Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 18

< February 17	February 19 >

February 18

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 14:55, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Dorothy Tillman

What is it about this 10-word neglected sub-stub that makes it noteworthy, or worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? Does this have any potential for organic growth and expansion, or will it continue to stagnate? GRider\^talk 00:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

keep good lord man, it's only 2 months old. If you'd like to expand it, have a look here. Or check out the 1500 google hits. Wolfman 00:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable, just neglected. Someone will get around to it eventually. – flamurai (t) 01:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Another neglected stub. Zzyzx11 07:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 08:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I have expanded this substantially. She was active in the civil rights movement working with Martin Luther King in the SLSC marking at Selma and moving to Chicago to organise for King's efforts to improve housing and education in Chicago. As well as her work as an alderman, Tillman is a leader in the reparations movement. Capitalistroadster 09:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Good work Capitalistroadster. It would appear from the article that she's more notable than the average local politician. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems pretty good now. May have been a stub at one time, but its pretty lengthy now. — butt_monkey
- Forged comment from 141.150.221.216 (talk • contribs). No such user butt_monkey (talk • contribs). – flamurai (t) 19:36, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - notability established. DS 21:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep with great thanks to Capitalistroadster. —RaD Man (talk) 02:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 00:35, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Zack barnes

Yet another teenager vanity article. On the edge of speediness, but not quite there. Szyslak 00:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A pretty blatant and obvious delete. Why does this not qualify as a speedy candidate? GRider\^talk 00:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I wish it counted as speedy, but it's a borderline case. This is what the old "preliminary deletion" proposal was made for. Szyslak 02:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete under criteria #1 for articles: "Very short articles with little or no context". – flamurai (t) 02:00, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
04:57, Feb 18, 2005 Geogre deleted Zack barnes (Obvious vanity & an ad for his website)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 14:54, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Caroline St John-Brooks

Caroline St John-Brooks, who sadly passed away almost a year and a half ago, was a "British journalist and academic." I've just refactored in real-time all there is to read within this substub. Does this alone meet the "requirements" for inclusion on Wikipedia? Do the 321 google hits [1] help? GRider\^talk 00:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

keep seems notable enough.Wolfman 00:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Author of at least four books. Notable academic in the field of education. – flamurai (t) 02:04, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. Notable. Megan1967 08:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:41, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Former editor of the Times Educational Supplement which together with her record of publications suggests that she is notable in the field of British education. Capitalistroadster 14:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 14:54, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Cathleen Synge Morawetz

Is this a case of vanity or notability? Does once holding the title of president of the American Mathematical Society make all the difference? 113 unique google hits (see page 12). [2] GRider\^talk 00:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

keep yes, you don't get that title without already being a notable mathematician (note the National Medal of Science) but, the title is sufficiently notable in itself. i think many of your recent nominations are very poor candidates for vfd, GRider. Wolfman 00:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You are most certainly entitled to your own opinions so long as they're not veiled personal attacks. Please specify which nominations you found poor -- if I agree with you they will be withdrawn. GRider\^talk 00:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - there was nothing at all personal about my comment above. go read it again. the only thing thin around here is your skin. i think for example that Carol Alt, Cathleen Synge Morawetz, Dorothy Tillman, Tod Maffin are all poor vfd candidates; some of your other nominations are fine. Wolfman 00:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - I have recategorized several hundred articles in the past 72 hours. As a result, several dozen of a questionable nature have been posted to VfD for discussion. In hindsight it does appear that Carol Alt should be de-listed from VfD even though the article is in dire need of improvement in order to prevent a future relisting; it is premature to cast judgement on the other three you mention and I firmly stand behind all my other nominations. GRider\^talk 00:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - thank you for your hard work. it was not my intent to insult. having voted keep on 3 of your nominations in a row seemed a bit unusual, that's all. Wolfman 00:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - Concur with GRider. I am equally guilty of posting a large number of VfDs over the last couple of days, but both of us are working on heavy categorization (he in bio-stub, me in dead ends) and as a result, sometimes poorly written pages fall through to VfD even if their subjects would be worthy of inclusion. Sometimes deleting a bad article is best because a good article with the same name can then be started anew. Radiant! 11:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Yes. The AMS is a major organization... that presidency alone merits inclusion. This is obviously not vanity. Please don't nominate things for VfD you're not sure of yourself... i.e., don't ask questions in your nomination. A nomination is an implied "delete" vote, so you need to justify your nomination just as you'd justify a delete vote. Also, do a bit better research. Your 113 hits number is misleading. You should've also searched for "Cathleen Morawetz", which yields another 560 hits. – flamurai (t) 02:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. Notable. Megan1967 08:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. AMS president and National Medal of Science are notable. Easily clears the average professor bar. --BM 12:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. National Medal of Science is not handed out like confetti (only 409 so far in over 40 years). Note also that "CS Morawetz" produces another 380 google hits, and pretty good ones at that too. Average Earthman 13:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable musician. Capitalistroadster 08:58, 19 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2 plus 2

note: has now been redirected per Flamurai's work below, keep as redir Wolfman 03:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

just silly. Wolfman 00:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete this so-called principle of theirs is meaningless without a proof. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:28, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I can't understand these higher mathematics, so delete. Carrp | Talk 00:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I thought this was going to be about the poker book publisher, actually. – flamurai (t) 01:46, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- hmmm, that might make a reasonable replacement article. any poker fans out there? Wolfman 01:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - I think the publishing company is officially Two Plus Two Publishing rather than 2 plus 2, but if someone ever writes that article, this could be a redirect. – flamurai (t) 02:14, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect. Megan1967 09:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep redirect to prevent recreation. Grue 11:59, 19 Feb 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. 6 solid deletes, 4 solid keeps, and a 2-2 weak keeps and weak deletes. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cathy Hoeven

With 12 unique google hits [3], does this person pass "the test"? If so, why? GRider\^talk 00:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This is really borderline. The reason I'm voting "keep" is because I can't find a reason under Wikipedia:Importance to object to this article. Honestly, I don't think it's that important myself, but she's been a producer of a popular network television program for a long time. – flamurai (t) 02:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
weak keep marginally notable, but has worked on some well known shows. don't see any harm in keeping it. Wolfman 05:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 09:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Megan, delete. Lots of people are associated with big shows, simply because the shows are big. Radiant! 09:24, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. 2 IMDB producing credits in shows I, as a European never heard of, isn't my idea of notable, not even by association. 131.211.210.32 09:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Log in didn't work out. Above vote is mine. Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I've heard of those shows, and writers make a significant impact on them. Wikipedia isn't doing it's job properly if it ignores the "behind the scenes" people who actually contribute most of the material. It's not just about famous faces Kappa 10:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:44, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) long-term writer on at least two VERY famous shows. Above the bar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:44, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I believe US shows tend to have large teams of writers and producers (not having seen either of these, I have no idea how long their credits are). I'd need evidence that she was more than just one of the team. Average Earthman 13:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep Not sure how much of an article can be made out of this, but her work is more than a little notable. --InShaneee 16:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Just brushing the top of the bar for notability as supervising producer for recent show. HyperZonk^talk 16:47, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete if that's all there is. Just another name in the credits. Shows like Letterman have teams of writers (and considering its a talk show most of the show is taken up with "unscripted" chat between host and guests (not totally impromptu, but usually not scripted by a separate writer)). And being "a producer" in itself isn;t terribly notable; it seems every show has about a thousand people who hold the title of some form of "producer". -R. fiend 18:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There are millions of people who work "behind the scenes" and making important contribution to civilization. It is not wikipedia's role to establish someone's notability: it is to record the proven notability. Mikkalai 20:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Half delete this. —RaD Man (talk) 11:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The evidence presented so far does not meet my understanding of the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Delete unless further evidence of notability can be established. Rossami (talk) 04:41, 20 Feb 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. jni 16:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jessica Feng

Delete. Non-notable vanity article, even if she is a genius. Carrp | Talk 00:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree, delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:11, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Apparently her parents didn't teach her the value of humility. – flamurai (t) 01:52, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ditto. Zzyzx11 07:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 09:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Even if she's a genius, she didn't do anything to warrant an encyclopedic article. Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Smart kid, wonder what she'll do next? ;) -- Longhair 03:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

07:17, 2005 Feb 18 Jni deleted Hardmob (Vandal sandbox, see its VfD entry for further discussion)

Hardmob

Page has no useful content... and looking back through all its edits, none of them appear to be very much better. Talk page also looks like a sandbox. -Goldom 02:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as joke/attack page. It's actually a Brazillian video-games forum, if anybody cares. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:00, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, delete.HowardB 06:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible prank/joke. Megan1967 07:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, silly vandalism. Wyss 20:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
delete (the guy is creating this insistingly also in wiki.pt) muriel@pt 00:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, I speedy deleted it as a vandal sandbox. Every revision was either a CSD #3 (General class) or a CSD #1 (Article class) case. Given that also this VfD-page was (successfully) vandalized, there is not much point in voting any more. Move along, move along... jni 07:17, 18 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dragontimes Craft

Blatant advertisement. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

delete agree, ad. Wolfman 01:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete the ad. – flamurai (t) 01:51, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Obviously an ad. Zzyzx11 07:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ad. Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, Feb 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 delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Latin-American percussion

This reads more like a analytical essay for a college class than an encyclopedia article. Not what I expected when I visited the article. – flamurai (t) 01:39, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It looks like it is only a personal essay. Zzyzx11 07:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Tag it with {{Attention}} and list it on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. some of the material could probably be re-used in a rewrite. Wolfman 07:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV original essay/research, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 09:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
While the subject would be worthy of inclusion, this essay isn't. Delete and start from scratch imho. Radiant! 09:24, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A cleanup would require rewriting from scratch anyway. What is salvageable, is well-known to anyone who would endeavor the job. Mikkalai 20:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I concur with Mikkalai. And if cleaning up means rewriting from scratch, the article should be deleted. I still believe the proper way to suggest a subject for inclusion in Wikipedia is not writing a bad article about it and expecting others to improve it. vlad_mv 04:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 15:04, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Warrant (German band)

Non-notable. Unless I did this wrong, I see 0 Google hits. --Woohookitty 02:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I found a few relevant pages: [4] [5] [6]. The band meets the standards laid out at Notability and Music Guidelines, even though this article is poorly written and not very informative. – flamurai (t) 03:00, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, defunct band. Article does not establish notability. Megan1967 09:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep per flamurai Kappa 09:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notability is a POV, therefore invalid reason to delete. Norman Rogers\^talk 12:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: "Notability", as we use the word on this page, is not a statement of Point of View. It is, rather, a proxy for a judgment call about the community's ability to maintain this particular article - to keep it NPOV and verifiable and to protect it for all time against subtle vandalism. Articles on extremely obscure topics of popular culture are unlikely to draw the necessary critical mass of informed reader/editors to protect the article. This is, of course, a judgment call. However once that judgment has been made, it is a very valid reason to delete an article. (no vote) Rossami (talk) 04:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Per guidelines for musical notability. But just barely. HyperZonk^talk 16:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per flamurai. GRider\^talk 00:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The article in question does not establish that the band meets the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. The external links provided by flamurai also do not establish notability (unless I'm missing something everyone else saw). Thus, I vote weak delete. Tuf-Kat 02:26, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Tuf-Kat 02:02, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Band did a German tour according to [7] which meets point 2 of Notability and Music Guidelines. I tried to flesh out the article a bit. Tradnor 09:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The external link you provided crashed my browser (after the ad), so I can't verify it. But I'll assume good faith and change my vote. Tuf-Kat 02:02, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sussex house

Rambling from a student. POV, no real information. – flamurai (t) 03:08, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It reads like a personal essay. Zzyzx11 07:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV original research, school vanity. Megan1967 09:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, joke style; little of notable and verifiable facts. Mikkalai 20:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV. Audrey 02:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Brian Weikle

I'm stuck as to whether or not Brian should be in here. On one hand, he is one of the more famous Jeopardy! champions (and one of the favourites in the Ultimate Tournament); however, this page is solely a "guy that held the record before Ken Jennings" page -- and it's currently his only claim to notability. --OntarioQuizzer 03:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Jeopardy!. Incidentally, see the history of this page. -- Hoary 03:26, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
- I saw. But we can't exactly go blanking pages and redirecting things willy-nilly. There's a process... --OntarioQuizzer 03:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There's nothing about the guy on Jeopardy!. Unless something is added, there's no point in a redirect. – flamurai (t) 03:39, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable outside of a game show. Megan1967 09:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect, it can be broken out again if the article gets enough meat to it. I would like to see a list of champions (and some info about them) in the actual gameshow article. Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Agree with merge and redirect. -- KneeLess 07:14, 26 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Richard callaghan

Longwinded whimsy about a non-notable 17-year-old. -- Hoary 03:17, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Note: 62.252.128.25 removed this comment of mine and the votes below by flamurai, Zzyzx11, Megan1967, and Andrew Lenahan, replacing these with pseudonymous keep votes. -- Hoary 03:08, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity. – flamurai (t) 03:36, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable and reads like a personal essay. Zzyzx11 07:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 09:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:23, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
I think its quite good, and to say its a non notable person is a little rude , especially when you can't read properly to get his age wrong - Larsson ...added between 00:13 and 00:33, 2005 Feb 20 by 62.252.128.25 (who deleted all preceding comments and votes)
Agree with the sentiments shown above. To discard this person as non notable just because you yourself dont know anything about them is ignorant. - Maggie ...added between 00:13 and 00:33, 2005 Feb 20 by 62.252.128.25
Delete. Rhobite 04:35, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, possibly as a speedy (contextless nonsense contributed by an anon IP whose other edits are being reverted or challenged as vandalism) Rossami (talk) 05:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Possibly the very person is posting from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=62.252.128.25 (see his change to the Irn Bru page for example Richard W.M. Jones 10:13, 20 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tito Jibbanotiles

Seems to be completely fabricated. No Google hits on the name or the title of the "legendary" song. – flamurai (t) 03:34, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

This person does actually exist I think, but the content itself appears to be pure lies because theres no record of the artist or song ever making number one in Jamaica, as is claimed. Also note how the persons name is spelt differently in the article itself so its probably completely made up anyway, delete. -- Hedley 03:56, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 09:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Busby Babe 15:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) (Yes, I am aware of how many posts I have made)
- Can you provide any evidence that this is actually a real, notable person (or fictional character)? – flamurai (t) 16:02, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  - There's a webpage here: [8] Busby Babe 16:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Hoax. This is an old wikipedia version. Mikkalai 20:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: User's only edits are to this vote. — Gwalla | Talk 01:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. the hoaxy intention is now 100% clear. Mikkalai 20:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, a further look on Google shows that there is a similiar figure called 'Tito J' but has no connection to any of the information given in the article. -- Hedley 17:21, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax. — Gwalla | Talk 01:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless the subject's existence can be verified. Tuf-Kat 02:27, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 16:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tom Walsh

As with Brian Weikle above, Tom Walsh lost a great deal of notability when Ken Jennings shattered his records. Currently, I'd say he has limited notability outside of the Jeopardy! world -- but I'm still on the fence. So I figured I'd let the community decide. --OntarioQuizzer 03:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable outside of a game show. Megan1967 09:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Jeopardy! and create a list of champions within the article. Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep. Sounds extremely notable within jeopardy. Did he make the news? Kappa 10:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Go hard or go home. Call Ken Jennings and see if he'll let you have your notability back. --InShaneee 16:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Once notable, always notable in my book. Kappa 02:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Not an Andy Worhol fan? I think notability can often last just 15 mins, and wikipedia should recognise this. --InShaneee 02:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. For our purposes, a thing cannot be notable one minute and non-notable the next. Encyclopedic once is encyclopedic forever. Everyking 07:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Inshaneeee. Delete'. Radiant! 10:14, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Is Bob Cousy not notable because he is now second behind John Stockton (as an example of many who are were once 1st but have been eclipsed) He was a trailblazer being the first contenstant who made significant $ after the 5-day limit was removed. Although I don't agree that once notable always notable (though I would say once notable - we should give strong deference to their notability) Trödel|talk 16:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge somewhere. Not sure where. Maybe to an article that hasn't been created yet, in which case this article might as well be kept until a new page for champions or records for game shows in general or something is made. -R. fiend 08:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete or Merge and WEAK redirect with either Jeopardy! or a Jeopardy! Champions and Record Holders future breakout. But I concur with InShanee more strongly than with Kappa and Everyking. Trödel|talk's "trailblazer" justification above is the only reason I see for keeping Mr. Walsh (or was that for Mr. Cousy?) anywhere. Even Jeopardy is (and was always) JUST a TV game show, for which I feel the criteria for WP encyclopedicity should be very high. And I'm a fan of the show and a supporter of all kinds of strategy and knowledge games. Keep everything J!-related in one or two articles, with enough sections for everything that the editors find to be sufficiently verifiable, NPOV, outstandingly influential, long-term contributions to the field, and otherwise policy-worthy. Not everything that fans of a particular hobby or performer or institution could possibly want. Jeopardy former recordholders and champions barely clear that line for me enough to go in the parent article, and not enough for their own articles. Barno 23:45, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. In 10000 years, when the United States no longer exists, will William Henry Harrison no longer be sufficiently notable for an article? Once encyclopedic, always encyclopedic. dbenbenn | talk 16:43, 4 Mar 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Doug Malloy

Have a notion that this article is about a person who is not notable, based on low number of Google hits when this person (actually an alias) and his supposed real name are searched together. Also consider the story itself--doesn't sound kosher. I had edited the article as part of a series of systematic NPOV edits, but that doesn't constitute an endorsement. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 04:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 09:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Smells like hoax and/or vanity. delete Radiant! 09:24, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Richard Simonton + hollywood googles [[9]] to some 30 hits. This guy seems to have been particularly interested, amongst other things, in steamboats. I found three webpages ([[10]], [[11]] and [[12]]) indicating a hollywood businessman called Richard Simonton used to go by the name Doug Malloy (one page has even photos) and was involved with piercing. Note that 2 of these pages are actually from a "body modification" website. The third claims to reproduce an article originally published in the LA Magazine. I'm still not completely convinced this is not hoax. Even if it is not, I tend to be conservative about notability, and he does seem below the bar to me. I'll wait further discussion to express my vote. vlad_mv 04:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment People involved with body modification do tend to have personality quirks that are hard to forgive, however in talking about the surge of popularity of body piercing in modern times the influence of Doug Malloy was pivotal. It is deeply regrettable that distortions and outright lies can be traced to people integral to the evolution of the industry, if that is reason enough to ignore their positive influence then there is nothing left to say about the people who created the modern body piercing movement. Rafti Institute

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 16:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dave Abbott

Created by same user as Pat Healy. Also not notable enough as a Jeopardy! player (even though he won a Tournament of Champions). Individual articles are not required for 99% of players in Jeopardy's Ultimate Tournament. This constant article creation may be bordering on vandalism from the user. --OntarioQuizzer 04:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Megan1967 09:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect into Jeopardy!. Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:21, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete or Merge and (weak) redirect, for the same reasons I cited in an earlier Jeopardy-champ VfD. Barno 00:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I disagree with OntarioQuizzer about the articles' creation "bordering on vandalism", although I haven't researched the edit histories and talk pages to verify more. It appears that a well-intentioned editor thinks (not unreasonably) that a Jeopardy! ToC winner is notable enough. (Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith; Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers.) My opinion is that there's barely notability enough for one line in a Jeopardy! article's Former Champions section, below a Former Record Holders section. Not enough for a biography article unless there's some much more significant noteworthiness for some other reason. But the article's anonymous creator was probably being reasonable in finding these people "noteworthy in their field"... much more reasonable than if he or she insisted on posting the scores of every week's show for however many years the scores were available. Barno 00:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment Thank You!! Someone understands that people who are knew aren't vandilizers.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was VFD nomination withdrawn. sjorford →•← 22:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

UR033 UR - Electronic Warfare (2x12") (album)

Is an album by Underground Resistance. Group appears on Google enough times but I don't see how the artist warrants a page just for an 90s album. Not sure some of the description of the album does the genre justice either, it doesn't appear to 'define further developments' as stated.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 00:38, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hayley phillips

