Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 18

[edit]

Soft redirect to:Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:40, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Odili

[edit]

Notability not established, and odili naija -".net" jordan gets no relevant hits, and no other combinations seemed to find this individual. Or, if you'd rather, 'unverifiable'. Niteowlneils 23:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Notability not established. Vegaswikian 06:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as vanity. Pavel Vozenilek 09:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Could this be referring to Chuck Odili, the maintainer of Nigeriaworld.com? There seems to be some controversy on his actions. Still, I don't see the notability. Wipe 10:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic and non-notable. Hermione1980 23:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Xezbeth 19:38, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

HackCam

[edit]
  • Seems to be advertising. Delete. Slac speak up! 00:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. ✏ OvenFresh² 01:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the article about the engine if we have it. 131.211.210.15 07:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, forgot to log in. Mgm|(talk) 07:42, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article may be written as a promotion for the product, but it's factual enough to be useful. Nor is a merge called for -- HackCam is used with Counterstrike, not a feature of it. ---Isaac R 19:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I asked the creator of HackCam to write something about it in wikipedia to provide further detail to this relatively new tool. Added criticism to make the article a bit more balanced. Dabljuh 06:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete videogame trivia CDC (talk) 20:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree. The article talks about how the software detects cheats. Interesting even to a non-gamer like me. ---Isaac R 21:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this please Yuckfoo 00:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. Despite User:Dabljuh's efforts, the article still needs a bit of NPOV-editing, but the article seems to be encyclopedic enough aside from that. Hermione1980 23:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Aardvarks (band) CDC (talk) 18:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aardvarks (band)

[edit]

Notability. Vanity/advertising. Amateur church band. Delete along with Jamming in the Aattic (2004) and Written & Recorded (2003) --The JPS 00:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Redirect to Aardvark. The JPS 08:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to aardvark like the first edit on the page. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 02:54, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Aardvark. Not notable band vanity. Megan1967 07:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the redirect already existed in the edit history, this does not require a VfD, I have been Bold and reverted to the redirect. Dsmdgold 15:05, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, sorry I didn't realise that. Unfortunately someone else has since been bold and reverted it back again. I've done the honours. The JPS 15:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I've moved this page to Aardvarks (band) and will make Aardvarks a redirect, this should keep the anon. editor who reverted the redirect happy. As for the bands page Delete Dsmdgold 17:20, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Aardvarks (band) per WP:NMG. (Keep the redirect at Aardvarks.) —Korath (Talk) 19:24, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • oh, the vfd is getting complicated. Agree with Korath. The JPS 20:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Aardvarks (band) as nonnotable per Korath. (Closing admin should note that the original VfD was for Aardvarks, hence the "redirect" votes at the top of the VfD.) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 22:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Assuming that this the consensus is for deletion, the references in List of songs whose title does not appear in the lyrics and List of protest songs need to be rooted out. Dsmdgold 23:36, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:45, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Jamming in the Aattic (2004)

[edit]

Notability. Vanity/advertising. Amateur church band. Delete along with Aardvarks (band) and Written & Recorded (2003) --The JPS 00:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, reasoning as said above Master Thief Garrett 22:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN Dsmdgold 23:34, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons above. Hermione1980 23:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 17:46, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Written & Recorded (2003)

[edit]

Notability. Vanity/advertising. Amateur church band. Delete along with Jamming in the Aattic (2004) and Aardvarks (band) --The JPS 00:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, reasoning as said above Master Thief Garrett 22:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN Dsmdgold 23:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons above. Hermione1980 23:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 17:47, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

List of Interstate that started out with multiple discontiguous segments

[edit]
  • I'm not oppossed to articles about highways per se, but if someone were to ask me for an example of an unencyclopedic list, this is what I'd use. Slac speak up! 00:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • An utterly meaningless list -- any Interstate highway that was built between multiple states would have been built in segments. More interesting would be such a list of currently discontinuous such highways -- I-95 would be one good example. It has a break in New Jersey and is likely to stay that way for at least the next decade. Haikupoet 00:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There was a time when some Interstates had discontiguous segments (e.g. discrete freeway segments). When I-75 started, it had an independent segment between Grayling, MI and Michigan State Highway 32 near Gaylord, MI, so keep. --SuperDude 01:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not a reason for keeping. How is this information notable? Slac speak up! 01:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Many Interstates had, or started with, discontinous segments, plus the exact definition is a bit nebulous. Also problematic title. Particularly notable or unique Interstates in this regard could probably be mentioned on the main Interstate Highway article, instead of a separate article. Niteowlneils 01:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please, please don't let Wikipedia degenerate into the sum of all trivia. -- Dcfleck 01:41, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • Delete. An article about the building of the Interstates, describing the process of integrating multiple segments, could be encyclopedic. This list, however, has virtually zero information content. FreplySpang (talk) 02:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Roadcruft, trivial, etc. android↔talk 02:22, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons stated. I'm more convinced than ever that SuperDude115 and SamuraiClinton are one and the same. Result: More cruft on VfD. Sigh... - Lucky 6.9 02:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, almost every Interstate fits here. The information could be included in the articles about the Interstates, along with opening dates. --SPUI (talk) 12:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per SPUI. RussBlau 19:09, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. RickK 21:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but perhaps list as requested article something along the line suggested by FreplySpang, unless (s)he can start it. Maybe it should just be a section in the parent article as Niteowlneils suggested, unless there are enough reference materials available to write a good non-copyvio article. Barno 00:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Who would look this up?! --Idont Havaname 15:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Such lists are joke w/o encyclopedic value. Pavel Vozenilek 09:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of Interstate Highways, or list on that page's talk page. Clearly someone found this information useful. Have you asked them why they added it before voting it for deletion? Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it's not important in a certain field. Babe Ruth is a baseball god but if you don't know anything about baseball then you might think that he's unencyclopedic. If you are into highway construction or highway history then this list may have value. Any highway construction experts want to confirm or refute this? - Pioneer-12 12:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The only thing to merge would be one line saying every Interstate of sufficient length has had discontinuous segments as it was being built. And the creator (SuperDude115) commented above. I am a roadgeek and know a lot in this area, and this list is rather useless. --SPUI (talk) 13:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I defer to SPUIs expert opinion as a roadgeek. Changing my vote to Delete - Pioneer-12
    • SPUI is right. The thing is that while Interstates were built with 90% Federal funding, they were built by state highway departments, so there would be discontinuities anyway until the various parts were connected. Moreover, within states they were often built in segments. Haikupoet 16:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that something like this page would be useful, as it documents the specific cases when the in-between nonupgraded sections were actually signed as a TEMPORARY Interstate. It might be useful to have a page with more details of that (probably actually combined with a list of Interstates signed as FUTURE). More details would be nice, as some of these may have only existed on maps, while old signage photos could prove the existence (and believe me, those signage photos do often exist, though they are many times very hard to find - the state DOT is one option, as many have photolog systems). --SPUI (talk) 17:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, for instance [1] has two photos of temporary I-15 and I-15E shields. --SPUI (talk) 17:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 17:48, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Queen Feril

[edit]

A Runescape character and the webmistress of a Runescape website. Doesn't seem notable in either capacity. Meelar (talk) 00:49, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Runesource only gets 54 google hits and any MMOG avatar is almost by definition non-encyclopedic in and of themselves (particularly major avators may deserve a mention in the respective articles, but not articles of their own). Rje 21:06, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, reasoning as said above Master Thief Garrett 22:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and unencyclopedic. Hermione1980 23:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Xezbeth 19:40, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wendell Cox

[edit]

apparent autobiographical page Delete AYArktos 00:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, apparent vanity. Tempshill 23:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep--I've heard of this guy from browsing through the myriad forums at Skyscraperpage forums. His website and his opposition are both notable in the transportation and urban planning communities. --Combuchan 01:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) Edit--fixed the link.
  • Keep. What Combuchan said. - Pioneer-12 12:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Secretcurse 14:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – ABCD 22:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joelville

[edit]

Non-notable website. 25 displayed hits, many of which are for other uses. Alexa rank of 2,329,618 and falling fast. Anon's only contribs--likely 'auto-biographical'. Niteowlneils 01:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki, merge, delete. (already transwikied) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edmeston, New York (Subarticles)

[edit]

These 20+ articles about the town of Edmeston, New York contain very detailed data about a small New York town over the past 250 years. Some of the pages contain oddly-formatted or frivolous text; letters, poems, pov comments glorifying the town. Others contain one-line bios of major town figures (and list where those figures have been referenced in the wider world).

Pre-VfD History of deletion dispute:

  • One of the articles was listed as a speedy deletion candidate by Dom ([207.99.6.125]).
  • Danny mentioned this on IRC, starting a prolonged debate; he then deleted all of the Edmeston subarticles as "non encyclopedic."
  • Over the course of the debate, Terryfoote and Raul654 concurred strongly that they should be deleted; others thought they should be kept in some form, merged down to only encyclopedic content, or generally debated on-wiki. I'm undeleting and listing them on VfD as they were not proper speedy-deletion candidates.

I am not sure how I feel about these articles yet, but I think creating this set of articles was a great effort on Nonenmac's part. Thanks for putting time into wikifying this stuff and making it beautiful, even if it's not all appropriate for WP. +sj + 01:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Votes

