Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 11

< February 10	February 12 >

February 11

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 06:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Twenty-First Century Medicine

Vanity. Information that could be rolled into some other main topic on cryonics. --Froggy 22:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. There are plenty of company stubs that are short as this one is. Without looking deeply into the site, it seems that the company has been around for 5 years or more and has a reasonably well developed web presence that suits a company that's not fly-by-night ... but that could be an illusion, of course. I've left the 'delete' tag on, of course, but done a categorization of the article and added a stub-tag. Courtland 02:06, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
Delete Vanity. There are too many companies around and most of them aren't notable. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Radiant! 10:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete'. This company is not notable enough to warrant its own encyclopedia entry. IBM, Sure. But not this. Katefan0 21:23, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Megan1967 08:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Sounds interesting. Capitalistroadster 15:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\^talk 20:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Radiant. Carrp | Talk 04:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Regretful Delete Nothing to distinguish from other corpsicle companies. Rich Farmbrough 17:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. --Viriditas | Talk 22:52, 16 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) 06:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David Kraftsow and Thats Dave!

Delete. Fancruft or possibly geriatric self-promotion of a long-forgotten, short-lived television series. -- RWH 06:43, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence of existence, much less importance. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete both, not notable, articles are un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 08:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - agree with Cyrius. TomTheHand 18:35, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Robert Panz-Schimdt

A google search reveals only two entries for Robert Panz-Schimdt, both on the French Wikipedia site. (There are no entries for "Robert Panz-Schmidt", in case anyone's curious.) Also, the anonymous author appears to have vandalized numerous pages in the last few hours. I'm tempted to speedy this one ... CJCurrie 00:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Panz-Schimdt demystifies female sexuality around a long-drawn-out metaphor bringing the succube closer to the digestive mucous membranes." This is not merely a poor translation. I'd endorse a speedy as patent nonsense #2, and it could live on at BJAODN. Samaritan 00:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Your endorsement is good enough for me. Consider it gone. CJCurrie 01:13, 11 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) 06:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ian Bone

No evidence of notability. Delete.-gadfium 00:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nothing significant there. Zzyzx11 02:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article does not establish notability. Megan1967 03:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
...but the inbound link from Class War, a long article about the apparently highly notable national British anarchist group and newspaper Ian Bone founded in 1983, does. Keep and allow for at least organic expansion. Samaritan 05:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
keep per above. Kappa 07:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Based on the limited evidence I can find, his notability appears to be completely derivative of Class War. Unless substantially more encyclopedic content is available, ~~redirect~~. Rossami (talk) 23:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and unlink per Courtland's findings below. Rossami (talk) 02:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I would agree to keep based on the relationship to The Alarm, but I visited both their present and old websites and could find no mention of the putative founder Ian Bone, indicating that he was not notable enough to be mentioned (though several other people are mentioned) if in fact I've the right publication. Also, there is the argument that this article should be kept on the basis of Ian Bone's involvement in the establishment of the Class War anarchist society. I've found one web reference that would support this, a recopy of an Independent news article; I'm sending an email to the News Desk there to see if they can vouch for the veracity of this 1994 article. In the absence of reference support, though, I'd suggest this article being deleted. Courtland 02:35, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nimismo Kingjuan

Yet another one that I'm tempted to speedy. Websearch reveals nothing, not surprisingly. Is it possible the title is a misspelling of a real person's name? CJCurrie 01:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing on Google, poorly written. The supposed backstory indicates that this could be a worthy entry if there is any truth or substance to it, but without confirmation this is purely speculation. -- RPIRED 01:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable - zero Google hits. Megan1967 03:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable JoJan 20:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete : in agreement Courtland 03:16, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
Delete. Carrp | Talk 04:32, 15 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) 06:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wehe

Totally useless. Just a bunch of personal info on some user. Better suited for a blog than for a Wiki. - Kross 8:36 PM, 10 Feburary 2005 (ET)

Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Only things that comes to my mind is "So what?" and "Who cares?" (Zzyzx11 02:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC))
Delete, not notable, possible artist vanity. Megan1967 03:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, It's all been said. Inter 09:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete : in agreement Courtland 03:18, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
Delete not notable and useless information. Epsilon 20:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Carrp | Talk 04:32, 15 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) 06:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

DOOM/DUNE

It seems to me that this article is nothing but pure speculation on the part of the author. I don't know much about the Doom or Dune video game franchises but the tone indicates that this is just rampant speculation. For years fans of college hockey have speculated on the future creation of a college hockey video game, that doesn't warrant the creation of an article. -- RPIRED 01:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Probably should get into Bad Jokes &c, because it's pretty funny. The article's also factually inaccurate: DOOM took place on Phobos, not an extrasolar planet. LizardWizard 01:55, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, speedily if possible. This is nothing more than pure speculation. Can't even call it "original research" since what few facts in this are wrong. - Lucky 6.9 02:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, mere speculation, nothing factual. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- The line "There is no such game yet, but there might be someday" clearly admits that it's only speculation. (Zzyzx11 02:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC))
Delete. Fredrik | talk 05:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Come back when there is substance. Inter 09:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, games are entirely unrelated, and so are the companies that hold their copyright. 212.206.63.108 10:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) talk
Delete as utter nonsense. One is a first-person shooter, while the other is a role-playing game adaptation of a literary work. It's like someone suggesting a game combining Grand Theft Auto and A Midsummer Night's Dream. 23skidoo 17:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'd prefer a combination of WWE and Pride & Prejudice: that way you could have a character named Stone Cold Jane Austen. Oh, and delete. --Calton 09:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Bless the Maker and His water; bless the coming and going of Him. May His passage cleanse the wiki. Iralith 19:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Still, the game could actually be rather run if made properly. Carrp | Talk 19:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete : talk about cross fertilization. To the Author - make the game, sell it, then come back and write a NPOV piece about it. Good luck. Courtland 03:21, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
Delete The article actually says There is no such game yet, but there might be someday. Its rationale for the argument is The names sound similar and both stories have alot in common. This is a load of bullcrap and needs to get destroyed. Now. -- Cabhan 05:23, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Totally crazy nonsense. TomTheHand 18:37, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Justin White

If you do a search for Justin White pro wrestling, or justin White pro wrestler, there is thousands of hits. It is about a pro wrestler not a comic charachter. This character does not appear to be nearly as famous as the article contends. A ~~Google~~ Yahoo search for "Justin White" + comic [1] returns only 28 hits and I don't believe a single one refers to the comic character. Carrp | Talk 02:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

dont delete, If you do a search for Justin White pro wrestling, or justin White pro wrestler, the sources do come up. It is about a pro wrestler not a comic charachter. I beleive the article might need some touch ups.
Comment dont take this personally but since when did Yahoo! = Google?. Google search with "Justin White" + comic returns 402 hits. Megan1967 03:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yep, careless me. Still, Yahoo did use Google as an engine at one time. Don't think they do anymore. Google search (real one this time) ;) for "Justin White" + "comic" [2] returns 232 hits, but none appear to be related (lots of guestbooks though). Carrp | Talk 03:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Bart133 (t) 03:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) (Note: User:63.189.72.86 changed Bart133's vote to "Don't Delete".) Carrp | Talk 03:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable. Delete. Zero Google hits for "justin white" "From Edge to Edge". Rick K 06:05, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/From Edge to Edge. Andrewa 14:34, 11 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) 06:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chen Fang

~~Non-notable and vanity. "Fang Technologies" returns 3 hits on Yahoo [3].~~ Carrp | Talk 02:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment:When I put up the VfD the page looked like this [4]. The page is now radically different and anonymous users have been removing the VfD without comment. No references are included in the article and I've been unable to find information on the Chen Fang described in the article. I will keep the article listed here as I believe the author is acting in bad faith by removing VfD notices (and later by vandalizing my user page and that of User:Hadal). If notibility is shown, I will change my stance. Carrp | Talk 03:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete this vanity page. Bart133 (t) 03:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Right now, it's a copyvio about Metternich from here, substituting the name "Chen" for "Metternich". Delete! Samaritan 05:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, in the pseudo-Metternich copyvio form it's patent nonsense, and the earlier version is not notable at all (one Google hit). There was a vandal who twice submitted bios of Hitler with someone else's name substituted, and now we have a Metternich bio with someone else's name substituted. Since it's a copyvio as reported above, I reverted to the non-Metternich version. -- Curps 11:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment The original author 12.76.89.12 (talk | contributions) also vandalized the Metternich article here: [5] -- Curps 11:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable, and blanking the VfD didn't exactly help its case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not encyclopedic. Epsilon 21:02, 13 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) 06:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David Megginson

Vanity article. Non-notable. Should be speedy deleted. Spinboy 02:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nn. Bart133 (t) 03:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I can't agree with speedying for vanity and non-notability because articles, especially substubs like this one, that appear vanity often enough turn out to be about subjects of least debatable notability, and are often the product of redlinks. Megginson was the original lead developer and maintainer of Simple API for XML, apparently a major XML standard O'Reilly Media and others put out books on. I'd need positive evidence that he led the community that developed this for a very short time and contributed very little to it before not voting keep, and at least allow for organic expansion. Add that megginson.com shows he's written two books, chaired one working group and served on another for the World Wide Web Consortium, recieved an award for Outstanding Individual Contribution to the Java Community from JavaPro magazine and Sun, who should know. Why would this man write such a crappy two sentences about himself out of vanity? Samaritan 04:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that we already allowed for organic expansion, and nothing happened (apart from some minor wikification and categorization) in six months. It took the threat of deletion for something to actually happen to this article. Have you considered patrolling Category:Wikipedia articles of dubious importance? That would certainly help, considering that (as was the case here) people do put tags such as {{cleanup-importance}} on such articles and wait for a while to see whether improvement happens, and if nothing happens in a reasonable period nominate them for deletion. Uncle G 13:28, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
Keep, article needs expansion. 68,000 hits on Google. Megan1967 04:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Recent revisions to article establish notability. ElBenevolente 04:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I've expanded it significantly, including everything relevant in my comment above and more. Samaritan 04:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and I am curious how the nominator came to the conclusion of non notable. —RaD Man (talk) 09:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, It's all been said. Inter 09:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable programmer. Capitalistroadster 10:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
At the time of nomination, the article did not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Although it didn't at that time, as it stands now the article establishes notability. Keep. Uncle G 13:28, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
Keep, and all reflect what we learn from the experience. We are all learning. Hopefully. Andrewa 14:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- PS And well done team, this still needs some work but is on the way to being a great article, which is what it's all about. Andrewa 14:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, for reasons noted above by many users. -- James Teterenko (talk) 18:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Megginson is certainly notable in computer programming.193.167.132.66 12:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\^talk 20:17, 14 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) 06:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From Edge to Edge

I can't find any record of this comic on Yahoo. This query [6] return hits but none appear to match the comic. A Google query for '+"From Edge to Edge" +london comic' return 48 hits of which about 5 may be related to the comic in question. It may be a good comic, but I don't see evidence of notibility. Carrp | Talk 03:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose on grounds that it appears to be a perfectly valid article. --YixilTesiphon 03:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If we can't verify that such a thing exists, how can it be a valid article? Zero Google hits for "justin white" "From Edge to Edge". Delete. Rick K 05:38, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose, it appears to be a valid article. --MangaXIII
- Note: This is the user's first edit. Carrp | Talk 04:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete without more evidence of notability. "Oppose" voter(s) might want to read the top of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Kappa 05:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete if it can't be verified. Also see Justin White. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. JimmyShelter 08:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete not verifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless verified. While I'm happy to assume good faith, there are a couple of things about this that look rather like an attempt at pre-release publicity. Andrewa 14:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless some Wikipedian from London or therabouts can verify it. Radiant! 10:30, 12 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. 2 keeps, 3 deletes. dbenbenn | talk 04:02, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Modified GNU General Public License

Nobody actually uses this term, and it's not the official name. Novalis 03:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment, We have many other redirects which performs the same function as this. Same with below entry. Inter 09:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep as redirect. If it is to be deleted it should be listed on Wikipedia:redirects for deletion anyway, not here. But fix the double redirect. Andrewa 14:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep as redirect. Consider adding Template:R_from_alternate_name (if these are working) Courtland 03:26, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
Delete. Do not redirect. This article is a (broken) double-redirect to an article about the License of GNU Ada. GNU Ada has a short one-clause modification to the standard GNU GPL which clarifies the licensing status of user code which instantiates generics in the licensed code, an Ada feature. This is a small change, and it is debatable whether an entire encyclopedia article about this tiny clause is warranted. However, for that article about a non-standard clause in Ada open-source license to then take over the titles Modified GNU General Public License and GNU Modified General Public License in the article titlespace, seems completely unnecessary, and misleading, not to say stupid and absurd. --BM 14:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No Redirect. Agree with BM - Who is actually going to search for this? waste of namespace EggplantWizard 21:37, 17 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. dbenbenn | talk 04:05, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MGPL

Nobody actually uses this term, and it's not the official name. Novalis 03:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

GNAT Licence

All Ada programmers know the Licence under the name of "Modified GPL" and the shortcut "MGPL". This is because - just like the Linux kernel - GNAT has a build in licence check via the pragma License command and pragma License (Modified_GPL); is used activate the licence check.

