Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 1[edit]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ari Cohen[edit]

Article does not establish notability. RickK 00:01, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, under the bar of notability. Note: Not to be confused with the actor of the same name who has appeared on Stargate Atlantis and Relic Hunter, [1] and [2]. Hmmm perhaps if this article goes under the actors one can go up in its place. Megan1967 00:58, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Good idea, Megan. Delete and replace with the actor. Radiant_* 11:13, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable Dsmdgold 02:46, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the initiator were not an anonymous contributor (based on the red-link on the name) I'd suggest adding a {{explain significance}} and giving him/her a week to add some information. As it is, I've added the existence of this person to Talk:Heritage_Foundation as that article has no listing of Think Tank members. Courtland 05:33, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – ABCD 00:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mark Wilson[edit]

The name alone garners over 257 kilogoogles, but are either of these two noteworthy enough for inclusion? No vote. --GRider\talk 00:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Since Mark is the permanent secretary of National Security of the Bahamas (evident from the first line of the article) I do not believe this is a serious nomination. Yes, it's April Fool's today, but frivolously VfD'ing bio-stubs isn't my idea of funny. Strong keep. Radiant_* 09:09, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. All of these Mark Wilsons sound notable enough to keep in the Wiki. --Evanwohrman 09:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • non voting comment. Yes but none have been deemed notable enough to garner his own page. Courtland 05:37, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • Keep, is this going to be turned into a disambig now? -- Lochaber 11:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have made it a disambig. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:40, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment my feeling is that conversion to a disambiguation page should have awaited the outcome of the voting and been presented as an option as opposed to a done thing. Courtland 05:37, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • Keep. Jet are a well-known rock band. Hedley 18:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Martin Joseph Duffy[edit]

I'm afraid this seems to be both vanity and rather non-notable. Sabine's Sunbird 00:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: 19 years old: after his plays have been staged and had successful runs at trans-regional theaters, yes. At this point, no. Geogre 23:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anonymously initiated with the name of the initiator suggesting that this is vanity, agreed. Courtland 05:42, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – ABCD 00:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Semantic gap[edit]

This article is fairly pointless. I think it should be moved to wiktionary if kept at all (personally, I'd just scrap it). Also, nothing links to it at all. --Vik Reykja ♬ 00:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now it has an incoming link AND it's less pointless. Please reconsider. Ejrrjs | What? 01:58, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Ejrrjs | What? 01:58, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a good topic but must be re-written because it was entirely copied from the web, see here [3]. Paradiso 02:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It may be rewritten, but there is no must. There is a GFDL for it [here]. Ejrrjs | What? 06:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You sound like my grade three teacher. Paradiso 02:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I bet this is a bad thing, so I apologize. Just let me point out that the source and reference were already there. Ejrrjs | What? 06:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But I liked my grade three teacher! :) Paradiso 07:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Dicdef. Merge to relevant context (i.e. High-level language). Radiant_* 09:43, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep chris hathaway 20:03, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but it sure needs work. I would bet that this term is a neoligism of sorts; the notion that knowledge is required to bridge disparate semantic systems of differing granularities is long established in the areas of linguistics and information science, though I don't know the specific jargon used in those disciplines for this concept. As an informatics scientist, I tend to refer to this as the "semantic mapping problem", which rears it's head practically every time you want to have two databases communicate with one another or two datasources of different origins but overlapping content reside in the same queriable space. Courtland 05:50, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • Keep but rework is needed. Pavel Vozenilek 17:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disturbing Indeed[edit]

Defunct webcomic that only lasted 14 comics, none of which seem to still be accessible. Only two relevant hits for "Disturbing Indeed" hayes, the first of which is a Wikipedia mirror. Niteowlneils 00:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete indeed. Radiant_* 09:38, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is another comic by Hayes called Spectacular Tales, which is also worthless. Nestea
  • Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 13:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've posted a note to the Webcomics WikiProject talk page about this VfD in progress. It is possible they will have either word or action to contribute as this is in their core area of interest. Courtland 05:58, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails to meet the guidelines at Webcomics WikiProject --Carnildo 06:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fourteen comics? C'mon. --Ray Radlein 08:27, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Failed webcomic that didn't even last a full year. — Gwalla | Talk 21:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Football. – ABCD 01:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Football (disambiguation)[edit]

  • Somebody wrote a while ago on the talk page that this article should be a candidate for deletion. Any opinions on what to do?? Georgia guy 01:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I say keep, since WP is supposed to be multi-national/cultural. BigFatDave 01:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • ... I'd like to change my vote on this one to redirect. BigFatDave 01:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The Football article itself serves as a better and more comprehensive disambiguation. Weak delete. calS !pu kaeps 01:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - the football article is a good disambiguation
  • Redirect to football, or else delete--easier by far to redirect, though. Meelar (talk) 02:36, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect I have to agree, Football makes a good-enough disambig. --Kitch 03:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nobody types in "Football (Disambiguation)"! But we need a football disambiguation page. So delete this current one, then: (1) create a new disamiguation page called Football, not Football (disambiguation), then (2) Delete the current Football page and merge its contents into a new page called Football (history and evolution) or something like that, and then (3) list it on the new disambiguation page along with Football (soccer), American football, Rugby football, Australian Rules football, Gaelic football, and Canadian football. (I'd be happy to volunteer do all this but I don't know how (or can't) delete pages) -- Paradiso 03:58, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I recommend not doing the above. Step #2 is a GFDL violation. Uncle G 16:58, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Redirect to football. Quite why anyone would want to call a game where people toss an ellipsoid around with their hands "football", instead of a game where people kick a ball with their feet, is beyond me, but who am I to argue with the established convention? — JIP | Talk 06:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to football. The lead of that article does an adequate dab job. Mgm|(talk) 08:15, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to football - the first paragraph is a disambig. in all but name. Qwghlm 09:28, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There seems to be a stubborn misconception among fans of various codes of football that any other kind of "football" is an aberration. It's a generic term, get over it! Grant65 (Talk) 10:03, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • And here was I thinking that football had something to do with feet and balls. Excuse me while I go call pub darts baseball. — JIP | Talk 10:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The ball is (at least occasionally) kicked in every kind of football. In any case the word originally meant any game played "on foot" rather than on horseback, so kicking has nowt to do with it ;-) Grant65 (Talk) 12:25, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
        • After reading the argument below I'm changing my vote to redirect, so we can avoid this situation in future.Grant65 (Talk) 02:41, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary. Football already has an existing dab page. I don't think a redirect is necessary - I can't imagine anyone bothering to type in "Football (disambiguation)" just to find "Football". Megan1967 13:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect there are other instances where foo is a disambig page with foo (disambiguation) redirecting there. Thryduulf 13:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That's probably because in those cases (a) the disambiguation article was merged into the top article, and thus has to exist as a redirect to satisfy the GFDL; (b) the disambiguation page was moved (back) to the top article and the resultant redirect simply not deleted; or (c) the other pages use the {{otheruses}} template, which doesn't work with equal weight (type 2) disambiguations without such a trick being employed. There are no such requirements here. Uncle G 16:58, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • It's a pointless disambiguation page that nothing links to (apart from some 2003 talk pages where this idea was mooted and rejected) and that no-one will use. Football already is the disambiguation. The 2003 talk page arguments on this very subject (Talk:List of footballers (archive 1) and Talk:List of footballers (soccer) (archive 2)) are worth reading, as is the name change discussion at Talk:Football; and the resulting development of Football over the intervening two years indicates a clear consensus. No merge is required. No redirect is required, except perhaps to stop someone doing this in another 2 years' time, which is unlikely given that the dangling redlinks only exist in archived talk pages, there's plenty of prior talk page discussion on the subject, and a disambiguation structure is already in place. Delete. Uncle G 16:58, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
    • This page was only created on March 29 2005, long after the consensus on Football had been reached, and despite the existing disambiguation page as you outlined; it has been plainly demonstrated that in the absence of anything, a user can create this page despite the existing consensus. Redirects are cheap. One here would stop us having to go through the same discussion in 2 years' time. Qwghlm 02:23, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete disambiguation pages should not actually say "(disambiguation)". PatGallacher 01:10, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
    • Yes they should. Well, type 3 disambiguations anyway. Please read the info at Wikipedia:disambiguation. — JIP | Talk 09:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, point taken, but having read this info this would only apply in some specific circumstances which do not apply here. PatGallacher 21:05, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Football is too big. Think of the people with modem connections! Fix the disambig page adding all football variants, instead of deletion. Grue 06:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Are there any Wikipedia which are significantly slow to d/l? I had a slow modem connection until recently (about 40k) and it didn't greatly impede me writing a significant proportion of the football page. Or contributing to even longer articles which have more pictures. Grant65 (Talk) 10:17, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per UncleG. Radiant_* 11:21, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to football, for reasons given above. Jonathunder 07:36, 2005 Apr 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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Magic Iced Tea[edit]

Probably not verifiable, looks like nonsense. - Evil saltine 01:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete BJAODN Methinks this is less notable than Vodka and Coke Klonimus 04:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's Magic and Iced Tea? Delete. Radiant_* 08:59, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 13:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no encyclopedic content, no reason to transwiki or to merge to Cocktail. Maybe it's actually Tea and Magic Ice? Barno 14:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Ice Tea the collectible card game? Ice Tea the Steeping? Non-encyclopedic. Geogre 23:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified. If the contributor can't be bothered to give a single reference to even indicate the existence of this story, I don't know why we should waste much time considering it. Due diligence: only 24 Google hits, and as I write this the top hit is Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion!. NONE of the others are relevant. Most of them are about tea! And a few stray phrases like "hunter:books of magic, iced tea." Dpbsmith (talk) 03:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) No, I'm not going to check my library's online catalog to see if they have any of the 43 books by "Deputy Dumbass" and/or "Doctor Rotcod." Dpbsmith (talk) 03:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Phantom Regiment Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

non-notable, or at least not demonstrated to be so. delete BigFatDave 01:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, platform for an external link. —Korath (Talk) 04:08, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Fisher[edit]

  • I think it's a hoax, I can find no reference to any production of "Seven Days in the Bathroom at the Place Milton" on Google, or any Daniel Fisher who is an actor. If not a hoax, it's vanity/non-notable. Delete--Dmcdevit 01:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- I saw the play. You're right, he doesn't have a website. Matt Grant, Montreal
    • The above edit was from 65.92.16.24. This is this user's only edit. Mo0[talk] 09:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it! It's real! I know. I saw it too. -Billie Stoeth
    • The above edit was from 66.131.214.192. This is this user's second edit. Mo0[talk] 09:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've seen it and it was one of the funniest things I have ever seen. The only thing funier was the Donkey Show - Shawn Guttman
    • The above edit was from 24.156.51.174. This is this user's only edit. Mo0[talk] 09:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Mo0[talk] 09:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Radiant_* 09:38, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Poor attempt by the author to save it, too. Phobophile 10:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 13:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This is no hoax. Daniel Fisher is the real thing. He is a true artist and deserves the utmost respect and credit for his work. - Jenn Gans
  • Hoax, O Sock? Give me a break. They never learn, do they? Delete. - Lucky 6.9 22:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, just because an artist isn't well known or written about on the web, doesn't invalidate his existence. Who are you to say that someone is vain, or so un-notable that they should not be written about in an open encyclopedia? Daniel deserves an entry. If you are fans of the dissemination of free information, the more the better, right?-Gil 17:57, 1 Apr 2005 (EST)
  • Apparently, this person is well known for his performance with sockpuppets. Unfortunately, there is no effort to establish notability. For reference, we would be looking for evidence that this fellow is a notable comedian such as release of an album of his material, appearance on high profile TV shows, headlining tour etc. As yet, none has been produced so delete. Capitalistroadster 01:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • For the sake of the future of artistic culture in Montreal, this page must be kept up. Danny The Fisher is a rising star here and it won't be long until you'll be kicking yourselves for your doubting. -U.M.
  • Keep, If Wikipedia wishes to retain any sort of credibility within the online, user-edited, encyclopedia world, it must retain this article. Daniel Fisher has left me speechless more than once, and his performances are irreplacable. Those of you who wish to delete the entry, I say only this: for shame. - Carly Ruderman
  • Keep, I can't fathom why anyone would doubt Daniel Fisher's notability. - Jack Martin
    • I would and I have. Socks with attitudes. Sheesh. - Lucky 6.9 04:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Fisher's notability is primarily on a provincial level, although he has also performed in theatres in Toronto and Vancouver. I'm not surprised that Australians would not have heard of his work. But Just because he is not an inter-Continental superstar does not make him "Not Notable." I say keep. J. Charest

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – ABCD 00:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Renner, South Dakota[edit]

  • No encyclopedic potential. Unincorporated community not tracked by the Census Bureau. Less notable than many, many high schools.