[edit]
  • I agree that these articles should probably be moved to a more appropriate place. I will do it but give me a week to get everything copied out. We have put a lot of work into this and don't want to lose it all. Nonenmac 01:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
AND whoever removed the Edmeston, New York (Chronology) article and all the subarticles, please put it back long enough so I can copy it. I was given no notice that they would be deleted Nonenmac 01:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for puting the articles back. I will copy them out and find another home for them. Then you can delete them if the votes direct it.Nonenmac 02:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • From reading through a selection of the articles, it looks like this is a compilation of primary sources on Edmeston. As such, it would be a prime candidate for transwikiing to one of the other projects, either Wikisource or Wikibooks. --Carnildo 02:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Traswiki and delete from the Wikipedia namespace--nixie 02:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete ; Move it if you must, but this is not at all appropriate here. Most of the stuff is a bunch of signed letters - looks like a good candidate for Wikisource. --mav 02:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no question that this should be deleted. On the other hand, this is excellent material for Wikisource, and the author has agreed to that, at my request, I might add. Delete and move to Wikisource. Danny 02:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--however, do not treat this vote as a precedent. If someone created encyclopedia articles on these topics, I would vote to keep. Meelar (talk) 03:03, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into a single model article at "Edmeston, New York."
    Delete leaf pages.
    Transwiki to Wikisource as appropriate. +sj + 03:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Why not a separate "History of Edmeston, New York" article? Because the town isn't important enough for people to expect to find an article by that title.
    Why not a subpage? Because subpages are often considered harmful in the main namespace.
    How easy will the merge be? The source material is not in a very natural format for merging; different sections have wilely varying tones. But the sectioning into people/schools/businesses/churches/houses is excellent (and a model for future city articles), so an improved outline would not be difficult.
    • Initially I was excited to see such a well-crossreferenced collection of local information, but then I saw there were places where the subarticles had random text that suggested someone (the uploader? the authors of some original source material?) was just fooling around. And clearly the pages need extensive sourcing to avoid being removed as original research. I'd like to hear Nonenmac weigh in on these points.
    • Re: Wikisourcing raw content -- Nonenmac, is this actually source material from some archive? If so, please list the source and move it to wikisource; you can still link out tne Wikipedia articles with w:Article name instead of Article name. +sj +
  • Merge into Edmeston main article. Capitalistroadster 04:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this stuff should be submitted to Wikisource. --Michael Snow 05:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge either to Edmeston main article or to a single article on Edmeston (history). I prefer merge-and-delete because I don't think the individual article names are useful as redirects, but they can be left in place if it's too much work to perform a proper GFDL-friendly merge-and-delete. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment I'd like to see us cut Nonenmac some slack. I see no harm in unevenness of coverage, that's endemic to Wikipedia, so the fact that Edmeston is covered ten or fifty times more thoroughly than other towns is OK. I do not like to see the material splattered around a score of separate articles. Given that 32K is hallowed by tradition as an acceptable article length, and that there's general agreement that 32K is not a hard limit—I think George W. Bush is over 70K now—I'd suggest that the information be merged into as small a number of articles, preferably one, that the merge be done as soon as possible, and gradually cleaned up and trimmed of extraneous matter over time.
One humongously long undisciplined article that needs cleanup is perfectly acceptable to me.
Many of the source quotations, "oral-history-like" material should be trimmed down or omitted. They should illustrate some point that's being said about the town, not just appear unexplained on their own. The full versions can go in Wikisource.
I don't think there could be any possible objection to Nonenmac keeping any or all of this material as subpages of his user page while he's working on it, as the work is obviously Wikipedia-related.
In the Wikipedia main namespace, the final result should look like a long, detailed article about Edmeston, not like the loose contents of an "Edmeston historic archive" file drawer in a dusty cabinet in the back room of the public library. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into a comprehensive article. Articles by city AND by decade are a bit superfluous. Radiant_* 14:28, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. JYolkowski // talk 18:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge any encyclopedic information into the main Edmeston article, I don't think redirects are really neccessary. Rje 21:08, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki the source documents, merge the articles back into the town article, and viciously prune. RickK 21:20, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki pretty much everything to Wikisource. Like Sj, I at first thought this was totally legitimate, though vastly detailed ("1901: Steam heat was installed in the Gaskin House."), but then I saw some of the more ridiculous and non-encyclopedic, non-POV stuff ("All these brave, hardy, adventurous, fearless, industrious pioneers endured many hardships and sacrifices while clearing the land and paving the way for our comfortable homes today.") and decided to vote transwiki. Thanks to Sj and various others in #wikipedia for championing the VfD-ing of these articles, rather than their straight-out deletion, as per Danny. #wikipedia is great - I feel proud to have participated in such a momentous discussion. I believe this is a rather important topic, and one that may come into more scrutiny once Wikipedia and its sister sites grow a little more. Hopefully such detailed articles of the future will not also contain the sort of content unfit for Wikipedia that is found in this set of articles. — flamingspinach | (talk) 23:03, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • Transwiki the source documents, viciously prune and merge what's left back into the town article, and delete the original articles. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've copied the contents of all of these subarticles to Wikisource, where I agree they should be. I'll try to intgrate some of the pertinent information into the Edmeston, New York article in the future. I wonder how many man-hours were wasted on this discussion. If someone had just suggested that Wikisource was a better home for this stuff, I would have done it long ago. Nonenmac 12:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I like Dpbsmith's analogy: like the loose contents of an "Edmeston historic archive" file drawer in a dusty cabinet in the back room of the public library, but I can assure you that cabinet is not dusty. Nonenmac
  • Transwiki, merge, delete subarticles as per Jayjg. (Exactly as I said in IRC. How'd I miss this listing until now?) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki, merge, delete, as per previous suggestions. Since Nonenmac appears to have already copied the appropriate subarticles to Wikisource, merge and delete should be the only steps necessary. I think this three-step process adequately addresses all the major concerns. --MikeJ9919 22:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:41, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sabine Ehrenfeld

[edit]

Tagged with {{cleanup-importance}} since February. The article just says that this person is featured in Overstock.com television commercials. Her listings on IMDB only lists a few minor roles. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, does not meet the criteria for biography --nixie 03:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not even close to encyclopedic. Rje 21:12, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Pavel Vozenilek 09:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The commercials have gotten some press coverage recently, but she's a very minor figure even with that in mind. Delete unless someone wants to significantly expand. Secretcurse 14:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to tropical cyclone. Postdlf 00:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Climate

[edit]
Entire page consists of:

Hurricane climate refers to both the climatalogy of hurricanes and to the role climate factors play in modulating hurricane activity. For more information go to Hurricane Climate

So, one very unclear and poorly-written sentance, followed by a promotional link. Delete. -- Dcfleck 01:37, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • Delete. Link spam. - Lucky 6.9 05:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not only is the article uninformative, but the anon who wrote it originally has been flagrantly flouting the VfD notice--it's been edited eight times since the notice went up. Kill it.Dave1898 12:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • There's nothing inherently wrong with trying to fix up an article up for deletion — in fact, the prospect of imminent demise has improved many pages greatly. However, I don't see that the changes that have been made to this article have improved its coherence. There's nothing here that hasn't been better said at Hurricane or Climatology; at best, this article could be a redirect.

The promotional link is gone now. -- Dcfleck 12:31, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

  • Ask some climatologist about importance of the term Pavel Vozenilek 02:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 rewritten article. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Hinchman & Grylls

[edit]

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}} for two weeks, there is so little information about this company in this article that it looks like an ad. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Without cleanup Delete Vegaswikian 06:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Without cleanup Delete Master Thief Garrett 07:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If notable someone will create it and better. Pavel Vozenilek 09:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Call off your dogs, I just cleaned it up now. This is a pretty major company, history in this Architecture Week article. Please, could people just do a little research instead of just listing stuff because they haven't got a clue about it? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It is NOT about whether it is notable or not! Please understand that! At the time of listing it looked like an ad. The User therefore did the right thing, WP does not allow ads. Whether or not it was about a valuable company is entirely immaterial, an article on Microsoft would be put up for Vfd if it looked like an ad, *unless* the article was cleaned up in the duration of the Vfd. Since you have cleaned it up, it is now fine. If the article had been at its current state at the time the User came across it, it would not have been listed for Vfd at all. I hope you understand. Have a nice day. Master Thief Garrett 02:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If an article looks like an ad, edit it so it no longer looks like an ad. Is that so difficult? But on the subject of the article as originally listed, it said this:
Founded in Detroit, Michigan in 1853. Known as the first architectural firm in the U.S.
Continues practice under the name SmithGroup
Then there was a link to http://www.smithgroup.com/.
In other words a perfectly normal business stub giving the barest essential information on a corporation. This article was wrongly listed, and very nearly deleted because the deletion policy was not followed and nobody could be bothered to look beyond their nose. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 00:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somashiandan Software Solutions

[edit]

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}} since January, it currently looks like an ad. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 00:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somesh jena

[edit]

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}} since January. I cannot find anything that is notable about this person. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 08:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I had forgotten about this. Still non-notable. jni 08:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 09:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:43, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Bulbapedia

[edit]

Vanity. ✏ OvenFresh² 01:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep I see no reason to delete it. I created the article mostly because it was already linked to, also I have seen articles for other wikis on Wikipedia. Just because Bulbapedia is relatively new doesn't make this a vanity article. I say it stays. Jeff02 03:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Actually, if you use the "what links here" tool, you'll find that no other articles link to it besides the List of wikis, VfD pages, and Jeff02's user page. (Did you mean something else by "already linked to?") The entry on List of wikis ought to be enough for a relatively new Wiki. android↔talk 04:23, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 08:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:WIN. Radiant_* 15:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to clarify, I know this is not a place to advertise, and I am not trying to. I just saw the link in list of wikis and decided to add the article. I'm new here and I don't want anyone to get the wrong impression of me.Jeff02 20:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unfourtunately. I had no idea it was on the list of wikis, so I think that's adequate. There's really not much to say about it, to be honest. MToolen 00:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please, please, please (Ryan) — (Ryan is 4.4.46.192; his first edit.)
  • Merge into pokemon (if notable), delete rest. Pavel Vozenilek 02:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't understand, this is a separate Wiki of its own, why talk about it here? Its content is ever-changing, it's not like Encyclopaedia Britannica where you can detail each edition and whatnot. If anything, list it on one of the "lists of Pokemon" pages. It appears to me that you two are wanting this to be kept here purely as an advertisement. I'm sorry, but that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Master Thief Garrett 07:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if other Wikis have articles; otherwise, delete. Ketsy 19:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 19:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spouff

[edit]

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}} since March. This is a fantasy world created by an 18-year old Australian author, K.J. Taylor, whom I cannot find any credible and notable third party references about. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • According to her website, she has yet to be published. Wait for the book to demonstrate its notability before creating any articles about its contents. Delete Slac speak up! 03:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, as said, until the author becomes noteworthy. Master Thief Garrett 03:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 09:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete until she is published. Secretcurse 14:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, after it's published we can argue about whether it's notable enough. --Dcfleck 23:00, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 19:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sprayway

[edit]

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}} since February, it currently is a three-sentence ad. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suidakra

[edit]

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}} for two weeks, there is no music notability. The last paragraph in this three-paragraph article is more suited for a POV personal editorial. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Syuzin

[edit]

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}} for two weeks, it is more of a three-sentence promo. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Fully Down

[edit]

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}} since March, the content for this one-sentence substub has not changed since December. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete no improvement. Vegaswikian 07:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 08:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 19:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tina Chow

[edit]

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}}, this three-sentence substub really has not changed since it was first created back in November. There is nothing that is encyclopedic about it. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, short memorial that may or may not be true--nixie 03:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 08:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, millions of people had dies from AIDS. Pavel Vozenilek 02:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless Michael Chow is someone of importance, then neither is his wife. Also may not be true, or if it is then it may be POV. And, as above, this isn't Wikibituaries! Master Thief Garrett 00:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - who are these people? Grutness|hello? 05:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empirical solution of the Monty Hall problem

[edit]

I doubt this is encyclopædic. Would it be more suited to WikiSource?

If it is kept I don't see why it shouldn't be merged into Monty Hall problem.

