Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 16

March 16

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 13:38, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

PodDate

PodDate is a idea, also an ad for the site, delete--nixie 23:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertising. RickK 00:15, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam.Tom k&e 16:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Podate comes from podcasting, dating sites and mobiles. It will be commonly used in other countries I predict. In Ireland we have called it podato after our national food item.
  • Above remark by 193.1.212.254.
• Delete as ad. Radiant_* 13:31, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing to indicate notability. Alai 01:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ad, and a speculative one at that. Fawcett5 21:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 13:38, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Robert Broughton

Yet another BC Green candidate. Recommend merge to a single Green Party of British Columbia candidates, 2005 election page or delete. Bearcat 00:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with Bearcat, more or less. Delete the page in its current form, but bring it back as a redirect when and as required. (Btw, I don't have any intention of starting a list page while the election is still in progress.) CJCurrie 00:18, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 00:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, politicians that aren't in government are not notable, wikipeida is not a directory of political hopefuls--nixie 02:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As I've said before, the party is notable, the party leader is notable. I'll add that members of provincial parliaments and legislative assemblies are a bit of a gray area in my mind; I'm not sure if we've had nominations on that point before. Political hopefuls can wait until after the election—I'm afraid that there's usually nothing very noteworthy about losing an election. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more political adverts. -R. fiend 16:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:38, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Xfire

Cut-n-paste advertising job. If this could be rewritten into an actual article, I'd have no objection to this. --llywrch 00:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn by nominator, as below - David Gerard 23:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs rewrite and expansion. Megan1967 05:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete current content. Subject may be notable, but if so, restart from scratch. Radiant! 08:55, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement. Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. This program is notable for its technology (able to detect which game is s particular user is running) and its popularity among gamers. It is also notable for its lawsuit from Yahoo!. I am rewriting itSYSS Mouse 14:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have rewrote it. please review SYSS Mouse 16:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • SYSS Mouse's rewrite addresses my objections to this article; it's worth keeping as it now stands. I would like to withdraw my nomination for this article. -- llywrch 16:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep new stub. Chris 23:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Nice - David Gerard 23:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Kappa 01:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 13:42, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Charlie Beresford

Yet another British Columbia general election, 2005 candidate, but this one's an NDPer. It's reasonable to expect that she has a chance of winning (Oak Bay-Gordon Head is a swing riding), but I don't think she should have an article before the election. (BTW, note also that article title is misspelled; should be Charley.) Bearcat 00:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I don't believe that 'chance of winning' should be criteria to keep unless she has other notable accomplishments, in which case, that's the reason to keep. --Spinboy 01:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I'd say Keep, in that I *do* believe "chance of winning" is enough to justify a page prior to an election. The article seemed encyclopedic enough from a cursory glance, as well; if some parts are vanity, they can be fixed without deleting the page. CJCurrie 01:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think keeping an article on the basis of "chance of winning" in a future election is a dangerous precedent with too much potential for abuse. I fully support recreating the article if she does win, but I don't think we should be in the business of predicting future outcomes. Bearcat 01:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a phonebook or a direcotry of Canadian political hopefuls--nixie 02:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete politely, at least until after the election. Then we'll see. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--I'll accept actual members of provincial legislatures, or major-party candidates for national legislatures, but not candidates for provincial legislatures. Meelar (talk) 03:47, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a good article and two terms as the chair of the Victoria school board should mean something. - SimonP 04:17, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think school board chairs normally get articles on here. Bearcat 01:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Still, I'll agree with SimonP to keep. Samaritan 20:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-elected = non-notable. Radiant! 08:53, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. On top of being about the most boring thing I have ever read it's basically a political advert. These are seeping into wikiepdia at a disturbing rate. The number of people who have ever run for office on the level of the US House of Representatvies, or the Parliaments of Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, et al. must be in the hundreds of thousands. When they hold office at this level they are notable. When they run they usually are not. I think there's a wiki voters guide out there. Maybe they want this, but it's not good for wikiepdia. -R. fiend 16:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless somehow notable for non-election. Chris 01:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I wonder at the discrepancy between name in title and name in article - David Gerard 23:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I could easily imagine that this person might deserve an article, but this candidacy-promoting puff piece does not belong. Delete -- Jmabel | Talk 04:22, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - keep and cleanup - SimonP 13:44, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Pure play

Original research, first person. RickK 00:16, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup or transwiki to wikitionary. I know this is a common term because I've heard it a LOT, usually referring to online-only businesses like Amazon. Current article needs help. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:43, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Help the current article but do not delete it. Apart from the definition, it can describe the different investment characteristics of "pure play" companies, and be encyclopedic rather than dictionaric. Kappa 03:12, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:58, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, according to google the term is more commonly used for music/video stores and/or travel agencies. Radiant! 08:52, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline keep - the term means something, but this REALLY needs references - David Gerard 23:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Help the current article and do not delete it. It does describe the method used in the capital budgeting for estimating individual project betas. --Lfchuang 07:50, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
• Keep but definitely cleanup. I suspect but can't prove a copyvio, others please keep an eye out. Fawcett5 21:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This term refere to the organization which they conduct their business activities solely online

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 13:45, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

List of people who became famous for surviving a deadly event

Somesortofcruft. Silly breakdown of articles. RickK 00:36, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete list-cruft?--nixie 03:12, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV-bait. -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 04:49, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Another curious list that might be of interest or use to some folks; mostly harmless. -- Infrogmation 05:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Wikipedia needs more interesting articles like this - not less.--Gene_poole 05:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Kinda interesting. DaveTheRed 05:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand. I would suggest also a change of name - perhaps List of famous survivors? Megan1967 06:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If someone becomes notable because they survived stuff like this, then this should also stay. Be consistent. Also just interesting to read and research. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:03, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. -Sean Curtin 06:31, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The title is oxymoronic. How does one survive a "deadly event"? If you survive it's not deadly, is it? Neutrality^talk 06:32, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but it should be kept in one form or another, moved to List of people famous for surviving what is widely considered to be a deadly event perhaps? —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:50, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
    • How about List of people famous for surviving a near-fatal event? DaveTheRed 07:52, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, interesting enough, though it should be expanded and renamed. Not sure what to rename it to yet. Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Perhaps more suitable to a collection of trivia, and a truly awful name for the article, but if it is kept to only those who genuinely become famous for at least some period for well-known events then it is just about keepable. Average Earthman 09:28, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh yes, how about 'potentially fatal' instead of 'deadly' event? Average Earthman 09:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree with Megan1967 however that the title is poor and should be moved to "List of famous survivors". Sjakkalle 12:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, but that title seems to refer to winners of the Survivors TV show. Tough one to title :) Radiant_* 15:19, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC) (oh and btw, keep)
• Need it have 'List' in the title? How about 'Survival against overwhelming odds'? This is a good start for a fascinating topic, and deserves to be expanded. Keep. Bikeable 16:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but move and redirect to List of famous survivors (unless someone else has a better title). Jonathunder 05:14, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
• Keep, but could do with expansion and possibly a title change, perhaps to List of people famous for having unexpectly survived or something snappier. Thryduulf 23:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ABCD 02:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Penta Water

When I first started reading this, I thought it was an ad, and was about to list it for vfd for that reason. But as I read more, it seemed to turn into an attack article. It's POV, original research, and speculation. And the subject itself doesn't seem notable. RickK 00:42, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rick,

Let me see if I can defend this article.

1) There is no point of view being expressed here. I have aimed to write a factual article on Penta water, with fairly extensive references.

2) I have not proposed any original research in this article. All of the science is present in peer-reviewed literature. Is there anything specific you wish to question here?

3) The subject is notable. Firstly the number of newspaper reports and discussions on the (highly accredited) James Randi page show that it is of outside interest. There are an enormous number of hits for Penta on Google.

I reject all of your points, but I of course welcome your views on the page.

Thanks,

Christianjb 00:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, double check references maybe. 16,700 hits and the guardian article [1] where they threatened a journalist make this a topic that deserves coverage. Kappa 00:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep debunking false but popular beliefs seems to be a reasonable task for an encyclopedia, as long as it can be verified (and a major news source like the Guardian is good enough. I wouldn't mind seeing it toned down so as to be a little less rantish, and perhaps with some sort of voice presenting the other side of the story. The article and its basic message, though, should stay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:13, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I'm not an expert Wikipedian and I agree that the artilcle may come across as a little strong in places! I agree that more effort needs to be put into this article to calm down the tone of it. I would greatly appreciate assistance from other members here.

