Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 24

[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Stormie 08:20, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sex_Wax

[edit]

This is an add for a product and serves no purpose. Perhaps it would be best changed to "Surf Wax" but "Sex Wax" is a brand. Pope 19:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Sex Wax has been around since the late '60s and is quite well-known. Potential to add further info about their drumstick wax and the mysterious Mr. Zog. Article just needs expansion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:17, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, advertisement, dictionary definition. Megan1967 00:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • In order: (a) Googling "Sex Wax" returns over 13,000 google hits. [1] (b) This article is a stub and hardly qualifies as a product advertisement; nothing here indicates puffery, hype, or spam. (c) Does not qualify as a dictdef by any means. Please do not take this as a personal attack, but your repeatedly baseless delete votes have become an eyesore. GRider\talk 17:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, well known item from surf culture, will improve with expansion. Could also be merged with surfwax--nixie 00:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Starblind & nixie. Samaritan 06:02, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I grew up in a beach town with a lot of surfers, and I can tell you firsthand that this is indeed notable. Szyslak 06:07, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep supprised that it wasnt allready added, shoud be expanded as well. --Boothy443 06:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep. Allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\talk 17:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Another obvious keep. I, too, grew up near the beach and Dr. Zog's Sex Wax stickers were on every other notebook at my high school. Apparently, the stuff works. Their slogan, BTW, is "Rub some on your stick." - Lucky 6.9 17:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Sex Wax is to surfboard wax as Heinz is to ketchup or Scotch is to sticky tape. I'd feel a lot happier if this entry started out as a short article, but I'll hope for expansion. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yet another keeper for me. —RaD Man (talk) 19:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I remember using it when I was younger. It's definitely notable, albeit maybe about a topic with which a lot of people are not familiar ... but hey, that's what wikipedia's for. I hope it grows. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Dwain 22:37, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As noted above, this has reasonable technical and cultural significance, and is an acceptable stub now. Jgm 03:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added some details. This product's significance goes beyond its use on surfboards. -Willmcw 08:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Karada 08:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 01:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Dude, Sex Wax is the shit, and has been the shit for years! —Brim 06:38, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep part of pop culture --JPotter 08:52, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep famous brand in the industry & pop culture - Jasoncart 11:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability certainly established. --Idont Havaname

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 08:21, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Kogswell

[edit]

Advertisment for a bicycle distributor, no demonstration of notability --nixie 00:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic, advertisement. Megan1967 02:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete,Mikkalai 02:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this ad. -- Fred 03:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Mark K. Jensen 08:43, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad. Mgm|(talk) 08:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as blatant SPAM. GRider\talk 18:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 01:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 08:22, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Kohlit

[edit]

Odd request for information, google provides no information on the topic--nixie 00:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete though I wish him good luck in finding the treasure buried under the big black X. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:37, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not a requests noticeboard. Megan1967 02:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. google says: "The existence and location of this place is unknown." Unless someone wants to collect all what is "unknown" about this place and make an article. Mikkalai 03:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but mark as stub. Google shows hits including at research universities. -- Fred 03:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I've just sent a mail to the poster urging him to write a normal article from what he knows. Mikkalai 03:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • You'll probably not receive an answer from "Indy Jones" with the mailbox name "QumranScroll" who is asking for information about a lost city, mentioned in one of the dead sea scrolls from Qumran, where gold and silver are said to be buried. (Talk about there being clues all over the map!) Uncle G 12:45, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge into Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_Sciences_and_Philosophy. --RoySmith 16:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Uncle G's rewrite makes this worth keeping. I stubified it and change my vote to Keep, based on the current state of the article. --RoySmith 13:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewritten Article. The article is no longer a request, and does mention what is known. Weak keep Uncle G 12:45, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
  • Keep as changed. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Mozzerati 23:20, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • keep this is interesting and valuable to someone researching many subjects. --JPotter 08:54, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Stormie 08:23, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Cooper city high school

[edit]

Is there really anything special enough about this school to be included in a worldwide encyclopedia? — Pt (T) 01:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Probably not, but from the looks of "Category:High schools" that's becoming no longer an issue. :( --LeeHunter 02:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless unsubstubified. —Korath (Talk) 03:19, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Fred 03:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "{{NAMEOFSCHOOL}} is a school located in {{NAMEOFCITY}}." Delete. --Slowking Man 04:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • "{{NAMEOFSCHOOL}} is a school located in {{NAMEOFCITY}}." Keep.--Centauri 04:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We have deletionists and we have inclusionists, but whether or not schools are kept in or not, many of the articles we have on schools violate policy for being original research and/or vanity. This one probably fits into both categories. Indrian 07:07, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Would you care to explain your comment? How does stating that X school exists and has a principal named Y constitute either "original research" or "vanity" ? --Centauri 08:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vanity and original research are not about the information itself, but about the source of said information. To quote Wikipedia:No original research: "Wikipedia is not a primary source. Specific factual content is not the question. Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source (one that generalizes existing research or secondary sources of a specific subject under consideration)." If an individual attends a certain school and then from his own experiences writes an article, he is engaging in original research as a primary source. As for vanity, if a page is written by a person that attends a school (not neccessarily an alum, but currently enrolled), then it is no different from writing about a website one has founded or a band one has played in. If the article is well-written, informative, and objective, then this may not be an issue, but for a sub-stub like this, it is. As to why this article is vanity, I urge you to check the history of the article, specifically an addtional sentence in the original, since removed, that confirms this aspect. Indrian 20:37, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense. Unless the author founded the school themselves there is no way known writing an article about it can constitute "vanity" - particilarly if there's absolutely nothing self-referential about it. Under your interpretation of policy I can't write about my local church because I attended services there as a child. Nor can I write about the university I attended, railway stations I've made use of - or in fact any other public facility I may have found myself in at any time during my existence - and that is plainly ridiculous. In any case I've now rewritten this article myself, using data that is easily locatable on Google - and I have never been anywhere near Broward County - so your argument is moot either way.--Centauri 22:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
First of all, lets keep this civil please. You asked a question and I answered it. Just because the answer does not fit your world-view does not mean you have to get nasty. Second, I am glad that unlike other people who whine about this sort of thing you actually went out and fixed the problem so that it is no longer original research or vanity. Third, you have not "won" any competion with me, as there was never a contest to begin with, just two people who care about wikipedia and have different opinions, so you should try to be less smug in your responses. Fourth, you did not read my whole response or you would see that vanity does not matter in my opinion on school articles, or church, or subway stations, if they are well-written informative articles, so you are free to write such articles on these things in my opinion (I have never, by the way insinuated that this is anything but my own interpretation of policy that you are free to disagree with). Plus, this article was self-referential in its first form, check the history. Fifth, Wikipedia:Vanity page specifically mentions high schools, so I feel you should do a little research before laying into someone like you did above. Finally, I still feel this is not encyclopedic for notability reasons and should be deleted. You are, as always free to disagree, but I hope you can muster a bit more politeness when you do. Indrian 23:17, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Kindly refrain from accusing people of being "uncivil", "nasty" and "laying into" others when there is no evidence at all of such behaviour. I find your comments in that regard utterly perplexing.--Centauri 01:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity -- Chris 73 Talk 07:37, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Creator didn't even include basic information about the school. At least let it be an article. Mgm|(talk) 08:58, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --fvw* 08:59, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
  • Merge into appropriate Cooper City, apparently somewhere in Florida, and delete - Skysmith 11:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as sub-sub-substub. School might deserve an article, and someday someone might create one. This ain't it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:08, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --BM 12:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An article that is boring. And furthermore it's not notable. The principle is that wikipedia is not a trivia quiz. --RoySmith 15:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would suggest merging all relevant information, but since that would consist entirely of Cooper City has a high school, there's not much point. Average Earthman 21:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. --Woohookitty 21:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone's willing to take a whack at establishing notability. Otherwise, merge whatever's useable to the Cooper City article and transwiki it to Anthony's school wiki. This isn't even close to encyclopedic. It comes off as something written by a bored student schlepping through the Internet on a library computer. - Lucky 6.9 01:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. GRider\talk 18:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Let's have an end to this mania for deleting school articles Philip 11:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let's have an end to this mania for creating articles about non-notable schools. Jayjg (TALK)]] 20:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And while we're at it, let's have an end to the mania for the juxtaposition of contradictory terms, such as "school" and "non-notable" when attempting to justify deletion votes. --Centauri 12:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Along with that, let's have an end to the mania for the imagining all schools are notable when attempting to justify deletion votes. Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
All highways are notable. All railway stations are notable. All suburbs are notable. All churches are notable. All schools are notable. Get over it. --Centauri 02:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not all highways are notable. Not all railway stations are notable. Not all suburbs are notable. Not all churches are notable. Not all schools are notable. Get over it. Jayjg (talk) 05:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Let's see how far you get with that notion when you get busy listing the hundreds of articles on those subjects on VFD. --Centauri 03:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Did you notice the words not all? I'll repeat them. Not all schools are notable. Some certainly are, and I've even voted "keep" on VfDs about schools. However, the article about this school has given no indication of notability. Jayjg