  • Nominated by Blotwell
  • Merge with Monty Hall problem. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, Cleanup so it is less technical. The technical stuff and the PERL source code makes it more intimidating to read. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • On second thought, Transwiki to Wikisource. Monty Hall problem already has a non-technical explanation to its solution. Zzyzx11 | Talk 07:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikisource – Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place for source code. (Also, consider a rewrite in a more accessible language. This problem is often studied in math curricula, and I don't think it's common for math students to learn Perl.) android↔talk 04:13, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Send the source code to Wikisource, but mention empirical testing in the Monty Hall article (not necessarily this solution) and redirect. Meelar (talk) 07:26, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. Megan1967 08:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think something like this would be very useful in Monty Hall problem as a last resort to settle doubt. However, it is too long to merge as is. I've written my own version of the concept and will post it in Monty Hall problem. Gazpacho 09:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a similar program in Java is already listed under Monty Hall problem. Radiant_* 15:23, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikisource and put a link in the Monty Hall problem article. RickK 21:24, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. I noticed that there was a category for source code in Wikisource. This would fit perfectly there. Chris 02:04, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 16:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Torpedo Moskau

[edit]

A one-sentence substub that has been marked as {{cleanup-importance}} for three weeks. It just says, "Torpedo Moskau is a German punk rock band from Hamburg." So what? Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as a single-sentence non-article with no content. I've hung a {{del}} template on it. Funny thing is, there's more content in the templates! - Lucky 6.9 03:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless compliance with Wikimusic Project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 04:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but not speedy--this clearly has content, namely that Torpedo Moskau is a German punk band. That's enough for it to escape speedy. Meelar (talk) 07:05, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Doggone loopholes.  :^) Just so long as it goes bye-bye...which seems likely. - Lucky 6.9 18:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to FC Torpedo Moscow, a football club from Russia. Grue 18:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Western Hupeh

[edit]

This is linked to from Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). Impossible to verify, because Google comes up empty on "Battle of Western Hupeh" (or Hubei, the modern spelling). Likely vandalism because this anon 63.26.218.73 (talk · contribs) simultaneously also created now-deleted Honan-Hupeh Campaign with contents hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. -- Curps 02:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: the article Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) probably needs some editing, to trim some battles whose existence can't be verified. -- Curps 02:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable to put it mildly. Beijing isn't even near Hubei. Can't find any reference to this battle on the Chinese or Japanese Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) pages. Kappa. P.S. I guess there might have been a battle in western Hebei that fits this description. 18:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified. Dsmdgold 19:46, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Ubiquitous computing. – Rich Farmbrough 16:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiquitous Software

[edit]

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}} since February. There is nothing that is encyclopedic or noteworthy in its two sentences. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 01:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Garden

[edit]

No evidence of notability - not-encyclopedic Johntex 03:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete appears to be a ad to get votes on his website--nixie 07:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 08:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. The article cannot be deleted at the moment due to block compression errors, but has been blanked and protected. Postdlf 00:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slogan 'Death to the Kikes'

[edit]

Article about a particular use of a particular phrase, perhaps newsworthy several years ago, but just an expression now that nobody would look up.}} --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Individual hate slogans generally don't need their own articles. Firebug 04:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable phrase. Gazpacho 06:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, or have a limitless number of "Death to foo" or "Die, foo!" articles (surely every conceivable epithet has been used in some march, protest, or other occasion of at least passing notability). -- 8^D gab 13:23, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • Death to this article —Wahoofive | Talk 16:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not even the real slogan, it's a translation, and the article itself gives other possible translations (and frankly, "Death to the yids" is probably closer). Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anti-semitic edits should be eliminated on sight for the good of society. --Elitcher 03:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the information in the article is correct, although the slogan "Beat the kikes, save Russia" ("Bey zhidov, spasai Rossiyu") is more widespread. Yep, antisemitism is commonplace in Russia, what a shame. Grue 18:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't you think zhid should be "yid", not "kike"? Jayjg (talk) 20:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • And just out of curiousity, what is the non-pejorative Russian word for "Jew"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • "Yevrey". And yes, "yid" is a better translation for "zhid". Grue 11:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, "yid" is a far better term, both technically and connotation-wise. When I read "Kike" it meant nothing to me, but "yid" makes me think of "Yiddish" and thus I have an idea of what the article's about. So *if* (big if!) this is to be kept, it should be renamed "Death to the Yids!" or similar. Master Thief Garrett 00:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article on Tatyana Sapunova is better written, researched, and NPOV. Plus the bad translation, the anti-Semitic title, and the unlikeliness of anything else ever happening involving the phrase. The phrase is not encyclopedic; the event is — and the event already has a page devoted to its protagonist, Tatyana Sapunova. So there's no reason to keep it. (I also agree with [[User:BD2412] that it's about time we devoted an article to the intricacies of "Freeze, rebel scum!")
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 rewritten article. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Arts Guitar

[edit]

A one-sentence substub that has been tagged with {{cleanup-importance}} since March. It just reads, "Mike McGuire and Al Carness founded Valley Arts Guitar in the early 1970s in North Hollywood, Los Angeles, California." So what? Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • It seems to be a store formerly frequented by a few VIPs [2] No vote —Wahoofive | Talk 04:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails to establish notability. Megan1967 08:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't establish notability, smacks of advertising to me. Rje 00:14, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment-expanded this, although I think a merge and redirect as a section of Gibson (the current owner) would be appropriate until such time as a Valley Arts fanatic chooses to expand it even further. Soundguy99 16:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Pilcher

[edit]

Vanity biography

  • delete Obvious vanity biography by a student Samw 03:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. The JPS 08:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep 'cos her friend Ben rocks!!! err, on second thoughts Delete as vanity. Rje 00:16, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. vanity. - Marcika 23:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vita Andersen

[edit]

This person's only claim to fame is that she is the half sister of Erwin Neutzsky-Wulff and that she wrote some minimalistic autobiographies that are not specified in that article. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aage Neutzsky-Wulff

[edit]

Just because a person is a father of a notable author does not necessarily mean that he is notable enough to have his own article. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable in his own right. Mgm|(talk) 07:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The article does indicate that he wrote poetry, the only question is, how important of a poet was he? Knowing nothing about Danish poetry makes me reluctant to vote. I will note that the Danish language Wikipedia, which has 24,223 articles does not have an article about him. Dsmdgold 14:52, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Ejrrjs | What? 22:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with his son's article if not notable in his own right. Parents are somewhat influential in their children's development. Kappa 19:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DKU

[edit]

A video game neologism. It also doesn't help that a "See also" contains a link to Stephen Hawking. --Chill Pill Bill 03:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja Strike Force

[edit]

Non-notable subgroup of a contestably notable hacker group. In other words, vanity. Delete. --Sn0wflake 03:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. CDC themselves are noteworthy, largely because of the extremely popular Back Orifice program, but this subgroup isn't. Firebug 04:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm a member of cDc (we've done a lot more than BO, btw), though, so maybe that should be taken into account. --Myles Long 04:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I doubt it. The fact that you are a member of CULT OF THE DEAD COW doesn't seem relevant at all. The fact that CULT OF THE DEAD COW has done more than Back Orifice would be relevant were we discussing the CULT OF THE DEAD COW article. But we aren't. We're discussing Ninja Strike Force. Are you a member of Ninja Strike Force? Can you include in this article, which currently reads like a combined membership roster (Wikipedia is not a directory) and community noticeboard (Wikipedia is not a free hosting service), any reason that it is encyclopaedia-worthy? Remember that stuff that is too secret for Wikipedia won't help. Uncle G 11:21, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
      • Yawn. No, I'm not a member of NSF, but I do have a vested interest in its well-being, that's all I meant. The NSF isn't a subgroup, either...it's more like a semi-autonomous collective under the cDc umbrella. But whatever. I didn't mean that cDc's having done more than BO was relevant to this discussion; I was merely responding to the previous "delete" vote that seemed to imply that it did. I was actually about to suggest that the NSF article be reverted to a redirect to CULT OF THE DEAD COW, but I see that you've already suggested that. So, that's my vote. Redirect for now, until when/if there's ever more notable content. And what does Sn0wflake mean by cDc being "contestably notable?" Just curious. I have no interest in arguing about this. --Myles Long 12:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • It becomes clear now. Your original paragraph can be read two ways. I read it as your putting forward the fact that you are a cDc member as the actual rationale for keeping this article, rather than as your simply providing full disclosure of a personal bias. I cannot answer your question about what Sn0wflake wrote; but it wasn't really addressed to me. In turn my second question still stands, addressed to the world in general. Uncle G 16:37, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I realize that my original comment was ambiguous. I just meant to disclose personal bias. And no, right now, I don't think the NSF is particular encyclopedic. Hence my vote for redirect. That isn't to say that it will not someday be encyclopedic. --Myles Long 17:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo.Megan1967 08:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Take out the membership directory and the community noticeboard, and the only content that is left is either content that we can already find in CULT OF THE DEAD COW or a nearly-substub description of an apparently less-than-stellar low-budget martial-arts film. Redirect (nothing to merge) to CULT OF THE DEAD COW unless someone writes something worthwhile about the movie. Uncle G 11:21, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
    • Given GRider's recent additions to the article (which I think constitute someone writing "something worthwhile about the movie"), I am changing my vote back to Keep, where my vote shall stay. --Myles Long 18:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • May I ask why? Just curious. The movie seems to warrant its own article now, in the very least.--Myles Long 19:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, at least the movie should stay. Grue 17:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand the movie. merge the CULT OF THE DEAD COW stuff to that article, leaving only a link at the top of the page. I also don't understand why the disambig template is there. Thryduulf 23:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this please its a real movie Yuckfoo 00:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand the film and merge the cDc content into its parent article. Next. —RaD Man (talk) 07:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, now that the movie information is there, merge the cult stuff to its article. (I can understand why this page was originally nominated, and would have voted to delete if the page had remained the way it was when it the tag was added)--BaronLarf 08:26, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, at least as a movie (GRider's been doing some good after all). If the CDC stuff is merged with the CDC article, then a link should remain at the top of the page --Kieran 13:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

National-Anime

[edit]

Non-notable website vanity. Delete. --Sn0wflake 03:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 08:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Del notability not established. —msh210 17:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Online Storytimes

[edit]

Interesting, but not exactly notable. Delete. --Sn0wflake 04:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Advertisement. Ejrrjs | What? 22:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Del advertisment. —msh210 17:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Robert. – ABCD 00:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert (disambiguation)

[edit]

None of the articles linked on this disambiguation page actually need disambiguation. They all refer to people named Robert, but none of them are people who are known simply as "Robert" --- Isaac R 04:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Robert. The list of "famous Roberts" is pretty useless though, don't merge. We've got dozens of similar pages; this one's more legit than Joan, for example. —Wahoofive | Talk 04:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • So you want searches for "Robert (disambiguation)" to redirect to "Robert"? That doesn't make any sense. ---06:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Above unsigned comment by Isaac R —Wahoofive | Talk 16:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree that it's silly, but redirects are cheap and harmless. Anyway, no one's actually going to search for "Robert (disambiguation)". Maybe you meant wikilink. —Wahoofive | Talk 16:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • No, I mean "search". The main purpose of a redirect page is to help with searches. If the name of the page is something nobody ever searchs for, that purpose isn't served. You could still link to it, but you usually want to avoid linking to redirect pages. Especially when the name of the redirect page is "Robert (disambiguation)"!!!! ---Isaac R 20:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Comment: Searching is one of the purposes for a redirect page but hardly the "main purpose" and certainly not the only purpose. Redirects also preserve attribution history (a requirement of GFDL), prevent broken links, aid in accidental linking, etc. See Wikipedia:Redirect and meta:redirect for more. Rossami (talk) 22:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • You're right. My statement of the purpose of redirects was much too narrow, and there are many other purposes. But you haven't demonstrated that any of those purposes is served by having a redirect page named "Robert (disambiguation)". ---Isaac R 23:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Robert. Wikipedia not being paper and all, I see no harm (and maybe some utility) in having the famous Roberts on the page. -- 8^D gab 05:52, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
    • The harm is that this is doesn't follow the rules for when to disambiguate. It may sound terminally anal, but there have to be some limits on what we include -- and this is well outside them. ---Isaac R 06:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I stumbled across this when trying to write up Saint Robert. In most cases, given name articles go to the most famous person known only by that name if there is only one. Otherwise, they're disambiguations. After I saw the wretchedness of the Robert article, where it wasn't a dab but rather yet another bar-bet trivia game "List of," I decided to manually merge in the people who needed to be disambiguated, and then let the silliness go forth. If Robert is a proper dab, then there is no need for Robert (disambiguation), and it should be deleted as duplicate content. Further, I would love to see the "list of favorite Roberts" have a mysterious accident in the night and disappear from the Robert page as well. Geogre 20:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
BTW, no articles link to Robert (disambiguation). Geogre 20:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Also, I realize now that the above was not clear. Here is a chronology, as best as I can see it:
Someone wrote Robert as a "List of Famous Roberts."
When that conflicted with the usual Wikipedia practice, the answer (!) was to create a new page called Robert (disambiguation) rather than knocking the stuffing out of Robert.
When I went to write up the saint, I was full of outrage, so I looked up all the "Robert of" people I could find and listed them in Robert above the silly list. I left the silly list as something not worth fighting over.
Given that the Robert article now has that disambiguation, there is no need for the disambiguation page as a separate entity. I'm not responsible for the "Famous Robert" stuff, and I would love to see it go away altogether. Any editor can do that, of course. Once the disambig. page goes away, the Robert page should get the dab tag, and then it will be in order to delete all that trivia contest stuff. Geogre 23:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Robert. Tony Jin | (talk) 23:49, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's two votes to merge with Robert, but still no positive statement to justify having a list of people named "Robert". What's the utility of list of people whose connection with each other is their first name? ---Isaac R 23:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this kind of list belongs anywhere, it should be named List of people named Robert. However, I think Special:Allpages/Robert does a much better job of listing the more than 3,000 articles on people named Robert. Gdr 22:36, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ok, so folks were arguing that Robert (disambiguation) should be merged into Robert. That has been done. Now that it has been done, the only question that remains is whether or not to have a redirect from Robert (disambiguation) to Robert. I assume no one thinks such a thing is logical? Since no articles link to Robert (disambiguation) and there is no unique content and it is a secondary search term, I will, if I see no objections, delete it as in process. Geogre 22:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete CDC (talk) 22:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Atlasia