Public love letter to the writer's inamorata, who's no doubt delightful but doesn't seem notable. (I initially speedied this, but on reflection couldn't come up with a reason -- other than gut feeling, common sense, etc. etc. -- for doing so. So I regret that it must instead go through the VfD process, and other people have to waste their time over it too.) -- Hoary 04:53, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Delete. Obvious vanity. (Note: I proposed adding a speedy criterion for articles written in the first person here.) – flamurai (t) 04:59, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A vanity filled personal essay. Zzyzx11 07:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Btw there is an Australian child actress by that name. Megan1967 09:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Userfy and inform user of policy. Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- On further reflecting, I recommend deletion. Wikipedia is not the place to put love declarations period (not a hosting service). Especially when you don't take the time to register. Mgm|^(talk) 10:11, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
The IP number that created the page has now deleted it, which I think qualifies it as speedyable after all. -- Hoary 11:44, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
21:28, Feb 18, 2005 Dante Alighieri deleted Hayley phillips (creator blanked page)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 16:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Misfits V&V

Vanity. Somebody's description of the way they and their friends play V & V. Rick K 05:38, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Roleplaying fancruft. jni 07:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I wish a superhero would make this vanity-filled, unencyclopedic entry disappear ASAP. Zzyzx11 07:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Group vanity. – flamurai (t) 17:26, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Does "V&V" stands for Vanity and Verifiable-deletability? Barno 00:18, 23 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Westmoreland Mall

Page should be deleted. It is a shopping center, not notable. I am in favor of large notable malls that are famous. But suburban malls? They almost read like spam. I would never expect to find this information in an encyclopedia. 67.41.179.191 10:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FYI: This was put on Vfd by 67.41.179.191. Zzyzx11 07:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment -- Then what do we do with the ones on the List of shopping malls?Zzyzx11 07:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-- Get rid of them all as far as I'm concerned HowardB 18:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-- Oh, delete, by the way. HowardB 18:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Strong delete. I believe there's nothing notable about shopping malls, as every town has at least three of them. I see little point in the list, either. Note that 95% of all links on there are red. There's probably some shopping malls worldwide that are notable for some reason, those should be listed. But the current list is as pointless as the List of dog names (because there's no feasible limit to it, and its members are inherently unencyclopedic). Radiant! 09:27, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non notable suburban mall. Megan1967 09:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge with the town or keep. Malls are large and significant in their local area. Kappa 09:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Most shopping malls are not notable. List of shopping malls should go, too. --BM 12:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This isn't the West Edmonton Mall. (Merging a brief note into the city's article would probably be harmless, though.) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete. IMHO, way below the bar of notability as a mall. Please note the List of shopping malls is also listed in the VfD (just below). vlad_mv 04:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The Mall of America, West Edmonton Mall and the King of Prussia complex are all suburban malls which are famous because of their size. The latter two malls were once a lot smaller, about the size of a typical surburban mall, which were eventually expanded and remodeled to their present size today. As the author of the Westmoreland Mall article, I feel that you are making a mistake by wanting to delete my article because you feel that it has no importance to the general public. There is a growing number of mall historians today that study the history of shopping malls and how they affect the nature of the community and the businesses surrounding a mall. While the Westmoreland Mall may not be very notable, it is the largest mall outside of the Laurel Highlands region of Pennsylvania, plus the mall site has an historical significance, and you can read about that by checking the article. My question is why are you attempting to delete my article and only this one? I've checked the other articles and they don't have the same notice on them. (this post by anon 64.12.117.9 - Clockwork Soul)
Delete - There are "mall historians?" They must have very proud parents. – Clockwork Soul 06:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. As pathetic as it sounds, yeah there is. A mall wasn't just invented to drive everyone's minds into the world of consumerism that we find in America today. When inventor Victor Gruen talked about his plan for a shopping mall, it wasn't just going to be a retail building surrounded by parking lots, he was talking about creating a turn of the century community, a place with houses, schools, parks, and smack dab in the center--a shopping mall. The mall was supposed to be the centerpiece of the community, like an indoor downtown. But his remarkable concept turned disasterous. It didn't go as planned, and he realized that the shopping mall was driving all the mom and pop businesses out of business, and he died regretting that. 64.12.117.9 07:36, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Notable only because of something that happened there before the mall existed. Rick K 07:54, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 08:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. One mall. Not important. Hell, half the stores don't even have article themselves. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. And does that make it a second rate mall? Those anchors are native to this region plus they are just as good as Macy's or Bloomingdales, although the latter two are way beyond my budget. 64.12.117.9 08:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Please refer to the article on the Laurel Highlands. This mall plays an important economic role for the entire region.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 20:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of shopping malls

I believe this to be unencyclopedic, as it doesn't serve any of the purposes of lists. It's unfeasible to make a complete lists of shopping malls anywhere, most shopping malls in general are entirely not notable, and if the list were complete it would serve no purpose. Radiant! 11:29, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with Radiant. Not encyclopedic, unmaintainable. Doomed to be incomplete and inaccurate. --BM 13:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep but limit to malls of national or international reputation or of long-term historical importance. --Coolcaesar 13:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Seconded. Keep on with restrictions as noted above. With shopping malls going by the wayside in many areas with the coming of the Big Box shopping area format, and retailers like Wal-Mart pulling out of malls all over the place in order to go standalone, there's a gem of an article on shopping malls as a style of commercial area going by the wayside. But to try and list every mall is futile. 23skidoo 14:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm impressed that somebody would actually go to the trouble to assemble this list. But something like this could probably be handled using a category, with the list limited to significant malls as per above. Anyway I'll abstain. — RJH 18:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Puh-leese! Can we just get rid of this? How is a global list of shopping malls even remotely encyclopedic? And how would you control the limitations that are being proposed, anyway? Next we'll have articles such as List of shopping malls in Needville, Texas and List of pet shops in Johor Baru, Malaysia. Delete ! HowardB 18:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Worthy of a category for the notable ones (of which there already is one) but to list them all is a bit absurd. Dismas 21:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
On the restrictions suggested above, Merge to Shopping mall under a specific heading. IMHO, a list of shopping malls "of national or international reputation" is not worthy of an individual article. vlad_mv 21:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This list as it stands should be deleted. One way I'd suggest to keep it is re-naming the article to something like "notable shopping malls" and stipulate any malls added must have something notable about them, like the world's largest, etc. 67.41.179.191 00:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, a never ending unmanageable trivial list. Megan1967 00:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There's no logical reason why shopping malls should be considered "un-encyclopedic". --Centauri 03:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It is unmaintainable and adds nothing to Wikipedia. Instead, it creates a near infinite series of redlinks which will inevitably invite new users to create articles about all these non-notable malls which will then have to be deleted (wasting our time and frustrating the users). Rossami (talk) 05:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic. --Carnildo 06:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The purpose of such a list is to include only notable shopping malls, i.e. those which have articles. Bogdan | Talk 17:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If that is the purpose, why have a category and this list? Why not just have the category? Dismas 21:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Concur with that, and a category also makes browsing easier. Radiant! 10:05, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The purpose of wikipedia is to be a repository of important human knowledge. People spend inordinate amounts of time and money at shopping malls, and thus they must be important, certainly more important than the vast majority of what is in the 'pedia. If you believe it is unmaintable, don't maintain it, but don't prevent others from trying. Lists are important especially when categories are incomplete, lists can include items which do not yet have articles. dml 23:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No, what you have established here is that an article on shopping mall would be encyclopedic. A list of every individual shopping mall worldwide is not, and should instead be found in your local yellow pages. My local shopping mall is not important to anyone who doesn't live near here, and it has nothing extraordinary to distinguish it from other shopping malls. In other words, while most large groups or sets are notable, in general individual members thereof are not. Radiant! 10:05, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. -- Decumanus 07:17, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
Keep. It may be uninteresting to people who have no interest in shopping malls, but there are many retail historians out there who do find interest in malls and a comprehensive list would be beneficial to them. Every mall holds some special value to them, whether you care about it or not. A mall usually doesn't get any respect until it's dead and demolished, and speaking of this, I've been noticing lately that the list is starting to be covered with defunct shopping malls and since this part of retail history is significant, it would be a wise idea if there was a category for that alone, and then there could be a little history of that mall, just like on deadmalls.com.
Keep on the basis that the malls mentioned have historical value. There are thousands of malls, however only the largest, strangest, and most complex should receive any notability. It's almost like the schools. Also this list wouldn't be quite as unmaintainable as say the List of people from the United States. Which reminds me, maybe there should only be a US list. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment to Comment. Do you mean only a US list of malls? 205.188.116.67 00:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes, if any list is going to be made, it should be of US malls only. Even though it sounds US-centric, weren't we the first to build malls? -- Riffsyphon1024 17:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Read the shopping mall article, malls have been around longer than the United States. I'm of the general opinion that most malls don't deserve articles, so I vote to Keep the list on the condition that it is a list of notable malls, ie biggest, first mall in a State, etc, deleting most of the red links--nixie 05:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - If that's to be the article's purpose, then I have no objection to it sticking around, so long as the name is changed so it doesn't invite people to add any or all malls they live near (which is what all the non-redlinked articles that I checked currently look like). —Korath (Talk) 07:09, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this is not a small and useless article. I know that there shouldn't be articles like (above mentioned)... List of hot dog vendors in Kalamazoo, but the point of wikipedia is to grow the site. You can feel free, though, to take out the hot dog article. Keep. MrDrew508
Keep - Notable enough to keep and probably too large for a category. -CunningLinguist 01:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete; unmaintanable. At the very least, deredlink. —Korath (Talk) 15:13, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Notable. Somebody in the WWW 03:48, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I voted keep above; just to let everyone know, I'm going to prune the page to only stuff with links or famous malls I've heard of (I've been all over the world, so I have a good idea of what's famous and what's not) and keep it for now. Feel free to edit it if you don't like my edits.

--Coolcaesar 06:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have pruned the page aggressively. Now it is much more readable and limited only to the most famous malls.

--Coolcaesar 07:52, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep, but break it up into subpages sorted by country, as has been done with, for example, universities and radio stations. That way, we keep the complete list (which is encyclopedic), and also make it much more manageable. -- EagleOne

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Verboten

Dictdef. Additionally, there are problems with the content ("used half-jokingly"?). BenSamples 05:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I agree, it is a dicdef. I also have a problem with it saying "Today, the term is often used half-jokingly." Zzyzx11 07:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary, rewrite. It's a common enough cross-over word into the English language. Google gets around 250,000 pages with English filter. Megan1967 09:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki as above. Radiant! 12:35, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki. – flamurai (t) 17:28, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Not yet in Wiktionary. Transwiki Rossami (talk) 05:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is one of the ridiculous things I come across in Wikipedia from time to time: First the article is shortened beyond recognition so that only one sentence remains, and then it is claimed it's a "dicdef". Restore and keep. <KF> 00:28, Feb 21, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

José Posada

It links to nowhere. it links from nowhere. It clarifies nothing.

Noit 06:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Article does not establish notability. No context. jni 07:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article does not establish notability. Megan1967 09:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Make it a redirect to Mexican artist José Guadalupe Posada.~~ (Although this one is apparently a real person, but all Google hits seem to be in Spanish or Galician.) [13] / u p p l a n d 13:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Changing to keep with the present minimal rewrite. But perhaps a disambiguation page is more appropriate in this place? / u p p l a n d 06:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep: former EU deputy, head of a minority-nationalist party? Sounds notable. The fact that there isn't much on line about him in English doesn't change that. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:48, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to imply that, only that I couldn't yet judge the notablity based on what I could find. / u p p l a n d 10:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Reasonably notable Spanish politician. Capitalistroadster 09:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Darwinek 13:15, 23 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Missing leg syndrome

This is nonsense. Rick K 06:40, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This article does have an element of truth. If it weren't for deletion, there could be a lot more than the humongous 746,146 articles on Wikipedia - possibly one and a half million. Scott Gall 06:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You really believe cats have magical powers? Rick K 06:49, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- ... and that's exactly why we have deletion. Delete this silly piece. Radiant! 09:27, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless verification is provided. Gazpacho 07:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There are no notable references. The phrase "Many theorize that cats possess magical powers unknown to the rest of the world" lowers its credibility. Zzyzx11 07:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism, speculation. Strange the way their legs do that though. Kappa 09:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Remove that catastrophe. Megan1967 09:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Suggest merge at Talk:Cat. While the name and the magic bit are obviously hoaxy, I heard about such a thing too. Let the people at the cat article sort it out and add it if it's verified and notable. No need for a seperate article. Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Zero hits at Google for "missing leg syndrome" cats, and there are a godzillion cat lover pages out there. If one hasn't picked this one up yet, it's a neologism. HyperZonk^talk 16:57, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. – flamurai (t) 17:29, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hello, this should be speedily deleted as patent nonsense / disruption of Wikipedia. Even listing it on VfD is a colossal waste of time. DreamGuy 02:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, blatant nonsense. And, yes, this deserves a BJAODN mention. Meow. vlad_mv 04:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Rossami (talk) 05:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to phantom limb. --Carnildo 06:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete No verification -- Longhair 14:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete or maybe redirect to phantom limb. -Sean Curtin 17:23, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Patent nonsense, a BJAODN candidate. Delete. - 195.113.20.20 17:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This shouldn't redirect to phantom limb because it's not related to phantom limb . —Brim 05:01, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ComCat 08:32, 25 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Flavor berry

Hoax. Rhobite 06:49, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unless there are notable, credible references. Zzyzx11 07:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's a hoax-alicious delete berry. HyperZonk^talk 16:59, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Seems hoaxy to me. – flamurai (t) 17:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This may seem hoaxy, but this fruit actually does exist. I saw it on a visit to Chile 2 years ago. There are plenty of strange fruits out there (dragon fruit comes to mind), so I don't think we should delete it.
- This vote was posted by 141.150.221.216 (talk • contribs); Nimrod (talk • contribs) hasn't edited an article since 2003. – flamurai (t) 19:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Reads like a hoax, and the bogus signature (grounds for banning, by the way) only makes me think more so. Delete, barring credible citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:51, Feb 19, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Boris Babenko

simple vanity Noit 06:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The phrase "gets drunk off of one beer. He is a loser" makes me think that either he wrote this vanity-filled entry himself, or that someone he knows did this as a prank. Zzyzx11 07:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Potential personal attack/libel page. Unencyclopedic for sure. jni 08:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. – flamurai (t) 17:34, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Rhobite 04:00, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

This was apparently deleted and recreated. Its current contents don't look like it's the same article as above, but it's still egregious vanity. 35 hits for "Boris Babenko", none for "blue through red" (boris OR babenko), and none for "let go phobia". The book mentioned is published by iuniverse, a vanity press. —Korath (Talk) 03:13, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as re-creation of a deleted article. --Carnildo 06:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 00:44, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sexy DH

A karaoke singer. Zero Google hits for "Sexy DH" "Irene Kim". Rick K 07:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

He did the same thing yesterday and I moved the content to his then-username User:Danny196 as a gesture before the article was deleted.--Pharos 07:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, and of course delete though maybe this should be speedy as it's the same subject as yesterday's deleted article by him. Then again, yesterday I did not know about his kareoke.--Pharos 07:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Ah, I wasn't aware of the history. I've deleted it. Rick K 08:05, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 09:44, 18 Feb 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. jni 16:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Prometheism

The Prometheism article is non-notable, unencyclopedic original research. It was created on February 4 by an anon IP, believed to be User:Dnagod contribs, who has been banned indefinitely for making anti-Semitic attacks on other editors, and who is an associate of User:Paul Vogel, who has also been banned indefinitely for similar reasons. Prometheism seems to be a set of ideas, invented by Dnagod or his associates, promoting white supremacism, racial separatism, anti-Semitism, and eugenics. Dnagod is the webmaster of a number of websites that promote prometheism, including http://www.prometheism.net, http://neoeugenics.home.comcast.net, and http://www.cosmotheism.net . There apppears to be no evidence outside these websites that prometheism exists as a religion (as the article claimed). A Google search for "prometheism" returns 710 entries [14], which resolve to 191 unique ones [15], which are either from the Dnagod websites, or are mentions of prometheism on discussion sites.

The original text inserted by the anon IP was plagiarized from Dnagod's prometheism website and was blanked because of copyvio. It has now been rewritten by User:Dariodario contribs, a new user who may be Dnagod. The article cites Matt Neunke, called Dr. Matt Neunke by Dariodario, as being the leader of the prometheist religion. A Google search returns 1,760 entries for this name, [16] resolving to 127 unique ones. [17] Nuenke seems to write a lot of book reviews for amazon.com, but I've found nothing that would justify a Wikipedia entry. He's mentioned in glowing terms on the Stormfront discussion group, [http://forum.stormfront.org/showthread.php?p=65596#post65596] and has published a book review on the Vanguard site. [18] Dnagod spent his time at Wikipedia posting links to his websites into articles and talk pages, and this article seems like another attempt to promote them. SlimVirgin 08:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete SlimVirgin 08:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, abuse. Szyslak 08:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research about non-notable pseudo-movement. -Willmcw 09:05, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge content to Cosmotheism, Matt Nuenke, or White nationalist religious movements. -Willmcw 01:04, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. --Viriditas | Talk 10:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As it stands, the article is little more than an advertisement for a small group of kooks and racists (who seem to be stuck in early childhood — swearing lifelong oaths and the rest, very Enid Blyton), the only criticisms mentioned being those from other kooks and racists who have infinitesimally different views. On the other hand, if the group exists, it should probably be mentioned somewhere. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:19, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Self-promotion for a non-notable organization. Conscious evolution was recently VfD-ed as original research --BM 11:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable mico-religion; original research. AndyL 13:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Original research and non-notable Trödel|talk 14:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not-notable, original research, advertisement. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- not because it's Nazi nutcase drivel, but because it's drivel. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable, self-promotion. – flamurai (t) 17:36, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: the current state of the article seems to have resolved the original kookiness. But whether it is notable or not, I'm not sure. But I just wanted to point that out. --Fastfission 21:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's shorter which is an improvement. But it still calls itself a "religion" and claims to be aiming for "godhood." However, it's the lack notability that's the main issue. SlimVirgin 21:28, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

- I cleaned it up, but I didn't alter the basic content, which would require more research. The connection to cosmotheism suggests to me that it isn't unreasonable to characterize it as a religion, and their aim of "Godhood" fits into that context also. (If I were trying to rack up the edit count, I should stop editing these doomed articles.) --BM 21:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I could start the slimvirginist religion today and create my own websites, but that wouldn't mean I'd be using the word "religion" as it's generally understood, and more importantly, wouldn't mean slimvirginism should have a Wikipedia entry. This is more of a non-notability than a content issue, as I see it. SlimVirgin 21:55, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes — and the peculiar and unexplained use of 'godhood' as something that a group of human beings can achieve puts it pretty firmly in the kookiness bracket, whatever other changes are made. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whenever I hear that word, I think of the British man, former Green Party leader or activist, I believe, and former television sports presenter, who became a godhead, but I forget his name . . . Got it. David Icke. Pronounced Ike, but I always think of it as "Icky". Ended up with two wives, or a wife and live-in mistress. It's interesting how godheads often end up with several devoted women followers. Perhaps that's Dnagod's goal. SlimVirgin 22:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know of him; sort of a D.Icke-head. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

LOL, yes, and wouldn't you know it, he's got his own Wikipedia page: David Icke. Regarding the Dnagit notion of "godhood", there are some statements here on a related website, where I think what they mean is that they're atheists, or perhaps with a belief in God as Gaia. Teilhard de Chardin seems to be mentioned a lot. I also just noticed that the main prometheism website is asking for a $100 donation on its front page. Another reason we shouldn't let it use Wikipedia to advertise. SlimVirgin 22:25, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ack! I'd forgotten about that lizards-are-among-us stuff. You don't think that he is Dnagit do you? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's superb. I wasn't aware of the reptile update, and that the Queen Mother was involved. He's a cross between Dnagit and Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin 22:38, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Manages to be simultaneously both insignificant and uninformative, with great, unlearnable skill. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Web site advertisement. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 05:38, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable, uninformative, un-encyclopediac. -CunningLinguist 09:17, 20 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 20:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Body Modification Code of Ethics.pdf