(talk) 16:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Did you notice the word all? There are established projects to write articles about every railway station and suburb in such cities as London, Sydney and Melbourne, so all railway stations and suburbs are obviously notable. All schools are no less notable.--Centauri 01:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable. Gamaliel 20:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete sub-stub. (pls feel free message to talk if substantially improved) Mozzerati 23:23, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Keep as a stub or sub-stub. It neds improvement, but so do a great deal of articles in the Wikipedia. I've seen a great deal of the discussion regarding the deletion of schools, and read pleanty of arguments for and against their inclusion. The most common reasons given for deletion are, "it's just a school that nobody important went to." Think about it though: In developed countries, the majority of school aged people spend more than one third of their day in their school over the course of their day. Many children see more of their teachers than their own parents in cases where parents work shift-work. In small rural communities, the local school is often a centre of a community, and in many cases the only facility large enough for a major community event. In developing countries, the school is often the glue that binds an entire community together. I think WikiPedia should ENCOURAGE the organization and catagorization of articles on individual schools. Yes, there is the possibility that this could turn the Wikipedia in each different language version into something rivaling the Encyclopedia Galactica, but ffs people... it's digital. It's the closest thing to the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy that isn't pure fiction. By encouraging the inclusion of schools, we encourage the use of the Wikipedia by students and staff at schools. These two groups represent a huge segment of global population that we could get interested in contributing to the Wikipedia, and furturing its future development and growth. Isn't that one of our goals here?Weaponofmassinstruction 22:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • think of it like this, if your experience of wikipedia is coming along and finding a whole load of boring uninformative sub-stubs, do you think that encourages or discourages you to write a decent article about your school? I have nothing against school articles, but a school article like this does active damage. If your argument (that much life happens in schools) is true, then almost every school should have something interesting and valuable to say about it. There should have been crime, punishment, disillusionment, joy, love, hate and maybe even education going on. An article which fails to reflect these, or even one of them is misleading, unverifiable, unencyclopedic, discouraging (even of other articles about schools) and just plain wrong. Mozzerati 07:31, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  • Delete, Probobly written by the principle. --Benna 01:27, 2 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. Stormie 08:24, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hadlow's Laws

[edit]

This appears to be original research, or a term used only in an small group. I can't find any reference anywhere to this law, neither it nor the person who supposedly coined it (in 2005) seem to be at all notable, and no supporting sources are cited. This article is the only contribution of its submitter. Nominated for deletion by User:John Fader.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 08:25, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

City of caterpillar

[edit]

Band with no hits on Google. --LeeHunter 02:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • delete. Mikkalai 03:05, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete -- Fred 03:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Band vanity. Delete. --Slowking Man 04:23, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 23:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I have one of this band's albums and this band is critically acclaimed and very much respected in their "scene". I get dozens and dozens of good hits with Google. They have quit playing together. I agree that this article should be deleted though, as there's a better article at City of Caterpillar. --Ilpanula 17:42, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Oops. You're quite right. I don't know how I screwed up my search so badly. Anyway, as you say, there's a better article. --LeeHunter 21:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Informational and unbiased. Does not violate Wikipedia rules. Would like to see more info on the artist, however. Allow for growth. z0mb1
  • There's a better and more informational article at City of Caterpillar. Different capitalisation. --Ilpanula 04:17, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Case closed. Turned into a redirect to City of Caterpillar. Mikkalai 06:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE AND REDIRECT. Stormie 08:29, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Webster Orthography

[edit]

Is there such a term? Google says no. AFAIK the article was created by user:dunshi as an attempt to make a point during the vfd Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Penkyamp. Mikkalai 02:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless corroborated. —Korath (Talk) 03:14, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Noah Webster tells us that "Webster changed the spelling of many words in his dictionaries in an attempt to make them more phonemic. Many of the differences between American English and other English variants evident today originated this way." Thus there could be such a thing as "Webster spelling" and thus "Webster orthography": the capital "O" could just have been a typo. I vaguely remember having read that "thru" was one of his more striking (but lasting) innovations -- but I don't trust my memory. If somebody can be bothered to describe what "Webster orthography" was, I'll vote keep; otherwise I'll vote delete. -- Hoary 09:20, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
    • It is not the matter whether one can describe it; it is the matter whether the term is in use or not. AFAIK not all Webster's innovations stuck. So the proper article name could be Webster's spelling simplification (as written by Thryduulf). Mikkalai 20:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Webster is cited as the source of many spelling varients in the large dictionary I have. As such it is possibly accurate to describe the American orthography as the "Webster Orthography", however I am not aware of the term being used. I suggest merge with Spelling reform where there is a large section on Webster's spelling simplication [2]. If the term is notable then leave a redirect there, otherwise don't bother as its already linked from the Noah Webster artcile (which is how I found it). Thryduulf 15:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • A legitimate and encyclopedic topic, but Wikipedia is not the place to invent terminology. Merge anything worth keeping with Spelling reform, as suggested above. --Plutor 17:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable to Spelling reform, and add redirect. Megan1967 01:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 08:29, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Eli cane

[edit]

Blatent vanity. I wish the CSD proposal to let us speedy these had passed. --Carnildo 03:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 08:30, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Camila Belchior

[edit]

Little context, no evidence of notablilty. Google gives 9 hits. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. - Mailer Diablo 18:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. GRider\talk 18:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP David 00:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete sub-stub/vanity Mozzerati 23:26, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 08:51, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Auto Engineering

[edit]

Local auto dealer; no claim to notability. —Korath (Talk) 04:16, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. If it can be fit into a larger article on car dealerships, great. But alone? no. --Woohookitty 21:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not merge. As an aside, I've since had to block the authoring IP for repeated removal of the VfD template. -- Hadal 03:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 10:40, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

List of ethnic stereotypes

[edit]