[edit]

The US Presidential Atlas site may deserve an article, but I do not think Atlasia deserves one. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • KEEP. --MAS117 21:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The whole concept of "micronations" is lame -- most of them are nothing more than social clubs, and none of them have any legal basis. That said, a lot of people take them seriously, so they have at least the importance of the imaginary planets of Star Trek. So they're entitled to articles. I would like to see articles that don't assume that Micronations have exactly the same status as "real" countries. They need to present themselves to a sceptical outer world. That means more talk more about what they're trying to accomplish, and less about their organizational trivia. (Is there a template for that?) ---Isaac R 07:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • As I say below, I'm happy to expand the article at some point, but I haven't had a chance yet. If its allowed to stay, it will get done by me and other members. I'm also open to suggestions on presenting it in such a way that is realistic to the fact its not real. --New Progressive 21:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • As much as I would like to agree with you, the general policy on wikipedia is to delete articles such as these. We have deleted other micronational articles that were just as deserving. Plus, as I have discovered today, there is a micronational wiki, and Atlasia is already on it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The imaginary contents of fictional universes are not automatically entitled to articles. Read Wikipedia:Fiction. Your premise is flawed, therefore. Also read the following:
    • Uncle G 11:47, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
      • Be nice, Uncle, and don't strawman my arguments. I said nothing about "automatic entitlement". I simply pointed out that we have articles for imaginary planets. Wikipedia:Fiction allows that if the article on the imaginary universe needs to be broken up -- and given the obsessiveness of SF fans, that need is inevitable. ---Isaac R 22:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I didn't strawman your argument. Your very words were "So they're entitled to articles.". Moreover, we don't have articles for all imaginary planets, only some, and subject to Wikipedia:Fiction. (See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Synnax, for example.) Again, your premise is flawed. Further: No, the need for an article to be broken up is not inevitable. Not even the most obsessed sci-fi fan can find more that can be said about Synnax, for example. Again, your premise is flawed. Uncle G 15:34, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
      • Not having month or two to spare, I can do no more than skim your list. Maybe there's a strong precedent for not giving Micronations articles. If so, I'm not inclined to fight the trend -- as I said before, I consider the whole concept lame. Still, I notice that, after a lengthy battle, the most notorious micronation, Sealand, retained its article. Indeed, that article would be a nice model for other Micronation articles, since it takes the time to document the scepticism over its premise. Another model: the Republic of Texas.---Isaac R 22:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Maybe there's a strong precedent for not giving Micronations articles. — The precedent is mixed, because the issue is complex, and varies from case to case. I gave a selection of precedents from across the spectrum precisely to demonstrate that. Uncle G 15:34, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
        • that article would be a nice model for other Micronation articles — You're thinking about this in the wrong way. You're talking about model articles, and clearly thinking that the criteria are whether the article has been polished to some standard of presentation. The actual criteria applied are far more to do with the subject rather than the quality of the article. Note that Republic of Texas and Principality of Sealand both stake claims to physical territory, and indeed have both been in (somewhat one-sided) conflicts over those claims, whereas the Republic of Atlasia has no claimed geography at all, for example. Uncle G 15:34, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
      • Bottom line: silliness is not grounds for exclusion. ---Isaac R 22:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • The bottom line, given your leaping to false conclusions both here and elsewhere in other VFD discussions ("why are we giving the Micronationoids such a hard time?"), is that perhaps you should sit down and read the prior discussions thoroughly. Uncle G 15:34, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
          • As long as we're criticizing reading habits, perhaps you should take another look at the civility rules? ---Isaac R 23:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This article basically summarizes the constitution of a 100-member club (if we are to believe this article, rather than the empty Citizens of Atlasia list) that some people have created with the help of some web hosting. There's nothing whatever here about the club's achievements, history, features of interest, or goals. Delete. Uncle G 11:47, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
    • For the record, the citizen page is a problem we've been having issues with: Please go here to view the genuine list of citizens whose pages have been put on the AtlasWiki. I'd also happily fill out the details of the country at some point but I cannot write novels at a time. --New Progressive 21:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all micronations. RickK 21:27, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable micronation. Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • delete only coz of 2 hits on google which are both to wikipedia Yuckfoo 06:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: I'd like to point out that there is another micronation on Wikipedia, the Virtual Commonwealth of Cyberia, that is much smaller than our own, and yet their page is for some reason allowed to remain. The reason Atlasia is not generally well documented on Google is that we've only really just started to branch out to advertise to the wider world to recruit new members. Previously we had never bothered to register stuff with google to recruit, so it won't show. For the record I am the article's author and a member of the nation. --New Progressive 21:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It looks like Cyberia has never been on VfD. I shall put it on too. I am familiar with both Atlasia (I am a forum member) and Cyberia to know that neither deserve articles. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep New Progressive raises good points. --Ilikeverin 22:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Spinboy 22:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Advertising. Non-notable micronation. Wikipedia is inconsistent. The existence of other micronation articles is not a reason to keep this one. Nominate the others for deletion if they are not notable. I don't think a traffic court would revoke a ticket for going 15 mph over the limit just because other cars were going 20 mph over. In fact a good reason for deleting this article is so that future micronation promoters will not cite this one as precedent. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most certainly not notable. Indrian 05:20, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What dpbsmith said. Plus, only hits are Wikipedia and a mirror. Niteowlneils 17:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Xezbeth 18:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As above. Slac speak up! 03:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable "internet micronations" CDC (talk) 21:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Personally, I don't think the true Catholic Church should be accorded an article, either, but that's my personal bias. I understand that the information may prove informative or enlightening to others, and I see this situation as similar. As long as someone is proclaiming their willingness to expand and improve the article, I think the deletion discussion should be tabled. --MikeJ9919 23:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • An interesting comparison. There probably aren't that many more True Catholics than there are Atlasians. They only have two priests, one of which is their Antipope. On the other hand, the True Catholics are a lot more interesting than the Atlasians. ---Isaac R 23:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • On what basis do you make such an assertion? --New Progressive 17:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the reasons Dpbsmith said. --Dcfleck 23:04, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
  • Delete all micronations. 7 Google results is not major enough. Master Thief Garrett 07:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Froman

[edit]

Delete. Band vanity. Does not appear to meet any one criterion listed at WP:MUSIC. No entry at allmusic.com. Band's apparent official site is hosted at a University. 957 Google hits for "abe froman", but I would imagine a lot of those are references to Ferris Bueller. android↔talk 04:50, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 08:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep wiki guidelines say non notable means less than 100 people would be interested in them; they are definitely bigger than that. i've heard of them and i am not particularly interested in their subset of punk. "abe froman" + lansing results in about 500 hits on google. 141.151.160.53 09:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines says nothing of the sort. It talks about tours, albums, hits, famous members, and awards. The only parts of this article that meet those critera are those that are talking about some other band. The article contents fail to satisfy the criteria. Delete. Uncle G 11:53, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • Delete, not Romanian. NazismIsntCool 09:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Randolph 06:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – ABCD 00:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Cassinelli

[edit]

Delete as vanity. FreplySpang (talk) 04:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Now the big question... what shall we merge this with? Two want this merged with chess variant, the remaining merge votes who say what it should be merged with, want it merged with an "appropriate list" or "appropriate article" per WP:FICT. An "appropriate list" does not really exist at the moment. The closest thing is Expanded Universe (Star Wars) which is what I'm going to merge this with. Sjakkalle 13:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dejarik

[edit]

Becides it being star wars cruft, is their realy any possibility that this artile could ever be sigificantly expaned, or that it played such a role that in warrents it won article. As it stands now it really tells me nothing more then what could be said about it 0 articles it links to. Merge and redirect or delete into some other Star Wars related article. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge into the appropriate article on Star Wars trivia. -- 8^D gab 05:50, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • Delete. Insignificant trivia. jni 06:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Chess variant. Chess variant article lists fantasy variants. Megan1967 08:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Someone please check whether starwarswiki (there might be a hyphen in there) already has this; if so, transwiki, then merge to a parent article and redirect. If they don't need it, skip the transwiki part and do the rest. Per WP:FICT, this is trivia of some interest within the fiction universe's fans and maybe to chess-variant buffs, I don't know, but not culturally significant enough for an article in WP. Barno 00:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Stuff from Star Wars, Things in Episode Four of Star Wars for five seconds or similar... Seriously though, if no useful general Star Wars article exists for this to be merged into I think is should be deleted (who's going to look specifically for it?). Rje 00:24, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into appropriate list of minor SW topics. Anyway, if a miscellaneous Star Wars stuff article were created, there would probably be tons of entries that could be added, so that remains a feasible merging option. There's about 5,210 Google hits, and it was a part of one of the most major films of all time.-LtNOWIS 01:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I suggest a new strategy, Artoo. Let the Wookiee Delete. android↔talk 05:09, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 12:44, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Agree with Megan on this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:12, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • merge' seems ok Yuckfoo 00:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam and Fuzzy

[edit]

Webcomic, questionable notability. Firebug 06:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete —Xezbeth 06:55, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Steven Schimmel

[edit]

Vanity. Was nominated for speedy deletion; I don't believe it meets the criteria so switching to VfD. A Google search reveals several Steven Schimmels; the second link appears to refer to our Mr. Schimmel. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This same user also created a nonsense vanity article that was speedied - after he removed the {{delete}} tag from it twice. Firebug 06:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Good call to bring it here instead of speedy. Also a good call to delete this vanity article. The anon user is welcome to create a user page. Rossami (talk) 22:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. --MikeJ9919 23:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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; already made into redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Way I Am