Um, what? Rick K 08:02, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete both the article and the referenced PDF file. WP is not a repository of ethics guidelines. jni 08:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Likely copyvio or advertisement to distribute this, but I think it could be reworked into Body modification. Suggest merge on Talk:Body modification, but delete if it's not used within a considerable amount of time. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete. So many things wrong with this. For one thing, I don't believe that a list of good marketing tips, proper hygiene procedures, and restatements of general legal obligations constitutes a "Code of Ethics" (if it was actually a code, I'd suggest merge o body modification, but it's not). For another thing, I'm not sure I buy the "gpl" in combo with the copyright ... call me paranoid. Finally, the contents of the PDF file would have actually been easier to format as a wikified article, but for some reason it's a PDF. I could go on, but my grumpy pill is wearing off. HyperZonk^talk 17:07, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete under criterion 3 for Articles: "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, or interwiki link." – flamurai (t) 17:43, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the PDF for the reasons listed above. – flamurai (t) 00:14, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Speedy doesn't apply to uploaded pdf files as they aren't articles as defined by Wikipedia. Mgm|^(talk) 23:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- The speedy delete proposal was to the article, not to the pdf file. Rick K 00:07, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete this "article" since it is a mere link. Transwiki the actual .pdf to Wikisource. Rossami (talk) 06:12, 20 Feb 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. jni 16:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Load balance a group of internal computers accessing internet through a gateway

Even if it weren't an unsalvageable how-to, I'd support deleting this article just because of its title. Szyslak 08:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge to Load balancing or delete. Gazpacho 08:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge anything useable to Load balancing, no redirect. Megan1967 09:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see anything merge-able, but if someone else does and wants to take the time be bold, I guess. HyperZonk^talk 17:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Zonk. – flamurai (t) 17:44, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing mergable, and a redirect would be pointless. --Carnildo 06:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Do not merge or redirect. No meaningful content. jni 13:06, 20 Feb 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. jni 16:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Narutard

It is a the combed word play of the words: naurto and retarded (sprinkle sic to taste). Terminally trivial. Absolutely unnotable. -- Hoary 08:18, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable, poorly written, and I can even detect a POV against Naruto fans. 193.167.132.66 08:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rewritten. I've run into some of these 'narutards' and I think I understand the author's intent here. 147.11.37.11 09:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neologistic insult. Scores about 1700 on google, but it seems too limited in scope to put on WP. I'd suggest merge with Naruto. Radiant! 12:12, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I can't imagine why a neologism insult deserves a merge. --InShaneee 16:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism, may deserve wiktionary entry if the series gets big. I've never heard of Naruto, but then again I prefer Futurama to anime. Why doesn't Fox bring that back? :) HyperZonk^talk 17:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agreed. – flamurai (t) 17:45, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 17:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Naruto is a kids' series that is expected to be the next Dragonball; Narutard has already been submitted many times to urbandictionary. 147.11.37.11 23:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, then the article should come back once they actually become the next Dragonball. Radiant! 10:13, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. just a slam against people who like naruto. it's not that everyone who likes naruto is a retard, it's just that a lot of people are stupid, and a lot of people like naruto, thus ensuring that many of them are "narutards". might be better as part of the naruto page (if rewritten properly). --gb 03:10, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I suggest that the article be rewritten, though. But this is a word that is openly used on the internet, regardless of it being an insult or not. 201.130.174.64 03:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edited. Reason: I was not logged in, my apologies. I'm editing this comment to make my opinion a bit more believable. David Silva 03:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-Keep its all true ...05:12, 2005 Feb 20 144.133.99.95 forgot to hit the twiddle key
Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 06:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It only contains disputed information and requires cleanup. It is still an informative article, and once it is properly amended, will formalize and prevent further corruption of the term among its relevant contexts. ...at 07:07, 2005 Feb 20 64.180.8.148 refrained from hitting the twiddle key
Delete, neologism. And I'm diddling my twiddle button Ashibaka tlk 07:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Its a real term, and they exist. The only people who want it to be deleted are who it applies too unsigned attack from 82.34.89.143
Delete--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This might make more sense in Wiktionary -- with a lot of cleanup. Yipdw 09:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. IMO, not really of any cultural significance (then again, I don't care for Naruto either). It does not belong on Wikipedia. Wikitonary, maybe. Urbandictionary, most definitely. Ghost Freeman 17:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Term is being widely used throughout internet forums and is likely to be found in Anime-related discussions. Although "Narutard" clearly shows relation to Naruto anime, this phenomenon was evident in the times Dragon Ball series were popular. "Narutard" might be considered as descriptive term for a certain type of fans of Anime series that grew extremely popular, yet are not necessarily very sophisticated. Fans, who are fully devoted to the fandom yet completely lacking skills to express their devotion in an intelligent way, thus reverting to pointless discussions, trolling, lame cosplay and intolerant points of view.unsigned vote from 84.188.255.127
Delete. Shanes 19:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. While the term exists, the article is completely uncalled for. It should be deleted, or at the very least, completely rewritten by someone with a neutral stance on the series. at 20:26, 2005 Feb 20 67.82.228.189 refrained from hitting the twiddle key
Keep * This term has significance in the anime fan subtitling subculture. Have a wikipedia.org entry allows users of the term to just paste a link the explain their insult. at 22:11, 2005 Feb 20 128.220.43.225 added this to the top but failed to hit the twiddle key
Keep I say keep it. It's insulting to plenty of people. Sure, it should be rewritten somewhat, but some on. Anyone can see the HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS of name remakes from Naruto. If you have a problem with it, stop being one then. at 23:26, 2005 Feb 20 68.230.161.229 refrained from hitting the twiddle key
Comment: if you want your vote to count, you have to log in -- and your username had better have some history of contributions elsewhere to Wikipedia. Also, please add your vote to the foot of this list, not the top. Thank you. -- Hoary 23:50, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
- That is not, in fact, what the rules of VfD say. Newbies' votes are not automatically discarded. Redxiv 06:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - OK. But they're not taken seriously. -- Hoary 07:53, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
Delete -- Longhair 01:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Naruto or delete. Wikipedia is not UrbanDictionary. — Gwalla | Talk 01:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Urban or otherwise. Redxiv 06:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect -- Definitely a notable term, but how this is applied outside of Naruto fandom is beyond me. The article is accurate, but could definitely be shortened and rewritten from a more 'Naruto friendly' perspective. SnowPuma 6:28, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Total number of contributions, including that directly above, by SnowPuma: zero. The edit above was actually made at 07:31, 2005 Feb 21 by 69.41.97.173, who also changed "naurto" (sic) in what I quoted at the very top to "naruto" (I've changed it back). -- Hoary 07:53, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
Keep I'm sure this article can be saved to be made less POV. Aknorals 08:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep The word is used all the time in the manga anime community. --Elvisrules 07:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note: This is Elvisrules' only edit. --InShaneee 15:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep I don't see anything wrong with the definition, it's all perfectly accurate. Although I would add that one of the steps of Purists in the wake of the liscensing of Naruto is that they're begging ShoPro to 'unliscense it'.
- Note: Comment by 67.183.120.178. This is his only edit. --InShaneee 15:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Sockpuppets and unregistered users may love it, but editors with a history here hold this encyclopedia to much, much higher standards than this insulting, pointless, nonnotable neologism. DreamGuy 09:27, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete --nixie 09:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I am too a naruto-fan, and I think they should keep the word, but it was unnecessary for them to say that anime fans spend hundreds of dollars on cosplaying outfits, and that we camp out in front of offices.Lenna 04:14, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note: edit made by unregistered user 172.194.37.136. This is his only edit. --InShaneee 15:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 15:18, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Jane Dornacker

Non-notable reporter whose death, while sad, is not encyclopedic. Rick K 09:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, tragic but not notable. Gazpacho 09:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Blanked by author - could be speedied.~~ sjorford →•← 09:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep if article rewritten. Megan1967 10:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep if rewritten. Jane Dornacker may have been a non-notable reporter, but originally was well-known in the San Francisco Bay Area as a rock musician (toured with The Tubes and co-wrote their song "Don't Touch Me There", and led Leila and the Snakes before it morphed into Pearl Harbor and The Explosions) and stand-up comic. Not up to Ashlee Simpson level, maybe, but good enough for Wikipedia. --Calton 11:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to The Tubes then, and merge a summary of her other history in there. Radiant! 12:12, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep if rewritten. Capitalistroadster 14:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No vote. Interesting, even while googling for "Jane Dornacker" with a handicap of only matches that include the word helicopter this turns up 1140 google hits [19], and 2300 by name only. [20] She is listed as a "famous person" who died in an "aviation accident" on planecrashinfo.com. Thank you for spotting this Rick, if only I could have raised this issue myself. So the question here is: what is the existing precedent? Are we currently hosting articles on any other newscasters/reporters, living or deceased on Wikipedia? If so, why? Does the fact that her death happened live, while on the air, and then in turn received global press coverage, significantly increase her notability as a result in contrast to other reporters? Do the 1140 google matches for this individual become more meaningful after taking into consideration that this accident occured nearly 20 years ago in 1986? If you believe this is non-encyclopedic Rick, please explain why and what one must accomplish within their lifetime to "justify" an article on Wikipedia. GRider\^talk 17:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- People die all the time. The manner of the death might make them notable, but I fail to see how this person's does. If she hadn't died, would she rate an article? I doubt it, unless she had done something more noteworthy since the time she died. RickK 19:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  - Please explain why you consider this to be non-encyclopedic, and what one must accomplish within their lifetime to "justify" an article on Wikipedia. Is the manner in which someone died not worthy of consideration when determining notability? GRider\^talk 17:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep expanded and wikified. Just barely clears my notability bar due to additive effect of death on air and limited rock music fame. HyperZonk^talk 17:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. GRider did some work in making it presentable. I think this belongs. – flamurai (t) 17:48, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep if expanded to include information discussed here. Gamaliel 17:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can dig up. --Calton 13:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Just about a keep for me, but it really needs some work doing on it HowardB 17:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. None of the factors would be sufficient alone, but when you add the music career and the acting career (although the latter sounds like it must have been pretty minor) it's enough. Isomorphic 20:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think the killed on the air is notable enough. Not like there have been many. --Woohookitty 00:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Jane Dornacker was also a rock musician and breifly a movie star. damicatz 20:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It's a stretch to call her a movie star, frankly, though it was a real Hollywood movie she was in. --Calton 13:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's a borderline keep IMO even without the information above. When asking myself the question, "Is Wikipedia a better encyclopdia with this information or without it?" I find myself answering with the former and not the latter. I would like to see an expansion, however. BenSamples 21:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard 23:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup. Legitimate subject, poor article. — Gwalla | Talk 01:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Well-known. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 06:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Duh, keep. —RaD Man (talk) 02:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Needville, Texas. —Korath (Talk) 15:27, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Needville Harvest Festival

It's a local festival. Since most every town has one of those, I fail to see why this one is notable. Radiant! 09:38, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep or merge with Needville. Redirect to Needville, Texas. bbx 15:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Okay, redirect then. Delete. I have just merged this into Needville, Texas. HyperZonk^talk 17:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Needville, Texas. Delete. ~~Merge with Needville, Texas~~. Too short in its current state to deserve its own article. – flamurai (t) 17:50, Feb 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 no concensus according to user:DeathPheonix. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 06:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nenad Prokic

While this person may be notable, that cannot be inferred from the article. Substantiate or delete please. Radiant! 09:45, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Tricky one - Balkan playwrights probably don't tend to make a big splash in English language google. Average Earthman 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just under the bar of notability for me. Megan1967 22:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, looks probably notable enough, would be good to have someone who can read Serbian weigh in. Keep in mind that his native language is written in Cyrillic, which holds down the Google hits for any given transliteration. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:59, Feb 19, 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. Pending deletion. Joyous 22:13, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Neo-catastrophism

Original essay with a neologistic name. I'd say merge if not for the fact that all content found here is already better explained in other sections. Radiant! 09:46, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

This nomination has too few votes. It is the belief of this particular administrator that this debate is still on-going. Due to the change in how votes for deletion is processed, it has been readded so that a consensus may be reached. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nothing in this article distinguishes between neo-catastrophism and the traditional 19th-century concept of catastrophism. Re-write if it's a meaningful term, delete otherwise. - TB 12:42, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Delete. Not terribly well-written essay. Android79 17:01, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but a weak one. Appears to be attested to, including references in some college courses. Still only 571 Google hits, however. I would agree with both of the above that it is in need of a substantial rewrite. HyperZonk^talk 18:00, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV original essay. Megan1967 23:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original essay, neologism. The funny thing is that I think it's a valid and noteworthy observation. There really was a uniformitarian orthodoxy prior to Luis Alvarez' presentation of the asteroid impact theory. Some may remember Immanuel Velikovsky, a nutjob with who wrote a book or books in the 1950s, Worlds in Collision being the title of one of them, full of cockamamie theories about how all sorts of BIblical miracles were explained by planets randomly knocking other planets to leave their orbits at the right time so that they could part the Red Sea, cause the Flood, etc. I think the manna from heaven that fed the Israelites in the wilderness was supposed to be edible hydrocarbons from a comet's tail or something. Anyway, he was scorned by the scientific establishment, in part because it was just felt that the universe didn't work that way. Geological events were the results of slow, continuous processes. Then Alvarez came along, and my first thought was "Wow! Velikovsky stuff!" Now we live in a world where all sorts of things are thought be caused by asteroids smacking into planets. There really has been a change in our world view. But such comments probably belong in Uniformitarianism and/or Catastrophism and should be cautious and well-sourced. Well, there's my little original POV essay for the day. But at least I'm not spouting it into an article in the main namespace. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Josh Cherry 03:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Dpbsmith. It might be nice to have an interesting article on modern catastopist theories, but this isn't it. Miss Pippa 10:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete' This is handled at Catastrophism, Immanuel Velikovsky, Tollmann's hypothetical bolide Tunguska Event etc. none of which are linked here. They are more in the nature of encyclopedia reports than essays. This ne is purely a pwrsinal essay. --Wetman 11:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as per Dpbsmith (and frankly I'm amazed we don't have a Worlds in Collision article yet; Velikovsky is always good for a laugh) Antandrus 17:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete this drivel. Please. Edeans 23:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete What makes it Neo? I don't see the relevance. Catastrophes happen. If this were supposed to be in contrast to Biblical catastrophes and in support of rare events that drive evolution, then it should be kept. I don't see any value to the current article. --Aranae 08:05, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Catastrophism to discourage recreation - David Gerard 15:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vsmith 17:12, 11 Mar 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Network on chip

A 'new idea' for networking would be using chips. The information in this stub is already covered elsewhere in WP, and the term is rather pointless. Radiant! 09:51, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. "Network on Chip (NoC) is a new idea for designing such future SoCs" is more appropriate in an article's section, not an entirely new entry. Zzyzx11 20:23, 18 Feb 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. jni 16:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New Breed Churches

Mission statement for a religious movement, or so it seems. Can anyone substantiate the movement? Google indicates that there is a book of this title, but I haven't found an actual church. Radiant! 09:51, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I was unable to extract one iota of meaning from the article. Delete - TB 12:38, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, not meaningful, mumbo jumbo. HowardB 17:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It also looks like it might be Copyvio. Zzyzx11 20:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV, not notable, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 22:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete I'm reasonably familiar with new church movements, and I've never heard of this one. DJ Clayworth 04:38, 20 Feb 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. jni 16:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New community project

Church project. While well-intended, it seems very localized and it doesn't seem to have any unique goals. It does google, but most results are unrelated. Radiant! 09:56, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Newly formed religious sect. If they're around in five years give 'em an article. For now, delete - TB 12:39, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable, parochial and incredibly unimaginatively named. HowardB 17:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable and it almost reads like a self-promotion. Zzyzx11 20:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 22:43, 18 Feb 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. Death phoenix 05:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Newly industrializing economy

While the term has some economic significance, it is basically a circular dicdef. Radiant! 09:57, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I am considering this debate to be unresolved, and left open. Therefore, I am going to relist it through the VFD process to let it conclude. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a real and significant concept that needs to be covered. The examples make it somewhat more useful than a mere definition. Keep, ~~or put a short definion at NIE and redirect to Newly industrialized countries.~~ Kappa 10:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ though needs to be expanded. It is an important economic concept ~~and is seperate from NICs.~~ -- Lochaber 15:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I apologise, after further investigation it would seem that these days the terms NIE and NIC are quite interchangeable, this had not been the case when I studied Economics. I would argue that industrialising and industrialised are different in that an article about NIE's would include discussion on how the economies change/industrialise, the concept if you will, while NIC would be giving cases where this has happened, However to avoid confusion I think it might be best to go with Kappa's suggestion - short def at NIE and redirect to NIC. Then expanded NIC article to include reference to indicators -- Lochaber 17:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Simpler, I would have thought, to delete and replace with redirect to NIC, and add "also known as Newly Industrializing Economy" somewhere in the first paragraph of NIC. HowardB 17:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just think that it's a bit more complicated than that... the relationship is more that a "Newly Industrializing Economy / Country" becomes a "Newly Industrialized Economy / Countries". However I think the main problem is that the article at NIC is actually about Newly Industrializing Countries rather than Newly Industrialized Countries. However, realistically I don't know that anyone is going to correct this or that they even require seperate articles, especially given that both states are transitional. In my opinion the best situation would be if the two articles were merged under "Newly Industrializing Economy" (or Country) and the fact mentioned that "Country" and "Economy" are interchangable (add redirects), as far as I'm aware NIE was the original OECD term, though if anyone knows better then please say so. What does anyone think of that suggestion? --

Lochaber 10:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Notable economic term. Capitalistroadster 11:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep if it's an OECD definition - that means it's real and people might actually come looking for it - David Gerard 12:09, 9 Mar 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 as unresolved copyvio per findings below. No judgement yet made on whether a non-copyvio article would be encyclopedic. Rossami (talk) 06:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nez Perce Stake Race

Non-notable horse race, or dicdef thereof. Radiant! 11:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Presumably a significant part of Nez Perce culture, since horses were very important to them, and a notable use of the Appaloosa breed of horse. Would you delete steeplechase if it was just a dicdef? Kappa 12:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No, but I would transwiki it. Radiant! 12:55, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  - The policy is "Can never be more than a dictionary definition (dicdef) -> move to wiktionary." Kappa 13:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Reference: The ApHC rulebook is available as a free pdf download from [21] (The Appaloosa Horse Club) but be aware that it is a 272 page pdf file at 2.91 Mb. The pdf handbook is indeed identified as © 2005 by The Appaloosa Horse Club, Inc. Nez Perce Stake Race (added by the same editor) is also copied from the same handbook. -DialUp 02:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) (Copied over from Wikipedia:Copyright problems re the discussion for Camas Prairie Stump Race and Camas Prairie Stump Race/Temp) DialUp 16:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My preference would be for it to be merged, by someone who knows about, it into the "Nez Perce horse breeding program" section of the very good Nez Perce article. Probably worth a mention there, but otherwise unless it can be improved upon (means very little to me as it is written), delete. HowardB 17:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, dictionary definition, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 22:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Note: The Stake race is affiliated with the Appaloosa Horse Club (not with the Nez Perce horse program) which has more than 150 local organizations and more than 33,000 members worldwide. Many of the local organization sponsor these gaming events and this event is one in which the parent organization ranks horses at the National Show each year (yes, I downloaded their handbook). I think a stub would be appropriate, but on a temp page. This page is a copy vio. DialUp 05:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Note to Administrators. My vote was to keep but looks as if I wasn't clear. If the vote is not for a clear delete, perhaps you can delete anyway so it won't have to be listed on WP:CP. I'll go ahead and create a sports stub similar to the Stump Race stub to keep the link active until some one writes an article about all the gaming races. Then perhaps they can be merged together. Leave a message here or at User talk:DialUp letting me know your decision. DialUp 15:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 16:26, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Nigel Ashford

Co-author of three British political books. Doesn't seem to pass the professor test. Radiant! 11:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

