This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 02:16, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Should be a speedy. —Korath (Talk) 00:02, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Rje 00:20, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy if the anon creates a username, Delete otherwise. hfool/Wazzup? 00:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, it's silly vandalism, a prank. Wyss 02:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; vanity. Newfoundglory 00:17, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 03:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Timbo 05:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 02:18, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Web site ad, Alexa rank 443,731. —Stormie 00:09, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I may be a member of this site, but I know vanity/web-site-ads when I see them. (Incidentally, I was just about ready to do then when you put it up) —Pipian 00:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. Rje 00:21, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Junk article. Delete. hfool/Wazzup? 00:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this nn ad, bordering on a speedy. Wyss 02:26, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn. Newfoundglory 00:17, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 02:19, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Unnotable vanity. -- 81.152.170.19 00:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bizarre but notable if it's true. Or, maybe not. (I wonder who the first person to put down "Jedi" was - don't you?) Actually, it might not be notable who's the first, but just how many people do it. LockeShocke 00:37, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. As LockeShocke says, it's notable. And it's not vanity unless Cassandra was the author. Bryan 02:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's helpful. Wyss 02:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, borderline notability Megan1967 03:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep: Quite a few Google hits. DCEdwards1966 04:14, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously notable. --Centauri 04:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are enough google hits to convince me it's real (at least for small values of real). It's certainly intriguing, and I don't see any obvious proof that it's vanity. Falls somewhere between "Earth-shattering importance" and "mindless trivia". RoySmith 04:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Jmabel | Talk 06:46, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• As the author of the article in question I obviously have a bias and am going to say keep. As an acquaintance of Cassandra herself I can vouch for the fact that she is (still) the only witch in the UK who relies on her craft as her sole source of income and that she was the first witch in the UK to register her profession with the inland revenue; I can think of at least two others who have since followed suit. Whether as an acquaintance of Cassandra's, writing an article about her is considered vanity is up for debate; I wrote it in a rare mad moment. -- Francs2000 | [[]] 11:26, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep ~ mlk ^✉♬ 05:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) ~
• Keep. Interesting. --JuntungWu 06:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into witchcraft or similar article. →Reene^✎ 06:07, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 02:27, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable. How notable can a four-day old movement be? Rmhermen 00:41, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this nn call to mindless action. Wyss 02:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Gazpacho 07:26, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Newfoundglory 00:18, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable comic book. Two Google hits. RickK 00:53, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Another vanity ad. --Wetman 01:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, indeed another vanity ad. Wyss 02:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment: F&C's co-creators, Dylan Beck and Elliot Smith, are also listed for vfd. RickK 05:59, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 02:29, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Looks like a poorly written attempt at a 14-year-old's vanity page to me. -- John Owens (talk) 00:56, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• I love reading these. He's not just talented, he's "juliard talented"! Delightful. Anyway, delete. -RidG (talk) 02:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• What is the psychological mechanism that results in so many of these vanity pages having un-capitalized surnames? Anyway Delete this pimple puff vanity about some kid who's been in some plays at his school. Wyss 02:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I imagine it's because they enter their name into the search box in lower case (pimple puffers just LOVE to avoid capitalization), and then the "create an article with this title" link on the search page capitalizes the first letter as is our standard here. Anyway, delete and pop the pimple. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Because in the age of the internet, everyone thinks they're e.e. cummings. Anyway, delete this vanity. Shane King 04:26, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Cummings actually capitalised his name, why our article on him is all lower case because of one cover design puzzles me; I'll raise this on the talk page right away. --fvw* 17:59, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Please delete.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 02:30, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

This article contains even less information than is in Airwolf and I'm not sure there is much potential for expansion. It is potentially a redirect candidate, but who's going to type in Airwolf (game)? David Johnson [T|C] 01:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete it as a fork. Wyss 02:19, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and create a trivia item in the Airwolf article mentioning the game, assuming the game actually exists. There's not a lot of info in this sub-stub, and the "8 weeks" comment seems almost to be POV. 23skidoo 02:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• COMMENT Content already appears in the Airwolf article. 132.205.15.43 02:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 02:32, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

• He might or might not be significant, but this is definitely a non-article. I'm not even sure if "in it's (sic) early stages" refers to the article itself or the German Communist Party. -- John Owens (talk) 01:15, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete on account of incorrect usage of it's (little or no content, no context, this is not an article). Wyss 02:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Megan1967 04:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Judging by Communist Party of Germany, probably a notable person, but this substub says less than is there. Delete unless someone wants to at least make this a decent bio-stub. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - also because of "it's" Peter Shearan 06:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 02:33, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Looks very much like advertising. The company gets <1000 Google hits, many of which seem to be domains or subdomains belonging to the company. David Johnson [T|C] 01:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, ad. Wyss 02:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Lovely spam, wonderful spam. Delete. Edeans 01:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 02:33, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Vanity, with a large hanging schlong and the face of an angel, no less. Pimpin, cool, asstastic, probably too long to speedy (is it?), utterly deletable. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 00:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I called it a #4 and deleted it. Its content was "1(n): A local hero with a large hanging schlong and a face of an angel. Known to be the coolest creation sent down by God himself on Gumdrop bubbles and peppermint smiles. 2: To be Matt Oakes: pimpin, cool, asstastic 3: To be skantastic and glorious 4: An original member of the Fisherman's Guild along with Ryan Gross and Alex Johnson. 5: Plain cool" and its sole author was 66.63.111.138. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 01:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• It was a dicdef. I wonder if the wikitionary would have wanted it? No one will debate a speedy, so good call. hfool/Roast me 01:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Probably band vanity; their website [1] gives no evidence of notability (or album release), and allmusicguide doesn't know they exist. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 01:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 00:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, v. Wyss 06:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

• It doesn't appear to be encyclopedic material. Currently is a dictdef not needing to be defined. 132.205.15.43 02:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, in need of major expansion. Megan1967 04:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "{X} Models are models of {X}", yeah, right. Hoary 08:35, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Delete, and don't come back until there's something to be said that doesn't fit in Gundam. --fvw* 18:07, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to gundam and redirect. hfool/Roast me 01:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

non-notable; maybe vanity DCEdwards1966 00:42, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn, v, possible hoax as well. Wyss 02:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

This is nonsense. I don't know if it is patent or not. DCEdwards1966 02:06, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, un-encyclopaedic, possible hoax. Megan1967 04:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Smells like a hoax; the fact that google draws a blank supports that conclusion. Prove me wrong with some citations. RoySmith 04:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, maybe BJAODN. Gazpacho 07:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.-gadfium 19:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. However, I notice that there is no article for minor characters of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I'm going to merge and redirect in the hope that it will inspire some consolidation of other minor characters into a list. Rossami (talk) 07:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I love Buffy the Vampire Slayer but this is beyond the acceptable level of detail. DCEdwards1966 02:15, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• This is apparently a single-episode character. Merge into Buffy the Vampire Slayer plot summary for now; there currently is no separate article for this episode. There really should be an article on Brad/Caleb Kane, but that's a separate thing. iMeowbot~Mw 03:13, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Why would someone summon demonic dogs to attack a prom? There are questions to be answered. Well, I say keep it until/unless an episode article is created, then move/merge. Everyking 06:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It was the same old tired plot device, he couldn't get a date, so nobody was going to have a prom, muahahaha, all that. A plethora of free episode guides explain this in excruciating detail. iMeowbot~Mw 10:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • So he couldn't get a date, and apparently he trained hellhounds to hate things associated with proms by having them watch videos of some sort. Well, how did he summon hellhounds in the first place? This stuff should all be in the article. Everyking 10:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • The most complete summaries listed above were found by referring to the first two external links listed in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, so Wikipedia is already covering this ground. Fan reviews show that this was added "Almost as a side issue," "a random subplot that really doesn't affect the main story," "didn't do much for me" -- certainly nothing that calls for a separate article. Even fans regard it as cruft. iMeowbot~Mw 11:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonnotable fancruft. One bland part of one episode does not a full article make. Not worth the redirect either. DreamGuy 22:12, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete after some thought. If someone does choose to write episode articles, all the information in this article can be obtained by watching the show, which writing such an article would require. iMeowbot~Mw 11:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. His brother, Andrew Wells, is a fairly important character, and is often referred to as "Tucker's brother." The page might help someone who had heard that reference but not seen "The Prom." Secretcurse 02:10, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonnotable fancruft. Indrian 04:02, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Del. NN trivia. --Jerzy(t) 04:00, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

