This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mackensen (talk) 05:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rubbish. – Kpalion (talk) 21:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Idem as Kpalion --Neigel von Teighen 21:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- SGBailey 22:05, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
• Delete -- It is not-notable enough to be Wikipedia, even if it was made famous by David Chapelle. Zzyzx11 23:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardo 05:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 09:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mackensen (talk) 05:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Abraham Robertson garners 116 hits on google. [1] Does holding a seat at the Savilian Chair of Geometry at the University of Oxford establish "enough" notability for inclusion on Wikipedia? No vote. GRider\^talk 18:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Don't know how important he was, but seems at least a little interesting. Started out as a domestic servant who was sent to Oxford by his master when his talent was discovered.[2][3]. There is no biography at the University of St Andrews mathematics site, which speaks against his inclusion. Very few hits on JSTOR. Is he included in the Dictionary of National Biography? If he is, I think he should be included here, otherwise perhaps merge what little information there is on him with the Savilian chair of geometry article, and do the same for other less notable holders of the chair. / u p p l a n d 19:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've checked and he in in the ODNB --nixie 06:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep then. If he is good enough for them, he is good enough for Wikipedia. / u p p l a n d 07:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it. Wyss 20:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I don't think teaching at Oxford alone is enough to be included here. He may be a promise that wasn't fulfilled. I would welcome more proof of his notability. JoaoRicardo 06:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. On second thought, considering that disk space is cheap, the man has been dead for centuries and the article doesn't advertise anything, keeping this will not do any harm. JoaoRicardo 06:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Notable. Megan1967 09:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the ODNB is good enough for me. Paul August ☎ 16:04, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mackensen (talk) 05:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This substub reads, verbatim: "Addison Webster Moore (1866 - 1930) was a U.S. pragmatist philosopher." End of stub. Google returns 30 matches for Addison Webster Moore. [4] Is the availability of this subject a benefit to our readers? GRider\^talk 18:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Searching JSTOR, I get a few things written by him and an article "Addison Webster Moore: Defender of Instrumentalism", by Benjamin Wolstein, in the Journal of the History of Ideas 1949. Wolstein writes: "Moore carried on his work in logic and ethics in the seminars at the University of Chicago. Though never fully published, it has wielded a powerful influence over a long line of students and teachers of philosophy." Wolstein then goes on to say that the evaluation of AWM has been difficult because his papers were not made available to him. He concludes: "His place in American philosophy, when assessed by his meagre writings, definitely hinges upon what becomes of the experimental naturalism of which he was a founding father." I will leave to someone else to read the whole article, but this seems at the very least to be a case where "Wikipedia is not paper" can be applied. / u p p l a n d 19:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's helpful. Wyss 20:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a quick scan of some of the pages listed on Google indicates that Moore was a close colleague of John Dewey and was influential in the development of the instrumentalism version of pragmatism. Zzyzx11 23:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have expanded a little. JoaoRicardo 07:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand, influential. Megan1967 09:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Where does Wikipedia stand on minor British politicians? Adrian John Flook receives 74 hits on google. [5] Is this enough to justify an article on Wikipedia? If so, how do politicians differ in measurement of importance from other notable figures within fields such as entertainment, science, technology and other subcultures? GRider\^talk 18:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Though I personally disagree, consensus seems to be that anybody who gets elected for a governmental position is worthy of inclusion. Radiant! 20:27, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) I actually doubt that it is consensual. Radiant! 13:05, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • If this is a general concensus, even for minor politicians, should it then become an official guideline somewhere, rather than an unwritten rule? I cannot locate any document which states we are bound to include any and all political figures. GRider\^talk 20:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, we should talk about this. Anyway including any voted official would be silly, as every city has several dozens of them. I believe they should instead be included in the appropriate city article. (qv discussion on Chicago eldermen, on feb/15th). Oh, and yes that means I vote to delete this one. Radiant! 09:23, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• For me, this sort of article is spot on the line. Abstain. Wyss 20:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, since the trend seems to be to include all members of national legislative bodies (Representatives and Senators in the U.S., MPs in Canada and the U.K., etc.). --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It should be possible to write an encyclopedic article about any MP. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:58, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Surely one could argue it should be possible to write an encyclopedic article about anyone, period? What distinguishes this person from my neighbor down the street? GRider\^talk 17:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur with Grider. Delete. Radiant! 13:05, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 07:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep.--Centauri 12:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 23:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I can't see how MPs can be not encyclopedic while members of US Congress are (and some people want to have articles on people who unsuccessfully ran for Congress). Keep because he's a politician on a national level. Any smaller and I'd likely have voted to delete. -R. fiend 23:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 05:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Adryenn Ashley is an actress turned movie producer with a new movie coming out in 2005." With a search on google, she garners 197 hits. [6] What is the stance for inclusion of up-and-coming movie producers? GRider\^talk 18:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• As long as they haven't done squat, they don't deserve a mention. Neither do bands with zero albums on their track record, or writers who haven't had a book published yet. Radiant! 20:28, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete! for non-notability. --Neigel von Teighen 20:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Less notable than the actors involved with Democrazy, and that's saying something. Xezbeth 20:31, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Her credits listed on Internet Movie Database are not notable enough to be in Wikipedia now. Maybe later. Zzyzx11 23:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm going to have to vote keep on this entry because of my previous votes on Diane Mela and Lorna Nogueira, otherwise I'm going to look like a hypocrite :) Megan1967 02:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • What was that Emerson said about a hobgoblin? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:59, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • "To be great is to be misunderstood". Megan1967 08:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment cleaned up and expanded since nomination. Megan1967 04:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough. IMDb simply recognizes her movie exist, but has very few information on them. Since IMDb garners information from volunteer users, it means very few people saw the movies. And she gets few Google hits as well. JoaoRicardo 07:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: promo, nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep, does not meet deletion criteria - David Gerard 23:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 05:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vanity? A google search for "Alan Randalls" results in zero hits on google. [7] A search for his alias, "Randall Gray", turns up about 1300 hits but none of them appear to be immediately related. [8] How is it that this article should be kept, but other minor entertainment personalities deleted? What is distinctive about this particular individual? GRider\^talk 20:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• The case may be that those other minor personalities have been noticed by the VfD squad before, and this one hasn't. Looking at his article (and the failed google test) I do not see anything notable enough to warrant inclusion, so I'd vote for delete. Radiant! 20:29, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No relevant Google hits. And I can't find a listing for him in the Internet Movie Database. If no Google and no IMDB, then no Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 23:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. GRider, if you believe there are other articles that should be deleted, please list them here as well. JoaoRicardo 07:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - zero Google hits. Megan1967 09:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: promo, nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mackensen (talk) 05:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alicia Rhett carried a part in the notable film Gone with the Wind. But this was her only film role during her career. Virtually every biography page I can locate online for this individual returns an empty HTML document or something summed up in one or two sentences. What is the protocol for this situation? If this article cannot be expanded beyond a mere single sentence, was this role really enough to justify an article on Wikipedia? GRider\^talk 20:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Hmm...I would stop the Vfd, list the article on Requests for expansion and see what happens. If it doesn't get expanded, a new vote should be opened. --Neigel von Teighen 20:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• How about merge with (and redirect to) said film? Radiant! 22:17, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment -- Similar problems like this one are going to turn up. The Wikipedians who have been writing articles on the various notable movies and TV shows have been creating separate articles for each and every actor. So every once in a while, there will be an actor that can only be summed up in 1-2 sentences. So what should we do about it? Zzyzx11 00:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe there should be an official policy of expanding existing articles instead of creating new ones. Whenever new information can fit into an existing article that hasn't exceeded the 32 kb limit yet, it should be there instead of having its own article. JoaoRicardo 07:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparently she did nothing notable after being in Gone with the Wind. JoaoRicardo 07:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I'll have a crack at it tomorrow Neigel. Megan1967 09:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment expanded. Megan1967 04:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. She may have had only one role, but it was in one of the most popular films of all time. While I'm not a fan of the film myself, it is one of a handful of movies in which everyone involved is notable, all the way down to the key grip. Gamaliel 07:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. ComCat 02:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep. This is an exemplary article. —RaD Man (talk) 11:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What is this deletioncruft? - David Gerard 23:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This 'cruft' as you call it is a small group of Wikipedians who are making a large effort to categorize thousands of articles, in this particular case the entire bio-stub category. Please be civil. Radiant! 12:06, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 05:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article stub reads, in total, "Alicia Selby was the winner of Miss Teen Tennessee 2003, and 1st runner-up in Miss Teen USA 2003." Does being the winner of a beauty pageant in [[US-STATENAME]] make that individual "notable enough" for inclusion? (No vote.) GRider\^talk 20:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Alicia Selby gets 232 hits on google. [9]
  • Many of those pages on Google just list the results of Miss Teen USA 2003, or news articles about the pageant, but nothing notable about Selby herself. Zzyzx11 00:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Nearly every high school has a contest like that. Miss <country> deserves a page, but not miss <age category> <state>. Radiant! 22:22, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment -- Currently, the Miss Teen Tennessee USA article is the second state beauty pageant listed in the Beauty pageants category (the other is Rhode Island). But the Miss Tennessee Teen article has all the winners wikified. Zzyzx11 00:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. And someone will have to do something about Miss Teen USA and Miss Teen Tennessee, but let's wait to see how the consensus on this will come out. JoaoRicardo 07:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, even if she had won. -R. fiend 08:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Megan1967 09:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, participation in a beauty pageant doesn't make a person notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (though it is borderline) - David Gerard 23:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This Angela Mason receives about 156 hits on google. [10] Is notability within the gay community enough to establish the right to inclusion on Wikipedia? GRider\^talk 22:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. She was awarded the Order of the British Empire as well. I will trust the Queen's judgement on this. Besides, isn't it remarkable that an institution that most people mentally link to conservatism has awarded a gay leader? JoaoRicardo 08:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. At worst, this is a harmless inclusion. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:03, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand. Notable enough for me. Megan1967 09:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair 18:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 23:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mackensen (talk) 20:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This author receives 1080 hits on google. [11] Are all published 21st century authors inherently noteworthy? What bar must authors meet to become included on Wikipedia? GRider\^talk 23:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Founder of a scholarly journal and music critic for The Nation seems pretty notable. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:02, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if you filter through the results removing wikipedia and duplicate pages it actually drops down to 830. Just under the bar of notability for me. Megan1967 09:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. By founding a scholarly music journal, seems to me boretz established a stable venue for informed and intelligent musical discussions. In other disciplines, such venues contribute to advancements in the field, don't they? I checked out Perspectives of New Music, and since its founding in the early 60's every big name in 20th century 'classical' music has published there: Stockhausen, Babbitt, Xenakis, Ferneyhough, the list goes on. If the founder of the scientific journal Nature was also a noteworthy biologist, or accomplished physicist, would'nt they be notable enough for inclusion here? Everything I've encountered (such as the entry on him in Groves Encyclopedia, the standard source in music scholarship) suggests Boretz is an accomplished and respected composer and music theorist. In what ways do Google hits affirm/deny notability? --User:Nding
• Keep.
• Keep - David Gerard 23:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Mackensen (talk) 20:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Benny Lautrup is an assistant professor at the University of Copenhagen. Is this a case of vanity, or notability? What are the determining factors in deciding if a professor (or assistant professor) is "notable enough"? Is google really a fair barometer? GRider\^talk 22:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unless there is evidence that his work has caused any impact in his field. JoaoRicardo 07:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless more notability established than has been so far. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:04, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand. Megan1967 08:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Author as well? I think this makes the article borderline acceptable. 129.177.61.124 10:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment On the basis of the present article, it should stand or fall on the notability of the textbook. Libbie Hyman, I think, never climbed beyond the rank of "lecturer" but well deserves her article. I can't judge the textbook from this Amazon listing. Ah. http://www.lautrup.nbi.dk/continuum/ says It is to be published in "early 2005." Apparently it is not out yet. Therefore...
• Delete, advertising. Reconsider after book is published. I am very, very, very much opposed to articles that just happen to be about books, movies, software, etc. that are about to be released. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) P. S. Impressive pre-publication comments. I like the title, it might well be a dandy book. If it's not too technical I might even want to read it. It and Lautrup might well be worthy of an article eventually. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
  • Thanks for finding the links. From author's website, it is (well, will be) an ordinary textbook which summarizes the topic and contains no original research. I'm sure it's a good textbook, but I don't see how it is a notable achievement. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, just for the record, Libbie Hyman's The Invertebrates, was originally intended to be a textbook, contains no original research, and is a notable achievement. So the thing is possible. Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming might be a more familliar example. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Dpbsmith. Delete Radiant! 12:10, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An unpublished textbook is does not add up to sufficent notability. Gamaliel 18:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. / u p p l a n d 16:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) Comment: He has published considerably more than "an unpublished textbook" Look at his CV:

• 73 scientific publications in refereed journals.
• 15 scientific conference contributions.
• 4 reprinted scientific articles in antologies.
• 7 other scientific publications.
• 122 popular and semipopular articles.
• 1 popular book in Danish, English and German.
• 1 textbook

And "assistant professor" is misleading, if it is meant to imply something like an entry-level US position. He is a lektor or lecturer, which is a position where many notable researchers can remain for the duration of their career if they don't want to leave for a chair at another university. (Denmark is a small country with only two really important universities, and I can easily imagine somebody not wanting to leave Copenhagen and the Niels Bohr Institute.) / u p p l a n d 22:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • The textbook is, I repeat, unpublished. The only thing resembling a "popular book" that Amazon knows about is ISBN 9971509393 Neural Networks: Computers With Intuition by S. Brunak and B. Lautrup (i.e. he's not the senior author). Amazon sales rank is #3,254,333 which is definitely non-notable. All of the other contributions indicate a very solid level of achievement in the academic world and perhaps would merit a mention in whatever would be the Danish equivalent of "Who's Who in Science and Engineering," but not an encyclopedia article.
• Keep - more notable than any Pokemon you care to name - David Gerard 23:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A published (and translated) book, a reasonable number of scientific publications in refereed journals, and also having been chairman for a (small) research centre for more than 10 years makes him notable enough for Wikipedia. More notable than the average (American) professor. But just as has been suggested before, we could use a rule that is easier to apply and less prone to differences in education terminology than the "average professor test". Alarm 10:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 21:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a perfectly nice person, but not encyclopedic. Vanity page. Katefan0 00:25, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability. Johntex 02:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:03, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, platform for not one but two external links. —Korath (Talk) 07:43, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. utcursch 07:46, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Vinit Bhansali article is not-notable, full of vanity and not encyclopedic. Zzyzx11 00:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 21:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Company that is not encyclopedically notable, run by above. Katefan0 00:32, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability Johntex 02:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:04, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm with you. BenSamples 06:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, platform for an external link. —Korath (Talk) 07:42, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ok, I goofed up! Vinit (original author) 15:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Vinit, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that is not a place to advertise a company that provides Managed Software and Project Development Services for Small and Medium Sized Businesses. -- Delete. Zzyzx11 00:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mackensen (talk) 21:10, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What links here seems to think this is an article on Green Hills Software's operating system, but this ain't it. What is here is a bad definition of Integrity - and that needs to go. humblefool® 01:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete bad diddef or else advertising of some sort of process improvement, I can't tell. Either way, it needs to go. Johntex 02:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rewrite and expand. 1,280,000 hits on Google. Megan1967 02:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is most certainly notable. Albeit not being very popular on the mainstream market, Integrity is quite a real OS. I would suggest adding an EXPANSION tag. --Sn0wflake 04:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - What's there is so awful it's stunning, but it needs to be rewritten and not destroyed. BenSamples 06:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Original content was crap, I have replaced it with a stub that matches the article title. jni 07:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good job there, jni. --Sn0wflake 18:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Well stubbed, jni. Trilobite (Talk) 14:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Thank you for stubbing it, Jni. Zzyzx11 00:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 21:11, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposed for speedy but not a clear candidate, I'm bumping it to VfD. The twist is, it's a disambig stub, so even if half is vanity the other half might not be. I didn't research it and am not voting. -- Curps 01:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, possible vanity. "Jeff Bird" + "Iron Casting" turns up no relevant hits on Google, so that part of the article is unverifiable. Megan1967 02:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, prolly stealth vanity. Wyss 20:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mackensen (talk) 21:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposed for speedy but borderline candidate, I'm bumping it to VfD. I didn't research it and am not voting. -- Curps 01:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Most recently a young girl from Cornell utilized the word in a correspondence to here colleague in the New York City region, and Kazam!, the term was reborn... Looks like a joke between friends. – Beginning 02:35, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• This word fails the Google Groups test. The only hits are foreign words, brand names, or magic words such as alakazam. It also fails the IMDB test. The film is, of course, Kazaam. Kazam is a word that will not leave the English dictionary. But it will leave the English encyclopaedia. Delete. Uncle G 02:54, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
• Delete. --Sn0wflake 04:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Movie was Kazaam anyway.--ZayZayEM 04:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Kazam! Delete!. No real information here, newly coined word. jni 07:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not a neologism, but not encyclopedic. Wyss 20:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kazaam. After all, "Kazam" can be considered a common misspelling, right? :-). Zzyzx11 00:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:23, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kazaam. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 21:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposed for speedy but not a clear candidate, I'm bumping it to VfD. I didn't research it and am not voting. -- Curps 01:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary or Delete - If it applies to Wiktionary, then sitck it over there, but it definitely shouldn't be on Wikipedia. -- Cabhan 01:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Very confusing and doesn't convey any real information. --Sn0wflake 04:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Italian genealogy plus foreign dicdef. Wyss 20:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just a dicdef. Zzyzx11 00:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 21:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposed for speedy but not a candidate, I'm bumping it to VfD. I didn't research it and am not voting. -- Curps 01:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band promo. Megan1967 02:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's incredible how these bands keep "pushing boundaries" and "defining the genre" daily. --Sn0wflake 04:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and re-define for describing Zionists, Nazis, and other racists.
• Delete--ZayZayEM 04:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. BenSamples 06:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Band vanity. jni 07:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promotion. Wyss 20:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --BM 20:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 20:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Scrotum Head article has "pushed the boundaries" and is "beginning to expand in new forms of" self-promotion and vanity. Zzyzx11 00:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete Yuckfoo 03:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Smeghead. Mixed 03:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. author has removed any attempts of advertisment
• Keep. doesn't look too bad
• Keep.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mackensen (talk) 21:19, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Advertisement. 213.93.227.195 02:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep rewrite and expand. Burn4Free shows up 182,000 hits on Google. Megan1967 02:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete those hits are only download pages, nothing like the GIMP about which there is actual information, or Ahead Nero, a hugely more famous CD burning tool, of which there is no wiki page, but which "boasts" nearly 800,000 google hits. 213.93.227.195 03:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Under current VfD rules, votes by anonymous users are not counted. Megan1967 04:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh well, don't count me then. I'm only trying to improve wikipedia (a little). Just look at the other 'contributions' the poster of the article has made: LXer, Ultra Browser, GnomeBaker and more of that kind of 'information'. 213.93.227.195 04:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It is bad faith votes that are not counted. Anonymity simply adds weight to bad faith. It is not evidence of bad faith per se. Anonymous users make hundreds of good faith contributions to Wikipedia every day. And to me what is written above seems to be one of them. Uncle G 15:20, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
• Not a vote It seems teh other burning tool is called Nero Burning ROM in the wikipedia, my bad. Still I think the google test is a bit lame when it comes to relevance. 213.93.227.195 03:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The author added this to the article, which I have removed: This page is not an advertisement because there are alot of pages about pieces of software. Such as Microsoft Windows, GIMP, Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, OSX, K3B and more. I think this page should be kept. Wolfman 03:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Right now, the article basically serves as a link to an external site. If expanded somewhat by end of vfd, I support keeping. If not, ditch it. Wolfman 03:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Alexa stats for www.burn4free.com;