A very troublesome article, which I think is next to impossible to have a NPOV. And, the article probably is offensive to quite a lot of people. Vote for DELETION -- Chris 73 Talk 04:17, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • The basis of an excellent, informative, useful article. Keep, obviously.--Centauri 04:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I really hope the above user was being sarcastic, but I'm afraid he/she was not. This article is offensive, POV, and completely unverifiable. Carrp 05:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am most certainly not being sarcastic. This article should exist as an encyclopedic record of stereotypes - offensive or otherwise. There is no reason to censor unpleasant data because it is unpleasant; indeed, that is all the more reason to document it properly, in an unbiased manner.--Centauri 10:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirecting to Ethnic stereotype and merging anything worthwhile can't do any harm. —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redirect afterwards if you must. Unlike the previous vfd survivor List of ethnic slurs, the information here has no merit. —Korath (Talk) 05:40, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think it's quite interesting. As for offensive, there is much worse stuff on Wikipedia. Grue 12:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I think there's an excellent article to be made on this topic, and it would be fascinating to learn where all these got started, how they're perpetuated, how accurate they are (if at all), backlash against them, etc. If it's just a context-free list though, it isn't really helping anybody. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Agree with Starblind, not useful in this form. -- taviso 15:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. It is unclear to me whether strict application of the deletion guidelines would support my vote, but this article is so offensive I just don't care if they do or not. I'm voting with my gut on this one. --RoySmith 16:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. With a little collective brainstorming it shouldn't be too hard to find examples or references for this stuff. The current list is not wholly useless for someone who wishes to write a better article. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure we could find examples of each stereotypes, in the same way we could find plenty of exceptions. However, I highly doubt we could find references for these stereotypes. One of the main criteria for a WP artcile is that the information is verifiable. The fact that it's also very offensive just makes it that much worse. Carrp 18:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Offensiveness is irrelevant, a stereotype is inherently POV. Xezbeth 18:29, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to ethnic stereotype. Unverifiable and very U.S.-centric. (I don't know of any stereotypes common anywhere in Europe of white people that involve NASCAR or trailer parks, although the Russians do cultivate certain stereotypes of Caucasians). Besides, a superficial list like this can never put stereotypes in a context that will make it clearly NPOV, and I don't see it having any potential to change for the better. / up+land 19:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Additional comment: the issue here should not be whether ethnic stereotypes as offensive should be allowed to be mentioned in Wikipedia or not, but that ethnic stereotypes are dependent on a cultural context which a list simply cannot provide. An article can do that, a list can not. Without context and references, it is simply not encyclopedic. / up+land 10:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Move to List of ethnic stereotypes in the US. A descriptive account of what prejudices are common in the US is not inherently POV. Maybe some sort of disclaimer and explanation at the beginning would be a good idea. Martg76 19:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes they are painful but hey, these are stereotypes and you can't just ignore them. --Woohookitty 21:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, offensive, and inherently US-POV. -- Arwel 01:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move -- I agree with Martg76. As to Russian stereotypes of, say, Caucasians, Uzbeks, Tartars... that's another list. --Christofurio 01:36, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a natural extension of List of ethnic slurs. It should certainly be cleaned up; we can differentiate between various ethnic subdivisions, have greater detail, and talk about some of the history and such. We can also make it less US-centric by saying exactly who tends to believe what sterotype (Or who is stereotypically assumed to have a certain sterotype). Remember, we're not saying any of this excrement is remotely true, we're just acknowledging the harsh reality of sterotypes. -LtNOWIS 01:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This page is not POV because these are in fact stereotypes. Images like these are everywhere and it's good to show them as stereotypes and not necessarily reality. CPS 03:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I noticed you made an edit to this page in which you modified several of the stereotypes. I'm not interested in debating any of these changes, but what if I did want to dispute them? How can a user show that stereotype A should be included but stereotype B should not? That's the main problem with lists of unverifiable information. This page will quickly devolve (if it already hasn't) into insults being hurled at every ethnic group.

Carrp 04:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that CPS decided to remove a few stereotypes. So was his decision to remove them because they weren't stereotypes, because they were reality or because they were POV? I vote to DeleteLokifer 07:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I have added another example of ethnic stereotypes which, while it a valid addition, does I think demostrate why this page should be deleted. Every community in the world has stereotypes about every other community, usually they just cause trouble. Whoops, forgot to sign. ping 21:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. In principle, one group's stereotypes regarding another are verifiable. But I doubt people contributing to this page will do so, and this will just become a nasty place for people who have the stereotypes to indulge them. That will not be to Wikipedia's credit. Stereotyping can be discussed in an NPOV, useful, way. Having a random, unverified list of them is not it. --BM 13:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bad, but we should learn to accept the insults. However, there are much more worse things in wiki that should be deleted but not and better things that are in wiki and deleted.-2love 23:01 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to ethnic stereotype A simple list of terms is open to hatred and bigotry, while really providing little knowledge on the topic. I also agree that the current list is almost completely US-centric. --InShaneee 15:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Noteworthy and potentially useful for research. GRider\talk 18:12, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Offensive != POV. Bacchiad 08:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subject is inherently POV. --Carnildo 20:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete DJ Clayworth 05:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Agree with Starblind, not useful in this form. -- Burschik 12:17, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is most assuredly unencyclopedic as it does not even qualify as an article. The point of lists, it seems to me, is either to organize groups of articles or provide a number of short entires on subjects of a common theme that do not deserve their own articles. This list fails to do either and provides no context for its entires. Furthermore, it is hard, though not impossible, to keep this NPOV when it is just a list with no context for any of its assertions. Some of these stereotypes deserve mention somewhere in wikipedia, maybe even their own articles, but this does not seem to be the place for it. The people that claim certain users are trying to hide from unpleasant information need to learn the difference between a content arguement and a structural arguement. Indrian 20:14, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, list, original research. Jayjg (TALK)]] 20:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Informative and valuable for research. ItisIAnonymous 20:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not actually POV, IMO, and the fact that it's offensive isn't grounds for deletion. But I vote for deletion on the criterion that it has no potential of becoming encyclopedic. The information on this page is not informative: it is neither actionable nor interesting. --Angr 20:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Idiocy. BSveen 22:36, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Several of these are not sterotypes, but rather racial slurs and unexplained associations. Such as, 'Rag head(s)' under Arabs/Middle Eastern. 'Rag head(s)' isn't a sterotype, it's a racial slur. 'Wearing of turbans' is a sterotype. '"They hate us" assertions.' This is meaningless without some explanation, who hates who? Look at the Italian section. The Guido link is irrelevant in context. Should be geographically qualified. Even if these issues are cleaned up, difficult to remain NPOV at best. This will ultimately become a list of things not interesting or encyclopedic enough to warrant their own articles, and thus confusing and useless. Consider your reaction to the proposition of adding a Racial Sterotypes section to each ethnic or national wikipedia entry. --Paraphelion 01:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlike list of ethnic slurs, this has no value. Neutralitytalk 01:57, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.Mikkalai 06:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not useful, not encylopaedic, not verifiable, impossible to present in a balanced way, and thus furthers the whole systemic bias of Wikipedia. Guettarda 17:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete only useful in a specific context (who believes the stereotype) attempts at verification would make it unmanagable. Mozzerati 23:29, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Redirect to ethnic stereotypes. humblefool 01:53, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--Carpetrocks 03:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-encyclopedic and a waste of space. LegitReality 20:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 08:53, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Nerv!