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

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

non-notable DCEdwards1966 02:21, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Fancruft.
• Might be D20Modern-cruft. Delete. hfool/Roast me 01:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Do not know if this is fancruft, but it is certainly pap. Delete. Edeans 01:53, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, probably fancraft. Ashibaka tlk 07:10, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 anonymous and very new votes were, unfortunately, steeply discounted.)

non-notable game DCEdwards1966 02:43, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP. I have posted my rebuttal to various allegations on the discussion sub-page. --BenWilson 04:08, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia isn't the place to gain press for your game. DCEdwards1966 04:36, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

  Not my game, see rebuttal. --BenWilson 19:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a well-written article, about what appears to be a real game, in a genre I've never even heard of before. I'm curious, what about this article made you think it should be deleted? I suppose it's possible vanity as suggested above, but surely not "non-notable" RoySmith 04:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, utterly non-notable. If someday it becomes notable, someone else will make the article for you. —Korath (Talk) 04:49, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a unique way of developing roleplaying environments, a sort of a metagame. It's an interesting approach, and certainly isn't an advertisement or an attempt at gaining press. There are certainly other entries that one could claim that for far more than this. (AaronClausen) 5:41, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

  Supposed "User: AaronClauser" is really anon User:64.141.6.8 . Please don't try to game the voting. RickK 05:50, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

  You're not insinuating that's me, are you? If so, you are mistaken. My IP is 68.51.35.56. If you check the LexiconRPG history page, you'll see where I made an edit earlier today and had been logged out. BenWilson 06:01, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• "The Lexicon RPG is still a novel concept, so there aren't many games out there". Delete until they're notable. RickK 05:48, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Not notable. And could we take the longwinded comments to a talk page or below the vote or something? --fvw* 18:12, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

  (Moved verbosity)--BenWilson 19:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks. --fvw* 23:40, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

• Keep, It doesn't adequately fall within the deletion criteria. It's a good game. User:Joyce

  Supposed "User: Joyce" is anon User:128.221.197.129. —Korath (Talk) 21:00, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• (Does that diminish the person's vote? Because, i'm sure not in the 128.*.*.* Domain.)--BenWilson 23:14, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, it does. First of all faking a signature shows the vote wasn't made in good faith, and secondly anonymous editors cannot vote. --fvw* 23:40, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, where are the rules for voting listed?
    • See here for a recent debate. Rossami summed it up quite nicely at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mr. Pants: "New users should be aware that votes by anonymous and very new accounts are generally very steeply discounted during these discussions. We have had significant problems in the past with abuse of the voting process and attempts to bias the outcome by users creating sockpuppets. Hard facts which add to the discussion are appreciated. Opinions and qualitative judgments are likely to be ignored." —Korath (Talk) 05:21, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately we've also had a great deal of trouble with open proxies. An IP test isn't very meaningful when lists of literally hundreds are easily available. Dyanmic IPs are problematic also, though less so. Furthermore, it takes a developer to check the IP of a logged-in user, and the time they have to spend on non-development tasks is very, very limited. —Korath (Talk) 12:27, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • Not wanting to drag this into a long technical discussion (I also truncated my earlier comment). However, since wikipedia uses PHP, you should know that a PHP variable holds the IP of the visitor. That's how the site knows your IP when you're not logged in. Therefore, it would be easy to include both user ID and IP in the history. That would at least mitigate the "unable to get IP" issue. As for Dynamic IP, at least the different IPs would be w/n the same domain. But, while CommieCast has dynamic IPs, I've had the same IP for the past 21 months. Can't say much about "open proxies." At least this is educational.
• Delete. GRider\^talk 23:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see anything in the deletion criteria to justify a delete. --Ravenx99 02:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. —Korath (Talk) 05:21, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. User:TKurtBond
  • User's first edit. —Korath (Talk) 13:32, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as entirely non-notable except by one person and a bunch of sockpuppets. DreamGuy 22:09, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppets? That's a load of bull. You'd think if I were using sock puppets I'd have had more votes. I take that as an insult. --BenWilson 23:25, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 00:17, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable except to author and sockpuppets. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Xezbeth 06:44, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Abusive, and pathetically non-notable. Death to sockpuppets! --AmeenDausha 20:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Minor point. I had somebody privately inform me that it is more commonly called "Lexicon Game" as opposed to Lexicon RPG. When googling on that criteria, there are more accurate hits. Also, I have been told that googling "Lexicon Neel" is also an effective way of finding Lexicon pages. So, earlier assessments from a google on variations of Lexicon RPG are a bit skewed. Perhaps, also, this should be recategorized from RPG to games, or maybe wiki-games? --BenWilson 04:19, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Ben Wilson has now created LexiconGame, a fork of this article, which I have listed for VfD below. RickK 23:40, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I did so only because that is a more appropriate name than LexiconRPG, as I have been told by several people. Not to circumvent the process. If this page had been deleted, I would have moved for that one to be immediately deleted as well. ----~

• Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Different. Interesting. Completely unknown. Delete. hfool/Roast me 01:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Indrian 04:09, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Del. NN. --Jerzy(t) 04:06, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

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

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

probable vanity DCEdwards1966 02:46, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 04:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, a couple Google hits but can't find his name when I load those pages. Also please watch as this Vfd seems to be the subject of vandalism from an anonymous user. Rmhermen 16:36, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity ad. Wyss 06:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the only other contribution of user:81.155.10.95, who created the Jonny waxman page, was an improper modification of the page Metz danh 23:11, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

admitted neologism DCEdwards1966 02:48, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• This term is reeeeeasonably widely used among gamers--White Wolf gamers, at any rate, or gamers talking about White Wolf games. I'd say it's used less often than "GMing" or "DMing," both of which have articles, but that that's a tricky line to draw. But, you know, that said . . . these three articles all need cleanup, writingwise. And there's quite a long article at Game_Master already, plus stuff at Dungeon_Master and Storyteller_System. So I think I've talked myself around to weak delete, with the additional trickiness that GMing and DMing might need to be nominated as well and the DMing link at DM might accordingly need to be removed. Iralith 17:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Storytellering? --LeeHunter 17:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• A common jargon term. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, delete. --fvw* 18:14, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Redirect to storytelling game. -Sean Curtin 02:28, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• delete Too trivial even for a merge. "STing" consists of the combination of the acronym of "ST" and the suffix "ing" Do we need an encyclopedia to tell us that? Delete DMing and GMing too. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as way more non-notable than DMing and GMing. DreamGuy 21:52, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Storytelling game. Megan1967 03:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:46, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even worth a redirect. Merge any worthwhile content to Storytelling game. -Willmcw 05:36, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