So while your naming is prehaps politicly correct - it's not what the user will type into the search box.

Also, not all of Ada is Modified GPL - i.E. packages derived from ISO 8652 are "unrestriced".

The reason for the MGPL and pragma License is clear: GNAT is closed source projects as well. And we are quite happy with that - those closed source users pay quite a lot of money which then goes into the further development of GNAT.

My votes:

delete Modified GNU General Public License - mistake of mine - delete.
keep The rest should stay as redirect.

Keep MGPL as redirect. If this is proposed for deletion, it should go to Wikipedia:redirects for deletion anyway, not here. Andrewa 14:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep as redirect of type Template:R from abbreviation Courtland 03:30, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
Delete. This refers to the modified GPL used by GNU Ada. It is a double redirect to License of GNU Ada. Misleading acronym which is not of encyclopedic interest, even if the minor modification to the GPL contained in the Ada License is, which is very debatable. --BM 02:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actualy there are 4 pages to be discussed here MGPL, Modified GNU General Public License, GNU Modified General Public License and License of GNU Ada. Partly my mistake (is't there a shortcut for deleting pages resulting of a typing mistake). --Krischik 08:03, 15 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) 06:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Andy chu

I speedied this one, but restored it following a complaint. A google search for "Andy Chu" and "Spinningplates" reveals nothing. Looks like vanity, if not a total hoax. CJCurrie 03:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Entire text "Born 1979, in Fullerton California. Founded Spinningplates in 2004;" no inbound links. The anon creator's one other contribution was "I can't believe anyone can edit this!" on Simón Bolívar. Delete. Samaritan 05:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Should've stayed speedy. Be strong, CJ, and don't give into complaints so readily. -R. fiend 06:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, keep in mind that my decision to restore it and list it here gave me the opportunity to indulge in some really dry sarcasm on the author's talk page ... CJCurrie 18:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No information of any use - any article that requires someone to google to understand it is not a good article. If someone complained about the speedy, they should have been willing to write a better article on him, and learn to capitalise correctly. Average Earthman 09:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No useful content or history. But it's probably a good idea this coming to VfD on request even though it was IMO a valid speedy. Our primary goal is just the article namespace, but two valid secondary goals are to encourage new potential contributors and to avoid creating or encouraging trolls. These are sometimes tricky. Andrewa 14:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as vanity/sandbox escapee. Off to see the aforementioned sarcasm! - Lucky 6.9 00:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 04:34, 15 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. Article deleted as vandalism. Joyous 23:47, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Pond muck car

Delete. Zero Google hits, idiosyncratic, unencyclopedic. -- The Anome 03:31, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and merge information into Hydrogen car or Future of the car. There's no way this needs its own entry, but it is a fact that researchers at UC Berkeley have been researching how to harvest hydrogen from pond scum (algae) for use in alternative fueled vehicles: [7]. Katefan0 17:38, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, someone's synopsis of a TV show. -R. fiend 19:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Show shows unbelievable things, but I'm sure this exists. Merge as per Katefan0. Mgm|^(talk) 21:22, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I wouldn't oppose a merge after the deletion. Carrp | Talk 04:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge anything useable to Hydrogen car, and add redirect. Megan1967 08:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Hydrogen car Johntex 18:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deleted as vandalism, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/Long_term_alerts#Mr._Suffix_.28Neologisms.29]. Mikkalai 05:02, 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 delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AOED

H.O.A.X. Uncle G 03:37, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Delete, not notable - zero Google hits for "Alliance of Evil Ducks", quack-ery. Megan1967 04:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete : a tale to spring on the next set of Survivor contestants. Courtland 03:32, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Me so horny

Wikipedia is not a repository of triva--nixie 03:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, trivial, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Me So Horny redirects here. We might as well redirect them both to As Nasty As They Wanna Be, and merge the relevant information from here. (Something could also merge to Full Metal Jacket, but redirect there wouldn't be appropriate.) I'm not convinced the redirect-here at Me love you long time should exist at all. Samaritan 05:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Capitalistroadster, may you motor on forever. Strong keep now. Samaritan 16:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge with As Nasty... if necessary (the later animated references noted undoubtedly originate from the 2 Live Crew album anyway. Alternately, if there's an article on racist jokes, statements, or stereotypes, it might be worth noting there. 23skidoo 05:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment This was originally proposed as a speedy delete, but didn't really meet the criteria; it was not patent nonsense and context was provided (the movie Full Metal Jacket was mentioned) and notability asserted [8]. In cases like this I sometimes remove the speedy notice and replace it with a VfD; however, in this case Google showed a fairly impressive number of hits which left me unconvinced that a VfD would succeed. Therefore I merely cleaned it up and added more context [9] and notified the speedy proposer that she could submit it for VfD, which she has now done. -- Curps 05:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There are 60,000 hits for "me so horny", and if you filter out all pages that mention "2 Live Crew" or "Full Metal Jacket" you still get 9000 hits (Google search). Some of these are merely phrases from sentences like "it made me so horny"; however if do the equivalent search for "me love you long time" again filtering out pages that mention "2 Live Crew" or "Full Metal Jacket" you still get 4000 hits (Google search). So it seems the phrase did indeed enter the vernacular and is sufficiently notable (and the fact that episodes of South Park and Family Guy cited the phrase indicates that viewers of such popular culture are familiar with it). Other popular phrases that have gained sufficient notability are present in Wikipedia, for instance Let's roll, which has its own page rather than a redirect to September 11, 2001 attacks. Wikipedia also has articles on silly phrases like All your base are belong to us and Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten and Hacked By Chinese! that attained notability. Finally, the phrase "me love you long time" was apparently widely used in massage parlors in Vietnam during the Vietnam War [10] and so is not merely some scriptwriter's invention. So I suppose this is a very long-winded Keep vote. -- Curps 05:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment Note the original author created this page as Me love you long time, but I moved it to Me so horny. -- Curps 06:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I oppose deletion, but am not in strong support of it's continued existance either. Perhaps merging into Full Metal Jacket would be best, but I don't see why it can't just have it's own page. -SocratesJedi | Talk 06:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is a tricky case. Certainly the term "me so horny" has become a well recongized meme, but I'm not sure that automatically makes it a worthy article in an encyclopedia. Then again, there is tons of complete crap that has been made into articles. Perhaps the best thing to do is make it into an article about the song (retitled as "Me So Horny"), and within that article mentioning Full Metal Jacket and the phrase's popularity elsewhere. -R. fiend 06:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Socially and culturally notable. --Centauri 07:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Un-encyclopaedic. JimmyShelter 08:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Extreme keep, agree with Centauri. —RaD Man (talk) 09:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I have rewritten the article so it refers to the song incorporating the material about the catchphrase , Full Metal Jacket and incorporating info on its chart success, the controversy over the lyrics and the obscenity trial in 1990. Capitalistroadster 09:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- PS Should be renamed as "Me So Horny" Capitalistroadster 09:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Definitely Keep - The article refers to a real song by the controversial rap band 2 Live Crew and clearly, correctly and without bias covers it's history and the controversy surrounding it. Plus, I've seen more deletion worthy nonsense being accepted as legitimate wikipedia articles, so therefore this should stay too. if not, then all those articles on porn stars and highly dubious articles and entire lists like "fictional religions inspired by brands of alien underwear on science fiction soap operas directed by one-eyed bedwetting directors with excessive ear hair" should also go by the same token.
- Above edit by User:Themarcuscreature -- Curps 10:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Definitely Keep - important cultural history
- Above edit by User:63.202.174.23 -- Curps 10:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Extreme Keep - It is a legitimate article, and legitimate articles deserve to be on Wikipedia. Scott Gall 10:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia is a repository of just this kind of trivia. This entry exactly hits the right tone. --Wetman 10:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I can hardly believe this is on VfD.... Phils 12:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Encyclopedic topic, article well above average. Agree that the article name should be capitalised, to match the song title Me So Horny. Andrewa 12:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Of course keep it. Everyking 13:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable phrase (I've heard it referenced many times outside of Full Metal Jacket) and the song is notable too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Speaking as a reclusive geek from a non-English-speaking country who's still familiar with the phrase, it appears pretty notable (sadly enough). --Kizor 14:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, good article about a song and a catchphrase. bbx 15:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, far from trivia, it is 80s cultural history. Stbalbach 17:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I kind of wish people would read through the previous votes before saying things like "I can't believe this is on VFD". The original article was quite bad. Only encyclopedic improvements (primarily by Capitalistroadster) made this worth keeping. Keep updated article. -- Plutor 17:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Original article link above now broken by move, it was at [11]. -- Curps 02:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Cultural important, relavent and interesting. --Froggy 17:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. On the contrary, Wikipedia IS a repository of trivia. This is precisely the sort of information people seek from Wikipedia. IMHO, this was a bad faith listing: over 60,000 hits on google and the original stub never was a qualified deletion candidate to begin with. In its present state, you'd have to be out of your mind to delete this. Once again, VfD is not clean up... Keep and may this article continue to enjoy further organic growth. GRider\^talk 17:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If nothing else, the widely-published controversy over the song makes it notable. --FOo 17:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep — J3ff 23:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Clear keep as rewritten, but should be "Me So Horny". -- Jmabel | Talk 00:47, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep vfd sucky sucky ... me love article long time. ALKIVAR™ 06:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, valid and known meme. Radiant! 10:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I didn't know how these phrases got so widespread, nor the significance of the song (leading to a Supreme Court case). --Ben Kovitz 02:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 02:46 Z
Keep This phrase saved my life. --Jscott 13:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Me keep you long time. Carrp | Talk 04:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep! Extremely notable (and notorious) song. Original article was aparently about the catchphrase...oh okay. --b. Touch 18:33, 16 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. Article speedy deleted as vandalism. Joyous 23:49, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

French fry car

From the people who brought you Pond muck car. Uncle G 03:54, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Comment: Running your diesel car on vegetable oil can get you in trouble with the tax authorities. Kappa 04:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Really? Where? Our article Biodiesel suggests that in the U.S. at least it's a way to get tax credits. If this is inaccurate, could you correct that article? --FOo 18:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - In some parts of England it's illegal due to the alleged bad food smell. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
    - Nothing to do with the smell, simply a requirement to pay fuel duty. Rich Farmbrough 19:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment: As I've said elsewhere, this is not biodiesel as that article defines it. Vote elsewhere. Andrewa 19:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, expand. This type of car does exist, running on cooking grease and oil [12]. Megan1967 04:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If it's kept, doesn't it need a different title? Maybe not, 78 google hits for "French fry car" Kappa 06:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Agreed, the title needs to be changed, but perhaps it would be better to merge it as a heading under Waste vegetable oil. Megan1967 00:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Definitely shouldn't be under this title, as it isn't potato matter that powers the car, it is the vegetable oil. In the UK, it's legal as long as you pay the duty. The motorist must get permission from customs and excise officers before they start using vegetable oil and keep an accurate record of the amount used. Average Earthman 09:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ and cleanup. My first reaction was that surely this was all covered already under biodiesel, but investigation suggests that this is a slightly different emerging technology that we don't yet cover by any other name. Discuss the name on the talk page. Andrewa 11:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to straight vegetable oil, and cleanup (change of vote). The final result is the same. Both the SVO and biodiesel articles need serious work, as is demonstrated by the fact that several people voting here still seem under the misapprehension that they are the same thing. Andrewa 19:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It isn't anything new, it's vegetable oil. They just use it to fry french fries first. Running a diesel engine on vegetable oil isn't new at all. See Waste vegetable oil. Actually, merge to Waste vegetable oil and delete. Average Earthman 12:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge with anything more sensibly titled.--Wetman 11:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Nothing here that isn't already at biodiesel, it appears, and the article is not terribly encyclopedic: "In the future, french fry chefs might start owning cars like that; and it might change the way they think about working at a restaurant." WTF? delete or redirect without merge. -R. fiend 19:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Biodiesel, a well-written article that Taxman is working up to feature status, and discusses the use of waste vegetable oil as fuel. - Satori 20:12, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to ~~Biodiesel~~ a more appropriate article. There's no information here really worth preserving, but the "French fry car" has actually received a decent amount of press coverage under that name (even if, as Average Earthman points out, it's not the most accurate name.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect either to "biodiesel" or "waste vegetable oil." It's true that running a diesel on vegetable oil gives off a telltale odor of cooking. It's how the cops in the UK nailed drivers who attempted to skirt the tax on diesel fuel. In fact, when Rudolf Diesel demonstrated his engine for the first time in public, it was running on vegetable oil as a way of showing that it could run on practically any fuel. - Lucky 6.9 00:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to biodiesel. Rossami (talk) 23:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: If it were to be a redirect, surely it should be to straight vegetable oil, which is where this technology is currently discussed. The vehicles in question do not use transesterised fuel as described in the biodiesel article. No change of vote. Andrewa 09:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to straight vegetable oil. Johntex 18:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deleted as vandalism, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/Long_term_alerts#Mr._Suffix_.28Neologisms.29]. Mikkalai 05:01, 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) 06:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Brett Bollier