[edit]

Band vanity. Only one Google hit for "Keith Binder" +Nerv. RickK 05:29, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, crap. Neutralitytalk 05:31, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable vanity crap! --Idont Havaname 17:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. - Mailer Diablo 18:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 23:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. GRider\talk 18:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. (I have elected to redirect this to Space Channel 5 on the grounds that there is zero encyclopedic content in the article to work with. If someone wants to actually write an article about this sequel, feel free) Stormie 09:22, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Space Channel 5 Part 2

[edit]

Not an encyclopedia article. Probably a copyvio. RickK 05:32, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Space Channel 5 if is not a copyvio. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have plenty of articles on other noteworthy video games and this is just one of them. GRider\talk 19:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. --Matteh (talk) 21:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect: I have the game, and there's little that could be said that wouldn't also belong in the Space Channel 5 article. -Sean Curtin 03:42, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep. This popular sequel was released originally for the Dreamcast and never saw the light of day outside of Japan on that platform. The article could use some serious housecleaning... —RaD Man (talk) 05:41, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge what AllyUnion said, the series deserves 1 article, not various stubs.  ALKIVAR™ 05:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE AND REDIRECT. (I have merged into Zones of EverQuest) Stormie 10:21, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Nagafen

[edit]

Non-notable. —Korath (Talk) 05:35, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Seems reasonably notably within Everquest. Merge with List of everquest thingies or somesuch, or keep until a good place to merge it shows up. Kappa 06:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. At best, a mention in passing would be appropriate in the article on Everquest. Ben Cairns 13:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC).
  • Merge with Everquest and add redirect. Megan1967 01:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE WITH Massachusetts General Law AND KEEP. Stormie 10:28, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

General Laws of Massachusetts

[edit]

duplicated information, perm substub merged back into main Massachusetts article. Evil Monkey → Talk 06:12, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete minor unnecessary stub, now that its merged this can go  ALKIVAR™ 06:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The content should be merged and redirected to Massachusetts General Law since that's the official and most commonly used name. I think the proper response here is to de-orphan the page, not delete an article which is obviously not a VfD candidate. Rhobite 06:16, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Both articles contain the same content as the main Massachusetts article subsection on law (which is where the 2 lines worth keeping belong anyways). If at some later point someone decides to write up something worth keeping here, there is nothing stopping them from being recreated.  ALKIVAR™ 06:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this article and let grow. Martg76 19:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep and merge/redirect Massachusetts General Law into this. Even as a stub, it's worth keeping and there is potential for expansion. There are more than a few quirks and peculiarilites in MA law that would be worth describing in more detail. older≠wiser 01:10, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE INTO General Laws of Massachusetts AND REDIRECT. Stormie 10:28, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Massachusetts General Law

[edit]

duplicated information, perm substub merged back into main Massachusetts article. Evil Monkey → Talk 06:12, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete minor unnecessary stub, now that its merged this can go  ALKIVAR™ 06:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Content should be merged from General Laws of Massachusetts. I think the proper response here is to de-orphan the page, not delete an article which is obviously not a VfD candidate. Rhobite 06:17, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Both articles contain the same content as the main Massachusetts article subsection on law (which is where the 2 lines worth keeping belong anyways). If at some later point someone decides to write up something worth keeping here, there is nothing stopping them from being recreated.  ALKIVAR™ 06:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • If I type in "Massachusetts General Law" I expect to find an article. I'm not looking for a redirect to Massachusetts, or even worse a "page not found" message. This article is currently a stub, but that's no reason to delete it. We don't delete articles simply because they don't live up to their potential. This subject certainly has the potential to become a full-blown article, even a feature. Massachusetts has a rich legal history and it's disappointing that it's so poorly documented here. Also you're mistaken, if this gets deleted, then it cannot be recreated in the future without another vote. Rhobite 06:29, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge this into General Laws of Massachusetts. Martg76 19:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I expanded this article to demonstrate that it is not a permanent substub. Please take a look. Rhobite 22:48, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep and merge/redirect into General Laws of Massachusetts. Even as a stub, it's worth keeping and there is potential for expansion. There are more than a few quirks and peculiarilites in MA law that would be worth describing in more detail. older≠wiser 01:11, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 AND LIST FOR CLEANUP. Stormie 09:24, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Strider Knives, Inc.

[edit]

Advertising. That FAQ is obviously a copyvio, though I can't find it. RickK 06:16, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • It's not really. The FAQ I just made up off the top of my head. And besides, I have totally no relation to the company. I just like their products and there's a fascinating history behind them. If this is a problem, I apologize. I'm still figuring it out. If you'd like to discuss this, I'd be happy to. I'm totally new and learning the ropes. It's not advertising. And the FAQ is not "obviously" a copyright violation. You can't find it because it's NOT a violation of someone else's content. I just wrote it.--Biogon 06:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "We could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you" is why it looks incredibly like copyvio advertising. Most of it's reasonably neutral in tone. Keep and cleanup the formatting/style for wikipedia standards. Kappa 06:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Strider Knives are certainly very well known. Not all business-related articles are ads. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:12, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • 23,000 hits for "Strider knives". Apparently quite notable. Keep and Cleanup to make it look less like advertising. — Asbestos | Talk 12:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, strongly notable. VfD is not a cleanup tool. GRider\talk 19:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Your repeated personal attacks and lack of Wikiquette have become tiresome. Why not just vote up or down and give your reasons, insted of feeling the need to question the motives of the nominator? RickK 00:34, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry you mistook my mantra as a personal attack. Whilst on the subject, your repeated deletionist rampages have grown tiresome as well. Don't take your agression out on me just because I disagree with you. GRider\talk 18:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE WITH Second Chechen War. (as Second Chechen War is currently a copyvio warning, I have moved this page to Second Chechen War/Temp, where hopefully it can form the basis of an external links section of a new article) Stormie 10:35, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

The Analyses and Reports of the Second Chechen War

[edit]