A reasonably influential author on modern political thought. I've expanded the article slightly and now say keep - TB 12:18, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with TB, and at least one of Ashford's books is required reading for some UK university courses. HowardB 17:23, 18 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nimaya

Indian IT company, but nothing is said about them except a bunch of standard buzzwords. Doesn't google much, 500-ish hits most of which are unrelated since it's also a girl name. Radiant! 11:24, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep but clean up. Also a city in Guatemala. Nateji77 12:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For a small company to be listed on Wikipedia, I feel there has to be something unique about it, or highly talked about in its field, or responsible for some significant innovation. I strongly suspect that this falls into none of those categories. Self-promotion. Delete HowardB 17:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Probably advertizing. Take it straight from the doormat to the kitchen wastebin like all the rest of the junk mail. Anthony Appleyard 20:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Currently, it is self-promotion. It needs more notable information than that. Zzyzx11 20:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, advertisement, possible vanity. Megan1967 22:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertisement, and not even a good one at that. -- Brhaspati 05:24, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was (no consensus). This debate was previously closed by an administrator. Cleaning up. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is concluded without a consensus to delete. Please do not edit it further. Additional comments go to the article talk page. --Zero 12:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

University of Sydney Media Society

Very little information, doesn't appear to be notable. Henry plantagenet 11:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Concur. Redirect to university main page. Radiant! 12:07, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Small but perfectly fine article. --Zero 12:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems OK to me. HowardB 17:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to University of Sydney, unless there is some notable information that can be added. As it is now, it is more like self-promotion. Zzyzx11 20:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 22:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. --Centauri 01:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Could you please explain why you think it is notable? Henry plantagenet 06:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why are so anxious to delete it? What harm is it doing? Wikipedia is not paper! --Zero 12:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because, Henry plantagenet, it is notable. I've never attended Sydney University but I've certainly heard of its media society.--Centauri 23:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

However, it scores a whopping seventeen google hits. Could you please substantiate its notability beyond the fact that you've heard of it? Radiant! 10:14, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

The fact I've heard of it is the only "substantiation" necessary to establish notability.--Centauri 12:58, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

keep Yuckfoo 04:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to University of Sydney. Sorry, it's clearly below my notability bar: worthy of mention in Wikipedia, unworthy of an individual article. vlad_mv 05:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Longhair 02:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, of no importance --nixie 09:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
merge and redirect At best, this is a stub. Unless someone adds real content to this soon, it should be merged into the university article and split out later if it grows enough. The website linked does not have much content either. Clicking on About gives me Page not found. --ssd 15:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is not a part of Sydney University and should not be directed there. --Zero 12:38, 27 Feb 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. jni 16:28, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nobski

Sex-related slang. Notable? Radiant! 11:52, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. utcursch 13:04, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: recreated article Kappa 14:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Sounds extremely spurious, and I cannot find any reference to the term anywhere else (except a wiki mirror). HowardB 16:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete: After quickly scanning the Google hits, the only web sites that even come close are the ones that are accessing Wikipedia's database. Zzyzx11 20:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable slang, possible hoax. Megan1967 00:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ComCat 02:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Longhair 01:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism, possible hoax. — Gwalla | Talk 01:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 00:50, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Norli

Non-existant animal. Mild BJAODN. Radiant! 11:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. utcursch 13:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. Joke, probably a private joke at someone's expense. Entire content Norli is an extremely vicious animal, living in the norwegian rainforests. It has sharp pointed teeth and a sharp tounge. This is partly the reason that its recruited to feminist militant actions. Thus beeing a sworn enemy of most men, idiots and great ones alike. CSD article case #1. Andrewa 18:28, 18 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

North Philadelphia Aztecs

The North Philadelphia Youth Association has supported this youth football and cheerleading program. That doesn't sound particularly notable, every school has such a program. Radiant! 11:56, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Good for them. Delete Johntex 20:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, trivial, promo. Megan1967 22:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Move to Olivary nucleus. CSTAR 00:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nucleus olivaris

This is entirely written in medical lingo. Could someone who understands this please explain if this is 1)valid, 2)dicdef, or 3)nonsensical? Radiant! 11:59, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep it's real, but somewhat poorly written. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Comment Move to Olivary nucleus for sure, as that is its common name (even in medicine). 23,000 hits on exact phrase "olivary nucleus" versus less than a thousand for "nucleus olivaris." I don't know if the description is valid. The fact that the term is so formal and the article so technical, from an anon who under that IP has no other medical contributions, is very odd. I have to wonder whether this is a copyvio. However, the only exact text match Google finds is from [22] which got it from Wikipedia.
Keep, mark as stub, mark for cleanup, move to Olivary nucleus. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Move to Olivary nucleus, mark as stub and for cleanup I concur. Zzyzx11 20:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Move to Olivary nucleus, cleanup and expand. @ Megan1967 22:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Move. The title of the article should be spelled "nucleus olivarius" but the Anglicized name, as other have mentioned as a redirect target, is Olivary nucleus. That is fine for a redirect, but instead I propose that it redirect to Olivary body which will contain information about its component, the olivary nucleus. I will begin work on the olivary body article. —Brim 06:15, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 16:49, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Northstar (demogroup)

While I have actually heard of them, I hold the opinion that demo groups aren't particularly notable. What is the consensus on this? Radiant! 11:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

A very valid question: Where do vintage-era demoscene groups fit into our community's notion of "notability"? Does this article offer any potential value to our readers, and does that value outweigh the costs of diskspace and hosting on our servers? A narrowed down search of "Northstar +Sweden +demo" returns about 1070 google hits, most of which are relevant. [23] Is google a fair metric when taking into consideration that this group lived and died years before a time when demoscene groups used the internet? Where does "the bar" lie for these organizations, and do the same rules apply to those who existed during the mid to late 1980s? No vote. GRider\^talk 17:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed a valid question. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a 'demo' as released by a demoscene is basically a piece of vanity - pretty pictures, music and/or special effects combined with a list of names and greetz. Quite frankly making such a demo is easy for any competent programmer, and therefore not notable. I do believe the demoscene originated in the pre-internet days, where they were part of the hacker/warez/courier scene, and served to promote one warez group over another. Several well-known names come to mind from the early PC scene, or MSX or C64 (BH Legend, Razor 1911 and TRSI, to name a few). Also note that these demos were often marvels of graphical efficiency in barely a kilobyte of assembly code. I would like some feedback and discussion on this matter, but I tend towards the opinion that the 'early' demoscene is notable, whereas the 'current' demoscene is not. Radiant! 22:21, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  - Well then by your own standard Northstar should be kept as they are old skool (1980s). ALKIVAR™ 08:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Does that mean you concur with my standard? And note that I haven't voted yet. Radiant! 10:05, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
      - On some level yes, Old skool demo groups (definate keep), New skool demo groups (award winners; those with an established presence; those that have a high google count; those mentioned in a mainstream press form eg. radio, tv, newspaper, magazine, etc...) that covers most of my noteability grounds. I do reserve the right to add to that :P ALKIVAR™ 10:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        Fair enough, but at least we have established a bit of consensus here, which was the main point of this nomination. Keep. Radiant! 11:03, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable. --Woohookitty 19:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 00:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep the myopia shown by the average deletionist tells me i'm in the wrong profession. How much does it take to go thru optometry school? does anyone know? Its a noteworthy group period. ALKIVAR™ 08:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- An ad hominem doesn't substantiate anything. Radiant! 10:05, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  - Its not ad hominem, its against a group not an individual for one, and for another i'm not specifically targetting you. I feel alot of the content of VfD falls under the "I've never heard of it so its not noteable" fallacy. ALKIVAR™ 10:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This oldskool Swedish demogroup is inherently noteworthy and has also cooperated with the legendary likes of Fairlight and The Silents. The article admittedly does need revision, but such that's what Wikipedia is made for. —RaD Man (talk) 09:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with both RaD Man and Alkivar's comments. --Andylkl 11:44, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
"and does that value outweigh the costs of diskspace and hosting on our servers?" - What costs? Keep. Dan100 19:40, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
keep Yuckfoo 04:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Votes made without explanation are subject to being discounted or even ignored by the deciding admin. Please explain your vote even if you think it is obvious. Rossami (talk)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nur Mahana

NPOV article on alleged Syrian singer, but not substantiated in google. Is this valid or vanity? Radiant! 12:02, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think it might be a troll. There is a famous middle eastern signer named Nour Mhanna, but the song titles are fractured too. --iMeowbot~Mw 12:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and move to Nour Mhanna as that seems to be the most common Latin transcription. I made a new Category:Arabic language singers and added him and another couple of articles to it. With proper categorization and linking, hopefully someone will find it and edit it. / u p p l a n d 13:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 23:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. - Mustafaa 03:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep supporting Uppland. Kappa 04:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep for presumably meeting Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines (since one of the "Middle Eastern hits" was presumably in a national Top 100 list, equivalent or would have been if there was such a thing for all countries) Tuf-Kat 02:32, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Darwinek 13:20, 23 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nöthling

Genealogy. Radiant! 12:03, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Genealogy is not for Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 20:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Genealogy. --Neigel von Teighen 20:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- Longhair 01:25, 21 Feb 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 as an inappropriate fork. However, having deleted the history, I am recreating the article as a redirect. While we do not need redirects for every possible misspelling, this is a reasonably probable mistake for english-speakers to make. Rossami (talk) 06:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Nagorno-Karabahk

Republic of Nagorno-Karabahk, is a misspelling; 'Karabahk' not 'Karabakh'.
Per Dante Alighieri's "not a speedy candidate..." I'm bringing this here. The main article is at Nagorno-Karabakh already and is hotly fought over (not by me); please see Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. — Davenbelle 12:27, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

No need to bring it here, just make it a redirect to the correct spelling. --Zero 13:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Easy spelling mistake to make, so redirect. Average Earthman 13:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh is a region that is the object of a disputed between Azerbaijan and Armenia. They had a real war, not just an edit war. For a taste of just how hot people get over this issue, read about Ramil Safarov. The copy of the page at Republic of Nagorno-Karabahk is one of many created the other day by an anon, User:64.136.2.254, who also messed with a lot of redirects and every link to the Nagorno-Karabakh page. Theresa knott cleaned up a lot of the mess. This page is still around because a likely sockpuppet, User:Clarkefreak, reverted out the {{del}} tag and made this page ineligible for speedying. I'm working with the parties to end the dispute. If I thought that a redirect was appropriate, I could have saved myself a lot of typing. — Davenbelle 13:36, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been following the dispute on the page (and the British media appear to have largely got bored with the area several years ago and moved on to newer conflicts) so I fail to see why, exactly, a redirect is inappropriate. The article contains a misspelling, and the unrecognised self-styled Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh is, I believe, within the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Since we aim for NPOV, a Stalinist refusal to mention what is going on in the area is not an option, so the self-styled republic must be mentioned at some point in the Nagorno-Karabakh article. Unless someone can demonstrate that this spelling is widely used except as a spelling mistake, this article can only exist as a redirect. Average Earthman 16:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This particular page, Republic of Nagorno-Karabahk, was created, just the other day, to express the POV that the region is no longer a part of Azerbaijan. The specific contents of this page was one side of an edit war and was being regularly reverted. Other pages such as Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, Rebublic of Nagorno-Karabahk, Rebublic of Nagorno-Karabakh, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Nagorno-Karabahk Republic, and Nagorno Karabakh Republic were also created or had an existing redirect replaced with the disputed content; note the various spellings. Many pages were edited to point to the disputed content instead of the Nagorno-Karabakh page. The misspelled ones are gone, excepting this one which doesn't qualify for speedy. It is a piece of snot that needs to go away (the spelling, not the POV). I have no doubt that it will if I write several more pages about it! This is all being worked on at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh and Nagorno-Karabakh. These are the real pages; if the discussion there concludes that there should be an article with the word "Republic" in it, we would use one of the correctly spelled pages, not one that has a typo in its name. I, of course, agree that the NKR must be covered in the ariticle; I'm not one of the POV-pushers, I'm the mediator (unlicensed). I ask you to vote delete, please. —&nbspDavenbelle 23:28, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. — Davenbelle 06:14, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC) — No need to support a redirect for every typo under the sun. If you disagree, here are some other candidates: Republic of Nagorno-Karabake, Repuplic of Nagorno-Karabakh, Republic of Nogorno-Karabakh, Nagorno-Karabath Republic, Nagordo-Karabakh Republic, and the Untied States of Amerika.
Delete. Grue 12:29, 19 Feb 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. jni 16:27, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Post modern politics

Table of Contents of a book. utcursch 12:35, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Binadot 12:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Vanity, attempts to draw people to amazon to buy it. Delete. Radiant! 12:55, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertising. Non-notable book. ISBN 0964607379, Algora Pub (December 1, 1998) but according to Amazon no longer in print. Algora does not appear to be a vanity press; however, this book does not appear to be listed on their website, even in the catalog of books published "before 1999." Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
When an article has a hyperlink to Amazon, please check for copyright violation before coming to VFD. This article is a copyright violation of one of the reviews in this book's Amazon entry. Amazon's copyright can be found at the bottom of every Amazon page. Uncle G 15:22, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, advertisement, copyright violation. Megan1967 00:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 15:34, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

KIXI

Are radio stations inherently notable? Because there's nothing notable in the article. Radiant! 12:49, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, I guess — Plenty of precendents with other radio station pages, and this has more content than most that I've seen. — RJH 18:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and mark as a stub like some of the other radio station pages. Zzyzx11 20:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article does not establish notability. Megan1967 23:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, licensed radio stations are part of a larger system. --SPUI (talk) 00:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
keep Yuckfoo 04:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 15:36, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

KKOB-AM

Are radio stations inherently notable? Because there's nothing notable in the article. Radiant! 12:48, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand. Deficiencies in an article have absolutely nothing to do with the notability of the subject. The station has been in operation since 1919 and in just a few minutes of casual looking I've already found a some interesting stuff to add. --iMeowbot~Mw
Keep — it's undoubtedly of local interest, and is much better than most of the radio station articles I've seen. — RJH 18:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and mark as a stub like some of the other radio station pages. Zzyzx11 20:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article does not establish notability. Megan1967 23:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, licensed radio stations are part of a larger system. --SPUI (talk) 00:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
'keep Yuckfoo 04:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Longhair 01:26, 21 Feb 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. jni 16:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

KPX

Multinational (?) business, but it doesn't google (600 hits, most of which unrelated) Radiant! 12:48, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Advertising, self promotion -- it's just a bike dealership -- not notable. Delete. HowardB 16:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. KPX Motors is an importer/distributor — Alexa only gives it a rank of 197,151, so it's not a big one, and Google is only giving me 211 hits, so it's not well known. Hardly enough of a distribution phenomenon to be called notable. HyperZonk^talk 17:41, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing notable. Just self-promotion. Zzyzx11 20:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
delete' Yuckfoo 04:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 14:47, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Kaskad

Alleged defunct KGB guard team, no subtantiation. Radiant! 12:52, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. "Kaskad" + "KGB" does google [Search] to 103 pages; some of them are non-Wiki resources that seem to substantiate the veracity of the article. Whether this passes notability tests is another issue. I will abstain from voting till I see some more discussion. vlad_mv 04:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As this made it through VfD with one comment and not a single vote, I'm relisting it. —Korath (Talk) 16:44, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Seems to be notable, if you're into the cloaks and daggers stuff. Which I'm not, so the opinion of an afficionado would be welcome. HyperZonk^talk 18:33, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. They seem to be somewhat notable. - Jeltz talk 21:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge into KGB, where it belongs, even if you are into cloak-and-dagger stuff. --Calton 23:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to have several links in what links here indicating a certain degree of importance.Capitalistroadster 09:58, 2 Mar 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. jni 16:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

KasparovX

VfD Blanked twice already! Vanity page. Chess programs aren't particularly notable unless they're good, and this one is written by a student somewhere. Radiant! 12:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Another apparently lost/orphaned VfD nom, as the tag was added Nov 7, but there doesn't seem to be a voting page, and it's not on "old". Less than 70 displayed hits seems non-notable. Procedural/delete. Niteowlneils 22:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Looks like another Freshmeat or advertising article. Geogre 02:03, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
oK i tried to fix this a bit, but fucking hell! I mean there is nothing there - dude! delete for sure Wifki 06:50, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Appropriate for Freshmeat. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete as above. HyperZonk^talk 17:45, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. Zzyzx11 21:03, 18 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coordination in CSCW

Not encyclopedic. Delete. utcursch 12:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

192.16.127.10 has removed the VfD tag. However, this is an attempt at an essay, which is indeed not encyclopedic. Delete (possible speedy for lack of any content whatsoever) Radiant! 13:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
It does not qualify under the speedy criteria now. The author is advised to look at the "References" section of computer supported cooperative work to see some of the venues where original research articles like this should be published. Delete. Uncle G 15:14, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
This is not original work. We are just trying to explain what coordination in CSCW is wrt different researches. Plus we are newbie. and This page will be written by around dozen students. We will add things within next few days under different headings that have been created for other fellow students. DO NOT Delete. asimghaffar 20:22, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
- Comment -- asimghaffar, I strongly recommend that you find another place to do this in. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place. Maybe wikinfo.org might be better. Zzyzx11 21:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Concur with Zzyzx. This is not the appropriate place. Radiant! 21:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Looking at the current section headers, it looks more like a research paper than an encyclopedia article. Zzyzx11 21:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Do not delete. Despite the rough start, the article, in its current form, (though still incomplete) does conform to the 'norm' of other, similar, articles such as Groupware and Video_teleconference . The article meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. In fact, the comments of Zzyzx11 are not correct in regards to the "look" of the paper when compared to such norms (delineated above). Some of the initial comments (e.g. by Radiant) were made because the article was initially only an outline with no content.
- As for the content of the work, it is, in fact, encyclopedic, and even properly referenced; the content reflects the views of the establishment in CSCW.
- The article is appropriate. The article is not original research. In its current form, there is no longer any violation of the Wikipedia deletion policy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy ), and thus should not be deleted. Therefore, my vote (based on the article's compliance) is Do not delete. - Funflyer at 08:17, 23 Feb 2005
Comment. According to the page history, the previous comment was made by Funflyer at 08:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC). Secondly, regarding the comment I wrote above: "Looking at the current section headers, it looks more like a research paper than an encyclopedia article." I made that comment when only the Introduction section was complete and the other sections were completely blank. Zzyzx11 10:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. (Thanks Zzyzx11; I added my sig & better format from my 23 Feb comment). The article is complete. It is Wikipedia compliant. It is also quite useful in the fields of CSCW and HCI/HMI. If there are any other suggestions for improvement, or if any opinions still exist for deleting this article, please state them. Otherwise, I see no reason this article should still be a candidate for deletion. --Funflyer 18:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Do not delete. This excellent article is indeed encyclopedic. It is well-written and appropriate for Wikipedia. It is in compliance with the Wikipedia policy. Keep it! --Mustafa Taher 12:30, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Note: This is user's first edit. utcursch | talk 12:50, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thou Art False!