I'm reluctant to waste everyone's time (incl. my own) on obvious ones like this, but if I don't go through the process on this, it will create an atmosphere of lawlessness that would get stretched further than I want it to go. So here it is: no verifiability or notability presented. Meelar (talk) 04:19, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Born 1991; a list of where he and his family lived and attended school. If you're reading, Brent: Welcome to Wikipedia! Please respect the warning not to create an article about yourself. Delete. Samaritan 05:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, joke by anon with no other contributions, see Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Brett Bollier and Talk:Brett Bollier. Page is now protected I see following three removals of the VfD notice. Andrewa 06:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete awful kiddie vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, obviously. And it is downright embarrassing that this is not a speedy deletion candidate. -R. fiend 19:00, 11 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wintereenmas

Non-notable non-holiday. Rick K 05:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest merging it with the Ctrl Alt Del (webcomic) article. --Kross Talk 09:33, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Made up holiday, and a rip-off of Decemberween, which I hope doesn't have an article. A merge, as Kross suggested might not be the end of the world though. -R. fiend 18:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Ctrl Alt Del (webcomic) and redirect. --Matteh (talk) 22:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Used to be a redirect to Ctrl-Alt-Del. Just roll it back. humblefool® 22:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Done. Rick K 22:31, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Idol-Henning

Vanity; non-notable participant of Pop Idol 2003. -- Egil 05:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete,Non notable. Inter 13:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 22:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, because the article does not meet the guidelines of WikiProject:Music. Tuf-Kat 09:44, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I authored this article but admit that it doesn't meet the guidelines. Maybe move to some other outlet[[Mrfixxit]]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Boobert

At first glance this article seems like it just needs touched up, but this user (User:24.244.210.190) is also responsible for several junk articles, which brings the validity of this entry into question, especially since it's been vandalized several times by someone with a similar IP address. If this user wants to mess around they can use the sandbox. -- RPIRED 05:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is not a valid article. I am the user at (User:24.244.210.190) and have been putting junk entries because it is an attack against me personally from the user who originally posted it, who uses a dialup provider. Boobert chase is not a real game, and Boobert is a mean nickname given to me by the orginal author. Boobert chase is not nor has it ever been real. I am not messing aroung, I am defending myself. I VOTE FOR THIS TO BE DELETED! - User:24.244.210.190 01:01, 11 FEB 2005 (EST)

Delete Courtland 07:04, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
Delete. Zero Google hits for "Boobert chase", and the modest number of Google hits for "Boobert" have nothing about a video game, just a few people out there using it as a nickname. Could be speedy deleted as patent nonsense hoax. -- Curps 08:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Hoax. Inter 13:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy as admitted hoax (see above). Also not on Google or KLOV just in case anyone had any doubt. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

La Spaghett

Blatant advertisement. -- RPIRED 05:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable. Delete. Rick K 05:49, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Not the first time round for this one either. Delete. Deb 12:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Inter 13:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 22:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as blatant ad, speedy if possible. I, too, seem to remember this. I only hope this same anon doesn't write their broadcast ads! - Lucky 6.9 01:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I just looked at the edit history. It was originally created back in November and again in January. Pure wiki-spam. In fact, the same anon has made a few edits to this "article" in the last month. - Lucky 6.9 02:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete and speedy it. Courtland 03:35, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

Well, if they pay us to keep it, me might think of it. :) Delete. Oleg Alexandrov 00:36, 16 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) 06:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Elenchos

This was tagged for speedy deletion, with the reason "this belongs soley in Wiktionary". This seems debatable to me, so I brought it here. Kappa 05:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't think Wiktionary. If there is significantly more to say on the subject, expand article. Otherwise redirect. Egil 06:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary already has elenctic, with a note that it needs Wiktionarification. One of the things that a Wiktionary article needs is an etymology section, and most of this article qualifies as that. However, this article has apparently sprung from a redlink in Socrates, and there might be more to say on the subject. Wiktionary the etymological content to Wiktionary:elenctic; and (as per Egil) either Keep as {{philo-stub}} if there is more to say on this that isn't already said at Socrates or Redirect, removing the circular link from Socrates, if there isn't. Uncle G 14:15, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
It seems to me (though I am not an expert) that there is more to the concept of elenchos than a dictionary definition could cover, so I can't agree with "belongs solely in Wiktionary". Keep or merge and redirect. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The original "circular link" had Elenchos as a redirect to Socrates with no explanation; and the only page linking to Elenchos was Socrates itself. So it wasn't red, but it went nowhere, and there wasn't nearly enough on Socrates to say exactly what Elenchos referred to. I think there's whole books to be written on the subject, with Socrates as a primary example of a user but not the entire focus, so it would best not be a section in Socrates. {{philo-stub}} is perfect for this article. Blair P. Houghton 20:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but in need of expansion. Megan1967 22:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*Wiktionary : if expansion is in the cards for this article, then it will be re-introduced with more flesh; also re-direct the link within the Socratic method article to the Wiktionary entry. Courtland 03:39, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

- Redirect to Socratic method with the notation Template:R_with_possibilities ... I had a change of heart after reading Uncle G's words :) Courtland 03:42, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
Socratic method redirects to Socrates. Elenchos is a specific word referring to Socrates' technique. Google cumes up with 7,600 results [13] while Elenchus which has the same meaning and has 19700 results. [14]

We should either create an article for Elenchus and redirect Elenchos to that or vice versa or alternatively create an article for Socratic method and redirect the elenchos and elenchus. No vote yet. Capitalistroadster 09:12, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, It's a stub for further expansion. I use the method, and so does a Catholic Philosopher today. He has written many books with a couple of them using the elenchos method.WHEELER 18:58, 14 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 deletes, 3 keeps. dbenbenn | talk 04:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Samuel Stoddard

Appears to be ~~either a) a vanity page or b)~~ innappropriate content (based on the 'non-famous person' controversial criterion). The content of the page is ...

Samuel Stoddard (Sam) is the webmaster of RinkWorks.

~~Template:bio-stub~~

...has expanded significantly (as noted by one of the voters below). Courtland 18:34, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

Thanks for your votes. Courtland 06:56, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Delete Courtland 07:05, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
- sorry, but I'll stand by my call for deletion; now it reads like it has been written by a fan Ceyockey 18:36, 2005 Feb 13 (according to history Uncle G 06:07, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC))
  - ... which is quite amusing, really, considering that I'd never even heard of the bloke until this came up for VFD. ☺ Uncle G 06:07, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
I am quite sure it's not a vanity page. I have read Sam's writing a lot, and talked to him in e-mail, and he doesn't seem the type to make a vanity page. Still, I vote delete. This page is almost devoid of information. Make it redirect to RinkWorks instead. 193.167.132.66 09:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. No useful info. Egil 09:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, And delete. Inter 13:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
One cannot simultaneously "redirect" and "delete", people. It's one or the other. (One can "delete and then create a redirect", of course, or as per Egil "delete, or failing that redirect") Please clarify your votes.
Article does not establish notability (not even to the extent of David J. Parker), however a quick Google Web search indicates that there is plenty of potential (Dialectizer, "ultra-condensed books", the stupidity and barratry of of Bank of America, Samuel Stoddard the 18th century theologian, and so forth). Keep. Uncle G 16:07, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
- (Note: I am the same person as 193.167.132.66 above.) OK, I stand corrected, I meant "delete and then redirect". This article has way too little content to warrant a separate article. The RinkWorks main article already mentions its webmaster is Samuel Stoddard, so what's the point in a separate article that only says that and nothing else? As for the RinkWorks features, they should be included in the RinkWorks main page or in articles of their own. As for Samuel Stoddard the 18th century theologian, well it's nice that there was such a person, but until someone actually writes something about him, there's no point in keeping a dummy article. Therefore, I say that either write something here (about either "our" Stoddard or the 18th century guy), or delete this article. 81.17.198.7 17:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, agree with UncleG. There is plenty of potential here. Obviously it has to expand beyond the current one line status. Megan1967 22:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Even though Uncle G has found a Samuel Stoddard or two who might be notable, they are not this Samuel Stoddard. This Samuel Stoddard's only claim to notability is that he is the webmaster of an Alexa rank 28,330 website. I am the webmaster of a Top 2000 website, according to Alexa, and believe me I am not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Neither is Samuel Stoddard, which doesn't mean he isn't a great guy, like all webmasters. --BM 00:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I consider Samuel Stoddard's website RinkWorks quite notable. Many other websites mention or link to its humour features. However, having a separate article only to mention that Samuel Stoddard is the webmaster - especially when it's already mentioned in the RinkWorks article - is needless. Articles with next-to-none content shouldn't be kept just because someone might write something there in the future. When they actually write something, they can recreate the article. 85.76.152.179 09:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Even if the website is notable (a point not yet validated), that does not mean that the webmaster of the site is automatically notable. No evidence has yet been presented that he meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. To Uncle G's point, if some future editor has something encyclopedic to say about one of the other Samuel Stoddards, he/she can create the article more easily from a redlink. Rossami (talk) 23:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete: no useful content. No need to disambiguate articles which don't yet exist. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:48, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually, there is a need to disambiguate, even without the now expanded article. If deleted and re-created as a redirect, we'd still have a choice of whether to redirect to Solomon Stoddard, who appears to have been known as "Samuel", or to RinkWorks. Uncle G 10:48, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
I see the article has been expanded, which is a Good Thing, but still all the material is about Stoddard's website RinkWorks, not Stoddard himself. I have heard from Stoddard himself that there is more to his life than just RinkWorks! 85.76.152.179 18:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Then, as someone who clearly knows him, you should be expanding this article instead of decrying it and asking other people to write about what you know for you, because otherwise (and despite the fact that there's a strong argument for Samuel Stoddard to be a redirect to Solomon Stoddard) it's likely that this article is going to end up being a redirect to RinkWorks, giving pretty much exactly that impression. Uncle G 06:07, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
  - (Note: I am the same person as 85.76.152.179. I am on a different computer.) First of all, I am only an active participant on RinkWorks. I am not Stoddard's personal friend. We have never met, but we've talked via e-mail. Thus I don't know very much about his personal life, other than the fact that he's married. Second of all, I never said I had anything against merging the article with RinkWorks. Go ahead if you want. 193.167.132.66 08:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
keep: an author of notable things is notable by association. We have plenty of precedents here, even with sillier things, like Sonja Elen Kisa, the author of Toki Pona language with "10-20 proficient speakers". Mikkalai 04:03, 15 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) 06:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Choirboy

Note: This VfD has been vandalized twice by Cityhuntr, the author of the article.

Looks like utter nonsense. TheCoffee 07:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The Choirboy is apparently a recurring character on The Paul Show. That itself, however, looks veryvery deleteable -- for instance, it's said to broadcast on "The Paul Station", with no indication where or what "The Paul Station" might be. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No value, no notability. -- Egil 09:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, although it seems there could be a decent article on what a choirboy really is. -R. fiend 18:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 22:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What R. fiend said. Niteowlneils 18:37, 14 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. 4 deletes, 4 redirects. I'll redirect it. dbenbenn | talk 04:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Masculinism

Note: This VfD has been vandalized numerous times by Cityhuntr, author of the article, who has also been vandalizing Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Choirboy.