Traffic Rank for burn4free.com: 66,350 (down2,240)
Speed:  Very Slow, Avg Load Time: 6.2 Seconds
Other sites that link to this site:  90
Popups: Many (23% of sessions have popups)
Online Since:  23-Aug-2002

• I don't know if this is evidence of noteability, but even IF it is, if no expansion past a single sentence and no edits for by end of VfD, Delete. --Dbroadwell 04:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Blindwrite is much more notable and doesn't have an article. I personally think that articles on the Wikipedia should only be about software which truly makes a difference, such as Photoshop, Corel Draw, Paint Shop Pro, Mozilla Firefox, OpenOffice.org and so on. Sn0wflake 04:16, 2005 Feb 16 (according to history Uncle G 15:20, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC))
• Delete. Ad. Trilobite (Talk) 14:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad for one of many similar apps. Wyss 20:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep What's wrong with you people? All I did was make an article on a popular CD burning tool. The thing has got tons of Google hits and I see alot of other software on Wikipedia that you guys don't want to delete. Why single out this one?
  • Comment by BWF89 --InShaneee 22:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey there BWF89, how do you do? It's sad that your first article has fallen right into the VfD, but don't worry, it's nothing personal. Sooner or later you will get what is generally considered notable and what is considered non-notable around these parts. There are different criterias for different areas. It can be confusing at times. But basically, when it comes to software, everything that isn't quite notable is considered advertising. Since we are on the internet, that happens quite frequently, so a more rigid criteria has to be adopted on these instances. If you feel that a certain article about a software isn't notable enough to be on the Wikipedia and you have some degree of proof to back you up, you can nominate it and we will vote on it on the same manner. Don't feel discouraged. --Sn0wflake 01:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not-worthy to keep --Neigel von Teighen 22:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 22:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We just need to see more notable references than that. Zzyzx11 00:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, But add to CD Burning page as an example -- notable, but not enough for its own article
  • The CD burner page has only one example: Nero burning ROM, and it's an internal link. 213.93.227.195 15:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable. Someone thinking of buying it might look it up on Wikipedia. Expand though. Howabout1 04:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. notable software. --Haham hanuka 08:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a directory of all of the software packages in the world, any more than it is a directory of all of the people/companies/bands/websites/films/actors/writers/schools/clubs in the world. If this were about a person, I'd vote Userfy, unless that user already had their own, perfectly good, user page. Since it is about a software package, and since the software package has its own, perfecly good, home page, I vote Delete. Also note that Wikipedia is not a web hosting service or an advertising billboard. Uncle G 11:28, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 21:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A google query for "drunken pirates" +sudbury [12] returns no hits. The article states that "Most people agree that these suburban teenagers did next to nothing that can be considered worthwhile." Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 02:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like some friends were teasing them by writing the article, or they did it themselves. And hey, you can't argue when even the article says they haven't done anything special.  :) – Beginning 02:34, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed. Nothing worthy to be saved here - whitti 02:38, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Wyss 20:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --BM 20:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Most of the Wikipedians who voted agree that the author of this article did next to nothing that can be considered worthwhile. Zzyzx11 00:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable Ana Jessica 05:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 00:48, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

vanityGeni 02:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. --Sn0wflake 04:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (Will everyone please bear in mind Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers. "Vanity" is a Wikipedia jargon term that may cause offence to contributors, even though that's unintentional.) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia I'm afraid, not a resource for people's family stories. This is best recorded on a personal website. Trilobite (Talk) 14:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: let me rephrase, then. The Wikipedia follows a series of standards and conventions; it would be nice if you could check the Help section. This sort of contribution would better fit an user-space. To create one you just need to create an article like this: User:YourAlias/Something. Hope that clarifies things. Well, in the end of the day it is still vanity. ;) Cheers. --Sn0wflake 18:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and this article is not vanity, it's genealogy, which is why it belongs on VfD. Wyss 20:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Genealogy. An encyclopedia is not the right place to put it in. Zzyzx11 00:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete genealogy Ana Jessica 06:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mackensen (talk) 00:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The main feature on this page is the link, might be a candidate for speedy deletion with the new rules --nixie 03:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, website advertisement, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Umm, that would be a very strong Keep and Expand. A snippet from www.us-israel.org, "Theodor Herzl, the father of political Zionism, outlined his vision for a Jewish state in Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) ..." Sounds notable to me. Wolfman 06:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Certainly notable and should be expanded, but if not: merge with Theodor Herzl and redirect. It can always be recreated later with more content. (However, the Herzl article already has a link to an English translation of Der Judenstaat. Is there any difference?) / u p p l a n d 09:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Redirect. It's all very well saying expand, but are you going to do it? Whoever created this article appears to have done it purely to advertise their website. If someone else comes along one day and writes a decent article that's all well and good, but today is not that day. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the concern over the link. It's not to a commercial site. It just links to the plain book. But, since it troubles you, I'll wikisource the book (now done). This seems like one of the most influential books ever written as far as its impact on modern geopolitics. A redirect discourages any future development, better to simply delete than that. In contrast, a brief stub encourages development. Wolfman 17:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, don't redirect, I agree that discourages further development; please, someone who knows Herzl's work firsthand, expand this! -- Jmabel | Talk 08:08, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, request expansion somehow. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 00:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A MIRC RPG group vanity page with NO alexa data and a pathetic google of 1 hit for the url. Not to mention an orphan and only not a dead end by one link to mIRC

• Delete --Dbroadwell 04:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Kukuman 04:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Simply not notable. -- Cabhan 04:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Cruft. jni 06:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable, even among the living-in-the-parents'-basement-at-30 crowd. BenSamples 06:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete uber-nerd-cruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nanocruft. Wyss 20:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just a non-notable homemade RPG campaign. Zzyzx11 01:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• See why I voted myself on this one?--Dbroadwell 04:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 00:53, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikispam.--ZayZayEM 04:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Spam. Likely a copyvio also. jni 06:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Is the "Our Website" not enough of a giveaway? Again I say, if you want to use Wikipedia to promote your company, do it by donating money to the project. Then we will pay attention (while still probably VfDing your wikispam). HyperZonk 17:33, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Wyss 20:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I just marked it as copyvio. Almost all of the entire article was copied directly from the pages of the company's web site. Zzyzx11 01:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • FYI: The first part of the article was directly copied from this: [13]. The rest of the article was directly copied from its product pages. Zzyzx11 01:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 00:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not-notable flash game--ZayZayEM 04:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad... 20:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This probably belongs on a gamers web site like GameFAQs. Zzyzx11 01:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete please. Radiant! 16:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 23:35, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Only one Google hit. Sounds like nonsense, anyway. RickK 06:15, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Until I see definite prrof it doesn't exist, I think it should be kept. Google hits mean nothing. Tsuyoshikentsu 06:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • How am I supposed to prove a negative? Like I said, only ONE Google hit. If this is so common, why aren't there more hits? Also note that the above User is the creator of the VFD listed articles PhoenixFeathers and Hedgehog (zine). Seems like a retaliation vote, to me. RickK 06:34, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Self-evident nonsense: "Alternative treatments include finding supernovae". Wolfman 06:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - This reeks of silly. One line in the article reads: "The symptoms are not unlike those of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, or Echolalia." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't find a damned thing in common between those three medical problems. I suspect this article was written by a fish enthusiast as some kind of joke. BenSamples 06:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Gazpacho 07:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Deletion is the cure for this silly hoax: ...the only treatment includes expensive but cheap drugs from Canada. Alternative treatments include finding supernovae. jni 08:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. Trilobite (Talk) 14:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, prank, borders on a speedy but it's harmless to careful readers. Wyss 20:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Warning of bogusness placed on page. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Bogusness? I always thought it was bogosity.  :) RickK 00:14, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Either way, it's definitely bogolicious.... - Nunh-huh 00:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speed deleted as silly vandalism. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 00:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

hoax. a very widespread, but very secret religion. so secret that it would appear we are the only outsiders who now know of it. Wolfman 06:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Tiresome fiction, delete. -- Hoary 06:55, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - zero Google hits, hoax. Megan1967 07:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• So smoking cannabis is a a religion now, is it? Delete. Uncle G 15:36, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
  • doh! i get it now. well, it's at least funny now instead of just weird. Wolfman 16:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, twaddle humour. Wyss 20:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While little is known of their rites and sacraments, Cannitology is not yet notable enough to be Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 01:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 00:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A game review. RickK 06:31, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, game review/ad. Wyss 20:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete One of the first setbacks of this article was to actually locate notable information. Due to its promomotional tone, I vote to limit its use on Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 01:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Blah, blah, blah. {Flush}. Get a website. -- Serge Dupouy 11:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 01:01, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suspect this was written to advertise a defunct web page (http://www.yahoo-underground.com) which was designed to spread information about misbehaving on Yahoo's chat and game servers. Even if it weren't, this page needs a lot of help even for a stub and I'm not sure much more could be done with it than already has. BenSamples 06:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At best, a passing mention might be warranted within the Yahoo! article, but I am of the opinion that it does not warrant even that. HyperZonk 17:29, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, yahoocruft or whatever. Wyss 20:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This tally chart has been added by me. If I've added your vote in error, please edit my chart. Mike H 03:17, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