[edit]
  • Delete. Not notable in terms of its impact on hip-hop, or in terms of its record sales. See also its Talk Page where I discuss this same thing. It's just another out of thousands and thousands of unnotable rap songs. Note that this is not the similarly titled song by Eminem, which is more noteworthy, one can say. This is a single by Knocc-Turn'Al (featuring Snoop Dogg) that was released last year or so, without making much of a buzz. Decius 05:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and someone should add info about the Eminem song. The fact that other rap songs don't yet have articles is not a valid justification for deleting this article. Also, please remember to properly follow the instructions when nominating an article for deletion. Rhobite 06:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • As I said, this song is a lame-duck, and it shouldn't have an article. I know my Hip-Hop, and this song is literally nothing. But aside from that, the "justification for deletion" is that it is not notable enough to have an Encyclopedia article: like I said, it has virtually no significance in Hip-Hop, and its sales were sluggish. I'm in Los Angeles, and nobody blinked an eye over this song when it came out (and the artist is from Los Angeles). Dj's in Los Angeles Radio Stations barely played the record for a few weeks, then dropped it in the bin. Decius 06:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I have a compromise: the single "The Way I Am" is not notable to have an article, but this single is contained on his Album, which was also titled "The Way I Am". The Album, though it was modest in sales & impact, is worth having an article, so I'm going to redirect the song article to the new Album article. Decius 07:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Sounds good to me. Merge/redir. Radiant_* 14:31, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this one please Yuckfoo 06:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's been settled---the article is now about the Album. If someone is interested in this artist, then please expand the article and format it as other Album articles are formatted. And I would hope that next time a person thinks before starting an article about an inconsequential song. The former article about the song no longer exists, and we are no longer taking votes on it. The new article about the Album is not being voted on here. Decius 08:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless rewritten about Eminem song. Grue 18:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete CDC (talk) 22:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spywire

[edit]

Self-promotion for a website, alexa 1,235,792, they don't provide any uqique served that may make it a worthwile entry, delete --nixie 06:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This same user also created some related crap that was speedied. Firebug 06:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Self promotion of a non-notable website. --Randolph 07:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Jetru 07:55, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as a misspelling of spyware. Meelar (talk) 07:56, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems an unlikely misspelling. Redirect if you must, but be sure to delete the spam that's currently here first. —Korath (Talk) 13:57, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and I have no problem with the redirect (after all, the A is very much next to the I on most keyboards, er, never mind). Radiant_* 15:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Never underestimate the power of distraction and bad typing. Meelar (talk) 21:01, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Novor yndorostamito tho pewor ef dastrictaen ind bid tupang? :) Radiant_* 15:04, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. CDC (talk) 22:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Subprofile

[edit]

Ad for a AOL profile provider, there are a number of other identical services, unencyclipedic, delete--nixie 06:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Subprofile is the general term for any profile add-on website for AIM that many users use. I made this page after seeing an article on xanga. This is by no means an ad, keep--TheAznSensation 01:58, 18 Apr 2005 (USCMT)
  • Keep,see above--Jetru 07:59, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've heard of it. Wmahan. 17:10, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • 'keep as well `Yuckfoo 06:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Reluctant keep, even though it could be redirected to adware, spyware, pop-up ad, list of annoying websites, et al. Notability/notoriety established. --Idont Havaname 15:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep...there are many of these, but this is definitely one of the more well-known. --MikeJ9919 23:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Jotham CDC (talk) 22:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yotam

[edit]

Nothing here, really. Well - two lines, the first of which screams "redirect" and the second of which is ambiguous to the point of uselessness. Grutness|hello? 06:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's a stub. Needs material. Not deletion--Jetru 08:02, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • If it were a stub, it would have given some clue as to what kingdom this person was apparently the king of, or when this person was a king, or why this person is considered "great". The second line conveys no useful information whatever. Indeed, for all we know, this article could be simply saying that "Yotam" is a word meaning "a great king" in some un-named language, and not actually be an encyclopaedia article about a person at all, but a dictionary article about a name, erroneously placed in the wrong project. (See Wiktionary:Wiktionary Appendix:First names and Wiktionary:Wiktionary Appendix:Surnames.) As per Grutness Redirect to Jotham. Uncle G 14:30, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 08:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jotham (and mention it there) - note that Jotham also has 2 defs, and the second is Jotham of Judah, a possibly great king. FreplySpang (talk) 02:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Jeltz talk 13:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redir Jotham. —msh210 17:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect with mention of alternate spelling. A2Kafir 20:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jotham. - Marcika 23:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was CDC (talk) 22:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

William Nuti

[edit]

Oh lordy, where do I begin? Probably a speedy - the entire text is "An ex Cisco man." No info, ambiguous (Cisco points to a dab page) - the archetypical useless substub. Grutness|hello? 06:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: His bio says that he was "senior vice president" of Cisco. Sietse 07:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't look really useful...--Jetru 08:00, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, zero useful content. Should've been speedied under criterion A1. —Korath (Talk) 13:55, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, though I'm not sure it's even worth the discussion. --MikeJ9919 23:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless someone adds content why he should be kept. - Marcika 23:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 22:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coplas a Pancho Graña

[edit]

Lyrics of a Spanish song. It's a primary source, the subject does not appear no be notable, and it may be a copyvio as well. 07:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 08:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 both. CDC (talk) 22:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mark Soissons and Neil Vanos

[edit]

More vanity articles from the makers of Bryan Schwor and Silly Goose Productions, delete--nixie 07:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Small article, small film presence. Not vanity as per Wikipedia:Vanity page.--Jim8675309 07:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User's only edits are to this page and related Bryan Schwor articles. RickK 21:33, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, unverifiable. Xezbeth 07:46, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Self-promotion, non-notable, unverifiable. Expecting sockpuppets to appear on this VfD also. jni 07:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, both. Not notable, promo. Megan1967 08:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, doesn't qualify as vanity. Self-promotion of small companies legal.--168.212.165.131 15:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Not on Wikipedia, it isn't. RickK 21:33, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Advertising, non-notable, vanity. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no imdb entry for either one. RickK 21:33, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both, as they ably slither under the limbo bar of notability. (Now, if only they were lovable "Pokemon" muppets or fictional characters in a Star Warstrek "universe", that'd be different I suppose.) -- Hoary 05:19, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
    • Yeah, then maybe someone outside of Spokane might have heard of them. --Calton | Talk 11:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Their company webpage is a Geocities page: a dead Geocities page, at that. --Calton | Talk 11:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Their web site on GeoCities is working now. But the email address on their web site is a free Yahoo one. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. These articles are not blatant vanity. They are brief biographies for the creators of Bryan Schwor. So long as Schwor exists, they should remain as small bio stubs. It may serve us better to contact them for more information about their films to see how noteworthy they are.--168.212.165.131 17:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Gamaliel 18:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. These are funny movies. --67.106.16.59 02:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Niether of them warrant their own article. Just because they've created a regionally significant film does not mean that they are as significant. --Fritz9000 06:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 11:04, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

The kate kennedy club

[edit]
  • Speedy Delete Double entry, exact same article exists with capitalized name letters. --Andpersson 08:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedily redirected after renaming target article. No need for VfD process. -- The Anome 08:33, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Old malformed redirect now deleted after fixing links. -- The Anome 09:08, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. CDC (talk) 22:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Pist

[edit]

Delete, Probably vanity & non-notable. Pist + "destroy society" = 178 hits on google. Pist + "ideas are bulletproof" = 318 141.151.160.53 10:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • 141.151.160.53, for your information, normally many here on Wikipedia use the criteria on WP:MUSIC to judge a bands notability, not Google hits. Zzyzx11 | Talk 10:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Talk:The Pist appears to indicate that this article survived VFD back in January since it contains that previous VFD discussion. Zzyzx11 | Talk 10:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment the only portion of the WP:MUSIC criteria that this band seem to meet is having toured the U.S. which is really not a big or unusual accomplishment for a punk band. 141.151.160.53 10:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whether that's big or unusual, the music notability guidelines say they only have to meet ONE criterion on the list. —Wahoofive | Talk 21:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, tours and album will do for me. Kappa 00:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, All Music Guide lists them with the album and it seems from googling that they were reasonably influential in the Connecticut/New York punk scene in the 1990s. Meet Wikimusic project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 00:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pretty well known punk band. I think the noise band I was in in college opened for them once, if memory serves. Article needs work, though. -R. fiend 15:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (again). Grue 18:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable enough for me. --Myles Long 15:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. CDC (talk) 22:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dirtblonde

[edit]

Band vanity, yet to release a single, let alone an album, delete--nixie 10:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Not particularly notable, but then so are most of Category:Rock_music_groups, they have had some coverage in the UK music press - I've wikified it and made it a bit more neutral. A weak keep. Anilocra 10:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • thank you Anilocra for wikifying article. Its much better now. According to Nixie, it sounds like "vanity" just because the band has yet to release a single. Well, according to Wikipedia "An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional." Anilocra rectified the tone of the whole thing, it sounds RIGHT now, and the band has been given consistent press-coverage from some papers for months now, just for the record: Neston News, Ellesmere Port Standard, Ellesmere Port Pioneer, Wirral Globe, Liverpool Daily Post. The band has done radio shows in Brazil (Garagem, one of the most popular shows on one of Sao Paulo's biggest stations,Brasil 2000 FM) and they were played on BBC Radio by Steve_Lamacq as well. I say, just leave it. Given time, it'll naturally grow, its not Vanity. Starcrossed
  • Weak keep, well according to their website they did a national tour of Brazil, have some press coverage, and have recorded three tracks in the can so far. The single "Hangmen" is being released next Mondaywith artwork by Jamie Reid who did the covers for the Sex Pistols albums. This is borderline. If it wasn't the BBC and Channel 4 coverage this would probably have been a delete. Megan1967 12:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, national tour, coverage in music media etc. Kappa 21:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as per Megan1967 —Wahoofive | Talk 21:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If they have toured Brazil, then they meet one of the criteria under Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Can this tour be verified? Was it a national tour, or just one or two venues? allmusic and artistdirect never heard of them. Google indicates they are apparently unsigned to a label. Iff their tour of Brazil is real, then I'll vote a very weak keep'. RickK 21:46, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, IMO the lack of an allmusic.com or artistdirect.com entry for most bands would have seen a delete vote, however the BBC and Channel 4 coverage at least verifies their existance and some degree, albeit small, of notability. Megan1967 05:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Dirtblonde played, over a few months, in five venues in Brazil. Were interviewed for O GLOBO newspaper, one of the biggest newspapers in that country (which, of course, is the biggest country in Latin America)See interview HERE . They were special guests on the GARAGEM radio show, one of the most popular rock radio shows in Sao paulo, the largest city in Latin America. See link HERE . Other guests in this show included Ian McCulloch of Echo & the Bunnymen, Mudhoney, Superchunk. This entry might be borderline case, but this definitely isn't a pub band vanity thing, is it! Starcrossed
  • Keep. Tour included visits to Sao Paolo and Rio de Janeiro but pretty good for an unsigned British band. The BBC link shows gigs in London and Manchester. Album coming out shortly. It seems that they are more than just a pub band. Capitalistroadster 00:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable enough for me. --Myles Long 15:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Their musical contribution might not be notable, but they've been in the papers because of the Zanzibar incident, and were featured on TV - that's notable enough for me. - Marcika 23:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:45, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Burning Shithead Festival