Ejrrjs | What? 01:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Article doesn't even list a population. But we keep so many itty-bitty town entries, I think the overall decision will be to keep. Is there anything this could merge & redirect to? BigFatDave 01:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all real places. RickK 05:42, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Less notable than many high schools" sounds like WP:POINT. -- Curps 06:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I put that out. Does it make the article worthier? Ejrrjs | What? 06:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No real reason to delete it, no reason it couldn't be considered encyclopedic. -- Curps 07:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If its notable enough to have a zip code, it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Sjakkalle 07:33, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep things with their own zip code. Kappa 12:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all real places. Capitalistroadster 12:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Does that include the area behind the shed in my back garden? Uncle G 15:57, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
      • No but it includes all towns, villages, suburbs, significant geographic features and places recognised with their own zip codes. If places behind your shed meet this criteria then include them. Capitalistroadster 16:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • In other words: not "all real places". Uncle G 17:22, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
        • Pity, because each block side on each street of Buenos Aires, Argentina has its own, distinctive zip code. For example, C1043AAQ covers Corrientes Ave. from 300 to 398, but C1043AAD goes from Corrientes Ave. 301 to Corrientes Ave. 399. C1043AAQ includes Corrientes 348, named in the famous tango A media luz. On the other side (of the street) C1043AAD features the metal and glass building that hosts the Goethe Institute, the German Club and BASF countrywide headquarters [4]. Despite being an office space district, many people live there (probably as many as in Renner SD). No high schools, though...I'd say poor urban planning.
This criterion opens exiting possibilities for Wikipedia. (sic)
Ejrrjs | What? 17:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • It is a matter for discretion. However, in a less densely populated area such as South Dakota, a zip code is evidence of a genuine community of interest. Capitalistroadster 01:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The ZIP code criterion is too inclusive but the Census criterion is too exclusive. Renner is apparently a community that would be referred to by that name. Someday we may have an article about someone born in Renner. There are genuine places that aren't CDP's. For example, the article on Mary Cheney says, based on multiple sources, that she lives in Conifer, Colorado. JamesMLane 01:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. older≠wiser 20:57, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Now that there is some real content, I withdraw my nomination. Ejrrjs | What? 00:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (extremely) all real places with their own postal codes, even those with limited amounts of content. —RaD Man (talk) 00:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a legit place. Saopaulo1 22:21, Apr 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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BGK[edit]

Delete I don't even know what this article is about. Lilyana

  • This account was created today, and has been used six times, each a vote in a VfD. (The signature is manual, and takes you to an article-space name.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 01:18, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks mostly like a list of punk music acts, mostly not notable. This has already been done well at Punk rock, and bands should be listed on existing pages. Paradiso 02:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Actually "BGK" is a term used when talking about a simplified version of the Boltzmann equation. That was completely beside the point, this is an unencyclopedic list of punk songs. Sjakkalle 07:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, pointless duplication. We already have a much better list of punk groups. Megan1967 13:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I don't get this article at all, but the name is rather goofy. --TheSamurai 02:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete So lacking in context as to be meaningless. Dsmdgold 15:50, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wha...? Delete and recreate as a redirect to Boltzmann equation. - Lucky 6.9 15:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – ABCD 01:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Watling Street[edit]

I've proposed this article for deletion on two grounds. One, it duplicates the entry on Boudicca, and two, although the identification of the battle site as Watling Street seems likely, it's conjecture. I've never heard Boudicca's last stand refered to as the "Battle of Watling Street" before, so I can't imagine anyone looking for information on it would look it up under that title. If there's a good reason keeping this entry and not, say, expanding the report of the battle under Boudicca, please speak up. --Nicknack009 08:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep This looks like original subject matter to me Sniffandgrowl 00:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User was created today; this was his third edit. All edits to date are to Vfd debates. —Korath (Talk) 01:18, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 01:18, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Googling for "Battle of Watling Street" -wikipedia gets plenty of results, so some people out there use the name. FreplySpang (talk) 03:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Boudicca as it's a duplicate. Radiant_* 09:38, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable battle and article should discuss battle from both sides points of view Romans and Britons. Capitalistroadster 12:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep a well written article about a notable ancient battle. Expand. Megan1967 13:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It is often refered to as the Battle of Watling Street. Blizzard1
  • Merge with Boudicca and turn into redirect. A lot of this is about Boudicca generally, not just her last battle (whatever you call it). PatGallacher 01:16, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  • Keep Good article, original Christopher 21:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and remove the duplicate material from main article. Only obvious fault I can see is that this "Paullinus engaged Boudicca in a field just south of Watling Street." could be pretty well anywhere you wanted it to be! Current thinking (a recent BBC documentary places it here: SP748460, between Paulerspury and Grafton Regis, a few miles south of Lactodorum (Towcester) (near Milton Keynes. I notice that the main article puts it anywhere but!). So yes, the general stuff about Budicca could go, but the battle itself is critical and deserves special mention. --Red King 13:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Jinian 13:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Becky![edit]

  • Delete - really not notable at all gren 02:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP - nobody knew about this page - there is a forum and a whole yahoo group on this emailclient - probably one of the best there is. POP§, IMAP, Remote Check, Richplugin structure, safe, cause no need to use IE .... tosbsas - here are the urls "htp://groups.yahoo.com/group/beckymail/" and "htp://www.mickeytheman.com/forums/index.php" tosbsas on march 12, 2005 10:00 hs
  • KEEP - The not notable at all thing here is just the reason for deleting the article.. I find it very closed minded. rich 02:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 01:21, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Advertising. Wikipedia is not FreshMeat, and the program is not substantial. Even if it were, Wikipedia would not want ad-copy. Let people find out about the program from an advertising space, not from an encyclopedia, where it will never be searched. Otherwise, this is just page rank boosting.

Geogre 03:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, because of the spamming and possibility of this article being supported by sock puppets. Zscout370 03:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, unfortunately. This is the e-mail client my company (and a very big company it is, too) requires me to use. Thank gawd there's an English version. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Radiant_* 09:39, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Perhaps I'm blind, but this seems to be a legitimate entry for a legitimate email program. Granted, it could probably use a rewrite, but deletion? Can someone point out the vanity here?--Txredcoat 12:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks to me to be an article on a non-notable app, written by its author. Hence, vanity. BIMBW YMMV. Radiant_* 13:23, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, it's real, all right: it's Japanese, and (or so I'm told) fairly popular here in Japan. I work for a large Japanese company, and the IT department some months ago stopped supporting other e-mail clients (including Eudora, damnit) in favor of this. --Calton | Talk 15:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 13:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as adspam unless a serious rewrite shows encyclopedic potential (number of users? free source availability?)
  • Keep and (hopefully) rewrite. It seems to have a decent number of users. FreplySpang (talk) 15:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep:Seems like a legitamite product to meDeathawk 01:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was move to Boundary element method and keep. – ABCD 01:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Boundary Element Method[edit]

  • Delete Looks like a student project, this whole article appeared in one chunk. WP is not an archive for personal data. It is interesting, but I'm not about to assign it a grade. Either this needs a LOT of cleanup and wikifying, or should be axed.
  • Delete. Essay. Personal research. Postdlf 03:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep rewrite. Postdlf 17:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Charles Matthews 21:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 01:28, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless completely reworked. Currently a signed personal essay. Average Earthman 11:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, redirect to proper case, and rewrite. Boldly, I have put up a stub at Boundary element method and redirected this page to it. FreplySpang (talk) 15:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in the redirected form. 129.97.140.98 17:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the newly written stub, looks good. --Duk 07:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Boycott-riaa.com[edit]

Page is not an encyclopedia article. (Unsigned by Zer T on January 17. —Korath (Talk) 01:31, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC))

  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic, possible vanity, advertisement, worthless, covered in detail on RIAA Jdcooper 13:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Jdcooper. Also, looks like there's a delete vote on the talk page. Howabout1 04:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 01:31, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Serves no purpose and does not present unique information. Further, it is at an unsearchable topic. Geogre 03:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I hate the RIAA too, but that doesn't justify making POV-forking website ads. --Kitch 03:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV, website promo. Megan1967 13:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, promo of POV site, no indication of noteworthiness. Like Kitch, I agree with the POV, but WP isn't the place for it. Even in the current MGM vs. Grokster case, there are fact-and-law-based groups (like the Electronic Frontier Foundation) and advocacy groups (like the Free Software Foundation) whose involvement and publicity have been more influential than boycott-riaa.com's. And today it's hard to find an organization that ISN'T the target of a boycott-foo or foo-sucks website. No indication that this one is more notable than most. Barno 15:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with RIAA. --8^Dgab 22:52, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Delete vanity Dsmdgold 00:35, Apr 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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Burton Natarus[edit]

GRider marked this for deletion on February 17, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just listing it here; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 01:34, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn aldercruft. ComCat 02:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: a predicate nominative is a fact, not an article -- not even a substub. Additionally, the figure is just a local politician with no greater claim presented in the article. Geogre 03:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as eternal stub. Radiant_* 09:39, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability, cruft. Megan1967 13:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Dsmdgold 00:50, Apr 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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. ugen64 03:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Byakugan[edit]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Circumcision and Anti-semitism[edit]

So... this page was created by a rather angry user after a dispute at Anti-semitism over citations and such. The article essentially says nothing and I doubt there is sufficient material for it to stand alone rather than just as a sub-part of the primary anti-semitism page (I'm willing to be proven wrong here, but I doubt I will be). Also appears to be in violation of the proposed Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point policy (which, while still merely proposed claims to have support of AbCom members). See the edit history, especially the first post, to see this. In short, this article isn't doing Wikipedia any good. Suggest we merge it's contents with anti-semitism and then delete this page. -SocratesJedi | Talk 00:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. POV fork, no potential to become encyclopedic, WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Eliezer 01:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • merge - I forsaw this vote and I hope that a decision to merge is respected by the permanent inclusion of this information in the anti-semitism article. I am really angry not so that I created the article, but at the reaction that this article has received or the idea that this article is just to prove a point and that it is not about a real phenoma. I think its sick and sad that people would rather be ignorant to face up to a real phenomon which is very likely at the heart of the whole anti-semitism issue. In fact I am so disenchanted that I may delete my wikipedia account permanently. I feel that I have been treated worse than a vandal for my contribution and research that I did as a favour to this community and is totally unappreciated. Don't expect me to shed any tears of the Jews or other groups come to suffer because they choose to turn a blind eye to the real value of this article that I wrote very much for their benefit on many levels. Sirkumsize 01:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment:If this is a real phenomenon and as you say "very likely at the heart of the whole anti-semitism issue" then there should be an abundance of citations you could provide for people expressing this view which is all the community requested of you to begin with. I see that you have now provided a link on this page up for deletion, but the thoughts of just one speaker do not show evidence for your case that it is at the heart of the issue. Does a discussion of this merit inclusion? Probably, yes, but with appropriate citation. The proper way to work with other editors is to discuss controvertial edits in talk and come to consensus, not to create new pages with disputed content because it was rejected by other editors on an established page. That the other editors disagreed that there was sufficient evidence to present your views on the subject as factual does not mean that they are persecuting you as if you were a vandal, just that they are doing what they think best to preserve the factual integrity of Wikipedia. Again: Should Wikipedia say "Some people think Antisemitism has to do with circumsision" with some links to several people and groups that claim that? Yes. Should it state that or any other greater claim without evidence? No. Learn to work with the community, not to create POV-based forks because you're upset over other editor's views on the evidentiary-support of your claim. -SocratesJedi | Talk 02:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment:*It is now. Sorry. I forgot to click submit to the VfD mainpage. -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perhaps merge some links with a mention of this theory into Genital Integrity. There isn't a convincing argument made that circumcision is a significant causative factor behind anti-Semitism, or a notable group presented who hold that view. Fire Star 02:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, unverified claims made in article. android↔talk 03:23, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Very relevent hot topic within ancient and modern history of Judaism. Merge with Circumcision or anti-semitism with improved citation. Paradiso 03:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. --Kitch 03:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There has been plenty of time and opportunity for this article to develop. It is likely to remain a stub of dubious pov forever. get rif of it and let the authors add the info elsewhere if they are so inclined. -Casito 04:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Editing Change. I edited the article to accurately reflect available sources. However, I still vote for a Merge and Delete. JimCollaborator «talk» 06:08, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. Any NPOV content (if there is any) can be added to Anti-semitism. - Jakew 12:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I have posted two long comments on the article talk page, going over two different versions of the article in detail, and explaining why every single sentence should be deleted. The article is really a personal essay by a contributor who explicitly wants to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, and it comes dangerously close to being anti-Semitic (the contributor's justification for the article is anti-Semitic). It addresses something that is at best a minor interest of a small number of people, and it has no scholarly sources (for scholarly claims) and no scholarly validity. On this very page the creator of this so-called article writes "Don't expect me to shed any tears of the Jews or other groups come to suffer because they choose to turn a blind eye to the real value of this article that I wrote very much for their benefit" — the kind of sentence, simultaneously patronizing, contemptuous, and threatening, that exemplifies a major form of anti-Semitism. It is arrogant for someone who is fundamentally ignorant to think that an entire race of people needs his help, and the veiled threat that Jews will suffer for ignoring him only reveals the hatred at the core of his heart. It is offensive. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Okay, lets go with the hypothesis that I am anti-semitic? Does this beg an interesting question? Why? Can you give me a non-religious answer to this question does that not involve the Jews and other groups insistence on circumcision as the source of this hatred? If circumcision has made me anti-semitic as you suggest than expalin how it can be that there is no need for this article? And if I am anti-semitic for a non-circumcision related reason, how can it be that I am focused on the circumcision issue when the result of this communities analysis of this issue is that "real" anti-semits do not use this argument: If they did, another good reason for this article. So how can it be that I am antisemitic? And how is the wish to help a race of people arrogant and in what way am I ignorant? Is it not you that is ignorant to the fact that circumcision is sexual assualt? Is it not you that is the blind to the fact that it is causing greif to this society in so many ways? Is it not you that are discouraging anyone from doing any real work on the anti-semitism issue by giving very hurting accusations? And why is it my responsibility to not be patronizing, contemptuous or threatening when that all I recieve from other people. I cannot give what I haven't receieved? Do you think I was somehow born with hatred in my heart? Is that the best explaination you can give for me? You don't know me and you don't know what you are talking about. Not one person has every acknowledged that I am part of a whole society, culture and religious ideology that promotes sexual anorexia and as a result I am a victim of sexual abuse. What right do you have to say those things about me? Sirkumsize 03:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've explained gently to the original author why such an article is offensive; "simultaneously patronizing, contemptuous, and threatening" as you say, but that explanation unfortunately didn't seem to register. The good news is that the VfD seems likely to result in the demise of the article. Fire Star 22:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Fire Star. Sirkumsize -- I never daid that you were anti-Semitic because of circumicision. I have given no reason for "why" you are anti-Semitic. I do not care. That you are anti-Semitic is your problem, and not mine. If you do not want to be anti-Semitic, then you are the one who must figure out why and how you became that way. But I can give you this piece of advice -- if the reason you became anti-Semitic has anything to do with Jews or Jewish practice, then you have not discovered the reason (for the reason lies within you), you have only reenforced your own anti-Semitism. Circumcision is not sexual abuse. You do not understand why Jews circumcise their sons. If you want to know why, I suggest you read Carnal Israel by Daniel Boyarin. But even if after learning why Jews circumcise themselves, you still think it is wrong -- well, who cares? We think it is right, and that is all that matters. You write "why is it my responsibility to not be patronizing, contemptuous or threatening?" But I never said it is your responsibility not to be these things. All I said is that you are, which is indication of your anti-Semitism. Whether it is your responsibility to change is entirely up to you. As to your own victimization -- I cannot speak to that. I do not know you or anything about you, and Wikipedia is not dedicated to exploring individuals' personal trauma -- it is an encyclopedia, not a computerized psychoanalyst. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Once again a person that charges me with arrogants thinks they know more about me than I know about myself. I am not anti-semitic. If you read my last message you will see that I say let go with the "hypothesis" that I am. Only I know what I am. As for the reasons that Jews circumcise it does not matter to me anymore than whether or not Jews advocate circumcising Christians. I see circumcision as abuse and I do not want it to happen to anyone, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jew. It is about the rights of the child. If I have to live in a society where I can spend my life in prison for having a photograph of a 10 year old playing naked on the beach, I don't want to live in that society along with people that commit serious sexual abuse with impunity. I have to live with laws that I may not like because they are the majority rule. Why is it fair to me if the Jews do not have to live up to the same standard - or the Muslims, or any other group. The direction that my research for this site is very disturbing. I'm running across article after article implying academic bias in favour of circumcision because of professionals and organizations that fear the accusation of anti-semitism or bias against other circumcising cultures. How can parents make informed decisions on behalf of their children if this information is distorted? By deleting this article all of you endorse this bias and its your sons that will have to pay the price. Thanks for letting me speak. Sirkumsize 18:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with Fire Star, and tried a different approach with the original author. It should be noted that I am the sole author (not Sirkumsize) of the current version, which I rewrote because the then-current version didn't even accurately reflect its cited sources. Even though I wrote it, though, it's still not worth keeping. At best, a sentence should be added to the Genital Integrity page reflecting the insistence of anti-circ folk that they are opposing the procedure and not anti-Semitic. From what I could gather though, it's not even worth mentioning on anti-Semitism because the anti-Semites don't even use it that much to attack Jews and Judaism. The thought that circumcision actually causes or even increases anti-Semitic sentiment is totally baseless. JimCollaborator «talk» 23:45, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sirkumsize, please stop creating these throw-away articles. Rhobite 05:08, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if there is something to be said about this bizarre idea, it's not being said here. - Mustafaa 05:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete —Christiaan 09:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zero potential to become encyclopedic --Mrfixter 14:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge. Can't see a reason to delete. Piece does need to be expanded, but it is already interesting and NPOV to read. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:52, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; this borders on crackpottery. —Psychonaut 01:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • LOL. The difference between bordering on crackpottery and being crackpottery is the difference between belonging on wikipedia and belong on the deletion queue. I think this article is shaping up despite the criticism. Sirkumsize 02:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork, not encyclopedic. Kaldari 04:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. El_C 06:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not Encyclopedia material Whatcanbrowndo 17:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Womp[edit]