More of Everyking's Ashleecruft. RickK 06:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, please make it stop! Adam Bishop 06:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Wiki is not paper. Everyking 06:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete today! Rhobite 06:45, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, Ashlee is ruining Wikipedia! -- Riffsyphon1024 06:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Stick this with the general Ashlee Simpson article. --Hedgeman 06:51, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Huh? Everyking 06:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Why constantly try to annoy people with useless and unnecessary articles when you can just edit away at her main article, and instead of making it sound like a commercial. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I want to write about the tour itself. It's a notable thing in its own right. Everyking 07:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wiki is not bog paper. -- Hoary 06:55, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
• Delete, this is, first, already on Ashlee Simpson's main article: Ashlee Simpson#In 2005. Second, this does not need to be it's own article --AlexTheMartian 06:58, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Much of it isn't, and I'm planning on expanding it greatly. They haven't even done the first show yet. Everyking 07:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • When they do, I'll enjoy cackling over the Guardian review of this non-event. -- Hoary 07:32, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
      • Boy, someone's gonna have to provide a translation of some of the Brit-Pop-Culture terminology in that review. --Calton 08:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• You have got to be kidding. Delete, jam a wooden stake in its heart, burn the corpse, and salt the earth it lay upon. Everyking, you're becoming a parody of yourself. Get help. --Calton 07:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Having just read the entry for Fancruft, I reluctantly agree that a musical tour of a big name artist is an event large enough to justify its own page. However, I favour retaining information about future tours within the artist's main page and only forking off a separate page after the tour has occured and the level of detail has risen sufficiently for the separate page to be clearly larger than a stub (and for there to be no doubt that it's not promotional in nature). I'm not familiar with Wikipedia procedures; If it's deleted now can it come back later? ...at 08:33, 2005 Feb 16 Krisjohn forgot the twiddles
• Keep now or let it be recreated when it gets bigger. Did we mention that wikipedia is not paper? ...at 09:01, 2005 Feb 16 Kappa forgot to hit the twiddles
  • Did we mention that it's supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an obsessed fanboy shrine? --Calton 10:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Information about major tours by popular artists would fit nicely in a music encyclopedia, and I don't think it says anywhere that WP limits itself to being a "general" encyclopedia. Kappa 10:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: I can't think of any music encyclopedia that has entire articles about individual tours by particular, ah, artistes. (A fanboy encyclopedia devoted to Simpson might, though.) -- Hoary 11:01, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
• Delete. I wouldn't mind a list of Ashlee Simpson tours with brief descriptions on each, but this is becoming too specific. Radiant! 11:04, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unnecessary detail in its own page - Skysmith 11:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Merits a sentence in the main article. --BM 12:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Get hold of the MediaWiki software, get some hosting sorted, and set up an Ashlee Simpson encyclopedia. Trilobite (Talk) 14:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I guess that would be nice, but it doesn't excuse Wikipedia from the task of having a general article on the tour. I hear there's a music wiki now, but I don't see people running around deleting music articles left and right. Everyking 14:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete this is getting absolutely ridiculous. Enough already. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:43, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unnecessary detail for insufficiently notable performer; speculative, with no verifiable content except a schedule of future events; and for the not-quite-policy reason that WP has already VfD'ed other Ashlee-excess-detail breakout articles. This has already gotten into past rounds of Requests for Comment and I hope it ends instead of leading to feuding. Barno 14:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speculative? Everything in the article is factual and verifiable. Everyking 14:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • And appealing to precedent doesn't make much sense. As I recall, four Ashlee articles have been kept (POM, Shadow, La La, Auto sales&charts) and two have been deleted (Auto album design, Auto promo & publicity). Everyking 14:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Oops, what about the articles about Ashlee on SNL and Ashlee on Mad TV? Did those slip your mind? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It might be acceptable to have one article with a list of all of her tours. This isn't Ashlipedia. Carrp | Talk 15:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Fine. We can consolidate all the information on her concerts past present and future onto this article if it gets kept. But there's no sense in deleting it. The fact is, people will find this article useful. Everyking 15:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't it be easier and more productive to create a new page such as List of Ashlee Simpson tours and use the existing information as a starting point? I'm not sure how keeping this article (US tour, 2005) would be helpful to readers or editors. Carrp | Talk 15:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • We can always just move it to another title if we decide to do that. But keep in mind this is her first real tour per se, although I could still write some stuff about her 2004 concerts. Everyking 15:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Carrp, make one such list, under the most generic title (i.e. not one ending in US. 2005). If list happens to have only one tour, I believe we should merge with main A.S. article. Radiant! 15:26, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Just as with all other musicians, and indeed all other articles in general, breaking out discographies/tour lists/biographies is only warranted when the size of the relevant section in the main article becomes unwieldy. This is most definitely not the case for a musician's very first tour which hasn't even occurred yet. Delete this groundless fork, and let the already existing tour section of Ashlee Simpson expand in the normal way. Uncle G 16:03, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
• Delete, or merge back into the main article if more detail is required there. The tour hasn't even had its first performance yet. An article may be warranted if something particularly noteworthy (in the context of popular music, not just Ashlee Simpson) happens on the tour. If she has more than a few tours, then it might be worthwhile to break them out together into a separate article, but that's a question for a couple of years from now. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain leaning toward keep. I don't see the harm of forking this off of the main article and deleting it after the tour ends. Someone researching Ashlee Simpson could conceivably be interested in tour info. Just my $.02. - Lucky 6.9 17:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Putting this specific VfD aside for a moment, I strongly disagree with the idea of creating an article with the intention of deleting it in the future. If an article's subject is encyclopedic today, it won't become unencyclopedic in the future. Even if it was no longer notable in the future, it would still be encyclopedic because it was notable at one time. Getting back to this VfD, I don't like the idea of such a specific article. Are there going to be separate articles if there are tours in 2006 or 2007? What about tours in countries other than the US? I support the creation of one article, such as List of Ashlee Simpson tours. Carrp | Talk 18:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • And if you vote keep, that's what we'll have. But if this deleted, then the precedent will be set not to have articles on tours, which I think is ridiculous. Think how many people will go to these shows, and how many of them there are. Not only that, but it's going to be featured on the reality show, which makes it even more notable. Everyking 18:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, how many articles on tours do we currently have? Just this one, Lollapalooza, Family Values Tour (substub), and Lilith Fair (stub). Nobody seems to have bothered to put up articles about any of the enormous single-artist insternational tours that have happened every year for decades. If major world tours don't get articles, then why should this single-country tour have one? If all tours should have articles, then we should focus on the major tours by the likes of Madonna, U2, Elton John, The Rolling Stones, etc. before we bother with Ashlee trivia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:13, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • We have a paltry stub on the Blond Ambition Tour. If Ashlee Simpson is a worldwide superstar in 10 years, maybe she can have a similar tour worthy of mention. Adam Bishop 19:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • What kind of logic is that? I imagine someone in the early days of Wikipedia insisting on the deletion of an article on San Marino because China doesn't yet have an article. It doesn't matter whether we start big or small. Everyking 19:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • See, you seem to be assuming that tours don't have articles simply because nobody has had time to create them yet. Instead, I'd say that tours don't have articles because most people feel they're not encyclopedic. Example: Madonna's Re-invention Tour was probably the most important tour of last year (certainly the highest-grossing) and the folks over at the Madonna (entertainer) article have discussed the tour in the main article, complete with two pictures, rather than spinning it off. If any recent tour should have an article, it should be that one, but it doesn't, because it's just plain not necessary. Think about it: imagine somebody really did want to use Wikipedia to research Ashlee's tour. Which is more logical... that they'd look for it on the Ashlee Simpson page, or that they'd type in "Ashlee Simpson U.S. tour, 2005"? Come on, now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:05, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
            • ...They'd go to Ashlee's article first and follow the link, obviously. That's how we organize all kinds of things. A summary in Ashlee's article, then comprehensive detail in this one. Everyking 21:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I support articles that detail all tours of an an artist. I do not support articles on one tour in one year in one country. Unless you believe this is Ashlee Simpson's first and last tour, there needs to be a more general article. I can't speak for any other users, but voting to delete an article on a specific tour and keep a general list of tours makes sense. Carrp | Talk 18:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • But it'd be the same content, I'd just move it to a new title and thereby give it a new "mission statement". Everyking 19:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Isn't this her only tour, though? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:13, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
            • According to the article it is indeed her only tour. It began today.
              We have a guide to writing better articles, which recommends forking sections when they grow too big. We also have plenty of examples of this in action, such as India.
              Ashlee Simpson already has a section for what she's intending to do in 2005. It hasn't grown anywhere near large enough to warrant a fork, given that this is an artist with exactly one tour ever that hasn't really happened yet. Indeed, the fork is barely longer than the section in the main article itself, and the main article already has nearly all of its content. This fork is groundless.
              In other cases where there has been an edit war in the main article, followed by one of the participants then forking off xyr own private articles on sub-sub-topics that are simultaneously being edited collaboratively in the main article, we stop them. The creationism/evolution, Zionism, eastern Europe, Pakistan, China, big bang, and other debates may be higher profile than a debate about a singer on MTV that most people have never heard of, but they are all the same when it comes to article forking.
              Uncle G 11:01, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
              • Agreed. And since it's her only tour, then re-purposing the article as a general list of her tours (with only one item!) wouldn't exactly improve it. I still vote Strong delete.Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
                • It just might be her first and her last. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Ooh, good point regarding a "throwaway" article. That would be a rather ugly precident. Still, the more I think about it, the more I feel this should stay as part of a larger list. I like the idea of a List of Ashlee Simpson tours beginning with the info in this article if this is her first tour. We have a lot more ephemeral info than this floating around this site and the info might be better served as part of a larger list. Heck, I came up with Mercedes-Benz 6.9 Specifications to unclutter the main article! That's ephemeral, friends. - Lucky 6.9 18:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I would be fine with a general article on her touring. At first it would by necessity focus on this tour, but with time it would presumably grow to cover more. But if this is deleted, then I can't recreate it in any form, because it'd be too similar, like recreating a deleted article. Everyking 19:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not the Library of Babel, nor is it an endless and tedious compendium of every bit of trivia and gossip and useless, insignificant "facts". It is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground. That means we have a duty not to mindlessly compile facts but to present them in a consise and usable manner, making judgments about which facts are important and which are not. Concert tours even by notable artists are largely non-notable, and even when they are notable, a short summary in that artist's article will suffice. The profliferation of articles on this insignificant singer who will be largely forgotten in a couple of years shows that detached, objective judgment is not being applied to this matter. Gamaliel 19:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There's plenty of judgment and objectivity. I consider a tour which will involve thousands of spectators and will attract some media attention (at least from MTV) to be notable. I do not philosophically agree with you about summarizing and making things concise. Regardless of what you say, that philosophy is the very opposite of the "wiki is not paper" notion—it's the mentality of the editor of a paper encyclopedia. Things should exist in a concise format to suit the general reader, but there are also readers who will want detail who need to be satisfied as well. On the other hand, I am not trying to fill Wikipedia up with trivia. I believe non-notable content should be removed. This is merely an attempt at a general article on the tour; I am not trying to produce fan-site detail. Everyking 19:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm curious how you define trivia, because it appears that you are trying to fill Wikipeida with exactly that. Gamaliel 19:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• weak Keep I'm pushed over the boundary towards keeping because of the inevitable MTV coverage this tour is going to get. Johntex 19:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I'd personally have to plead mea culpa to the charge of adding trivia. I've written about two defunct roads, a defunct amusement park, two nearly defunct towns, a defunct toy car and a defunct real car. I don't know how many Google hits Ashlee Simpson gets, but I'm sure it's a considerable number. Adding detail to whatever information this site can provide for an up-to-the-minute subject should be welcomed. We have to keep the end user in mind. This isn't bandcruft at all. It's verifiable and factual information that's spun off of the main article about a "hot commodity." Wikilove, all.  :^) - Lucky 6.9 19:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic, potential fork/dupe. Wyss 20:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Y'all, really. There's absolutely no need for this article. Just put it in her main article. One of the things I love most about this place is the lively intellectual debate over things like this, but I can't believe how much mental effort has been dumped into this cesspit of a topic. Katefan0 21:59, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • The main article is long and will continue to grow. I don't have space to write adequately about the tour there. Everyking 22:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I imagine that's probably nothing that a nice, sharp editor's pencil can't fix. Katefan0 22:24, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • We're trying to build this encyclopedia, not deconstruct it. Everyking 22:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • We're trying to build a good encyclopedia. Wheat will always be wheat, and chaff will always be chaff. Katefan0 22:32, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • Of course. I suppose we just disagree about what's wheat and what's chaff. Everyking 22:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • It's a continuum, not a dichotomy, so I guess we'll always be fighting about it. Kappa 23:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable, only of interest to hardcore fans. If the main article is too long, it's because it needs serious trimming and editing - it shouldn't be spawning so many offshoots, really. Worldtraveller 22:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not a hardcore fan, I'm just curious about her because of Everyking, but I still find that material interesting, especially the songs she plans to play. Kappa 22:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Lots of artists have lots of tours. What makes any of them notable? The artist is notable, the songs are notable, the albums are notable, and those three types of articles should be able to encompass any relavent information on a given topic. --InShaneee 22:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I hope Everyking is being compensated well for writing these articles. 212.157.248.28 23:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article, no matter how you slice it. It's just a tour itinerary, and for one that just started today, for crying out loud. — Gwalla | Talk 00:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • What, so it'd be better if I created it in April? Seems to me better to have the article early, because while the tour is ongoing is when people are most likely to want the info. Everyking 00:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not article-worthy either way. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • If it's information that's only of ephemeral usefulness, perhaps it belongs on Wikinews, if anywhere...? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 05:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more notable bands don't even have lists of the many world tours the have done--nixie 00:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • So get to work, why don't you? Everyking 01:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - only major tours/shows, or tours/shows that have brand identity distinct from the bands performing, should have articles. -Sean Curtin 01:24, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Examples include Ozzfest, Warped Tour, Woodstock, and Lollapalooza. Ashlee Simpson's Tour is not an annual event. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What Calton, Barno, Uncle G, Gamaliel and Starblind said. I don't think this would set a precedent for a future List of Ashlee Simpson tours. This one is an article on one single tour in one single country; if this vote sets any precedent, it would be regarding similar articles about one-artist single tour in one single country, not about articles summarizing all tours by a given artist. (And a trivial sidenote: I had never heard of this woman.) JoaoRicardo 08:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I hadn't heard of her till the other day myself. I wonder if "Ashlee" rhymes with "Milli" or Vanilli". Anyway, she's recorded one album, and you can find more about her music in this Guardian article. -- Hoary 13:14, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
• Strong keep. You are certainly forgetting that Wikipedia has several articles on The Simpsons. Just because this Simpson is not the creation of Matt Groening doesn't mean her music isn't important. — Jesse's Girl 19:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • She has a page at Ashlee Simpson. She also has pages for each one of her albums. Ashlee and her music are well represented on Wikipedia. There is no need for there to be an article specific to one tour. Carrp | Talk 19:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Jesse's Girl's first edit was today. Gamaliel 19:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • So? I'm a legitimate user. I've made a few contributions so far, but have been editing anonymously forever. I only decided to get an account so I could participate in VfD.
      • If you've been around VfD before you'd know that tagging the votes of new users is pretty standard procedure and that admins tallying the votes may count or discount those particular votes based on their judgement. No offense was intended. Gamaliel 20:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I noticed that Jesse's Girl added the event of Ashlee lip-synching on October 24 (also happens to be my birthday) and it was deleted by guess who? Yep, Everyking is trying to protect the validity of Ashlee's performances, however Jesse's Girl reverted it. Lol. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. A concert tour would have to be very exceptional to warrant a separate encyclopedia article. Tours are where musicians go from city to city and give concerts. So what? Wikipedia isn't a concert listing. In this case, (a) Ashlee Simpson is not an especially notable artist; (b) we already have much more information than is reasonable about this artist; and (c) the tour just started, so if something exceptional during the tour is going to make it notable, it hasn't happened yet. --BM 19:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • (Remark by Dpbsmith (talk) deleted by himself).
    • The result of your thorough research of the NY Times, I suppose? Why don't you hold the provocative statements? Everyking 00:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Point taken. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Cancer. -Ashley Pomeroy 19:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Cancer! See what I've got to deal with? You think this information is cancer? Everyking 20:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • What you've got to deal with? Are you Ashlee's agent now? In any case, "cancer" is the wrong term: metastasis is probably mush closer. --Calton 02:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (But the term "cancer" is uncalled for, as I'm sure we all know, Miss Simpson is a Libra, not a Cancer). Totally unreasonable granularity. Include this material in the Ashlee Simpson article or not at all. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Carnildo 22:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Toot toot here comes the deletion clown. silsor 00:43, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Look at that fundraising notice up there. Hey, we'll take your money, but you can forget about all that business about being the sum of human knowledge! Everyking 00:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • So you'll be voting "keep" for everything on VfD? Every single article listed contains some bit of human knowlege, however small. --Carnildo 01:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Of course not. But I can sympathize with that kind of inclusionism far sooner than I can sympathize with deletionism that pushes for the removal of notable content. If we do make mistakes in our decisions, I'd rather we erred on the side of inclusion. Everyking 01:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Is it really necessary to let all these delete voters know individually that you disagree? I think we've all figured out that you want to keep the article. silsor 01:39, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, your vote was worded in a particularly obnoxious way, so I figured it warranted an obnoxious response. Everyking 01:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • The problem is, of course, almost nobody -- and I do mean almost nobody -- agrees that the unvarnished raw boosterism trivia you dump into any article connected with Ashlee Simpson qualifies as "notable content". That you haven't understood this, that your invariable reaction to it is to wave your hands and pout, "I guess we disagree about that" instead of trying to understand that, and that you treat the slightest disagreement about or distaste for Ashlee Simpson as if it were a personal attack leads me to say: get help. Seriously. Imagine an editor behaving this way regarding Circumcision, Sollog, or England, and maybe you'll see some parallels and see how far out of proportion your actions are towards anything Ashlee Simpson-related. --Calton 02:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Calton, for God's sake, quit with the personal attacks and go write an article or something. I know you don't like me. Life will go on. Everyking 02:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • Personal attacks? For God's sake read what I wrote. Step back and compare your behavior with the analogous behavior I cited. This has been going on for months, and nothing has penetrated: you're right, everyone else is wrong, and any and all misbehavior on your part is not your fault because other people forced you to do it. ArbCom made some findings on your behavior and imposed sanctions less than a month ago, and you've been blocked three times for violating them. Dozens of editors, thousands of words, some failed VfDs: what does it take to get through to you? --Calton 07:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
              • No, no, Calton, I've never said I'm 100% right or anybody else is 100% wrong. My "misbehavior" has been awfully mild—I haven't told anybody to "get help" yet, for one thing—but when I have reacted too strongly to things I have apologized. Behind all your demonization of me is a simple content dispute regarding inclusion and notability, and yes, I do think I'm basically (not 100%) right in my positions there: so sue me. Everyking 09:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                • More strawmen. Of course you've never said you're 100% right: you merely behaved as if you're 100% right, and offered thin rationalization after thin rationalization for it. That, coupled with mischaracterizations and distortions (both of people's postings and of the situations) so wild that they can only be either pathological or deliberate leads me to seriously say -- not as a horrible insult as your snide little passive-aggressive line above tries to make it out to be -- get help. Rereading the RfC and RfAr against you, discussing with friends willing to be objective, getting peer or psychological counseling, whatever. --Calton 23:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                • If your misbehaviour has been so mild, then why did it lead to an Arbitration case and sanctions against you just last month? The fact is that you've been defying consensus (one of the central principles of WP) on just about everything Ashlee-related. The landslide victories of the last four VfDs against Ashlee articles surely must tell you something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
                  • Well, it's just politics. I try not to let that get to me. Of course the accusation that I defy consensus is absurd, too absurd to even bother refuting. Everyking 16:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                  • Okay, that last statement is breathtaking in its audacity. And what political games would ArbCom be playing, exactly? They explicitly ruled that you defied consensus: do you want to go on record now that the ruling was wrong? That ArbCom was wrong? And have you therefore filed your appeal with Jimbo Wales? --Calton 23:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                    • Surely you would consider that the enormous landslide victories of the VfDs against the last four Ashlee spinoff articles represent a consensus that WP just doesn't need or want more of the same? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:06, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
                      • The last four? Only two Ashlee articles have ever failed VfD. Four have survived. Everyking 22:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                        • The other two are the Ashlee on SNL and Ashlee on Mad TV articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
                          • The Mad TV article doesn't count; it was a joke which I myself voted to delete. Everyking 20:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                            • I'm pretty sure my brain isn't going to comprehend why that VfD "doesn't count" because you voted delete on it, so I'll just reword my previous statement slightly and we'll move right along: Surely you would consider that the enormous landslide victories of the VfDs against the last four (or three) Ashlee spinoff articles represent a consensus that WP just doesn't need or want more of the same? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:43, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
                            • Where is Iasson when you really need him? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                        • For the sake of accuracy, do you mind listing them all? --Calton 23:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                          • I did before: POM, Shadow, La La, Auto sales&charts—kept; Auto album design, Auto promo&publicity—deleted. Seems like you haven't been paying attention, Calt. Everyking 02:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                        • Ashlee Simpson on SNL got deleted as well. Worldtraveller 02:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                          • Oops. Yeah, I haven't been paying attention. Ok, 4 to 3, then. Everyking 02:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                            • It's called asking for clarification, Everk, on a claim both of you were making and on which even you were unclear. Seems like your snarkiness was uncalled for, hmm? --Calton 00:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless the Hell's Angels show up and beat a couple dozen teenyboppers to death, there's nothing notable here. Madame Sosostris 05:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Subtrivial pseudoinformation. Wikipedia is not a recycling bin, a dumpster, or a landfill. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jonathunder 06:06, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 18:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a shrine to pop tartlets. —Korath (Talk) 23:46, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Who said it was? Everyking 23:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That would be you. --Calton 00:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't recall. When and where did I say that? Everyking 00:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • When you created this article. And the one on the album design. And the one on the album's sales. Rinse lather repeat. --Calton 11:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • What kind of logic is that? When I create articles on African elections, are those shrines to African leaders? Everyking 18:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A.D.H. (t&m) 05:14, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep' or merge with main article. bbx 05:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strongest Delete. The idea of making an individual encyclopedic article about the 2005 tour of a popstar is a contradiction in itself. This is obviously unencyclopedic, even if God himself were touring. I don't think it's worth a mention even in Ashlee Simpson's article, unless this particular tour is something notable, and we won't be prepared to judge about that before it's finished. Complete waste of Wikitime. vlad_mv 05:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, single tour by a single artist in which not a single thing has happened which is out of the ordinary means that it doesn't need its own article. - Vague | Rant 10:27, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, albeit with reluctance. I wish Everyking would spend his time on more worthwhile projects (meaning, oh, just about anything else), but the existence of more worthwhile projects isn't an argument for deletion. I vote keep on the basis of his expressed willingness to make this a List of Ashlee Simpson tours when (if) there's a second one, so we can dump her whole touring career into one article. JamesMLane 11:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • We already have the one article. It's Ashlee Simpson, and it already has a section on the tour that is being collaboratively edited. Uncle G 22:54, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
• delete this is what pollstar is for, it's her 15mins of "fame" over yet.--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 20:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Goodbye Ashleecruft, Pieces of Crap. Advertising or other spam, begone. --Mrfixter 22:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though it somehow pains me to say so. Being thoroughly sick of anything to do with Ms Simpson is not a reason for deletion per policy - David Gerard 23:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• After Everyking decided to stop editing many contentious Ashlee-related articles, I thought I'd give this a once-over to see if it was worthy. I don't really think it is. It reads like an advertisement: "Ashlee will be here, here, and here. These people will be performing with her." The only thing it lacks is "Buy your tickets from Ticketmaster!" Delete. Mike H 06:58, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Certainly it's not as notable as some B-list soap opera actors and actresses, huh? Come on now... Everyking 19:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Your bias is showing. While I may not like Ashlee Simpson, I keep this away from debates and try to come to the table with a clear mind about the articles written. To bring up your distaste for soap actresses (which you did, by calling them B-list, which has negative connotations), you're just throwing muck and I wish you would stop it. Mike H 21:20, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not throwing muck, I'm just saying that you seem to be the author of a lot of content that is less notable than this article. That content is very good, and I have no bias against soap operas. I just don't see how minor actors and characters from them can be considered more notable than this national tour by a platinum selling artist. Everyking 21:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • The people I've written about, such as Luke and Laura and Cliff and Nina, are a lot more notable than you may think. In any case, let's stop this. Now. Mike H 21:41, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
          • You're not showing a whole lot of confidence in your reasoning with that kind of attitude, Mike. Everyking 04:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • I just don't feel I have to prove anything to you. Mike H 04:38, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
              • Fight over. Can you see the majority, Everyking? (Btw, I'm glad Wikipedia is finally back up!) -- Riffsyphon1024 05:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                • Yeah, I can see the majority. Everyking 06:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-encyclopedic. Just another tour by just another artist. Rje 06:00, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Can't you extend that logic to anything? Everyking 06:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: No. — Gwalla | Talk 07:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm. Well, that doesn't tell me much. I think you can. Just another president, just another war, just another natural disaster, just another nation-state, just another chemical element, just another classic of world literature, etc. Every national tour by a platinum selling artist is different, but they are all alike in that unifying characteristic. In the same way, every U.S. president is different, but all alike in that they are U.S. presidents. So the question is whether you care enough about the differences to notice them or place a priority on them, right? How can that be a determining factor in notability? If I happen to think, well, they all held the same office and governed the same country, so we don't need these articles, would that make them any less notable? No, because they are famous. If two things are independently famous, then they are each notable in their own right, regardless of whether you think they are similar or not. Everyking 07:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: Try the "will anybody care about this 50 years from now" test. Fifty years from now, will anybody still care about World War Two? Yes. Will anybody care about the past Presidents of the USA? Yes (well, maybe not Buchanan). Will anybody care about a particular tour by a pop singer? No. — Gwalla | Talk 00:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • By comparing Ashlee to presidents and the like, you've mostly proved everybody else's point... So far, you've created at least 10 or so Ashlee articles, all told. How many world leaders have that many articles on WP? How many literary classics? How many nobel laureates? How many philosophers? How many inventors, research scientists, chemists, mathematicians, professors? I don't care if you listen to me or not, but for your own sake, listen to consensus: the Ashleecruft has gotten way out of hand. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:43, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
            • It was a theoretical comparison. Most of the things you name deserve far more coverage than Ashlee and her music do, so if they're lacking, somebody needs to get to work. But that's not to say the subject of Ashlee doesn't still deserve comprehensive coverage. Everyking 00:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mackensen (talk) 01:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is a small town. It has a church. So what? Radiant! 00:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned VfD subpage, resubmitted under today's heading. jni 07:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