I have a PhD in physics and have worked for 10 years doing research into water and water clusters (search for christian burnham on http://scholar.google.com). As far as I am aware all of the science on the Penta page that I have written is non-original and accepted by mainstream scientists in the field. There does seem to be a little confusion sometimes- even though the claims of 'clustered' bottle water manufacturers is often in the realm of pseudoscience- water clusters are completely well established mainstream science that nobody challenges the existence of (in the mainstream literature). Papers on water clusters have appeared in Nature and Science, arguably the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world. Christianjb 01:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, press coverage and google hit count seem to establish notability. —RaD Man (talk) 02:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but clean up, the writing style is unencyclopedic in place, especially speculation about the inventoris winning the nobel prize if their claims were treu etc. --nixie 02:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the nobel prize section. I agree that sounded quite subjective and speculative. I've toned it down, but maybe it needs to be removed altogether? The Randi Prize is not speculative, because James Randi has stated that Penta would be eligible for the prizeChristianjb 02:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have also just added a section titled "Positive Reviews of Penta Water" in order to reflect that Penta has had many people testify to the benefits of their drink. I think this helps to counter the perceived negative tone of some other parts of the article. Unfortunately I will be in the process of moving over the next few days and so I will have very limited time in which to further improve the article. I hope that others will help to improve this article into something much better. It would be unfortunate if this article (still in its infancy, I only began writing yesterday) were deleted before we have had the chance to improve it. I would also like to thank the Wikipedians on this page who have provided very useful criticism, that I hope should make this article better. This has been an educational process for me! Christianjb 03:52, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. About 99% of the Google hits are marketing hype, this may serve as a dose of reality against all that nonsense. Positive reviews?? - we don't need to hype it with celebrity raves. There is a need for genuine scientific information. It may need some cleanup and also careful watching to squelch any attempts at advertizing that may show up. Should be placed in both physics and pseudoscience categories. Vsmith 04:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not original research, all criticisms of Penta Water have been previously reported in the literature (see the Guardian's Bad Science column in particular). If the article seems negative - well, I suppose lying, making false claims and threatening journalists tends to make you look negative. Average Earthman 09:45, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be notable subject. Capitalistroadster 10:52, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If this was a non-notable bit of pseudoscience, then that would be an argument for letting it go. But it appears to have made itself fairly notable, so presenting both its claims and the fact that those claims have been debunked is valuable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely deserves an entry. -- taviso 17:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but definitely cleanup. Penta-water itself unquestionably pseudoscience, but there is a story here. Fawcett5 21:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For those suggesting a 'cleanup'- could they give me more specific suggestions. I'm new at this Wiki thing and constructive criticism is always helpful. (Maybe this should go on the talk page for this article) Thanks again to everyone for their positive response and support. Christianjb 22:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 13:46, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

List of secrets in Halo: Combat Evolved

Wikipedia is not gamefaqs. We should not have articles solely for easter eggs for a particular game Lan3y - Talk 01:01, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Since Halo was the most popular game in the world at one point i think it deserves an easter egg page. Not all games have so many easter eggs though and Gamefaqs doesnt mention all of them.--Zxcvbnm 02:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[2] Does this mention all of them? I don't think so. And look at games like Metroid... they have like only one or none easter eggs. Most other games only have cheats.--Zxcvbnm 02:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is also 2 lists for Weapons and another for Vehicles in Halo. Do all the other games have that also? Nope. Ergo a secrets page is fine for a game like halo.--Zxcvbnm 03:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please note that User:Zxcvbnm removed the vfd notice from the page. Lan3y - Talk 11:57, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Halo: Combat Evolved. Megan1967 06:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Megan. Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Secrets previously had a section in the main Halo article, but it quickly grew unmanagable and was spun off into a separate article as a form of damage control. The separate Secrets article helps keep "l33t d00ds" from mucking with the main Halo article (which is quite coherent and fairly well written). While I tend to agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be a repository for secrets and easter eggs, there are plenty of people that feel this info should be present, and keeping it separate from the main Halo article works well with regards to organization and article content. A merge would be very bad for the main Halo article. - NormanEinstein 13:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above and tighten up a bit, especially Megg section. It would set a scary precident if we allowed one game to have an Easter Eggs page, ala Gamefaqs. --InShaneee 16:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, as above. Radiant_* 13:28, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Halo: Combat Evolved. --GRider\^talk 17:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as above. I strongly reccomend not merging it for the reasons mentioned above, you didnt mention why not...--Zxcvbnm 21:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and by the way that is DEFINITELY NOT FINISHED so dont say there is too little content
  • This is a second vote by User:Zxcvbnm. Lan3y - Talk 13:40, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NO game needs an easter-egg page on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 04:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LOOK GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON TO DELETE IT BESIDES NOT "DESERVING" AN EASTER EGG PAGE AND I WILL MERGE IT. AND THIS IS NOT A SECOND VOTE.

• Merge or keep eggcruft. Kappa 01:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and definitely DO NOT merge - egregious cruft. Fawcett5 21:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

YOU STILL HAVENT SAID WHY!!!!! (Unsigned comment)

OK, I'll say why. Some points:

1. Please STOP YELLING.
2. Sign your posts by adding ~~~~
3. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

In particular, Wikipedia is not a User Guide, whether of slang, a piece of machinery, or a videogame. Also, this drivel is non-notable and non-encyclopaedic. Fawcett5 15:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• keep Maeglin Lómion 00:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) <--- note this user has only 19 edits, many related to List of weapons in Halo 2 Fawcett5 21:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such it should be dedicated to preserving any and all amounts of information. A listing of cheats for a game, while competeing with sites like Gamefaqs or Gamewinners, could be considered an encyclopedia article. 65.8.26.130 20:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)Logan K. <---This 3 edit anon misunderstands wikipedia's intent. In particular Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Fawcett5 21:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 13:48, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Maurine Karagianis

Yet another non-elected British Columbia general election, 2005 candidate. Note that I fully support recreation of this article if she's actually elected in May, but I don't agree with having articles about non-elected candidates in a future election on the basis that they might win. IMO it sets a bad precedent that's entirely too open to abuse. Bearcat 01:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep --Spinboy 01:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I'm going with Keep on this one. Karagianis is running for a major party in a riding that, until fairly recently, was considered safe for the party in question. Also, the article is encyclopedic, not vanity. CJCurrie 01:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur. Keep. Samaritan 03:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete politican hopefuls--nixie 02:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--I'll accept actual members of provincial legislatures, or major-party candidates for national legislatures, but not candidates for provincial legislatures. Meelar (talk) 03:46, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but perhaps review it once the results of the election are in. - SimonP 04:12, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-elected = non-notable. Radiant! 08:51, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - NDPcruft, unless Karagianis actually wins. --Calton | Talk 00:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because it is presented as a candidate bio-puff-piece. Might be worth a real article, but this isn't it. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:24, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 13:50, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Rob Fleming

Yet another non-elected British Columbia general election, 2005 candidate. Bearcat 01:12, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Spinboy 01:28, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Chance of winning, and written in an encyclopedic manner. I'd say Keep. (Btw, I believe that "chance of winning" was used as a criterion for keeping articles in last year's US congressional race). CJCurrie 01:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball,delete political hopefuls--nixie 02:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • • Delete--I'll accept actual members of provincial legislatures, or major-party candidates for national legislatures, but not candidates for provincial legislatures. Meelar (talk) 03:45, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but perhaps review it once the results of the election are in. - SimonP 04:12, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-elected = non-notable. Chance of winning is POV. Radiant! 08:51, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup, This can be fixed just watch. Jack Cox 20:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. MLA-cruft, unless Fleming actually wins. Try again in two months.--Calton | Talk 00:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Candidates are out unless they've done something notable before, other than run and lose. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:33, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-Fleming has current political office as a two-term city councillor, is running in an unloseable seat for the NDP (the Steve Orcherton only lost the seat by 40 votes last time) and has never lost an office he has run for. Fleming also beat Steve Orcherton the loser for the NDP provincially last time; for the nomination (virtually unheard of historically-Carole James losing by a similar amount went on to lead the BC NDP). I'd change my vote to delete if he lost, but given that he isn't going to--keep this entry. He is certainly more notable than his Liberal backbench opponent.--veenoghu 02:17, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it's a dangerous precedent to keep articles on the basis of future election predictions. It leaves open too much possibility of abuse. I fully support recreation of the article if he does in fact win the election, but I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of predicting election results. Bearcat 01:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• No vote: yes, he's an office-holder, but this is a candidate's bio-puff-piece. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:26, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Rob Fleming is encyclopedic: a prospective article on the indisputably encyclopedic incumbent Sheila Orr should include that she's facing him in this election, and an article on the past holder of the seat, the prominent Steve Orcherton, definitely should mention his defeat by Fleming in the current nomination. Add his existing career as a city councillor in the capital of B.C., and I think he passes the bar. Samaritan 03:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:53, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mary Polak