Delete. Non-notable. Binadot 13:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In spite of its categories, this is not Shakespearean nor L33tspeak. Delete. Radiant! 13:17, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it is. It occurs in act 4 of Othello and act 4 of The Comedy of Errors. It's also Nietzschean, occurring in section 65 of Also Sprach Zarathustra. It's also occurs in act 4 of A King and No King (1619) by Beaumont and Fletcher. In fact, there are reams of occurrences of this particular exclamation in literature. (There's even a SubGenius one.) It's entirely non-notable, and the article is factually incorrect and verging upon the tautologous to boot. Delete. Uncle G 16:21, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Delete, until there is notable evidence to the contrary. Zzyzx11 21:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I use this phrase daily! --GO@C 20:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Thou art non-notable! Gamaliel 20:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as not-notable and such and such. KingTT 03:24, 28 Feb 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. jni 16:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Hewes

Former player in a former band. Radiant! 13:07, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. We can always rewrite when his next band hits the big time. HyperZonk^talk 17:48, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, until there is notable evidence to the contrary. Zzyzx11 21:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 23:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete for not meeting Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 02:32, Feb 23, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kdrt-lp

Another radio station that fails to establish notability. (name: dirt, low-power) Radiant! 13:05, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep — It's probably notable to the community it serves, and has 12,000 hits on Google. But it does need expansion. Perhaps stations like these should just be on a summary table page until somebody expands it? — RJH 18:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Everything is notable to someone. The point (or, at least, my opinion) is that this is not notable enough for inclusion in WikiPedia. And are we using the same google here? I get 36 results for "KDRT-LP" and 1410 for "KDRT LP". Radiant! 22:00, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Comment -- I don't think any Wikipedian has listed a low-power, community radio station on the list of radio stations yet. Should we start now? Zzyzx11 21:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article does not establish notability. Megan1967 23:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not only is this not notable, it's barely literate. The FCC just started issuing low-power FM licenses. There are probably going to be a rash of these little bitty stations as a result. They'll have a range of five, maybe six miles from what I've read. Heck, when most full-power, Class A and Class B stations don't warrant their own articles, these definitely shouldn't IMO. - Lucky 6.9 02:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Low power means low notability. Average Earthman 00:31, 20 Feb 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. Gargaj 12:12, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

As of 12:12, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC), the votes are: 11 keeps (discarding SKissel's vote - sorry scamp, that's the law here), 1 delete. Clean and nice consensus to keep. // Gargaj 12:12, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

Kewlers

Even if demo groups were notable, this one looks too wannabe to be so. Radiant! 13:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Horribly wrong. Strong keep. Those awards aren't jokes, they DID win a major CG festival. // Gargaj 18:31, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Edit: cite reference
Edit: Since you all love Google (the name is unique)

EXTREME KEEP. As was already noted in this article, Kewlers have won several awards including the International Scene Organization's "2003 scene.org awards", the most prestigious award one can receive and the analogous equivalent to the Academy Awards for the demoscene. They were also the single most nominated group for the recently announced (as of this month) 2004 scene.org awards. Did you get the memo? Next time just fucking google it and not waste everyones time with ANOTHER wholly unwarranted vfd. —RaD Man (talk) 19:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment, Hey RaD, man, google is not the only test. For example, there is Alexa, which seems to indicate that many of these demoscene web sites are pretty obscure. If scene.org has an Alexa rank of 215,000, being absolutely the most famous dudes on that site isn't very convincing. There is also Google Groups, which has only 39 hits for "Kewlers" . You obviously think the demoscene is notable and confers notability on its leading figures; but other people are entitled to disagree. So, chill, please; be a bit civil, and stop trying to force your opinion through on bluster. --BM 21:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- RaD Man is only following suit - VfD something on Wiki and everyone will attack/defend it with Google hit stats. (I know it's silly, but still it's a fact that they do it and this is the best precaution.)
  About the Alexa ranking: True. It's low compared to e.g. Slashdot. But count the number of websites on that ranking and you'll see that actually it isn't bad at all compared to a repository-site. // Gargaj 21:41, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
- Comment -- Regardless of what is on Google, news sites, and other references, it should really all depend on if the demoscene is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 21:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, maybe it only looks only "too wannabe to be so" because there are only membership- and release-listings, some describing text about what the group does would be good. MadenMann
- FYI: According to the page history, this comment was made by 212.202.210.221. Zzyzx11 21:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Yeah right. Because I still don't have an own account (the reason for my "neutrality" here and on other VfDs). For correcting mistakes I was never in a need of one. MadenMann @ 04:45 UTC+1 with the same IP as above.
    - MadenMann— Your demoscene edits are no doubt valuable contribs to Wikipedia, why not just log in with an actual user account so your votes will be considered at the close of vfd? —RaD Man (talk) 07:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
keep keep keep keep. i have no clue where you get it from that is looks "wannabe", radiant. it's informative and simple. -kusma
- FYI: According to the page history, this comment was made by 195.18.161.22. Zzyzx11 21:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
delete. "numerous awards" from a marginally notable awarder. Mikkalai 21:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~, though I might be willing to vote keep if there were some sort of introductory paragraph providing a description and context about all these meaningless lists. Gamaliel 21:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Like this? // Gargaj 23:09, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
  - Much better. Changing my vote to a weak keep based on the awards. I will note that I think this was a perfectly legitimate vfd listing given the sad state of the article at the time and once again lament the lack of civility on vfd. Gamaliel 23:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Comment. This article was in much better shape than many of the botanical sub-stubs I've been marking recently (which are, for the most part, being kept). BM also raises an interesting point: What "test" must an article pass in order for an article to be kept? Kewlers for example receives 2830 hits [24]. Is that not enough? Must it also achieve a high number of Alexa points on an awards site which it is not directly related to? How do demoscene groups compare in notability in contrast to, for example, internet memes? No vote. GRider\^talk 23:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~. Possibly merge useful info into a demoscene article. Carrp | Talk 22:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm changing my vote to keep. This article is much better now. I like when that happens. Carrp | Talk 04:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but with reservations. Needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 00:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep the myopia shown by the average deletionist tells me i'm in the wrong profession. How much does it take to go thru optometry school? does anyone know? Kewlers not only is one of the top 5 demo groups currently in the demoscene but several members are responsible for a good portion of the CGI coming out of hollywood these days as well. ALKIVAR™ 08:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- An ad hominem doesn't actually substantiate anything. Radiant! 10:10, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- It would be nice if the article actually mentioned those things, but of course we're already supposed to know that ahead of time, and if we don't, we're hopelessly myopic deletionists. Gamaliel 08:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Gamaliel— It already mentions that they're receiving the lion's share of nominations at this year's scene.org awards. You don't need to know it ahead of time, I already spelled it out for you. If you opt to discount this annual awards show as "marginally notable", that's your call. As I understand it, an award from the scene.org awards is the highest honor you can receive within the demoscene. —RaD Man (talk) 08:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- several members are responsible for a good portion of the CGI coming out of hollywood these days as well - Whaaaaat? I didn't know that. Goddamn, those KWL guys never tell us anything like that. :D // Gargaj 22:44, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  - I only found that out purely by accident after talking to one of the iCE guys doing similar work. ALKIVAR™ 04:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
See that's the problem. A demo group is actually a group of people who think they're great and release small (or large) graphical/musical demos to tell the world how great they are. I do believe that the demoscene is notable only to people who are part of it. That is not particularly encyclopedic. The fact that they have an internal contest does not make them notable. I don't think I've ever seen them mentioned on TV or in newspapers. Radiant! 10:10, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- No, you are wrong. Perhaps you have "demo group" confused with "rap group". The purpose of a demo is artistic expression. The purpose of a cracktro is self-promotion. Kewlers produces demos, not cracktros. There are books written about the demoscene [25], a DVD which contains a mini-documentary [26] as well as several academic papers written on the subject of demos, demoparties, and the culture of the demoscene. [27] [28] [29] Now get reading. —RaD Man (talk) 10:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You don't exactly see, say, Gabber or Death grunting on TV or newspapers (NOT magazines) either I presume. Besides, if it wasn't for the demoscene, you wouldn't have 3DMark, Max Payne or .kkrieger. So as Lenin once said, "Learn, Learn, Learn!" // Gargaj 15:37, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
Keep. Decent article on the demoscene. --Andylkl 11:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I prefer demoscene-cruft over digimon cruft any day. Grue 12:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep They've released very notable art. -- SKissel 19:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- User's only edits are to this and one other vfd discussion.
  - Does it make a difference? I think the votes clearly show a consensus. // Gargaj 14:37, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
Keep, I don't really understand how this article came to be listed on VfD. It doesn't meet any of the criteria on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Dan100 19:43, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The expanation is that the nominator and some of the voters disagree with you: is that really so difficult to understand? --BM 13:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Reason was suspected vanity. That is a valid criterium. However, per the recent improvements, and Radman's explanation, I'll vote to Keep it. Radiant! 14:19, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
keep Yuckfoo 04:09, 20 Feb 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. jni 16:21, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ashu Meta

Not notable. utcursch 13:19, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

A man has a haircut and a beard. Notability not established by the article. Delete. Uncle G 15:07, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
And yet, he is the most signiicant (sic) member of the IIIT family. Wow, that bodes well for the rest of them. Delete. Radiant! 15:57, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Aye carumba. Delete. HyperZonk^talk 17:52, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "The goatee and the short haircut that became so much of a rage" in IIIT, Hyderabad is not notable enough. Zzyzx11 21:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. That must have been some haircut. Carrp | Talk 22:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, family vanity. Megan1967 23:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as an incomprehensible vanity page. I admit, however, this little tome made me glad that I decided to trim my own goatee this morning. - Lucky 6.9 01:11, 19 Feb 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. jni 16:21, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kien-zan

I'm sure we don't need an article on the Japanese name of a special attack of one individual character in Dragon Ball Z. (and yes, this stuff is already covered in DBZ so no point in merging) Radiant! 13:27, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

If nothing to merge, redirect. Kappa 15:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete minor trivia CDC (talk) 22:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, gamescruft. Megan1967 23:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, despite the fact that it is not properly wikified, it is irrelevant and not worthy of an individual article. If nothing to merge, no redirect, simply delete it. vlad_mv 05:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. — Gwalla | Talk 01:57, 21 Feb 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. jni 16:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

King/Chavez Academy of Excellence

Elementary school with like 40 students. I am so impressed. Radiant! 13:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating...Delete--CDN99 16:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It does not even specify what town the school is located in. Zzyzx11 21:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am flabbergasted...Delete yesterday. vlad_mv 05:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, even though it was "founded by Mr. Q." Jonathunder 06:21, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 06:24, 19 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kitchener range

Er, patent description for kitchen equipment? What is that doing here? Radiant! 13:38, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and mark as stub. It seems to have been the world’s first range cooker. [30] [31] Zzyzx11 22:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep but cleanup interesting - but I think that a "little" cleanup wouldn't be bad here :) Ana Jessica 06:40, 20 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Klabb bocci floriana

Bowling club that has its own clubhouse. Not notable. Radiant! 13:37, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Practicing the traditional Maltese form of bowling does not make one notable. Zzyzx11 22:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:10, 18 Feb 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 kept but I've also added a "factual accuracy" tag to the article and a mention of the relevant issues on the article's talk page. Rossami (talk) 06:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kinocilia

Sounds like gibberish to me (since it refers to a sensory fish hair cell, and last time I checked fish didn't have hair). But maybe it makes sense to a biologist or medicine student, in which case please tell me if this is valid, dicdef or indeed gibberish. Radiant! 13:41, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Actually, they are for real. However, they are those hairs in your inner ear that tell your brain about which way your head is accelerating. This definition has nothing to do with what they really are (except as a description of a special case, I presume). Therefore, not even transwikiable. I'm not a bio guy, so perhaps there's enough research to build a whole article out of, but I should imagine it probably should just be a dicdef. With the correct definition of course. HyperZonk^talk 17:55, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Cilia are a protective mechanism in humans combined with mucus. I don't think this definition is genuine. However, Kinocilia does get numerous Google results which it may be worth examining before assuming that this information is bogus. Hedley 20:08, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, rewrite and expand. @ Megan1967 23:11, 18 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kolínský

Praguish prison guard. Seems to have some relevance to a war history story, or maybe mythology, but (possibly because of spelling variations) I was unable to locate what this is about. Radiant! 13:47, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. What little is here is already covered in the Julius Fucik article. / u p p l a n d 15:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article duplication. Megan1967 23:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. Based on my understanding of Wiktionary's standards, however, I believe it belongs there. Since transwiki does not destroy history, it does not require the overwhelming concensus needed for deletion. I have put it in the transwiki queue. Rossami (talk) 06:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kujath

Etymology of a surname. Does this go in wiktionary or in /dev/null? Radiant! 13:55, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, geneaology. Megan1967 23:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Smith if appropriate. That article already lists some international variants. If Kujath doesn't qualify there, delete. -- Brhaspati 05:29, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Koordinate of Wonders

Either a short essay on how speling erors make you notable, or a stub for a Russian band that hasn't created an album yet. (the latter does google but isn't very notable of itself imho) Radiant! 13:48, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I believe it was Radiant! who coined the notable/not able distinction. Radiant! must now change handle spelling to Radiennt! so that Google will deem said user notable. HyperZonk^talk 17:59, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Awww, and I was so enjoying having my own vanity Radiant page... guess I'll have to stick with Gradient for now :) Radiant! 22:06, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 23:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
'Delete for not establishing meeting the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 02:34, Feb 23, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kubasaki

High school. Not notable. Radiant! 13:55, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Notability not established, and I think I'm leaning toward the high schools are not notable in and of themselves side. HyperZonk^talk 18:05, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of High Schools. vlad_mv 05:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Another bored student, another malformed substub. Delete as lacking both notability and content. - Lucky 6.9 23:10, 22 Feb 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. Rossami (talk) 06:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Korolenko

Pseudonym of Pavel Lion. With 42 hits, that man fails the professor test for notability. Radiant! 13:56, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Are you going by google hits in English for a Russian professor's notability? Anyway he passes the music test by releasing several albums and being an international perfomer, perfoming in Paris, Berlin and Trinity College [32] Kappa 15:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Needs expansion and categorization. Seems to be more notable as singer, at least in terms relevant to a Google search. Has released several CDs.[33] His pseudonym or stage name gets 13,500 hits in Cyrillic.[34] / u p p l a n d 15:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh, him. I've heard of him. Keep.DS 20:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
move the page to a proper title. Korolenko must be a dab against this guy and famous (was, in USSR) russian writer Vladimir Korolenko (I will write a stub tonight). Mikkalai 21:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 23:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- A person who released 4+ CDs is well above the bar of notability, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Mikkalai 00:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --Sn0wflake 03:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I have beaten Mikkalai to the punch by writng an article on Vladimir Korolenko the famous Russian author of the late 19th century. He also has articles in Britannica, Columbia and Encarta as an indication of his notability. As to his namesake, someone who records four albums and has toured internationally seems to qualify under the Wikimusic project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 04:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abstain ~~Delete~~, Vladimir Korolenko is notable, this guy I've never heard of. Grue 12:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "Never heard" is not a valid reason for deletion. Ever heard about thing called "google"? Mikkalai 01:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes, and "Psoy Korolenko" returns 497 hits. "Timofei Shatrov" returns 601 hits. I don't consider myself notable. This guy is even less notable. Grue 05:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Maybe you can tell if there is anything wrong with the 13,500 hits I got above. I don't read Russian, but the pages I looked at all appeared to be about this person. / u p p l a n d 06:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - Well, I concede my point. All of these hits are spot on. Grue 07:51, 20 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kristin Smedvig

Bio (or elegy) of a music teacher. Not particularly notable. Radiant! 13:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. No doubt a fine person and skilled violinist, she doesn't quite pass the notability bar: no solos with major orchestras, not concert-mistress of any professional orchestras after graduating, not widely known (16 Google hits). Will reconsider if someone has CV references establishing notability. HyperZonk^talk 18:12, Feb 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 delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vazhavilla

Non-notable. Vanity page about a family in India. Android79 14:49, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Concur. delete. Radiant! 15:42, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, genealogy, family vanity. Megan1967 23:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sounds suspiciously like someone trying establish the family's credentials in order to get the children married. Delete. -- Brhaspati 05:33, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ankita Bhambri

Not notable. This tennis player appears to only play on her national tennis circuit and is not ranked by the World Tennis Association[35] Allen3 14:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Tennis players need to be WTA ranked at a reasonably high level for inclusion - preferably at least one singles title as well. Average Earthman 00:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - she's played in two WTA tournaments (the Hyderabad Open, twice) and lost in the first round each time. Vote stands as before.Average Earthman 00:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. She does seem to be in the news. But the article can be recreated when she's more notable. -- Brhaspati 05:36, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 16:18, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Bukowski

Vanity. Popularity in campus should not justify as an article itself on Wikipedia. - Mailer Diablo 15:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- And it's not even established that he was popular on campus :) Deletel Radiant! 15:42, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pretty close to speedy. --Lee Hunter 17:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity! Lady Tenar 21:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete "He decided to move to Norway.. Cause the inventors of OPERA was from Norway" is not notable. Zzyzx11 23:42, 18 Feb 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. jni 16:18, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Audicate

Neologism. Rhobite 15:29, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't google. delete. Radiant! 15:43, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Come on, people, you can't use WP to coin neologisms! HyperZonk^talk 18:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "Audicate is a replacement term for podcast." Really? Where did you hear that from? Zzyzx11 23:44, 18 Feb 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. Last vote was made rather late. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IRC logs

Circular dicdef with external link. Radiant! 15:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not even notable enough for transwiki. --InShaneee 15:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Longhair 18:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep I have years of experience with IRC and I know IRC logs have a lot of impact on IRC channels. There are ethical issues of showing logs to others. IRC channels are highly political, and IRC logs have a lot of impact on the politics (because of potential for abuse of logs as well as logs being able to report troublemakers). I do believe the article could be expanded, perhaps to provide a general overview of how IRC logs affect the IRC experience as a whole. Q0 06:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

After reviewing the article, I am not convinced that this is a "mere dictionary definition" and am uncomfortable with the majority opinion (which was to transwiki). However, I also can find few references which validate this topic. I am going to exercise my discretion on this one and keep it (as "no concensus") for now. I have added the "dubious" tag to the article and put an explicit request for citations on the article's talk page. If, after a reasonable period, no one has come forward to verify the contents of this article, it may be appropriate to re-nominate it for deletion. Rossami (talk) 06:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whistle walk

Google search turns up a few mirrors, and this website --CDN99 15:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can find several references to this and it appears to be correct. However, it is more of a dicdef, so I would transwiki it to Wiktionary HowardB 16:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Provisional transwiki. I can find a very few references to this phrase as defined other than mirrors. It appears that it should be in wiktionary, but I would be more comfortable if we had some more attestation to its validity. HyperZonk^talk 18:27, Feb 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 merge. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Push-pull factors for colonists

An interesting essay, but its lack of specificity and lack of new information makes it hard for merging.--CDN99 16:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge with European colonization of the Americas, perhaps? The page does need wikification. — RJH 18:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge as above with wikification. Seems to be a more extensive examination than the existing page, but the title European colonization of the Americas is probably more meaningful. HyperZonk^talk 18:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Merge anything useable to European colonization of the Americas, no redirect. Megan1967 23:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 00:57, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Open problems in tetration

Doesn't contain anything except notice that author wants this to be a placeholder/discussion forum for open problems, however, we have Wikipedia:No original research. Talk page contains something, so I listed it here. Samohyl Jan 16:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the previous entry. My point is that the tetration entry is full of people’s personal research. Because I am new to Wikipedia I wanted to move the material elsewhere instead of just deleting it. The following is from a page I added last night that was immediately deleted explaining my issue. I have no problem with the deletion of that page either but the following problem remains.