• Real place. keep. RickK 07:15, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to be a real town. Even small ones are notable enough for inclusion. jni 08:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Real places are inherently notable, especially any place with a medieval church. / up+land 09:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Real place in Abruzzo, ItalyCapitalistroadster 11:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. utcursch 13:01, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Wikipedia is full of articles on tiny places in remote corners of the American Midwest with populations in single figures, "0.00% of whom are Pacific Islanders" etc. You know the ones I mean. Click random page a few times. It was long ago settled that Rambot articles belong here, so why would we want to delete manually created articles on towns in other countries. I thought it was universally recognised that every human settlement in the world was theoretically entitled to its own entry in Wikipedia, provided some kind of useful information is given. As long as this place exists we should have an article on it. Trilobite (Talk) 14:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Good argument. Request withdrawn. Radiant! 15:25, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I like this kind of stuff, and the image just takes you there -- Longhair 14:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 01:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A magnet for people to create dictdefs. Move to wiktionary. RickK 07:12, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Significant aspect of the English language. Worthwhile project with many links to good Wikipedia articles. I don't use Wikidictionary: I don't entirely see the point of Wikidictionary. But I want the English language to be covered in Wikipedia. Wincoote
• "Because Latin words make up some 60% of the language, this is necessarily a deeply incomplete list ... a full list of which would be tens of thousands of words long." Ouch. But there are dozens of articles named 'list of English words of foo origin' so I can't see a fault with this one. Keep. Oh and btw, the point of Wiktionary is explained here. Radiant! 10:24, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What kind of precedent would that be? Delete move to wiktionary slowly. See my comments to Uncle G and DPsmith below. -Lethe | Talk 10:43, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Given that no one is likely to go through a dictionary listing the tens of thousands of words that would be needed to make this list comprehensive, it ought to be deleted under the "no potential to become encyclopedic" criterion. These lists are a joke and it's good to see someone taking the bull by the horns and listing them for deletion. If Wiktionary want to do something like this good luck to them, but this will never become a decent Wikipedia article. We have List of Latin phrases for phrases like "inter alia" lifted straight out of Latin and used in English. That I can cope with, but not a comically half-hearted attempt at a list of all words of Latin origin in English. Trilobite (Talk) 14:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• "I don't use Wiktionary, therefore all Wiktionary articles belong in Wikipedia." is not an argument that I find compelling. This sort of etymology is exactly what Wiktionary is for. I note from the edit history comments that on the day of its creation an editor of the article xemself found the article somewhat dubious. It should have been made a pointer to Wiktionary there and then. Wikipedia is not a list of words. Wiktionary. Uncle G 16:22, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
  • Comment: I could imagine some distant future where wiktionary is very complete, even including etymology for every word, and lists of this form could be automatically generated by the wiki software. Not just for Latin words in English, but for any kind of words in any language. I think that would be really cool, plus it really illustrates to me how this sort of thing properly belongs to the dictionary, not the encyclopedia. I suppose I'm going to change my vote. The only problem is, there are at least dozens of articles of this kind here on wikipedia, and moving them all to wiktionary would be an enormous effort. Even moving the hundreds of words in this Latin list will take a long time, I expect. I was actually the creator of the corresponding article list of English words of Greek origin, which has just as little right to exist as the article under discussion. Lethe | Talk 19:24, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are way too many. This would certainly include thousands and likely tens of thousands of words. Even the "A" section is barely a beginning. And when you're done, what have you got? You want this indexed the other way around, the way an ordinary dictionary does, in the etymology section for each word. This list is not even fun to contribute to or intriguing to contemplate. A list of words in English of Quechuan origin, that might be interesting. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The English word jerky came from Quechua. Anthony Appleyard 20:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not paper, size is no restriction. For some people, Latin words in English are far more interesting that Quechua words in English, the former showing a lot of the interesting history and development of the English language (Roman, French, Norse, Norman), the latter just being isolated borrowings. However, I think Uncle G's comment above is compelling. Etymological listings belong in the dictionary. The point is, if this article shouldn't be here, then neither should the corresponding Arabic article, or the hypothetical Quechua article. I wonder if it would be possible to vote on a policy for the whole concept, instead of singling out this article. Is that possible? -Lethe | Talk 19:35, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree with your assertion. Quechuan-derived words in English are notable by virtue of their rarity. (I have no idea whether there are any). So, such a list would not be on a par with this one. And I don't think we need policy until the submission of lists like this becomes a frequent phenomenon. I don't see any problem whatsoever with voting on things like this on a case-by-case basis. But by all means add "lists of English words that are all derived from a particular language" to Wikipedia:What's in, what's out and say they're out. I won't challenge it myself. But I don't care to predict how I might actually vote if someone were actually to submit a list of Quechuan-derived English words. I prefer to cross that gh!nichiko'pt when I come to it. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Which assertion is it that you disagree with? That some people would find etymology of Latin words more interesting than etymology of Quechua borrowings? This assertion is demonstrably true: for example, Lethe finds the etymologies of Latin words in English more interesting than the etymologies of Quechua words in English. Imagine someone who traces how words change meaning as they went from Greek to Latin to Old French to Anglo-Norman to Middle English to Modern English. See for example, the etymology of the word nice. You don't think that some people would find that more interesting than Quechua words? For example, the word llama entered Spanish from Quechua, and English through Spanish. It is the name of an animal indigenous to the Quechua areas. That simply isn't all that interesting. There might be a half-dozen other examples, and they'll all be equally uninteresting. You are, of course, correct. Rarity makes them more notable, but rarity is not the sole criterion of notability. History is another. -Lethe | Talk 21:43, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • A list of words in English of Quechuan origin, that might be interesting. Then check List of English words of Quechuan origin. Never underestimate the Wikipedians. JoaoRicardo 08:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Kewl! Now that it's here, I can honestly say that I do find it interesting. Particularly lagniappe. Now, when do we get a List of Quechan words of English origin? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme Delete, what a ghastly notion. In practice, English is etymologically way over 50% Latin. No list could ever even approach being complete. Further, etymology is a tricky business. Words that "seem" Latin but aren't would inevitably wind up here. I don't think the other lists are encyclopedic either, but a Latin one would be even more vexsome because it can be used to construct words in English. Think of it... entries for fuckophobia and bartmania abounding. Nip it instead. Wyss 20:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • To say nothing of numerically based words like some others we're dealing with now in VfD (naming no names). A centabottle of beer on the wall, a centabottle of beer, ... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete simply too large a subject to have a list on. Would be sort of like having a List Of People Mentioned In Newspapers or List Of Words With 'E' In Them Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:48, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The very root of the english language is latin. Forget dicdefs, with very little fanagling, this could become a dictionary in and of itself. --InShaneee 22:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree it's the very root- most of the common verbs and nouns are still Anglo-Saxon with lots of Norse, but descriptive English is replete with Latin, a source of both boons and banes for this rich (a Latin word) and flexible (another Latin one) language (still another). Wyss 00:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Way too many words. This isn't a topic for an article, it's an entire project. Carrp | Talk 23:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Not just a dictdef, an entire dictionary. — Gwalla | Talk 00:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The word "delete" is of Latin origin. I agree with Dpbsmith. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 04:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, especially if all the words are going to be linked like that (the fact that so many are blue when I fail to see how many can be more than dicdefs worries me, but I haven't actually checked them out yet). I won't take any stand on similar articles for other languages, but I do agree that the rarity of a List of English words of Farsi origin would make it more encyclopedic. If we have this list we might as well have a List of English words of Middle English origin and include most of he words in the dictionary.-R. fiend 08:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this would be an unmanageably large list, but do we have an article on the different routes by which Latin words have entered English? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:11, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • There is the History of the English language and related topics (like Medieval English). JoaoRicardo 08:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this one and every other article on the Lists of English words of international origin. Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a list of words. JoaoRicardo 08:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps replace with a list of Latin words that have been in English since the Old English period, if somebody wants a list. The later Latinisms aren't very interesting, and any good dictionary will provide information. In general, the "list of English words of ...etc." articles are interesting and useful, but this one isn't. Also, after it's deleted, somebody should start articles describing in more detail the routes by which different Latin words entered English (very early borrowings; or via french; or latinisms) over the centuries. A thing people should remember is that most of these Latinisms are international, and you'll find many of them even in Russian if you look. Decius 08:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.Mackensen (talk) 01:24, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Created by the same person who created Valentina Velkova (VfD). Non-notable. If it deserves an article, red link will be more attractive. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-16 07:16 Z

• Delete. Name entries are for Wiktionary. Trilobite (Talk) 14:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity source, dicdef, not an article. Wyss 19:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 01:25, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable Finnish band. They have few CDs out, apparently self-published as I cannot find an affiliation with any major music distributor. They don't seem to have a website or even a page about them, except Wikipedia and its mirrors. Selkkaus is quite common Finnish word, so Google gives lots of completely irrelevant hits. Queries "Selkkaus music" or "Selkkaus musiikki" gave about 240 hits of which about 50 were related, mostly from chat-rooms, etc. "Selkkaus bändi" gave 32 total hits (bändi means band in Finnish). Delete, reasons being non-notable, self-promotion, and silly POV vanity. jni 08:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Probably self-promotion, require a wider distribution of their music to be shown. Average Earthman 10:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promotion, funny how non-English speaking bands here in Europe tend to overuse the word fuck... gives it a bad name. Wyss 19:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity, promotional hype. Megan1967 02:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Advertising. Created by User:Keane India. RickK 09:03, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• This is not an advertisement! There is no 'call to action'. This is just a corporate snapshot of an IT company. Similar corporate profiles are already exisiting on wikipedia (for e.g. Infosys, Wipro , Patni Computer Systems, Covansys India Limited )under the categories Companies of India. It would be unjust to block this by saying that it is an advertisement. ...at 09:14, 2005 Feb 16 202.54.214.196 forgot to hit the twiddle key
• Corporate puff, as seen for example in "Keane, Inc. has intellectual capital of over 9000 Business and Technical professionals" which I think means that it employs 9000 people (though perhaps it just outsources to them). Delete (and delete Keane, Inc. too). -- Hoary 10:16, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
• If not advertisement, then simply vanity. "One of the fastest growing mid-sized IT Companies." Concur with Hoary, Delete. Radiant! 10:26, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• In that case, would you also be deleting Infosys, Wipro , Patni Computer Systems, Covansys India Limited ??? Rules should be for everyone? ...at # 11:44, 2005 Feb 16 202.54.214.196 again failed to type ~~~~
• Comment. Provide some reason why this company is notable. . Provide some content, like the history of the company, who the founders are, what products it makes, etc Write it in English, not idiotic corporate-speak. As for the other companies, if Keane isn't notable and is deleted, and these other companies aren't any more notable than Keane, they won't get deleted unless someone submits them. --BM 13:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Hoary, Radiant, and BM above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redir to Keane, Inc. if someone manages to salvage that article, otherwise delete. Patni Computer Systems is pretty marginal, but gets 10 times as many hits as "keane india". Niteowlneils 16:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I can't speak for the notability of the Indian branch of the company, but Keane, Inc. is a large and well-known IT consulting company. (Most people recognize the name because they sponsor NPR with the slogan "Keane - We get IT done.) I vote keep with one qualification. Both articles feel like copyvios. Has anyone checked? (Redirect would also work.) Rossami (talk) 16:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Uh, it's the same company. They used to be a big employer in the U.S. Now they're a big employer in India. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The article is an exact copy of User:Keane India, obviating any need for Userfy. The content is not salvageable, and it is unnecessary to salvage it in any case. Redirect (without merge) to Keane, Inc. if that article is rewritten, otherwise Delete. Uncle G 17:05, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
• Redirect to Keane, Inc. This article is advertising. This article should be redirected to Keane, Inc.. Keane, Inc. is notable enough to merit a proper NPOV article. It is particularly notable for its connection with the outsourcing trend. This company in itself is a significant example of and contributor to the trend. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, changing vote. There's not even any reason for a redirect. If we ever get a reasonable article on Keane, Inc., anything that mentions a subsidiary can use a pipe to name the subsidiary and link to the main article. There's no need for the redirect unless Keane India is notable in its own right. The current state of the article is a substub that does not establish any notability other than being a subsidiary of Keane. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to main article (when copyvio and PoV issues are resolved etc). Delete, changed my mind. Wyss 19:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Corporate puffery. As far as I'm concerned, delete the others referenced above, too. Katefan0 22:05, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The article has been completely rewritten and has been submitted only as a stub. The page was not created for any advertising purposes. It was noticed that when one searches for Gurgaon, Keane is mentioned in the text of the Gurgaon submission. But the internal link directs the user to the British rock band Keane! Since, Keane is being referred as to the IT company based in Gurgaon and not the rock bank Keane, therefore, it was felt that it should be directed to the correct page. Hope this clarifies.User:Keane India.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyvio. Joyous 00:12, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