Yet another non-elected British Columbia general election, 2005 candidate. Nomination withdrawn per CJCurrie's comments below. Bearcat 01:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete --Spinboy 01:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This one should be Kept. Polak has attained national notoriety as an extremely socially-conservative school trustee (ie. getting her name in the papers by opposing literature that portrays same-sex couples in a favourable light). She's also notable as the governing-party candidate who lost the only by-election that took place in the parliament now ending. I don't have a *strong* opinion about the NDP pages that I voted to keep a few moments ago; Polak, however, is clearly over the bar in terms of notability. CJCurrie 01:52, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have to be honest; to the best of my knowledge (and I do have a vested interest in the subject of social conservatives trying to ban gay-themed books), the incident is famous. I'm not altogether sure that she's achieved much personal fame out of it. But I'm willing to strike my nomination. Bearcat 08:18, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I am indifferent about most of the candidates but she is more notable than most as CJCurrie states above. - Jord 02:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficiently notable. - Webgeer 03:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a decent article. - SimonP 04:18, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 06:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I'd say "non-elected = non-notable" once more but would like to read some more about the incident CJCurrie mentioned. No vote as yet. Radiant! 08:54, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment See here for a story on the incident in question. - Jord 21:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• No vote, leaning towards keep. --GRider\^talk 19:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be notable educational activist. Capitalistroadster 20:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, since the nomination has been withdrawn. Kappa 02:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Most unelected candidates do not deserve their own pages, but Polak's leadership in the Surrey school board's book-banning case makes her notable reagrdless of whether she is elected or not. (The case was one of the most prominent Canadian legal disputes of the last decade.) Keep. Ianking 00:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 13:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Greg Moore

Yet another non-elected British Columbia general election, 2005 candidate. Bearcat 01:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Spinboy 01:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Vanity, and it doesn't even mention the party he's running for. Delete, bring back as redirect when and as required. CJCurrie 01:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete political hopefuls--nixie 02:12, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--I'll accept actual members of provincial legislatures, or major-party candidates for national legislatures, but not candidates for provincial legislatures. Meelar (talk) 03:45, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-elected = non-notable. And if there are going to be more of these candidates, make a group nomination to avoid repetitive arguments. Radiant! 08:51, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Smells like copyvio. Come back in a couple of months with non-horrible article if he wins. --Calton | Talk 00:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because it is presented as a candidate bio-puff-piece. Might be worth a real article, but this isn't it. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:27, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep and move to Sy Wexler. —Korath (Talk) 00:55, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

SY WEXLER

Non-notable I afraid - 40 results returned on Google. - Mailer Diablo 01:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Imdb entry only lists one entry. Not notable. Delete. RickK 08:02, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a memorial. One IMDB entry is not notable. Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Absolute and clear Keep. Wexler was not the type of filmmaker that gets an entry in Imdb (exactly why he should be included here btw), but he had a big influence on US culture, his films won many awards, and his passing was noted in many places including npr and a featured obituary at the NYT. Jgm 15:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. (Though, obviously, move to Sy Wexler.) I was going to point out the Times obit, but Jgm beat me to it. See some of his work on the Internet Archive. grendel|khan 15:37, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
  • Note: the page has been cleaned up a bit. There's more info at the Times obit that can be funnelled into the article. grendel|khan 16:03, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• If the decision is for the article to be kept, I strongly recommend it to be moved to Sy Wexler, too. - Mailer Diablo 17:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Support renaming to Sy Wexler. Google is a poor barometer as is demonstrated at Wikipedia:Google test. --GRider\^talk 17:36, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • And the lack of anything important at imdb? RickK 22:58, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is like asking why you couldn't find pork chops at the bakery. To spell it out: IMDB is a database of commercial films, not educational films. It's entirely possible to be notable in a field not currently covered extensively on the web, you know. Jgm 01:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep people with obituaries in the New York Times. Failing that, keep award-winning documentary filmmakers. Kappa 11:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 23:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:37, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - having a non-paid obit in the NYT means you ARE notable. Fawcett5 21:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 13:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Newberg anime

Advertising/Vanity. - Mailer Diablo 01:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I wish them luck, but 7 members is way, way, WAY below the bar for groups. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:53, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• delete, not notable, advertising. Megan1967 06:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - concur is vanity/ad. Fawcett5 22:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 13:53, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Media Induced Audio Visual Absorption Approach

Original research? I have no idea what it is, and Google returned nothing. - Mailer Diablo 01:27, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Looks like original research to me. If no evidence is presented to the contrary, Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research until proven otherwise - David Gerard 23:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - appears to be original research/lame sociology/psychobabble. Fawcett5 22:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 13:53, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Leco2007

Neither I know how is the unwikifed text related to the title, nor how koyoto protocol is related to it. Google search returned only 1 result. - Mailer Diablo 01:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I was going to say Merge into Kyoto Protocol, but there's nothing here that isn't already in that article, and this, whatever it is, contains blatantly false information (the US has not ratified the Protocol, as claimed) and is POV-ish (why the scare quotes around newly when describing newly-elected President Bush?) Android79 03:04, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, nothing really worth merging. Megan1967 06:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - title unrelated to subject matter, which is covered much better and more accurately elsewhere. Fawcett5 22:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 13:53, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Christopher john manley brown

Vani-mania! - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• User could at least capitalise correctly, maybe that would have fooled the RC patrollers. Delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity or a personal attack depending on who wrote it--nixie 02:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like an unfunny prank. Jonathunder 05:11, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
• Delete. Lamer vanity or a joke at someone's expense, your call. Fawcett5 22:08, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --Carnildo 04:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Allison Criswell

ob. vanity Michael Ward 02:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• baleeted silsor 02:32, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 13:55, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Leo Efstathiou

Vanity city. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:14, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Let's exit at the delete offramp. Next time, Leo, read the rules, OK? Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 03:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It's surprisingly modest for a "vanity" page, actually. Perhaps it was a simple misunderstanding. Anyway, the subject seems utterly unnotable; delete. -- Hoary 03:20, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete should have been speedy. Fawcett5 22:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 13:55, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Moidi language

Vanity city again. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable conlang, vanity. Lacrimosus 05:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, conlang vanity. Megan1967 06:27, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious delete. Conlangs aren't inherently notable. - Mustafaa 06:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. — JIP | Talk 08:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I feel we can be pretty confident that more people have voted to delete than have learnt the language... Average Earthman 12:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonnotable langcruft. Still I'm impressed that high school freshmen had the insight that verbal inflections can be separate from the verb. --Angr 06:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Gee, I thought I'd researched and learned about every conlang there was out there, but then this new one pops up. Invented by a high school freshman -- like many conlangs, yawn. Plus he gives his email address at the end of the article -- something to avoid in Wikipedia articles. And you know what's happened to all the Wikipedia articles that have included emails at the end in the past . . . they were deleted. Wiwaxia 09:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• delete - vanity language cruft. Fawcett5 22:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Feel Tank Chicago

Soft advert for a blog. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a major project of one of University of Chicago's most prestigious English professors. With her help, and with her permission to incorporate a bit of her scholarly material into the article, I've cleaned it up heavily. Snowspinner 14:01, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 06:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Done! Snowspinner 14:01, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only 41 Google hits. RickK 08:04, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Academic projects are something of a blind spot in Google, being known about by a small community, but still being very notable. Snowspinner 14:01, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until it establishes notability by hitting the news or the googles. Radiant! 08:55, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's primarily an academic project - this is unlikely to happen. Snowspinner 14:01, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • That is a good point, okay, let's keep it then. Radiant_* 09:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep major projects by prestigious English professors. Kappa 10:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, keep, academentia gets the short end of the Googlestick. --iMb~Mw 14:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, academic project, referenced in the journal 'Critical Inquiry'. Not that I understand these arts people, and personally suspect they're blathering on pointlessly a great deal of the time, but still more influential than yet another character from a Japanese card game. Average Earthman 12:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons noted above. It's pretty gushy, though, and it would be nice to see some critical viewpoint applied by someone qualified to do so. Jgm 15:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - found to be a copyvio - SimonP 13:56, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Major Easley