Not notable, unverifiable, and/or fiction/prank. Zero hits for "Wayne the Womp" or womp "wayne powell". (User:Feydey added the vfd tag about 8 hrs ago--I'm finishing the nomination.) Niteowlneils 03:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity prank. Megan1967 13:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or speedy delete as a prank and kiddie pages. Geogre 23:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'd like to note that Womp! is a Live CD Linux Distribution and in my opinion notable. http://womp.sourceforge.net/ --Mononoke 19:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete current article, replace with redirect to Linux per Mononoke. Radiant_* 11:20, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1½-hit wonder[edit]

This looks redundant to one-hit wonder. With a one-hit wonder, an artist has exactly 1 hit in the top 40 of the Billboard Hot 100 and doesn't take into consideration if the artist had any other releases. Every artist listed as a 1½-hit wonder matches this criteria. I've never heard of a band being notable for having single(s) peaking at 41-100 on the Billboard Hot 100. It also sounds like a fake word. Big Ben Clock 03:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) I've withdrawn my nomination. The people on IRC convinced me on the actual use of this term. Big Ben Clock 03:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment did they direct you to a source? I'd like to see it myself. Personally I don't trust anything said by anyone on IRC. Megan1967 13:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment there's a category an article for Zero-hit wonder too. —Wahoofive | Talk 17:18, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Considering it was created on April Fools Day, and it has no evidence of being a real term, nor has any been posted since, I think it's a prank. (Unless "the people on IRC" would like to produce actual sources. Lots of things are said on IRC, not all of them reliable.) Jonathunder 05:22, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this article (and zero-hit) points out the fact that One-hit wonder criterion is quite poor. I mean, Moby is a one-hit wonder? Las Ketchup isn't? Something's very wrong here. Grue 06:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • According to One-hit wonder, a "hit" means the song charted in the top 40. A "two-hit wonder" had two songs in the top 40. Yet according to this article, a 1½-hit wonder has two hits but only one of them are in the top 40. Unless I'm missing something, that means the second song was not a "hit". That and some other things on the page make me seriously suspect that this is a prank. Delete unless authoritatively sourced. By the way, the VfD header was never added to the article. Rossami (talk) 22:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is preserved as an archive of the associated article page's "votes for deletion" debate (the forerunner of articles for deletion). Please do not modify this page, nor delete it as an orphaned talk page.

Note: The debate over this page has ended.

  • The Best Page in the Universe - irrelevant website. Why can't such obvious violations of established guidelines be deleted on sight? --Wik 05:02, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Don't delete the article, but delete irrelevant and inside-joke content. See Talk:The Best Page in the Universe, first subsection for a discussion about deleting the "Lou images" section of the article. The site is relevant. It's hugely popular, and Maddox is about to break out into other forms of media. Fix the article so that relevance is clear and so that it doesn't violate the guidelines. --pgscholt 01:46, April 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete (but after the 5-day wait, not on sight). Just some guy's blog, not really mentioned anywhere except on other people's blogs. --Delirium 05:11, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's not that well known to deserve its own article. Dori | Talk 05:12, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • The Alexa ranking is 4,069 is you use the http://maddox.xmission.com address. Angela. 05:15, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • As a matter of fact, Maddox gloats about how he has a higher Alexa rating than several fast food websites on one of his articles. WhisperToMe 05:20, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • While the 4,069 Alexa rating is for the entire domain, this states that 88% of traffic going on Alexa end up at Maddox.xmission.com -- http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=maddox.xmission.com WhisperToMe 05:35, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Unless it's particularly prominent in some way, move to List of blogs if we have, or want one; else delete. Salsa Shark 05:46, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Salsa Shark, a "List of Blogs" is right here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weblog#Example_Weblogs
    • Delete SpellBott 06:54, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Irrelevant. PMC 07:05, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, Wiki is not paper, and this article isn't vandalism Jack 07:07, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's actually pretty popular. Don't listen to me, he gives the statistics himself. Personally, I love it - Maddox is hilarious. →Raul654 07:11, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It ain't pretty, but it is popular. This "blog" combines x-rated language, parody and humour to draw a sizeable audience. He gets more hits than McDonalds, which he pans mercilessly. Has been around since 1997 and has several imitators - "The Second Best..." "The Worst..." etc. Sunray 10:32, 2004 Jan 13 (UTC)
      • Here's a sample [1]
    • Keep, but needs serious rewrite. Bmills 14:51, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: meritless. Wikipedia is not paper, but it's not a dumpster either. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:55, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The article could use some help in the writing area, but definitely keep. - Marshman 18:25, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - deletionism is running rampant around here - I have an idea for reform that I will put on m:deletion management redesign and Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion.The Fellowship of the Troll 19:45, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep -- the page seems to be more important than I initially anticipated judging from the article alone, but rewrite is needed -- mkrohn 20:07, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • more information: about 1000 times linked, about 1000 mentioned in usenet
    • I rewrote it, please review it and make corrections if needed. Apart from Alexa and the statistics published at the original website, How can I check how popular this website is and compare it with other sites? If it is popular then Keep, otherwise Delete. Optim 20:42, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's an incredibly popular site, we need an entry on it. punishinglemur 00:00, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, it's popular but not popular enough (top 1000) to warrant an entry IMHO. Imran 00:10, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • See http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.com/c.cgi?u=owned on why the "Top 1000" is too much of a restraint :[ WhisperToMe 01:45, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Maddox's site has grown to be a part of the internet sub-culture, and if wikipedia's goal is to provide an encyclopeida online containing all manner of information, there is no reason as to why this should be deleted. It is a very popular and well known site. It's like trying to move Slashdot to "list of news/tech sites". Don't delete. Nuada, Jan 14 2004
    • Keep. It's pretty popular and has been part of the internet sub-culture landscape for what seems an eternity. --MikeCapone 05:57, Jan 14 (UTC)
    • Contentless self-promotion. Nothing encyclopedic or even fresh. We spend too much time deleting stuff like this. Wetman 06:22, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 07:44, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Fredrik 08:50, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Self-indulgent nonsense. Move to "list of blogs" or delete. Puffy jacket 23:57, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Otherwise, where do we draw the line on vanity pages? A link to it may belong in other articles, but a description of the content of another web page doesn't belong in Wikipedia. This page is not remarkable enough to justify an article of its own IMO, and I think we should be conservative (deletionist if you like) on this point. Andrewa 14:05, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Andrewa, ever heard of this little thing called Alexa? I suggest you look up maddox.xmission.com on that. You'll know how significant it is when you do that. WhisperToMe 23:04, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Hmmmm. Irrelevant IMO. Are you saying that an Alexa ranking should automatically qualify a website for an article? Remember, we are discussing an article about a website. We do have articles about organisations whose sites rank lower, certainly. But we don't have separate articles on the websites of these organisations, nor should we. Still delete. Andrewa 01:02, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Websites ARE fair game to make wikipedia articles out of. See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedia articles based upon websites.
      • One more thing, you said that it can be rewritten. The article should not be listed to delete if there is a way to salvage it. WhisperToMe 02:19, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Yet one more thing... http://maddox.xmission.com/statistics/statistics.html
        • According to that, it's getting 25,000 hits/day which is virtually nothing when you're talking about major sites on the internet. All the normal statistical measures (Alexa, links to site, mentions on usenet, mentions in mainstream newspapers, mentions in books) fail to give any solid indication of sufficient popularity. If someone has any particular evidence for it's

importance (as opposed to it's popularity) could they give it. --Imran 02:21, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

    • Delete. Websites are fair game for a Wikipedia article, but this article is content free promotion. Don't wait for someone to rewrite it; just delete it and if anyone ever wants to write an encyclopedic article about the site then they can create the page afresh. 66.153.56.194 22:30, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • If a rewrite is possible, don't delete. Its better to wait around.
          • I don't agree with this. Suppose an article on an important subject has everything 100% wrong. It seems obvious to me that it should just be deleted, or, probably a better idea, replaced with a stub. Otherwise people searching for the topic will be given 100% wrong Wikipedia information for days, weeks, or months until someone summons the energy to rewrite. Tempshill 18:39, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • There is no possible way this particular article in question is 100% wrong. It talks about stuff on the website which... well... is there. It also says that the stuff Maddox says is about him is just what he says he is. There is no way to know if Maddox's description of himself is accurate. The "Rewrite" concept is more in the name of style than accuracy. WhisperToMe 18:43, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • And Imran, the evidence of what's significant is right in front of you. get on Maddox.xmission.com yourself and read the content. Its the controversial content and the mocking of authority figures that's so significant about this site, in addition to its popularity. And if someone is asking for an NPOV, please say how to NPOV. I don't see how its POV at all. WhisperToMe 03:17, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)


  • Keep. It's the best page in the universe.
  • Keep. Wikipedia should be about what anyone wants it to be about. Wow, people, you guys take this stuff too seriously. This is an open-source encyclopedia. If someone wants to write an article, let them. If it's wrong, change it.

    "All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Wikipedia:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it."

    Some of you people just need to get a frikkin life. Besides, if the "LIST OF FICTIONAL MONKEYS" can stick around, then there's no possible reason why you should delete this one. -MikeServ

A comment from the author[edit]

I'm the author of "The Best Page in the Universe." A reader pointed out the entry here and I felt that most of it was well-researched (and in case you were wondering, I had no hand in this). Whether or not you like the opinions stated on my site, it has become something of a phenomenon and to deny it would be a disservice to the original author of this entry. By word-of-mouth alone, my site has grown from fewer than 5 readers per month to the Herculean 4-million+ readers it has today (proof: http://maddox.xmission.com/stats1.gif ). To correct a few of the comments made here (at the risk of sounding self-aggrandizing), the site receives an average of 100,000 to 130,000 visits (not "hits") per day, moving over 700 gigs of traffic per month. My writing has appeared on dozens of syndicated radio shows, magazines, newspapers, books, and even a couple of TV shows and journals--and the site is still growing. Keep it or leave it, it's up to you, but you can't deny merit of this phenomenon.