A "public health professional and painter" whose notability eludes both Google and the author of this article. Hoary 02:50, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Provide some details on what this person did that was noteworthy and I'll change my mind. RoySmith 04:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a user test, v. Wyss 06:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete within 15 days, until more information of this article comes out, and reconsideration will be taken. Fairly notable person. Mr Tan 16:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

an ad for the game DCEdwards1966 02:53, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. 23skidoo 03:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's info about a videogame release. Not the world's best entry, but not worthy of deletion. LostCluster 04:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing worth merging; everything worthwhile was already on Intellivision. —Korath (Talk) 05:00, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 18:18, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Delete as a pseudo-fork. Wyss 06:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Intellivision. Megan1967 03:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - a mention of this on the Intellivision page is sufficient (remove the link to this article if and when this article is deleted, however). Make this page a redirect. --Andrew 00:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 08:06, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This really is turning into a family affair. It's just a substub, and of all the Google hits I got on the name only two seemed to match, and I'm not entirely sure of those. - Lucky 6.9 06:53, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not look notable (does not pass "average professor" test and the claims about "leading figure" suggest vanity). Also, see Shakti Kak listing on Vfd a few sections above this one. (That's the "family matter".) Andris 14:44, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with above. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:59, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Hemanshu 05:12, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This article seems to have been resuscitated after the talk above. I came across it as a link from an article on his pleasant-sounding but unremarkable wife Lily Patir Kak. (i) I see no sign of the existence of his "book". I don't say that it doesn't exist, but my guess is that it's his PhD thesis. (ii) His theories sound remarkably uninnovative for a demographer. (iii) Some of the articles on other members of the Kak dynasty linked from the article on his Dad, Ram Nath Kak, seem a bit dodgy. -- Hoary 03:12, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:15, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing on google. Looks like a neologism. DCEdwards1966 03:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, or move to its more common name (?) and cleanup. Gazpacho 07:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ahem - it is a new technology i.e. wardriving, warchalking, etc.

• Should probably redirect to wardialling, but as no one has had anything encyclopaedic to say about that, delete. --fvw* 18:32, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence that anyone uses this term; 4 google hits. Come back when the term enters circulation. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. While some of the votes were clear, they appear to be based on conflicting facts which did not get a great deal of discussion.

Based on my own research, I note that Cataclysm is already mentioned (in almost this same level of detail) in the main Bob and George article. There does not appear to be any significant content to merge. I do not see this as a particularly useful redirect. My personal conclusion is that delete is the simplest and cleanest solution for this article. Counting my own vote, that gets 3 delete, 1 merge and one no vote. Rossami (talk) 04:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

huh? Fancruft, I think? DCEdwards1966 03:51, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I read that comic a while ago. Should be merged into Bob and George if it's not already there. - Vague | Rant 04:08, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

The Cataclysm isn't an exclusive thing to Bob and George (best sprite comic that exists), rather, it's a Mega Man thing. Delete as hopelessly worthless to the 10~odd people who would look here for the info, rather than a real fansite or Bob and George. hfool/Roast me 01:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Cataclysm has nothing at all to do with the canonical Mega Man series. It's purely an invention of the American fandom. --Boco XLVII 03:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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/redirect. This action has been taken. Joyous 00:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

This "character" is a name who is mentioned once in the entire Harry Potter series, and who J. K. Rowling has apparently (according to the article) said that he "will at no point later in the books be of importance." I can't see how this article offers anything even mildly important for any person to know, ever. Delete. - Vague | Rant 04:00, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain. Would liked to see this information merged/redirected. Neutrality^talk 04:22, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Let's go for a merge and redirect first, but if it hasn't got anyplace to go, delete. PMC 04:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. No relevance at all. Just fans would speculate about this character. If it was a more relevant character, it should be merged with a general minor character article. — Kieff | Talk 04:26, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Why is it on some article about Potter's relatives now? It plainly says he isn't a relative, so that's absurd. Either find somewhere more appropriate to merge it or keep it, or maybe even delete it, but definitely don't put it on the "relatives" page. Everyking 06:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge; this character is mentioned in the article about the sixth Harry Potter Book, and there it was speculated that he could be a relative Lectonar 08:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Extremely minor character who was mentioned in book 5 (IIRC) which fans thought to be important because he accidentally shared his last name with Harry's mother. I'm kinda torn on the issue, he had a major impact on fan speculation which is kind of important, but I think it's better served as a section in the related book. Merge. Mgm|^(talk) 13:08, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Happy with the current redirect, but to add some evidence. All the Harry Potter Lexicon wrote on the subject was: "Evans, Mark
  

Child who lives near Privet Drive. Dudley beat him up on 31 July 1995 (OP1) for "cheeking him." At that time, Mark was ten years old. Despite having the same last name as Harry's mother, Mark is nothing more than a "walk-on" character, according to Rowling. (JKR)". Mgm|^(talk) 13:44, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with the relatives page and explain he's not really a relative, or significant. This character is perceived to be important so people will attempt to look him up, and probably create new articles about him. Kappa 17:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Split off a list of minor Harry Potter characters and merge+redir to that. --fvw* 18:33, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as a fancruftian misconception. hfool/Roast me 01:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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/redirect. The article has been tagged for merging. Joyous 00:23, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

This could probably be merged somewhere. I can't tell what it is from though. DCEdwards1966 04:01, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• This should be merged into Gundam Seed mobile armours and mobile suits, along with a whole lot of cruft found in Category:Gundam Seed (hell there's a very long article on a character that appeared once in a SHORT SCENE in there). Some people have gone overboard with Gundam Seed. NOTE: Other anime series have Gundam Seed list of characters articles instead of individual articles for everything! 132.205.15.43 04:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: subtrivial pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, anything useable to Gundam Seed mobile armours and mobile suits, then add redirect. Megan1967 03:13, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there's subcategories for articles just like this one. Bryan 18:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 08:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Only pseudo-notability is as co-creator of Flemchac & Partook, listed above. RickK 05:56, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --fvw* 18:36, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Wyss 06:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:24, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Reasons:

1. Unverifiable.
2. Not notable.
3. Seems to be fantasy nonsense. Article begins: "Wogans are small human-like creatures which possess mystical powers." If it's D&D or other fantasy, the article should at very least say as much. Although given "Their name originates from a long line of Wogan's, one being the wellknown and adored TV and Radio presenter Terry Wogan. This Wogan chooses to remain decloaked despite his abominable monstronsity." it is hard to see how this is so.

Although well written it's probably non-factually based.