Neologism which admits that it's not popular but has been discussed on "The Paul Show", whatever that is. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. TheCoffee 09:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- Egil 09:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment, Google yields some 8520 hits on this term. Some of this appears to be appropriate use of it aswell. Inter 10:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment to above comment: The article says The first ever discussion of Masculinism occured on The Paul Show. Masculinism per se may need an article, but this particular article is just nonsense by a vandal. -- Egil 11:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
redirect to Masculism as reasonable misspelling. As it is this is just a neologism for which there is already a word anyway (misogyny). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed -- redirect. --FOo 17:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Masculism, I concur, can be a reasonable misspelling. As for the article itself, it's probably neologism. Zzyzx11 23:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Masculism. Megan1967 23:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, then redirect. Rossami (talk) 23:46, 12 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) 06:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Paul Show

A radio show noone heard about on a radio station noone heard about, the articles creator coming up with lots of vfd food. -- Egil 09:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. TheCoffee 09:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment, Paul Station yields some 4600 hits on Google but none of them as far as I can see deals with this radio station. Inter 10:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Utter crap. -R. fiend 18:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete CDC (talk) 19:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no evidence of notability presented and author's antics erase any benefit of the doubt. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Plus, there is no information on which areas around the world it is broadcast in. Zzyzx11 22:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, evidence of notability not presented. By the way, Google seems to know of quite a few "The Paul Shows", none notable, yet all more notable than this one. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. GRider\^talk 20:04, 14 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) 06:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Matoya

By same author as Choirboy, above. Content seems of little value to me. A request have been made to merge with Final Fantasy I, but this got deleted just as quickly as the vfd requests above. I suggest getting rid of it all. -- Egil 09:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge, but it needs cleanup as its slightly POV. If of no use, delete it. Inter 10:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just delete it. TheCoffee 13:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Minor character from a game. There is nothing whatever here that is worth merging into Final Fantasy I, which already included all of the useful (spoiler) information that is here anyway. The third paragraph seems confused. (It doesn't seem to have crossed the author's mind that if the music plays for quite a few characters and in quite a few places, then perhaps it isn't that character's "theme" at all.) A redirect seems pointless. Delete. Uncle G 16:30, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
Redirect or it will come back eventually. Articles have been popping up on various locations in FFI, they'll get to the minor characters eventually. Kappa 17:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to prevent recreation. My original suggestion to merge was giving the benefit of the doubt that maybe some fraction of the information was worth saving, but the author's juvenile antics have convinced me otherwise. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This sort of thing is getting out of hand. -R. fiend 18:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Final Fantasy I. Megan1967 23:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to prevent recreation. Niteowlneils 03:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --BM 15:22, 12 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) 06:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wjayeber

Looks like nonsense to me, for something that I assume is supposed to be internet slang it doesn't seem to appear on the internet a whole lot. -- Ams80 10:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Whatever... Phils 11:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Djeyete. Grue 19:19, 13 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) 06:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vikram Jaswal

Vanity page. Jay 11:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete Vanity, contains more information about his parents than himself. --Etimbo | Talk 12:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, Vanity. Inter 13:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Philip 17:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 23:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Probably vanity. utcursch 11:46, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. (No consensus. 3 Delete / 2 Keep.) -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is probably my fault for voting Support (i.e. in support of deleting the page) when I should have specified Delete, but I believe the vote on this page was unanimously to delete it rather than no consensus. The comments by the two Support votes (including mine) bear this out. --Etimbo | Talk 12:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will now presume that Support means Delete rather than Keep, for Etimbo's vote. Therefore, with CDN99's vote still questionable, this makes it 4 Delete, 1 unknown. Thus the consensus here is delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Robert Benfer

Google shows up several Robert Benfers, but none of them match the description here. This appears to be made up nonsense/vanity. --Etimbo | Talk 00:39, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support --Etimbo | Talk 00:39, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support - seems to be little more than vanity --CDN99 19:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete This might be vanity, but it refers to something that is likely real; see http://www.animateclay.com/archive36.htm, which mentions the DVD's as being in short supply. However, it's worth deleting on the basis of being 'not notable', which is the reason behind the deletion of many pages about individual people. Courtland 03:52, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
Delete Outside any other issues, the article fails to show notability. -- Cabhan 03:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If a self-promoter cannot even create proper links he deserves automatic deletion. -- RWH 06:58, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See Bwee

This appears to be a vanity page. --Etimbo | Talk 01:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete --Etimbo | Talk 01:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete I think it's a joke (see the last two sentances in particular) but even if not it's not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic, possible hoax. Megan1967 00:53, 12 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. This has been done. Joyous 23:50, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Solar panel car

From the people who brought you pond muck car (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pond muck car) and french fry car (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/French fry car). Uncle G 12:21, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Delete and add to requested articles, unless there is something similarly titled I missed, in which case redirect (perhaps to World solar challenge). The current article reads like a 12 year old saw Ripley's Believe it or not and got excited. Once you take out the speculation and the utterly un-notable reference to a TV series (have they only just noticed?), you're left with the statement that a solar panel car is a car with solar panels on it. Average Earthman 12:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. If no-one cleans up, should be deleted added to requests as Solar car. It is a notable piece of technology as seen in the world solar challenge. Saving my vote in the hope that someone creates something before the close of this process. I might have a go at it myself. 220.244.224.72 17:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oops. That was me. Capitalistroadster 17:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Have written an article on solar car. I vote to Redirect to the solar car article.Capitalistroadster 09:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge anything useable to World solar challenge, unless someone wants to write up a decent article under Solar car. Agree in principle with Capitalistroadster's suggestion. Megan1967 23:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)*
Redirect Solar car now it's been made. Nice article. Kappa 21:04, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect Solar car. Good job Capitalistroadster. Johntex 18:27, 16 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. Joyous 04:13, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Bfinn

Vanity. Inter 13:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment: 212.206.63.108 (not the original author) has made several, abortive, attempts to list this for speedy deletion as a "short vanity page". Since that isn't one of the 11 speedy deletion criteria, and since this nomination exists, I've unspeedied the article. Uncle G 13:52, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I'm still getting used to the tag syntax. I meant regular deletion, no need to hurry.
Delete, vanity. Megan1967 23:09, 11 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 14:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Allen Gore

The grandfather of Al Gore. I nominate it for deletion not because I personally think it should be deleted—although I lean in that direction—but because I think that it should be looked at as a case and would be useful as a precedent for similar articles. Everyking 13:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No vote, but isn't 8 hours from creation to VFD notice a little fast? --Calton 15:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Uh, no, it's not. Lots of articles get VfD'd within minutes. Everyking 15:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Uh, yes it is. Obvious nonsense, obvious vanity, and borderline/actual libel; those rightly -- or should rightly -- be listed ASAP, to discourage trolls. But a stub, its virtual ink hardly dry on the virtual page? Practically, the creator should have made some case from the get-go for notability, but to swoop in and slap a VFD tag on something ambiguous without allowing even minimal time for expansion, it seems to me, discourages new editors -- a general violation of don't bite the newcomers. Still no vote, BTW.--Calton 02:49, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a genealogy database, and, to quote Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Alberta Williams King: "Most notable people don't deserve separate articles on close family members unless they are notable in their own right". Albert Gore, Sr. establishes notability in the person's own right. Allen Gore does not. And you just know that someone is eventually going to redlink "Claiborn Charles Gore" and "Elizabeth Robinson", causing the inappropriate genealogy database to grow yet further. Delete and remove the dangling hyperlinks from Albert Gore, Sr.. Uncle G 15:13, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
- Someone already did link them, actually, before I removed the links. One thing I think about, though, is the question of whether deleting such an article stunts Wikipedia's natural growth. If different people are indicating an interest in starting these articles, is that in itself a de facto indicator of notability? I don't know. I think that for exceptionally famous people, arguably including Al Gore, close relatives within one generation are probably notable enough by association to warrant inclusion. But within two generations? I don't know. Seems like we'd have to draw the line somewhere. Everyking 15:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Martg76 16:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Being a realtive of a notable person does not automaticaly make one notable. And as for Everyking's idea that the creation of the article indicates notability, well, if that's true we might as well shut down VfD and give vanity and vandals run of the place. -R. fiend 18:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Which is a massive oversimplification of what I said. I did nominate the article for deletion, after all. Everyking 19:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Everyking did say "If different people are indicating an interest in starting these articles", which is a point that is addressed in the deletion policy (and which is distinct from "if several related people keep re-creating the same article" and "if someone out there is interested enough to start the article".) However, does anything indicate that there was more than one person who thought Allen Gore needed an article? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I think an interest in creating articles like this is more of an indication of the editor's obsession with completism than an indication of the subject's notability. -Satori 21:53, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. He might not be notable, but the information is verifiable and would likely be of interest to readers. - SimonP 22:07, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, being a grandfather of someone notable does not make the grandfather automatically notable. The article doesn't mention any achievements by Allen Gore. We've been through this before on the MLK family and relatives (voted Delete). My vote stays the same on these. Megan1967 23:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete.Al Gore's father was as U.S. Senator and therefore notable, but from the article, it doesn't look like Grandpa Gore was notable except as the grandfather and father of prominent politicians, and I don't think that is enough. I'd revise my vote if more information is developed during the next few days. --BM 00:49, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Barring demonstration of notability in his own right, merge and redirect to Albert Gore, Sr.. I wouldn't be surprised if he is more notable than this suggests: quite a distinguished family. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:53, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- A Google search turns up very little, all based on his being the grandfather of Al Gore. As best I can tell, he was just an ordinary guy. Everyking 01:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - Genealogical or biographical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement. Delete Average Earthman 02:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Al Gore and Delete I don't see a reason for a redirect as the person is not notable in his own right. Courtland 03:58, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
- Merging content is already a reason to redirect. You should give a reason 'not' to redirect. Kappa 08:41, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I don't we need to take "merge" too literally. On a real merge, you have to worry about the history, for GFDL purposes. But when what is being merged is one sentence, keeping the history isn't much of an issue. In the process of working it into the other article, the sentence probably gets transformed a bit, anyway. In those cases, "Merge" is more "Delete, and work the content in somewhere else". --BM 13:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. According to this Washington Post article, Allen Gore was a humble farmer from Possum Hollow Tennessee. Albert Gore Sr was the first member of the family to go to college.[15] Unfortunately, Allen Gore is not notable other than the father of Albert Gore Sr. and the grandfather of Albert Gore Jr. Capitalistroadster 09:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Kudos to Everyking for proposing this as a test case and doing so in a very professional manner. I also can find no evidence that he was notable in his own right. Delete with a soft recommendation to then redirect to Albert Gore, Sr. in order to discourage recreation of the article. Rossami (talk) 23:54, 12 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) 09:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bergensstudentenes Idrettslag and Bergenstudentenes Idrettslag

Not very notable. It is a sports club for the students at Bergen university in Norway. It should perhaps be transwikied to .no due to all information on the referenced site is in Norwegian. Inter 13:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, maybe merge into University of Bergen or place in the Norwegian wiki. Virtually pointless to have such a stub in english wiki since it refers to a norwegian university club. Also, it is basically an advertisement.
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge into University of Bergen and Delete : it is very unlikely that a visitor to en.wikipedia would conduct a search that would hit these terms and justify a redirect. Courtland 04:04, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
Delete, do not merge or redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:47, 13 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) 07:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Simon ditchfield

Attack page for non-notable university lecturer. (One-book bibliography at [16] fails "average professor" test.) Uncle G 14:44, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

In actual fact there is a massive fan club within york university, this is not an attack on Ditchfield personally; and therefore is just a reflection o the culture surrounding "doing a ditchfield"

Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 23:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non encyclopedic abuse. Besides, Wikipedia consensus appears to be that professors aren't automatically notable, merely teaching and researching rather than doing important things such as acting in low budget straight to video movies or being a Pokemon, which are both clearly far more important to the wellbeing of the world. Average Earthman 02:06, 12 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) 07:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blanket octopus

Should Blanket octopus be deleted? 193.167.132.66 09:33, 2005 Feb 11 (according to history Uncle G 12:39, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC))