Text from former page The initial motivation of this article is the practical need of researchers in the field of tetration and Ackermann function to grapple in a dignified manner with the fact that this phenomena persists, despite the fact that Internet search engines now make it easy to locate prior work. Particularly confusing is the continual introduction on the Internet of redundant nomenclature and notation. This is likely due to the intractability of extending tetration and the Ackermann function from the positive integers to the real and complex numbers. The chaotic nature of these problems has resulted in their suspension within the domain of protoscience for decades, if not hundreds of years. Daniel Geisler 3:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please delete the entry Open problems in tetration. I added the page but I can't delete it. Daniel Geisler 3:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

18:22, Feb 18, 2005 Charles Matthews deleted Open problems in tetration (page hanging off speedy deleted 'Anthropological mathematics' - OP now wants this deleted)

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

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

Gurgty, Malaty, Otloy, Chinyik (Yuit confirmed)

Delete.I've never heard of such native people of northern Siberia. Created by anon. Mikkalai 16:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WARNING: When checking by google, please keep in mind that this info diffused from wikipedia all over the net. Mikkalai 02:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Yuit, at least, are real (see [36], among others). I didn't find any non-Wiki references to the others (although "Malaty" is a widely-used string). Vote keep on Yuit, not sure yet about the others. DS 20:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I've finally found Yuhyt (Yuity)The Red Book of the Peoples of the Russian Empire. Mikkalai 21:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I understand that this is a pretty obscure topic and hardly we can find experts quickly in wikipedia (otherwise the Northern indigenous peoples of Russia article wouldn't be in a so sorry state), but I am with all my reluctance applying the verifiability criterion here. Tonight I will try to search thru all possible (mis)spellings in Eng and Ru laguages. I don't exclude the possibility that I am wrong. Mikkalai 22:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article(s) does no establish notability. Megan1967 23:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You may want to pick another reason. If the people do exist after all, notability issue is out of question. Mikkalai 00:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Good luck Mikkalai. Kappa 01:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep the Yuit. Keep the Malaty as Columbia's article on the Sakha mentions them as an indigenous tribe of hunter-gatherers. [37] Our article on the Nenets people mentions the Otloy. As that is taken from the 1911 Britannica, I would vote Keep for them as well. I can't find anything on the Gurgty so I will abstain on that vote. Capitalistroadster 09:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Your "Columbia" link is a wikipedia mirror. Kappa 09:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You're right it is. Apologies. Abstain on the Malaty. Capitalistroadster 12:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- And the Otloy was not in EB1911. Someone added it later, an I deleted it yesterday as unverified. If the issue clarifies, I will gladly add it back. Mikkalai 00:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yuit is confirmed and redirected where it belongs. Mikkalai 00:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is quite possible that the author acted in good faith an entered the names of tribes he read in some obscure book. At least the Yuit case speaks in his/her favor. But anfortunately he was anonynous, and without further reference... Mikkalai 02:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This link may provide some help: [38] -- Hedley 20:32, 20 Feb 2005

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

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

Note: This decision is subject to reversion if the more general poll on Local Politicians returns a clear concensus one way or the other. Rossami (talk) 07:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Moore

Here lies yet another 6-word sub-stub. Does this offer any real value to our readers, or does it dilute the quality of Wikipedia? Has a concensus been formed that Aldermen and other city council members are not inherently notable in and of themselves? See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Manuel Flores. GRider\^talk 16:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Borderline Delete. An alderman (or should that be 'alderperson'?) can be barely known even with their own ward. On the other hand, Chicago's a big city and the alderfolks do vote on things that affect many people. --Lee Hunter 18:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Ms Moore has been the chair of the National League of Cities Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee representing 18,000 cities and gave evidence to a Congressional Committee in this capacity. [39].

Capitalistroadster 19:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ms Moore? Joseph is a woman? Rick K 20:42, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unless he (or she) is a notable alderman, this shouldn't be included. There are far too many alderman, councilors, selectman, etc, to make them inherently notable. Carrp | Talk 21:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Concarrp. Delete. Radiant! 22:07, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ComCat 02:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep--Chicago alderman, and more generally all large-city govt. figures, represent significant #s of people, have influence over large budgets, and generally have fairly large impacts on the world, compared to the average person. They are certainly notable. For example, consider that the population of Chicago/Toronto/etc. is larger than the population of Jamaica--would anyone suggest deleting articles on Jamaican MPs? These articles are clearly encyclopedic topics. Meelar (talk) 03:33, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- A MP is of global importance, because he represents a country no matter the size thereof. An alderman is only of local importance. Radiant! 10:11, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  - But in terms of budget, constituency, etc., the aldermen are just as influential. Meelar (talk) 22:07, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
    - But in terms of notability, they are not :) Radiant! 22:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Local politician with no other evidence of notability. Does not meet my understanding of the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Rossami (talk) 06:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with Flåklypa Grand Prix. Sjakkalle 10:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Il Tempo Gigante

Fictional racecar from a puppet movie. Radiant! 16:27, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Relisted due to lack of consensus. There is not enough consensus to do anything with this article. This debate is considered to be continuing, and has been relisted on VfD. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge with the movie (Il Tempo Gigante) or keep. Wikipedia has plenty of space. Kappa 19:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge with the movie (which is Flåklypa Grand Prix), which is currently woefully stubby. —Korath (Talk) 16:33, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep much like Herbie the Love Bug or Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, the car itself is more or less the star of the movie, which is widely considered the most popular/successful Norwegian film of all time (the more common title is "Pinchcliffe Grand Prix"). It's been made into toys, models, and at least two full-sized drivable versions. If a similar car from an American or British movie were VfDed, there's be overwhelming Keep votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:45, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Flåklypa Grand Prix, as both articles are quite short. -- Infrogmation 18:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge for now. The redirect should keep anyone from getting lost, and the movie article is woefully stubby. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Flåklypa Grand Prix. I would have voted Delete without Starblind's added information. I was a fan of Herbie the Love Bug and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, but I had never heard of this car or the movie under any of its titles. Barno 19:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment:Lack of consensus is the same as consensus to keep. Rick K 19:54, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Miss Pippa 10:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect - David Gerard 15:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. (I found no encyclopedic material to merge in any of these articles, however, the history is preserved if anyone wants to use it.) Rossami (talk) 07:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Joel Armengaud

I'm listing this along with Gordon Spence, Roland Clarkson, Nayan Hajratwala, Michael Cameron, Michael Shafer, and Josh Findley. The reason is that there is nothing encyclopedic about these persons that can't be said in Mersenne prime. I can't imagine anyone ever thinking of looking up their names. Possibly, redirects could be kept. Fredrik | talk 17:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge or keep. They do contain interesting information that isn't in the main article. You could have merged them yourself without a VfD. Kappa 19:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Sure, I could have merged them, but someone might disagree. Fredrik | talk 21:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - LOL I disagree with you listing this on VfD instead of merging - you can't win ;) Kappa 03:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge please. Radiant! 22:07, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. @ Megan1967 23:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Expand with what? Fredrik | talk 23:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge. [maestro] 07:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. These people have had a world record in finding the biggest known primes, and are for that notable. I can think of many things to expand with: Date of birth (and death when that time comes), occupation, where do they live, nationality, for how long had they been hunting primes for the GIMPS project, more detailes on the find: the exact time the computer finnished calculating vs when they themselves saw the result (human vs computer "discoveries" are interesting in it self). Say I wanted to find out who the youngest prime-record holder was, I'd like to be able to look these people up in wikipedia. Or, if one of them is, say, a dentist, I'd find that an amusing trivia and an interesting detail. One of the many that makes wikipedia great. I can't see all these things being merged easy. Shanes 14:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and delete individual pages. There are hundreds or thousands of volunteers who have given CPU cycles to GIMPS: these people here are simply the lucky few whose computers happened to be assigned a range that contained a prime. Certainly they didn't necessarily do any more *work* than any other volunteers. It might be useful to know biographical details (in Shanes' example, that one such person is a dentist), but this can be put in the GIMPS article. If it can't, then it doesn't need to be here. Saforrest 13:02, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge into list of Greyhawk deities. Since no such article yet exists, I've moved this page to that title so it can be the start of the new article. Rossami (talk) 07:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pholtus

The article does not say so; but I think this is about a deity from the Grayhawk role-playing game universe. --BM 17:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Too low a level of detail for a general encyclopedia. --BM 17:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep if it's official, not fancruft. Kappa 19:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It's from Living Greyhawk, which basically means made up by a fan. Delete. For comparison, check google ratings for Pholtus, and a D&D god from an official campaign setting, such as Lathander or Takhisis. Radiant! 22:12, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic. Carrp | Talk 21:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Saint Pholtus isn't a very significant deity, although he is from the old Greyhawk campaign, not Living Greyhawk. Ben Standeven 00:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment — Page actually has more detail than most of the entries on List of deities of Dungeons & Dragons. So if this is deleted, the others need good justification to exist. Personally I'd go for a summary page, one paragraph each, of the entire list of "lesser dieties" and then flush the sundry miscellanea. — RJH 20:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting point. I think a 'Merge into a summary page is a good idea. Radiant! 22:17, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into a list of Greyhawk deities. -Sean Curtin 17:22, Feb 20, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MindTree

A consulting company. Article does not establish reason for notability. --Lee Hunter 16:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, article does not establish notability. Megan1967 23:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just another company trying to use Wikipedia to advertise itself. Zzyzx11 23:48, 18 Feb 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.

Note: While I usually concur that redirects are cheap, in this rare case I do not believe that it is justified. Rossami (talk) 07:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Månen

Just a short text in Swedish about the Moon. Nothing worth translating. / u p p l a n d 17:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, redundant (I understand Swedish and agree with u p p l a n d). Thue | talk 21:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki/merge with sv:Månen. — Ливай | ☺ 22:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge with sv:Månen, and add redirect. Megan1967 00:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- comment: I don't think we should redirect from all word translations in all languages in the English wikipedia. Thue | talk 08:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and add redirect (why not? someone obviously searched for it). I merged the article with sv:Månen. bbx 03:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It will potentially be too cluttered if we start adding 6,800 redirects per article, plus having to take care of collisions from different languages with different meanings. Just because it would have helped one person who was obviously looking in the wrong place doesn't mean we have to support it. Thue | talk 22:10, 20 Feb 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. The initial definition is already in the list of acronyms. The rest of the text is a hoax which should be removed from history. Rossami (talk) 07:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bend Over Here It Comes Again

At best a dicdef, more likely a neologism or hoax. Delete. --BM 18:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Entry unnecessarily broken out from List of acronyms and initialisms yesterday. Delete. Uncle G 18:44, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Delete, trivial dictionary definition. Megan1967 23:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect back to List of acronyms and initialisms. Quite surprisingly, this acronym garners 5180 google hits. [40] GRider\^talk 00:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. It's a redirect now anyway. dbenbenn | talk 19:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nomi Sunrider

Fictional character from Star Wars universe. The article does not state in what Star Wars product (game, novel, etc) she appears, but it isn't the movies, since she is in the timeline 4000 years before the movies. Delete as non-encyclopedic: too low granularity of detail. --BM 18:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge somewhere or keep, assuming it's an official character. Kappa 19:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. What makes a character "official"? Apparently Nomi Sunrider is a character from a story that took place over three issues of the comic book "Tales of the Jedi", published by Dark Horse Comics in 1993 and 1994. They were collected into a trade paperback, along with other stories, in "Tales of the Jedi: Knights of the Old Republic", published in 1994 by Dark Horse. She also figured in some other Dark Horse comics published in 1998. Are we compelled to have an article on every SW character that has ever appeared in a Lucas-licensed comic book? I hope not, since this seems pretty crufty. --BM 20:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I believe that Star Wars canon is determined by stories from George Lucas and/or Timothy Zahn (however please double-check this with a true Warsie). I think she would be valid for inclusion in a list, but not her own article. So Merge or delete. Radiant! 22:14, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Lusas-licensed sounds reasonable. I don't want one article per character, I'd prefer to see them merged into lists or whatever, so comic readers can find them if they want to, but they don't bother random page users very often. Transwiking would also be good, but in a large chunk, not piecemeal. Kappa 02:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Where would this character fall using the ranking at Star Wars canon? Rossami (talk)
Keep, and expand. @ Megan1967 23:29, 18 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Bessert

This is about the webmaster of www.michiganhighways.org and ontariohighways.org. These websites are not notable, and even webmasters of notable websites are not necessarily notable. Delete. --BM 18:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. --SPUI (talk) 23:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
nn, vanity. 37 unique google hits. [41] Delete. GRider\^talk 00:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. See criteria for inclusion of biographies. --Pjacobi 00:51, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE and REDIRECT to Sweet (band). —Korath (Talk) 12:34, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

As the merge is nontrivial and I do not consider myself knowledgeable enough in this area to judge how much of a merge is appropriate, I have only placed {{merge}} and {{mergefrom}} templates on the relevant articles. —Korath (Talk) 12:34, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

BC Sweet

Yet another band plugging their Web site. In this case, they are a tribute band based upon a moderate band of the 1960s and 1970s. Wikipedia is not a place for unknown bands to advertise. Delete.--Modemac 16:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be the remnant of the band that Brian Connolly of the original Sweet was actually touring with at the end of his career (and life). Make NPOV and merge with Sweet (band) would be my suggestion. / u p p l a n d 20:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- merge per above, or keep. Notable people's bands are all encyclopedic Kappa 02:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible band vanity. Megan1967 23:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Sweet or Brian Connolly or something. Meets Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 02:36, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 15:49, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Network share

This is a term used in describing a networking feature in Microsoft Windows and NT.

Delete as dicdef. --BM 18:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. ComCat 02:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and wikify. Network shares have an associated technology that can be used to expand this page. (C.f. Samba software.) — RJH 20:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup/expand. --Matteh (talk) 00:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
keep Yuckfoo 04:15, 20 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 19:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of Christian militants

Intended to be a list of "Christian militants". Inevitably an incoherent list with no clear criterion for inclusion. The entries will inevitably be POV and original research.

The inherent problems with the list are already evident from even the first two entries: Oliver Cromwell, the seventeenth century leader of the Parliamentarian side in the English Civil War, who defeated the monarchy, and became Lord Protector of England; and Eric Robert Rudolph a contemporary American fugitive charged with bombing an abortion clinic and killing a doctor and a nurse. Delete as unencyclopedic list. --BM 18:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Meaningless list. Capitalistroadster 19:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wanna bet that our old friend Footfootfoot is on there? Delete as per pointless list. Radiant! 22:14, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV useless list. Megan1967 23:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
delete Yuckfoo 04:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Trash. Delete. DJ Clayworth 04:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Apparently created by someone with an axe to grind. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 01:18, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain. I will now use this to justify my creation. I have been watching the discussions about List_of_Muslims#Militants (here) and when I saw no parallel list for Christianity it did trouble me. I have no axe to grind just a sense of curiosity about how this will be dealt with and how this will affect the afore mentioned list. I likely should have thought out my entries better but I would like to know if the list is bad because the subject matter is inherently worthless (which would then have to apply to List_of_Muslims#Militants) or if my shoddy attempts at starting this list are the problem. I hope someone acknowledges the point I am trying to make (and the resolution through that) although I don't fully agree that it must always be POV because militancy is not as subjective as terrorism. gren 01:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. The basic problem with a list like this is that the criterion for inclusion is not clear or coherent. On the current list, the fact that Cromwell and Rudolph are both "militants", just illustrates that the concept of "militant" being applied is so broad as to be almost meaningless. Furthermore, even if one could agree on a coherent criterion, it is likely that there will still be a range of opinion as to whether a particular person fits the criterion. That is, whether someone should be included on a list of "Christian militants" is probably going to be a matter of opinion, a point of view. With a normal article, e.g. Christian militancy, editors can present possible rival definitions of the term. They can describe how manifestations of Christian militancy have evolved over the last 2000 years, and they can present arguments and facts for and against inclusion of various individuals as examples of militancy. A list is binary: someone is either included or not included. This means that any editor with an intermediate position regarding a particular person is necessarily not served by the format: they must come down on one side or another and that may not reflect their opinion correctly. And, as between the inclusion POV versus the non-inclusion POV, someone must win and someone must lose, since a particular person cannot be both in the list and not in the list at the same time. Generally the editors aiming for inclusion will win, because removing a name from a list will be decreed to be "removal of information" and therefore vandalism. So, a list like this is inherently opposed to NPOV. The same applies to List_of_Muslims#Militants. --BM 18:04, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I definitely see your point and that is why I had reservations about this. Since no progress was being made on the Muslim militancy debate and no VfD would work since it is only a section I figured I'd do this. My only hope is that the admin who deals with this deals the same way with List_of_Muslims#Militants and any other such pages. That, in the end, is the most important outcome of this, not only NPOV in an article, but NPOV among separate articles and leaving one but not the other brings a POV into wikipedia as a whole and I hope everyone who voted here will help press the issue there as well. gren 20:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- Keep and Cleanup The problem is that this article needs to have much more focused criteria on what they mean by militant. ScottM 00:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. I have moved the page to Charles Athanase Walckenaer (as indicated on the page's wrongtitle template) and created a redirect at Charles-Athanase Walckenaer. —Korath (Talk) 15:53, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Charles Athanasie Walckenaer

This bio sub-stub reads: "Charles Athanasie Walckenaer (1771 - 1852) was a French naturalist", end of substub. How is this helpful to anyone who wanted to learn about this individual, and how is notability established? If you lived during the 19th century and someone writes an article about you, are you then automatically inherently noteworthy? To be fair, an unfiltered and combined google search results in 18 hits; 9 for "Charles Athanasie Walckenaer" [42] and another for "Charles Walckenaer". [43] Are these sorts of substubs really beneficial to our readers, or do they dilute and detract from the overall quality of the project? GRider\^talk 19:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Known as an arachnologist known for his work on spiders. Darwin cites his work in the Descent of Man stating that he is a "well-known arachnologist". [44] French Wikipedia has an article on him that might be worth translating.Capitalistroadster 19:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The usefulness of this substub comes from what links to it, Avondale spider, to which it seems he gave the binomial name, and the fact it allows the French version to be found. Kappa 19:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- In that case, are there any advantages to this article remaining separate rather than merging and redirecting to Avondale spider? GRider\^talk 20:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - That wouldn't hurt (except for French speakers), but it would be inconvenience to un-merge if more notability is established or it turns out he named a bunch of other things. Kappa 01:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You get more hits if you spell his name correctly - it was "Charles-Athanase", no 'i'. Also try "CA Walckenaer". Keep (and rename for correct spelling). DS 20:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Move to Charles-Athanase Walckenaer, and expand. @ Megan1967 23:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Even without the evidence that Capitalistroadster found, he has already passed the "100 year" test. Rossami (talk) 06:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but translate the French. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and move to the right name--nixie 03:32, 25 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Charles Huffman

Did this really happen or is it a hoax? Googling proved to be unsatisfactory in this particular case. The article reads, in full: "Charles Huffman was a miser from the 1950s. He was found dead on a Brooklyn, New York street with no money in his pockets. The police traced him to a $7/week room that was filled with bank books and more than $500,000 in stock certificates." End of article. As it stands, why is this of interest and how does this make one notable enough for inclusion? GRider\^talk 19:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Attested to in New York Times article cited herein, but I a not convinced of notoriety, particularly as this appears to be all of the information that the world will ever know about this person. Or is that a reason for inclusion? Hmmm. Delete for now. HyperZonk^talk 20:11, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
It's not on Snopes.com which does rather limit the credibility of this urban legend. Delete Radiant! 22:17, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, possible hoax. Megan1967 23:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless further info comes to light -- Longhair 03:44, 21 Feb 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. jni 16:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Life Of Alexander the Great

Pointless duplication, and not good, of material covered in the article Alexander the Great. — Bill 19:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Bill. HyperZonk^talk 20:06, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, only need one of these. Of course, if I'd seen it before VfD listing, I'd have redir'd to Alexander article, and saved all this trouble. Stan 21:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, duplicate article. Megan1967 23:35, 18 Feb 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. jni 16:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Exjewsforjesus.blogspot.com

Promotion of website. Possibly vanity as well. - Mailer Diablo 19:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Would say the content alone is potentially ok but the title is promotion so clearly this should be Deleted quickly. Hedley 20:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, website advertisement, possible vanity. Megan1967 23:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete soapboxing, not notable. Gazpacho 23:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. nn. website. POV advert for it. jni 13:02, 20 Feb 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 N/A (issue resolved outside VfD, nothing to vote) jni 13:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mars_Reconnaissance_Orbiter

In accordance with wikipedia's Copyright Violation Policy this page should be deleted and replace with its temp non-copied version. --BerserkerBen 19:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, not here. Gamaliel 19:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

it is listed but nothing has been done about it. --BerserkerBen 23:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note that there is a significant backlog on Copyright problems. That's no reason to clutter this page further. Gamaliel 23:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, if and when copyvio is resolved. @ Megan1967 23:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Base on the poor speed of how copyright violations get solved I am hoping this could be fixed before launch, as then people are going to want to check on this site for information on it, and find this rather trashed page that will reflect poorly on wikipedia.--BerserkerBen 23:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. if copyright problems are fixed. Capitalistroadster 09:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment: What copyvio? Comparing the last pre-copyvio-tagged version ([45]) with the space.com article [46], the only text in common seems to be the photo caption: The orbiter's shallow radar experiment, one of six science instruments on board, is designed to probe the internal structure of Mars' polar ice caps, as well as to gather information planet-wide about underground layers of ice, rock and, perhaps, liquid water that might be accessible from the surface. But this is not space.com's wording, it is NASA's: see [47]. I believe NASA's wording is public-domain. So we now have two perfectly good articles that need to be merged. -- Curps 05:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

great, so can someone merge them? --BerserkerBen 06:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, when copy-vio problem is countered of course. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well I have moved all the data from the temp over to the orginal in accordence with Curps plan for merger. Deletion and replacemnet with the temp is no longer needed now as the copyright problem has been solved(?). All that this needs now is to delete the temp (or merge it, which ever)--BerserkerBen 07:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The two versions (original non-copyright-infringing and new Temp) have now been merged. BerserkerBen has removed his own VfD notice from the page.