Maddox, you rule. Andre Wong 15:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Its being kept :) - WhisperToMe 05:24, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. I had the chance of meeting and talking to Maddox once his chat room and really, he's just some ordinary guy, no different from me. Hardly different at all, from his music tastes to opinions to political views. My point here is, this ordinary asshole, this everyday guy, has a website that receives more visits, by word of mouth alone, than sites that spend thirty million dollars on their internet marketing campaign alone. That is a definitely phenomenon and one well worth mentioning. [[User:Destinova|Marlowe²]] 05:18, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What's the point of describing a website on an online encyclopedia, anyway? Why doesn't someone just go to the website if they want to know about it? There isn't anything in this article that one can't learn by going to the website itself. And by the way, I don't think that is really Maddox's post. *(A posting made by an anon) --NoPetrol 00:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Like we can't have an article on Google? WhisperToMe 04:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It´s a satirical website, not nonsense. It belongs to internet(sub-)culture.
  • Keep. As WhisperToMe says, otherwise you may as well nominate Google and Slashdot for deletion too.
  • Delete. An ad for a blog. Wetman 03:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Alexa ratings more or less say that the blog is very influential on the 'net. WhisperToMe 22:07, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Uh, how many people go to Wikipedia and stumble upon this page without looking for it? --Headcase 04:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's popular, people want to know about it, we need an article on it. - Vague Rant 05:24, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Maddox just had his 100 millionth visitor last night. He has the best page in the universe and if you delete his article you are stupid. Potatoeman57
  • Keep. Websites are allowed, right? This is a fairly big website, much more popular than other websites that have articles dedicated to them. Deleting this would be ridiculous. --Headcase 04:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe most people that want this article deleted hate Maddox. The opponents to these people probably love him. Whether you do hate or love him is irrelevant. No one can deny that Maddox is HUGE on the internet. So what better way than Wikipedia to give unbiased information (unlike his site) on his site? By the way, in my opinion, the article is somewhat POV material as of now. Reading stuff like he's macho is bullshit. Either write that he's considered macho by his fans, or delete that certain part. EliasAlucard|Talk 11:48, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously, it's not an ad, it's information about the blog. -Bestrest.
  • Keep. As much as I loathe Maddox, due to the massive number of dullards that take his word as dogma, I'm not going to blindly deny the fact that he isn't notable. It's called the Internet, guys. Apostrophe 18:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The site is culturally relevant. -Gumbo T 04:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The site is becoming very, very influential. Clearly (look how many people have voted) it is something worth knowing about. --Klestrob44 01:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. I'm suprised this is even an issue. There are loads of articles about popular websites or internet personalities, and this is one of them. Theres lots to write about it. --jeffthejiff 17:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - Previous issues such as the Lou images and the like have been rectified, and I Think it flows quite well. Wasn't this discussed before and voted for keeping? Hbdragon88 23:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nothing should ever be deleted i suppose. (Note by SpectrumDT: What is this? Is it supposed to be a vote, or just a surly comment? Ought this line not to be deleted? SpectrumDT 21:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep I've yet to see one good reason for deletion.
  • Keep Maddox' website is very popular. And it is fully justified to have articles about websites. I agree with the above guy, I have yet to see a good reason to delete. SpectrumDT 21:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The phenomenal popularity of the website is more than enough to merit an entry in this encyclopedia. Zab 12:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ppular site. The article could always be changed but I really don't thin it should be deleted. There are many articles nuch more delete-worthy than htis one. Just the fact thatt this whole discussion (and talk page) is so long is proof that quite a lot of people care about the site, so it should have an article.--Shadow demon 08:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why would a site with more than 100,000 visits a day, be deleted? It's just an asskicking page worth mentioning. Gothrix 18:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is NOT blog,nor does it have ADs.Big font,black background,eye-friendly,and words like hammers of divine wrath upon popular culture,high ranking capitalists,famous persons I deeply hate but are counted as "famous and worthy" people.

It is simply the best page in the universe.--CAN T 20:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I fail to see how this page is notable. The site is a rant page, and there's nothing notable about rant pages. As for view count, Alexa ranks it at 26,346, which hardly seems notable (do all of the 26,000 pages above it also deserve an entry? How about the 75,000 below it?).Tom Barrister 21:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombarrister (talk • contribs)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Jinian 13:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

X1 Bus Route and M14 Bus Route[edit]

We have already have Q60 Bus Route and M4 Bus Route with individual entries on vfd. Here are two more. Ditto argument to delete these: Individual bus routes are not encyclopedic. Sjakkalle 06:33, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Concur, delete. Radiant_* 10:48, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Wikipedia is not a list of all of the stops of all of the busses in all of the world layed out in a very spacious and irritating way. 62.121.101.201 14:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I honestly thought these were the Cygnus X-1 and M14 bus routes. I'm disappointed. --Idont Havaname 22:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Merge into list of NYC Bus routes Klonimus 06:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Er, Klonimus, if you want it merged you should vote 'merge', not 'keep'. Radiant_* 11:19, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. (listing was a joke) – ABCD 00:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April Fool's Day[edit]

Wikinews has related news:

unencyclopedic. wikipedia is not a joke book.  ALKIVAR™ 06:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Certainly no reason to delete this page- it's useful to others to see.
  • Jokes on you: This vfd page is itself an April Fool's Day joke. (What a bunch of morons ... ;-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:29, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • User only has 21354 edits. Probably a sockpuppet. — Asbestos | Talk 20:58, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • peek. tpek eb ylniatrec dluohs elcitra siht!
  • Kepp Whats wong with April fools day? Lighten up
  • Keep I see nothing wrong with this article. --WalkinDownThirtyThree 10:44, 2005 Apr 1
  • Keep. This is useful and informative. --positron 14:31, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it's just like a festival or traditional event --Microtony 13:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I found it witty and informative. --Tromatic 12:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but fix up. This article needs a lot of fixing. --huwr 11:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. April Fool's Day in an "event" all over the world. I can't see why it should be deleted. Encyclopedia Britanica has it as does encarta. EAi 09:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Put April Fool's day to death! - 203.35.154.254 06:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Alkivar is absolutely right. AngryParsley 06:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just for the day, please? Ghost Freeman 06:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic. Ejrrjs | What? 06:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE. Patent nonsense. -- BRIAN0918  06:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP If I were you, I would vote to keep it. I27.O.O.l 06:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Who cares? :) Domas Mituzas 06:50, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Keep. Most Wikipedians have a sense of humor. Phobophile 06:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although I suspect that this vote is a joke too, or is it just because Brian0918 reverted your changes on the toilet paper article? Dalziel 6:52, 1 Apr 2005
  • Keep. I think it contains some worthwhile information about the history of the day and what it means. (Yes, perhaps this VfD is a joke!) SimonEast 06:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you'd be guessing right, kind sir! Delete because April 1 just doesn't sound like a cute enough day. Mike H 07:08, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's hard to tell whether this is a joke or not, but it should be kept. RickK 06:58, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • User's first edit.
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. --Slowking Man 07:27, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • User's only edits are to this VfD.
  • Keep. Nothing wrong with a little humor, otherwise it is a rather informative article.
  • Keep. Beware the Ides of March Calends of April. Raven42 07:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, highly informative. Alphax τεχ 08:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia isn't paper. Article has historical significance. Mgm|(talk) 08:12, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • User's only edits are to the article and this VfD.
      • comments to be ignored; user did not sign the comment; shoot the sockpuppets!
        • OOps, forgot to sign myself ~~
  • Strong DELETE Everyone knows, but doesn't admit, that this article is full of crap. O
  • Delete as inherently POV. What business does Wikipedia have dictating what day we may celebrate this holiday? Beerath Q. Drynkor
  • Keep: I can't actually how you would even think this is a suitable candidate for deletion. Its a rather significant event in our culture, for crying out loud. I suppose we should cease all discourse in wikipedia about Shakespeare's sex JOKES in Romeo and Juliet too? -- Natalinasmpf 08:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please see April Fool's Day and... oh, never mind. O
Did you even READ this page before you voted? Mike H 08:36, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I did read the article. Other than being slightly POV, it should be improved, not deleted. -- Natalinasmpf 08:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Note: This user only has about 200 edits. Probably sockpuppet. — Asbestos | Talk 15:58, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN the entry, keep the article. Sjakkalle 08:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of course this vote is Alkivar's idea of an April Fool's prank.
  • KeepThe article could use improvement, but the history section is informative. Since when is some humor that's just part of an article against the rules? -Jobarts | Talk 08:52, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Delete EVERYTHING! ALL of wikipedia is unencyclopedic!!! -- Tarquin 09:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) ;)
  • KEEP. ***The deletion suggestion is itself an April Fool.*** It was started this morning, and is a pointless and annoying waste of time. How about improving the article instead? Rd232 09:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. There is nothing wrong with it at all. It is an informative article. Plus, I didn't find it funny at all.
  • Keep, update yearly as necessary, and redirect this vfd vote to the article Lectonar 09:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is free encyclopedia. As such, it contains much more crap that'd be suitable to delete by your harsh criteria. Why 1st of April? --Belgrader 09:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I've never heard of this day, and April is a non-notable month. Radiant_* 09:39, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • User's only edits are to own user page and this VfD.
  • You've got to be kidding. Keep, duh. Wonderful April Fools Day. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:48, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Why, yes, I am! How observant of you. Let's see, what day is it again? :) Radiant_* 10:49, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with anybody who said KEEP. Jimmy The Sock Puppet King 09:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep What if aliens should happen upon wikipedia in a remote radio transmission from a stray wifi signal and use it to research our culture. They must know the significance this day has to us. oo64eva (AJ) 09:51, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not only is this utter nonsense, but terribly POV. This falls WAY below encyclopedic standards. At this rate we'll have to be making articles for every arbitrary day of the year. Isn't it time we cleaned up Wikipedia anyway? Arkyan 09:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) =)
We do have articles for every arbitrary day of the year. Look at January 1, January 2, January 3, and the list goes on and on all the way to December 31. Sjakkalle 10:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We do??? Why haven't they been deleted yet?? — Asbestos | Talk 15:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Dreep - Skysmith 09:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP, Encyclopedic. Also - Haha, you got me.
  • KEEP, why not? It's information people might want!
  • KEEP, it's interesting and i found it a laugh, espically after a days work
  • Delete. Non-notable, spam, probably copyvio as well. Also, most of the keep voters appear to be sockpuppets. Heck, the three above mine aren't even signed. ~~~~
  • Keep, lighten up. popefauvexxiii 11:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) p.s. haha. more joke. oh, the humanities.
  • KEEP, its part of the social activities of people as conducted year by year on the 1st of April across the world, hence there ought to be an article about it. Robin klein 11:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP - Frankly: BOOM SCHA GA BOOM SCHA GA BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM -- Kizor 11:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep April's fool day is a large topic, and are expected to reach featured article standard, if it really fall below stub standard, as commented by some, then we should not be deleting it, but adding a tag of Article improvement drive, wikify request, or whatever.--Lemontea 11:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keelete. --Andylkl (talk) 12:13, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is an actual event (at least in the U.S.) It does need some cleaning up though. Whatcanbrowndo 12:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Google only returns 517,000 results for this phrase.[6] Besides, it's STRONGly POV and non-encyclopedic. We all know there's no such thing as spaghetti trees! --Fermatprime 12:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • But we all know that there are no Ents either, don't we? (Spaghetti Ents?)
  • Keep - Oh, I get it! It was an April Fool's joke. (Pity you are not a pretty girl.) GoodStuff 12:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. April Fools' Day is US-centric. Outside the US, we only have 11 months in the year - no April. zoney ♣ talk 13:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Clean up.
  • Kelete and deep. --Angr/(comhrá) 14:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I liked this Brookie 14:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It does what is says on the tin
  • Keep r3m0t talk 14:55, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --BrenDJ 15:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy BJAODN. - Mailer Diablo 15:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP Is THIS an April Fools' joke? Why WOULDN'T you keep this page? April Fools' is just as valid as, say, Arbor Day. -- -A.M., Florida
  • DELETE. Strongly POV. Shameless self-promotion vanity page. -- Jwinters | Talk 15:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This is my only April Fools joke on Wikipedia. -- Jwinters | Talk 15:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's an important part of at least American culture.
  • Delete - Clearly invented, POV, dictionary def, unencyclopedic, and original research. – ClockworkSoul 15:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Topic is inherently Gregorian-centric POV. Down with Papish oppression! Bring back the Mayan calendar! FreplySpang (talk) 15:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Burn -- Print it off and burn it. It's the only way to be sure.
  • Strong Delete. If we start having articles like this at Wikipedia, what's to stop me from creating articles about other unknown days like January 1st or October 31st?? — Asbestos | Talk 15:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't get the joke. — Asbestos | Talk 15:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User voted twice. — Asbestos | Talk 15:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the first half of the article with March 31, and the second half with April 2. Initiate immediate massive calendar reform. Antandrus 16:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep/Merge - I was fooled by Wikipedia's Joke, but I'm a good sport...unlike some people. - Louisisthebest_007 16:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, but investigate the possibility of a merge with Festivus - Grstain 16:17, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. jokes are part of human history --priyadi 16:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • APRIL FOOLS! hahahahahahaha! -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 16:24, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity; promo. If April 1st didn't write this article himself it was clearly written by a close relative, likely April 2nd or April 4th. -R. fiend 16:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Execution Breaking wheel, firing squad and death by a thousand cuts, Thuresson 17:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Supernova. StuartH 17:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this, and delete all of the other days. Then we'll have an answer for the people who say Wikipedia isn't reliable - it isn't supposed to be, they just didn't get the joke. --Michael Snow 17:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Then undelete, rename to All Fools' Day, merge with Prank, then list on VfD again. Have that vote fail, but a rogue administrator delete it anyway. Then fork Wikipedia into two versions, with and without the page. Then delete all of wikipedia and start the whole thing over from scratch. PenguiN42 17:39, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Dekeep Rls 17:40, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Merge with Google Gulp —Wahoofive | Talk 17:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Of course it's being vandalized right now by some extremely clever and inventive pranksters, so it looks like the whole thing is a joke, but once April 1 passes and the vandalism is cleaned up, you will see that this is an informative page. --dreish~talk 18:18, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Concur with PenguiN42. Then refer Eno Lirpasti to Requests for Arbitration. Barno 18:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Although they are jokes, they are factual events and part of history now.
  • Delete. Term gets 428,000 Google hits, but it turns out that every single one refers to Wikipedia, or a Wikipedia mirror site. -- 8^D gab 22:46, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Excommunication Although the Pope is beyond Hope, I believe his last papal order should be to excommunicate April Fool's Day. KirbyMeister 23:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I would excommunicate him if I wasnt on a respirator. The Pope
      • Excuse me, Your Holiness, but that should be "if I weren't on a respirator." In English we use the subjunctive mood for a counterfactual conditional. Oh, and get well soon. JamesMLane 01:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh don't be such a chauvinist. Only Americans still use the subjunctive. The Brits gave it up a long time ago, along with their coda r's. --Angr/(comhrá) 08:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete.