~~Delete~~. The only relevant thing here is the sexual dimorphism, and even that could as well be mentioned in an article about sexual dimorphism itself, or an article about octopuses in general.193.167.132.66 09:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It is a very relevant article. What other creature relies more on its arm than its penis to have sex? XOXmadelynXOX 15:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Its jokey high-school style might easily be made more adult. The grown-up name is Tremoctopus violaceus. Interested folks might Google the scientific name for information. Wikipedia will never be having separate articles of every species, as if they rated like Pokemon characters, so perhaps this should be merged with Octopus. We don't vote "delete" on subjects we know nothing about. --Wetman 11:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I am quite aware that the blanket octopus really exists and is not a made-up animal. My previous comment was about the style, which as you say, is jokey high-school style. As it stands, this article is worth very little. Rewritten, it could be quite a useful article. I change my vote to Keep, provided that it is rewritten in a better style. 193.167.132.66 11:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - The bad style was why I put {{cleanup-tone}} on it (which was removed by Adrianbg). The blanket octopus does exist, and (contrary to Wetman's implication above) we do have individual articles for several species. Have a look at Category:Animals and all of its sub-categories. Heck, look at Category:Octopuses! (The article needs {{CatNeeded}} as well.) Keep. Uncle G 12:39, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
    - I repeat: " Wikipedia will never be having separate articles of every species" --Wetman 12:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - The remainder of your sentence, which gives it a markedly different implication to that of the fragment that you have repeated when taken alone, is, of course, still there above. Uncle G 13:06, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
Keep; all real species belong in wikipedia (I oppose merging). This contains useful information although the tone is inappropriate. I guess I'd better list this this on the VfD page, since that hasn't been done yet. Kappa 14:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
keep all species belong in wikipedia, though unfortunately we don't have enough coleopterists and lepidopterists, and as a result it's hideously biased towards big fluffy mammals and birds, seeing something different is refreshing. Dunc|☺ 15:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but Cleanup, or maybe merge/redir what's encyclopedic to Tremoctopus, as this seems to describe all the related species. Niteowlneils 16:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
While I do not endorse the position that all real species should have their own articles (can anyone even imagine doing so for each species of insect?), this certainly ranks well above any pokemon. Keep and clean. I suppose I can take a stab at fixing it myself. -R. fiend 18:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There are people in the world who are as mad about insects as the Pokemon people are mad about Pokemon. Admittedly, there are comparative fewer of the people, and more of the insects. Nonetheless ... Uncle G 20:21, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
  - It was the number I was referring to. There are something like .05% as many Pokemon as there are insects. Certainly many insect species deserve articles, but I can't really say that about all of them. Likewise I think maybe about 5 or 6 Pokemon deserve articles (and perhaps as few as just Pikachu). Oh well. "Gotta catch 'em all...." -R. fiend 21:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Was this listed on VfD by an anon? GRider\^talk 19:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- An anon posted the VfD tag, I listed it on VfD after some discussion had begun on the sub-page. I wasn't sure if that was the best thing to do, what would you have done? Kappa 20:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Looking at Tremoctopus I'm concerned that this might be a mis-classification. I modify my vote to: Move to a correct name, and send to Cleanup for Merging to and from Tremoctopus as appropriate. Uncle G 20:21, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
Cleanup. I'd be all for Wikipedia having an article on every multicellular species, if such a list even existed. - Mustafaa 22:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this article is of academic interest and clearly interesting to the lay person as well. Knowledge of this species should not be relegated to a pithy footnote on a sexual dimorphism article.
Keep : the unique and unusual in biology often lead to re-evaluation of theories based on what is observed every day. I've replaced the References with more appropriate ones and hope that someone has the wherewithall to expand this article. Courtland 04:25, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Real animal with potential for good article on it. Well done, Courtland. Capitalistroadster 09:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The article seems to be well on its way in clean-up and expansion. Shouldn't the VfD notice be removed? 85.76.152.179 09:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No. Let the VFD process run its course to completion. It is important that the notice remain in place throughout the whole of that process. Uncle G 04:20, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
Keep Notable topic, and article is improving. I removed some old notices (but not VfD notice). Johntex 18:22, 16 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) 07:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indiana Militia Corps

Recruitment advertisement. Hyperlinked web site is blank save for a couple of quotations and links to other sites at the bottom. Notability not established. Uncle G 15:04, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Delete: this is a private club of, er, uh, gun owners. The actual Indiana state militia is of course the Indiana National Guard; http://www.inarng.org/ -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- As revised, their notability has been established, and the article is no longer misleading as to their status or their aims. Keep. -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've rewritten it completely, and the first hyperlinked website in the original wasn't blank, just the second. Keep, an armed political militia in the United States, and sadly notable. Samaritan 17:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The first hyperlinked website came up, and still comes up, exactly as described above for me. The first external link in your rewrite comes up as "page not found", too. And the ADL article only refers to the Indiana Militia Corps at all as part of the self-assumed titles of two individuals that it quotes. (The fearless prediction by one of the other sources that John Kerry was certain to be the next president was quite amusing, though.) I like the rewrite, but the broken references still don't quite address the notability problem. You've brought me to Weak Delete. Uncle G 19:39, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
  - I fixed the first link (to this); my bad, and apologies. Samaritan 20:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Er ... that brings up the same blank page with two quotations at the bottom as the original hyperlink on the original article did. Uncle G 19:36, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
Strong keep. Of course this is notable, now with Samaritan's re-write. The militia phenomenon and its branches definitely warrant mention in Wikipedia.Kevintoronto 18:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- We aren't voting on "the militia phenomenon", whatever that may be (given that for pretty much as long as the United States has existed groups like this have been springing up calling themselves "armies", "militia", and whatnot, and then disappearing again without making much of a mark upon anything). We are voting on the Indiana Militia Corps. And the question is whether it is encyclopaedia-worthy. Anyone can start a "militia". You could start the Rhode Island Superpower Secessionist Army tomorrow, if you wanted. But anyone can start a band in their garage, too. The question is whether this is a serious militia, or just an excuse for a handful of gun enthusiasts on weekends to prat around in military surplus battle fatigues and get drunk. In other words: Have they passed the "released an album" test? Uncle G 19:39, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
  - The IMC is one element of the militia phenomenon. Their wesbite is fairly extensive and sophisticated, although, admittedly, it could be the work of one person. But, on the other hand, what evidence do we have that they are just five guys and a dog as asked below? (I like dogs.) They could be a sizable group that doesn't disclose their numbers because they are, as one would suspect, a bunch of paranoid freaks. But if the ADL is monitoring them, they are probably a notable bunch of paranoid freaks. (Some of my best friends are... never mind.) I don't think that it is the role of an encyclopaedia to exclude information for fear of publicizing a distasteful group. If someone wants to find a militia in Indiana, they'll find the IMC website pretty darn quickly without Wikipedia's help. Kevintoronto 21:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If the ADL is monitoring them, it's not just three guys in a toolshed whining about the government. As long as it doesn't turn into a promotion, I'm all for this group having an article. – Beginning 19:00, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Unless the ADL "monitoring" is something above filing news clippings and press releases ("Red Dog 1, this is Red Dog 3. I have him on visual, it looks like he's heading for his mailbox."), it says nothing about how seriously the ADL takes this particular group. They're referenced by name once on the ADL website, in an article about the (mostly failed) attempts by these various "militia groups" to band together. --Calton 03:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. The rewrite is a distinct improvement, but VfD votes are not primarily about the content; they are supposed to be about whether the topic or subject is encyclopedic. A bad article on a valid topic can be cleaned up. A bad article on an invalid topic can be cleaned up by a decent editor, too, and that might be what Samaritan has done here. The question is whether this group is notable. At this point, even with the rewrite, there is no evidence that the Indiana Militia Corps is more than 5 lunatics and a dog out in the woods somewhere in Indiana on summer weekends. The group is only a few years old, for one thing. I want to see more evidence that this is more than a web site and a few demented people. While our norms compel us to have articles about the significant groups, as loathsome as they might be, we shouldn't be in any big rush to give publicity to every little self-important group. --BM 21:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, until verification is established on their notability. Megan1967 23:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
But, on the other hand, what evidence do we have that they are just five guys and a dog...? Boy howdy, have you got it backwards. Delete unless some verifiable information on notability/influence/membership is forthcoming. --Calton 03:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep; the ADL kicks off an article by mentioning them http://www.adl.org/extremism/Militia/Coordination.asp , that implies the ADL considers them notable. Kappa 03:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That's the very same, single, peripheral, mention, as part of the self-assumed titles of two individuals that it quotes, that Calton and I have already referred to above. Uncle G 19:36, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
  - The ADL uses them as the first example of a phenomenon, that's like a music journalist using a band as the first example of pokemetal or something, it shows they are at least notable enough to get some attention from people in the business. Kappa 00:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Interesting article. The Oklahoma City bombing 10 years ago shows the potential of groups like this to cause real damage. Capitalistroadster 09:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- We aren't considering that, though. We already have an Oklahoma City bombing article. We are considering the Indiana Militia Corps. And your argument boils down to "They might be notable at some time in the future, so they deserve an article.". We don't buy that argument for individuals (otherwise we'd be buried in articles about every single newborn baby on the planet), or for music bands, so we shouldn't buy it for other groups of people either. Are they notable now? Have they passed the "released an album" test? Uncle G 19:36, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
keep it and categorize it as Recruitment advertisement Faethon35 09:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This vote is discountable. See that user's entry in Wikipedia:clueless newbies and the further discussion that it links to. Uncle G 19:36, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
Comment. I wouldn't say that one mention on the ADL website in an article about how militia groups don't seem to be able to get their acts together constitutes evidence that ADL takes this group seriously or is "monitoring" it. --BM 15:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Haven't heard anything that establishes notability. --BM 02:02, 16 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nom de Wiki

Obviously gentle fun, but of course not an encyclopedia article. Hopefully this 'special content' can find a nice home somewhere else in the namespace.--Pharos 22:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Userfy and replace with a Redirect to Pseudonym. Uncle G 05:23, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
Move - Brookie here who created it in a light moment - I am happy for it to be moved to my home page - but don't know how to do it. If someone can do that I'd be quite happy! Alternatively move to Pseudonym as Uncle G suggests - but I'd rather not lose it altogether! Brookie\^talk
- Click on the "move" tab at the top of the article, enter "User:Brookie/Nom de Wiki", and click on the "Move" button. Then check for double redirects and edit the redirect in the new article that you have just created (in place of the original article) to point to Pseudonym. With Pharos's agreement, we can then swiftly close this VFD discussion. Uncle G 12:35, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
Brookie here - I've moved the page to my home page - I got a bit lost with the other points about re-directs and the pointing! Sorry - being dim - this is the first time i've tried this sort of stuff. Once this point is clear can we can the vfd? Brookie\^talk
- I've fixed up the redirect for you. I've also adjusted the hyperlink on your user page. Uncle G 15:36, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Thanks Uncle G - I see what you've done and how it works - will know for next time! I've removed the vfd tag on my new Brookie:Nom de Wiki page which I trust is allowed! Hopefully Pharos will be happy now and we can shut this vfd discussion down . Thanks for the help and comments everyone! Brookie\^talk

I am glad that "Nom de Wiki" has now found a good home. Long may it grow and prosper in Brookie's userspace! And so the matter is happily settled.--Pharos 16:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yee Ha! Brookie 16:57, 11 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) 07:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dominic O'Brien

Guiness record holder (for a time) for memorizing cards. I don't see how he's any more notable than any other Guiness record holders that have been deleted, especially since the article states his title may be in dispute. --InShaneee 15:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not Guinness. --FOo 17:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You can't drink the wiki, for one thing. Delete. humblefool ® 22:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd be happy with an article about record holders over the years, but we don't need bios for every single one of them. That, together with his disputed status leads me to a Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 21:38, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete --jag123 14:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Although the current article is obviously a mess, and a single (not widely known) record does not warrant an article on a person, a quick Google search yields 6,870 results. He's written seven books (along the lines of How to Develop a Perfect Memory), and it is undisputed that he has held several prominent (in some circles) memory-related records [17], and apparently continues to hold some, although not the one currently cited in the article. [18] He makes money "coaching" businesspeople and others who wish to improve their memory. [19] He's appeared on Oprah and other TV shows; it is fair to say that he is one of the top memory celebrities in the world. This could one day become an interesting article. --LostLeviathan 02:51, 17 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) 07:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Beyondblue

Company vanity page. (212.206.63.108's slightly messed-up nominations fixed Uncle G 16:52, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC))

"initiative of the Australian federal and state and territory governments". It's not a company, and I think federal initiatives are quite notable. Keep. Mgm|^(talk) 21:36, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, article needs expansion. BeyondBlue receives 10,000+ hits on Google. Megan1967 23:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Important Australian mental health initiative associated with former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett. Capitalistroadster 09:09, 14 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Not quite a two thirds majority, and I'm also concerned with a massive GNAA influx of voters early on in the debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W.bloggar

W.bloggar was nominated for deletion on 2005-02-11. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.bloggar/2005-02-11.