A character who only appeared in a promotional demo for Halo 2. Non-encyclopedic in the extreme. Snowspinner 04:32, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nn fiction. - BanyanTree 06:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Halo 2. Megan1967 06:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep cruft. Kappa 10:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as minor character. Radiant_* 11:41, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge: I agree, we should put this character's profile in Halo characters, the information about him came from both the E3 demo and http://library.psyjnir.net/. - John-1107
  • GAH! You just copied the text from that site! No! That's copyvio! Snowspinner 15:54, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio --Carnildo 19:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Halo 2 to discourage recreation - David Gerard 23:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - copyvio fancruft. Fawcett5 22:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 13:58, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

H.C. Ørsted and August Krogh Institutes

It's a building on the campus of the University of Copenhagan. Not notable in its own right. Delete it. DaveTheRed 05:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into University of Copenhagen. Megan1967 06:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above, keep redirect - David Gerard 23:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but expand - could be encyclopaedic, especially since it is an institute, not just a building. Often semi-autonomous institutes with their own history are co-located on university property. Fawcett5 22:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect unless someone can name why the institute is significant in itself and not just a building where "chemistry, physics, and mathematics are taught." -- Jwinters | Talk 22:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:03, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ca 1000

Impossible to verify by Google ("Ca 1000" Norway gave several thousand hits, but most seem to be for the date of viking artefacts). In any case what we have is a very vaguely defined local slang term. Grutness|^hello? 05:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete without some independent verifiability - David Gerard 23:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• What David said. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete undefined slang Dsmdgold 04:23, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:02, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Akhilesh Kundomal

Zero google hits for the full name given in the article. - BanyanTree 05:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• He was born, he grew up, he went to school, he moved, and now he's in college. Article doesn't establish notability, to put it politely. Delete. —Korath (Talk) 22:47, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - yawn. Fawcett5 22:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete If the author is reading this, please create a blog. SusanaeIII

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:02, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Stghm

Stghm appears to be a vanity article, and I move that it be deleted. Jeff Anonymous 05:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nn vanity. - BanyanTree 06:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• delete, pointless article Michael Ward 06:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Very vain nn little 11-yr-old. Shame shame. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:06, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• And everybody knows your name! Sorry. I couldn't resist. Delete as vanity. - Lucky 6.9 06:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sometimes I just can't figure out the motivation behind these things... grendel|khan 16:32, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Delete vandal-in-training. Denni☯ 20:12, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:02, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Babblers group

Vanity for a defunct small email group, delete--nixie 06:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity.One of the millions. Delete Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Sweet, but Delete self-explanatory 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) 22:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:02, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Colette Brunel

Fictional character. - BanyanTree 06:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• If that alone was a criterion for deletion, we would have to delete at least one thousand articles. Still, I don't think the character is notable enough to merit an article. Delete. — JIP | Talk 06:28, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• What BayanTree didn't say was that this article is for a player character in a MMORRPG, delete as vanity--nixie 06:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, fancruft. Megan1967 06:42, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I never heard of her, nor of the game she appears in, but she gets 211 hits. Tales of Symphonia itself gets thousands. RickK 06:46, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, insignificant fictional character (and a player character at that it appears) in a non-notable game. Average Earthman 09:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete any and all MMORPG player characters. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:05, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Bathrugbyere.co.uk

A website about rugby in Bath, would be an advert if the user had figured out how to include live URLs, otherwise its a website that isn't sufficiently notable to be in wikipedia, delete.--nixie 06:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, website ad. Megan1967 06:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a webguide. Average Earthman 12:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad - David Gerard 23:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 14:06, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

JBL (disambiguation)

I made it when JBL was a mess, but now it's all cleaned up, and there is absolutely no use for it. (unless another use of JBL comes out), delete -- WB 06:35, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as useless. I doubt anyone looking for the wrestler would type in JLB. DaveTheRed 07:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under criterion G7. Article nominated for deletion by its author and sole editor. Uncle G 11:09, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Comment: Another JBL is the Journal of Biblical Literature, a notable scholarly journal in its field. / Uppland 17:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment True that Journal of Biblical Literature might be used for this space. It's 125 years and someone might decide to create an article on it; however, it should be noted that it is quite doubtful that they would use the acronym JBL to look for this. Note on the audio manufacuter JBL would be enough rather than the whole page about it. (or none at all, just a separate page named Journal of Biblical Literature) WB 01:48, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't see why this isn't a reasonable disambig page. - SimonP 14:06, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:08, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

BORG2

Ad for a burning man fundraising project, delete--nixie 06:34, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Project seems to be non-notable. Could be an ad, no significant content. jni 08:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Project is of significant social and political interest. I hacked together the history section to give background and context. I am not involved in the organization, but I am a doctoral student researching open source communities.JillCoffin 05:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious vandalism, someone being a dick. Scott Gall 05:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advocacy. RickK 05:41, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete This article didn't make much sense 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)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 14:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Biodegradability of polymers

The article is about using biodegradable plastic bags in India. First, the article has a wrong and misleading name, second, the article as it stands has no potential to become encyclopedic. The biodegradability of plastic bags is interesting and encyclopedic topic, but should probably be on a page about plastic bags.--nixie 07:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge anything useable (which isn't a lot) to Plastic. There is already an environmental subheading there. Megan1967 09:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Plastic. Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Not an encyclopedia article. Delete or redirect to Plastic. Biodegradability of plastics is already discussed in the main article. There isn't much content worth merging here. - Mike Rosoft 09:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

TOS TrekMUSE

Vanity article. Non-notable. Delete --Spinboy 07:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• 15 players online, as of right now. No vote yet. —Korath (Talk) 07:38, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The number of players they do or don't have online doesn't establish notability. --Spinboy 07:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Spinboy (although the #players registered would be some indication). 835 googles. Given that the age of MUDs has pretty much passed, that's probably quite a lot, and as such, weak keep. Radiant! 08:50, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 09:18, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If I might quote the previous vfd which the nominator appears to have overlooked: "Keep and cleanup - This game seems to have been around for well more than a decade (an eternity in online-game terms). They've also had real Trek actors like Shatner and Nimoy appear in-game as well, which is similarly impressive. I do agree that the current article isn't the best, and the part about connecting needs to go, but the subject is worthy of an article. Starblind 15:49, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)" Kappa 10:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I should point out, that yes, I did notice that, but at the same time, it is still a very poor article, and thus why I re-nominated it. It still hasn't established notability. If y'all want to keep it so badly, work on it. --Spinboy 17:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This went through VfD two months ago; the consensus then was to keep. Unless the site has gone away, there is no reason to delete this article. Kelly Martin 13:32, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

Gullible

Article is a joke, and appears to have been deleted previously Hansnesse 01:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:13, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Gullible

Already is in the Wiktionary, and therefore does not belong in the Wikipedia. Bratsche 19:01, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed, this is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article, so it belongs in thw Wiktionary and not here.
  • Note: Comment made by anonymous user 72.19.73.209. --Bratsche 21:56, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary:gullible had existed for two months prior to this page. The original advertisement should have been speedily deleted under criterion A3, rather than the page rewritten as a dictionary entry. Delete. Uncle G 11:17, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Infrogmation 19:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- WB 22:48, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Groovything.com

Advert for website. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, website ad. Megan1967 09:20, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad - David Gerard 23:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was- should be moved to wikisource - SimonP 14:15, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

HJR-192

Do we really need the word for word of a house resoultion, a wirtie abu about it would be more appropate. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds notable, pity it isn't an article. I think it belongs in wikisource. Kappa 11:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Kappa beat me to it. ☺ Uncle G 11:20, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:13, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Bottomley

Looks like a vanity article. — JIP | Talk 08:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 09:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ASAP. Deb 12:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, vanity.--Nectarflowed ^(talk) 04:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 16:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chris Aikman