Above sockpuppet vote by Lucky 6.9.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Jinian 13:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Theory sustentation matter[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable crackpot theory. Unsure if should go under Category:Pseudoscience or be deleted. - RoyBoy 800 06:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nonsense kook theory. Not funny, so no BJAODN. jni 08:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it. Phobophile 10:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to Theory of the sustentation of matter. Notable "crackpot" theory. Not original research. Lots of Google hits. Stub needs expansion to include critical views, but is not POV. BTW Category:Pseudoscience itself should be eliminated as it is inherently POV. "Pseudoscience" is a needlessly derogatory label. --Smithfarm
  • To be deleted as nonsense. Calling it pseudoscience would be flattery. Gazpacho 02:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. Done. Jinian 14:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mars revolver[edit]

With all of the nonsense going on on Wikipedia tonight, it's hard to tell if this is a joke or intended as a real article, or if the poster is trying to take advantage of the anarchy to try to get this through. But a Google search shows nothing meaningful. Looks like an attempt at Googlebombing or something. RickK 07:43, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I think that's nonsense. Phobophile 10:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Evidently a real pistol. There's a photo at [7]. Real name appears to be Mars Automatic Pistol, manufactured by Webley & Scott (see [8]). -DialUp 18:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If this survives vfd, it should probably be renamed Mars Automatic Pistol—from the photos at [9], it has a removable magazine and is not a revolver. Maybe a gun expert will happen by with additional info. DialUp 19:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — factual. — RJH 17:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Mars Automatic Pistol. —RaD Man (talk) 00:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to the correct name and delete the resulting (and incorrect) redirect. Rossami (talk) 04:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eternal question[edit]

No evidence of notability. Their website doesn't even work. Basically, anyone can set up a website to promulgate their own religious views and call it a church. But without a significant number of followers, or some other factor (e.g. controversy) rendering it notable, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --SamuelKatinsky 08:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable, an advertisement article. -Hapsiainen 08:53, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just a plain old ad article. Mo0[talk] 09:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 13:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Epicsff[edit]

  • Miscapitalized advert article on website with 12 registered users in its forums. I couldn't find any history of the site before 2005, but it states copyright 2004-2005, so may be a little older. Delete as ad. Mgm|(talk) 09:03, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing more than an ad. Mo0[talk] 09:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Yes, she is notable. – ABCD 00:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Angela Beesley[edit]

  • Unfactual article about a non-notable person. Is this meant to be an April Fool's Day joke? Angela. 09:06, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • With all the work you do for the Wikimedia foundation, I'd certainly consider you notable, but I won't have any problems with it being deleted either. Mgm|(talk) 09:10, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Highly notable, wonderful person, most deserving of her own article.--Eloquence* 09:20, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, fancruft, inaccurate, poorly written, and most likely a very, very bad joke. Mo0[talk] 09:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to PokemonWiki. Every day is April Fool's Day on VfD. Barno 15:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hey, was that really Angela's cleavage in the Britannica takeover article? (Not in the "Queen Elizabeth II" picture.) I might donate for a good cause like that. Barno 16:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Userf... ah. Well if you are redlinked from Wikimedia what did you expect to happen eventually? Dangling redlinks in lists of names are perennial sources of biographies. Vote witheld until the chaos and silliness settles down. Uncle G 17:37, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
    • Comment: Have you ever seen the chaos and silliness settle down? Barno 18:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Much is it pains me to say that Angela is a "non-notable person" I agree with her that the article doesn't belong. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - and improve; she's on the Wikiboard and that's impressive Brookie 19:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The fact that we can't make up our minds whether we're serious or not isn't a good sign. Slac speak up! 05:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Angela, I can think of few people more deserving of an article than you. You've helped me along in this Wikiness more than I probably deserve and you have my undying gratitude. Personally, I'd like to vote keep. If you really want it gone, I understand. - Lucky 6.9 08:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite for factual accuracy. As a member of the Wikimedia executive, and as an internet entrepreneur who has been interviewed by major international newspapers (CNN, etc), I think calling you "non-notable" is an understatement at best. Besides, few have done more to make this encyclopedia what it is than you. No joke - I was thinking of writing an article about you myself, but was postponing it for your birthday:-) Please don't nuke this one! David Cannon 14:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. --BM 01:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; I'm inclined to honor Angela's request. If she changes her mind I'll change my vote. Antandrus 01:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep highly notable. Johann B Kerner 18:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite for factual accuracy. I echo David Cannon. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. silsor 01:25, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 01:25, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if Angela wants it gone. — Dan | Talk 01:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not fair to keep it if she doesn't want it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:30, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • So you're saying that if, say, Bill Gates got on here one day and made it known that he didn't want an article in Wikipedia, that you would vote to delete it? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. —Markaci 2005-04-4 T 01:46 Z
  • Comment. "If she changes her mind I'll change my vote", "if Angela wants it gone", "not fair to keep it if she doesn't want it". Not fair to Wikipedia to use that kind of argument. Article has steadily moved towards meeting our standards, incidentally. An argument on notability could be made, but I don't vote on those. I certainly wouldn't do anything solely on what Angela wanted, though; I hope you all mean "if Angela doesn't want it throw it away, because it's not notable enough to begin with", not "we delete personal articles of Foundation members if they want us to". That would be pretty bad. JRM 02:10, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • Keep Angela rocks :-) Samboy 03:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Marginal Keep - this is a real person with verifiable data. We are also now the largest encyclopedia in the world, not to mention all the other wikimedia projects. So being on the board of this is notable, but not hugely so. Burgundavia 04:07, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whether Angela rocks, is nice, etc. is irrelevant. I rock. Did I write an article about myself? No. And no one else should. Feel free to tell me I rock, however. - Vague | Rant 04:08, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Angela wants it gone, and much as I like Angela, I'm not really sure she's encyclopedic anyhow. →Raul654 04:36, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, quite a useful article explaining some background on someone who is quite important in the Wikimedia universe. Dan100 10:40, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful article. agree with the rest of the keepers. --Dittaeva 12:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable wikipedians should be included. (and should refrain from editing their own articles :) Trödel|talk 20:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sufficiently encyclopedic. JYolkowski 21:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sorry Angela. Meets normal notability criteria for wikipedia (ie. several papers have written about her). There's no specific rule or precedent that says anything about being notable for wikipedia activity not counting, unfortunately for Angela. Kim Bruning 22:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) (ps: insert :-) ;-) and :-P, where applicable)
  • Abstain, however, as long as I'm here, I'll just hijack the conversation by noting the Page History, I noted that she's asked the picture be removed. Do we, uh, allow the subjects of an article to specify stuff like that? More at Talk:Angela Beesley -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 23:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: article is suitable only as an object lesson revealing how essential it is to reveal nothing about yourself on Wikipedia, and as a means of discouraging the sharing of such information. Do we have a model release for the photograph, by the way? . - Nunh-huh 02:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    All images have associated description pages. This one clearly places it in the GFDL, and moreover, it was uploaded by Angela herself (she didn't object to an image per se, only to the one that was there, which was indeed not very suitable). I'd say all our bases are covered. JRM 02:42, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
That covers us for copyright. It's not at all the same as a model release. - Nunh-huh 02:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Vacilating Is Angela really that much less notable than say, Our Glorious (Co-)Founder? How wary do we need to be about a "Wikipedia on Wikipedia" bias? I'd noticed the Wikimedia redlink myself, and it didn't seem unreasonable on its face. Alai 04:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. More notable than the average blogger. jni 05:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Everyking 22:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This has many signs of a prank. The article was originally created by a probable sockpuppet from the same IP as a known vandal. The subject is self-referential to Wikipedia. It was created on April Fool's Day. The article has since been cleaned up but we would not keep a random business person of the same stature from some other corporation. Angela has taught me a lot and been a wonderful influence. One of the things she taught me is that we have standards for a reason. Delete. Rossami (talk) 04:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As written, the article is not encyclopedic, and despite Angela's many contributions to Wikipedia she thus far does not have the sort of public presence that would justify even a comprehensive and well-written article. Being a board member of a foundation with assets in the hundreds of thousands of dollars does not in and of itself rise to the level of public presence that would justify an article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • (Comment): Angela HAS a public presence, having been interviewed at length by CNN, as well as having promoted Wikipedia on the BBC. David Cannon 22:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep/Comment I think this VFD brings up a larger question about wikipedia then just this article. Personally, I definatly (i can, for the life of me, not figure out how that word is spelled) think that Angela is notable enough (if CowboyNeal gets his own page, why not Angela). But how much should the fact that Angela herself wants it deleted account for? Ie. how much respect for an article subjects wishes should wikipedia have? Is there some policy on this? Anyway, i vote Keep! Gkhan 17:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • (Comments): [1] I think we need to establish consistent rules here. Have a look at the Category:Wikipedians with article "Wikipedians with article" category (linked at the bottom of this page) and think for yourselves how many of the names WE, let alone the public, would recognize. There's an article (self-promotional, in my opinion) on Sonja Elen Kisa. Who's she? If she's here, why not Angela? At least Angela has a public presence outside of Wikipedia (i.e., on CNN and the BBC). [2] I really like Angela as a person, and in normal circumstances would comply with her wishes. To do so this time, however, would create a precedent which would not, in my view, be helpful. If Angela can ask for her bio to be nuked, why not Queen Elizabeth, George W. Bush, or Osama bin Laden? (I'm not saying these individuals would make any such request, I'm just making a point). The credibility of Wikipedia would be seriously undermined if we had people asking for their biographies, or for information they do not want published, to be deleted. If we're going to take a stand against articles being deleted at the whim of their subject, let's not make any exception, not even for someone who considers herself "non-notable." (Please don't take this personally, Angela. This is only a matter of principle). David Cannon 22:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 20:02, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Nur Amalina Che Bakri[edit]

Hopelessly little content, non-encyclopedic and probably vanity. All this article tells of Nur Amalina Che Bakri is that he, or she, scored 17A1's, whatever that means, in the SPM exams, whatever those are. (The link goes to a disambig page). — JIP | Talk 08:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Say no for deletion please, because this is an important content. User:ARGOU 10:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • What makes it important? RickK 00:38, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for complete lack of context. Possible vanity. Also, having a certain score in an exam doesn't merit a wikipedia entry. Mgm|(talk) 10:45, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not vanity, but it's the highest score in the country I believe. She's on the local newspapers and news for these past few days but I'm sure that it'll fade eventually. Weak delete for topic being unencyclopedic. --Andylkl 19:40, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Now if you could only tell me which country it is? — JIP | Talk 08:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah... It's over here in Malaysia. --Andylkl 14:25, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm changing my vote to delete because it is vanity and not encyclopedic. --Andylkl 09:07, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
          • I agree, the expanded version is clearly vanity. It reads like Nur Amalina Che Bakri's entry out of a "my school friends" book. Wikipedia doesn't list what HRH Queen Elizabeth II's favourite music groups are, or whether she likes to chill out with her homies. So why should that info about a less notable person be encyclopedic? — JIP | Talk 08:28, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nice test scores are not inherently encyclopedic Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:33, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 23:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedily for little or no content, lack of context, else vanity. Wyss 03:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. RickK 00:38, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete, I know she's my very good friend and I have met her before. We also studied in the same school. 218.208.199.79User talk:218.208.199.79 08:08, 17 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but she doesn't deserve an article on Wikipedia just because of her SPM marks, highest ever or not. --Andylkl 09:09, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Nur Amalina Che Bakri, again[edit]

The article has been rewritten after deletion, with identical content. I vote delete. — JIP | Talk 09:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • If the content is identical, it is an obvious candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 09:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, and give a warning to the author. Phobophile 10:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I've already tagged it for speedy deletion and left a message on the author's talk page. — JIP | Talk 10:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Secret Commonwealth of Elves Fauns and Faeries[edit]

Patent nonsense, a BJAODN candidate. There is a 17th century book of the same name, but this article is obviously not about it. On cleanup/attention since 28th March, was speedily deleted once. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • BJAODN. Megan1967 13:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - reposted speedy deletes ought not be rewarded with preservation in BJAODN. -- 8^D gab 02:36, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, no BJAODN. Slac speak up! 05:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 04:14, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Fruitafossor[edit]

Could be CNN's April Fool's day joke. Author has a history of hoax contributions. jni 11:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Excuse me. I do not write hoaxes. I really wonder where you got that idea. If that's a CNN April fool's joke, why don't we wait until it's verified? In the meantime, I'd like to correct the impression that "I" contribute hoaxes. JakeGHz 15:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.Comment. The CNN article, along with articles from several other news agencies, all reference either a Science article or the Carnegie Museum of Natural History as the original source. On the museum's web page there is a press release with more information.[10] While this may be real, based on the press release this discovery smells a little funny. Confirmation that this was not a hoax provided by FreplySpang and Aranae. On a day like this, everyone's hoax detectors are set on high. --Allen3 talk 15:31, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • For your information, I am a subscriber of edition.cnn.com, or in layman's terms, CNN International. And of usgs.gov. I check my email every day. Why shouldn't I see it? --JakeGHz 15:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • May I request that we put this dispute on hold until the Pope is well again. --JakeGHz 19:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • This pope or the next one? -R. fiend 21:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Absolutely. I was about to make this page only to find out it existed. This is not a joke. It was published in Science and the online version came out yesterday. There's nothing April Fool's about it and is a very valid article. I'm going to add to the edits and sincerely request that no one delete this page and the efforts of JakeGHz and myself pointlessly. I have no idea why anyone would have thought it a joke in the first place. What smells funny about and early mammal the convergently evolved characteristics that have evolved in numbats, xenarthrans, spiny anteaters, and aardvarks? I would hope a joke would be more entertaining. --Aranae 20:45, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong KEEP. Aranae beat me to the explanation. Online version of Science is not particularly available to the public, but at least see here: [11] Perhaps the alliterative names in the article ("fruitafossor", "Wally Windscheffel") tripped people's hoaxometers? FreplySpang (talk) 20:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Thanks very much for the support and edit; these guys wouldn't believe the article for some reason. NOW, can we leave this thing alone and pray for the Pope's recovery, or easy transition into the afterlife (provided you believe in the afterlife, but even if you don't just do it, 'cos I do. If you find something wrong with that, sorry can't help it, don't raise another argument)? Someone's got to remove the delete tag, btw. JakeGHz 23:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Was real animal: please see National Geographic news article for further confirmation. [12]