[edit]

Delete. This "Burning Shithead Festival" is 100% made up. Run a Google search and you'll see that all of the results can be traced back to this article. –MementoVivere 11:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Seems to be legit though no activity since 2004 -- see the archive. Keep the article.--csloat 11:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The archived website that you linked to reeks strongly of irony. Even if this "festival" actually happened, the fact that a Google search of "Burning Shithead Festival" "Joshua Tree" turns up 35 results, all of which are mirrors of the original Wikipedia article, makes this not notable at the very least. –MementoVivere 11:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I say Keep this article. There's a reference to it in the Burning Man article. Scott Gall 11:12, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
    • The problem with this line of reasoning is that the original author of the Burning Shithead Festival article, Commodore Sloat, also added the reference in the Burning Man Festival article. –MementoVivere 11:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Me and my friends did something similar from 1992 to 1997. I can still remember it. It was when we played Nirvana songs while burning effigies of our parents. I can also remember burning the Romanian flag one year and almost being thrown in jail for it. These things bring back memories. (And believe me, Nirvana songs sound quite funny if translated into Romanian.) NazismIsntCool 11:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS: We called it "Burning Dolls" - I seem to have forgotten how to put it in Romanian.
    • I don't see what you and your friends doing something similar to the Burning Man Festival in Romania between 1992 and 1997 has to do with whether or not this article should exist. –MementoVivere 11:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the point is that such parodies are not unusual. Looking through the archived pages it was around for at least 4 years as a parody of Burning Man; I think that is notable. Also it is mentioned on other pages -- like this. When I was involved with a website called nofuncharlie we sponsored this festival and there was a story about it on our website. It was quite funny, and apparently got some feedback from burning man people (there was something on the website for it). The festival definitely exists (or existed). It's true that copies of wikipedia come up most on google but that just shows how pervasive wikipedia is, IMHO. I think this is a legitimate parody and should not be deleted. --csloat 12:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! - Just because this site is down now doesn't mean that it wasn't real for a long time. I should know, I hosted it. I own the domain and will put the site up again when time allows. I have been to every Burning Shithead Festival that ever existed. If you don't believe it's real, come to the Best Western Inn and Gardens in Twenty Nine Palms California over Labor Day and see what happens there... shithead is indeed burned... This isn't even a parody of burning man, it is real!... NoFunCharlie
  • Delete, unverifiable, possible hoax. And once the POV is stripped away there won't be anything left of the article anyway. --Angr/comhrá 13:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! - This event is real, recurring and unique. To quote Rodney Shead "Can't we all just burn some shithead and then get along?" How long has WikiPedia been around? Since 1997 like BurningShitHead I wonder? I bet I could look that up....unless the article was deleted. Right, that's my point, keep the article. --Jumboslice 13:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable, sock-supported. —Korath (Talk) 14:07, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no sock puppet. I contacted the user who owned the burningshithead.com website specifically to inform him about this discussion -- that is why a new user came to vote. I can say for sure he is not a sock.--csloat 19:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Korath. Radiant_* 15:19, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete out of pure spite, b/c I was never invited. -- 8^D gab 16:16, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
    • LOL! BD, come on out this way once the weather cools off! We all really need to have a "West Coast Wikipedia Boogie Blast Blowout!" - Lucky 6.9 22:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable parody of Burning man —Wahoofive | Talk 16:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. --InShaneee 16:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable at best, hoax at worst. Johntex 16:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete For so very many reasons. --Lee Hunter 17:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as absolute, sock-supported, burning you-know-what. Not worthy of BJAODN, either. I live and work in this region. Furthermore, I'm in the media here. If it's happening in the desert, I know about it. This ain't happening. - Lucky 6.9 18:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • What constitutes "happening" in your estimation? According to archive.org, the website for the festival goes back 5 years. And here is a link to a press release from 2001 about it (from when the nofuncharlie site sponsored the festival). There is also a mention of it still on the web here in addition to the other pages mentioned above. This may not be a huge deal, but it is a legitimate entry. --csloat 19:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The fact these sites tell me zilch about this event is what I consider to be "happening." I took your opinion under consideration and checked the links you posted. An impromtu gathering on public land isn't encyclopedic, isn't notable and barely verifiable if it's verifiable at all. I see press releases every day. The local papers do a good job of covering local events, even the esoteric ones. It wouldn't be hard to remember something called the "Burning Shithead Festival." I stand by my vote and my opinion. - Lucky 6.9 22:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible hoax, certainly non-notable. Rje 21:00, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable CDC (talk) 21:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Not notable. No credible third party references. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, possible hoax, sockpuppetcruft. RickK 21:48, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Based on Lucky 6.9's reasoning. Capitalistroadster 01:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; also agree with Lucky; I've lived in southern Cal most of my life, and I've never heard of this. And how would you get permits to do that in Joshua Tree? In the summer? LOL. There's a lot more flammable stuff out there than just shitheads. Come on, really now. Antandrus 01:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I understand most people want to delete and that's fine if it's not notable but how can you guys say it's a hoax? Are you saying somebody hacked archive.org? Are you saying someone (presumably me) created the burningshithead pages in the year 2000 in order to play a trick on wikipedia 5 years down the road? That's a pretty elaborate hoax. And I'm not sockpuppetting (sockpuppeteering?) either, as a simple look at my IP will tell you. This is a legitimate parody of burning man, even though it may not be notable in wikipedia. --csloat 02:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Why couldn't it have been a hoax in 2000, just as it's a hoax now? RickK 04:19, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • Did you look at the archive.org pages? If it was a hoax, it was one that was maintained and updated for four years.--csloat 05:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Some hoaxes, pranks and frauds have been maintained for decades. Delete, probably hoax, small-scale personal "festival" at best. We do not list every house party, for example (or at least they are usually deleted when the participants try to add them). - Skysmith 07:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • That's an awfully long time to be involved in a hoax with no apparent goal other than tricking wikipedia (which didn't exist when the hoax began). Interesting theory.--csloat 18:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Who ever said the hoax's initial aim was to trick Wikipedia? Piltdown Man was created a long time ago, and it was surely a hoax. RickK 18:40, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
              • LOL... fair enough, but if it's a hoax of that magnitude it probably belongs in wikipedia, like Piltdown Man. I guess I just don't see what the goal of an elaborate hoax like this would be.--csloat 21:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • I believe that we've made it quite clear that we don't consider this to be a hoax, so much as a satirical website created as a joke. I disagree with your implicit assertion that having the website up for four years means that it is a "hoax" of significant magnitude, not to mention of the same magnitude as the Piltdown Man. As I have mentioned before, there is not a single reference to "Burning Shithead Festival" "Joshua Tree" (other than mirrors of the article under consideration) to be found in a Google search. –MementoVivere 09:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                  • Again, fair enough; I was just responding to those who have been calling this a hoax. I agree that this festival is satire; when I originally put the page up it said this was created as a parody of burning man, and I think it is fair to say it is satirical. Whether it is notable enough to include here is another question, but it is not a hoax or a sock puppet as many claimed here.--csloat 09:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not-notable, unverifiable. Jayjg (talk) 03:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability in an encyclopedic sense not established. Jonathunder 04:42, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not demonstrated. Megan1967 05:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, smells suspiciously of a fake parody of the much more well-known Burning Man Festival. Most of the results link back here, heck, Google's even crawled this VfD page! And I have yet to see a photo of what it is they (supposedly?) burn--a cardboard turd? A wooden man with a turd on his head? A man holding a turd kind of like the Cho Aniki mascot? I'm curious, but it has NO PART in Wikipedia. Master Thief Garrett 09:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • According to the archive.org pages (poke around and read), what is burned is cereal. When does a parody become a fake parody? Aren't all parodies "fake" in some sense? --csloat 10:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, our good friend the Wayback Machine! Well, I don't really know. Burning cereal sounds a bit naff to me. I could grab a couple of inebriated friends, burn (object here), eventually recruit more and more friends for future years, set up a website about it, and say it is an important part of Wikipedia. Now maybe that's a bit exaggerated, and I'm not intending to offend anyone by saying that, but, really, where do we draw the line?
There's surely a difference between "big-budget movie parodying famous thing" and "group of friends creating mock parody of famous thing that becomes popular an as excuse to have a night of crazy partying", isn't there? I know *I* don't have the answers... Master Thief Garrett 10:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:50, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Renato Bacelar da Silveira

[edit]

Purely vanity. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, classic vanity. Megan1967 12:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • He has many ideas, many hopes... and unfortunately, one of those hopes is getting himself a regular full-fledged article without having sufficient notability. This is better suited for a user page; delete this content. It's already on his user page (User:Renatodasil) anyway. --Idont Havaname 04:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: There are quite a few Google results on "Renato Silveira" and about 500 on "Renato da Silveira", in case either of those is this guy. A lot of the ones for the latter are in Portuguese, so it would better if somebody who knows Portuguese could figure out what they're saying and tell us if he's notable. But as of yet I doubt it. --Idont Havaname 04:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • As per Idont's suggestion, I had a look round Google to see what's up with our man Renato. As it happens, all three of his names are exceedingly common in Portuguese, and that's why Google produces so many hits. It's as if an English-speaker were named John Smith Brown or similar. This particular Renato is what he says he is; a 26-year-old Brazilian living in South Africa, which is a fine thing to be, but info better left to a user page. I, after all, am a 26-year-old Georgian living in Kentucky; while I am indubitably fascinating, I'll wait for someone else to write an article on me.Dave1898 12:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Such pages should not take precious time of those few people on VfD. Pavel Vozenilek 02:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 22:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of bus companies in the United Kingdom

[edit]

A copy of the U.K section of List of bus companies with a message asking people to add more when nowhere links to it. Delete, no reason to merge. The busman 11:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete I created the article but I agree with The busman. Iment to make pages link to it but now I think it ought to go. After all there's still the U.K section of List of bus companies. TAS 13:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, fork. Radiant_* 12:45, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 11:06, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Aiio

[edit]

A substub about apparently non-notable software. I haven't been able to verify its existence, let alone notability; lots of false positives on Google, no matter how I tried to narrow the search, and I couldn't find any that were relevant. —Korath (Talk) 14:38, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • I looked also, and couldn't find anything. No potential rewrite candidates present themselves, either. unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 16:15, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Xezbeth 11:06, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Machamp

[edit]