15 Google hits for "Petter Wessel Zapffe", one for "Petter Zapffe". This reads like a copyvio, too. RickK 09:09, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, book ad. Merge, some of these articles are so promotionally written at first... Wyss 19:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• No vote of yet, but I would like to flag Den fortapte sønn, another of Zapffe's books; Den sidste Messias, an essay by Zappfe; to biosophy, mostly a discussion of Zapffe's philosophy; and finally to the Peter Wessel Zapffe article itself. Stuff about Zapffe has also been added to pessimism. I will admit that I had never heard of Zapffe before seeing him pop up on Wikipedia; and I am fairly well read on philosophical pessimism. Spelling his name "Peter" boosts his Google hits to above 2000, pretty good for a Scandinavian philosopher. If Zapffe is so minor a figure that his "best-known work" shouldn't have a page, the rest of these articles should perhaps share the fate of this one. If this is an important work, it should be cleaned up (assuming it is not in fact a copyvio) and kept. -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I think it should be merged with Zapffe's main article. If kept, however, it should be renamed to its English title, and be heavily edited to get to NPOV. Radiant! 22:24, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, no opinion as to whether the book merits a separate article, but the other articles with titles in Norwegian should also be moved/renamed to English language versions also. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep cleanup and expand. Megan1967 08:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Peter Wessel Zapffe (if not a copyvio). Translating titles of books is problematic if no English translation actually exists. / u p p l a n d 15:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable book. JamesBurns 08:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• It's a copyvio, as helpfully noted at the bottom of the article. I've listed it as such at WP:CP. —Korath (Talk) 02:37, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Corporate advertising. I can't start to rewrite it as something other than advertising, as I don't understand any content: it's a series of vaguely uplifting but meaningless clichés. -- Hoary 10:08, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

• Concur. Delete. Suspected copyvio for the logo, btw. Radiant! 10:27, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete easy one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I believe the subject is notable: Stock traded on a major exchange, multi-national presence, a player (possibly a significant one) in the current controversial trend to move US corporate back-office jobs overseas, in multiple industries, and listed as one of the top 100 US prime federal contractors. That said, the current content appears to be unsalvagable, so Delete unless rewritten in encylopedic manner. Niteowlneils 16:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• If it passes copyvio, keep. Anyone can cleanup. Rossami (talk) 16:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• It's a copy of what is on every corporate press release. I'm unsure of the copyright status of press releases, but I'm reasonably sure that whatever licence they are published under isn't GFDL compatible. I've listed it at WP:CP. Uncle G 17:20, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
• Delete. It is advertising/corporate vanity. Most high-school student vanity is better written than this. The company is notable. But copyvio or not, we shouldn't allow corporate employees to post articles written in insufferable corporate-speak rather than English -- which someone else is then obliged to cleanup. If they want an encyclopedia article about themselves, they should write an encyclopedia article not cut-and-paste their press release or puffery from their annual report. Remove it and let someone else start from scatch. --BM 18:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Corporate vanity. Katefan0 22:06, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisment, vanity. Megan1967 08:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The article has been completely rewritten and has been submitted only as a stub. The page was not created for advertising purposes. It was noticed that when one searches for Gurgaon, Keane is mentioned in the text of the Gurgaon submission. But the internal link directs the user to the British rock Band (music)band Keane! Since, Keane is being referred as to the IT company based in Gurgaon in India and not the rock band Keane, therefore, it was felt that a page for Keane, Inc. (the IT company) should be created. Hope this clarifies. Keane, Inc.
• Delete. ComCat 02:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

• 19:51, Feb 26, 2005 Joy Stovall deleted Victor Lombardi (vfd consensus)

Article fails to establish notability, and consists mainly of external links. Notable or vanity? Radiant! 10:00, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Certainly not notable, and probably vanity. Trilobite (Talk) 14:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, prolly vanity. Wyss 19:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. 24,000 hits on Google. Megan1967 04:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Victor Lombardi is a common name and only a fraction of these hits appear to be related to this individual. Moreover, blogger hits on Google are well-known to be vastly inflated. Wyss 00:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, the organisation he founded isn't even on wikipedia --nixie 00:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I am the Victor Lombardi this page references, though I am not the author of the page. Perhaps a productive course of action would be to email the authors and/or subjects and ask for certain information to be added to the page (e.g. I've helped further the field of Information Architecture and would happily oblige). Incidentally, most of those Google links do refer to me as I've been publishing on the Internet since 1994. Threefour 21 Feb 2005

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 10:04, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Music duo that released a demo tape. Not notable. Radiant! 10:04, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no article here yet. Wyss 19:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 04:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 16:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stub for a band album. Fails to establish notability. Radiant! 10:04, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but wait... this refers to a Menudo album. I don't think most albums (including this one) should have separate articles in WP, but others may think differently so I thought I'd mention it. Wyss 19:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep thank you Wyss. Being by Menudo establishes notability. The consensus is to keep articles of this type, though I wouldn't mind seeing them merged. Kappa 22:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, while Menudo were notable (If you like Puerto Rican boy bands from the 80s), how does that make one of its obscure album releases notable? This album was only ever released in Italian in 1986. It never charted any where except in Italy. Megan1967 02:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • All albums by notable groups are encyclopedic because you need to know about the albums to know about the group. Kappa 09:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • An interesting assertion, but patently false. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree with Wile E. Radiant! 09:14, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - SimonP 14:21, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Don't delete, merge into Menudo. Dewet 14:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. JuntungWu 08:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but it's important to mention: The fact that Ricky Martin was in Menudo needs to be mentioned in the Menudo article (though I don't know even close to enough about Menudo to fix it). There is already an entry on Menudo that has information on this album, and I'm not at all sure that this is Menudo's only Italian-released album -- so aside from that, no information is lost by losing this article. BenSamples 21:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 08:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, does no harm. dbenbenn | talk 16:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A new genre thought up by a band of dubious renown. Radiant! 10:06, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - what's the point of copying something, re-naming it and then bragging about it with a dumb band name??! Other than that it's totally un-encyclopedic and not notable due to them being a "local band" - and possibly not even that well known. Selphie 10:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) *blah*
• Delete - if it resembles grindcore, just call it grindcore then JimmyShelter 12:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity promotional neologism. Wyss 19:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism by a non notable band. Megan1967 02:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologistic, unencyclopedic, promotional...it's all there, folks. Hopefully, not for much longer. - Lucky 6.9 18:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Article defaults to "keep." Joyous 19:55, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Lot of bureaucratese, sounds rather like a company mission statement. Stub with external link; notable or vanity? Radiant! 10:11, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Commercial promotion. Delete -- Paul Richter 12:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Wyss 19:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewrite and expand. Significant German IT company. Megan1967 04:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. Katefan0 20:04, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have rewritten the article; it is still a stub. I deleted the trademark signs. It appears to be a product of the German government, rather than a company. Ben Standeven 23:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The V-Modell is the german equivalent to CMMI and a very important software development model. It is the standard for all large German companies and companies that have to deal with the german goverment. See the German entry on V-Modell Max Berger Feb 22
• Keep. --129.187.202.5 16:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Luis F. Gonzalez 18:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Description of a software application called viz|. If notable, would probably require a rewrite as currently it's only a list of compoments. No external link though, so maybe not vanity. Radiant! 10:14, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. "Virtual studio" is actually a term that's gaining currency in the industry for software (or a hardware/software combo) that allows studio work to be done without everyone having to be in what we traditionally think of as a "studio." (I hope viz hasn't tried to copyright or trademark the word, and if they have, I hope the agency in charge didn't give it to them. Definitely in prior use.) Therefore, this may instead need to be rewritten. I'm not ready to do it, so maybe it should just delete for the time being. HyperZonk 17:23, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I removed the ad and stubified it, this'll grow into something helpful. Wyss 19:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with Wyss [[User::EggplantWizard|Eggplant Wizard] 20:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with Wyss's yummy stubification. Thanks, Wyss!!! HyperZonk^talk 02:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand. A common enough software concept. Megan1967 04:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the new version, well done. Radiant! 12:09, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VFD tags (and deletion talk page) were removed by 68.168.252.34

Sounds suspiciously vanity-related, probably made by some attendee of St. Ignatius High School. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 17:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Google only has entries for him on the site of the schools he teaches at. Seems to be a math teacher well liked by his students; i suspect one of the students of making this page, so i can't call it vanity, but he's still unnotable, so delete. -℘yrop (talk) 17:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Ungh, delete. --fvw* 17:25, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
• delete Rje 17:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this teacher tribute, nn. Wyss 03:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not quite notable. Gazpacho 07:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Concur, Delete. This sounds like a joke on someone's teacher. Radiant! 10:17, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I guess that's one way to try to pass your class. Sorry, now you'll need to actually do the work. HyperZonk 17:20, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Literal transcription of a review article, very POV and suspected copyvio (even though it says 'used with permission'). Definitely not encyclopedic, if Dan is notable I'd suggest a new article be started from scratch. Radiant! 10:56, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly the author of this drivel has never seen the inside of an encyclopedia: this article doesn't belong in one. Trilobite (Talk) 15:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, paste-copied teen-mag wannabe fluff piece, no article here, move along. Wyss 19:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV cut-and-paste article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, quickly, before anyone sees this and suggests we start Wikiteenia. BenSamples 21:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wrote the allegedly renowned 'Audio Visual Technician' handbook series. But he doesn't google. Notable or not able? Radiant! 10:52, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 15:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Well, Radiant!, my research would indicate the latter. One Google result that is obviously contributed by the same person who wrote this to another open access dictionary. No Amazon results for the book series ... or the author, for that matter! Survey says ... HyperZonk 17:17, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promotion. Wyss 19:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - 2 Google hits, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. The article defaults to "keep." Joyous 20:04, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

This should belong in a manual of crafts. The description of datum references could go into wiktionary, but the explanation of how to fix them doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me. Radiant! 10:57, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I've seen worse. Trilobite (Talk) 15:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, skive off the latin and it's a fuzzy how-to on setting up to square a corner. Unhelpful, not encyclopedic. I've seen worse, too. Wyss 19:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no context --nixie 00:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 07:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Later edit: Although the consensus of this discussion was "delete", this article and other have been discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility, where the general consensus seems to be that these articles should be kept and cleaned up. This article has now been tagged for cleanup. Joyous 19:09, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Place this page for deletion as I ve merged it with Buttigieg_De_Piro so this page is no longer needed.Tancarville 1500, July 9, 2007 (UTC) Another article about Maltese nobility, listed because several articles (see feb/15) are already under suspicion. Should follow the same consensus as those. Radiant! 11:00, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Dumping vast quantities of text written elsewhere and for other purposes into Wikipedia is in general a bad idea. The author can keep it on their personal research site. If it's useful stuff someone will incorporate it into Wikipedia one day and make a proper job of it. Trilobite (Talk) 15:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I know nothing about Maltese history but some of these people seem to be fairly notable and the family probably is. But unless the author is prepared to release it under GFDL I don't see how it could be kept. Abstaining for now. / u p p l a n d 15:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more Maltese political agenda dumping on WP. Wyss 19:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 17:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Describes a university department that takes a whopping 28 students per year. Not notable. Also there are plenty of such departments worldwide and this describes just one of them. Radiant! 11:31, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• The user could have started by writing an article about the university rather than the department. Some of this could do as a start, I suppose. Rename to Cochin University of Science and Technology and list on cleanup. Average Earthman 13:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The university article now exists, so merge usable information and delete. Average Earthman 11:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 15:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge it to main article. Wyss 19:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable department. Megan1967 04:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 08:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:25, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not notable. Both he and his book fail the Google test. utcursch 11:47, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, found three links on Author/book combination, none of which pointed to Amazon or other bookshop. Not notable. Mgm|^(talk) 13:13, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. - Jpo 13:59, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 15:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, extremely vain book ad. Wyss 19:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:19, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Talk page says it was speedily deleted, but then brought back because of a dispute, in December 2004. Nothing links to it. Google shows nothing. The two red wiki-links also had articles. Sonicultra went through a speedy, revert, and VfD. Neosonix was also speedied, reverted, then deleted somehow. ANYWAY, I think it's time to finish cleaning this out. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-16 12:11 Z

• Delete. Extremely non-notable, attempt at vanity, and POV. Radiant! 12:36, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 15:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 15:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, prankish vanity. Wyss 19:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 20:15, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Book review. POV, and writer unspecified. Possible fanfic, probably not notable. Radiant! 12:25, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Not entirely famous, but based on my amazon results [14] at least it's not a fanfic. Mgm|^(talk) 13:54, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 15:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, book ad. Wyss 19:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability, and books are not inherently notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 20:17, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

High school with 'almost 1000 students'. Probable misspelled title. Doubtful notability. Delete Radiant! 12:25, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Urrbrae is not misspelled, it's Australian. Genuine school. Terrible article, though. I believe this is one of those specialist schools (in this case, agriculture). Looking at the address at the bottom of their website, I'd suggest a merge of the useful information to Netherby, South Australia if that article existed. A google suggests that it is adjacent to part of the University of Adelaide and a number of agricultural research institutes, so it probably should be mentioned in an article on the local geographical area. Since we don't appear to have an article on Urrbrae, Netherby, South Australia, or Mitcham, South Australia it looks like a mention in the Educational Institutions section in the main Adelaide article is currently the only option for a merge. Average Earthman 13:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd urge the author to read a lot of Wikipedia's policy and style pages and come up with a decent article for this. In my experience no one questions the notability of school articles if they are well-written. Trilobite (Talk) 15:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A good stub - SimonP 16:35, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Trilobite's experience is not mine. Non-notable school. Delete. RickK`
• Delete, BEEFSTEW score of 3 (A,D,H). —Korath (Talk) 01:38, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Trilobite. —RaD Man (talk) 02:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if there are university entries why not schools (oh, wait, why not delete the whole wikipedia)... Beta m (talk)
  • If there are Nobel Prize winner articles, why not articles on everyone with any science related qualification? Oh hold on, that's just silly. See the point? There has to be a line somewhere. Average Earthman 11:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Because universities do scientific research, and schools do not. For the same reason, the White House is listed in WP, but the Albuquerque town hall is not. Radiant! 13:04, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • If there are articles on actors, why not on every person who has ever lived? RickK 22:28, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Find the exact location, merge it into that article and delete - Skysmith 11:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a decent school stub, valid topic. --Andylkl 18:46, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously - David Gerard 23:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 20:19, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Probable vanity. Notability of this particular brigade not established. Main focus is on commander's name and external URL. Radiant! 12:26, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I added more info. Brigades are notable, if only for their size. Kevin Rector 14:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Whether it's notable or not there is little of value in this article. Trilobite (Talk) 15:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Having little of value makes it a stub not a candidate for deletion. Kevin Rector 15:17, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • On second thoughts I think you are right on this one. Keep. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Brigades are large and finite in number. "provides divisonal artillery support for the 1st Armored Division" is/was an adequately valuable fact. Kappa 15:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done Kevin Rector. Capitalistroadster 15:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• All military units are notable. Keep. RickK 00:08, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that I agree that all units are notable but brigades probably are. Below brigade level, they'd have to be an independent command or have an exceptional history. Keep. Rossami (talk) 00:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — Many brigades/regiments are very worthy topics. RJH 19:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:07, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Pointless. Deb 12:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. utcursch 12:57, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Provides no added info besides title. Speedy. Mgm|^(talk) 13:55, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Gotta love those circular definitions. Nevertheless, Delete. Radiant! 14:02, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can also see a good case for a speedy delete. Carrp | Talk 14:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A deletable article is the article that one naturally deletes. Naturally, I vote to delete this deletable article. Trilobite (Talk) 15:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Naturally. HyperZonk 17:12, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete #2 or 4, user test with little or no (i.e. brief and circular) content. Wyss 19:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, circular dictionary definition. Megan1967 05:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe redirect to Afro? Circa 1970, an "afro" was equally known as a "natural" -- Jmabel | Talk 08:17, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • My natural hairstyle isn't an "afro", so no redirect please. Megan1967 07:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like a speedy delete candidate under several categories, but a redirect to Afro certainly wouldn't hurt. It almost looks like an attempt at a redirect anyway. - Lucky 6.9 18:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Band vanity, notability not established. Radiant! 13:03, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Kevin Rector 14:16, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 15:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Wyss 19:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and I'm surprised there isn't an article about the hoodoo charm. I got a black cat bone. Rhobite 02:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 20:25, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Player for a local Dutch soccer team. Notability not established. Possibly transwiki to Dutch wikipedia. Radiant! 13:06, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• The local Dutch soccer team is Feyenoord. Keep. Kappa 13:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I don't care for football, but the team is obviously a major one, and I believe there is some kind of consensus here that professional sportspeople are inherently notable, as uninteresting as most of them are. / u p p l a n d 13:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Am Dutch. Don't care much for it either, but Feyenoord is indeed a notable club, so its players may have articles here as well. Keep. Mgm|^(talk) 13:57, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Do you know anything about football my friend? Feyenoord is hardly a non-notable local team. Trilobite (Talk) 15:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I know Feyenoord is notable, I just wasn't sure about the individual players (hence the suggestion of moving to nl.wikipedia. on second thought, anything that's valid in any wikipedia, is probably valid in all of them). Radiant! 15:30, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I consider any professional footballer encyclopedia-worthy. Xezbeth 16:38, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep obviously. Grue 18:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Professional sports players are not inherently notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously - David Gerard 23:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Football team vanity. Notability not established, heavy POV, literal transcription of match commentary, and list of local buzzwords. Radiant! 13:08, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Kevin Rector 14:15, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 15:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, prankish, beery vanity. Wyss 19:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• B'ah Humbug, Boring deletion squad! There's obviously no place in this big wide world for such a small club.. We shall bow out with pride. You may have taken our wiki, but you'll never take our Blog!!!
• Don't Delete We still have oour blog, but leave us our little place on the web!