nn piece of software; every google hit after the first page is a blog post of someone testing out aforementioned software Hosterweis 07:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertising for a useless software product - Femmina 07:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Above user is a participant in the GNAA "war on blogs". Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I won't write this under every time it occurs, but this is totally immaterial. We comment on the contribution, not the contributor. If someone wants to aid Wikipedia by improving the ratio af signal to noise, I don't care if they eat babies for breakfast. They could go about it with a bit more subtlety, and the quality of the nominations would be improved by linking to the searches (and perhaps an Alexa ranking per WP:WEB or the actual blogs), but ad hominum attacks are not on. - brenneman^(t)^(c) 01:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The notes are intended to inform the admin who ends up closing the AfD, so that they can consider GNAA's coordinated effort to delete blog-related articles. They aren't personal attacks. I don't think these coordinated votes should be counted at all. I remember other users from the last group of nominations who agree about this. Rhobite 02:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      And I recall users who felt that we should focus on the issues and not who raised them. Your more recent annotations are perfectly acceptable to me as they are not about the person. If you want to start throwing out all "co-ordinated votes", I'd suggest that you nominate Schoolwatch at WP:MFD. However, since this is not a vote, I'd support a closing admin who disregarded any recomendation that did not provide any rational per the Guide_to_deletion.
      brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So what Gay Niggers can't vote? From when? - Femmina 10:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incognito 07:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Above user is a participant in the GNAA "war on blogs". Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. It's ok to cover some wildly popular blogging tools, but there's no point to list hundreds of the ones like these. --Timecop 07:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Above user is a participant in the GNAA "war on blogs". Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Several hundred hits indicates at least somewhat wide use, which is why this passed VFD the first time around. Also, fix the page so it actually links to here. Night Gyr 08:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement --Depakote 11:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Above user is a participant in the GNAA "war on blogs". Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Proto t c 13:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jmax- 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the above user's edits are to blog AfD's except for 2. Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tapir
- All of the above user's edits are to blog AfD's except for 8. Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with “delete” arguments. I don’t blog, and I don’t use Windows, but I disagree that this software is useless, and I see nothing here that’s blatantly subjective, so I don’t think it constitutes “advertising” any more than does, say, “Microsoft Windows.” The only thing that’s missing here is a comparison (or link to a comparison) to like software. For instance, Wikipedia is probably the only hope for a query like “show me a list of blog client software that implements the MetaWeblog protocol.”
To say this is an “advertisement” (in the sense of “marketing”) is tantamount to saying that this was contributed by a W.bloggar insider, is it not? (Don’t confuse “advertising” with an enthusiastic user’s testimonial.) Frankly I consider that a reckless assertion, not (evidently) based on fact.
I don’t have any opinion on W.bloggar’s notability though. —Fleminra 19:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete point above notwithstanding, this is nn, non-encyclopedic. Eusebeus 20:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hosterweis. There is no shortage of tried-once blogs and no shortage of crap software for making them with. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-known blog software. Rhobite 01:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 320,000 google hits. --Interiot 01:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-known software with wide usability.--SarekOfVulcan 01:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 320K hits but I'm not seeing anything impressive. A single hit on news, and only 35 group hits. It would be nice to see the alexa ranking of the homepage, but I can't seem to connect. Delete unless evidence of notability provided. - brenneman^(t)^(c) 01:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexa: rank 104,042. --Interiot 02:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No edits before today, and no edits outside AfD. Rhobite 02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So was I mistaken when I thought wikipedia was "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."? Forallah 02:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Anyone can edit, but AfD requires some familarity with the way things work, as well as caution about people with goals other than the project's in mind. Plese don't take it as a personal thing. - brenneman^(t)^(c) 03:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have read all of the wikipedia rules and etc., I am completely familiar with the system. (Pillars, etc.) Is an AfD not also editing wikipedia? Forallah 04:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Replying on User Talk:Forallah. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am going to have to assume good faith Forallah and hope you continue to positively contribute to Wikipedia. However I would just like to say that in the future try to include more information in your AfDs than just "as per norm". Tom Foolery 06:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have to play the devil's advocate here and say that we accept this from more established editors without question. Please see the talk page linked above. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The amount of google hits are hard to ignore, and the alexa rankings only are a sliver short of WP:WEB. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Proto t c 10:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Already commented/voted above WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the number of google hits... Mairi 05:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per strong Googles. FCYTravis 07:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:54, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

VarVar

Vanity page for a filesharing tool that is currently in development. (212.206.63.108's slightly messed-up nominations fixed Uncle G 16:52, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC))

- Thanks for the help, Uncle G! (212.206.63.108 = me losing my password :/ ) Radiant! 22:04, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Self-admitted press release. "VARVAR is not an entirely complete product yet". I'll be happy to reconsider my vote when it's actually up and running. For now, delete. Mgm|^(talk) 21:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete until after it has been released and become sufficiently notable. Rossami (talk) 00:05, 13 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) 07:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Christian Bowman

Nothing notable said of this person, no reason why he would be in wikipedia. (212.206.63.108's slightly messed-up nominations fixed Uncle G 16:52, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC))

Delete; agreed completely. --FOo 17:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Recurring role in Lost (3 times, 1 uncredited), one appeareance in North Shore. (from IMDB listing) Official site doesn't show much more, apart from work on a few theather productions. Part of his screenplays are online, suggesting they haven't been sold yet. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 21:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable yet. Megan1967 23:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete: promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:47, 13 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) 07:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WhiteRaven

Vanity page of a blind programmer whose source was stolen by his employer, suspected hoax. (212.206.63.108's slightly messed-up nominations fixed Uncle G 16:53, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC))

Doesn't seem to be newsworthy, but I could be wrong. Delete unless some citations and good stuff like that show up. --FOo 17:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless references show up. "all content legally shared?" I don't think so. There's such a thing as copyright. Mgm|^(talk) 21:41, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whitestarr

One-line vanity page about a wanna-be rock band. (212.206.63.108's slightly messed-up nominations fixed Uncle G 16:53, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC))

Delete -- bands with no albums or other notability don't go in encyclopedias. --FOo 17:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
They seem to be doing more live performances then recordings. Clusty gets hits for mentions in All Access Magazine.com, MTV.com and Atomfilms.com. And they have associations with notable fathers (producers). Keep and cleanup. Mgm|^(talk) 22:02, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable yet - no albums released, possible band vanity. Megan1967 23:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, because the article does not meet the guidelines of WikiProject:Music. Tuf-Kat 09:40, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Looking closer at MTV.com's article, I'll change my vote to weak delete. An article on the band may be appropriate, but it needs to establish notability within the article. Tuf-Kat 03:44, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WikEd

Simple URL to a university wiki without any details as to what it's for. (212.206.63.108's slightly messed-up nominations fixed Uncle G 16:53, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC))

Too close to a list of external links, which is speedy material. No context. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 22:04, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Collection of external links. jni 14:07, 12 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 userified. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Boil it down

Silly poem, no encyclopedic content. (212.206.63.108's slightly messed-up nominations fixed Uncle G 16:52, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC))

Delete and send to BJAODN. --FOo 17:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was never intended as an Encyclopaedic article. I am surprised that anyone would ever think it was. It is meant at part of a tutorial on how to write good articles for Wikipedia. Perhaps homour and some light-heartedness occasionally has no place here? Apwoolrich 19:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a humor magazine. It's either a copyright violation or it belongs in Wikisource. What did you expect would happen to it once you'd completed your "tutorial", and why did you think the article space was a valid place for it? Speedy deleted. Rick K 22:16, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for humor, but not in the article namespace. If it's part of a tutorial, please move it to your userspace or the Wikipedia namespace. Move. Mgm|^(talk) 22:06, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirected. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Brohi

Talks about an ancient language with no evidence or basis whatsoever, and a defunct external link. No content on page. (note, I accidentally used the //db// tag rather than //vfd// earlier today, sorry about that) (212.206.63.108's slightly messed-up nominations fixed Uncle G 16:51, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC))

Keep, the link is working but this article should be either considered a Wikitionary article or a stub. Wikipedian231 17:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I was bold enough to redirect this to Brahui, that has earlier been edited by a user with the IP that created this page, and currently contains all the information the Brohi page had and more. Note, however, that the page history of the Brahui page indicates that there has been some controversy over what should be there and what should be at Brahui language. It might be relevant to revert the Brahui page to this version. / Alarm 18:27, 11 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) 07:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Trans-Lux

Unimportant small manufacturer, little content in article. (212.206.63.108's slightly messed-up nominations fixed Uncle G 16:52, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC))

A mess as is, but I vote keep and expand. I might tackle this myself as I seem to recall that they had an office in or near Torrance, California at one time. They were a film distribution company prior to becoming a stock ticker manufacturer. In fact, I hit them up for a job and that's when I learned they weren't in the entertainment biz anymore (see Felix the Cat). - Lucky 6.9 00:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup, formerly famous. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:57, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bury Your Dead

Simple vanity page, yet another wanna be band. (212.206.63.108's slightly messed-up nominations fixed Uncle G 16:52, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC))

Delete, not notable, possible band vanity. Megan1967 00:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, because Victory Records is, I think a major enough label to qualify for WikiProject Music's guidelines for inclusion. Also, 81,000 google hits is an awful lot. They look like a one-hit wonder in the hardcore/metal community, maybe. Tuf-Kat 09:39, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable enough for Wikipedia, lots of hits with the most prominent ones about them although phrase is a common one. Two albums with one on reasonably notable label. The MTV website shows them as undertaking a US tour starting this weekend. [20]

Capitalistroadster 23:52, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep noteable enough for Wiki. TV Ads for their tour have broadcast on MTV/MTV2. They performed at the Day Off Fest in 2004 (alongside Slipknot and Hatebreed), and Victory Records is a major label as far as hardcore is concerned. Plus not as if anyone cares but i've seen them in concert, they're pretty decent. ALKIVAR™ 06:58, 13 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) 07:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Two bananas

Neologistic slang. Never heard of it, either.(212.206.63.108's slightly messed-up nominations fixed Uncle G 16:53, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC))

Joke, not funny enough for BJAODN. Delete. --FOo 17:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Crap. jni 18:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't know what to call it, but delete it. GRider\^talk 19:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, slang term. Megan1967 23:33, 11 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) 07:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spvsict

"New fastest growing popular online video"... without any relevant google hits. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No relevant clusty hits either. Mistitled, vanity tone. Delete and leave creator gentle message. Mgm|^(talk) 22:10, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence given that it exists, let alone meets our importance guidelines. Also not easily verifiable, and the near-certainty that it's vanity makes it not worth the effort to try any harder. —Korath (Talk) 01:19, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:58, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

St Skeletor's Day

Not notable. DJ Clayworth 16:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It even gets the month wrong. By next year, this will have been forgotten and another comedian will invent another "anti-Valentine" Day. This is not Breakup Day, nor anywhere near it. Delete. Uncle G 17:22, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
It does, doesn't it? Braino, but not actually relevant to whether the page should exist. I won't really mind if it does get deleted; it's just something several people have mentioned to me recently, and seemed to be something someone might look up. Abstain - I made it, but I don't care if you don't think it should be there. PS. I've never heard of Breakup Day; as a common English phrase it's impossible to Google-test, but the first google hit on "Breakup Day" is unrelated, and the second has it on a different date and appears to be an independent invention. Looks non-notable to me as well. - TSP 17:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I was working on the assumption that the error was Richard Herring's. Uncle G 05:07, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
  - Ah, I see - you're assuming there that I heard about it from a Richard Herring show (I don't think I've ever seen one). I heard about it from people who intend to celebrate it, and only found out it was a Richard Herring reference from another page that referenced it. I accept that they may be the only ones :-) Though, by analogy, how many people actually 'celebrate' Breakup Day (particularly as a holiday, which the Holiday page seems to think it is)? '"St Skeletor's Day" February 15' gets 515 hits, and "St Skeletor's Day" isn't the sort of phrase which would appear by accident. '"Breakup day" February 13' gets 122, several of which STILL aren't about the Breakup Day that gets a Wikipedia article.... This isn't relevant to whether this is notable, I'm just taken aback by the non-notability of the thing that was proposed as notable in comparison to it :-) TSP 21:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 23:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete article about a joke. Funny, I never associated Skeletor with cynical sarcasm. Gazpacho 00:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Though some kind of "opposing views" section in St. Valentine's Day wouldn't hurt. --Idont Havaname 04:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No vote of yet, but suggest merging this slight stub into a section of He-Man (where Skeletor now redirects) if it is judged notable enough. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Mmm, sensible if there was a page on Skeletor himself, but it's third-hand relevance by the time you get to the He-Man page. Probably better to delete than to merge there. TSP 18:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep in as this is a perfectly fine definition of something that's certainly notable to all the people I've met. Not sure this was entirely a joke to start off with anyway. This has been around as an idea for ages (10 years?), and votes to delete so quickly seem a bit summary. I'd say leave it around for a bit and see if others contribute then vote it out. Personally I'd appreciate a page of explanation to point people to around this time of year. -- User:Masu17:Masu17 15:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- While I hate to do this to my own article's lone supporter, I feel bound to point out that that is Masu17's first edit. Still, he's no-one's sockpuppet (certainly not mine, and the article doesn't actually have any other supporters for him to be a sockpuppet of). TSP 15:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Nope, I'm a real person who's been using the Wiki for a fairly long time. Never felt qualified to comment on anything before though. -- User:Masu17:Masu17 23:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I've heard of it. Grue 17:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, or merge into He-Man. -- The Anome 17:17, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC).