Nothing but a bunch of links. RickK 06:39, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless expanded to be a proper subarticle of Second Chechen War. There is a request to expand that one afterall. I voted deleted because Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links. jni 07:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article consists of studies of the reputable unbiased military enstitutes of the politically sensitive issue.--BIR 08:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A deletion in this case can be seen as a purpose to make some naive people here to promote plain censorship in only one ratling party's favour. Especially, the aspect of information warfare is quite relevant.--BIR 08:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It would be more correct just to develop the content rather than add tags like Cleanup. etc. --BIR 08:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In short, I regard this request politically motivated therefore I am against this short process.--BIR 08:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Um RickK isn't being politically motivated, he's just trying to enforce wikipedia standards. If you want that page to be kept, I recommend putting some actual content on it. Kappa 08:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't give a good rat's *ss about the politics of this so-called article. This is an inappropriate "article" for Wikipedia, and I would have listed it here whether it was political or not, so long as it contains nothing but links. Now, when can I expect your apology? RickK 00:14, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't blame RickK. I blame some else. That's exactly what I am going to do, namely, to expant its content.--BIR 08:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the meantime, don't panic nor delete the article hasty. Be patient, read yourself the facts and make your own conclusions.--BIR 08:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • This page was listed here because Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says: Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Mere collections of external links. Of course, there's nothing wrong with adding both lists of content-relevant links and on-line references you used in writing an article, not because of any sinister political motive. It will remain listed here for minimum of five days and won't be deleted before that, giving the community ample time to fix it. jni 08:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Now, if you red yourselves the reports and analyses, which contradict the official truth of the conflict in details, you'll might understand why they were sophistically attacked first by talks then by these Cleanup tags. When evaluating how reliable the facts are, pay attention to the publishing institutes, too.--BIR 12:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Be awared that if you expand the article, it will remain constantly under rude or sophisticated attacks by one overwhelming ratling party of the conflict until turned feeble and harmless. --BIR 12:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, I guess I am that "ratling party". I think it's improper to throw accusation behind my back when I am not even aware of this discussion. --Gene s 14:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't quite think anybody discusses behind your back, since you're online as a Wikipedian and awared of the watch button in the bar above as well as the rest of the world's peoples.--BIR 15:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge back into Second Chechen War. Having two POV forks is not the solution to an edit war. --TenOfAllTrades 17:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Per BIR's suggestion above, I have looked at the article history, and I'm rather appalled by the behaviour of both parties to this edit war. Merge the list of links, and trim aggressively (there are more than thirty links here. In comparison, World War II is covered by ten external links; the Vietnam War, nine.) Though beyond the scope of VfD, I would politely suggest that both editors take a wikibreak. --TenOfAllTrades 03:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • That's a bad advise. When one party of a discussion takes an unconstructive stance (any edits, just like with RickK above, is "deletion ... can be seen as ... to promote plain censorship"), the other side looses either way: if you talk, you are drawn to an endless pointless discussion and accused of all sins. If you don't talk - you are accused of not willing to discuss the edits with the other party. You said: "I'm rather appalled by the behaviour of both parties to this edit war". If you really believe so, why don't you show by example how such discussion should be carried? Look at the article and, for example, try to remove loaded language. How about that? --Gene s 14:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • What about, for example, trying to discuss honestly based on facts and not to laboure these sophisticated featurs of our beloved Wiki against the idea of free information itself and turning the points off-tracked into nonsense this way. By the way, this is the method the creatures of totalitarianism have always used against freedom and democracy.--BIR 07:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. User:Björn-Isak Rosendahl kept adding and adding and adding links to the main article until the Ext Links section was talking half of it. Look at what it was [3]. If the links are merged back, the problem will not go away. It would be pushed from this page to WP:RFC or something like that. Why not address it now, instead of pushing through further bureaucracy? --Gene s 14:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Merge Well...who was the person keeping on editing, and editing, and reverting, reverting and editing etc. for one making me finally hit a roof ? As everyone can see oneself the issue itself is politically sensitive, therefore it deserves some special attention...and time for some proper writing. From here, it just looks like you tried to keep crucial info away from the Wiki by your sophisticated ways.--BIR 15:03, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not native in English either, but it shouldn't be to loose but to lose there above. Nor I mentioned your would-be sins at all but focused on Chehnya and woldwide feeble attitude on the human rights abuses and plain war crimes on the spot.--BIR 15:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Just for the records that this 'discussion' has poured in many [4] pages.--BIR 12:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Something interesting happens [5] here.
        • It appears that someone pointed out that you (BIR) quoted a block of externally-sourced text without proper attribution. What's the relevance to this VfD? --TenOfAllTrades 15:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


  • Merge This needs sending back to become a subsection and as Ten has said should be heavily trimmed. The links should be cut back and the text expanded to cover any media issues. --Mazzarin 06:28, 6 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. Stormie 09:26, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Strongbad email.exe

[edit]

Advertising? Is this an encyclopedia article? RickK 06:56, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes and no, respectively. Delete. —Korath (Talk) 07:22, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC) Merge and redirect. —Korath (Talk) 06:58, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Somebody's confused Wikipedia with hrwiki.org. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 07:26, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are tens of thousands of different DVD collections around. I don't see what makes this one encyclopedic. jni 07:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure, it's very common for movies and TV shows to have DVDs, but it's extremely rare for websites to have them. I can only think of 4 off the top of my head: Strong Bad, Weebl & Bob, Red vs. Blue, and Happy Tree Friends. Of those four, Strong bad is almost inarguably the most notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • This is an argument for the notability of Homestar Runner, which is not under discussion. The dvd deserves no more than a one-line entry there. —Korath (Talk) 02:35, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Merge and Redirect to Homestar Runner. Notable DVD from a notable website. — Asbestos | Talk 11:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe all commercially-released films should have articles, and this is more notable/famous than a good chunk of them. 16,700 Google hits for "Strong bad" DVD and 17,900 for "Strongbad" DVD. We already have articles on a lot of fairly minor aspects of Homestar-lore. Why not have one on their most major product to date? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Grue 12:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Why would Strong Bad Sings have an article, but not this? Could be improved. Dragonlord 12:28, 24 Jan 2005
  • Delete. WP != HR product catalog. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for reasons given by User:Starblind. --Idont Havaname 17:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. We have hundreds of other articles for DVDs and this one is just as noteworthy as most of the others. GRider\talk 19:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only 46 hits (and only 18 displayed) for "Strongbad email.exe", and IMDB hasn't heard of it? Anybody can put anything on a DVD; doesn't automagically make it notable. Niteowlneils 20:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Those are some of the most slanted "statistics" I've ever read. Be advised. Googling for "Strongbad +DVD" [6] results in 17,900 hits, almost all of which are directly relevant to this article. GRider\talk
      • Very true, GRider. But I don't think Niteowlneils is trying to be deceptive, he just apparently forgot the underscore between the words whilst searching. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:25, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • I simply took the article title, put it in double quotes, and hit search. Strongbad +DVD only gets 16,400 hits for me, many of which are NOT this DVD. Niteowlneils 21:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • "Strongbad_Email.exe" still only gets 628 hits. Niteowlneils 22:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Also, I don't consider any movie "commercially released" unless it's available for purchase somewhere other than the producing entity, which this doesn't seem to be. Niteowlneils 22:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure why your Google results are lower than mine, but I have an idea. Try going into the Advanced page on google and make sure SafeSearch is OFF. As far as the way they've chosen to distribute it, I say good for them. They've chosen to hold on to their creations instead of selling out to the first big studio that waves a couple thousand bucks under their noses. I wish more creators had the vision to make the same choice. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:15, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
          • That's a rationalization, not a reason. Delete. --Calton 00:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. --Matteh (talk) 21:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, still looks like an advertisement for one of many DVD series collections. Megan1967 23:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. We don't need an article for every individual HR product or gag. -Sean Curtin 03:43, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect Most certainly notible, if for no other reason than its attatchment to HR.
  • Extreme keep. IMHO the IMDB argument doesn't hold much water, either. Anyone can add a released DVD to IMDB right this minute if they create an account and login. —RaD Man (talk) 05:41, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; notable. Samaritan 05:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Merge and redirect. Homestarrunner.com entertains thousands every day. z0mb1
    Please note that the above vote was NOT by User:z0mb1. It was put in by User:63.171.166.140 -Frazzydee|✍ 23:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    The aforementioned IP is User:z0mb1.[8] -Frazzydee|✍ 03:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) (and by the way the immature message was not left by me, read the current revision for an explanation)
  • keep Yuckfoo 05:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's notable, though it should probably be rewritten slightly -Seancdaug 07:05, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable Jasoncart 11:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 08:57, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Swearingen

[edit]

Non-notable genealogy article. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 07:20, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a general knowledgebase with geneological entries. jni 08:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, probably vanity. — Asbestos | Talk 11:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. BTW, Swearingen is also the name of an aircraft manufacturer (http://www.sj30jet.com/), but that's not what this article is about. --RoySmith 21:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 08:57, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

East 304

[edit]

Vanity. --fvw* 08:31, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. jni 08:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. — Asbestos | Talk 11:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, A gang of 7 isn't notable. Inter 11:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete street gangs are inherently not notable unless they make news. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:42, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 23:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete, East 304 will kick your ass if this page is deleted.
  • They're certainly welcome to try, O Talking Hosiery. Delete this one as well as the Captain Groovy article. On my way to vote on that one. - Lucky 6.9 18:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete If the purpose of the encyclopedia is to collect information about as many different aspects of the world as possible, to delete this page (which is not profane or libelous) would set a precedent dangerous to the aspirations of Wikipedia.ElScorcho717 [No such user exists --fvw*]
    • Wikipedia is not a general knowledge database. Megan1967 00:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, how can you say I don't exist as a user if I am editing this page as ElScorcho717 right now?