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

Ha, I edited the page! Up yours! Stick it to the man!

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with this... disambig page of six people named Bill Perkins, most of which aren't particularly notable. All of them link to some external site, none to an internal. Possible advertisement for the sixth, who runs a furniture business. Radiant! 13:15, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• I have nothing against disambiguation, but we should have at least external links to articles about these people. Delete unless dab is actually needed. Mgm|^(talk) 13:59, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kevin Rector 14:14, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 15:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a stealth ad for one of them. Wyss 19:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not a very helpful disambiguation page, possible stealth vanity. Megan1967 05:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Page has been moved to BiNet USA. Joyous 20:28, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Someone please verify the importance thereof? Could be vanity, or could be a useful program. Radiant! 13:15, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone comes up with more info or verification. Kevin Rector 14:13, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 15:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Thoughts from inside the LGBT community: this organization has been around for awhile, despite its rather small size. The lack of attention, membership, and funding is probably due to the fact that the bisexual community is the poor bastard child of the gay rights community -- that is, they get respect neither from the straight community nor from the gay community -- for various reasons. Ergo, their size and reach as determined by Google and Alexa (admittedly low) is not necessarily reflective of their notability, longevity, and importance. HyperZonk 17:10, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you may be right. I was inclined to delete when I saw it because it seemed to be little more than a spam link, probably created by someone from the organisation in order to promote it, rather than a third party writing objectively about it. I've turned it into a properly formatted stub and changed my vote to Keep. I agree with your comments about the bisexual community. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it, Wyss 18:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Went to one of their meetings once several years ago before I knew what was what. Tends to attract an odd crowd, but definitely known in the GLBT community. Katefan0 22:09, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The above comments lead me to believe it's notable enough for inclusion. Carrp | Talk 22:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, yes bisexuals are often accused of being unfaithful fence-sitters. Article name should be changed to BiNet USA. Megan1967 05:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. And, yes, article name should be changed to BiNet USA. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Jmabel on the name change. It's such a ubiquitous abbreviation that I almost passed right over it in its current form on the VfD page. Katefan0 20:08, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 02:58, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Notability not established. No content except for a URL and a photograph. Is every school or uni by itself notable? Radiant! 13:20, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Any institution with a research program [15] is notable, and what do you mean "no content"? Kappa 13:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • What I meant was that the article didn't provide any interesting facts about said institute. Of course the webpage does. Very well, request withdrawn, mark as edu-stub. Radiant! 13:58, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Edited out unneeded final paragraph. Keep educational institutions are notable. Mgm|^(talk) 14:06, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Trilobite (Talk) 15:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, these Indian technical colleges are influential and encyclopedic. Wyss 18:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Real educational institution. Capitalistroadster 09:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyvio. Joyous 00:23, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Says absolutely nothing beyond what's generally applicable to the European Capital of Culture. The information is just duplicated under the slogan of one city. — Trilobite (Talk) 13:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It's a copyvio from [16], but I'd vote delete anyway. It didn't even win the nomination. sjorford:// 14:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 20:31, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Reverse vanity page (aka hate page, or the person has very low self esteem). Notability of said person not established. Radiant! 13:25, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Attack page, speedy delete. Kappa 13:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 15:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Attack page. HyperZonk 16:59, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete #3, vandalism. Wyss 18:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious personal attack. Megan1967 05:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I would hope that being an insult page against a non-notable person qualifies for speedy delete, but I've been slapped before for things not so different, so I leave it to someone else to follow through. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:21, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Attack. Ganymead 04:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - If the man's games are worthy of an entry (and IMO at least one of them is) then his biography is also of potential merit. I have cleaned up the tone of the page and flagged it as a bio-stub. With luck someone will expand it and we will find out just how notable is. --Theo (Talk) 09:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 20:33, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Some unverifiable pseudo-science speculation and nonsense. The whole alleged "theory" is explained in "layman" terms with lots of "superfluous" quotation marks. Note that we already have well-written articles like Quantum mind, Quantum brain dynamics and Space-time theories of consciousness that cite their sources. In my opinion, there is nothing worth merging here. jni 13:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is likely original research and it's unverifiable for sure. The article admits that it's not widely accepted and I'd be surprised if anyone accepts it. Carrp | Talk 14:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kevin Rector 14:11, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Loaded with neologisms Jok2000 15:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Trilobite (Talk) 15:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, almost patent nonsense. Google shows only two hits beyond WP mirrors. BTW, Buddhists are unlikely to report near death experiences in which they see Buddha (with the possible exception of Western Jodo Shu and Jodo Shinshu believers). HyperZonk 16:50, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research of the codswallop sort. Wyss 18:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:04, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No such person exists. No search results for "Usui Masato" and "Usui d Channel" 60.34.4.117 14:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 15:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, some sort of an ad. Wyss 18:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although perhaps to say "No such person exists" is a bit sweeping! Peter Shearan 15:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - ...and not because I don't think he/she exists -- Longhair 18:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Radiant! 14:20, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks autobiographical. To the author: if you deserve an entry in Wikipedia someone will create one for you one day. Today is not that day. Trilobite (Talk) 15:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to me to be vanity. HyperZonk 16:45, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Wyss 18:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 05:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. wshun 08:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:53, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable marching band. Radiant! 14:21, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 15:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, school vanity. Wyss 18:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 20:46, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

This page is composed of geographical banter. I didn't see that it could be cleaned up, as the interesting bits belong in other topics. What is written here could be shown with a single .jpg of a map, which would leave no content at all. Jok2000 14:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Terrible article in dire need of cleanup, but it exists and is notable. Trilobite (Talk) 15:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Needs a fair bit of trimming and cleanup, but content and article are perfectly valid. -- sjorford →•← 15:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and hope someone will provide a map which would replace about 80% of the article. -- RWH 17:12, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
• Keep, I cleaned it up, it'll grow. Wyss 18:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all real places. RickK 00:03, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. Thanks to Wyss for his efforts. Capitalistroadster 09:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep You're kidding, right? Earl Andrew 03:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Spinboy 20:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Even historic counties which no longer exist in their old form merit articles; it's not at all difficult to imagine somebody needing information about the former Compton County (eg. genealogical or political research, etc.) who would be very well-served by even a short article explaining how the county was redistributed among Quebec's modern MRCs. Bearcat 00:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. I thought the Karygiannis listing was silly, but this tops it. CJCurrie 00:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Duh, keep. —RaD Man (talk) 11:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:19, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable pseudonym of a non-notable member of a non-notable forum. Wikipedia is not a web guide nor a list of all of the people in the world. See also DeV and 13th Panzer Division. Uncle G 14:57, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 15:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Wyss 18:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Vanity. Inter 19:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. I count 3 clear "delete" votes (including the anonymous nominator whose vote is discounted somewhat), 5 clear "keep" votes (one of them discounted as a troll) and 4 clear "merge/redirect" votes. There is not concensus to delete. However, the majority opinion is that this should not remain as an independent article. Since merge and redirect does not destroy history, I am going to be bold and do so. Rossami (talk) 09:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

delete I think not every person who wrote a program deserves a own biographical site. And at this site theres not much more than he wrote rar. 17:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

unsigned. From page history: 12:42, 2005 Jan 6 213.54.221.21

This is an improperly and incomplete VfD nomination. I'm completing the process. I vote Keep. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-16 15:28 Z

• Merge with Rar. Radiant! 16:10, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, both WinRar and FAR Manager are very popular in Russia and other countries (even though I don't like them). Grue 18:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it. Wyss 18:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, We have plenty of articles about software authors who is less or of the same fame as this person. Inter 19:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Since his notability is (apparently) solely derivative of his work on RAR, merge and redirect there. Rossami (talk) 00:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, merge and redirect --nixie 00:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand. Megan1967 05:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• keep!!! Yuckfoo 04:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, popular programmer. JamesBurns 08:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to RAR; no other notability. —Korath (Talk) 02:56, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE AND REDIRECT to Junior (movie). There was nothing to merge; thus, I have redirected. —Korath (Talk) 03:10, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Though shorter, the Junior (movie) article is better formatted. JB82 01:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is an incomplete VfD nomination. I'm completing the process. I vote Merge with Junior (movie). —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-16 15:32 Z

• Merge. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, Wyss 18:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and merge Junior (movie) here. Title is more specific. — Gwalla | Talk 00:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Junior, and add redirect. Megan1967 05:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 20:50, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

This page is about a totally unnotable school that has no real importance in the general scheme of things. There are many more impotant and interesting academic institutions in Sydney that are more deserving of a place in Wikipedia than this. Sastrawan 06:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I must agree completely. It bears no real significance to anything, and there are but a few minor famour people who have emerged from this school. As Sastrawan said above, the real attention should be given to more noteworthy schools in the Sydney area, who prroduce many more famous and internationally renowned citizens. (Unsigned by User:Manser, whose only edit was this vote)
• Delete If you are to delete this, also remove the other schools in the GPS Schools. Although if such a move was warranted, I would recommend keeping the page on Sydney Grammar. (Unsigned by User:144.132.235.43
• Keep: All colleges belong on Wikipedia. --Golbez 06:51, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is a secondary school, which can be called grammar schools or colleges in Australia. --BM
• Keep: Those voting to delete this item are schoolboys trying to amuse themselves and their friends. Read Sastrawan's bio for further insights.

Seems like this page was never posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-16 15:38 Z

• Keep. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, sounds like it ended up on VfD as a schoolboy prank to begin with. Wyss 18:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Most secondary schools are not notable, but this one is probably an exception because of its history and prominent former students. --BM 20:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Bogus VFD. Nominator deserves censure. This is one of Australia's oldest, wealthiest and most influential private schools, and has produced dozens of historically notable alumni, as even the most basic of researches prior to listing on VFD would have revealed. --Centauri 01:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wincoote 02:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. JuntungWu 03:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable school in Sydney with notable alumni including the current Australian Chief Justice. Capitalistroadster 09:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into relevant area of Sydney and delete - Skysmith 11:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and agree with Centauri with regards to censure. GRider\^talk 23:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominator indeed deserves censure - David Gerard 23:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion with a block compress error. Joyous 04:17, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - As the talk page shows, this is an e-mail collected of true/useful, true/useless, unverifiable and downright false information, mashed together for no particular reason. It has been trimmed several times and keeps re-growing. If nothing else, this article title is ridiculous. - DavidWBrooks 18:17, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seems like this page was never posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-16 15:37 Z

• Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Merge anything useful to other articles. DJ Clayworth 17:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not an encyclopedic classification, potential for forks and dupes without end. Wyss 18:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like point-scoring... Any fascinating 'facts' should go under History of India or relevent discipline e.g engineering... or have it's own article max rspct 19:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful into History of India. jdb ❋ 20:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Merge any useful info into India -- Longhair 02:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:16, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

This appears to be a vanity page. It doesn't seem to any actual content that would be useful for understanding who megaboy is or if I'd really want to know who megaboy is. --Hedgeman 06:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seems like this page was never posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. I vote Delete. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-16 15:37 Z

• Delete. This guy probably thought he'd hacked Wikipedia by managing to edit the page. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity with a cherry on top. Wyss 18:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Oh Megaboy, what will you hack next? Carrp | Talk 18:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Ph33r. Inter 19:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- 133t Longhair 18:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. This has been done. Joyous 20:53, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Duplicates Nahanni National Park article ~~

Improperly signed. Page history says 20:44, 2004 Dec 4 BrentS

Redirect. Oleg Alexandrov 00:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seems like this page was never posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. Merge with Nahanni National Park Reserve. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-16 15:50 Z

• Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Redirect. I immediately recognized the name. Changing it to redirect was so obvious, I just changed it right now. Jok2000 16:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: And I just fixed the double redirect this created. What a mess. This redirect has significant edit history, as much of the text now in Nahanni National Park Reserve was originally contributed here. Deletion of a redirect looks a simple decision, but in fact owing to the way we implement GFDL compliance it's on average a little more complicated than deleting an article. That's one reason we have a separate redirects for deletion page. I'm not sure how to untangle this, so no vote for now. Andrewa 17:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like once the dust settles (ie this nom is moved to VFD:Old), an admin just needs to merge the page histories. Niteowlneils 22:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that either. Unfortunately, these histories now overlap, so merge won't work. Read down on the page you quoted to Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves#A troublesome case. Andrewa 23:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as redirect to Nahanni National Park Reserve. Useless redirect but it's not worth sorting the histories out. Andrewa 02:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, useless redirect. Megan1967 07:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was rewrite copyvio. The nominated artice has been listed at WP:CP, while a new article has been re-written on the temp. page. Joyous 20:56, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

I can accept that this person may be noteworthy, but it reads more like a magazine article at the moment. Deb 22:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks as cut out from a tabloid. Oleg Alexandrov 00:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seems like this page was never posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-16 15:50 Z

• Delete. Not encyclopedic. If they're notable someone else will come along and write a proper article. This one can go. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. (Sigh) It seems we are back to using VfD as a cure for all ills. This article if accurate clearly establishes that the topic is encyclopedic, and contains valuable content. As yet nobody has questioned its accuracy, so there are no grounds for deletion. Andrewa 16:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: What is more, this is actually a copyvio by a newbie with no other edits. The source is the first Google hit I got. Rather than listing it as a copyvio, I think it's easier to stubify it and will. No change of vote. Andrewa 16:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Stubified. See the history for the original. It was probably less work to stubify this than to list it on VfD. Food for thought? Andrewa 17:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • But shouldn't the stub be written on a temp page, in order to delete the copyvio from history as well? I am confused as to whether this is important or not. / up+land 18:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: If someone had listed it as a copyvio, then I would have been obliged to do this, yes. IMO we are not at all consistent as to whether this is important or not. I think the explanation might be that the copyvio procedures were written some time ago, before we had much experience in what was important, and are conservative. But until someone rewrites them, they should be followed. No change of vote. Andrewa 19:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it now, although it's still as much a tribute as encyclopedic. Wyss 18:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio boilerplate put on the page. Please follow proper procedures for copyright violations. RickK 00:00, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I thought I was, and I think you have just violated them. You have overwritten a good stub. What was the reason for this? No change of vote. Andrewa 12:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The proper procedure is to write the good stub in the /Temp page, so that the original page, with the copyvio in the history, can be deleted, and the /Temp page moved to the appropriate name. RickK 22:35, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: That's the procedure for listing a copyvio. Whether to do that was a line call IMO. The best thing would have been to list it as a copyvio in the first place, and not here. It was after all the first hit in the most obvious Google search! But the process already being off to a bad start, I don't think I was obliged to list it as a copyvio, although I did call people's attention to that fact just in case someone else wanted to. On the other hand, we do have a policy of preserving useful content, which you have violated. That's my only complaint. I've fixed it now. Andrewa 00:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if and when the copyvio is resolved. Megan1967 05:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• As this has been deleted as a copyvio, there is little point in continuing. However, as the founder of the first rape crisis centre in the US, she would warrant an article if omeone were to write one. Capitalistroadster 09:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are no copyright problems. I have restored the stub to Oleta Kirk Abrams/Temp, which is the proper place for it now the article has been listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. That page's resolution process will now remove the offending history, and now it has been listed there that's the way to go IMO. But the normal procedure if a copyvio is removed by another contributor (me in this case) before it is listed on the copyvio page is not to list it there just to clean up the history, although it has often been discussed, see Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages. Andrewa 13:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The discussion you point to is not policy. RickK 22:35, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Agree. It's a discussion. No policy has been agreed. Andrewa 00:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the temp file and move into space. Capitalistroadster 18:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree (just to clarify my keep vote above). That is the proper procedure from here. Andrewa 00:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. jni 17:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable. Article composed entirely of drivel. No potential to become encyclopedic. Probable copyvio as the article says it comes from the game's forums (no luck with Google however). — Trilobite (Talk) 16:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, ad. Wyss 18:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tungsten? I know it's misspelled. RickK 23:54, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Concur on redirect. Alba 02:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tungsten. Megan1967 05:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, in agreement with Trilobite and Wyss (drivel, no potential to become encyclopedic, advertisement). Tygar 03:17, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 17:58, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure Mr. Bernard is a nice man, but not encyclopedic. Vanity page. Katefan0 16:07, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Thue | talk 16:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, could be speedied as a user test. Wyss 18:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Carrp | Talk 18:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• 20:46, Feb 16, 2005 Academic Challenger deleted Kyle Bernard (content was: 'Born on October 6 1985 in Corona, California. He currently attends Northeastern University. He usually sits next to Bowman, Ted.{{de...')