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lintarianism

This article appears to be the work of one contributor and espousing that person's particular view of free software and libertarianism. No offense meant to that person, but Wikipedia is not a forum for original research or expounding your own opinions.

It's worth noting that even the external links from this article do not refer to "Lintarianism", and a Google search shows only Wikipedia as a source for this term. This strongly suggests it's a brand-new neologism. --FOo 17:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete neologism CDC (talk) 19:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, easy call, nothing significant on Google, just only neologism. Zzyzx11 21:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete... "'techno-political' philosophy started in 2004" says it all. Just another stupidly named neologism. --Idont Havaname 03:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And I thought this article was going to be about people whose diets consist solely of lint. Anywho, delete as a neologism. — Ливай | ☺ 20:39, 15 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 copyvio -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Brides Of Destruction

Some band crap. Not encyclopedic. jni 18:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Brides Of Destruction" as a string gets 217 000 web hits, 262 usenet, and fourteen Google News hits in the current cache. The trouble is this is all a copyvio from one such set of hits, eg [21]. Presumably it's record company promo material. Send to Wikipedia:Copyright problems and make a requested article. Samaritan 18:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Corrected copyvio source. Sorry! Samaritan 20:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, copyright violation, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 23:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have created Brides of Destruction/temp for the hard rock supergroup of that name. The band meets WikiProject Music album criteria by having its Here Come the Brides album make the Billboard Hot 100 last year, headlining a US and other territories tour last year and heading off on another US tour in March. The band contains Tracii Guns who used to be in L.A. Guns and briefly in Guns N' Roses and used to contain Nikki Sixx of Mötley Crüe until last month. Samaritan has already mentioned how this band performs on the Google Test. I vote that we delete the copyvio and merge the temp article into the space. Capitalistroadster 03:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Definitely agree. -Sean Curtin 04:39, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Agree. Delete copyvio, move temp article to copyvio space Tuf-Kat 09:34, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Do it. Rossami (talk) 00:09, 13 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. Joyous 00:00, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

The internet fetishes

Non-notable band, it looks like they're still in high school. Gamaliel 18:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable - 11 Google hits with filtered results, possible band vanity. Megan1967 23:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete for not meeting WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion. Tuf-Kat 09:33, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Were it that every young band, struggling to make their song and voices heard, were smacked down by such cruel and unfair judgement. Did the Beatles stop playing because people in Germany never heard of them? Did Jimi Hendrix put down his guitar because his name was unknown? What travesties must occur for you people to see the light? --Jscott 13:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) Que?

Calm down, nobody wants to take these kids' guitars away from them. Wikipedia is not the place to discover brilliant new bands, it is a secondary resource which records the careers of already notable bands. Gamaliel 16:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete - rubbish Brookie 20:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I agree with Jscott. Plus, how many of you people are into little-known music groups? Let me tell you, for many of them it's almost impossible to find any information on them. Even if they have a findeable site, it's usually never updated. These guys seem to know what they're doing and put a lot of effort into it. Let's give em a chance, huh guys? DarkPhoenix113 23:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note: User's vote was his first edit Carrp | Talk 04:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- So their own site isn't going to be updated, but somehow they are going update their wikipedia article? Get outta here. Delete. -R. fiend 02:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 04:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. non famous --Melaen 17:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - sorry. Gabaliel explains the situation well. CDC (talk) 17:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What happened here? This VfD was initiated on 11 Feb, and I recall seeing it earlier. How did it end up amidst the 17 Feb votes? --BM 18:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Band vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
At first glance, I read this as "The internet fishes" which is where this will be sleeping soon. Delete. —RaD Man (talk) 11:20, 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) 07:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bion Franklin

Non-notable. Gamaliel 18:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I agree. Totally non-notable. LizardWizard 19:11, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete As the article says : not famous JoJan 19:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Easy call. "He was not famous in anyway" says it all. Zzyzx11 21:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In case it's not already there, merge into articles of parents. Mgm|^(talk) 22:12, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: there's a redlink in Madeleine L'Engle to Bios Franklin. Kappa 05:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The sentence about Bios Franklin was added to her article by the same anonymous IP who started this article. Since there is absolutely no evidence that he is encyclopedic (under either spelling), I have reverted it from her article. Unless other evidence can be found, delete this as a probable prank. Rossami (talk) 00:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Brookie 20:08, 13 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) 01:23, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Phonopolis

This article is not likely to become encyclopedic. It may be a new word coinage, but that's all. Furthermore, there are unsubstantiated claims. and the spelling could be improved (broadcasted ?) JoJan 19:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete kind of a neat idea, but clearly original research and/or a neologism. Lots of search hits for the word, but none relevant. CDC (talk) 19:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable dict-def. RJFJR 06:37, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete.Mikkalai 17:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As per the explanation at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Phonisicle Delete. Uncle G 02:27, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

This article is created by a user who persistently creates neologisms with "polis". I tried to talk to him, in vain. I consider this vandalism, hence speedily deleted. Mikkalai 04:21, 13 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) 07:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page cannot be deleted because of block-compress errors. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

EvilN

Vanity, silliness. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:28, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

This is really horrible. I suppose it could be userfied to user:Luspari, if user:Luspari is EvilN, on the other hand it might be libelous if user:Luspari is not EvilN. Dunc|☺ 20:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete it, it's not notable, the only thing that comes to my mind is "so what?" Zzyzx11 21:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 23:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. non-notable. RJFJR 06:39, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - just because he has eaten all the pies does not make him notable. If the best quote he can come up with is, "I pushed my mother off the porch on Thursday." then he is not someone I need to know more about.Brookie 20:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Johntex 17:25, 16 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) 07:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Supa Talix

Not notable, 1 google hit. Thue | talk 19:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete it, nothing significant there. Zzyzx11 21:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete - another "Oh Honestly!" case of rubbish - do they have nothing better to do? Brookie 20:02, 13 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 votes were 16 delete, 9 keep. dbenbenn | talk 15:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Democrazy (movie)

READ THIS FIRST

Please note that Wikipedia official policy is No Personal Attacks. This policy is taken very seriously, not because we all want to be super–politically correct or hypocritically polite, but because Wikipedia can only function by consensus. Insults only inflame the emotions of the other party and make them more stubborn and less likely to want to compromise with you. So banning personal attacks has nothing to do with enforced "morality", it's purely a practical measure to dampen edit wars and other conflicts before they escalate. For the above reasons, in certain cases users with a pattern of repeated personal attacks have even been blocked, just for "mere words". -- Curps 05:41, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This was previously deleted by a VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Democrazy in October 2004 but was recently recreated. It was tagged for automatic speedy deletion as a re-creation of a VfD'd article, but the author and other advocates cite changed circumstances (the film has now been released). Enough time has passed to make it appropriate to nominate for a second VfD as an alternative to automatic delete-again. -- Curps 19:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. IMDB shows no match for such a title. It would have been better to wait for at least an IMDB listing to establish notability... Wikipedia should not be used as part of a marketing campaign, if this was the intention of the possibly premature re-creation of this article. With no notability established, it seems appropriate to vote for deletion. (I also nominated above; be careful not to count my vote twice). -- Curps 19:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Was part of a slew of advertising that included The Man in the Movie and The Deserter, both now deleted. I still say it should be speedied, as this is the 3rd time the content has been readded (though by a different person this time). Xezbeth 20:04, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Who cares what you think. You have proven that you aren't an expert on anything. It doesn't take talent or brains to vote to delete things meaninglessly. Plank 23:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Plank, you are way out of line, here. If you have read the Wikipedia policy on civility, you need a refresher. If you haven't, please read it. If your aim is to intimidate people into voting Keep, I think you will find that doesn't work. Even the folks who are pretty easy-going about what should be in the Wikipedia don't like that. --BM 00:35, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - You are out of line even suggesting that he may be trying to intimidate people. How dare you! Why don't you read up on the user name policy, if you can, because where I come from BM means bowel movement. But perhaps you already know that! I find your dirty user name offensive! So don't you try and lecture people BM. I know that you are trying to provoke people. I've seen first hand how "easy going" some of you Wikifascists are! You people who are so hateful and have some sort of warped agenda in seeing these films, that an awful lot of people love to watch, erased, you are creating precidents for the future so some of your articles might one day be in jeapardy because of things you are saying now. But the joke is on you! And BM who cares what you have to say either. You surely haven't impressed me with anything you have written. Your name seems to say it all. Dwain 05:06, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
    - BM happens to be the initials of my actual name. I don't have a middle name. Sorry you find my user name offensive. Apparently I don't come from where you come from, since your association with my initials never even occurred to me. Toilet euphemisms exhibit a huge amount of regional variation, and not realizing this evidences a certain amount of ... provincialism. But thanks for commenting, honeybunch; you need to reread the Wikipedia policy on civility, too, however. --BM 12:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep By the way CURPS, it is not recommended that you vote at all since you are the one who posted it for deletion. Plank 21:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Of course I can vote, just like the page creator can vote. Usually posting for deletion is an implicit vote in favor of deletion, but in this case I needed to clarify the circumstances. -- Curps 21:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I was going to say redirect to Michael Legge (filmmaker), but the fact that the articles on Lorna Nogueira and Robin Gabrielli have just survived VfD swayed me. Still borderline IMO, no reviews yet on Yahoo Shopping, and released only as a DVD. Andrewa 22:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Nearly all of the actors survived VfD, but only because there were only a half-dozen or so votes each time, and the page creators voted to keep, so no consensus was reached. None of them were decided "Keep", just "No consensus". So notability for the actors is therefore not established (IMDB suggests it's entirely lacking), and there is no such notability to rub off onto the film itself. -- Curps 23:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Old VfDs for the actors are here:
  - Michael Legge, director, no VfD
  - Lorna Nogueira (3-3, no consensus)
  - Robin Gabrielli (3-2, no consensus)
  - Diane Mela (3-3, no consensus)
  - Steve Mullahoo (3-0, deleted)
  - John Shannahan, no article ever created
  - Stacy Armstrong (5-3, no consensus)
Delete. Seems to be an amateur production [22], so I don't think a IMDB entry will follow. Mgm|^(talk) 22:17, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Just letting you know, that you are wrong. Honey Glaze has a listing at IMDB so why should this one not? Plank
Keep obviously. Judging by the crtiteria used to delete this article, anyone creating an article on a film or album on Wikipedia, would be accused of being part of their "marketing campaign". That position doesn't sit well with me. Megan1967 22:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The point is, this film was so recently released (a week or two ago) that it doesn't even have an IMDB entry. That's why it seems this is jumping the gun, as an effort to drum up publicity for the film. -- Curps 23:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - You are right, YOU are jumping the gun in wanting to erase the film. Just because it hasn't been listed YET on IMDB it should be deleted? Is that how this Wikipedia works if it's not on IMDB erase it? Of course, then when movies and people, that deltionists want to get rid of, are listed on IMDB suddenly we hear that IMDB will list anything and anyone and it doesn't mean anything. Basically, if a few crack pots take a dislike to something they can keep demanding it be deleted regardless of how many Google hits or listings. Plank
- It's worth noting that you are the re-creator of the article, so your vote is understandable, although you are usually a strong deletionist. -- Curps 23:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - People assume I am a deletionist but that's not the case. You will find that the ratio with my votes is around 60/40, but then this is VfD so you would expect a higher number of deletes. Megan1967 02:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Extreme weak keep. —RaD Man (talk) 23:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. You can buy the DVD from Amazon. Released 25 Jan 2005. DVD Sales rank of 38,700. If the precedent is that any released movie is notable, OK, but is that the precedent? This doesn't seem like a very notable movie as yet. --BM 00:27, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Makes me cringe. Name seems to be borrowed from [23], and Damon Albarn album; Mr Plank isn't winning heart or mind. -Ashley Pomeroy 00:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just because it already lost a VfD. bbx 00:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not the Internet Movie Database. Average Earthman 02:12, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not worth keeping before, not worth keeping now just because you bought the DVD, Plank. --Calton 03:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Whose sockpuppet are you Calton you sound like several other voters over different articles? Dwain
  - Withdraw that loathesome remark or you'll be looking at an RfC. --Calton 09:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Note - Calton has over 1700 edits in the English language Wikipedia. Average Earthman 13:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep "Look, Rufferto! A fray!" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:38, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. There is a reminder at the top of the page about civility and Wikiquette. It is unfortunate that it has not always been followed in this vote. People marking intemperate remarks should remember that it has the potential to negatively influence impartial observers in that vote (for evidence, see DNAGod in pervious debates). It also has the potential to give the user a bad reputation amongst fellow Wikipedians in the future. Capitalistroadster 00:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Interesting... Many google hits for "Democrazy" but darn few that refer to this movie. A tighter search returns only 19 non-duplicative hits. The film was released on 25 Jan 2005 - apparently straight to DVD. Of the few websites covering it, only one had a review (from a single person who gave it 7 on a scale of 10). Independent films should get a little bit more slack than films from the big houses but I'm not finding enough evidence to convince me that this one is encyclopedic. Delete unless further evidence can be found. Rossami (talk) 02:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete: promo. A note to Pitchka and Plank: stop trolling. A note to everyone else: don't feed the trolls. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Recreation of a non-notable page previously deleted. And the incivility of some of the would-be keepers of this page isn't helping to sway votes their way. —Lowellian (talk) 12:24, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, bad-faith advertisement. —Korath (Talk) 11:51, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Kevin Rector 22:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete --BM 18:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. 14 displayed hits for "Michael Legge" democrazy, about the numbers I'd expect of someone selling self-produced DVDs out of the back of their truck. Niteowlneils 18:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 18:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There are far less noteworthy movies on Wikipedia than this. I say vote Keep. Leanne 22:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Definite Keep,if there are other movie articles in exactly the same format as Democrazy, why are they not being accused of advertising? Seems to be a double standard. Iam 22:27, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not one to frivolously cry "sockpuppet," but the contributions of these two users (Leanne's, Iam's) look remarkably similar, and their insertion between earlier comments [24] strikes me as suspicious as well. —Korath (Talk) 01:48, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Personally, I think there is greater similarity and evidence that you are a sockpuppet of Lowellian! Plank 18:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - You better withdraw that accusation Korath. Because your comments look "remarkably" like a personal attack. Leanne 22:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Out of curiosity, could either Leanne or Iam explain the diff that Korath pointed out [25]? Also, the contributions do seem very similar for two users who have never posted on each other's talk page. That obviously isn't proof of anything, but I can see how inserting above earlier votes would strike someone as suspicious. Carrp | Talk 22:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - (To be clear, that diff covers two consecutive revisions. —Korath (Talk) 23:27, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC))
        The diff is a little confusing since it makes it look like one user added two votes. However, I was just looking for an answer to why both Leanne and Iam added their votes above existing votes. It was good to clarify what the diff shows though. Carrp | Talk 23:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        Not only is it confusing but it's plainly false, because the page had been manipulated to make it appear it was the same person voting. Leanne 00:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        It probably would have been better as two separate diffs, but there's still the question of why two users with very similar contributions both made the same minor error in voting. Carrp | Talk 00:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. JYolkowski 23:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 19:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Carrp, you voted after the 5 day limit for this VfD, note your timestamp. Leanne 00:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - On the main VfD page it says "Items sent here usually wait five days or so" (emphasis is mine). Voting on a VfD on the "Old" page is allowed. There's still pages from Feb 7th that haven't been processed. Carrp | Talk 00:57, 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 -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Carminum liber primus