Grox 06:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Would be prime candidate for BJAODN, except, rather unfortunately, someone forgot the funny. Lacrimosus 08:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this flatus. Hoary 08:37, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Delete, I stuck a cleanup tag on this because it could have been an interesting if minor cultural curiosum, but the cleanup tag was removed without anything being cleared up. --fvw* 10:41, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Ho ho very satirical. Delete. Dbiv 10:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 20:56, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a user test as fiction, creative writing, failed. Wyss 06:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Yet another sad example of what can happen from watching British TV under the influence of mescal. Delete. Edeans 02:05, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this rubbsih. Ironically, Wogan himself manages to be funny without being offensive, unlike this article. Brequinda 13:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:27, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Maybe User:ÿÿ? RickK 07:05, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, even if it's not vanity, it's certainly not notable. --Stormie 07:22, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Rje 14:39, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 20:59, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Wyss 06:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Article speedy deleted. Joyous 00:28, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Found dead in Thailand. Now her body is missing but only a picture of her corpse was posted. Please help. Rather incoherent. As far as I understand this story, it's sad; but that doesn't make her encyclopedic. -- Hoary 07:21, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

• Regretfully speedy delete very short article with no context. Gazpacho 07:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pardon the pun but I seriously hope we dont get a tsunami of one sentence articles on every non-notable victim from that event. Megan1967 02:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. The article has been re-directed to Fictional book, since the paragraph there contained much the same information as this article. Joyous 16:23, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Article based part of one episode of a comic strip, I think it may have appeared in a few more strips, but I doubt it can ever merit an article Ckape 08:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete [maestro] 12:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, it appears quite often in Calvin and Hobbes. No vote. Bardus 15:24, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Merge with the Calvin and Hobbes article. Doesn't need its own page. If kept, the title needs a capitalization correction. 23skidoo 15:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful to Calvin and Hobbes. "Hamster Huey" was only mentioned in two strips, if memory serves. In fact, it isn't much more than a mention. - Lucky 6.9 17:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any useful content with Calvin and Hobbes. DCEdwards1966 20:53, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Calvin and Hobbes; so little is known about it that it could never become a real article MadEwokHerd 20:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge it. Wyss 06:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to Calvin and Hobbes, then add redirect. Megan1967 03:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• The article on fictional books actually has a very good paragraph about this book. Perhaps redirect there? Jonathunder 23:02, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Or perhaps this could be kept, with a title change to Hamster Huey and the Gooey Kablooie, using that paragraph from Fictional book. Jonathunder 23:06, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:29, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Vanity/advert. Markaci 10:41, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, being a relative of someone famous doesn't make you notable. --fvw* 18:37, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 20:51, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable vanity. Megan1967 02:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (with apologies to MM), self-promotion. Wyss 06:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Smells like a hoax to me (i.e., we've been POMP'd). Edeans 02:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 16:26, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

OMFG MOST FAMOUS SERIAL KILLERZ0R IN T3H WORLD!!!!!!!1. How lame. - Cymydog Naakka 11:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. Isn't being one of the most famous serial killers ebing notable enough? This is should be sent to clean up. He seems to be a real serial killer. He is even mentioned by Swedish Amnesty[2] (pdf in Swedish with his name romanised as Andrej Tjikatilo). Now there might already be an article about him since there are sveral possible ways of transliterating Russian names. - Jeltz talk 12:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I made it a redirect (but I have not removed the vfd template) to Andrei Chikatilo. I think that the redirect could be kept since this alternate spelling seems to be used sometimes. - Jeltz talk 12:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the redirect to Andrei Chikatilo
• Keep redirect. Rje 14:37, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Alternate transliteration, Keep. --fvw* 18:37, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect -- DCEdwards1966 20:48, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect. I remember once reading something about him liking blood on his shoes, too. Wyss 06:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --JuntungWu 06:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect. Incidentally, I wonder if I'm alone in sensing a certain lipsmacking gusto in the way the article is written up, and wondering if this is a Good Thing. ("Kill enough people, and every detail of your sordid little existence will be preserved for posterity in Wikipedia!") This is, after all, a 'pedia rather than the National Enquirer. -- Hoary 06:21, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 on WP:CP. The article was deleted from there. Joyous 00:33, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

This article is total plagarism, and an acknowledgment at the bottom does not make that okay. [maestro] 12:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Then it should be at WP:CP (where I've listed it), not here. —Korath (Talk) 13:00, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:34, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Some word a group of people on a chat channel came up with. Not in general use, so could be seen as promotion of the word. Also, mere dictionary defenition. Delete Mgm|^(talk) 13:27, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Rje 14:31, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism. --fvw* 18:37, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 20:46, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Wyss 06:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 to delete. That said, there is not a consensus to keep the article in its current form, either. I have deleted Joeflynn as a nonsensical title, because the article has been moved to Parallel Path. I have tagged Parallel Path to be merged into Perpetual motion, so the editors there may be able to help provide some context. Joyous 00:09, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

article moved to Parallel Path

Original research at best; a hoax at worst. The contributor's only other contribution is PODcore. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This 'hoax,' is presently under study at one of America's top 3 engineering schools, who take it very seriously indeed. It is under license to several top American multinational corporations. The patent office has approved the claims, based upon an experimental demonstration. The only claim made, is that one can move magnetic flux from one side of a core, to the other, based upon pulsing coils. If that is untrue, then all of physics must be wrong, as presently understood. Something I find rather unlikely ...pigs should fly indeed. Furthermore, this technology has found significant international recognition through publication in Nexus magazine, translated into several languages, and internationally distributed, which resulted in several academic enquiries for further information, which were fulfilled. This is not my only contribution, I have edited several other articles, adding significant content in the IT section to existing stub pages, such as nforce, nforce 2, soundstorm, ATI, Nvidia, and others, before I formally registered. The request for deletion is wholly uninformed comment, apparently based upon raw emotion of some sort. This is exciting leading edge commercial technology, that in the years to come will become an important part of magnetic engineering. The text is both conservative, to the point, and non commercial in presentation, as is required. Why should knowledge of this exciting technology be suppressed, when a public domain article has been freely offered? What is so controversial, about the idea you can pulse a coil, and move a magnetic field around a core. I fail to see it.

• Delete First there's the title "Joeflynn" which seems to be the name of the inventor (and I assume the author of the article) and not the invention. If nothing else the article should be renamed. I don't get any hits on Google for a "Joeflynn" other than a person. Second, the links in the article are only lead to a few very obscure web publications. If it is under study at certain engineering schools it might become notable after they announce their findings. --LeeHunter 17:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is talk of a peer reviewed article, I know some drafts have already been drawn up, but it always takes time to submit, review, etc. So what you are saying, is that until this gets in the peer reviewed literature, Wiki can't run it? Seems harsh. You could rename it 'parallelpath.' Thats the technology name. The patent is a form of official recognition. I dispute the fact Nexus magazine is an obsure web publication. It is distributed in paper form, on 4 continents, in several different languages, with sales in tens of thousands, and a much wider overall readership. So I would disagree with the wording 'obscure' and 'web.'

What I'm saying is that it may or may not be a brilliant idea but that's not the issue. Even if it is a great invention it doesn't become notable (i.e. encyclopedic) until it has an impact on the world. For example, people start building and using the invention or it becomes a concept which is widely discussed (at least within engineering circles). When that happens the article could be resubmitted and will be favorably received. --LeeHunter 19:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Original research, delete. --fvw* 18:44, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Hard to tell if this is original research. Marginal keep, though the title of the article seems to be inconsistent with the text. Is it supposed to be "Joeflynn" or "Joe Flynn"? 23skidoo 18:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 20:50, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Perpetual motion or History of perpetual motion machines and delete. The fact that it is patented indicates a slip by the patent examiners, not a real phenomenon. --TenOfAllTrades 00:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 01:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of peer review, orig. res. Wyss 06:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I bow to the experts. Its physically impossible to move flux round a core, by pulsing a coil.