Non-notable political candidate. RickK 08:43, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 09:28, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Another canned response by Megan. What makes this person notable? What expansion would you like to see? RickK 09:30, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know about Megan1967, but I'd like to see evidence of the "astronomical research" and some indication of actual achievements, publications, discoveries, inventions, and whatnot. (This appears to be the Chris Aikman who is jointly responsible for some of the confirmatory observations for the IAU Minor Planet Center, who was a professional astronomer from 1968 to 1997, and who researched chemically peculiar stars, for example.) At the moment the article reads as if this person were nothing more than a chronic committee membership addict and Public Relations bunny. Less posturing for political office and more biography of scientist, please. Vote reserved for now until average professor test is applied. Uncle G 11:41, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of good publication record. Average Earthman 12:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If nothing else, the information mentioned by Uncle G above says to me this guy more than meets the notability threshold (and I would say that any person who manages to appear on an official ballot for a major public office has done that anyway). So, yeah, the article needs improvement (and the suggestions made are good ones). If we deleted every article in this condition not much would be left. Jgm 15:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If you'll check up higher in the VfD pages, you'll see that there are several British Columbia provincial legislature candidates who are listed. Being a minor party candidate for a state, provincial or other local election is not notable. It isn't clear from this article if he's running for the BC or the Canadian federal Parliament, though. RickK 20:56, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Spam by the Greens? There's alot of these articles popping up. I think there's a wiki voters guide out there, which is a much better place for these articles. Transwiki. If he's notable as a scientist let someone else write an article about him that establishes that. This influx of articles on politicans has we worried about what wikipedia is becoming. -R. fiend 15:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep present version of article (all about science) - David Gerard 23:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Current article establishes notability. If he was elected, that would obviously establish political notability. Capitalistroadster 06:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a fine scientist, but not much evidence that he's really outstanding in his field. CDC (talk) 01:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETION under criterion A2 of the speedy deletion criteria. Mgm|^(talk) 08:45, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Handbuch

German manual to German Wikipedia. Not only is it in the wrong language, but it's got no place being here, if it's ever translated. Delete this. Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, or speedy as newby test. It also looks like a copy-paste from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Handbuch . Kappa 10:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Yup,Delete; looks like an older version of the wiki-mainpage in german Lectonar 10:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under criterion A2. Uncle G 11:22, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:17, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

FTU

Very small, non-notable internet forum. Fagtown USA only gets 89 results on google. There are between 75-100 registered posters at any given version of FTU, perhaps 50 being regular posters, and 25 posting daily. Delete. —Markaci 2005-03-16 T 08:56 Z

• Delete, not notable, website ad. Megan1967 09:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not a website ad, simply a group of people trying to record their pitiful existence in history. Traffic to be found from wikpedia is not noteworthy, but many people have frequented this forum in the past, and some may want to remember it. It's been around for over 4 years.
  • Above vote by 24.161.248.80, author of the article with no other contributions.
    • Note: 24.161.248.80 is not the author of the article. But that's moot.
• Delete as vanity. Radiant_* 10:03, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unfortunately wikipedia is not a place to record your existence in history. Kappa 11:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the lack of google hits isn't a result of a lack of interest, but instead a result of ezboard's software which limits google searches. Regular posters aside, the number of lurkers at FTU have numbered in the hundreds. It was connected to major DBZ-related websites and also websites that had hits in the millions. If you are going have records of Dragon Ball Z websites, you need to also include the dissenters and rogues. And besides, if wikipedia isn't the place to record your existence in history, what is? Action Hank 13:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: user has 8 edits total, four of which related to FTU and one is his user page.
    • You have to start somewhere, don't you? Action Hank
• Delete. vanity. Avriette 13:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete far too small/obscure for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Virtually nothing described in the article is of any importance to anyone not directly involved with the forum (who consequently know about it already anyway). Also, I'm hesitant to keep any websites/forums that don't, at a minimum, have their own domain name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Note: Beware of Sockpuppets in this vote the forum in question has put up a thread entitled "Wikipedia FTU entry! Vote keep!" urging members to post sockpuppet votes in order to keep the article. I quote: "Everyone should vote to keep the entry, and see what happens. Can we outnumber the fags at Wikipedia who are taking a break from posting new and pointless information about computer languages to try to remove a harmless entry about a message board community?" Additional note to anyone considering posting a sockpuppet vote: Don't bother, it won't be counted. See the following policy, which appears at the top of the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page: Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • You mean "beware of bad-faith votes by new users", not "beware of sockpuppets". They're not sockpuppets if they're different people. I agree that this article should be deleted, and I am certain that the admin will look at the justified votes and see a clear consensus to delete. So there's no reason to go around calling the new users "sockpuppets" without giving evidence. Make your well-reasoned delete vote and chill. RSpeer 18:18, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Hurr, the people who frequent the forum aren't allowed to defend it's right to be included. Only people who don't know anything about the subject are permitted to make decisions concerning it.
  • Oh, you are allowed to defend yourself by making sensible arguments that show us what is so special about FTU. You are not allowed to 'defend' yourself by making ungrounded 'keep' votes, or by attacking people here, or by making fallacious arguments. So far we've been told it existed for four years, and 'many' people have frequented it. Neither is anything special. Radiant_* 08:50, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • What makes my keep vote ungrounded? Personal bias? An objective vote doesn't truly exist, so why discount mine simply because my bias is stronger than yours?
      • We're not really looking for votes here, but rather for reasons. There are bazillions of forums on the web, and we don't want an article on all of them. So if you can give us a good reason why your forum is special, we'll keep the article. Radiant_* 13:34, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. These punks wish they could match the mighty VfD-defeating power of the GNAA. As it stands right now, they fail it pitifully. grendel|khan 16:35, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
  • FTU isn't a trolling board. Also, good post there, buddy. Way to advertise. Action Hank 20:50, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
    • I signed your edit for you. And to respond---both FTU and the GNAA have sent emissaries forth to aggrandize them, to smear their fame across Wikipedia like a mighty brown stink. Obscure composers of the seventeenth century don't come here to write about themselves; they're important enough that other people do it for them. FTU and the GNAA aren't. It's just the GNAA are better at defeating VfD. FTU, pathetically, fails it. grendel|khan 16:08, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
• Keep No good reason to delete this. There are thousands of seemingly irrelevant articles in the Wikipedia. This entry is facing undue atttention and criticism. Let it be. Marcg106 14:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. [D]isregards racial, social, and ethical political correctness in pursuit of entertainment: where I come from, that's code for "behaving like assholes". In any case, non-notable pitiful bid for attention. --Calton | Talk 00:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• LOL! Yo, socks: If this is such a "harmless entry," perhaps you'd care to pay for the server space. No? Delete as a sockpuppet-supported waste of electrons and possible vandalism. - Lucky 6.9 04:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: There hasn't been a single sockpuppet vote.
  • It boggles the mind that you people want to delete this article, while Planet Namek gets an entry, and there's HUGE entries for the multitudes of trolling on the Slashdot forums, which, believe me, is NOT interesting to anyone other than Slashdot posters. What makes them so special? DBZ Uncensored and by extension FTU have affected hundreds of people. Believe me, there are far more obscure entries in the Wikipedia. Marcg106 14:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 04:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete and consider placing hard bans on these vandals. Binadot 14:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vandals? Fascinating. What did they vandalize? Is being on the losing side of a VfD now considered vandalism?

It's not that I'm defending this article existing, but people in this vote are far too keen on attacking new users who don't know the inclusion standards of Wikipedia, and calling them everything from sockpuppets to vandals. VfD is not for attacks, it is for justifications for or against deleting. Again, give your well-reasoned delete vote and chill. RSpeer 18:25, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Of course they're vandals. One of them blanked the user page of the VfD nominator, Markaci, and replaced it with "faget extrodineire" (and then blanked it again to write lol). That kind of crap is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:10, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

• • It's funny how you people are just dismissing every "keep" vote as a sockpuppet vote. How do we know you're not using sockpuppets to vote against this?

Comment: Edit histories. Lacrimosus 06:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • And who are you to decide whether this is notable? Everything is notable! I think people are voting with a bias against this forum, simply for what they discuss. Gee, Hitler was a horrible person, should we delete his entry, then?

The FTU entry does need to be cleaned up, of course, but it should stay. They are NOT vandals. Marcg106 14:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I too frequent the forum and before that I used to visit the website that birthed it, DBZ Uncensored. You have to realize that you guys that are voting against it live in a vacuum. The fact is, DBZU has had an enormous impact on the anime community. If it weren't for that site, we wouldn't have edit lists. We wouldn't have uncensored DVD's. That site got the ball rolling. Companies began to realize anime wasn't just for children. It was no longer possible to keep anime fans ignorant. And many others copied his example. Even animenewsnetwork. Psaros has since retired from his website but the web forum still thrives. So of COURSE that's why it was mentioned before the actual website. We probably should have created an entry for the website first. Of course, anime haters would be trolling that entry just as you're all trolling this one. I only visit GameFaqs for the combo guides but I still found the wikipedia entry for their messageboard interesting. I guess the fact that none of you knew George Washington personally makes his life boring and unimportant. Same mentality here. Utils 18:30, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; a lot of words, but non-notable subject, non-notable meta-subject. -Ashley Pomeroy 23:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, sorry guys, but you didn't manage to "slip under the radar". Lacrimosus 06:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I guess we could never hope to slip past you, slick. 24.161.248.80 07:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I signed and timestamped this anonymous user's post for him, since he forgot to. Foobaz·o< 07:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • You can go ahead and sign and timestamp the rest of my posts in here too, thanks. It's wonderful that out of all the people here criticizing me, you at least have some friendly intentions.