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. I'm hesitant to add to the already-overloaded Category:Copy to Wiktionary. dbenbenn | talk 17:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Swedish dicdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and is in English. Thue | talk 16:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Belongs in Wiktionary. Trilobite (Talk) 16:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Very doubtful. This seems to be a neologism. Unless it is verified in some printed slang or dialect dictionary it should be deleted. / u p p l a n d 18:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, foreign dicdef. Wyss 18:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary, needs proper translation. Megan1967 07:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, cleaned up and expanded. Megan1967 07:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • But seriously, why? Have you any evidence that this word exists outside the mind of the original author? / u p p l a n d 08:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. JamesBurns 08:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:14, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Vanity, 211 google hits. Thue | talk 16:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 16:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Johntex 17:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Wyss 18:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Vanity. Inter 19:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 05:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:14, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Neologism. Doesn't google. Radiant! 16:35, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 16:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, prolly a schoolboy prank. Wyss 18:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A most flaximonious word. DS 00:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - zero Google hits, neologism. Megan1967 05:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 20:59, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Advertisement --BenWilson 16:34, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, ad. Wyss 18:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, It's a notable game. Inter 19:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --Matteh (talk) 20:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep notable game from a very notable series. Syberia gets 1,100,000 Google hits! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:45, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

  But, "Syberia II" only gets about 96k hits on Google. Additionally, the majority of those hits are either reviews, advertisements, or storefronts. BenWilson

  Eh. So? I bet the same can be said for most games. Or any number of topics. We're not supposed to include articles just becauase it happens to be a commercial product? --gcbirzan^talk 16:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  Point 1: "Syberia II" might be the official title, but it isn't necessarily the only way to search for mentions of this game. A site might legitimately mention it but call it "Syberia 2" or "Syberia, Part II" or "the sequel to Syberia", etc. Point 2: Even 96K hits is not a small number. I recall VfDs with less than 20 Google hits getting kept. Point 3: I would think that the fact that this game is widely reviewed, widely advertised, and widely sold would be a point for it, not against it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

  Just a note, searching for "Syberia II" OR "Syberia 2" gets me about 319,000 results in Google. --Matteh (talk) 18:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Short article, fun game. --InShaneee 22:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable game. Carrp | Talk 23:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable sequel to a game that got a very well-deserved Game of the Year award. (Unfortunately, I've only got the first game, so I can't do the expansion.) --Idont Havaname 03:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - the first Syberia has an article (to which I contributed after I finished the game), why not this one? The sequel article is a bit stubby, but it's still worthy of inclusion. I look forward to playing the sequel (and plan to expand the article accordingly if no one gets there before me). 23skidoo 05:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  Then merge. I still think this is an advertisement. You'd never see this sort of shilling in other Encyclopedia. BenWilson

  Is this another demonstration of systemic bias inherent to the community of Wikipedia, or is this subject legitimately more notable than adult film stars and local politicians? No vote. GRider\^talk 23:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand, notable sequel game. Megan1967 05:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep gcbirzan^talk 21:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair 09:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:24, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Found on substub list, apparently restored after deletion? Should delete again, then. Radiant! 16:48, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Same reasons as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Perldreams. I can't ever see this growing into an encyclopedic article. --PJF ^(talk) 10:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Delete to BJAODN. — David Remahl 10:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Will never grow past substub status. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 10:36, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, as Perldreams. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway ^Talk ]] 13:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Delete to BJAODN. --Idont Havaname 23:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Joke article. --Improv 07:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --MPerel 09:39, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It's not even a BJAODN. --Regebro 11:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 21:02, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Note: This VfD about Khala - fictional philosophy/religion from StarCraft- was put up on Jan. 25 2005 by 66.102.65.183[17]. However, the VfD submission was malformed, and the author apparently didn't understand how the VfD system works. I personally believe this VfD is not justified, but I did not feel entitled to single-handedly remove it so I am putting it through the normal process. The following are 66.102.65.183's words: Phils 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with this page?

Those were the words of 142.150.49.34. 66.102.65.183 put up the VfD tag, but not the initial version of this VfD discussion page. 66.102.74.184 14:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Phils 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, crufty but not misleading. Wyss 18:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Inter 19:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I put up the VfD. I wasn't sure what was the best tag was for the page at the time; it seemed to be rather esoteric and not worthy of being expanded, and at the time the page was little more than a definition. The page has now been expanded sufficiently to be worth keeping, however. Though it was malformed and the surrounding process not understood, the result of the VfD submission seems to have turned out well... 66.102.74.21 02:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant Keep. Oh the curse of fancruft! Trilobite (Talk) 09:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:25, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Vanity/advertisement for non-notable teenage band in the UK. Carrp | Talk 18:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. cesarb 18:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as blatant ad and weblink placeholder. - Lucky 6.9 18:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, It's their, not there. I weep for the written language. Inter 19:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Textbook band vanity. Trilobite (Talk) 09:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since it does not seem to be well-known. Also, it seems to consist primarily of contact information and not of actual songs or even the band's achievements. --Tezeti 04:31, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Delete: Blank page. No information Giano 17:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I tagged it for speedy. It was nonsense that was blanked by the author. Xezbeth 18:19, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied. Obvious newbie test. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Note: Original content before blanking was:

'Bold text'Bold textLink titlejyufiygyigouguigvhgcuhoehgfurehfnvkjivbuhgniugv

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 21:05, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

According to this page, blason is a minor literary term. Google yields some 400 hits on this while only 1 link I could see got any reference. Inter 19:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. It was a common literary device in Elizabethan lyric poetry, eg. teeth like pearls, lips like coral. Megan1967 05:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. As it stands this is a substub dicdef at best. I don't doubt that it could be a decent article if the author had done a proper job of it, but unless someone expands it slightly this is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Trilobite (Talk) 10:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This article could indeed use vast improvements, but could indeed be made a valid article. The content here would still remain useful for someone who wished to write a better one. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Cleaned up and expanded. Also added term blason populaire. Megan1967 08:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nice work Kappa 02:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:20, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Thue | talk 20:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Right you are. Delete -- although when I first saw this listed I thought somebody had written an article about Giuseppe Verdi's views on mass production (which might be interesting!) No such luck. --Christofurio 20:16, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete personal essay. Rossami (talk) 01:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, essay / original research / POV. --Idont Havaname 02:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, It is an essay, with some interesting insights but pretty well unreadable as prose. Let it get published and peer-reviewed and we might then be talking. But I have my doubts. Apwoolrich 08:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, irredeemable POV. Publish it somewhere else. Trilobite (Talk) 10:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV essay, original research. Megan1967 08:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 21:08, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Article doesn't establish notability, instead it's a glorified list. Vote to delete. --Spinboy 20:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Are you kidding? A quick Google search of the phrase turns up more than 8,000 hits [18], including local chapters in several states and Canada. I agree that the article could use some expansion, but the bar is not an article's current state, it's whether an article has the potential to be encyclopedic. A Nexis search shows mentions in 274 articles, including those published in the San Francisco Chronicle, Boston Globe, Associated Press, Dallas Morning News, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and more. It's clearly a player in the debate if national reporters are turning to it as a resource. It deserves a place here, though it should be expanded. Katefan0 22:16, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Expanded a small bit and cleaned up some of the overzealous alphabet soup wikification. Katefan0 22:30, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely notable: heavily involved in a major national controversy. — Gwalla | Talk 00:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Another bogus VFD. VFD is not cleanup. Bad content is not a justification for deletion.--Centauri 01:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in present form. Reasonably significant political entity as of 2005. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, notable. Megan1967 05:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --Angr 07:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Trilobite (Talk) 10:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - rather important US LG Rights organization - Skysmith 11:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Jonathunder 05:23, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 03:18, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Non-notable event. Delete. --Spinboy 20:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If the winner gets into a famous politician in some years, a reference could be added in the article about him... :) --Neigel von Teighen 20:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. Delete. jdb ❋ 20:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not really notable. Almost every university on the planet has one of these elections every year, this is nothing special. Rje 22:49, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 22:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too parochial I'm afraid. With an electorate of less than 2000 and nothing else to render it notable this sets the precedent that all the many thousands of local and union elections that take place around the world every year deserve an entry in Wikipedia. They do not. Trilobite (Talk) 10:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too localised in interest (and even then I'll bet most students don't really care). Average Earthman 11:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've seen lots of Australian student elections close-up, and seen what passes for 'verifiable' information on them. I can hardly think of a one that would pass Wikipedia:Verifiability - David Gerard 23:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP and CLEANUP. —Korath (Talk) 03:24, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Is this article worth??? --Neigel von Teighen 21:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Should be merged into the main article on the Cyprus conflict. Also deserves a /notenglish/ tag because it's in legalese. Radiant! 22:25, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Since it does actually seem to be a precedent-setting case, a better-worded version of the info should be kept somewhere. Cyprus dispute is currently 30K, but could probably hold it. Keep/cleanup or merge. Niteowlneils 22:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Meant to mention the first paragraph appears to be a copyvio from [19]. Niteowlneils 22:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup and expand. It's a notable court case. Cyprus dispute article is already to large to merge with. Megan1967 05:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Articles on high-profile court cases are ok, but this needs sending to cleanup. It's unfortunate the author didn't have much to say about it and just inserted a State Department quote verbatim. We could do with some context and analysis. Trilobite (Talk) 10:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As with cleanup and expand. Notable and worthy enough to be in its own article. --Andylkl 08:57, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Darwinek 13:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:48, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RJ does not appear 'worthy' of an encyclopaedia article, thus this is a vanity page. Presumably the associated image should also be deleted. -- SGBailey 21:55, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

Text and image appear to be copyvios from here and here. There is a UK professor by the same name that has a book published by Wiley, but I'm not sure a single, relatively obscure computer text meets the 'audience of 5000' test. Niteowlneils 22:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Seems to be a common name - there's another UK professor at Sheffield with two books out (one has an Amazon sales rank of 85,074 - which is probably somewhere around 4 copies sold a week, so not exactly setting the world on fire). Average Earthman 11:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, copyright violation. Megan1967 05:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 10:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio. However, there is a Richard Jones who was a member of NSW State Parliament and who I consider deserves an article. [20].

Capitalistroadster 10:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity and CV, copyright vio or not. I think "investment banker" really says it all. We don't need articles on all of them, that's for sure. And there must be thousands of Rickards Joneses. -R. fiend 19:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was to delete, but block compressed revisions prevented that. Redirected as an alternative to leaving the article lying around. Cyrius|✎ 05:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I previously nominated List of terms and concepts used in alternative medicine for deletion because of redundancy with this article. However, in hindsight, that article had more information than this one, and thus this one should probably be deleted and merged into the more complete list of terms and concepts article. Snowspinner 21:55, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Then slap a {{merge}} on the one and a {{mergefrom}} on the other and be bold. Deletion is not merger. You're in the wrong place. Uncle G 00:52, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
  • I agree with you 100%. The request for a VfD should once again be withdrawn and a request for a merge made. Snowspinner, once again, seems to be totally confused. The deletion of master indexes should not be taken so lightly. -- John Gohde 06:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Inclined to agree with Uncle G. Trilobite (Talk) 10:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • On reflection I concur with Snowspinner and vote to Delete. It does seem that for various reasons articles relating to alternative medicine are somewhat er... out of control and in this case a VfD listing is probably justified to deal with the redundancy. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP and Do NOT Merge -- Every book has an index, and this is THE master index to Alternative Medicine in Wikipedia. Indexes of topics are the last thing that anybody in Wikipedia should even contemplate deleting.
  • Like the other alternative medicine Lists on VfD, this List happens to be part of a set of 5 Lists called the Core Project Lists and Articles of the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine. Together these 5 Lists provide a master list of alternative medicine topics.
  • The Wikiproject on Buddhism uses the same kind of article. Their List is called the List of Buddhist topics.
  • What does this list do? Quoting Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes: "Lists have a substantial advantage over categories and series boxes in that they can be annotated. A list can include items that do not yet have an article, and can also show series or groups where the items would be completely separate on the category page. A well-annotated list may duplicate a category, but not be redundant with it."[21]. That is precisely what this Master Index does for the topic of alternative medicine.
  • Quoting the main project page for the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine: This List is "a master list, of all the articles currently existing on Wikipedia that have been identified as being related to CAM; or that are about an alternative position on health, healing, and/or illness; or are related to these topics.[22]
  • This List is the most complete and accurate Index of articles in Wikipedia about alternative medicine. The category:alternative medicine as it presently exists is woefully incomplete, confusing, and inaccurate.
  • Some visitors to Wikipedia prefer to use specialized Lists covering a particular sub-set of a topic, like famous people for example. Other visitors prefer to use a master index. The Index of topics in alternative medicine is designed for real people who like to use master indexes. -- John Gohde 14:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I took insufficient care in reading the reasoning in the original post for deletion, this subject seems have a few too many redundant, repetitive articles. HyperZonk^talk 22:15, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC) Keep. Inclined to agree with John Gohde's extensive argument above; however, this is my first approach to this kind of issue, so I am open to being convinced otherwise by those with more experience in the metastructure of WP if they effectively counter his arguments. HyperZonk^talk 17:12, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • The subject of this particular vote is not whether or not there are redundant repetitive articles in Wikipedia but rather the fate of one master index called the Index of topics in alternative medicine. -- John Gohde 06:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete; there only needs to be one such list. -Sean Curtin 01:29, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:15, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable fictional character from a computer game--only 8 displayed hits. Niteowlneils 21:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Seems important within the game. Anyway merge somewhere or keep. Kappa 22:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Should be merged here Minor Jedi characters in Star Wars--nixie 00:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Is this character just from a video game? Mention of every character from the movies and books is one thing, but this is getting too much. Delete, although if it's merged somewhere else I gues I wouldn't complain. -R. fiend 07:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with R. fiend that this is getting too much. Non-notable fancruft. Author is advised to go and write an article about an important Ugandan historical figure with no Google hits or something. Trilobite (Talk) 10:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with Trilobite and Fiend. Radiant! 15:08, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor fancruft orbiting a galaxy far, far away. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've played that game, and she isn't even a character in it. She's only talked about by a character in it. My vote is not to merge, but if consensus is to merge, do not merge to Minor Jedi characters in Star Wars. Merge to Jolee Bindo. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:30, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 03:27, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