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 08:59, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Phonenumber

[edit]

Someone put VfD tag on this, put forgot to write this entry. Delete as non-notable. jni 08:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --fvw* 08:53, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, With 751 members there are some notability but we aren't a web information center. Inter 11:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to telephone number. -Sean Curtin 03:45, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to telephone number seems sensible. I've seen graphics communities with more members that are still not notable. Mgm|(talk) 09:55, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Telephone number. Megan1967 01:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. I don't think this should redirect to telephone number either. — Brim 07:22, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Stormie 08:59, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hcis

[edit]

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 08:36, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

  • Delete. The school is very cool go there, not encyclopedic. Apparently they don't teach spelling and grammar at all there. jni 08:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. Evil Monkey → Talk 09:02, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. —Korath (Talk) 09:30, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, Inter 11:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as experimental page. Jni hit the nail on the head! This is almost BJAODN fodder. - Lucky 6.9 01:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete,Mikkalai 06:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Jni says it all. Carole a 09:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE WITH Marcus Garvey. Stormie 09:28, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

The Marcus Garvey Bibliography

[edit]

Doesn't look like an encyclopedic article. TrueGnu 09:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will now merge this article, leaving the delete for a blank page Squiquifox 00:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC). This page can now be found in the discussion page of the article--Squiquifox 00:26, 7 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. Stormie 09:01, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Agent139

[edit]

Non-notable fictional character from a book entitled "Join My Cult!". Google search for ["Agent 139"] finds about 500 hits, the vast majority of which do not refer to the book. A search for ["Agent 139" "James Curcio"] (the character's other name in the book" finds just 9 hits. The book appears to be reasonably notable, so I'd probably Merge and Redirect to Join my cult. — Asbestos | Talk 11:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • delete--Boothy443 11:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete character doesn't even have a name, and the book is fairly obscure (though I admit it sounds like an interesting read). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not really notable. Too obscure. Inter 15:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 01:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 09:01, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Death in venice

[edit]

Entry on Swedish band. Google can't find it, and a member being killed by a flock of seagulls seems suspiciously hoaxy. Can anyone verify? I think a redirect to the famous novel should suffice. Mgm|(talk) 12:32, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete a member of a band killing an audience member during a show would have made worldwide headlines if it were true. This is probably some inside joke that's only funny if you know the people supposedly being parodied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. Raven42 14:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Hoax, but very creative. Inter 15:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, "Killed by a flock of seagulls" gets precisely 1 google hit, which at first glance seems neither relevant nor work-safe so I didn't investigate further. Thryduulf 16:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; this hoax and its VfD debate should be sent to BJAODN. --Idont Havaname 17:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Might be a good idea to Redirect this to Death in Venice. -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 23:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the novel by Thomas Mann. K1Bond007 04:50, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Death on wikipedia. GRider\talk 18:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've personally seen this show. The man who was killed was the brother of a friend of mine. How dare you trample his memory

Note: This comment was made by 193.10.51.253. Inter 14:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To proove to you that this is a very real band and was an important part of the stockholm music scene at the time I present to you the little doll that was sold on the bands homepage celibrating the memory of that strange and magical night. www.kalika.se/KA/Handdockor/riddare400.gif I now wih you take this information to heart and remove that stupid votes for delation notice.

    • The above comment is from 193.10.51.94. Note I have removed a space from the middle of the URL to make it valid. It appears to be a cloth doll in a knitted medieval knights outfit, carrying a knitted sword. Thryduulf 21:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Aww, a picture of a little knight doll! Oh, well that just proves everything in this article as absolute truth and I'd like to change my vote to... oh, wait. No it doesn't. Nevermind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:21, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 09:06, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Crazy Frog

[edit]

I created this page yesterday, in retrospect it was a mistake, I only started to research it when someone told me Verisign was responsible for the annoying ads, which I found minutely interesting. Basically, this is simply a ringtone that has been relentlessly advertised in britain (and apparently, germany), it's not encyclopedic or particularly notable, if anything a paragraph or external link on Web Humor would do. Sorry for the time wasting. Delete or Merge. -- taviso 12:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak delete a tiny meme that nobody is likely to remember in 20 days, much less 20 years. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is hardly a tiny meme. Several major commercial radio stations have been making use of this sound for many many months (if not years) now. Thanks to Wikipedia, I now know the detailed origins of this signature sound.  :-P —RaD Man (talk) 19:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I remember hearing this sound clip about four years ago and it's still around, now even famous. Enyclopedias excists to remember things for people who aren't able to remember it themselves for 20 years. bbx 13:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yeah it is a fad, but it is a very well known one, certainly it is here in the UK. I don't think this is any less notable than anything else on Category:Internet memes (indeed it is perhaps more notable than most of them as the craze has gone cross-media, in a way most of these other memes did not). Rje 15:01, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, For once. This is as worthy contender as the ones in Internet memes. Inter 15:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable fads are easily worthy of inclusion here on Wikipedia. GRider\talk 19:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. the best ARTICLE in the entire world. Bacchiad 08:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep. This really is the best article EVAR! Bouuuuum bom bom bedahm, Bom be barbedarm bedabedabedabeda... —RaD Man (talk) 19:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry to be so POV but strong delete - its an annoying ringtone like by chavs and their juvenile senses of humour. Maybe an article on Erik Wernquist should mention this? Selphie 12:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) blah
  • Keep. A great example of a meme ! Please keep... for a start i searched for it on wikipedia and was glad to see it was here, and shocked to see it was up for deletion! To give you an idea of how popular (successful) it is, here is a link to a BBC News article describing it's success. Generated GBP £10m ... and pretty much everyone in he UK has heard it / knows of it --RichCorb 16:44, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Megan1967 01:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - a fad, but notable - Jasoncart 11:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - A fad, and apparently 'Crazy Chicken' is the next to be released. Pure money spinning - PopUpPirate 11:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 09:07, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ebbinghaus Flum Thomas

[edit]

This is a hoax article and should be deleted. Ebbinghaus, Flum, and Thomas are authors of a well-known logic textbook. This article clearly doesn't even try to pretend to be an article about the textbook. It's possible that it's trying to explain a theorem attributed to these three mathematicians, but that seems highly unlikely given the incoherent jumble (not even an introductory sentence!) currently on the page. To me, it looks like someone took a logic text (maybe even Ebbinghaus, Flum, and Thomas) and just started writing random stuff from it. --C S 13:09, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Completely unintelligible, even to most professional mathematicians (I am one myself). I concur with everything Chan-Ho says above, except that I wouldn't call it a hoax as I don't think the intent was malicious. -- Jitse Niesen 15:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't make head-nor-tail of the article, and so I doubt it will be possible for anyone who could expand it to realise that. If it is attempting to explain a theorem it fails completely, and Wikipedia would be better served by a request for an article than this nonsense. Thryduulf 15:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The author tried to expand the article, for a period of about 4 days last November, but never really succeeded. No-one else has taken an interest, I suspect partly because no-one has been able to determine what the article was intended to be about. Assuming good faith I suspect difficulties editing articles and lack of time rather than a hoax. Delete and start again. Uncle G 18:27, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
  • I agree that the math is meaningless, but books are often nicknamed by their authors, so this article could be about the book. Is that the same as deleteing and starting over? If so, I second Sympleko 19:22, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As the nominator says, this appears to be an extract from a logic textbook. The contributor was struggling with the formatting, and another editor has then attempted to clean it up. No useful content IMO. Andrewa 20:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The text does not make any sense. EJ 14:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why bother with a vote? The page is patent nonsense. Any administrator can just whack it.--192.35.35.35 19:46, 3 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. Stormie 09:13, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Captain Groovy