Oh, interestingly enough, I happened to run across the defintion of sockpuppet voting, and it's used quite out of context here. Thanks guys.

KEEP-Yes this is a user vote. Since you are looking for arguments allow me to present one.

Aside from the obvious argument that Wikipedia has far more obscure entries, and may be in fact what Wikipedia is all about, there is also the fact that this is (or was) in fact the message board of a popular website (DBZ Uncensored). While it was not as popular as Planet Namek(which, as well as its messageboard has its ownt entry), any regular visitor to Planet Namek in it's heyday has heard of this site, and was in fact how I came across this messageboard. Secondly, while you may argue the obscurity of this board, the board is a fact of life. It has been in existance in some form or another for 5 years and will continue to exist for sometime. So it's not like this is really an advertisement or anything. And never, ever during this period has it been "dead".

Not only that, but I feel this entry will more interesting to the reader because pretty much anyone can be welcomed, and is allowed to post anything they want. It should be emphasized that most messageboards can not honestly claim this, as the vast majority of messageboards are far more strongly moderated, although few will admit it to being so(much as Wikipedia claims any article can be posted, but the existance of this page shows that in practice it doesn't). -Piccolo48

In short, I feel this is a solid article.

You might want to sign your comments in the future. You can do this without loggin in. Just add --~~~~ to your post. Like this: --Silas Snider (talk) 05:04, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with the Dragon Ball Z article, or an article on the Dragon Ball Z forums. --Silas Snider (talk) 05:04, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

--response: The reason this wasnt done in the first place is because we felt the messageboard had it's own culture, even if it was part of a Dragon Ball Website at one point. Frankly, I do NOT think "obscurity" is a reason to disclude something from here, paricularly when the site this originated from was not "obscure", and is about a culture that \ has and will exist on the internet for a long time. The board WILL eventually get its own domain name, and unless you can name some SOLID AND FAIR GROUND RULES on why this article should NOT be included(ground rules which you feel apply to all Wikipedia articles, which i trust only a webmaster on this sight to make)

To say this article should be voted off because some random people feel it should is, at best, an ad-populum argument that shouldnt apply to an encyclopedia of all places. Place some ground rules, and then explain from there. Piccolo48Piccolo48

• Comment: We have ground rules: Wikipedia:Deletion policy. To talk of a "webmaster" of Wikipedia is to misunderstand the wiki concept - the idea here is that a consensus is developed by all interested users in accordance with existing, defined policy. Slac speak up! 05:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

KEEP- A very good site/board that was instrumental in convincing Funimation to release Dragonball Z over in America.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 14:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Gold farming

Dic def. No chance of becoming encyclopedic. Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, although it should probably be merged with something. Selling things in online games for real money is a controversial, academically researched, and entirely encyclopedic topic. Kappa 10:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case I'd like to suggest a merge to MMORPG. Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge in under the "Genre challenges" heading in MMORPG. // Liftarn

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:21, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Brown eyed Susans

Non-notable band. Only relevant hit I can find is personal website. Article doesn't show notability according to project standards. No albums, singles, or hits mentioned. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:23, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 09:27, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Black Eyed Peas they are not. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. They're not even notable Australian band the Blackeyed Susans who I hope to write an article on this weekend. Capitalistroadster 09:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Le joshua

Puff for an obscure band; delete as advertising. -- Hoary 11:05, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 08:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 22:52, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

T'ien Lung Tao

The article has already been deleted, but its previous deletion vote doesn't appear to have been conclusive, so I am renominating it. No evidence of notability, advertisement. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 11:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Since it's already been deleted, this should go on WP:VFU instead. Radiant_* 11:38, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think Mike is renominating this, because it is a recreation of previously deleted material. Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Previous VfD was 4 votes to delete (including implicit vote by nominator) and only 1 vote to keep (not counting anons and sockpuppets). That is conclusive enough for me, how about we speedy this right away? jni 08:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as ad and/or not notable. Google shows just 5 unique hits 4 of which are ads and one is a forum post. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, ad. Megan1967 08:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as reposted material. Previous VfD was legit, despite sockpuppet accounts. Newly created martial art. Not notable enough (yet). jni 08:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Consider it speedied as a reposted, once-deleted advert. Fire Star 14:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Mansaf and Jameed

Orphaned substubs, no evidence of notability, possible spam. Delete unless expanded. - Mike Rosoft 11:42, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously notable stub. Mansafs are a well-known and important Jordanian food, as the links provided clarify - and they taste good too. - Mustafaa 03:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously notable, no reason to suspect spam, being orphaned stub is not on its own a reason for deletion. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:44, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable Arab dishes. Capitalistroadster 09:23, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:21, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Jenyth Gill

Wikipedia is not a subculture message forum. Delete. — JIP | Talk 11:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or speedy as very short article with no context. Doesn't say what it's about (is it someone's fan fiction? RPG activity? real-life nerditude?) and does not google. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Nonsense, speedy delete. Martg76 12:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Jonathunder 07:48, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 14:23, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Statement syntax (MySQL)

Delete. Want to know SQL? See the SQL article. Want to know the vendor-specific detail? RTFM. Wikipedia is not a manual. Minghong 12:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep because SQL syntax is extremely widely used, including in Vfd discussins. But don't let it get too detailed, should just be general explanation illustrative examples. Kappa 13:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I believe it's useful, but as a primary text it belongs in wikisource. Radiant_* 15:11, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • A manual for a piece of software is best off in Wikibooks. Uncle G 11:57, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Megan1967 08:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a manual ... but Wikibooks is a manual (or, rather, a collection of manuals). There's probably a need for a Wikibooks:Using MySQL book on the Wikibooks:Using open source software section of the Wikibooks:IT bookshelf, given that the MySQL manual isn't GFDL. However, this isn't a particularly good starting point. This article isn't even as good as the Wikibooks:Programming:SQL book that already exists on WikiBooks. No need to Transwiki as WikiBooks already has better. Delete. Uncle G 11:57, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect, whichever is better. Not everyone knows about Wikibooks (I've never accessed the site). Having something on this subject is very relevant since it is a common error seen in Wikipedia use. If it is described on an FAQ here somewhere, then the redirect should go there. 23skidoo 19:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nonsense/personal attack. Thue | talk 12:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Party pooper

Certainly not encyclopedic, and also a personal attack. I will let you decide. Is this a piece of patent nonsense which ought to be speedily deleted, a title which ought to be put in wiktionary after a rewrite or whatever? I say delete. Sjakkalle 12:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Clear speedy deleted it IMO. Done. Thue | talk 12:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - SimonP 14:27, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Geegy

Seems like a made-up word, after looking at the google hits [3] . Kappa 12:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable neologism. Megan1967 08:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• See Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Geegy Uncle G 04:49, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:29, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Manger

This page is pending deletion but it should not be deleted, because it contained useful, encyclopedic content (albeit short) that is not in wiktionary: "It is often associated with nativity scenes where the baby Jesus used a manger in place of a crib (Luke 2:7). In addition, this is a very important element of the Christian nativity and has potential for expansion to cover construction, and history of use. Kappa 13:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It shouldn't have been flagged as pending deletion - as far as I can see, the pending deletion tag was only added because somebody added a speedy delete tag with a reason of "already in Wiktionary" (not a valid reason), after another user had added a "move to Wiktionary" tag. I've backed the article up to before all the tags, so it's a perfectly harmless substub again. Nothing to see here, move along. sjorford →•← 13:40, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • While I agree with this particular case, isn't deletion of the Wikipedia page a normal part of the Transwiki process? Radiant_* 15:09, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Certainly, but I was under the impression that dicdefs still had to go through VFD - to establish they are dicdefs - before deletion. This case shows how careless or overenthusiastic tagging can bypass that process. In fact, I now notice that Kevin Rector (talk • contribs) has tagged a bunch of these, several (but not all) of which seem to be more than simple dicdefs. sjorford →•← 16:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • At least two different people look at articles for transwiki (one to nominate, another to process it). And some other people, such as Kappa above, check the articles as well. I don't think we should list every transwikied article on VfD, because there is a present backlog of about a thousand, and for the vast majority the VfD vote would be transwiki (thus resulting in the article being labeled for transwiki, ensuing in confusion since it's already there, and warranting a re-listing on VfD). Radiant_* 09:06, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see what is written on the Administrators Noticeboard about this and similar articles. Uncle G 12:08, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 08:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- there is definite potential for an encyclopedic article on this topic. After all, the founder of the world's most popular religion was purportedly born in one. Capitalistroadster 09:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep valid stub Jgm 15:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What Capitalistroadster said.--Gene_poole 00:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I was going to vote keep, but the people who keep removing VfD tags on things they want to keep are pissing me off, so I'm not voting. Really odd thing to do, BTW: if you succeed in removing the tag it means that the votes will all come from people who perues WP:VFD, not from people who might actually be interested in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:50, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that the vfd tag was only added by somebody who wanted to keep the article, after it seemed to have been flagged for speedy outside of process, which makes it somewhat an odd case. sjorford →•← 08:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Rather than tagged for speedy deletion, it was tagged as "pending deletion", which I think means someone tried to delete it but couldn't for technical reasons. Kappa 10:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree with Kappa.--Patrick 10:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; there's plenty that could (and probably will) be added -- Atlant 15:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:30, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Dissolve

This page is pending deletion but should NEVER get deleted what if you need help. This content should be preserved: "In film, a dissolve is a gradual transition from one image to another. In film this effect is created by controlled double exposure from frame to frame; transiting from the end of one clip to the beginning of another. In video, the effect is created by interpolating voltages of the video signal."