Well done JakeGHz and Aranae for your work on the animal. Capitalistroadster 01:36, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Okay, I believe Aranae that this is a genuine discovery. Yesterday Google found zero hits for either "Fruitafossor" or "Windscheffel", now the story is in dozens of news sites. If it is a hoax, it is very elaborate one like Piltdown Man, not one specifically crafted for Wikipedia. Consider this nomination withdrawn. jni 11:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • About identity of JakeGHz, see WP:VIP#84.154..2A..2A.2FJakeGHz and WP:AN/I#The Fort Bleakeley vandal, isn't it convenient that this expert of hoaxes decides to register an account and help us at the very day we find several fake articles all originating from a same IP range or by various Jake* accounts? jni 11:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but I think that's a mistake. I just registered a few days ago, and this is one of my first articles. Another thing is that I can spot hoaxes but I can't create them. I'm a very concrete person, see. I think someone better clear this matter up. I testify that this is my one and only account in Wikipedia. I really wonder how you get these ideas. Have you ever heard of a thing called coincidence? Personally, I think it's all nonsense, but repeated occasions have led me to believe that it's possible. I would have thought that you would be a bit nicer to newcomers, after all, I was only doing my business. And now, you have the gall to include me in this vandalism business. Shame on you. Someone better clear this up. Oh, and don't forget about the Pope. --JakeGHz 11:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I just want to ask if you're always like this to newcomers. I mean, a newbie writes something, the oldies pounce on him and try to delete his article, and in the end, when it's verified, the very same person who accused him doesn't give him credit, and even ties him up to an master hoax creator of some sort, thus damaging his reputation further. Because if you are like this, then Wikipedia is a whole lot of ****. If you aren't, I expect a withdrawal of your accusation and an apology. JakeGHz 13:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — RJH 17:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't believe you ignored my statement. That's it. I'm leaving. I think Wikipedia is one whole load of ******** and that you're all arrogant, ignorant, pea-brained, paranoid idiots! I hope your encyclopedia gets destroyed by numerous vandals and expert hoax masters and whatnot! I've had enough! JakeGHz 14:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're despicable! JakeGHz 15:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nice Daffy Duck impersonation. RickK 23:03, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • This seems to be real, so Keep, even though the original article creator is acting in a petulant and thin-skinned manner. *Dan* 20:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The artist's conception on this page is presented without attribution and is from [13], a copyrighted source. hydnjo talk 19:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 22:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Netli[edit]

Non-notable company; little scope for future article expansion. Delete. -- FP 12:54, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Start-up appears to have attracted some media attention. Article is a stub but could be expanded. --Smithfarm
  • Delete - not notable Brookie 19:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, firm should come back when it's established. Radiant_* 11:34, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Company name and homesite link added to List_of_United_States_companies#N for preservation of information about its existence. Courtland 06:21, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Tyng Mather High School[edit]

BEEFSTEW score of 0.5 (d) (The athletic conference is mentioed, but it is no more notable than the school district which doesn't count). This makes no effort what so ever at notability. Thryduulf 13:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. School vanity. Bare bones directory listing: WP is not a directory. Jonathunder 15:31, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing" (Jimmy Wales). Kappa 16:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That was a reference to the Britannica's slogan, and the Britannica clearly was using AHD's fourth meaning, "Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge." Knowledge is not the same as information, and information is not the same as data. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Well that's funny, because my Concise Oxford Dictionary defines knowledge as 1. awareness or familiarity gained by experience, 2. a person's range of information, 2a. a theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, 2b the sum of what is known, and 3. certain understanding as opposed to opinion - while information is defuined as 1a. something told; knowledge, 1b. items of knowledge - so it seems that the personal distinction you make between "knowledge" and information" doesn't really accord with extablished definitions.--Centauri 23:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • If we are debating Jimbo's founding principles we should take note of what he has specifically said about this issue. He once wrote: Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website. Then I think people should relax and accomodate me. It isn't hurting anything [14]. See also [15] - SimonP 04:06, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • Please don't quote Jimbo out of context. He can speak for himself, and if he doesn't you shouldn't presume to speak for him on this (or any) issue. Radiant_* 11:35, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
          • Interjecting Whoa, wait one minute there. Quotation is a source of information for Wikipedia itself. Don't shoot someone for a quote when we use them (paraphrased even) as support for facts. You basically just tossed out the "assume good faith" policy lock, stock, and both barrels. Courtland 06:56, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
          • Hmm maybe it would be better to leave a little message on his talk page every time a school comes up for Vfd, then we could get his opinion first-hand... Kappa 12:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Thank you for pointing this out. Now that we are all aware that our fearless leader's opinion on the subject is in alignment with the "verifiabilty" rather than "notability" position, there should be no further need to endlessly revisit the issue on VFD.--Centauri 05:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • The quote also seems to imply a position on quality. I don't vote to delete "decent 2 page articles." This currently isn't a "decent 2 page article." If I were convinced that school stubs were consistently being expanded into decent 2 page articles within a reasonable time period, I wouldn't have any quarrel with them. Others' mileage may vary. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • He couldn't have been clearer. He said that we should relax about the whole thing. Wikipedia sure could do with 500 Jimbos.
              • whut? never delete an article on grounds of poor quality. Why, half of WP would be listed here. That's the whole idea, it will 'self-repair' over time. dab (ᛏ) 18:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • They do not "self repair." People repair them. Or not, if there is not a sufficient pool of people knowledgeable in the topic and interested in putting in serious work on it. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                  • If only one person in the universe possesses knowledge about an article subject, that's all the more reason to retain a rudimentary article until they come to Wikipedia to contribute their knowledge. --Centauri 04:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another useless, non-encyclopedic stub. There is a difference between knowledge and trivia. Gamaliel 16:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete according to Wikipedia's notability policies. Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I listed it on GRider's User_talk:GRider/Schoolwatch page and it's been improved since being listed there; whether that's coincidence I don't know. I don't know enough about urban schools to know whether the paragraph added by User:Kappa, about having teachers fluent in Chinese, Arabic, Assyrian, Russian, Serbo-Croat, Spanish, Gujarati, and Urdu, makes it unusual or not. Seems sorta interesting, though. No vote yet. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting...I might vote to keep if this is brought up to convention. Abstain for now. - Lucky 6.9 22:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • comment we're not voting on articles' quality, but on their potential to ever be 'up to convention' (if that's what you mean by convention). dab (ᛏ) 18:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yup. Sorry I wasn't clear on that (blush). After some thought, I feel this is worth keeping, so Keep. - Lucky 6.9 21:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kappa's comment sums it up to a T.--Centauri 23:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The information on the high proportion of ESL students and the language skills of the staff make it notable for mine. Capitalistroadster 01:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as with other high schools. - SimonP 03:32, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as with other high schools. --Angr/(comhrá) 08:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Schools are inherently notable and encyclopedic. Klonimus 18:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a Real Place. Ejrrjs | What? 00:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --JuntungWu 10:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep as with others. Yuckfoo 02:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Decent article, has potential to become encyclopedic. --Andylkl (talk) 08:24, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established. Radiant_* 11:34, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Vote to keep, as with other schools.--Irishpunktom\talk 15:01, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • weak keep. An American school where less than half the student body speaks English as a first language is unusual. --Carnildo 18:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Dr Zen/keepschools —RaD Man (talk) 00:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --BaronLarf 02:46, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. — Instantnood 07:02, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, no proper reason given for deletion. --Zero 14:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not all schools are automatically notable. "More than half the school's students speak English as a second language" is a bit unusual but certainly not unique for an urban school in a big city. No evidence presented that this is more than an average school. Based on their test scores (page 4 of the pdf link), they're below average. And I'll go back to the argument about numbers for why we can't defend articles on every little school article from vandalism. We must make choices. I do not believe this makes the cut. Rossami (talk) 04:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. After five days on VFD, the only cleanup this article will ever receive, this still only scores a 3 on BEEFSTEW (ABJ, and B and J are generous). Keeping it would be a farce. —Korath (Talk) 05:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm beginning to think a) many people have too high of expectations for fast enhancement of articles and b) many people believe a place is not important unless someone important is associated with it, and that because almost noone (%-wise) is important enough to be encyclopedic almost no places (%-wise) are important enough for inclusion. I've seen enough vicious elitist sniping to turn my stomach in the past few hours on here and this just happens to be the crust that broke my tooth and made me say 'enough already!'. It's sooo much easier to tear down than to construct, and many of you (yes, getting personal here) are so darned self-satisfied about how much "junk" you've cut out that you fail to think critically any more; it's just delete this - it's cruft, toss that - it's silly, can that - it's pointless. Makes me sick after a while. Courtland 07:08, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
I agree with you 100%. Some time ago, I was irked so much by some of the comments I received when I tried to help clean up articles on schools in VfD that I do not want to ever touch them again unless it's really needed. --Andylkl (talk) 13:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Please re-read the perfect stub. Stubs are supposed to be short-term. People who just want an article and don't plan to do much serious work on it should make it a requested article, not drop in a stub. the perfect stub makes the following points:
  • the value of a stub is primarily in what it will become.
  • "Don't assume that additions and improvements will immediately pour in of themselves" (some school inclusionists do seem to assume this);
  • The time frame cited is "a few weeks," as in "If nobody contributes to your stub for a few weeks, roll up your sleeves and expand it yourself."
People who just drop in a stub and never come back to do more work on it are being irresponsible. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's ironic that you should endeavor to educate me on the role of stubs and their "life cycle"; I've been part of the stub-sorting Project and the ref and fact checking Project for a while now. As usual, there are disagreements on the role of stubs ... and the role of articles in general, in fact. Courtland 17:21, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
The improvements might not just roll in like a tidal wave, but some of us school-inclusionists do more than just vote; I can see that, on this page, Kappa, Yuckfoo, GRider and myself have progressively been improving it. The page was created less than a week ago; I have confidence that it will be de-stubified rather soon. There are plenty of stubs out there which have languished for years. --BaronLarf 17:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
That's a Good Thing. Thanks. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; others have stated good reasons with which I agree. Samaritan 14:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Schools have a value by being here. Gorrister 17:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article has been de-stubified, though it could still use expansion.--BaronLarf 18:15, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not paper. As long as Rare Candy exists, this should exist. :) brian0918™ 02:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The VfD and Deletion Consensus decisions on Rare Candy were to merge it with other Pokemon items. I trust you'll be changing your vote accordingly? --Carnildo 02:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Noisy | Talk 10:40, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guthrie's Law[edit]

Somewhere between a joke and original research. There is a real concept called "Guthrie's Law", it's got something to do with the psychology of learning and memory, but it has nothing to do with this. DS 14:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – ABCD 00:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uniform Parental Rights Enforcement and Protection Act[edit]

  • A proposed bill. Not even worth Wikisource. DJ Clayworth 15:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This is part of a 35 year old Fathers' rights movement and is integral to the cause. Agwiii 17:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment:The text of the Constitution of the United States is integral to American democracy, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth 17:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • To suggest the UPREPA should not be on Wikipedia is to missunderstand the impact of the document as an active instrument of reform. The Constitution is not the UPREPA and the analogy is spurious. UPREPA is important because it defines critical concepts as we try to end the war on children. The equal rights amendment is a reform movement of similar impact and the entire text of the ERA is included on Wikipedia. While the UPREPA is longer than the ERA, the potential impact is similar. Both reforms belong here. Rex 18:19, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a repository of source material. Delete. Uncle G 18:45, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
    • This is no longer source material. Keep. Uncle G 15:55, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  • Delete. No Wikisource. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. At best, this deserves a mention (not a quote of the full text) in an article about the "father's rights movement." Anonymous comment.
  • Merge and Redirect to Father's rights. -- 8^D gab 22:36, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Retain.
  • Delete unless the article is rewritten to be about the proposed law instead of the text of it. Source texts do not belong on Wikipedia. RickK 20:26, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and Keep. Transwiki the current Article to Wikisource. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleaned Up with the text of the proposal removed to Wikisource. Rex Judicata 19:33, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlike the ERA, this proposed act is apparently not backed by any of the major political parties, nor is it backed by NCCUSL, the main neutral body behind most uniform laws. Anonymous, unsigned irrelevant comments.
  • Keep as rewritten (preferrably with a cross-wiki link to the source text). Rossami (talk) 04:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KeeP as rewritten with a crss-wiki link to the source document. Agwiii 20:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, --SqueakBox 00:30, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)


There is an allegation that User:Rex Judicata Special:Contributions/ User:Rex Judicata is a wikipedia:sockpuppet of User:Agwiii Special:Contributions/ User Agwiii at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Older username so be aware of this when counting the votes, --SqueakBox 18:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

More specifically see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:RexJudicata. it seems RexJudicata created Agwiii as a sockpuppet to influence the vote here, --SqueakBox 21:29, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Robert Fresh Market[edit]

An advertisement for a chain of grocery stores in the U.S.. Uncle G 15:47, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

  • Delete. Google returns 398 results [16], but I don't believe a 6-chain grocery store is notable. -- Jwinters | Talk 15:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 15:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert. Jayjg (talk) 19:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, advertisement. At most all it deserves is a line on the List of supermarkets page in the smaller chains section. --Coolcaesar 10:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zach clark[edit]

Possibly vanity. Google results indicate of a baseball player instead. - Mailer Diablo 16:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - where does this drivel come from? Brookie 19:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete But, God help me, I thought it was so naïve as to be cute. Inturnaround 20:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible vanity, not notable. Jonathunder 05:29, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable vanity. SteveW 23:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Runaway Jim[edit]

I can't see how this song deserves mention any more than any other song in the world. I hate Phish, and know very little about them, so if this song is particluarly noteworthy it would be nice if this little stub explained why. I don't see why this is more of an article than something like "Six Foot Rooms is a song by Culture Shock about the isolation of contemporary city life, comparing the small rooms of tower blocks to coffins." I have my own somewhat arbitrary and unofficial idea on inclusion of songs, and this one don't cut mustard. Delete. -R. fiend 16:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the band or somewhere. Kappa 09:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - please do runaway jim Brookie 17:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cari Wakeford[edit]

Aspiring child actor, not yet notable. DJ Clayworth 17:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete hopeless drivel Brookie 19:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kasauli Resort[edit]

Advertising. Someone tagged it as speedy earlier on, but I think it's better on VFD. - Mailer Diablo 17:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - not notable Brookie 19:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 03:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Victory is mine[edit]