This vote is now moot. -- Curps 07:47, 20 Feb 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. jni 16:13, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Saint pippin's day

Looks like local high school nonsense. — Catherine\^talk 19:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I can't find evidence of this existing. Carrp | Talk 21:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Festival dedicated to Peregrin the Hobbit? Delete Radiant! 22:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 23:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Book of Pippin? Huh? Zzyzx11 23:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Longhair 01:28, 21 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chakib Sbiti

Is this an example of vanity, or notability? Are executives of companies large and small notable? In this example, does being the vice president of a division of a company which provides services to the petroleum industry establish a firm footing in notability to make this individual worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? How large must a company be in order to justify a seperate article for each member of their executive staff? What are the qualifying factors? GRider\^talk 20:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The company is traded on NYSE. He is an Executive Vice President. I would say the bar of notability should be set such that VP's and higher of companies traded publically on a major exchange (NYSE, NASDAQ, FTSE, NIKKEI,...) are included on that basis alone. Also, "Chakib Sbiti" gets 464 Google hits. They may not all be him, but the top ones definitely are. Johntex 20:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting. Also note that there are an additional dozen or so other high level executives (presidents and vice-presidents) at Schlumberger Oilfield Services below Chakib Sbiti who all receive a similar number of Google hits and are presently red linked. Based on your interpretation of notability, should they then all receive articles as well? GRider\^talk 20:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
delete - non-notable. being VP does not establish any notability. only the CEO's of publically traded companies probably deserve articles. kaal 22:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, important person to a lot of people's lives, although merging into a list of the company's executives would be ok too. VPs and heads of major divisions should be definitely be covered. I regret that this might not be kept because executives are less exciting to vote on than hit singles and popular models (not that I mind them being included). Kappa 02:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
According to Yahoo Finance, he is one of the top five people at this company. The company itself has a market capitalization of $43B on $12B in revenues with 77,000 employees - clearly large enough to be asking the question. As a general rule, I don't think we should go below the top 5 in each company and often not even all of them. So far, I have only found two references to him outside his company - speaker at an industry conference and member of an industry steering committee. If this were a new article, I would give it the benefit of the doubt and hope that someone else would have more content to add. The fact that this has stayed a sub-stub for over a year leads me to believe that there is nothing else to add. Reluctantly, delete. Rossami (talk) 07:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Concur with Rossami. Delete. Radiant! 11:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:03, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Whats on the web

This page does not make sense, as far as I can tell - but I hesitate to make it speedy. Johntex 20:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I speedy deleted. It was somebody's meeting notes from some meeting. But it was incoherent and definitely not an encyclopedia article. Rick K 20:46, Feb 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. —Korath (Talk) 16:05, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Charles Christopher Parry

Is this an instance of botany-cruft, or does this skeletal sub-stub actually present some form of value to our readers? What makes this article beneficial? GRider\^talk 20:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Charles Christopher Parry (1823-1890) is well known to botanists worldwide. More than eighty new species of flowering plants were named from Parry's Colorado collections, and many more from his collections in Mexico and the American Southwest. Fascinated with mountains, Parry made barometric observations that permitted the first accurate estimations of the high peaks. Yet his greatest contribution to science was through the distribution of his botanical collections to the museums of the world." - from an Amazon capsule review of King of Colorado Botany. Botanists can be notable. Keep (and expand). DS 20:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As the starter of this article, I should mention I started it as a quick stub while not having much spare time to research further detail. I fully intend this to be a proper article about a major botanist, and would welcome others contributors' additions too. BTW, I am not resident within this botanist's sphere of influence; my knowledge of him does not come from any parochial concerns, but from an international perspective on his importance in botany. Keep and expand. -

MPF 21:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More details added to page - MPF 22:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. – flamurai (t) 21:49, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expand. @ Megan1967 23:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. MPF's work has clearly established notability as a botanist - well done MPF. Also first man to ascend and nameGrays Peak ans Torreys Peak so notable explorer as well. Capitalistroadster 01:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - and stop the campaign of deletion-cruft. --Centauri 02:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I think this is more a campaign of precedent-cruft. I'm not sure how useful these will be as precedents though, it seems when you research any substubs about a scientist you find someone notable. Kappa 02:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Most scientists that survive in the public record, usually do so because they did something notable, keep--nixie 09:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 16:05, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Carrie Nuttall

Carrie Nuttall is a photographer who works primarily in the music industry. Does this alone make her notable and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? Does the added fact that she is married to the drummer of the progressive rock band Rush make a difference? Are wives of rock band members who take photographs as a profession inherently notable? If so, why? GRider\^talk 20:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep as a photographer, she's notable enough to have published a book. I don't think being married makes a difference, but lots of photographers are notable by themselves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:41, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 23:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The article should definitely be expanded though. Neil Peart is sufficiently noteworthy that his wife warrants discussing merely by association with him. He isn't just any "rock band member". The fact that she's an artist in her own right as well (and a pretty good one too as far as I can tell) is a bonus.
Keep going by others' assertions of notability. If it was just by the article, I'd say ideally but non-urgently "merge" with the drummer's article. Kappa 02:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
According to Amazon.com, she has only published the one book. It has a respectable but not exceptional sales ranking of 26,036. A review of the google hits confirms that she is a photographer but gives little indication of her skill or renown (ignoring the fluff pieces by her publisher). Unless other evidence can be presented of her independent notability, I am inclined to merge and redirect. Again, if this were a new article, I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. The fact that it has had no new content since June 2004 argues that there may not be additional content to add. Rossami (talk) 07:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard
Delete. In the article on Rush, write "Neil Peart is married to Carrie Nuttall, a published photographer".

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Israel Israelsson Näslund III

A very average local vicar in northern Sweden. He is not included in any Swedish encyclopedia or any major, general purpose Swedish biographical reference work. The article is probably based on a biographical dictionary of clergymen in the Diocese of Härnösand, which has been scanned and put on the web (PDF). Näslund is below my bar of notability for churchmen (but contrast Lars Levi Laestadius for another local vicar in northern Sweden who is notable for several reasons). / u p p l a n d 20:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 23:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I see nothing notable here. Vicars are much smaller than, say, bishops, who may be "inherently notable". -R. fiend 00:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 16:05, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Doug Holyday

This individual is a city councillor and was once the former mayor of a town called Etobicoke until it was effectively merged into Toronto in the late 1990s. Two questions: Does this establish notability beyond other city councillors, enough so that this individual warrants his own independent article on Wikipedia? And, generally speaking, are Toronto city councillors less or more important than Chicago Aldermen? GRider\^talk 20:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, former mayor of a major city and current city councillor. - SimonP 22:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, he is well-known and significant in Toronto. Etobicoke was city, not a town. Kevintoronto 22:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Spinboy 23:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 23:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, of course. Toronto city councillors are indeed worthy of their own articles. Earl Andrew 23:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of how one views city councillors in general, there are cases where a Toronto city councillor's notability is absolutely beyond question: eg. Olivia Chow, Paula Fletcher, Tom Jakobek, etc. For most city council articles that I've worked on, I've quite emphatically not wikied the names of individual councillors beyond the mayor. But in the case of Toronto, I'm less certain of what would be appropriate; Toronto city council directly serves more people than six of Canada's ten provinces. Regardless, however, Holyday was a mayor before the amalgamation of Metropolitan Toronto; to my mind, that puts him above the bar if we're taking the view that mayors always merit articles. Bearcat 00:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There is no way wikipedia can have articles on every elected official in every town. Does Toronto warrant inclusion that other cities don't, or is just because it's a large city? If so how large does a city have to be? Some mayors are known outside of thier cities (and neighboring areas), and when they are they deserve articles. City councillors almost never are, they do not deserve articles. -R. fiend 00:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Toronto isn't "every town", it's the largest city in Canada. Toronto City councillors play a significant role in Canadian politics. CJCurrie 00:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. City councillors aren't notable in and of themselves, but as the last Mayor of Etobicoke before its very controversial 1998 merger into the Toronto megacity (population before merger about 340,000) he rises above the notability bar. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep--politicians of large cities are notable. Meelar (talk) 03:23, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I strongly disagree that all local politicians are notable enuf for inclusion in an encyclopedia covering the entire universe for all time. However, this guy's multiple roles seems to justify an article. I guess I'm somewhere between Bearcat and R. fiend and TenOfAllTrades's reasoning. Niteowlneils 14:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Concur with Ten. Radiant! 11:06, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
- I would sort of like to get an idea of what people are voting to keep here, and why, especially because the citing of "precedents" is very common, and I see a few brewing now. Is it because he is a councillor for a large city? Because he was the mayor of a small city (do we inlcude mayors of all smallish cities then? Towns? Villages?)? Because the merging of the cities was controversial? OK, but does that make him more notable than the merger? Do we have an article on the merger, as it seems so significant to some? If not, why not? And if so, why isn't he just mentioned there? Right now the article says he's a council and ex-mayor, and it comes up with 3 ways of saying he's a conservative. Can anything else be said about this guy other than how many kids he has and where he grew up? I basically hold the opnion that people are usually notable for doing notable things. Politicians are in a position to do plenty of notable things, but just sitting on a committe or whatever is not in itself notable, at least not on a scale like this. -R. fiend 17:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - That is a good idea. Should we make a subpage on the main deletion policy page to discuss this? Otherwise, the same arguments will crop up whenever a similar nomination is made. Radiant! 11:06, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - Depends how you define "small city". Even as a suburb, Etobicoke was one of the 20 largest cities in Canada. But I do agree that there should be discussion of a clear policy on articles of this type. Bearcat 07:06, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Past mayor of a city. -- James Teterenko (talk) 20:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard 23:45, 20 Feb 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. jni 16:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Immaculate conception academy

Non notable. Google comes back with a couple hundred hits for "Immaculate conception academy" most of them not in China. Dismas 20:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Since the article says the school is in the Phillipines, are the China-related (and badly mangled) categories right? RickK 20:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  - Got China and Phillipines mixed up in my head. Either way, IMO, I still say it's non notable. Dismas 20:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. School vanity. Does not establish notability. – flamurai (t) 21:42, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
You know, that name makes me wonder what they're intending to DO on such a school. Delete Radiant! 22:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Gamaliel 22:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, school vanity. Megan1967 23:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Zzyzx11 23:59, 18 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Martha Bulloch Roosevelt

Another "mother of a famous person who is not famous in her own right." Rick K 20:49, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Being the mother of a famous person merits a note in that person's article, not an article of its own. (Actually, now that I think of it, it doesn't even merit that in most cases.) – flamurai (t) 21:41, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Concur. Delete. Radiant! 22:47, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable in her own right. Megan1967 23:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep. Parents have a strong genetic and/or environmental influence on their children's development. Kappa 22:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note that she is already mentioned in Theodore's article. Radiant! 11:12, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Joolz 19:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If she is already mentioned in Theodore's article, there is no reason for this information to appear here separately ... at this time. Courtland 00:28, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Leor Farkas

Not notable. Thue | talk 21:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity. Doesn't establish notability. – flamurai (t) 21:41, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Concur. -marudubshinki Friday, 18 February 2005

Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 23:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just makes me sigh and ask "Who bloody cares?" Zzyzx11 23:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Longhair 14:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 16:06, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Charles Hardwicke

What about this 19th century farmer/explorer merits inclusion? 45 unique google hits (see page 5). [48] GRider\^talk 21:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. If that claim is the extent of his notability, he doesn't belong here. – flamurai (t) 21:40, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. @ Megan1967 23:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Notable explorer of Tasmania especially the Northwest Coast. Surveyed Devonport. Capitalistroadster 02:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ComCat 02:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Notable enough. Paul August ☎ 03:24, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Capitalist, Keep. Radiant! 09:55, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Traditional encyclopedia fodder. Xezbeth 09:57, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
I can't think of anything we lose by keeping. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:35, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 20:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Centropy

Article about a warez (pirated DVDs and software) crew. They do seem to be notable in the warez scene and on related websites, but i don't think they are encyclopaedic 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VfD rationale submitted by User:Lady Tenar (unsigned). [49]

Delete. Agreed. – flamurai (t) 21:46, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Warez groups do not seem encyclopedic. Zzyzx11 00:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unlike Class (warez), listed below, Centropy does not seem to be notable enough to meet the bar. —Korath (Talk) 22:24, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. For one reason or another I did not see this when it was originally listed. Notability will be established in a few minutes. —RaD Man (talk) 15:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry for taking so long. Centropy rakes in about 8500 hits [50] and is explicitly noted by C|NET NEWS.COM for the warez pre-release of The Matrix [51] amongst other notorious things, which are being added into the article now. —RaD Man (talk) 18:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable group, crappy article stub. Give it time to expand. ALKIVAR™ 16:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Just because it's "not encyclopaedic" doesn't mean it should be deleted.. Big deal! It could be useful for someone.
- Unsigned by Splintax. It was his fourth edit. —Korath (Talk) 11:22, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Important group, has a large effect on the movie industry. This is important, to delete it would just be biased.--Maxwell C. 00:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 16:56, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Class (warez)

Non-notable warez group. Delete. Carrp | Talk 21:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. – flamurai (t) 21:44, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability has been established. – flamurai (t) 23:01, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - can find nothing on this group around. Nick04 21:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm sure you tried hard, considering I found this while blindfolded: cracktros by class, NFOs by class, and more NFOs by class. If you want the warez from Class you'll have to find them yourself. As for its notability, I'll let Alkivar handle that. —RaD Man (talk) 23:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Look what we have here: Among the groups targeted by Fastlink are well-known organizations such as Fairlight, Kalisto, Echelon, Class and Project X, all of which specialized in pirating computer games, and music release groups such as APC. Source: United States Department of Justice [52] unsigned comment by user:RaD Man
  - Please note that the "well-known" is subjective and also only in the context of an Internet subculture. Carrp | Talk 23:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Once you figure out how to use google, you may also want to read up on these other survivors of vfd: DEViANCE, United Cracking Force, The Humble Guys —RaD Man (talk) 23:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - What really puzzles me is why you made about 20 edits to The Humble Guys and then proposed it for VfD [53]. Carrp | Talk 23:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - It shouldn't puzzle you too much. —RaD Man (talk) 23:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        It just seems curious that you made so many edits and then decided "Wait! This article needs to go!" I mean, you made a minor edit [54] and then one minute later you posted a VfD notice [55] You don't think that's a bit odd? Carrp | Talk 23:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC).
        Very odd... Zzyzx11 00:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        Indeed.... —RaD Man (talk) 00:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Warez groups do not seem encyclopedic. Zzyzx11 00:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 00:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The article seems to have a pro-warez POV throughout it. Also, I cannot see how this article contributes valuble information to Wikipedia. If kept, it would need more information, neutral POV, and restructuring. --Tezeti 04:16, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. while i would agree that it has a pro-warez POV at the moment, thats easy to correct. However as far as a notability standard, they more than pass the bar having been one of the more influential game release groups PERIOD. Being subject to multiple, multi-country, multi-agency raids also makes them noteworthy. ALKIVAR™ 08:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As with Demo Groups (see discussion on Vfd Feb/17th), warez groups aren't inherently notable. In the internet age, it's far too easy to create one, as all you have to do is spread some illegal software. THG is notable because it predates the internet. ~~Class is not notable, and~~ being targeted by governmental legal action does not construe notability. Delete. Radiant! 09:59, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC) While I hold that not every warez group is notable, the discussion below establishes that Class does qualify. Keep. Radiant! 11:09, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Also, I would prefer if the common 'dissing wars' between warez groups stayed off WikiPedia (see THG edit comments above). Radiant! 09:59, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  - Then I guess we should delete the mafia, its really easy to have children and start a crime family. The fact they were raided by the govt makes them not noteworthy ... I gotcha! (this is sarcasm for those of you humor impaired). ALKIVAR™ 10:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - What I said was that being raided by the government has nothing to do with noteworthiness (or lack thereof) for an encyclopedia. Radiant! 22:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I've had the police show up at my door with a warrant; doesn't make me notable. Niteowlneils 14:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You're correct, that alone does not. If you and 100 of your "friends" all have the police, the FBI, and Secret Service (or other respective federal agents) show up at your door and raid your house within the same week that's a whole different story. An interesting one at that. —RaD Man (talk) 22:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Notable warez group. I had difficulty formulating a reliable search due to the generic nature of the name "Class" but then stumbled across this one [56] —the result: 5340 hits, many of which are citations in the press from global media outlets. Other than being personally cited as a "prolific" group by Attorney General John Ashcroft, this group is noted by CNET News, G4 TechTV, Wired News, The Register (UK), ZiffDavis Net (.uk & .au), USA Today, Boing Boing, and Slashdot. There are other news agencies which report on this group in Chinese, Japanese, Italian, French, Finnish, German, Russian, Spanish, Swedish, and many, many other languages. Note to voters: this article is in the process of being edited. —RaD Man (talk) 19:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) this comment originally added at the top of the page. moved to a "comments section by user:Carrp. now restored to its place in the chronological order.
- Please provide links and sources for those claims. Thanks. Carrp | Talk 19:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - I did. It's in the paragraph right above yours. Now that you've moved my comment to the bottom of the page, you should see a numeral 5 surrounded by brackets. In case you don't see it, here it is again. Note: This time it will be a numeral 6, surrounded by brackets. Here it comes! [57] —RaD Man (talk) 20:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep; they seem to have been fairly prolific, as warez groups go. Googling for CLS warez is illustrative. —Korath (Talk) 22:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and *Edit; the page has been improved and I believe that it contributes more information now.
- Comment: Above vote left unsigned by Tezeti at 18:53, 19 Feb 2005 (Changed vote) —RaD Man (talk) 05:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I grew up with CLASS, they are one of the most well known warez group ever. bbx 02:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Longhair 13:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 16:56, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Whitby Gothic Weekend

Doesn't seem relevant. Appears to be a town event of non-notability. Hedley 22:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Hedley, 22:24 - 18 February 2005 (UTC)

Keep strongly. It's one of the most popular gothic festivals on the calendar, attracting over 1,000 visitors from across the UK and overseas to each event. Dupont Circle 22:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 00:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge with Whitby. Capitalistroadster 02:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
DefiniteKeep. Well-known event (even outside the goth subculture; I'm not a goth), and people travel from across the world to go to it. TSP 12:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Highly notable to the Yorkshire tourist industry, draws people from all over the world (e.g. me in 2001) - David Gerard 23:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Whitby --nixie 09:51, 23 Feb 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. Per the deletion log:

23:20, Feb 25, 2005 Rich Farmbrough deleted List of Exits (Interstate 83) (Vfd, 18th Feb and has been merged)

List of Exits (Interstate 83)