This is an encyclopedic (includes "how") description of a technique in cinematography. The wiktionary entry Wiktionary:Dissolve makes no mention of this technique. Kappa 13:34, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Wiktionary, add this to the existing entry. Megan1967 08:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as useful and encyclopedic stub (though it should probably also be renamed to something like dissolve (cinematography), with a redirect. The last thing we want to do is start moving encyclopedic information (ie. on the technical implementation and usage of this techique) to Wiktionary. Jgm 15:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 23:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Psychofox 01:24, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC) This article should be expanded to explain the process of dissolving. i.e. when you put some salt in water is apparently dissappears. An encyclopedic entry should contain detail about the physical process, and it's characteristics, such as, as disolved solid can be recovered by evaporating away the liquid. It should mention the distinction between disolving, melting and chemical reactions for example. Witness the related article on evaporation for a good example.
  • You mean that this article should duplicate all of the stuff at solution, solvation, soluble, and solvent, some of which have themselves already been noted as duplicates? Uncle G 03:55, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
• Please see what is written on the Administrators Noticeboard about this and similar articles. Uncle G 12:11, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Keep or move. I have greatly expanding the article. I know a lot about digital video editing. See either dissolve or dissolve (cinematography). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:09, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • No, what you've done is a copy&paste move of the original article followed by an expansion. Copy&paste moves are bad. Don't do them. Please apply your changes to dissolve and mark dissolve (cinematography) for speedy deletion. Uncle G 03:55, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
    • If it means that much to you, do it yourself. I don't care where the article *is* - just that it continues to exist. See Wikipedia:Be bold. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:29, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • They are your edits. I cannot apply them for you. If you care about them, re-apply them to the proper article, because I've now marked dissolve (cinematography) for speedy deletion. Uncle G 18:34, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
• Keep as disambig. --Aranae 02:56, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Bilge

Previous version: [4]

Another page pending deletion that should not be deleted. It contained encyclopedic content about how bilge water was dealt with (from buckets to eletric pumps) and the reason for doing so (psychological as well as practical). In addition it mentioned a Khan of that name. This content is not in wikionary [5]. Kappa 13:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Thue | talk 15:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, restore article and expand. Megan1967 08:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is definite potential for an encyclopedia article here. There seems to be a clear case to have another look at the Transwiki procedures. Capitalistroadster 09:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 23:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Restore article and expand. The Bilges are a significant part of a ship/sailing vessel. Also we have numerous other articles describing parts of of a boat/ship and this is another supporting article. (Has this been put forward for removal because of lack of undstanding of the nautical definition as opposed to the popular/dictionary definition??) Ian 2005 Mar 21
• Keep Given time this article could expand considerably, the description for bilge is more than just a one-liner Graibeard 11:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Please see what is written on the Administrators Noticeboard about this and similar articles. Uncle G 12:11, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged somewhere - SimonP 14:33, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hrair

Sounds like a hoax, first few Google hits I checked, referred to a piece of fanfiction. If no one verifies, I'd like to see it deleted. Mgm|^(talk) 14:05, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

• I seem to remember hearing of a concept like this before. But in any case, the fact that google doesn't find this name is a red flag. Delete unless references are added to article. Thue | talk 15:12, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Richard Adams's Watership Down is not a fanfic. That said, this should either be merged or wiktionaried or both. —Korath (Talk) 15:42, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Clarification: I know Watership Down isn't fanfiction, the only reference to the word I found was a link to a fanfic about Watership Down. Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Binadot 16:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It is a word in the Lapine language of Watership Down, meaning 'many' (e.g. any number over four) or 'The Thousand' (referring to the many enemies of rabbitkind). Should either be in wiktionary, or merged with Lapine language (which, btw, isn't much of a language since only a couple dozen words have been made). Radiant_* 16:06, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, not really notable enough for either Wiktionary or as a stand alone article. Megan1967 08:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This article talks as if the concept of "Hrair" from Watership Down had crossed over to become terminology understood and used in the field of psychology. Barring any evidence that this has actually happened, Merge into Watership Down or Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Interesting, but unless the definition has really gone beyond "Watership Down," merge and redirect any useful info. Oh, and don't go "tharn" when you do. Not good. :^) - Lucky 6.9 04:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:34, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Idiot

Previous version: [6] Another page pending deletion. It should not be summarily deleted. While the encyclopedic content appears to have been transwikied, there are two comments on the discussion page opposing deletion. I agree that at least the ancient Athenian meaning and the medical definition have potential for encyclopedic expansion, in terms of political correctness and proposed explanations and treatments. Kappa 14:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The word has enough history to be an encyclopedic article. The revision you linked to looks good to me. Thue | talk 14:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, restore article and expand. Megan1967 08:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The medical definition and the Ancient Greek definition makes the basis for an article. I suspect more could be said too. Capitalistroadster 09:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, also a famous novel by Fyodor Dostoyevsky (it's at The Idiot, but some disambig or redirect should be present). Grue 18:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 23:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Please see what is written on the Administrators Noticeboard about this and similar articles. Uncle G 12:12, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
  • Keep If you are referring to the "articles already in Wikidictionary" section, I completely disagree with you. Wincoote 13:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Given the previous version of your comment [7], which seems to bear no relation at all to what was actually written, I suspect that you did not in fact understand what was written. Uncle G 07:18, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
• Keep, restore earlier content, this is by no means just Wiktionary material. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:52, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One could easily turn this into a more historical treatment of the many approaches to this term. (see, i.e. feeble-minded). --Fastfission 20:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Some commentary from Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary:
  • Idiot --Chessphoon 20:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It is an OK stub. Paul3144
    • Keep. The bit about Athenian politics (could be expanded) makes it a non-dicdef. -- Kizor 17:12, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Move. It's barely a stub, and a redirect using interwiki links would be fine. Most dictionaries do have a little bit of the "history" of the word, but not enough to be encyclopaedic, just like in idiot. --TIB (talk) 03:54, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Move. The info about Athenian politics is Etymology of the word Idiot.
    • Move. It's basically just a definition and etymology. It should be turned into a redirect for mental retardation or something. —Simetrical (talk) 23:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Note that there is no "encyclopaedic content" about idiots on this page. Everything that is on this page is dictionary entry content about the word "idiot" (including, as mentioned, the etymology) that is also in the dictionary entry at Wiktionary:idiot. Also note that the latter was independently grown, not transwikied. Uncle G 07:18, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, the article needs editing, but the article is needed. By searching information about idiot in medical sense is how I arrived here. --EnSamulili 14:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:11, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

138 (number)

This number is not notable because it is notable. Extreme delete. Thue | talk 14:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Ah, the good old interesting number paradox. Delete unless anything more can be said. sjorford →•← 15:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) It's now borderline notable - neutral for now. I suspect enough can be said about 138 to make it worth keeping. sjorford →•← 22:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Proof that all integers are interesting (and should be kept?):