Zero content, just a table with stats about a Pokemon trading card. Should be a speedy, but that only works if they turned the table into a template like they're supposed to. —Korath (Talk) 14:39, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's not the card information, it's the game information, and it's also part of the string of all pokémon, not all of which have a full article yet. Should be marked as a stub. RickGriffin 23:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Aaaaaaaahh! Please start pokéwiki and transwiki all this (except one parent article with merges). Lots of people love the cards/cartoons/games/etc., including plenty of WP editors, but also see Wikipedia is not a repository of lists, and WP:FICT, and the not-quite-policy that Wikipedia is not a gamers' guide nor a repository of game rules. Barno 00:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, presumably passes the pokemon test. Kappa 00:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, tag for expansion. Meelar (talk) 01:26, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Pokemon Test. Klonimus 07:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This isn't more notable than the average pokemon :) Radiant_* 10:22, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, more pointless pokecruft. --Bucephalus talk to me 15:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There's no article here - just a table. Unless someone actually has something to write, delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of lists or raw data. Rossami (talk) 22:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the few bits of relevant info to a list of pokemon. Surely you can't write an interesting story on all (hundreds) of them? Radiant_* 10:22, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - This page is part of a sequence of 387 pages in one part of the Pokémon project. Not all have been fully written out; those which haven't are marked as poke-stubs. This one was until a few hours before it was marked for deletion (according to the history), and it is again.User142 10:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't pass Pokemon test. Grue 18:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete trivial, nonnotable CDC (talk) 21:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ✏ OvenFresh² 00:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, please see the lengthy debate on Wikipedia:Poképrosal about what to do about them. I suggest that this and other "PokeOrphans" remain in limbo until the proposal deals with them. Master Thief Garrett 05:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Unfair use of VFD. Andros 1337 04:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:50, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Melissa Pastore

[edit]

Delete This article obviously does not belong in Wikipedia. Looks like a copy paste from a personal webpage. --DuKot 03:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: delete for now. She may end up being considerably more famous, but right now she's nothing but the nobody widow of a dead somebody. --Durin 03:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Garbage. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 14:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've put a NPOV tag on this article for form, in case anyone happens across it during the discussion period. (I've also blanked a whole load of personally identifying information including telephone numbers and home addresses.) This article is horrendously non-neutral, quoting from records and then editorializing (for example: "Comment: Kinda cuts to the heart of the credibility question, doesn't it?"), and badly written, much of it being written in the first person. If it were cleaned up, however, there wouldn't be much left. This woman is the widow of Eugene Scott, and the only thing that this article tells us (in amongst all of the editorializing, "maybe"s, and "possibly"s) is that her maiden name was "Melissa Peroff" and that someone sued her once. This hardly satisfies the criteria for inclusion of biographies. *Delete. Uncle G 16:03, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • Delete Gibberish with no likelihood of becoming encyclopedic. Johntex 17:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete. I've never heard of her, and I'd be surprised if (in a couple of generations) my children have heard of her either. Master Thief Garrett 03:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Falling Up (album) and disambig Falling Up. – ABCD 00:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Falling Up (album)

[edit]

Delete - Page is an exact repeat of Falling Up.Hoekenheef 00:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or redirect to Falling Up —Wahoofive | Talk 16:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not demonstrated. Megan1967 05:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And turn Falling Up into a disambig since there's also a band by that name (they do not have an article yet but are signed to Tooth & Nail Records, a notable indie label). --Idont Havaname 15:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If they don't have an article yet then why turn the page into a disambig? Hoekenheef 00:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) - Correction. A link has been posted to the band's new article. Yet there are still not enough other articles to constitute a disambig.
    • The new article (for the band) was speedied a few minutes ago. As for disambigs, several articles on this site disambiguate a list of two entries (see Criss Cross for one example). --Idont Havaname 03:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I think I just answered my own question. Falling Up (band) was deleted earlier this month (see its deletion archive) because it only got 3 votes and I wasn't there (as somebody who has at least heard of the band) to make a case for a keep. --Idont Havaname 03:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. JamesBurns 06:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Falling Up, as the same content is there. Probably merge that with the band. A note - there is a VFU discussion right now about undoing a possibly improper speedy of the band's page. --SPUI (talk) 22:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Falling Up (band) has been speedy undeleted when the admin who speedy deleted it realized his mistake; thanks. I have put a merge tag on that, as I feel there's not enough for two separate articles; others may disagree. This should be discussed at Talk:Falling Up (band) rather than here. --SPUI (talk) 23:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Falling Up should be a disambiguation page. Delete Falling Up (album), move Falling Up to Falling Up (album), and disambiguate Falling Up between the book, album, and band. -Sean Curtin 00:05, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matrixism

[edit]

Relisted on Wikipedia:Redirects for Deletion#April_24. Philwelch 00:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Hoax. The word gets a lot of Google hits, but all but one that I saw turn out to be blogs/bbs's-- someone's got way too much time on their hands. -- Mwanner 19:36, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) (note: originally posted on Talk:Matrixism)
  • Keep as a Redirect to New religious movement or New religious movement#Fiction-based NRMs, include appropriate reference to Matrixism there. The Matrixism faith currently claims over 500 followers according to their FAQ. May not be sufficiently significant to warrant its own article, nor an appropriate addition to the Matrix article, but it's a useful example of a Fiction-based New Religious Movement (especially one in its early development). Although it could be a hoax, there's currently insufficient evidence either way, therefore removing references to it on that basis constitutes religious discrimination and a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV. KickAir8P~ 05:31, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
    • Implication that it is a bona fide religion despite any evidence is nonfactual and POV. Additionally, given that there is absolutely no independent evidence of its existence, references to "Matrixism" in Wikipedia constitute original research. Philwelch 15:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Inclusion in the New religious movement article (especially in the New religious movement#Fiction-based NRMs section) does not imply that Matrixism is a "bona fide religion" due to the nature of NRMs, which is detailed in the article. That there is at least one person claiming sincere adherance to the Matrixism faith is an observable fact, and therefore not itself original research. Although their assertion of 500+ converts may be non-factual, due to the nature of religious freedom burden of proof is on those claiming Matrixism is a hoax, and currently there's nothing other than negative data (specifically, that there's nothing indicating its existence but the website and a number of posts on various boards from a few IP addresses). Under the circumstances, removing references to Matrixism soley because it might be a hoax asserts the POV that it is a hoax. Removing references to it for other reasons (lacks numbers/significance for its own artcle, doesn't belong in articles about the movie) may well be valid, but these don't prevent reference to Matrixism in an article where it evidently does belong, specifically New religious movement; and they should not prevent redirect of this stub to that article. KickAir8P~ 16:49, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
        • A new religious movement that is only known to have "at least one" adherent (and not even that is known) is not encyclopedic. Philwelch 19:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Very well. Delete and replace with a redirect (The Matrix would be most appropriate imho). Radiant_* 12:47, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • That was what was originally done, but all references to Matrixism in The Matrix were deemed unencyclopedic and removed in a recent RfC. Additionally, linkspamming vandals have taken the redirect as an invitation to linkspam The Matrix in the past, and now New religious movement. Philwelch 15:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:08, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I was just reading Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion, and it's possible that this shouldn't've been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion since it's not an article anymore but a redirect (most recently to New religious movement). See Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion#Nomination and Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. I have no idea how to fix this. KickAir8P~ 21:35, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
    • You're probably right, I'll list it there later today, hopefully. Philwelch 22:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax, and an attempted merge to the only article where a mention is merited was rejected. (As a redirect with content in its history that is no longer merged, this doesn't belong on WP:RFD, either.) —Korath (Talk) 12:05, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:54, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nanjing Massacre (no images)

[edit]

POV fork of Nanjing Massacre. Delete. Postdlf 16:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. There must be a better solution than forking every article with potentially objectionable images. Wmahan. 17:13, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. People should copy the entire WP database to their own server and censor away to their heart's delight. --Lee Hunter 17:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. RickK 21:52, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • i am considered correct why exist one page how this,for why certain persons can t to

see these images,for you crudity or brutal evidence.i sugest why mantain these option,if totally well,still apareing redundant but are well!(Wlad K)

  • Delete; forks are bad for the project. This is a good example. Better to use the talk page and work for consensus and compromise if necessary. Antandrus 01:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV forks. Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, PoV fork. Megan1967 05:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no point70.49.38.235 23:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not needed Sabine's Sunbird 04:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Ditto with the above. Can't this be supplemented with javascript? -- Natalinasmpf 00:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, if you don't like the images you can always turn them off before viewing the page, or write a JavaScript engine as suggested above. Are we going to have a similar "no guts" page for Auswitz (sorry if I've spelled it wrong) and other massacres? No? Then not for this either. If all else fails, the image thumbnails/frames could be replaced with text-links saying "the corpses of the victims (WARNING: potentially objectionable content)" or something like that. Master Thief Garrett 03:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — POV Fork. — Davenbelle 17:03, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. --Viriditas | Talk 07:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would like however, a function to disable images on all articles. RustyCale 12:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd certainly support that, if it's 100% user-controlled. It would certainly eviscerate any rationale for taming down "inappropriate" images or creating "alternative" versions like this one. The only concerns that should guide us in illustrating articles is whether it is informative and relevant to the article, regardless of whether it's on Sesame Street or autofellatio. Postdlf 18:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Does javascript work on wiki pages? -- Natalinasmpf 22:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Xezbeth 19:55, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Michel rodange

[edit]

No proof of notability. Johntex 17:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article was badly written when nominated, but a quick Google finds that there was an author by that name, and that Luxembourg even issued at least two commemorative stamps (1972 and 2001) and have named a school after him. Author of a famous Luxembourg poem (well, famous in Luxembourg, anyway)Average Earthman 17:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Or rather, move to Michel Rodange and keep. Which I've done. Average Earthman 17:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • And, er.. probably shouldn't have. Oops (how many times have I seen the VfD notice without reading 'please do not move this article'?). Average Earthman 17:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep OK, you convinced me I was too quick on the draw on this one. As the nominee and formerly the only "Delete" vote, I am removing the VFD notice and I'll help you improve the article instead. Thanks. Johntex 19:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete CDC (talk) 22:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Greys

[edit]

I suspect a severe case of NN. At least I can't find anything on this punk rock band and their album "Back in Grey". Rl 17:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nothing on Google for greys +"Back in Grey". Nothing on allmusic about them or their albums. There is a Latin band called Los Greys, but this isn't them. RickK 22:00, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Greys. Jonathunder 04:46, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 split or cleanup. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

survey of Hindu organisations

[edit]

This survey is an overly ambitious unmaintainable project that will never mature into a good article. I propose refractoring the information to the respective articles of these organizations and make the article into a list of Hindu organizations Andries 17:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'merge text into their own articles, or split content into separate articles. --≈ jossi ≈ 22:52, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 22:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nitya Nand

[edit]

Vanity. --Lee Hunter 17:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity. Johntex 17:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or rewrite and make a more detailed demonstration of notability. -- Mwanner 18:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - question from a quick Google - is this the same Dr Nitya Nand, Professor of Medicine and Head, Department of Nephrology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences at the PGIMS, elected President of the Indian Association of Clinical Medicine (IACM) in September 2004? [3]
    • The article describes him as a "pharmaceutical scientist". -- Mwanner 20:28, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established, family vanity. Megan1967 05:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 22:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ground control as

[edit]
  • Delete. Advert: "our team of highly motivated specialists can help you obtain maximum production value". Also copyvio: [4] -- Mwanner 17:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even a name for an article. -- 8^D gab 19:21, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:57, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

"British fleet of 109 vessels"

[edit]

This is just a duplicate of the Battle of Trafalgar page, with a single sentence at the beginning relating to a different battle five years earlier. This page is unnecessary and duplicative and badly-titled, to boot. RussBlau 18:05, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete When the Trafagar stuff is eliminated there is almost othing left. That is not to say that a good article on this event couldn't be written. Dsmdgold 20:15, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just a duplicate of Battle of Trafalgar. --Neigel von Teighen 20:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. (There's a paragraph on the 1800 battle in the Ferrol, Spain article that could be used as the start of a proper article.) Gdr 22:48, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Delete Take that first paragraph and make it into a true, legitimate article. History21