Isolated as the only Wikipedia article that lists exits this way; does anyone plan to create similar articles for other 1- and 2-digit interstates?? Georgia guy 22:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Patently un-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a roadmap. Delete. Radiant! 22:47, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not Mapquest. I do not want to see hundreds (thousands?) of articles detailing every exit of every highway. If you feel it's really necessary to have this info on WP, put it on the Interstate 83 article. Carrp | Talk 22:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh, no. Delete for reasons stated. - Lucky 6.9 23:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge into Interstate 83. We have lists of train stations, why not freeway exits? --SPUI (talk) 23:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- For the record, I was not the creator of this article; I simply disambiguated a link, causing it to show up in RC. Next time I'll leave the undisambiguated link there; that way you won't even know it exists and we'll all be happier. --SPUI (talk) 01:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Interstate 83. —Korath (Talk) 23:55, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete'. Unencyclopedic. We have articles on train stations because they are important, often old and historic buildings that are a major feature of most cities, as well as being meeting places for thousands of people. An exit is a quarter mile of pavement. -R. fiend 00:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- We have 'major roads intersected' listed in some road articles. We have 'communities served'. This is just the extension of those. --SPUI (talk) 01:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I would not want to know how long the exit page for Interstate 90 would be (since it is the longest interstate going from Boston to Seattle). Zzyzx11 00:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It would be split into many parts (major parts of I-90 are toll roads, with their own articles). --SPUI (talk) 01:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I wish people would stop being so creative on what Wikipedia ought to be, and just write boring encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia isn't a raodmap. I don't think ports, airports, train stations, and even subway stops are all terribly notable, but at least many of them have an architecturally notable building and a history, and many of them are important gathering places. Freeway exits are just a bit of road that connects one road to another road, and it is hard to see anything notable about them at all. --BM 00:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Which is why we don't have an article for each interchange. --SPUI (talk) 01:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a road map. Megan1967 00:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Please, someone tell me what the fuck "Wikipedia is not a road map" is even supposed to mean. Does this look like a road map? No, it's a list. This list should be expanded to include old exit numbers, and details about the interchanges (like opening dates) - certainly not stuff that would be on a road map. --SPUI (talk) 01:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - basically unuseful list in the context of Wikipedia, with no potential to ever become useful. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge into Interstate 83. Jonathunder 05:34, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia is not consistent. Rhobite 05:35, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I think you may have just stumbled upon Wikipedia's unofficial motto. -R. fiend 06:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - If Wikipedia was following more what paper encyclopaedias do (eg. Britannica, World Book, etc), then the guidelines for adding or removing material would be more strict. Alas since the catchcry has always been "Wikipedia is not paper", it is a free-for-all on anything and everything, which is where the problem is. VfD can only do so much or so little in the face of "populist" articles at the expense of genuine encyclopaedic ones. Megan1967 07:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge per spui. Since wikipedia is not paper, one type of article does not exist at the expense of another. Kappa 09:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- They do though, Kappa. VfD is a process of electing to keep (or delete) articles not by merit alone but by which article/s can gather the most support either way. Articles up for VfD are thus subject to not whether they are just encyclopaedic but whether they can receive the most amount of popular support, even if the article is perfectly valid in other encyclopaedias. I am willing to bet that over a period of a few years Wikipedia will become the largest sex and entertainment "encyclopaedia" on the internet, while anyone wanting to do research on let's say a botanist who discovered a certain species in the Far East won't find it here because it wasn't popular enough for inclusion/retention. Megan1967 10:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - But the botanist will be deleted (unfortunately) regardless of whether people show up and vote to keep entertainment articles.
Strong disagree with Rhobite and Kappa. Wikipedia is neither paper nor consistent, but those arguments are equally valid (or invalid) for inclusion of everything. Since it has already been established that WikiPedia should not contain everything, you'll have to come up with a better reason for keeping this particular article. Radiant! 09:54, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: My reason to keep this article is the same as Spui's, and because it's useful for navigation, a bit like a road itself. Kappa 10:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I was responding to Georgia Guy's suggestion that this article should only be kept if a similar one is written for every other interstate. I think that's a silly, invalid reason to delete information. The reason I voted to keep this article, on the other hand, is because it is verifiable and useful information. That's pretty much all I need to see in order to vote "keep". My definition of "useful" may not be the same as yours. I hope this reason satisfies you. Rhobite 06:35, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes it is. And for what it's worth, I agree that it's useful (and, obviously, verifiable). However, I do not think it's encyclopedic. For instance, a list of phone numbers is very useful, and for that we have phonebooks. A list of local supermarkets is useful, and for that we have the yellow pages. And a list of interstate exits is useful, and for that we have roadmaps. None of the three are very useful to people who don't live at that particular place. You don't look in an encyclopedia for navigation, you look there for valuable knowledge. Radiant! 10:11, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - Verifiability is also not the same as encyclopedic. Most things that are verifiable (such as our local swimming pool) do not belong in an encyclopedia. And many things that are not verifiable (such as the existence of UFOs) do belong here. Radiant! 10:11, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Concur with BM, Wikipedia is not a roadmap. Should we have a separate list with exits for every road in every country of the world here, then translate it into every language Wikipedia hosts? For every road in the US, for that matter? What makes Interstate 83 so special it deserves an individual article about its exits? What is so notable about its exists that makes such a topic encyclopedic? Below the bar. vlad_mv 06:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- We already have this information for some roads (like Florida's Turnpike); it's just in a separate article here. --SPUI (talk) 06:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Exactly. My point was that Interstate 83 is not notable enough to deserve a separate article for its exits - except for a few very very famous roads, which would be, anyway? I would vote keep and merge to Interstate 83 if enough information was provided to sustain the claim that it is worth a list of its exists in a heading. vlad_mv 06:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Hmmm, I think I'm going to merge it now; when this VFD is done it can be deleted or redirected. --SPUI (talk) 06:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The general principle here is that it is stupid to hand-copy and hand-maintain tiny, tiny percentages of the available information in categories of information which are available at no cost on the Internet from complete, reliable, and frequently updated databases. Why should anyone go to Wikipedia for information that, for the foreseeable future, can be much, much better obtained elsewhere? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment, maybe the catch phrase of Wikipedia should be "Wikipedia is everything and nothing, simultaneously". -- Riffsyphon1024 10:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redir to preserve history of merged content. Niteowlneils 20:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Page kept. Keep:8.5, merge:5.5, delete:8;

Numanuma

Is there really a systemic bias towards internet memes and articles which gravitate towards subjects that appeal to children in their late teens and early twenties on Wikipedia? Take this article for example; considering that a number of articles on local politicians, independent films, and university professors are deleted from Wikipedia on a continuous basis, is this meme really that noteworthy? More notable than a Chicago Alderman, a Councillor of Toronto, an adult film star, or a published author? If your answer to this question is "yes", why? For the benefit of others, please explain your vote. GRider\^talk 22:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the question is whether this is a fad, or whether it's still a valid meme a year from now. "All your base" has been around forever, but many young memes simply die out. Arguably there's only room for a limited amount of memes in the consensual mind. Radiant! 22:49, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Yes. There really is that level of systemic bias toward internet memes. That's because while wikipedians might come from different countries and different beliefs the one thing ALL and I mean ALL wikipedians have in common is the Internet. ParkingStones 18:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Well... it was mentioned in the news (google news) and "numa-numa" has 56,000 google hits. Which means that it has a better notoriety than the Toronto Councillor. Bogdan | Talk 23:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- BTW, it was mentioned on New York Times. Bogdan | Talk 23:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Does notoriety equate to being encyclopedic? Is Wikipedia's purpose to be an online guide to internet memes, or a "serious" Wikipedia? Which is it? GRider\^talk 23:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Judging by the result of the deletion attempts of Gay Nigger Association of America article, so it seems. Bogdan | Talk 23:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, what's worth saying can be said on the song's page. Gazpacho 23:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia is vast. It can contain multitudes. Getting too constricted is always a mistake. If the meme fades the requests will fade. This isn't a paper moon or a paper tiger or a paper encyclopedia. It is not so finite. It can let things in that seem to have no lasting significance at the time. Time will take care of interest. What if this kid becomes a New Jersey state senator in 10 years? Stranger things have happened.
- unsigned vote not counted. Mikkalai 19:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Since the above argument can be applied for keeping literally everything, it's not particularly useful or valid. It has already been established that WP should not contain everything. Radiant! 09:52, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  - I trust this enthusiasm for keeping every scrap of data that comes into Wiki will be met by a healthy donation to the fundraiser. Wikipedia may not be paper, but servers cost money too. BTW, this is Denni, not logged in. 68.148.200.153 17:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - The images cost money to store and, especially, to transmit. (IMO) The cost of these smaller articles is trivial. WpZurp 03:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~. merge. No other notability but being a circulated piece of joke for some time. But I have to amdit that this one has something more in it than many others making faces into a webcam. Mikkalai 00:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, i've seen this video and while it is popular it's a case of, if this is allowed, then isn't any overweight 19 year old singing karaoke into a webcam allowed too? The person who done this video has also been added to Wikipedia as an individual too, that may also be a candidate. - Furthermore, it's hits on Google are mainly through 'funny video' sites which have added it, and not through sources of legitimate meaning. If every George Bush spoof video was added the database would go into meltdown. Hedley 02:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The only way I believe that this page could be merged is if as a sentence in the text for the song itself. There already is a sentence on this in the text on the song, though, so it's pointless to merge at all. Hedley 17:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge (indifferent) based on news coverage and google hits. Wikipedia should attempt to cover all topics one might hope to find in an encyclopedia, and not bias itself againt the "non-serious ones". Kappa 02:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Sn0wflake 03:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since I hadn't voted yet, I wish to concur with Hedley and Delete. Radiant! 09:52, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep ParkingStones 18:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Extreme keep. Bah, you trader. This is exactly the type of material that people turn to Wikipedia for. —RaD Man (talk) 19:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Gary Brolsma first posted his "Numa Numa Dance" on Newgrounds.com [1] (http://www.newgrounds.com) on December 12, 2004. Since then it has popped up hundreds of websites and blogs and made appearances on both CNN and VH1's "Best Week Ever."
- A lot of videos appear on hundreds of websites and blogs but they never get added here. Numanuma already has a full paragraph in Dragostea Din Tei, this article is pretty unnecessary therefore. I think Dragostea Din Tei needs some editing too as theres very little information or truth in the article (and I will possibly correct the errors there pending on the result of this). Hedley 22:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - I support this opinion fully. --Sn0wflake 22:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --Matteh (talk) 20:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A nonce phenomenon (if even that) which will fade soon. Rick K 00:28, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep or, at least, Merge into Dragostea Din Tei. Do not simply delete because someone may run across this term and be curious. On many occasions, Wikipedia has satisfied my curiosity on numerous pop-culture issues. WpZurp 03:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Dragostea Din Tei already includes a full paragraph on this so I don't know what a merger would do for this.
  - Fair enough but that paragraph doesn't actually mention "Numanuma"; nor does in mention the "meme" aspect of this evolution. I have just merged in the new information. Anyway, I now change my vote to Redirect but not delete. WpZurp 03:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"First posted on 12 December 2004". If this were a word, the vote would be overwhelming to delete this as a neologism. If this were a research topic, we would delete as "original research". Topics of popular culture should be held to the same standard. It's barely a few months old. This is still a news story. [m:Transwiki|]] to WikiNews. If it's still relevant a year from now, bring it back then. Rossami (talk) 08:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Incorrect. "Dragostea Din Tei" was released in countries 2003 thru May 2004, and this videos been around for 9 months. Its not 'news' anymore. -- Hedley 13:26, 20 Feb
Merge into Dragostea Din Tei, redirect to discourage recreation - David Gerard 23:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Already covered in Dragostea Din Tei. — Gwalla | Talk 02:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. r3m0t 15:43, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with the entry for "Dragostea Din Tei". 21 Feb. 2005
Merge into Dragostea Din Tei 21 Feb. 2005
Keep. Wikipedia is an excellent encyclopaedia of popular culture and I think we should always try to improve it as such. I reject the dichotomy of the lead - I'll quite happily keep articles about local politicians although I wouldn't consider myself an inclusionist extremist. Haukurth 19:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. ComCat 08:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not encyclopedic. --BM 14:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I came to Wikipedia looking for information on this. -- Seth Ilys 05:18, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Gary Brolsma and the Numanuma are a pop-cultural phenomenon, definitely notable. They've been mentioned on "Good Morning America", CNN and in the New York Times (see this link). Or, type in "Gary Brolsma" on Yahoo.com under "News", and there will be a link to the NY Times. -- 67.81.191.226; 02:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- anon vote disregarded, but thanks for insigts. Mikkalai 19:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep It's definitly notable, heck, that's why I looked it up!--Perfection 07:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep The February 26, 2005 article about Numa Numa in the New York Times ("Internet Fame Is Cruel Mistress for a Dancer of the Numa Numa" by Alan Feuer and Jason George) was the site's top forwarded article for the day (and continues to be so as of this writing). The issue of Internet privacy is important here; as a means to discuss that issue, Numa Numa is a useful touchstone. And given the fact that the curious might want to know the words and meaning to the song, among other things, this seems a notable and worthwhile entry. Sandover 16:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep is a fantastic meme. Mateusc 22:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS; thus the article is kept. —Korath (Talk) 11:47, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I count four deletes, a merge, and four keeps (including nixie's move and Average Earthman's comments). —Korath (Talk) 11:47, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Project jedi

Nonsense about a supposedly classified super-soldier project. I respect the attempt at conspiracy theory fiction, so I didn't nominate for speedy. There's almost no chance of expansion or verification since the article states "Little else is known about Project Jedi at this time, pending further declassification of Special Forces documentation." Delete. Carrp | Talk 23:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suggested literature is "The Men Who Stare At Goats"??? This is almost BJAODN material imho. Delete. Radiant! 23:19, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)--Sn0wflake 03:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The book is real. This is probably taken from the book. Weak Keep and send to Cleanup. Uncle G 23:49, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Keep, but with reservations. Article neesd cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 00:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Too much theorization and lack of factual proof. --Sn0wflake 03:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This isn't a joke - seriously. The US took research into alternative methods of warfare quite seriously, with the idea that not testing something just because it seems very, very silly may be a bad move in the long run. So, apart from anything else, they tried staring at goats to see if they could will them to die (one goat did, but it was statistical that if you stare at a goat for long enough one will have a heart attack). Col. John B. Alexander is another name to look up related to this. Since then they dumped the hippy ideas, and took on things such as playing the Barney the Dinosaur theme on a loop to prisoners to try to make them crack. Not sure how much of this article is a summary, and how much is a straight lift from Jon Ronson's book. Average Earthman 01:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's a real book Amazon. I would suggest moving the material from this article to The men who stare at goats rewriting it to be about the book unless there's anything else to substantiate the information presented.--nixie 12:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't conform to laws of physics enough to be included for factual accuracy and doesn't have enough publicity to be included as notable hoax. Delete. --Pjacobi 14:48, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
- So you're saying that if the US government did something really, really silly that relied on them breaking the laws of physics to work, we should just pretend they never tried it? Why not delete the article on SDI, since it was economically and practically impossible? Or, hey, communism doesn't work, so let's delete the article on communism. I think an article on the US PsyOps thinking of the past, relying on publicised sources such as Ronson's book, is worth having. Shame this isn't it, though. Average Earthman 19:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - No, I consider the extent of breaking the laws of physics to be a hint, whether it is hoax or history. --Pjacobi 21:11, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
    - The article states that they were trying to break the laws of physics, not that they succeeded. So this suggests historic lunacy at high levels of a military that is armed with nuclear weapons. Average Earthman 12:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge with all the other articles on the Army's crank research under some suitable title. --Carnildo 20:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 03:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Penn Counterparts

Delete - I discovered this while organizing stubs. Are college organizations notable? I know quite a few universities have a capella groups and other performance organizations, in fact my sister is president of an a capella group at her university. The group has released a few CD's just as this one has, but is this encyclopedic? What about other collegiate performing organizations? See the category for the University of Pennsylvania for more organizations. Ganymead 23:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, just under the bar of notability, possible college vanity. Megan1967 00:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. According to their website, they appear to have released 15 CDs, toured extensively and received a number of awards.[58] As for the more general issue, I don't think there is any point in trying to establish a general principle or precedent on the notability of "college organizations". Some are notable, some are not. Sports are overrepresented at the moment. Not only does every unexciting American college football team seem to get an article, and quite a few football team coaches, but even the odd mascot and local mascotcruft that should probably be merged somewhere. This musical group, on the other hand, seems worthy of inclusion. And your sister's group too, perhaps. / u p p l a n d 12:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep based on Uppland's comments, though I haven't verified that they meet any of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 02:40, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nelli Kim/Temp

Delete - After I've rewritten an article which experienced copyvio in the past, and copied it into Nelli Kim (removing copyvio notice from there), Nelli Kim/Temp should be deleted.Cmapm 00:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This isn't how WP:CP works—Nelli Kim should be deleted and /Temp moved over it. (This also isn't how VfD works; you've pasted this into the bottom of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Penn Counterparts.) —Korath (Talk) 00:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Second mistake was realised by myself before your answer (see Talk page). As concerns first mistake, what should I do now? It's a pity, that nothing was said on it in copyvio notice. I waited for 10 days after writing a stub and placing notice on this on the Talk page (i.e. more than a week, as stated in copyvio), but nobody of admins removed copyvio :(( So, I tried myself Cmapm 00:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Just give it time. WP:CP is a busy place, deletes/moves can take a few days before someone has time. iMeowbot~Mw 03:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 12:15, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I count five keeps (including Kappa), four merges, and two deletes. Further attempts to establish a consensus whether to merge should be continued on the articles' talk pages. —Korath (Talk) 12:15, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Carver

Is this a case of KKK-kruft or notability? Are individuals who are actively participating in the Ku Klux Klan and make appearances on the Howard Stern radio show noteworthy and encyclopedic? If yes, why? GRider\^talk 23:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, and expand. Megan1967 00:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Stern's show is notable, so his regular guests should be explained somewhere. Prefer "Keep" if he's senior in the KKK or notorious outside Howard Stern, if not prefer merge (not delete) to The Wack Pack or somewhere. Based on the article, prefer merge. Kappa 01:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. He is apparently an Imperial Wizard and Grand Dragon of the KKK. Megan1967 03:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Rhobite 02:19, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. ComCat 02:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge. --Sn0wflake 03:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, NN. --iMeowbot~Mw 13:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
keep and expandXpendersx 20:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge to the The Wack Pack, see also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Beetlejuice the Dwarf --nixie 12:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, probably. Although I work on our coverage of neo-Nazi and white supremacist movements, I'm reluctant to give too much coverage to individual members unless they achieve verifiable note of some sort. This guy probably passes, though - David Gerard 23:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. See criteria for inclusion of biographies. --Pjacobi 00:51, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
Merge to The Wack Pack. Subject clearly doesn't conform to the criteria of inclusion on his own. The subject is distasteful to many, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be included. Fernando Rizo 01:02, 21 Feb 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. --Rhobite 00:16, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

The Killing Spirit

Non-notable fantasy book. The text is the publisher's blurb. Gazpacho 00:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Self-promotion. It is an exact copy of the publisher's description. Could also be Copyvio. Zzyzx11 00:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertisement of a book published by PublishAmerica, a vanity press. Technically a copyvio, but I'd rather not give this a chance to come back. —Korath (Talk) 12:06, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 12:23, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Proboards

Delete Seems to be advertising. Ganymead 01:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

~~It does indeed look like advertising. Delete unless rewritten and some degree of notability established. Kappa 02:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)~~
Delete, but I will change my vote if somebody can make a satisfactory stub. Keep. Seems to be notable enough, despite not exactly being Wikipedia material. --Sn0wflake 03:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hard to tell with Internet companies, but their name gets about a million Google hits, and they claim to be "the home of over 3 million users". How many of those are active they don't mention, but seems to be a pretty sizeable company. Keep and cleanup, but I'll take advice if anybody knows the field better. In the meantime, am NPOVing. Meelar (talk) 03:14, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Now slightly more factual content, and neutral, but still could use expansion. Meelar (talk) 03:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Don't think Proboards would need to advertise on Wikipedia, but would probably be more at home in an article on free forum hosts such as EZboard. Hedley 22:33 Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Proboards isn't as major as ezboard (which needs expansion even more than this one), but it's one of a handful of top runners-up. This is well above the level of what normally passes as notability for a website. -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep:Proboards is a company just like microsoft. Why do they have a page here and Proboards does not? --Javascriptdude 21:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- User's third edit. —Korath (Talk) 12:22, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep: Tell me, wheres the petition to delete EZBoard? So EZBoard can stay but not ProBoards? It's unfair. - Adam 69.76.98.26 21:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Anonymous user's twelfth edit. —Korath (Talk) 12:22, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
KEEP PROBOARDS: ezboards are an old virsin or proboards that Pat Gave to his friends we need to get rid off ezboards and all the others too if u get rid of proboards
- Unsigned by User:69.170.192.163. It was his second edit; his first (and only other) was to the article. —Korath (Talk) 12:22, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

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