[edit]

Band vanity which seems related to East 304, also on VfD. Xezbeth 14:44, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm always torn on indie bands. Where do we draw the line on notability? This article however isn't going places, and a Google search yields 537 hits, of which most isnt about this band. Delete. Inter 15:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. - Mailer Diablo 18:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 23:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. My basic policy on bands is: if they haven't released an album, and aren't otherwise notable (being the most popular band in Wichita or having a "totally new sound" doesn't equate notablitly) they aren't notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 07:59, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete, East 304 will kick your ass if you delete this page.
    • I wouldn't normally bother voting, but consider this a delete just to balance the previous. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:53, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ditto. BTW, I'm rather amused at the thought of having my ass kicked by a sockpuppet. First delete, then bring it on, meat!! - Lucky 6.9 18:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete If the purpose of the encyclopedia is to collect information about as many different aspects of the world as possible, to delete this page (which is not profane or libelous) would set a precedent dangerous to the aspirations of Wikipedia.ElScorcho717 [No such user --fvw*]
  • Delete --fvw* 23:35, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Stormie 09:11, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Forlorn hope

[edit]

A VERY tough one to Google, as not only is "Forlorn Hope" a popular title for poems, books, etc, but there's also at least TWO other bands with this name (one from Pennsylvania and one from New London, UK). So I'm going to go mostly by the article itself. Seems band vanity (bandity) and not notable. Claims to have released an EP, but Google for "Forlorn Hope" wilted (the title of the EP) brings no relevant results. Note the statement "The band will start performing at various concerts soon after May 2005" so they apparently have yet to play a single show. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete until they have proof of notability. Largely unknown local bands have no place here. --Idont Havaname 17:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unsure. A locally released EP may be notable for a band in Sri Lanka, if that's accurate and doesn't just mean they have burned their own CD-Rs. I like the term bandity, it's far better than fourorfiveboysinasuburbangaragecruft, but there are six of these guys and they may not be what they seem at first sight. No vote as yet. Andrewa 17:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, possible vanity. Megan1967 23:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable or unverifiable. As noted "Forlorn Hope" wilted gets no relevant hits. The only "Forlorn Hope" allmusic.com knows about has just one EP (4 songs), as well, but it's titled Bukkake Baby. Niteowlneils 18:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Forlorn hope should be a military stub. That is the origin of the phrase, and its most significan encyclopedic content would derive from various forlorn hopes. 132.205.45.110 20:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur. And it comes from the Dutch meaning "lost troop". Not sure of the spelling of the first word in Dutch (I have German, but little Dutch), but it's something like verlorene hoop. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:55, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • I believe that's it, yes (troop or ship? but yes.) Schissel : bowl listen 03:08, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Informational and unbiased. Does not violate Wikipedia rules. Allow for growth. z0mb1
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 09:12, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

North Kaiôshin

[edit]
  • delete too short , it's not even clear it is from Dragonball --Melaen 15:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete. I don't see how this can become an article. --Idont Havaname 17:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, nothing here even worth merging. Megan1967 23:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: not an article, fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 06:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quicksaving

[edit]

I don't think this is really deserving of its own article, the part that isn't a definition probably belongs in an article on computer gaming strategies, if it isn't already there. Thryduulf 15:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • comment: if you think something isn't deserving of its own article, then go ahead and merge it somewhere - there's no need to nominate it for deletion. You can do a merge and redirect on your own recognizance. -- John Fader 15:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep "Quicksaving" gets 1,990 Google hits and "quicksave" gets a further 45,600! Notable enough to have a small article on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, though a transwiki to Wiktionary also wouldn't hurt. Notability is established; I've seen this term used in quite a few game reviews. --Idont Havaname 17:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and wikify. The information for an excellent short article is already there. Andrewa 17:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per above reasons. - Mailer Diablo 18:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. --Matteh (talk) 21:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to saved game. -Sean Curtin 03:48, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur. Kappa 05:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. --JuntungWu 09:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it is a worthy article. --TracyRenee 13:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Needs a move to Quicksave or perhaps Quicksave (computer), but Keep. humblefool 02:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep' Yuckfoo 05:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per Sean Curtin. —Korath (Talk) 06:28, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with saved game K1Bond007 06:30, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems useful to link to this article from other articles about computer games. — Brim 07:24, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 06:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rigo Murillo

[edit]

Another person who failed to heed "Please do not create an article to promote yourself". This article was on vfd before, then moved to the copyvio page, then rewritten; anonymous author also reverted the vfd notice and blanked the previous vfd page. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • 53 Google hits -> delete, delete, delete! --Idont Havaname 17:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. CryptoDerk 21:54, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 23:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Ben Brockert (42) 04:01, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. non notable. Carole a 09:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 06:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clementine Kruczynski

[edit]

Character in the film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Nothing in here that isn't there, and the character isn't notable in any other way. The cocktail refered to was apparently an invention by the article's author (see WP:VfD/Clementine Kruczynski (Drink), Google search reveals no such cocktail). — Asbestos | Talk 16:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge. The film character is not significant enough for a page in addition to the one of the film. Martg76 19:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that there really is nothing in the stub that isn't already in Eternal Sunshine. — Asbestos | Talk 22:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • In that case, Redirect. Martg76 00:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Eternal Sunshine. Megan1967 23:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • She was nodded for an oscar for the role "AGAINST DELETION" (07:05, 27 Jan 2005. Anon's second edit. — Asbestos | Talk 09:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC))

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

Don't delete this.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 09:13, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Geoff Bunn

[edit]

Not notable. --fvw* 17:37, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

42 Google hits [10]. I get way more than that. dbenbenn | talk

  • Delete, unless evidence of his notability is provided. dbenbenn | talk 18:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. jni 08:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Not notable. Unfound even :) Longhair 10:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete/Redirect? My own article too! But ,yes, having reviewed the artists listed in Wikipedia I have to agree with the above. Sorry! (Newbie me!) But, having seen some of Bunn's stuff and so on, I wrote the article considering him/his work to be of sufficient interest. I wonder if there isn't scope for an Up-and-coming Artist(s) page or article? Or, as by definition, the names included would not yet be encyclopedic, would this be a non-starter. Any thoughts? Marcus22

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 09:13, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Bizarre Caverns

[edit]

I'm very sorry to say that this is a hoax. It's a shame, I'm sure it would be lots of fun to play. Nevertheless, I think we have to delete it. Nominated, with reluctance, by User:John Fader

  • delete -- John Fader 18:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, if it did exist it would be controversial for more things than a dragon with erect nipples. Thryduulf 19:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Pope 20:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. Move to BJAODN GeorgeStepanek\talk 21:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Curps 21:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a new game from the makers of the Cho Aniki series, apparently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:29, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per George's instructions, but no BJAODN, since this isn't funny. --Idont Havaname 03:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • From yesterday's deletion log:
    • 19:59, 2005 Jan 24 Quadell deleted Giant spider (content was: '{{deletebecause|silly vandalism}} The Giant spider is a famous creature that has appeared in 500 video games. Most...')
  • Couple that with the mention of giant spiders here, and 63.249.98.10's editing history. 2 plus 2 plus 2 equals Speedy delete as silly vandalism. Uncle G 13:06, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
  • Delete -- hoax, no URL to verify. Longhair 10:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 09:14, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Annahilt

[edit]

I believe this page is a vanity page or at the very least not strictly encyclopedic...