• Weak Keep until I can verify its original research. Megan1967 03:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep Wonderful. Its a valid commercial technology, under license to multinational corporations. Its under academic study at top American universities, and indeed internationally. It has been accepted for publication internationally TWICE already, authored by someone with a genuine postgrad qualification from one of England's top 5 universities. And a formal peer review article is (I'm told) presently under active discussion. Given how many questionable articles go unchallenged in Wiki, I'm amazed there has to be so much grief about this. Timharwoodx 13:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. By itself the article is now a few dry diagrams and a little text. I am afraid that it may grow to include unproven claims. Of the three links, two are pay sites so I didn't read the actual articles. But the article titles that I could see included stuff like Area 51, Urine Therapy, and theoretical miraculous energy systems - all low-verifiability. The official website has page labelled "Prototype Test Data" which says "Contents will be added to this page by 8-1-2001, Please check back with us!" Yeah, sure thing. Once this invention has become proven/practical/otherwise notable we can put an article in. There's no need for a page on every patent looking for financial backing. (For an article on the other side of the razor, barely, see quasiturbine). But hey, good luck to the inventors! I hope it works. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:37, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

I could find no references to this outside Wikipedia mirrors. The contributor's only other contribution is Joeflynn. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have made many contributions to the Wiki, most especially in the IT section, including filling out the stubs for nForce, nForce2, ATI, Soundstorm, Nvidia, and others. I was moved to finally register, simply out of the need to upload images for this article. The POD core is a widely replicated flux experiment, that showcases some genuinely interesting physics. An internet discussion group ran based upon it for some time, but without further funding I can not pursue the research, and simply wish it to be made available as common knowledge. The CD motor and POD cores have both been referenced in the internationally distributed Nexus magazine – so once again, the request for deletion makes false and uninformed comment. And finally, this Egroup is a continuation of this innovative research. In sum, I must question the motives and impartiality of Susvolan, and feel there may be a personal agenda of some sort, because he repeatedly makes demonstrataby false comments about my articles. I am happy for these two links to be added to the article, along with a reference for Nexus magazine, if the condition of Wiki entry, is that you must have been published elswhere previously - in this case, this condition has clearly been met.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JMPulseCharger/ http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/otherdevices/Cour/a_new_pulse_battery_charger.htm

• Ohhhh, I recognize this stuff. That's an Adams motor, and you've been experimenting with overunity. If this hangs around, it really needs some NPOV work to bring it in line with perpetual motion and Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy. iMeowbot~Mw 16:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fine. If it needs some sort of edit to bring it 'in line,' then do it. But you can not say it does not work, as JM has taken the technology to a viable commercial product, as now referenced at the bottom of the page, in an edit I made 5 minutes ago, whose performance exceeds that of many conventional charge controllers. It has also been previously published in other forums, on the internet, and in hard copy. If it requires some form of 'perpetual motion tag,' as you see it, then just add it. But if SMOT can be kept in Wiki as a valid entry, I fail to see why a viable commercial grade technology should be deleted. And, may I point out, the article does *NOT* directly claim perpetual motion. It is a valid piece of research, widely replicated in JM's Egroup, and one I ran before that. Why not join the Egroup, and decide for yourself?

• Delete unless contributor provides a citation to an article about this in a peer-reviewed print journal, and the existence of the article can be verified before expiration of VfD comment period. The contributor says "without further funding I can not pursue the research, and simply wish it to be made available as common knowledge." Absent a print journal reference, that makes it deletable as "original research." Dpbsmith (talk) 17:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. "NEXUS is an international bi-monthly alternative news magazine, covering the fields of: Health Alternatives; Suppressed Science; Earth's Ancient Past; UFOs & the Unexplained; and Government Cover-Ups." That's not even claiming to be a journal. iMeowbot~Mw 17:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Its a write up of how a commercial patented technology was derived, one widely replicated, that shows a higher efficiency than existing technology. You take a comment not made in the article, to judge it. I was unaware the Wiki was not allowed to document the development of viable real world commercial technology, and I don't know the rules as well as you guys. I find it bizarre, that the SMOT toy is allowed to stand, yet this comes in for a hard time. May I kindly request, the SMOT article be deleted, as that has no peer reviewed scientific reference of which I am aware, either, and is most definitely "original research". I simply think you have a responsibility to apply editorial standards equally to all articles. Thats all. If you do that, then there can be no complaint. If editorial policy is variable - well, it just looks bad. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Magnetic_Overunity_Toy

I insist that page is deleted as well. It is "original research" with no peer review of any form.

You don't need to "insist." Help make our editorial policy more consistent. If you think Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy should be deleted, nominate it for VfD. Follow the directions at the bottom of the page here. Don't complain that it hasn't been nominated yet: nominate it. That will force a review. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll wait and see. I based my submission upon what was already in the Wiki. If my page gets deleted, I will look for any other non peer reviewed "original research" pages, and ask they be deleted as well. If I see some technology, with no peer review reference at the bottom, I'll nominate it. This could create quite a long list of deletions, and a large loss of content potentially, but rules are rules, I guess. The important thing is that the Wiki is consistent in what it allows. As long as that is the case, there can be no complaint. But clearly, a long list of other misguided content exists, but for some reason, someone decided to pick on mine, and ignore a lot of the other stuff like SMOT. Even I think SMOT is junk.

You should have based your submission on Wikipedia policy, such as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, rather than on "what was already in the Wiki." Saying that your article should be kept because in your opinion there are already worse articles in Wikipedia is like complaining to a cop that you shouldn't be ticketed for going 75 mph because there were other drivers going faster. Is he going to slap his forehead with the heel of his palm and say "Duh! I never thought of that. I'm tearing up the ticket. Have a nice day?" Dpbsmith (talk) 20:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Original research, delete. --fvw* 18:46, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams_motor

Marked for deletion - it ALSO covers the Adams motor / original research, and lacks peer review. For some reason, no-one ever had any problem with that entry.

• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 20:43, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Perpetual motion or History of perpetual motion machines and delete. Either that, or a substantial rewrite that at least mentions thermodynamics.... --TenOfAllTrades 00:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Tuf-Kat 00:20, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Mikkalai 01:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, uhm, original research with zero evidence of peer review, to put it kindly. Wyss 05:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Willmcw 07:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:42, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

This is a geneology article, created by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), a new user who probably didnt understood yet what wikipedia is for. google hits. muriel@pt 14:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Shame, it's a wonderful article. I hope the editor who made this will put his skills to use by making such articles for notable people. --fvw* 18:39, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
  • I totally agree with you. I left a note on Richard's page asking precisely that. muriel@pt 19:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with fvw. Megan1967 02:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. RickK 06:31, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as user mistake, genealogy. By the way, the characature drawing is of of a type seen in many local newspapers in north america during the first half of the 20th century: To drum up local advertising, attractively priced ads for local businesses were typically grouped into some sort of a "community" oriented presentation. The drawings were usually done from photos sent to a hack studio in a large city. Wyss 05:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds interesting, Wyss, any way you could make that into an article? RickK 00:12, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:42, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

This is a geneology article, created by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), a new user who probably didnt understood yet what wikipedia is for. http://www.google.pt/search?hl=pt-PT&q=%22Thomas+Patrick+Norton+I%22&btnG=Pesquisar&meta= google hits]. muriel@pt 14:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --fvw* 18:40, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 02:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. RickK 06:00, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as user mistake, genealogy. Wyss 05:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 16:30, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

This person was briefly in the news last year, but I don't believe she's notable enough for an article. The article claims that she is the oldest person to give birth to twins, but this is not true (see bottom of [3]). David Johnson [T|C] 14:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, even if she was I don't think that's sufficiently notable on its own. --fvw* 18:40, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, borderline notability. Megan1967 02:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP is not a book of world records, for starters. Wyss 05:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur. Edeans 02:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I've deleted it. David Cannon 22:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:52, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