1. 1 is intersting and notable, OK
2. Assume k is interesting and notable, need to prove that k+1 is interesting and notable.
3. If n is interesting and notable, then n+1 is interesting and notable for being one higher than an interesting and notable number.
4. So k+1 is interesting and notable.
5. By principle of induction all numbers are interesting and notable, but we do not have space for that unfortunately. But then again Wikipedia is not paper; and someone has expanded this from being a silly joke article to a proper article on numbers.
6. Conclusion: This article should be deleted. 138 is a notable number, not merely notable for not being notable, which would really not be very notable, but since this is notable I will notably change my vote to a notable keep. When someone now makes the 139 (number) article, please do not let it be a silly joke however. Sjakkalle 08:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) Sjakkalle 08:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the only way to show an integer is notable is by using the notable integer paradox, then it doesn't deserve its own article. That's not the case with 138. PrimeFan 22:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This sounds like an argument for the deletion of high school articles. Denni☯ 23:27, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Well not really, there are only a finite number of high schools. Sjakkalle 08:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia is not paper! We could have a little Java applet called "List of interesting numbers" that keeps scrolling indefinitely higher... or an "interesting number defecating bear..." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• If this is redone so its along the same lines as 137, I'll vote to keep. There has to be a cut off somewhere, but 138 seems a bit too arbitrary to me. I assume there is a wikiproject for these integer articles, and that would be the best place to discuss where the consecutive numbers should end and where they should start doing only more significant numbers. -R. fiend 15:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The cutoff is 256. See project page. Anton Mravcek 19:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Keep and cleanup then. Normally I hate voting "keep and cleanup" unless I intend to do the cleaning, because such votes result in keeping but not cleaning an article. In this case, however, I have faith that the wikiproject participants will take care of it. -R. fiend 21:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and allow for organic growth, this number apparently is worthy of note. --GRider\^talk 17:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I like the number articles normally, but there is absolutely nothing here of note. Gamaliel 17:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I think it is very likely that there actually is something genuinely interesting about the number 138, but... Dpbsmith (talk) 18:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can articulate what it is prior to expiration of VfD. And I don't mean "138 is the atomic weight of..." or "138 is the route number of the road on which Blue Hills Ski Area is situated." Original article is basically a joke/prank. We've had others, I forget the title but we had a self-instantiating version of Russell's paradox a while back. List of Wikipedia lists that do not include themselves or something. By the way, there is a "Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers" by D. G. Wells, David Wells, ISBN 0140261494, that's very good, but I gave my copy to a friend. Would be a good reference to consult if anyone's got time for a trip to the library. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • P. S. Mathworld says it's an abundant number, but that doesn't do much for me because the definition is awfully obscure and because it says there are 21 such numbers below 100. It is also the number of stellations of the Triakis Tetrahedron, which as I'm sure we all know is a nonreticulated frumuflex of the acquipotentiated foithboinder. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll take your word on that. Anton Mravcek 19:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Possibly redirect to a page called 100s (number) that summarizes the interesting properties of integers in this range (where individual pages don't already exist). — RJH
• Keep. Keep up with the French and the Slovene. Anton Mravcek 19:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep At least as noteworthy as a Pokemon subcharacter. And yes, more can be added. Denni☯ 20:35, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Keep. ShutterBugTrekker 21:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Hmm, big debate. Actually I don't care much if this is deleted, it was just an attempt at humour in the same spirit the article was written. The extreme delete was a reference to Wikipedia:Extreme article deletion. *makes note to link to that page in the future and include more smilies* Thue | talk 23:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Dpbsmith, I'm saddened that a seasoned wikipedian such as yourself should feel the need to vandalize an article, even one up as a VfD. Just because you feel this article in its original form was unworthy does not mean all of us do. While your pseudohumorous remark was appropriate in this discussion, it is not so in an article. Denni☯ 23:23, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
  • ????? I haven't edited the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah. Apparently that was inserted by Anton Mravcek. Who, for the record, is not me. Whether it was amisunderstanding on his part or a prank I don't know, but if I had seen it I would have reverted. Apologies for having been an indirect agent of damage to an article. Next time I'll insert a smiley. For the record, I've stated above that I think it is very likely that there is something interesting about 138. I just wish people would find the interesting fact before creating an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Dpbsmith, your remark that there are 138 stellations of the triakis tetrahedron sounded right enough. I wasn't so sure about frumuflex or foithboinder, but I figured that if it was in fact a joke it would be taken out quickly enough. Anton Mravcek 19:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • (Cough) It is not considered a best practice to put material whose meaning you do not understand into an article. If you don't understand the meaning, how can you be sure that the material is accurate? However, on my part I will try to avoid making deadpan jokes in future, particularly any involving cromulent sesquipedalianisms. <- joke. Dpbsmith

(talk) 20:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • I was wrong to do that. I apologize. Anton Mravcek 21:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Twasn't Dpb but another user who took his attempts at humor a bit too seriously. I've seen people take discussion from a VfD and insert it into an article before, but it's generally not a good idea. I think Dpb's humor was a bit too esoteric, and i guess that has its hazards. -R. fiend 01:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • P. S. The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Number is 100% real and my suggestion of it as a resource was sincere. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think it is noteworthy of keeping. I mean it might not be as good as some other numbers, but compared to some articles, this is more noteworthy and should be kept. WB 01:43, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, there's enough to keep now. DS 17:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This number appears to be even more interesting than either 38 or 1138. Robert Happelberg 20:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• delete - any number you pick out of a hat has an infinite number of "interesting" properties. Doesn't make it notable in any way however. Fawcett5 22:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If that hat has only numbers between 1 and 1024, then you're absolutely right, that number will have "an infinite number of "interesting" properties." Let's say the hat has numbers between 1 and 4294967296. The probability of picking a number with interesting (i.e., non-obvious) properties decreases dramatically. You can probably name lots of interesting properties for say, 123. But how about 123356779? 123 deserves its own article. 123356779 most likely doesn't. PrimeFan 22:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 23:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Either keep and expand series to 150 before stopping permanantely, or delete this and all previous and put into compilation by 100 (for example numbers, 101-200). Hedley 03:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm glad Dbpsmith cannot be implicated in inserting patent nonsense into this article. I would also note that this series of articles extends to 256. Numbers past that must have a darn good reason for an individual article. Denni☯ 21:16, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
• Keep, since numbers have infinite numbers of interesting properties, we can should include more than 138 of them. Kappa 10:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Within project range, interesting enough number. PrimeFan 22:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep You're going to delete a number? WHAT? ParkingStones
• Keep why not? And stop being so ridiculous with these deletions! joan53
  • The nomination was not ridiculous; look at the first version where the only notability was "138 is the smallest number not having a separate article in Wikipedia". Only after replacement of the joke article with the proper article, did this become keepworthy. Sjakkalle 08:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this number has several interesting properties. Alphax ^τεχ 01:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:36, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Seton Hall United Nations Association

Delete Non-notable --DaveC 15:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete "Seton Hall United Nations" gets 11 unique Google hits; nothing therein hinting of famous alumni, notable achievements, etc. Wikipedia is not a backup homepage for college clubs. --[[User:BD2412/deletion debates|BD2412] 08:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but give it a mention in the Seton Hall University article, if its not there already. Don't merge in the students involved or anything though. -R. fiend 15:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep At this time it is important to keep this page. Please I request that this be re-evaluated After April 20th, 2005. We are in the process of making Mikhail S. Gorbachev a member of our organization and Honorary advisor. This would give us very special and unique stature and make us very notable. He is expected to visit with us through the School of Diplomacy. See the following link for details. | Click here for details of visit. Thank you.Doc13mets 20:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete before 20th April 2005. Use of Wikipedia for this sort of promotion is regarded as an abuse - David Gerard 23:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • What sort of promotion?? I was not intending on promoting anything, I was just asking the vote to be held off until after that date when the Organization will be offically becoming very notable. On the articles website itself you will find NO PROMOTION I only brought up a notable event in defense of the article here in the discussion.Doc13mets 07:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• That pate is a 404 error. Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:53, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I apologize, I corrected the Link, i made a mistake in the code.Doc13mets 07:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 04:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete CDC (talk) 01:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm a member of this organization, and I see no reason why it should be removed from Wikipedia. You can't construe this as a promotion, as the organization is only open to students of Seton Hall University. Were it otherwise, then you could consider it a promotion, but at the moment, I see no reason why you can call this promotion of the organization. Spartacusprime 04:30, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

• User's first day.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:41, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Razavian

• Originally speedy, not appropriate. Delete. Vanity. Enochlau 07:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not explain why he is notable. jni 07:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:42, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ronskilled

5 google hits. Probably someone insulting their friend. DJ Clayworth 14:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unlikely to be an article of wide appeal, seems like a very niche topic for a private group of individuals.

• Delete. Gaming cruft. jni 07:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not widespread at all. Grue 18:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, poorly written non-notable neologism, orphan, likely a vanity insult. Speedy delete would be okay by me. -- Infrogmation 19:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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