Unencyclopedic. Was marked as a speedy previously. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, no potential to become encyclopedic. No need to transwiki to WikiQuote. Barno 18:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Brookie 19:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Victory is not yours. Nestea 00:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic, trivial. Megan1967 03:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agreed that it should be deleted, b/c its already on WikiQuote.
  • Delete, TVcruft Klonimus 18:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This quote is already featured on the Stewie page, and I don't think it's a sufficiently widely used catchphrase to merit a page of its own. NatusRoma 05:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete All the "Victory is mine" bases are belong to us anyway... :p Rama 13:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 15:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Neufeld[edit]

Non-notable, non-elected politician, vanity. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Previous afd's at vote 1, vote 2, vote 3

Bad faith nomination. User:Spinboy nominated this article twice before one ending in "no consensus", the other in "keep". Nothing has changed since then and he presents no new arguments that would change the outcome. Furthermore, there is a policy discussion on this subject at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates on this topic of electoral candidates, past and present, where a new argument for deleting this article could emerge. The centralized discussion is not intended to be in this afd. --maclean25 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      • A bad article is a bad article, regardless of precedent. Spinboy thinks it doesn't belong: do you have any reason to doubt his sincerity or are you just throwing mud? --Calton | Talk 07:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, it appears I got a little distracted by the legislative candidates part of it. However, I called it bad faith because it just appears that he has a vendetta against Grant Neufeld aka User:GrantNeufeld, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew McLauchlin aka User:Montrealais (although it is difficult to determine his stance). His only edits to the page have been to tag it but has done nothing to address the issue in the talk page. All the attempts to delete...just looks like he is out for blood. Wouldn't have been an issue if any of the other (how-many)thousands of other users would have put it up for deletion. Let me know if you think I'm "just throwing mud". --maclean25 08:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Uh huh. And your reasons for believing he has a "vendetta" is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, maybe the above comment was a little too confusing. So, in case you genuinely don't understand, and not just playing dumb, here is an outline of my rationale in a more simpler step-by-step format, all of which was taken directly from the links provided in the previous statement:
  1. User:Spinboy attempts three times to delete Grant Neufeld [17], [18], [19]
  2. unsuccessful, User:Spinboy tags the article as {{Unencyclopedic}}, {{OriginalResearch}}, {{POV check}} but does not participate in the talk page is discussion on the tags (only User:GrantNeufeld does)
  3. User:Spinboy leaves Wikipedia on Oct 27.
  4. User:Spinboy comes back stating "Oh, I'm not staying. I'm still extremely pissed off. I just saw something that cried out for an afd nomination, and I couldn't do that without logging on. I seriously dislike the hypocracy around here, one of many reasons I left." (refering to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew McLauchlin aka User:Montrealais)
  5. Several days after his return he posts this afd with the same rationale as the last vote "Non-notable, unencyclopedic, vainity. Delete. --Spinboy 23:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

He returned to put up an afd on User:Montrealais (and none of the other dozen-odd other Canadian legislative candidates). While back he couldn't resist kicking this article one more time. Do you understand how this is can be interpreted as malice? --maclean25 05:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, in case you genuinely don't understand, and not just playing dumb I've noticed that bad writers often try to shift the blame for the confusion, ambiguity, and mystery they cause by insulting their readers. But you wouldn't know about that, would you?
Do you understand how this is can be interpreted as malice? Sure -- if you start off assuming malice.
Quitting in disgust and coming back is proof of what? Well, that he got over it. If this is suspicious behaviour, I'll work up a (long) list for you of shady characters for you to watch, including User:Ta bu shi da yu
I like the reasoning, though: he's nominating this for deletion for a third fourth time because he has a vendetta. The proof he has a vendetta? The fact that he's nominating it for a third time. Why is he nominating it for a third fourth time? Because he has a vendetta. Rinse, lather, repeat.
And the fact that he nominated this and not others proves what, exactly? It's a slight variation of the bogus rationale offered by hundreds of voters in past AfDs: namely, the whine "if the Pokemon/one-horse town/trivial-in-my-opinion-subject article stays, so should mine": the appropriateness of this nomination has bugger all to do with other lack of nominations. If this (in your view) double standard upsets you, give me a list of other candidate articles, those running on the No-Hope Party ticket in the Riding of BFN that, gosh darn it, Spinboy should have nominated for deletion and I'll do the job myself: I've got some time to kill right and I can get right on it. Though be quick, I'm leaving in half-an-hour.
Maybe Spinboy has nominated this article for deletion because he thinks Neufeld doesn't rate an encyclopedia article? Yes, standards in an encyclopedia -- that's just crazy talk! As far as I'm concerned, if Mr. Neufeld wants free publicity for himself, he ought to check out MySpace or Geocities.
In case you genuinely don't understand what I wrote, let me know and I'll use smaller words. --Calton | Talk 07:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attacks, please. Ground Zero | t 16:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to drag this on, I think we both made our points, but I just want to clarify something. I just realized where you got the circular "Rinse, lather, repeat" argument from. The five points above are not five individual arguments, that is, point 1 is not by itself a complete argument. They are a chronological list of events that ended in this afd, that is to say, one argument leading to the conclusion. --maclean25 11:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I seriously resent that. I'm allowed just like everyone else to make afd nominations. If you're going to be a jerk, be it somepalce else. I left because of jerks like you, and I will be leaving again. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Just a point of clarification - this article wasn't posted as an "electoral candidate" article (although I have been one). The reasons given for 'notability' were my roles as president of the Green Party of Alberta, and founder of the Revolutionary Knitting Circle (laugh if you want, but we've got chapters on two continents and have had mainstream media coverage on three - I'm most proud of my interviews in Interweave Knits and Vogue Knitting :-). --GrantNeufeld 05:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Started by subject, edited by subject, not notable as he has not been elected. This is vanity and lacks the ability to have a NPOV with Mr. Neufeld's involvement in it. FullSmash26 05:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • He shouldn't be editing his own article. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's obvious that I disagree with that view. I think that folks with direct knowledge of a subject should be contributing to the articles here. I'd see a serious problem if they were the only ones working on the articles, but the presence of "many eyes" on Wikipedia balances off any POV issues that such contributors may create. I've contributed to a lot of articles on Wikipedia where I'm not "at arms length" (such as the Green Party of Alberta), and provided detailed references when questions have been raised (such as on the article being debated here). In any case, the previous two votes on this article have not found my auto-biographical contributions to be sufficient cause for deletion. As to the imposibility of auto-biographical NPOV, I encourage you to review the comments from Earl Andrew, Kevintoronto and gord on the article's talk page as counterpoints to that view. --GrantNeufeld 07:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's obvious that I disagree with that view. Whether you disagree with it is utterly immaterial, since this isn't your website, and your blatant self-interest/vanity/self-promotion/whichever doesn't trump long-standing policy. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't aware that a formal policy against any auto-biographical contributions had been established. I know there's a general discouragement against it - but I have not heard of a prohibition being adopted. --GrantNeufeld 07:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment That is because there is no such policy. In fact during the recent debacle regarding Mr. Seigenthaler many people were critical of him because he did not simply change the innaccuracy himself and instead made a big deal out of it. It seems people desire to have it both ways on the autobiographical issue. Vanity is bad but people are far more capable of reasoned self appraisal then some seem to think. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wikipedia:Autobiography: to baldly state that ... there is no such policy without acknowledging these clear guidelines is playing a bit fast and loose with your rhetoric.
              • To baldly state that there is no such policy is absolutely correct precisely because that document is NOT policy and is a guideline. In addition the document itself does not even forbid the practice but defines why it is ill advised. And yet Jimbo is clearly shown to edit his own article with regularity. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 19:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the intro: Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy and neutrality of such articles, including one about Jimmy Wales himself. Refraining from autobiographical editing is therefore important in maintaining Wikipedia's neutral stance and in avoiding the appearance of POV pushing. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just like last time, I say delete. Still non-notable, still gross vanity, and still should go -- at best -- to user space or MySpace.
So what is it with the Canadian election? Suddenly it seems every no-hoper-party candidate for every one-horse riding in Canada thinks they deserve an article on Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds too much like vanity to me. As per anon user above, this is more appropriate material for a user page. Comment Regarding the repeated nominations, in the absence of a policy or guideline I think Spinboy is within his rights to nominate this again, although it does seem to be abuse of a loophole. Zunaid 07:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Grant is the president of an active provincial party and an Alberta Centennial Medal recipient. Reviewing the articles for other political parties in Alberta shows that most of the leaders (elected or not) have articles as well. Grant should probably refrain from editing his own article however, to prevent the accusations of vanity. -Dr Haggis - Talk 07:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely. And note to GrantNeufeld, usually when coming up for a vote, instead of attacking your opponents, you might want to try to prove why people should vote for you. Just for the future. Flyboy Will 07:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry that you perceive my responses to other comments here and points of information to be "attacking". I'm not interested in flaming anyone (even though there are some significant disagreements here - disagreement does not have to mean disrespect). Please review my comments above again—I believe on close examination they can be seen to be talking specifically to the issues, and are not 'attacks' on any of the participants in this discussion. --GrantNeufeld 16:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, President of Alberta Greens, candidate in Alberta general election, 2004) and founder (in 2000) of the first Revolutionary Knitting Circle (now an international activist movement). are claims which make this individual notable in my view. People are allowed to edit articles about themselves as long as they remain neutral and while starting your own article is frowned upon, there's nothing forbidding you to do so. Anyway, neither of these are reason to delete an article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That this has survived earlier discussion is astonishing: execrable self-promoting vanity page of an insignificant that heavily exaggerates asserted notbaility. The organisation which the subject has founded, Revolutionary Knitting Circle should also be brought to AfD as inherently unnotable as well. Perhaps other Canadians here can chime in on having heard of it or not, but so far my running tally is 0. I find maclean's suggestion that this is a bad faith nomination hard to fathom. A badly self-authored page that is nothing more than a funnel for an out-of-control ego should not be on WP; bringing it up for nomination is a perfectly good thing to do. Eusebeus 12:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Mildly notable as the president of the Green Party in Canada. -- MisterHand 17:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except he's not, Jim Harris is [20]. The provincial party got 24,588 votes in 2004, 2.75% overall but no seats, making them #5 in the league tables. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarification: Jim Harris is leader of the Green Party of Canada, Bruce Abel is president. --GrantNeufeld 18:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also clarification: Wikipedia has a clear precedent that leading figures in a political party within a defined political entity, even if that political entity is the provincial or state level, merit articles regardless of the party's electoral success, on "because they're party leaders" grounds. Bearcat 05:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, barely notable, but he is a Green Party President.Gateman1997 18:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The president of the Green Party in Canada is indeed notable and so is the Revolutionary Knitting Circle — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except he's not, Jim Harris is [21]. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jim Harris isn't the president of the party either. Perhaps you misunderstand Canadian political party structures. "President" is a position within the political party's internal structure, who's responsible for running the organization. It's rarely, if ever, the same person as the party's candidate for Prime Minister (who gets termed "leader", but is not actually the top authority in the party structure.) Bearcat 05:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this article has survived two votes already why the heck must we have a third!? Wiki should have a policy of no renomination for deletion IMHO. Jcuk 19:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the article is poor and contains a lot of trivialities, the guy is the pres of the Green Party. --NormanEinstein 21:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of Alberta, not Canada. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- JJay 04:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing has changed since the previous nominations. Grant Neufeld's edits since APril 2005 have been to add a picture and categories. Nothin POV or vanity going on here. Ground Zero | t 14:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' I don't see it as POV (although it is a bit heavy on the vanity front). I also think that the repeated nominations for deletion will eventually cause it to be deleted, if only because the ones seeking to have it deleted will keep coming back, but the people voting keep will eventually move on assuming that once the vote was settled, it was settled. I don't see how an article can be nominated for deletion after passing an AfD vote and the article not changing significantly. (unsigned vote by GordonBonnar, 16:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • I have revised the article to remove the vanity aspect and make it more encyclopedic. In previous communications that I have had with Grant Neufeld, he has indicated that he understands and accepts that other editors will revise the article. This is no longer a "vanity article". As far as future attempts to delete this, if this attempt fails, it will be clear that future attempts will be bad faith nominations. Ground Zero | t 16:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mildly notable politician. The last AFD was a keep, and the precident stands. The only time a keep should be overturned, is if it was based on information that turned out to be false and/or unverifiable; or else if there was some kind of failure in process. The nominator shouldn't just keep redoing AFD's till they get what they want. Far to many articles and AFDs go without attention, because AFDs are clogged with these unfounded nominations. Note: if this article hadn't survived a prior AFD, it would have been entirely justified to nominate as this is a "week keep" level person. --Rob 16:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: this is WP:POINT. Stifle 02:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 22:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Rosso Family[edit]

Was marked as a speedy by another editor. Probably because family vanity I guess. - Mailer Diablo 17:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whitford, Martin[edit]

Vanity. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity —Xezbeth 19:06, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - complete vain nonsense Brookie 19:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, geneology, vanity. Megan1967 03:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MVille[edit]

Non-notable website advert. Most users online was 27, listing it on here will probably break that record. Xezbeth 17:57, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - complete drivel and badly wriiten - not notable Brookie 19:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – ABCD 22:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FlexWiki[edit]

Advertising. Was marked as a speedy. - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is well known wiki software which Microsoft uses. N-Man 00:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ad, possible copyvio. Any decent info should be merged to list of wiki software or something similar. There's nothing extraordinary about this package. Radiant_* 11:39, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if the article cannot be expanded to include any information that is not a quote. (Keep if someone fixes it) --Kieran 14:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have articles on other wiki engines. I've added some more info to the article. Angela.
  • Keep articles on wiki engines used by microsoft. Kappa 00:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Upon further checking on Wikipedia, I note an entire category, Wiki software, describing various wiki software products. This entry on FlexWiki is but another one; if the entry on FlexWiki is to be deleted for reasons above, then logically all the others need to be, as well. I'm the original author, and plan to expand the article as I investigate FlexWiki for use with my employer (who is not Microsoft). OFMGuy 16:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a newbie to Wiki's I found this page very useful. I can see no reason to delete it.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyvio. —Korath (Talk) 04:22, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