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 11:08, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

anarchia

[edit]

Broken out of anarchy and anarchism by Viajero, apparently unaware of the fact that we can just interwiki link to the dictionary for articles on words (Wiktionary:anarchia, Wiktionary:αναρχία). A redirect seems pointless. This is a "New" Latin word, not an English one. And it's not the Greek word at all. Wiktionary gets the alphabet right, moreover. ☺ Uncle G 18:52, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

  • Ok, fine with me. -- Viajero 19:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy since the sole contributor to the text of the article agrees. Dsmdgold 20:40, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to anarchy or just delete. -Sean Curtin 00:10, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with The Aristocats Sjakkalle 13:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar the Butler

[edit]

No offense, but this sounds like a 10-year-old's school essay on a character in a cartoon movie. Besides the poor writing, the subject is not notable. I hope this author continues to be interested in Wikipedia and to contribute some better articles when he or she is older! RussBlau 19:00, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. "Edgar's last name Balthazar is not mentioned in his only film" - then how do you know that's his last name? Merge, as suggested below - minor characters in films should be kept on the film's page. -- 8^D gab 19:20, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
    • From the script, of course. Lurtz's name is never mentioned in the film either. Radiant_* 12:51, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and cleanup as necessary. He's the main villain, and this page is interesting to fans of the films and fictional butlers. Kappa 21:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Clarify please - do you mean the page is interesting to fictional butlers? Or do you mean the page is interesting to fans of fictional butlers? Do we have a fictional butlers catagory? -- 8^D gab 00:43, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
      • I meant fans of fictional butlers, though presumably fictional butlers themselves would enjoy reading it too. Butler has a short list of them. Kappa 02:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually, turns out there's a category for fictional servants... close enough. -- 8^D gab 05:03, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
  • Merge whatever can be salvaged and redirect to The Aristocats. Weird that this is the only character someone wanted to write about. The guy's last name is original research, however. —Wahoofive | Talk 21:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • FWIW, the guy's last name is actually mentioned in The Aristocats article. No vote. --Calton | Talk 11:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 12:54, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:57, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Gertrude of Unholy Trinity

[edit]

Pure adovocacy. Google returns no results. [5] -- User:DuKot

There's a reason for that, "DuKot". Gertrude is a character in a movie. See [6]

  • Delete. -- ran (talk) 19:46, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Nonsense. Tufflaw 19:50, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:07, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Mohamed Naoulo

[edit]

Non-notable, non-encylopedic. delete. --ChrisRuvolo 20:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, probably vanity. Martg76 21:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gigantour

[edit]

This article was speedy deleted, then became listed on Votes for undeletion, consensus was to undelete. Following VFU process, I am now listing this on VFD. Do not consider this a vote on my part. RickK 21:14, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete advertising. Especially silly to have a link to an external site "to launch in May 2005". Perhaps rates a mention on Megadeth, however. —Wahoofive | Talk 21:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and cleanup POV etc. Large numbers of people would be interesting in a major tour like this with several popular bands. Kappa 21:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. May is close enough that I don't think Wikipedia is not a crystal ball applies; besides, if this tour ends up flopping, it'll probably be notable for that, as well. Needs serious POV cleanup, though. android↔talk 22:11, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Notable tour package by notable bands in heavy metal genre. Capitalistroadster 01:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball does apply. We're not out to scoop anyone. The people who are certain this will be a notable event may certainly move it into user space and prepare to re-create it without prejudice when the tour has occurred and the facts in the article are verifiable. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, clean up and de-POV. plattopusis this thing on? 04:59, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this and edit it please Yuckfoo 06:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. Megan1967 09:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. --Angr/comhrá 10:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Hm, on the one hand, we have the crystal ball clause. On the other hand it's in the near future. On the one hand it gets 5000 googles, on the other hand the fifth of those is the Wikipedia article, and its own site doesn't exist yet. In doubt, so abstain. Radiant_* 12:56, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup - advert for site that does not exist should be deleted from the article. - Tεxτurε 19:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all articles about future events. The facts alleged ar not verifiable. Some fan will cheerfully write the article again after the tour has taken place. Rossami (talk) 23:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Will be verifiable in a week. --Jstalin 20:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:58, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Antonio Fontan

[edit]

Looks like nonnotable vanity to me. CDC (talk) 21:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable Dsmdgold 23:46, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnotable resume promo. Tempshill 23:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, there is a notable person of this name that this article title should be used for. -- Karada 10:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:00, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Royal Tit-Watching (Ornithological) Society of Britain

[edit]

Piss-take masquerading as factual content - SP-KP 21:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Preferably keep. At the very least merge the information to Titmouse. Samaritan 21:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • A royal society should be notable enough. Samaritan 21:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I think you're missing the point here - this society isn't real.... - SP-KP 21:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Take a closer look at the external link. Either you're missing the joke, or there are some really goofy Brits that really like Titmice. (Titmouses?) android↔talk 22:01, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • No, I do get the joke. My nomination is based on the premise that Wikipedia should contain entries about real things, containing factual information. I'm still a relative newcomer though, so tell me if that's not what WP is about. - SP-KP 22:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • That response was directed at Samaritan. android↔talk 22:12, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
            • Yes, sorry, I realised that after I hit "Save page" -SP-KP 22:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • <having set off to fact-check, now suitably embarassed>Delete. Samaritan 22:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Is an article that references an already-existing joke site BJAODN-worthy? If not, Delete. I got a laugh out of it, though. android↔talk 22:01, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, or merge to Titmouse and/or BJAODN. The best thing about the article is the link to the external site, which is already at the end of the Titmouse article. -- Mwanner 23:26, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not serious enough for a merge to Titmouse and not funny enough for BJAODN. --Angr/comhrá 10:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a nice try, quite entertaining, but not really worthy of any lasting memorial. Definitely not to merge with Titmouse. Naturenet 17:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:10, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hazardous event

[edit]

This is a definition that has been nominated for a move to Wictionary. However, the definition is not even a good one. It seems better to just delete it outright than to make work for people over at Wictionary. Johntex 21:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, lame dictdef, agree with Johntex, only meaningful content should be transwikied. Tempshill 23:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • From the Wiktionary perspective, this phrase is as it stands just a simple combination of the adjective hazardous and the noun event. It's not an idiom, and thus unlikely to meet the criteria for inclusion. Uncle G 00:02, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was the one who proposed Wiktionary, but I'm persuaded by the comments above that that's not worth the effort. This is a stupid definition, anyway; the rising of the Sun is a "natural phenomenon"! RussBlau 20:26, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete copyvio. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sitelite

[edit]

commerial advertisement Unsigned vote from 207.104.145.80.

Note: Deleted after listing on Wikipedia:Copyright problems--Duk 23:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • It's also a copyvio from [7]. I've blanked it and put up the copyvio notice but I've kept the VfD nomination header. - Lucky 6.9 22:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert for non-notable company. -- 8^D gab 22:34, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • Delete, a copyvio AND an advert? That's too many sins on an empty stomach for me... Master Thief Garrett 10:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:01, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

S. C. Joseph

[edit]

Hoax. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 22:30, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • You could also think of it as a brilliant parody of teenager vanity pages. BJAODN. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 23:38, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, obvious vanity and nonsense, and it's not funny, so no on BJAODN. Tempshill 23:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Amusing, but tries too hard for BJAODN. Removed from Category:Popes to avoid any confusion by visitors to the category. -- 8^D gab 00:39, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity/hoax. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. Megan1967 06:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, why wasn't this speedily deleted? A2Kafir 23:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 (destination undetermined). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:18, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moblin ring, Like like ring, Quicksand ring, Blue ring, Blast ring

[edit]

a VERY MINOR item in the game, better addressed on its own originating game page

  • Delete, this should simply be included as a line item on the appropriate game page. Firebug 05:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) (originally on Blast ring page, moved here)
  • delete, useless. Absolutely useless... Master Thief Garrett 22:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge if it's better addressed on the parent page. Kappa 23:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, there are 1000 Zelda items, none of which merit a page, nor even a mention in the main article. Tempshill 23:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I confess to not knowin enough to say whether this object deserves amention in the relevent game's article, but I do know that it doesn't deserve an article of its own. Delete. Rje 00:30, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Zeldacruft3. -- 8^D gab 00:35, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
  • Merge Into moblin. Klonimus 07:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good idea, but no, it does NOT belong in Moblin; Moblins do not wear it, it turns you into one!
  • Delete as fancruft, no encyclopedic value. Martg76 08:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 08:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge all these Zelda ring articles together to a List of rings in Zelda games or similar. The moblin ring I recall was an utterly useless ring. Sjakkalle 09:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into games part of the The Legend of Zelda series article, though I would make the suggestion that perhaps the games should have their own article. -- Lochaber 01:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, see, here's the thing. The two oracle games (Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Time) partially overlap, and allow you to take powerups from one to the other. They contain 64 rings in various hidden places (such as gasha trees), most of which have minor or trivial effects, and none of which are required to complete the game. Zelda fans strive to collect them all, which is significantly harder (because of randomness, mainly) than getting all heart pieces. A list of all 64 rings and where to find them would be appropriate on Gamefaqs. But probably not here. Weak delete as such, althouhgh a merge would be a possibility as well. Radiant_* 12:54, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge all -Sean Curtin 00:11, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thunderbrand 23:40, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Billy Bishop. —Xezbeth 20:04, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Bill Bishop

[edit]

Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. delete (and perhaps make redirect to Billy Bishop) Geoff/Gsl 22:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, unnotable resume. Tempshill 23:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE and REDIRECT to Billy Bishop, WWI ace fighter pilot sounds good 132.205.15.43 01:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as vanity. The article has essentially one author, whose only other contributions are vandalism - rernst 03:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Billy Bishop as stated above. 23skidoo 00:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and re-create as Redirect to Billy Bishop Dsmdgold 20:17, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (pending; block-compress error). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lonaf

[edit]

Vanity, no evidence of encyclopedic content. 209.226.118.95 23:11, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 22:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joe Williamson

[edit]

Promo of "THE bassist of the European Improv and Free Jazz scene." Presumably vanity in addition to promo. Tempshill 23:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:08, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

USS Liberty Alliance

[edit]

The article is very low on information and looks like someone's vanity and un-encyclopedic (and not well written). No reference on the Web could be found. The incident itself is decribed on page of its own in detail, with sources. Pavel Vozenilek 23:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anti-Israel is anti-Semitism. --Elitcher 03:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ehm? What I saw was (likely) copied text from some long forgotten press release of long forgotten people, not yet another conspiracy fantazy. Pavel Vozenilek 03:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Anything this article could possibly said has been said at USS Liberty Klonimus 07:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to USS Liberty. Notability is obviously established, but can be adequtey dealt with within the USS Liberty article, so a M&R should cover it. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:36, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:57, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

TuFat

[edit]

vanity? should be checked out

  • Seems to be a legitimate script but still basically advertising. Delete —Wahoofive | Talk 06:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • delete please it seems kind of pov too Yuckfoo 06:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- I use one of his scripts, but it's not that notable -- Longhair | Talk 11:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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_April_18&oldid=1234126580"