These are the first verses in Latin of the Horace book Ode IV. (see : [26])

Unless the editor wants to give an encyclopedic discussion of this book or of all of the Odes, these lines must be considered non-encyclopedic. JoJan 19:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless it turns into some kind of article. Kappa 20:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) Keep, poem by notable author; thank you Arcadian Kappa 17:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 23:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment the intial article was terrible, but it looks like this is a pretty important poem, so I did a little Googling and added some detail. It might now be close to stubworthy (though I'll abstain from the vote). We might want to consider creating a common article for the secondus and tertius. --Arcadian 15:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. a second thanks to Arcadian Courtland 02:43, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
I withdraw my request for Vfd. I'm glad that the article now has been expanded. Horace, Virgil and Ovid are among the greatest poets that ever lived on this planet. But I'm sure a lot more can be said about the Odes. In my opinion, this article isn't finished yet. JoJan 09:37, 13 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 deleted -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Constitution of 1793

Foreign language source document. Already exists on Wikisource [27]. - Satori 20:00, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Speedily deleted by RickK due to duplication of Wikisource. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:55, 13 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 redirected. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)

The article's name does not match its content. Another article, Uniform Commercial Code actually described the UCC. This article focuses on the portion of the state bureaucracy in North Carolina that deals with the UCC. This article is also not encyclopedic in nature. Pentegamer 20:10, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Redirected to Uniform Commercial Code. Rick K 22:22, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Uniform Commercial CodeCapitalistroadster 09:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirects are cheap. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - useless article, and useless title for a redirect. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:54, 13 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. dbenbenn | talk 16:00, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Internet terrorism

This isn't the article about "cyber-terrorism". All it does is acknowledge that even though "terrorism" refers specifically to the use of violence, that the intended goal behind the violence can be to send a message. Leaping abruptly from there to the assumption that sending a message can therefore be terrorism regardless of whether any act or threat of violence is involved, the article then asserts "By inference", people "could be accused of Internet terrorism" if they are using the Internet to disseminate any information that damages the reputation or public standing of a corporation or a political or religious figure. By this ludicrously broad definition, Wikipedia's a hub of "Internet terrorism": have you included any information, true or false, in any article, which makes a public figure look bad? Congratulations, you're an "Internet terrorist". It's another attempt to take an emotionally loaded word and stretch the definition until it screams, for the purposes of getting all that emotional loading into a neologism to throw at enemies. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It's just somebody's college dissertation, or something. The second source uses the phrase in "quotes" throughout, suggesting that it's not notable in itself. The article is couched in terms of 'some scholars argue' and 'it could be argued that', and Wikipedia isn't a place for inferences. Worst of all, there's nothing specifically 'internet' about the phenomenon as described; concept is covered much better in disinformation, big lie, propaganda and so on. -Ashley Pomeroy 00:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect imaginary topic to cyber-terrorism. The word for this is libel. Gazpacho 00:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This isn't something the author made up, I've heard the term used in this sense before. I'd agree it's stretching the meaning out of all recognition. 03:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to cyber-terrorism. Not the same thing, but how many casual users know the difference? -Sean Curtin 04:39, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
" ...people or groups that use the Internet for the systematic spreading of information aimed at harassing, damaging or destroying the business of corporations or the public standing of political and religious figures, could be accused of Internet terrorism." Sure, or they could be accused of winning the Specialhappypeople Award, as I will accuse them of doing if no one else will. Utter crap. Delete, or some redirect without merge, like Sean suggested. -R. fiend 04:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:48, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Cyber-terrorism. Megan1967 03:15, 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 NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 16:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Robert Banks (filmmaker)

The contents of the deletion debate have been removed as they relate to a living person. A record of the deletion debate can be found in the deletion history.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 08:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chris Sadler

Vanity, possibly a speedy candidate but seems a bit too long. Sadler is a duplicate of this page. Xezbeth 21:09, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Joke article. Direct the creator to Uncyclopedia, which may be more suitable to their talents. Average Earthman 02:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete - another "Oh Honestly!" case of rubbish - do they have nothing better to do? Brookie 20:01, 13 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) 08:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WorkingMansSpaceParty

No evidence this is anything other than one grumpy old man with a collection of science fiction books. sjorford:// 22:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

delete JoJan 06:27, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. One man party, apparently. jni 14:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - let them leave for outer space and leave the Wiki free of this drivel! Brookie 19:59, 13 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) 08:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jism2

Bollyporn. sjorford:// 22:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 23:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There's a reason for deletion I never expected to see. Delete, seems to be just another porn flick. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Err... delete, I guess. It looks like promo copy. — RJH 04:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. utcursch 12:00, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - another "Oh Honestly!" case of rubbish - do they have nothing better to do? The name says it all - a load of Jism! Brookie 19:58, 13 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. dbenbenn | talk 16:49, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Googlewhackblatt

Neologism, I think. Rick K 22:32, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain. This neologism only returns 39 hits on Google but I have the feeling this will substantially increase over time. —RaD Man (talk) 23:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to googlewhack? CDC (talk) 23:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Googlewhack. Megan1967 23:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Googlewhack. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, no further merge required as it is already described in the Googlewhack article. Average Earthman 02:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, per Average Earthman. RJFJR 04:11, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Add Sheet

Non-noteable Advertising web site http://addsheet.com;

It's currently an orphan
Alexa rank for addsheet.com: 1,661,375
Googling for "addsheet" yields a pitifull: 2,660 and only 3 of those point to addsheet.com, the rest were databse and programmin methods.

Delete -- Dbroadwell 23:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete CDC (talk) 00:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, website advertisement. Megan1967 00:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete - another "Oh Honestly!" case of rubbish - do they have nothing better to do? Vacuous nonsense!Brookie 19:56, 13 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) 08:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Plaray

Wikipedia is neither an advertising hoarding nor a web directory. Uncle G 23:17, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Pah, Delete. -- Dbroadwell 03:04, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete - another "Oh Honestly!" case of rubbish - do they have nothing better to do? Brookie 19:55, 13 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. Joyous 18:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Scatt

Badly written attack page for someone named Scatt — apparently someone's colleague on a software development project. A Google Web search reveals lots of Scatts, from Air Sac Mite treatment companies to rifle training systems. None seem notable. Uncle G 23:46, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Delete, attack dicdef? Could just be speedied as an attack page, right? --Idont Havaname 03:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hoaxy dic def. Likely attack. Delete Mgm|^(talk) 15:30, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

*Delete - I'm glad that we didn't go into what a Google search comes up with! Brookie 19:55, 13 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 17:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hacker Clans

This is almost certainly a vanity page. 'The Guild Of The Dark' and 'Group 9' aren't well-known, and certainly aren't "underground legends" in the hacker community. Also, no-one calls themselves 'digital shinobi' except people who've been reading too much cyberpunk. Twiin 23:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not big on the title word 'clans'. The article Hacker group redirects to List of hacker and cracker groups. Neither of the two groups described in clans made the list at list (but at least there aren't separate articles on them). If kept then this article needs cleanup. Is there somewhere we can merge this material to? RJFJR 03:38, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to list of hacker and cracker groups but dont bother merging as these are non noteable groups (non existant really)... I did a check of old hacker e-zine's and even google cant find a single mention of "group 9" thats not a wiki clone. the only mention of "Guild of the Dark" + hacker thats not a clone of Wiki is at http://www.webspawner.com/users/portson/. These groups dont exist. ALKIVAR™ 06:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - another "Oh Honestly!" case of rubbish - do they have nothing better to do? Brookie 19:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to List of hacker and cracker groups. Megan1967 03:18, 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. Joyous 18:30, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Fnaff

Non-notable neologism. CDC (talk) 23:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Neologism. English-language Google search returns 48 pages, none of which appear to relate to meaning given in article. - Satori 01:31, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Dict-def. non-notable. (says converse rather than convey, translation to English? foreign slang?) RJFJR 03:55, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, probably only used in a very small area. Radiant! 10:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - another "Oh Honestly!" case of rubbish - do they have nothing better to do? Brookie 19:51, 13 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. Joyous 18:28, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Fireball 999

This "company" looks like either fiction or vanity - I can't find any evidence that it exists. CDC (talk) 23:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I can't find anything on either 'Fireball 999' or 'Rhodium design'. At least one of these should have been spelled correctly. After having the failed google search to make me sensibly suspicious I re-read and decided that it did not make sense. (nice techno-babble, though). Conclusion: Probably hoax. RJFJR 02:57, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Radiant! 10:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete likely hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 00:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Wizards

Doesn't seem Encyclopedic Delete 62.135.55.76 07:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete all non-notable secret societies. Rick K 07:51, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete too secret to expand the article to completeness. RJFJR 02:42, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Let them be The Wasards. Delete. Uncle G 04:56, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
Why has this been relisted? RickK 06:48, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Looking at the history of this discussion page (votes to delete it began back in January) and the history of the VfD log pages (which don't show it), it appears that this never got posted to the VfD page until Boothy443 did so on the 11 Feb. user:Rossami
Redirect to Unseen University. Oh, wait, no. Delete. Radiant! 10:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am confused by the concept of a "secret society" whose members "identify themeselves by wearing rainbow colored ribbons". Sounds like a hoax to me. Delete unless independently confirmed. Rossami (talk) 02:59, 13 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.