SOFTWIN (BitDefender)[edit]

Advertising. - Mailer Diablo 18:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Tagged as copyvio. Radiant_* 11:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. ugen64 03:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Melheim[edit]

Norwegian surname. Seems non-notable, though I doubt even notable surnames should have articles. Xezbeth 18:14, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - A bit "Left field" but we should keep it. Brookie 19:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Why? Is it useful to anyone? Could it be expanded? Probably not. Grue 07:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki (if Wiktionary accepts names). Names as such belong in a dictionary, not in an encyclopedia. / Uppland 21:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Tentative Keep. I sharply disagree with the presumption made in this nomination. Surnames that are shared by a significant number of people and that derive from a historical basis are inherently notable. My vote in this case is tentative because I do not know the popularity of this surname, which only gets about 9,000 google hits compared with over 70 million for Johnson, 5.4 million for Lorenzo, over 3 million for Alvarez, and over 2.2 million for Callahan. -- 8^D gab 22:20, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
    • I doubt this is a very common name, but it belongs to a very common type of name in Norway: names taken after farms. Probably every farm in Norway has some family bearing its name. / Uppland 09:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd say 9000 is a very low Google score for a surname. Grue 07:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Names qua names (as opposed to names of specific individuals) do not belong on Wikipedia. (Except mine, of course, which also gets 124 million google hits.) But Wiktionary has an appendix of surnames. --Angr/(comhrá) 08:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is absolutely nothing special about this name. Keeping this opens up the possibility of having an article on every single family name in the world in Wikipedia. Do we want that? Is that a reasonable policy? / Uppland 18:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I reiterate that common surnames are notable and encyclopedic. See Zhang (which happens to be among the world's most common). I personally think every name on the U.S. Census list of common names[23] should have an article, and I intend to start with Smith (surname) and work my way down, doing one every other day for the next ten years or so. -- 8^D gab 18:45, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
    • Is there a reason they belong in wikipedia and not wiktionary? Kappa 22:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Read the Zhang and Smith (surname) articles - how are those not encyclopedic? -- 8^D gab 18:38, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
        • These articles are informative. This article is useless. Grue 07:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Upon further research, I concede that this article refers to a surname that lacks notability, and change my vote to delete - however, I maintain that any surname reaching into the hundreds of thousands is notable and encyclopedic. Also, I'd point out that an article on a single surname can cover many smaller branches (e.g. Smith, which also covers Smithson, Smythe, Schmidt, Goldsmith, etc.). If Melheim is one of many branches of a more popular surname, I'll write an article on that surname and note this as a branch. -- 8^D gab 04:05, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
            • An article on Norwegian onomastics (which would be completely legitimate) could include more on what I mentioned above (on this being a common type of name). It could obviously use Melheim as an example, except that it is a non-notable one; I am sure better known names of the same type could be dug up to examplify. Generally speaking, the origin of many names is self-explanatory: Abramson for instance, presumably comes from some ancestor named Abra[ha]m and would be more suitable as one example in an article on surnames derived from patronymics, rather than as object of an article in itself. / Uppland 05:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • Avram the grocer, actually - in Tsibili, about 300 years ago - which then became Avramovitch, and then Avramovitz before turning into Abramson when they got to the other side of the Atlantic. I note, however, that even patronymics have a history, since the father's name must have originated from somewhere (and even Biblical names have prior etymology). But I agree that a general article would cover it, and would suggest a single article pointing out all the name variations that derive from words identifying a farm. -- 8^D gab 08:09, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • Please delete this surname-cruft. I'd rather have articles on the first names, they're more interesting and shared by more people. Grue 07:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Radiant_* 11:31, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to .hack (nothing to merge). —Korath (Talk) 04:26, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Dot Hack[edit]

Incoherent and possibily not encyclopedic as well. - Damicatz 02:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • This didn't appear to make it to the VfD page. Merge anything useful into the relevant .hack pages then redirect, though I doubt if there is anything not already mentioned. Xezbeth 18:31, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useful in .hack and redirect. This just duplicates information on the main .hack page, which is about a very notable game and anime series. Definitely keep a redirect here, however, as "Dot Hack" is the way a lot of people refer to the game.23skidoo 18:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - patent nonsense Brookie 19:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Nestea 00:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect anything useful and verifiable to Hack. Megan1967 03:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to .hack.--Matteh (talk) 04:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to .hack will be more than sufficient. There's nothing useful in this article worth merging. Arkyan 18:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect, doesn't appear to be anything worth merging. --InShaneee 18:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (last keep vote was anon). ugen64 03:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Steve Forte[edit]

Was marked as a speedy. Possibly vanity. - Mailer Diablo 18:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable Brookie 19:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Steve Forte is well known within the gambling/blackjack comunities as an expert on cheating at blackjack and casino games. He has several published video's available from Gambler's Book Club Klonimus 23:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, under the bar of notability, possible vanity. Megan1967 03:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Steve Forte, is well known within the casino security community. IIRC He was an agent for the nevada gambling control board. Klonimus 06:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, lots of people are agents for gambling control boards. Radiant_* 11:31, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Look, Radiant, I know you don't think Steve Forte is notable, but if you run or regulate any sort of casino operation, then Steve Forte is very notable. The guy is notable for much more than just being a GCB agent. Klonimus 04:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's easy for those who are not involved in gambling, casino protection, cheating, advantage play, sleight of hand etc. to say the entry is a matter of vanity, but then again, those who don't know about the subject shouldn't have a say anyway. The reality is that to those who are familiar with the subject Steve Forte is a legend. That having been said, the statement that he is without a doubt the best, could be an exaggeration or argued due to the broad subject matter involved. Thus, the page should be expanded, but also revised slightly in order to better reflect reality. A statement such as "he is definately one of the best in the world" would be more appropriate and very true.
    • Even though an anon vote, isn't given much weight. I urge the admins to consider this vote. Steve Forte is very notable in the small work of casino protection and " advantage play" Klonimus 06:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lance Cahill[edit]

Vanity. - Mailer Diablo 18:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Vanity Brookie 19:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. unverifiable. Mikkalai 20:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 14:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Michael Bain. ugen64 03:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anthony Bain[edit]

Not notable - family vanity Brookie 19:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 03:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Michael Bain. I don't agree with the family vanity argument (as they are on a TV show), but they don't each need their own stub. Dunro 12:34, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
  • Merge with Michael Bain or Yes, Dear. Dsmdgold 00:18, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, no point - (Erebus555 20:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC))
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Buzz Lopez[edit]

Vanity. Halidecyphon 20:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Tagged for speedy. If the guy deserves an article this sure ain't it. -R. fiend 23:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Mr. Lopez may be notable enough for an article, but that is not established here. Dsmdgold 00:52, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I couldn't find any bio info on the Fox News site. Saopaulo1 22:12, Apr 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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Snow[edit]

Band Vanity. Was tagged with speedy previously, but this one's more for VFD. - Mailer Diablo 20:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. More vanity. -R. fiend 23:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 03:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ditto —Wahoofive | Talk 05:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Niklas Larsson[edit]

Bad, bad vanity. ;) - Mailer Diablo 20:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Grue 07:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reginald Youngblood[edit]

Band vanity. Similiar to Kevin Snow entry. Also previously tagged as speedy. - Mailer Diablo 20:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

delete: See also Cubby, Keith Snow, and the slightly related Lugnut, all created today by User:Snow1215 (which seems good evidence for the vanity objection).
  • Delete. Vanity. -R. fiend 23:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable band Klonimus 02:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 03:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ditto —Wahoofive | Talk 05:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 22:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jared Wakeford[edit]

Non notable and vanity. I found 0 Google hits. I have a feeling this is just a local actor. --Woohookitty 21:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not in Imdb. RickK 22:05, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. -R. fiend 23:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:21, 2
  • Keep, notable, it says he stars in two movies, maybe merge with one of the movies, but there really isn't much content.Howabout1 03:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. You might want to change that vote. :) The article doesn't say that these were movies and since neither role is listed in imdb, I'm thinking those are plays, not movies. --Woohookitty 04:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if he starred in two plays. Why should plays be discriminated against? Kappa 09:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Where were the plays performed? I was in a play a few years back, even a notable one, but it was in the basement of a church. Does that mean there should be an article about me? RickK 19:50, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • Did you star in plays with notable actors in them? Kappa 20:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I see no evidence Jared Wakeford did either. -R. fiend 21:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Evidence is a separate issue :) Kappa 22:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Plays generally have a smaller and more local audience than film, and 2 plays is not a significant career for a thespian, delete the article offers not reason why this person meets the criteria for biographies--nixie 09:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not sufficiently notable. These are not even notable plays. --Bucephalus 14:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Peter Pan and Dracula are both plays performed at the poole lighthouse theatre.
  • Delete as vanity. Radiant_* 11:32, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Swedish leather subculture association[edit]

0 google hits; claims of secrecy make it unverifable. The article also says it's new, which makes it unlikely to be encyclopedic. Delete. -R. fiend 22:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as minor movement. Radiant_* 11:31, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sven bergersjo[edit]

See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Swedish_leather_subculture_association. Delete. - UtherSRG 22:33, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • "Unconfirmed"? "Rumored"? Delete! -R. fiend 23:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki to WikiSource. – ABCD 01:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reading spark plugs for racing[edit]

  • Fix, then transclude to WikiSource, then delete. - UtherSRG 22:42, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. Megan1967 03:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've been helping the new user reformat the article and he's already reworded many sections to make it more encyclopediatic. If the article title makes no sense, we could merge this material into spark plugs. Samw 20:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki since Wikipedia is not a to-do guide. Radiant_* 11:37, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into spark plugs. Atlant 13:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Refer to How-to to see list of many how to's in wiki. Why would this one be different? Keep it--=Motorhead 14:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to The Who. – ABCD 00:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The High Numbers[edit]

Merge and redirect to The Who —Wahoofive | Talk 22:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • You don't need to come to vfd for that; just do it. If you think the merge will be disputed, discuss it on the articles' talk pages first; if you're unsure how to proceed, list it on WP:DA. —Korath (Talk) 23:10, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to The Who sounds fine to me. Capitalistroadster 02:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with The Who. Megan1967 03:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Interested Red[edit]

Delete band vanity —Wahoofive | Talk 23:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 03:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete concur with Megan1967. --Smithfarm
  • Delete - sometimes I think the name of this project should be changed to WikiVanityBandIonary ... - DavidWBrooks 00:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 04:30, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Werknesh Kidane[edit]

Not notable. How many hundreds of Olympians are there? Delete. - UtherSRG 23:01, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi UtherSRG, I am not sure what the standard is but she is a well known runniner. Here is the information: http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/athlete=115653/index.html Shiferaw Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I usually don't like absolute policies, but unless someone can come up with something more nuanced, I'll say keep all Olympic athletes. android↔talk 23:15, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • We can Keep all Olympic athletes, since Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 00:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • No we can't, because Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Since most of the information on Wikipedia is available elsewhere on the Web, the only value we add is selection and synthesis. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • So yeah, we have space to synthesize information on every Olympic sport, individual events in each Games, and the careers of the competitors, and we can hope to be more NPOV than the rest of the Web. We could even be more navigable than the web, but unfortunately navigation pages seem to be frowned upon. Kappa 02:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • It's not a space issue. Nobody ever suggested it was. It's an issue of article quality, and whether there are enough editors watching the page to insure that stubs gets expanded into articles and that the information in those articles is accurate, verified, and kept up to date. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • If you let them build it, they will come. Kappa 20:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 4300 Google hits on the Web and, what is far more impressive to me, 46 hits in Google News. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Appears to be a consistent runner winning medals in high quality races. Meets my criteria as being a notable athlete. Capitalistroadster 02:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Several top five finishes at World Cross Country Championships, second in 10000m World champs, fourth in the 10000m at the 2004 Olympics. Obvious Keep. Raven42 04:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. - Mustafaa 10:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep big fish in small ponds, so long as it is a notable small pond. Distance running is a notable small pond, IMO. Shimmin 12:03, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GARY SPIVEY[edit]

Advertising - Delete. SteveW 23:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Says the magic 8-ball. Klonimus 02:36, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 03:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, not notable. Jonathunder 08:39, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Carbonite | Talk 02:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scott Haggerty[edit]

Not noteworthy. How many people sit on such boards throught the country? Delete. - UtherSRG 23:11, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. A county legislater, and I'm not even sure what country they're talking about (OK that Oakland is mentioned in passing makes me think its the US, but it doesn't even say). I imagine wikipedia would be roughly twice it's size and ten times as inanely boring if we include all people of this level. Also, this info will date quickly, and I'm sure we can't count on it being updated. -R. fiend 23:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Normally I'd speak up in favour of local politicians but I think in instance we're under the radar. Delete. Slac speak up! 05:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Scott Haggerty is a twice relected supervisor in one of the most populous (2002 pop. 1,444,656) and fast growing counties in California. This is noteworthy. I just finished wikifing the article Klonimus 05:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. In his favor, Scott has 11 unique hits in Google news. If one or two had been about him, I would have made a case to keep. As it is, they are all simply him-as-a-convenient-person-to-interview about some local issue, like a highway project. Shimmin 12:08, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that he was chosen to be interviewed suggests that he is a notable person. Klonimus 18:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That is the worst logic I've ever heard. -R. fiend 21:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I got alot more where that came from. :-) Klonimus 09:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Heck, I have been interviewed at least five times for a variety of newspaper articles. Radiant_* 11:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mike Bennett and Stuart Avery[edit]

orphan page that describes nothing not already covered at Mike Bennett and Stuart Avery. Delete. ugen64 23:33, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, fork, article duplication. Megan1967 03:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. (blk-cmp error) – ABCD 01:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cubby[edit]

Band vanity. Can't find them on allmusic or amazon. Apparently they made one album which they released themselves before breaking up. Delete. -R. fiend 23:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

V-enable[edit]

Delete. Advertisement. Oddly, the external link is not to their site. Note to self: do not start company with un-Googleable name. FreplySpang (talk) 23:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this but perhaps the link is useful. Is Multimodal technology encyclopedic? Consider removing plug for company and renaming article to that. --Smithfarm

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_April_1&oldid=1081091344"