The incoming link from Wikipedia:Wikipedians/North Carolina gives this away as vanity. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Nice stub. Too bad no one cares. Delete. Phils 16:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• The work as a composer might give him some notability, but that's not established in the article. Delete until some notability is established. --fvw* 18:41, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Comment: This name gets a fair number of Google hits, all from Wikipedia mirrors. The name is in lots of lists etc. iMeowbot~Mw 20:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. I see no notable recordings, concerts, awards, reviews: only self-promotion. Here's an example of his self-importance: [4] --actually inserting himself into the harpsichordist article as one of the Great Modern Harpsichordists. (Look at the first-person admission on the talk page that it was him.) Look, Patrick, self-promotion is fine, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Antandrus 03:53, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Uhm, Delete this midlife crisis. v. Wyss 05:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 16:31, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

IMDB shows that this guy has only appeared in one film. As far as I can tell, this appearance wasn't especially notable. The article claims he has been in a few more films too, but IMDB doesn't agree. David Johnson [T|C] 16:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. --fvw* 18:41, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Delete this CV. Wyss 05:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 16:32, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Advertising. David Johnson [T|C] 17:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. --fvw* 18:41, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 02:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn ad. Wyss 05:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Final vote tally was 42 votes to delete, 6 votes to keep. Joyous 03:46, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, since the article adds no value nor new information to the repository. The picture in the main article is not that great... but it's better than nothing. It's certainly not pornographic. --Rnbc 00:48, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
• Hard Delete. This is just another atempt by the mnority to force it's POV on Wikipedia by any means.--Jirate 16:41, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Super-Keep. See the discussion at Talk:Clitoris. Cookiecaper 16:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  NB this person created the page and has deleted the VfD msg from the page at least one.--Jirate 17:14, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

  I did not create this page, and the VfD marker was removed in the process of reverting the content back; content that shouldn't have been removed in the first place. Cookiecaper 17:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, bad precedent. Neutrality^talk 18:08, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

  The precedent has already been set here. Samboy 23:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  The end result may be the same, but the implementation is completely different. DCEdwards1966 01:26, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, fork. --fvw* 18:10, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Keep but move to non-POV title (such as Clitoris (no images)) until a family-friendly imageblocking mediawiki option becomes available. JFW | T@lk 18:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unnecessary duplication and a bad precedent. The original article already has a content warning. That's enough. Plus I just noticed the censored version includes links to the uncensored version, so that renders the POV of this version somewhat moot. 23skidoo 18:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as is, fork. If a non-fork version is made then move and keep. anthony 警告 19:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If the "objectionable content" is anywhere on the site, the censorware people will block the entire site anyway, and removing "objectionable" but accurate content in the interest of pandering to censors is abhorrent. --Kelly Martin 19:22, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Xezbeth 19:25, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• delete as is, fork Concur with Anthony DiPierro. I expect this to be replaced by a transclusion version of some kind and will change vote if I see a suitable transclusion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) Changed vote. Still delete. Abrogating commitment to reconsider. See discussion on talk:clitoris. I will not fly a kite of speculative technology in the face of clear opposition., knowing as I do that the solution is in the browser of the person who doesn't want to look at the pictures. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)\
• Delete K1Bond007 19:42, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Extremely Hard Delete. POV POV POV. Horrible precedent. Fork. Timbo 19:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Wasn't the precedent already set by Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored). What's POV is keeping one but deleting the other. Both should be kept, or both deleted. anthony 警告 12:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point, Anthony; perhaps precedent is the wrong word. To say that the use of a censored or abridged version in one instance validates another is faulty. The Abu Ghraib page is not a policy. IMHO it shouldn't exist. I suppose I haven't invested the time and effort to fight it because its existence isn't as offensively POV as in clitoris. POV, but of the view that viewing torture, murder, and dead corpses is something people might not want to see. It's the same thing, but I personally find the view that people will be offended/disgusted/scarred by an actual depiction of the female form much, much more offensive. So my view stands, but perhaps one should substitute "endorsement of POV" with "precedent." Timbo 01:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Pursuant to above, there's a telling comment in Talk:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored). User:Rossami, the admin in charge of the previous VfD on said page comments: "You raise a disturbing point about the discussion for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Clitoris (censored). The decision for this page was 'no clear consensus to delete', not 'clear consensus to keep'. This decision should not be used as precedent in other decisions. That article should be evaluated on its own merits." Timbo 04:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as invalid fork. Real encyclopedias don't censor themselves because some fundies don't like pictures of the human body. Perhaps they need their own nice clean white wiki. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 19:59, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