Al Clark 18:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 23:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable vanity. --Idont Havaname 03:07, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Dr Gangrene 11:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 09:14, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Keenan Reijnaert

[edit]

A page about an unknown high school student. In my humble opinion, clearly a vanity page. Dr Gangrene 19:17, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Since you barely beat me to adding {{subst:vfd}} for that very reason, Delete. Uncle G 19:46, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity stub. -- Curps 21:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clear vanity. GeorgeStepanek\talk 21:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 23:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable vanity. --Idont Havaname 03:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. I wish the kids who want a page in Wikipdia would spent the energy doing something to deserve it. Carole a 09:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 05:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ivan II of Bulgaria

[edit]

Unfortunately, this article has existed since last April - it is completely bogus. First of all it should be Ivan Asen II of Bulgaria (it is linked as Ivan II from Empire of Nicaea so I imagine that is my fault). Bulgaria was not known as Boldavia, it wasn't part of the Ottoman Empire yet, the Protestant Reformation did not occur in the 13th century, nor did the Black Plague, cellos did not exist yet, etc. Adam Bishop 19:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 19:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing my vote to keep, because of JRM's rewrite. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 02:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thryduulf 19:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • following the rewrite to a valid stub I change my vote to Keep. Thryduulf 21:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nonsense has been removed, and it is now a perfectly valid historical stub. GeorgeStepanek\talk 20:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thanks to Adam's useful pointers here and on IRC, I could turn it into a stub. Though I'd wager several people could have made a better article than I did, and I'd also wager that several people wish I hadn't done anything. Well, that's us wacky inclusionists for 'ya. JRM 20:51, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks JRM, keep it now. Is there a process where I can withdraw a nomination? Adam Bishop 06:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • You can just announce that you're withdrawing it: I have seen it done this way a few times. Removing the link from the VfD page appears to be optional. GeorgeStepanek\talk 07:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good stub with thanks to JRM. Both Britannica and Columbia have articles on this king. Capitalistroadster 09:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this rewritten version. GRider\talk 18:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that is has been re-written. Jayjg (talk) 22:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 05:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Snob

[edit]

My major problem with this article is that (1) it's a dicdef, and (2) it's way POV. It would be difficult to write this article from an NPOV perspective.

Furthermore, note that this is the traditional meaning of "snob" (a class ascendant) and out-of-tune with the most common American usage, which means "unpleasant, arrogant privileged person" and makes no claim as to class ascendancy. Paris Hilton is probably "snobby", by the Amer. def, in her behavior, but she's not a class ascendant (if anything in that regard, she's straining the ropes that hold her). EventHorizon talk 20:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a perfectly fine article; certainly way more than a dictdef. If you feel that it's POV, then feel free to apply the appropriate template. Fix what is bad; don't delete what is good. The article could do with some expansion, but that's true for the majority of our 450,000 articles. GeorgeStepanek\talk 20:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A well-recognized category of social behavior, well explicated in structural rather than judgmental terms, and a hub of apposite linkings needs no serious defense. Compare Elite, Bohemian, Dandy and Philistinism. An insufficiently populist POV might be the secret issue— to anyone whose idea of an NPOV definition is "unpleasant, arrogant privileged person" (!). Traces of wit might also raise anxiety among advocates of a wit-free Wikipedia, perhaps. --Wetman 21:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the encylopedic content with social class, add the other definition of the word to "snob" and move them both to wiktionary. Kappa 22:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is not a dicdef by any means, and it is not too POV. Yes it can most definately be improved, but it certainly should not be deleted. Certainly there should be an article on this topic , and the current article should form the basis for this rather than be deleted out of hand. Please remember that there are more uses for a term than those used in American English. Rje 02:11, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's quite a bit more here than can be written in most dicdefs. --Idont Havaname 03:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag as necessary. Samaritan 05:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep good little article. Capitalistroadster 09:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Certainly not a dicdef, what are people thinking, are they looking at the same article I am? Better look at the history... Looks like it was fine to me when nominated. There's no prohibition on articles containing a definition, the only issue is with articles that are merely a definition and have no obvious potential for further expansion. Perfectly little article as it stands, I don't see any glaring POV problems, other than being focussed on Thackeray and his era. Certainly capable of considerable further expansion. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see nothing prohibiting this article from maintaining NPOV. We have many many subjects more controversial than snobbery here on Wikipedia. GRider\talk 17:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 23:23, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

2 För En Yoghurt

[edit]

Seams not yet notable: 43 hits including some from wiki constellation. Gtabary 20:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 23:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A discography consisting solely of a six-track demo is not notable, unless one of their songs, for instance Rektorn är sliten (The headmaster is worn out), should happen to rise to global one-hit wonder status. If that is indeed what destiny holds for these aspiring punk stars, I promise to rewrite the article myself. Alarm 01:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable yet! --Idont Havaname 03:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems self-promotional. —Brim 08:51, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:23, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Terran unit and building statistics

[edit]

Just doesn't seem notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Smells suspiciously like a copyvio to me. Anyone got their Starcraft manual handy? Raven42 21:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, or Rewrite, possibly merging data into a larger article using a grid-style table to facilitate comparison of attributes. Deleting it for copyvio would require proof, though. Google, anyone? — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 22:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Starcraft. Megan1967 23:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if it is not a copyvio, this is totally unencyclopedic. Martg76 00:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to a Wikibooks game guide if it exists, otherwise just delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a copyvio from the Starcraft manual at least (I just checked), but still unencyclopedic. —Korath (Talk) 02:53, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cygnus X-9 Space Heresiarch or Heresiarch. Race: Featherless biped. Range: 1,000,000 to 5,000,000 millimeters. Equipment: Backpack-mounted notebook with extra pens. Rations: avocado and Tillamook cheese on sourdough bread. Will consume rotelli, linguini, capellini, or fusilli if available. Raided another planet in search of chocolate in the recent past. Assessment: Fancruft, not an article. Vote: Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm offended by this blatant ridicule of Starcraft. I must defend my honor. I hereby challenge you to a duel, speedy tags at thirty paces. Challenge withdrawn, you have 1700+ edits. I submit to your wisdom. Delete fancruft. --Plutor 17:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mikkalai 07:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't like the word fancruft and I'm not sure this applies, as this isn't even useful to fans, although it would be useful information for a game guide site. A link to said game guide site from one of the articles would be a more useful way to make the information available. In fact, here's the link: [11] (gee, look familiar?). -Aranel ("Sarah") 16:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 23:17, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

ConnectionLAN

[edit]

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 22:21, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

  • Delete. 337 hits. Local gamer group. Niteowlneils 22:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Leave it, it's not an advertisement nor a promotion. {from anon contributor of said article [12] Niteowlneils 23:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)}
  • Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable. Cdc 05:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 06:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Michael David Stamper

[edit]

The only Google hits I can find are for copies of this entry on Wikipedia. Article does not establish notability, and given that he's still in high school, I have my doubts. But, apparently, he can sure work a crowd! —Kelly Martin 22:29, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Woo, go Kentucky! Delete. CryptoDerk 22:32, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable vanity. --Idont Havaname 03:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Carole a 09:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 23:16, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:15, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Aw2xcd

[edit]

Non-notable software driver that I have to assume was shipped with something more significant, as it gets zero hits. OK with merge/redir if someone can figure out with what. Niteowlneils 23:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, hoax. Given that there are a lot of websites that give complex guides to every system process you can think of (try looking at the anti-spyware sites; some of them have the directories I'm talking about), if this gets zero Google hits, it doesn't exist. --Idont Havaname 03:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Mikkalai 07:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikiacc 18:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Neigel von Teighen 18:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Deb 18:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_January_24&oldid=1142647819"