The lyrics being copywrited, I think this is all there is to say on the topic, meaning it'll stay a stub (or substub, depending on how you look at it) permanently. --InShaneee 22:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• (expanded) Keep hit singles and otherwise successful songs. Other things it could mention include chart success or lack thereof, the lyrics supposedly repeated from other songs, and what kind of deal it has with amazon.com (it's an "amazon exclusive", apparently). Kappa 23:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Song by major band that was the end title song of a major movie, led to a Golden Globe nomination, and was a single. If we believe songs are ever deserving of their own entries (and I think previous decisions show we do) then I think this one is. Keep. (And thanks for expansion, User:Kappa). TSP 23:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the single is only available from selected websites - restricting it's potential for notability. I suspect within a few months this song will be largely forgotten by the masses, consigning it to a brief footnote in music history. "Man of the Hour" lost out to Annie Lennox's "Into the West". Megan1967 01:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Some might say that being the first single released entirely outside the usual label machinery by this major band - perhaps the first 'Big Name' band to deliberately opt out of the label system in favour of direct internet sales - made it particularly' notable.... TSP 14:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Trilobite (Talk) 10:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Songs nominated in major awards are notable. Capitalistroadster 10:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 23:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 09:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, was nominated for a Golden Globe, notable enough. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:09, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Blatant advertisement. Carrp | Talk 22:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, "We want publicity" spam for a product that only gets 25 Google hits on the query AdProtect Spyware Removal. --Idont Havaname 02:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. ✏ OvenFresh² 02:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article needs to be put into Wikipedia's Advertisement Removal Program. Zzyzx11 05:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is devoid of any information whatsoever as far as I can tell. Probably worthy of speedying for consisting of an external link and nowt else. Trilobite (Talk) 10:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --webkid 20:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:10, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Not a single Google hit. – Kpalion (talk) 22:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I concur. Delete. DS 00:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No Google hits, then no Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 05:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly article. Trilobite (Talk) 10:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've heard of it. I wear my frumparz on the weekends all the time. Keep it.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 03:09, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable software. Carrp | Talk 22:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. According to the article, this leet-acronym stands for "Music Album Recording System", a phrase that gets zero hits on Google. Johntex 23:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete CDC (talk) 01:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No Google hits, then no Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 05:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Trilobite (Talk) 10:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 03:39, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

The article reads: "Anil Kakodkar is currently chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of India." End of sub-stub. GRider\^talk 22:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, Anil appears to be a pretty intersting guy, he builds nuclear reactors, has a decent number of peer reviewed publications, and is also the Secretary, of the Indian Dept. of Atomic Energy.--nixie 00:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Useless substub of an article but he is notable. Trilobite (Talk) 10:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've expanded it. (I wish more people voting to expand substubs would actually bother doing this - surely the only way to know a substub is worth expanding is to gather data that you can use to expand it) Average Earthman 14:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability for me. Megan1967 08:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He is a notable scientist and was also one of the main scientists involved in the 1998 pokhran nuclear tests as the director of BARC which oversees the nuclear weapons programme of india. kaal 21:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair 18:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Haham hanuka 08:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, useless sub-sub-stub. JamesBurns 09:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with Richard Sheepshanks. The article has been tagged for merging. Joyous 00:25, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Does this pass "the test"? Anne Sheepshanks receives 8 hits on google [23] (after duplicates are omitted). Is there something that makes this particular person more noteworthy and includable than an actor or actress in a direct-to-DVD film? GRider\^talk 22:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• She doesn't appear to be notable for anything other than being the sister of Richard Sheepshanks, could this be merged there? --nixie 00:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I like nixie's idea. Merge and redirect. -R. fiend 07:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I agree, Merge and redirect. HowardB 07:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into the Richard Sheepshanks article. Trilobite (Talk) 10:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge — my article actually; it was just created to expand on the eponym link for the lunar crater. Unfortunately there's not a lot of material on the internet about her. — RJH 19:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 03:39, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Are CEOs of lobbying organizations inherently noteworthy? If not, is there something which sets this particular individual apart from other lobbyists and makes him worthy of inclusion? GRider\^talk 23:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, and expand. Just notable enough for me - 6,200 Google hits. Megan1967 06:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Would be nice if the author could expand it, but even with very little information this person is just about notable enough for me. Trilobite (Talk) 10:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ComCat 02:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Yes. Keep - David Gerard 23:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. JamesBurns 09:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:08, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable, unverifiable, speculative internet trivia. Only the first few hits for "caribou" gmail seem to mention this, and they are all 'reverse engineered' extrapolations based on the word in the URL, appearing on blogs and forums. Couldn't find any place this is stated as fact. Even the article says "The only evidence for this, is to go to your Google accounts managing page and hover on the "Delete Gmail service" and the link "https://www.google.com/accounts/DeleteCaribouService" appears." Speculation/original research shouldn't be presented as fact. Niteowlneils 23:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Even if this were true, why would we care? RickK 23:48, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is just some useless trivia. Not worthy of being in Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 05:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless trivia. Trilobite (Talk) 10:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:06, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Neologism coined late last year by a single website. I've seen no evidence that the term is in common use. Article is a dictdef (and the term isn't that hard to figure out in the first place). — Gwalla | Talk 23:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete CDC (talk) 01:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is too early to have it listed on Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 05:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable neologism, dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does appear to be a recent neologism. Trilobite (Talk) 10:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:03, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the repository for drunken ramblings made after watching a Three Stooges marathon DS 23:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete CDC (talk) 01:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, silliness. --Idont Havaname 02:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No notable references. Just nonsense. Zzyzx11 05:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 10:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Junk. Djbrianuk 17:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Stooges Longhair 14:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. The article is pending deletion due to a block compress error. Joyous 03:02, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

The article begins "Ben Knauss (born July 17, 1971 in Angola, Indiana) is credited as the primary software/hardware liason between PortalPlayer and Apple Computer for the development of the iPod project" and the remainder reads very much like some sort of curriculum vitae / resume. With about 542 google hits [24] is this document a valuable addition to Wikipedia, or is this self serving vanity? Could visitors (other than headhunters) conceivably benefit from reading this article? GRider\^talk 23:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, claenup and expand. Megan1967 06:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't see anything notable here. Programmer (or "liason" or whatever), VP of small internet startup, those don't clear the bar. -R. fiend 07:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. IT person who has done a large bunch of different IT jobs, but doesn't establish notability. Radiant! 09:31, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Looks suspiciously autobiographical. Trilobite (Talk) 10:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a self written CV to me. No more impressive and important a computer programmer than my sister, and I'm not writing an article on her. Average Earthman 14:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, As the only person to ever go on record concerning the history of the iPod, I think its a valid contribution.
• Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough Brookie 08:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete Yuckfoo 04:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 17:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This political figure is running for office to challenge incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Michael G. Oxley. Does this make him inherently noteworthy to begin with, regardless of the outcome? GRider\^talk 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete until he wins the election. RickK 07:02, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Major party candidates who run for President are notable. I'll even say the same for the Senate. But not for the House. There's 400+ of them every two years. Even the winners barely clear the bar just for taking their seat. Delete. -R. fiend 07:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; major party candidates for national-level office are inherently notable, and good articles can certainly be written about them. I'll see what I can expand in this one, perhaps. Meelar (talk) 08:49, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Fiend - Delete. There's far too many low-level political figures in any country, and most of them aren't notable for encyclopedia entries. Radiant! 09:30, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Not quite notable enough. Trilobite (Talk) 10:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in support of Meelar. Kappa 14:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If wikipedia is going to have entries on everyone who's run for Congress, then we must prepare for about 20,000 substubs from just the past hundred years. Even if elected these guys wield little power individually. Are we going to have articles on everyone who's run for State Senate too? -R. fiend 16:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Depending on the outcome of this vfd, I have begun separating bio-stubs into a new cat called {{politician-stub}} to simplify my next go-round. GRider\^talk 17:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: No, we won't have articles on state senators unless they're exceptional in some regard; they have smaller constituencies and less impact on national policies. But winning a major party nomination for high-level office means notability in my book. Also, I've somewhat expanded the article. Please look over the new version, future voters. Meelar (talk) 19:00, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • The expanded article still doesn't give much useful information; the minor details of the campaign that are given can basically be said about every race in the country. Being outraised in contributions is, as the article says, conventional, as is accusing the incumbent of being out of touch with voters, as is a Democrat receiving money from labor unions. And working as a laywer before running for congress is pretty run of the mill too. Nothing here really. I still maintain that running for an office like Congressman (whose constituencies aren't that big, really) does not make one notable. I think time spent expanding stubs would be better spent on current and past House members, not the people they defeated. And I think someone who actually serves in a state legislature is at least as significant a figure than someone who merely ran for Congress. I do not look forward to 20,000 "This guy ran for congress once and lost" articles, unless, as you said, they are exceptional in some way. -R. fiend 19:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • In retrospect, you're right: we should have articles on individual state legislators. Still keep this one, though. Best, Meelar (talk) 03:05, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Vagrant 20:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I believe some candidates can be notable just because they're candidates, but IMHO, in 99% of cases, the following guidelines should apply:

  Is the election itself particularly historic (for example, almost all defeated candidates who were even marginally significant in the Iraqi election should probably have a stub, as it was the first. In contract, another significant election, the california recall of 2003, probably only merits page creation for relatively major defeated candidates)

  Did the candidate do anything groundbreaking as part of the campaign? (Can't think of an example right now, but what if Howard Dean had revolutionized fund raising methods by running for state senate? That sort of a guideline)

  Does the fact that this person was a candidate push them over the threshold for notability when you look at all merits as a package? (for example, semi-notable business leaders who run for office)

  If none of the above apply, no dedicated apply, they may deserve mention on another relevant page, but not their own article

  While I'm relatively new as a registered user, and my opinion might carry less weight than most, I'm thinking of the long term future of the wikipedia namespace -- you don't want to establish precidents that make the quantity of articles required in 50 years completely unmanagable, but you want to credit truely notable individuals, still. Obviously, you all can disagree, but I feel like more explicit standards to resolve this issue are badly needeed.EggplantWizard 03:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Running for office does not make one inherently notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just underthe bar of notability for me. Megan1967 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep running for the US House is at least as significant as publishing one book or releasing one album, and we regularly keep authors and bands who have done no more than this. Johntex 15:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think we generally keep authors who have written one book unless that book was particularly notable. Am I right? Literally millions of people have written books. Also, writing a book is, in a way, more notable than running for office in that a book may survive for centuries, but once someone's race for office is over, it's over, they're not really leaving anything behind. -R. fiend 16:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Johntex, "there are other questionable articles in Wikipedia" doesn't seem like an argument for keeping this one. I'd recommend voting each article on its merits. For what it's worth, Wile E. Heresiarch 19:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Having articles on failed political candidates isn't like having articles on published authors or bands that have released an album. It's more like having articles on people wrote a book and couldn't find a publisher, or bands that couldn't get a recording contract. Isomorphic 20:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Would set a precedent for an unmanageably large number of articles that would never be read. Isomorphic 20:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the arguments above. I like EggplantWizard's recommended criteria. Rossami (talk) 22:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ComCat 02:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not quite notable enough yet. May be in the future. Jonathunder 22:38, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
• Keep. Bogus nomination - David Gerard 23:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it bogus - especially as the consensus is wavering on this one. Please be civil. Radiant! 12:14, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable. JamesBurns 09:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:59, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Self-promotion for seemingly average web design firm, one of User:Webyourbusiness's four contributions (another one of which is self-promotion for NOD32USA, which sells software for Web Your Business; and another adding a link to yet another Web Your Business website to the external links of Loveland, Colorado). Seems like a pretty clear violation of "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)." on the 'create an article' page. Niteowlneils 23:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unencyclopedic. Carrp | Talk 23:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a self-promo. --Sillydragon 23:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete for vanity/advertising. Lots of Google hits though for the title of this article (9k+). Maybe worth a keep if somebody can clean it up soon, possibly add a portfolio to the article. --Idont Havaname 02:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FWIW all the sites listed at http://www.webyourbusiness.com/v6/portfolio.shtml are small, local Fort Collins-area businesses [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and [31]. WYB seems to try to adhere to wc3 standards, doesn't use Flash, creates nice, straight-forward sites, seems to provide a valuable service for local businesses, and "yeah small business", but being a noble concern is different from being a notable concern. Niteowlneils 06:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Just self-promotion. Zzyzx11 02:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promo. Trilobite (Talk) 10:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity / self promo -- Longhair 14:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 03:49, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Bob Simcock is a former New Zealand politician and garners about 741 hits on google. [32] Is there a "bar" to determine notability for inclusion of politicians on Wikipedia, or are they all inherently noteworthy? GRider\^talk 23:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• They're all inherently notable. Keep. --Centauri 01:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong disagree on the above. There are far too many politicians in this world for them all to be notable. This one is marginally notable, imho, since he's part of a nation government rather than a local council. Radiant! 21:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Strong disagree on the above. The number of politicians in the world is irrelevant to this or any other discussion on "notability". --Centauri 00:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it, is that a category of people (such as actors or politicians or whatever) is probably notable as a group, but the people in there aren't notable as individuals. Within the group, there are usually certain people that stand out as the leaders, or the famous ones, or the misfits. Those are notable within their group and should be included in WP. Few individuals are notable simply because they are part of a group, and the larger the group, the less likely that is. In other words, the more politicians there are, the less the likelyhood that they all are notable simply by virtue of being a politician. Radiant! 09:19, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

• All politicians are certainly not notable. This guy appears to have been a member of the Parliament of New Zealand, making him as notable as any member of the US House of Representatives, I suppose, so a marginal keep from me. -R. fiend 07:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He held elected office at a national level. I've come across articles on plenty of such people who would have to be deleted if this one was. Trilobite (Talk) 10:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Held elected office at national level of a reasonably sized country. I believe New Zealand held these elections under some form of proportional representation, but a quick google for the lists suggests he was somewhere in the middle of the party lists of MPs, so clearly not their least valued MP. Equivalent to about 9000 votes (according to [33], and if having a readership of 5000 qualifies an author, having 9000 votes in an election must do it. Average Earthman 14:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 23:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:57, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Self-promotion for seemingly non-notable software firm (156 hits) which sells software for Web Your Business Inc., from User:Webyourbusiness. Seems like a pretty clear violation of "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)."Niteowlneils 23:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Clearly self-promotion. Zzyzx11 02:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Concur. Alba 02:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yep. Trilobite (Talk) 10:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agreed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 12:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:57, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

non-notable — J3ff 00:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not-notable. RWH 00:47, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
• Delete. - Jpo 00:50, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. - Shanes 01:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Zzyzx11 02:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious personal attack. Megan1967 06:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy #11. Created purely to attack its subject. Trilobite (Talk) 10:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Speedy? Longhair 10:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:55, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

non-notable — J3ff 00:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This page should not be deleted because if it isn't "notable" then neither is 42% of the other stuff on here. -- Charlos 00:30, 2005 Feb 17
• Delete. Not-notable and he vandalised this page (see Special:Contributions/172.168.33.110) -- RWH 00:58, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
• Delete. Hey, it's that Charlos character who is not-notable enough to be on Wikipedia.
• Don't Delete. "Hey, it's that Charlos character who is not-notable enough to be on Wikipedia. I'm dumb." is going to be in my book when I write an autobiography of my totally awesome life. People will laugh at you for saying that and say, "What a loser!"
  • FYI: According to the page history, 172.168.33.110 made that previous comment. Zzyzx11 05:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strucken - one IP address one vote - is the rule. And the "keep" above is from this guy. -- RWH 05:32, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
  • To Charlos: The ones who voted to delete your article now currently believe that you are not notable yet. But I'll admit as soon you become notable in the future, we might reconsider -- just as long as you don't keep on vandalised this page. Zzyzx11 05:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, speedy delete this crap. RickK 06:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Did a 30-something year old write this? Man, I hope not. That would just be sad. Delete (speedy would be even better). -R. fiend 07:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. CSD should be expanded to cover obvious crap like this. Ten years in a college and all he contributes to an encyclopaedia is some stupid vanity. Must be some diploma mill graduate. jni 08:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and block the idiot for vandalism. Trilobite (Talk) 10:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd say this sounds more like the writings of an autistic 13 year old than a 30 year old graduate. Average Earthman 14:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as patent non-sense. GRider\^talk 17:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • First off, this is not an encyclopedia. This is a haven for scrabble players who think they have gigantic brains that would crush a mortal child. Ignorant teenagers may frequently use wilkpedia as a source during arguments on live journal but no adults respect you guys. Come on. Half the stuff on here (a conservative estimate) is written by people less qualified than a baby. You guys aren't society's elite. You are hippies. Get over yourself and quit polluting the Internet with random crap passed off as factual information. Nobody respects you. Everyone thinks this place is trash the minute they figure out that anyone can edit it. You guys are no better than the other editable "encyclopedias" like that urban dictionary and whatever. Grow up.

p.s. I am way smarter than all of you together. My brain is the size of a dump truck. *flex*

• Edit by 172.152.133.228.
• I completely agree with everything 172.152.133.228 says. Wikipedia is crap and personally I am a hippie with an overinflated ego. However, none of this is germane to the VfD discussion of this particular article, which should be Deleted as unencyclopedic, vanity, possible prank or hoax, but in any case a biographical article on a non-notable person. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • • Could somebody BJAODN that bit about the scrabble players with child-crushing brains? Radiant! 13:04, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 12:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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