  Wikipedia already censors itself. No images of pornography on pornography page, link on Autofellatio page, link on Nick Berg page, warning at top of Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse page, etc. Samboy 23:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  Nonsense. As far as I can tell pornography doesn't contain any pornography due to copyright issues, rather than any kind of censorship. It has been discussed, but there's been no major feeling either way. David Johnson [T|C] 00:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete-- DCEdwards1966 20:37, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - use my suggested image censor fix (easier to maintain) as demo'd here, at least until a Wikipedia policy (or MediaWiki solution) is agreed upon. violet/riga (t) 21:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete How many times must a man(/woman) vote it down? Ejrrjs | What? 21:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep See Talk:Clitoris Samboy 23:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I'm trying to think of a good reason why this should be kept, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Delete. GRider\^talk 23:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Invalid fork. We've been through all this before, and there was consensus not to do this. -- The Anome 23:52, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Ba-leet. There are 442525 articles in the Wikipedia where you can't see a clitoris, there should be one where you can (and if we ever get a better picture the nominal one will be it). (NB: this goes also for beheadings, in case anyone's sophistry knee is jerking towards call him a hypocrite in their weejee board.) Blair P. Houghton 23:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong deleteCiaraBeth 00:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - The utter stupidity of the fact that there is a debate about this just astounds me. Why don't these people go and start up www.wikicensored.org. Jooler 00:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The only difference is that in this article, it doesn't show you a picture of a clitoris? Well, that seems fine to me; I think it's perfectly reasonable to have secondary versions of articles that censor sexual or violent imagery. So keep. I'm no prude myself, but I want people to be comfortable using our articles in schools, and for parents to be comfortable having their children read them. Everyking 00:33, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Now this page has NPOV problems. s/parents/prudish parents who think biology is dirty/ Blair P. Houghton 06:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not censored for the 'protection of minors'. David Johnson [T|C] 11:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. This is an encyclopedia. I refuse to believe that anyone viewing the Clitoris article is going to be unprepared for its content. Perhaps we could do with a template to warn about such content in articles, but having seperate censored articles is silly. David Johnson [T|C] 00:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Very strong DELETE. This sets an extremely bad precedent, suggesting that it is OK for people with non-mainstream views or unique agendas to create their own sanitised alternative articles instead of accepting the prevailing community consensus. --Centauri 01:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey Centauri, what happened to your stirring arguments of keeping every minute detail for prosperity on Wikipedia? If you want this deleted but the others kept, there is a lack of consistency in your arguments. I agree however that this should be Deleted on the grounds of it being a fork. Megan1967 02:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • There's obviously a big difference between deleting valuable content which otherwise wouldn't exist at all on Wikipedia, and deleting a redundant sanitized version of an already existing unsanitized article.--Centauri 02:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • If keeping every piece of trivia is "valuable" then I would disagree with you. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge database. Megan1967 02:56, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although I would prefer other alternatives. See Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored). Sorry, but the 'They asked for it' argument doesn't work. I wouldn't be able to find a pic of a real clitoris in, say, World Book encyclopedia. It's not censorship, as it lets people choose which version they want to view. Vacuum c 02:00, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We cannot keep forking articles because people disagree with the content of other versions!!! RickK 06:32, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as an abrogation of the principle of community consensus. Lacrimosus 08:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pov we don't need. bbx 09:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdr) 11:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what RickK said. --Conti|✉ 11:59, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 15:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Redundant. Evil precedent, forking to satisfy someone's POV is a horrible idea. If you want to fork, do it outside the main project. Feel free to create the "Happy Shiny Kid-Friendly No Nekkidness At All"-opedia. But don't do it here. grendel|khan 15:15, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
• Strong delete, unnecessary and invalid fork. --Oldak Quill 20:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• For crying out loud, delete!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 22:29, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Tuf-Kat 00:20, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I am so sorely tempted to simply add the offending picture if only for the delicious irony of being accused of vandalism. Oh well, how about just a picture of a little man in a canoe? --LeeHunter 02:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme Delete, this is a fork, a misleading, unhelpful fork. Wyss 05:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I don't understand why wikipedians would not want to allow people to choose whether they want to see an image of that sort or not - Shouldn't people have the right to choose to learn about something without an image of this sort. --Trodel 15:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • All browsers that I have ever encountered (and I've seen a lot of them since NCSA Mosaic in 1994) have the ability to download images, or not download images--it's usually a switch in prefs. I use this facility when visiting a page that contains images that I don't like to look at. Just because somebody puts a picture on a website, doesn't mean they're forcing me to download it and look at it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Not everyone is so tech-savvy. I don't know how to do that, and didn't even know I could until now, and I've been on the net for almost ten years. Everyking 18:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Tech-savvy is the wrong word. Modern browsers are designed for GUI operation, anyone can do this. The user's refusal to learn how to operate his browser in no way absolves him of personal responsibility for controlling what he does and does not choose to download. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • A person can not do something they don't know how to do. The problem here is the fact that English does not have an indicitive/subjunctive distinction. Yes, a person could do something they don't know how to do...once they learn how to do it. But, until they learn, they don't know how to do it. And, besides, putting a link at the top of the page which allows people to go to a version of the page without images it a lot simpler than turning off images in most browsers. Also: Why should a person not be allowed to look at pictures of bunny rabbits just because they have different values than the left-wing people on Wiki. I can not support the idea of giving people with different values than left-wingers a discrimitory experience. Samboy 19:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I think it is reasonable to expect that people who want to use the world wide web will first learn how to operate a web browser. I'm shocked to find people here freely admitting that they do not, and apparently clinging to the belief that this is somebody else's problem. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Incidentally, what place does the term "left wing" have in this discussion? Either a person can control his web browser or he cannot. His politics have no bearing on the matter. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• From an encyclopedic standpoint, it seems to me that anyone curious and literate enough to look up the word clitoris will be helped by seeing a neutral picture of one, in context. Wyss 00:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. —Ben Brockert (42) 03:05, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If you don't want to see a picture of a clitoris, don't look at an encylopaedic entry for one. If you want to know just the definition of the word, look it up in the wiktionary — Neuropedia 18:57, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
• Delete. can't have censored version of every article that someone finds disturbing RustyCale 20:46, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the prison abuse censorship should be viewed as a special case, NOT precedent, IMO. Someone looking for clitoris should know what it is already, in some sense. hfool/Roast me 01:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Could someone remind me? What *specifically* was the content problem with those already-censored pictures which could be viewed on any network television? I have seen those pictures and, set beside pictures of people jumping out of a tower block or being swallowed up by a tidal wave, those pictures do not seem to be particularly objectionable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Why not merge with Thomas Bowdler? (Just kidding; delete.) Edeans 02:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with hfool and Neuropedia. Markaci 11:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• The Delete arguments have convinced me. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 03:34, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 17:18, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

• & I proceeded to tell him the story of the McAlister's Deli massacree, with full orchestration and 5-part harmony & stuff like that, and all the phenomena--& he stopped me right there and said kid, did you ever go to Wikipedia:VfD? delete iMeowbot~Mw 18:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Shouldnt that be massacree? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Fine. I'll be italic in editing. iMeowbot~Mw 11:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Have you learnt nothing? You're supposed to be bold in editing. *ducks thrown vegetables* --fvw* 15:15, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
        • Don't you mean that ducks throw vegetables? Or are you talking about a duck's throne, in which case you probably misspelled "duke."
• Delete. Not notable. IMeowbot's vote is more interesting than the article. RoySmith 19:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 20:31, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Vanity in the sense that it appears to have been created to serve the need of the contributor rather than any reader. An ad in the sense that it serves no clear purpose other than to promote the deli. (And just to keep the record straight on regional cuisine... they serve "sweetened iced tea" in New England, too. And honey mustard is very common in Wisconsin. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what regions are most closely associated with the delicatessen. Hint: not the Georgia sea islands or the Mississippi bayous). Dpbsmith (talk) 02:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, and yes, IMeowbot's vote is indeed more interesting. --MadEwokHerd 18:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unhelpful inducement to blank stares. Wyss 05:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 03:30, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable neologism. --fvw* 17:18, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

• Delete. Just being silly. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 17:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We list Autocracy and Democracy, why not this? It should be stubbed and later expanded. --Anon user. 17:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Those are much-used and common terms, whereas this is a term someone on a bulletin board thought up. Also, please note anonymous users can't vote on Wikipedia, please register a username if you want to partake in votes. --fvw* 18:09, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
    • Although administrators are welcome to disregard sock puppet and anonymous votes as being in "bad faith", there is no absolute requirement that they do so--at least as I read the deletion policy. Votes with interesting or insightful commentary should be welcome additions to the debate regardless of whether they come from a logged in user or not. That said, the anonymous user is wrong in this case: Delete. --TenOfAllTrades 00:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Anons cannot vote on wikipedia, see the arbcom decision in the recent Lir arbitration. --fvw* 00:31, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 20:33, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's a made-up word. RoySmith 01:43, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Gazpacho 03:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, deep thoughts (sort of) and besides, Orwell said it a lot better in 1984. Wyss 05:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 03:31, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

I could swear we've already deleted this before but can't find any record of it, so here goes again:
Neologism. ----fvw* 17:31, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

• Of course Delete. It's a joke. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 22:19, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete joke. Gazpacho 03:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, rather amusing. Lacrimosus 08:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original classification :) Wyss 05:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Good joke, though. Edeans 03:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedily deleted while on VFD. Joyous 03:29, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

This article appears to be a vanity page for a nonnotable website. Google only shows 996 hits for the name, most of which are the site or its prior incarnations. And the article does not establish notability. --Kelly Martin 18:15, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• delete. Note that similar "Brave Noodle Productions" went through VFD in late July. -- Infrogmation 18:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, looks like a Speedy to me. Wyss 05:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedily deleted. Recreation of content previously deleted by VfD. SWAdair | Talk 07:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 03:26, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Just what we needed, another vanity page for another garage band. Article does not establish notability. --Kelly Martin 18:15, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete A recently formed Pink Floyd tribute band. --LeeHunter 19:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN K1Bond007 19:55, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity RoySmith 01:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 00:22, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, tribute/cover bands are rarely notable and this is closer to vanity. Wyss 05:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Claims to have an album out but google only finds 11 hits, all bulletin boards, angelfire and livejournal. Not notable. --fvw* 19:00, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

