestyle interpretation of my statements to fit your agenda. Thanks! Weirdoactor 18:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honesty? I don't think non-religious people like you know the meaning of that term. Did I ever say the sole reason for its deletion was that the term is misleading? No, I didn't think so either. You, you have no points. Its just one long rant on that the article should stay because some people use the term "Christian fascist" to describe people like Pat Robertson. Itake 19:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're just going to be insulting and dishonest to make your points; I won't waste my time trying to have a civilized discussion with you. If you delete the page, I'll create a new Christian fascism page, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Have a nice day! Weirdoactor 19:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to get a life...Itake 20:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you do! I hope you get one. You'll get bored with stalking me me before I get bored with counter-stalking you; so you'll need a hobby. May I suggest treating your Borderline personality disorder, or perhaps apostasy? Weirdoactor 20:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the entire page is one big POV. Itake 21:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE, this is just a tit-for-tat response to islamofascism see here: link to google images of salutes BTW I'm not christian
You're making an argument for the deletion of Christian fascism, not Islamofascism. Your cookie-cutter approach to that argument combined with your ability to Google images isn't terribly convincing. Look, I can Google too: link to google images of Christian Fascists; link to even MORE google images to even more Christian Fascists Weirdoactor 13:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


STRONG KEEP. These sorts of wackos need a page of their own, lest they get mixed into movements like the Christian right. CyberAnth 17:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEPThis topic gets more relevant by the day.
STRONG KEEP Some sort of redirect would be alright, as long as the phrase "Christian fascism" is intact. This moniker has been used in some media. The phrase is accurate in describing certain dominionists, reconstructionists, and others deeply entrenched in the far religious right.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Christian Humanists and Rationalists, Christian Humanist and Rationalists, Christian Humanist Ministries, and Christian Vegetarian Association. Keep Nathan Braun moink 04:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Humanists and Rationalists, Christian Humanist and Rationalists, Christian Humanist Ministries, Christian Vegetarian Association, Nathan Braun edit

Non-notable ministry. Note that this is apparently a different Nathan Braun from the one who had a previous VfD vote of delete. RickK 23:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Stancel 00:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:04, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the lot into one big article, then vote up or down on that. Clearly, five articles is excessive, but one might be reasonable. jdb ❋ (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, not notable. Megan1967 04:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Why is the Nathan Braun article even associated with this? It appears it doesn't belong with the lot. Merge the similar ones. MShonle 05:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the lot. Radiant_* 09:42, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • If Nathan Braun is accurate, he is certainly notable. Keep information; merge the rest into him at least. Samaritan 13:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge as above. Kappa 16:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete Kingturtle 18:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 03:25, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Virtual Games edit

Supposedly a chain of video game stores "located in most of the malls by North America, Europe, and Australia." Appears to be made up by contributor. —tregoweth 23:48, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless the original author knows something about the EB/Gamestop merger I don't. A Man In Black 03:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Virtual Games Inc. seems to have made virtual-reality arcade games in the late 1990s. Extensive Googling has not turned up anything about them since 1999, except they changed their name to MidAmerica Oil & Gas in 2002, and apparently sunk without a trace thereafter. Definitely not a chain of mall stores. Delete —Wahoofive (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. virtual-games.com is in Portuguese and does not have an English-language version (illogical for store that supposedly graces mall in primarily English-speaking nations). Marblespire 07:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google hits a plenty for "Virtual Games" but none of the top hits are for any type of retail chain. In all likelyhood a hoax. Sjakkalle 07:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

Lefferts Crew edit

Autobiography and self-promotion

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_10&oldid=1081092737"