• Delete, hoax. Claims on his Angelfire page to have released an album on Jive Records (Warner) in January 2004 and the album cover graphic is very obviously home made. The name isn't in any Warner labels' rosters either (and they did their purge somewhat later than that alleged release date). And on his Livejournal he claims to be with Sony UK, who also don't carry him. iMeowbot~Mw 20:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (Should be a speedy.) Article (and VfD page) blanked by author; no other useful history. —Korath (Talk) 23:44, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 00:23, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as a hoax, bad-faith vandalism, eek. Wyss 05:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 action has been taken. Joyous 03:23, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yet another band article. Article doesn't establish notability. --Kelly Martin 19:09, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Revert to initial edit as a redirect to Dots and Boxes. K1Bond007 19:50, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete', then recreate as a redirect to box. -Sean Curtin 02:33, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, no redirect, please. Wyss 05:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 03:22, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable family with 30 known members. --LeeHunter 19:19, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete in accordance with the policy against genealogical articles. — Ливай | ☺ 19:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, genealogy. Wyss 05:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Dicdef, neologism. [5] [6] — Ливай | ☺ 19:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Thue | talk 19:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this blorked excuse for a neologism. Wyss 05:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 03:19, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Obvious vanity article. Thue | talk 19:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Rje 23:07, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 02:43, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, v. Wyss 05:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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, but there is a strong suggestion that merging with an article on perpetual motion would be appropriate. Joyous 00:15, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Non peer reviewed, original research, no evidence to back up claims of perpetual motion. No evidence technology has been developed, or marketed. Merge into Perpetual motion Timharwoodx 19:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I'll agree it's not good science, but it is pretty well known. Weak Keep. --fvw* 00:07, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  • How about a Merge into Perpetual motion? --TenOfAllTrades 01:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's probably more sensible, Merge and redirect. --fvw* 03:02, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
• Comment (no vote yet) Google search on "Adams motor" "free energy" returns 474 hits, which appear to be mostly relevant. There's not very much in the article except for the spiffy animated GIF, which seems to have been taken from The Adams Motor Page without attribution and thus is likely a copyvio. A mention in Perpetual motion seems reasonable. The real question in my mind is whether this is a notable perpetual motion machine or not. (Parenthetically, I don't understand how anyone can be impressed by a perpetual motion machine whose diagram shows a battery in the circuit! If the thing works, why can't it just use, say, a charged capacitor to get it started, and maintain the charge thereafter with the "free energy" it extracts from, whereever it extracts it...) Dpbsmith (talk) 01:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful out of the article to Perpetual motion, then add redirect. Megan1967 02:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• weak merge into perpetual motion. That article neds a lot of work, and this would be a good example of what current adherents are attempting. iMeowbot~Mw 11:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 00:24, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 01:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly reasonable article about an invention that has a UK patent. As an article it stands up by itself, no need to merge. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this scamcruft (lots of useless perpetual motion fraud machines have patents, by the way). Wyss 05:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course it's useless. That's the whole point! But having a UK patent makes it notifiable by my standards. YMMV. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Let's ask Rambot to copy the contents of the USPTO database into Wikipedia. Six million new articles, badda-bing, badda-boom. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • How many of those are for perpetual motion machines? I'll admit to a certain bias towards screwy impossible claims made for tangible inventions, but I think that claim is what makes these things so good to read about. There are just 109 bullet points in History of perpetual motion machines, so it doesn't seem to be the inexhaustible field some have tried to make it out to be. And not that many of them will be worth an article; I think this one is because it's contemporary and is still used as a basis for experiments by Free Energy nuts today. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's my point. A patent is not inherently notable. Wyss 00:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Perhaps merits a one-sentence mention in Perpetual motion and/or external link from that article, no more. Just checked with a friend of mind who, though no expert, is more interested in things like Dean drives and Keeley motors than I am, and he's never heard of it. Just wanted to be sure I wasn't overlooking anything really well known. No evidence presented that this battery-powered perpetual motion machine is a particularly noteworthy example of the genre. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete Actually, I just checked, and its already listed in History_of_perpetual_motion_machines for the year 1977. So I would say this is a duplicate entry. Change my vote from merge to delete. If you had a full article for every claim of perpetual motion, there would be no end in sight. Timharwoodx 13:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• It wouldn't go forever, or perpetually, since even magnets slowly lose their force, correct? And the battery, plus the friction.....Eh, merge and redirect per above. hfool/Roast me 01:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, no notability established. Andris 21:26, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 (nothing to merge that wasn't there or trivial). [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 20:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

non-encyclopedic. anything useful can be merged with Game Master. DCEdwards1966 21:03, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Merge with Game Master and make this a redirect to that page. 23skidoo 22:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• merge and redirect as above. Rje 23:05, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. -Sean Curtin 02:30, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/STing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect -- Netoholic @ 04:44, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
• Delete, same reason as DMing below. Wyss 05:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We already have [[GM]]. Jeltz talk 11:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to Gamemaster, then add redirect. Megan1967 02:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Rich Farmbrough 19:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 00:30, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

non-encyclopedic. anything useful can be merged with Dungeon Master. DCEdwards1966 21:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Merge with Dungeon Master and make this a redirect to that page. 23skidoo 22:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• merge and redirect as above. Rje 23:05, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if this deserves to be deleted, but it's absolutely clear that between DMing and GMing there is at most a single article RoySmith 01:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to gamemaster. Dungeon Master is a disambig, and the relevant content is in the gamemaster article. -Sean Curtin 02:30, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Sean. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:08, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/STing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:12, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect -- Netoholic @ 04:44, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
• Just delete it, trivial neologistic verb built on an acronym. Yuck. Wyss 05:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We already have DM. Jeltz talk 11:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete We are not a dictionary --AmeenDausha 20:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to Gamemaster, then add redirect. Megan1967 02:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Be bold, DCE! Merge and redirect, you don't have to ask our opinion. hfool/Roast me 01:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 16:39, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Really not notable. Thue | talk 21:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Rje 23:02, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• As I type this, I'm watching Robin MacNeil's essay on regional dialects, "Do You Speak American?" on PBS. Some people in the US would pronounce "Sparrow" as "Sparror, and I suppose some might spell it that way too. None of this, however, in any way keeps me from voting Delete --RoySmith 01:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move to the joke thingy and Delete. Wyss 04:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• In defence of Sparror - this may seem trivial, however the services, including webspace on Sparror, provided by the truly independent artist's run Cube Microplex running open source software on salvaged machines are valuable and unusual in the UK, where most arts institutions are commercial or government funded. A post on the Cube Microplex's weblog, [7], explains the reason for submitting the article - which admittedly is in a sense of fun, but within a wider explanation of the Cube Microplex I believe it is worthy of inclusion and should be Kept. --Mr Hopkinson 21:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but the article provides no evidence of notability...?Wyss 00:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will amend the article to hightlight these points . . .--Mr Hopkinson 20:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I call my computer "Mr. Biggles." Hmmmm, maybe I should submit an article on Mr. Biggles -- NOT! Delete. Edeans 03:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but this is not an individual's computer, with a 'wacky' name being submitted by that individual - it is an open access art server, with an unusual name that, due to it being used by many new users needs regular explaining - hence (I assume) the decision to suggest placing this information in Wikipedia, and why I believe it qualifies to be Kept.--Mr Hopkinson 20:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Not notable. Thue | talk 22:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Rje 23:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 02:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 05:07, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as user test. Wyss 04:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 03:13, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

This is vanity. Rje 22:58, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 05:05, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Badly written vanity. Dhmorris 02:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fridgify (move to user's refrigerator door at home), vanity, hope she wakes up soon. Wyss 04:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Uck. Delete. -- Hadal 04:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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/redirect. Joyous 16:42, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Incoherent fancruft. Edward 23:42, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

• I've tried to make it less incoherent. Merge with Jumper! or keep. Kappa 00:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Jumper!. Rje 02:08, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to Jumper!, then add redirect. Megan1967 02:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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