Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 28

February 28

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:59, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Chiara ferrante

This "household name" gets only 19 Google hits, none of which look immediately relevant to her fields. Delete or userfy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 00:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. --Lee Hunter 01:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 'Born in 1988' by itself signifies you're not notable unless you won an Oscar or fell down a well or something. --BD2412 03:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 10:09, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. May rewrite article if she stays on track (what would one have to do to become a household name in toxicology, anyway?). — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 02:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. —Brim 04:29, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, probable vanity. Jonathunder 00:40, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 18:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Teen_pornography

Nonsense page, plain and simple --PopUpPirate 00:43, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• • Speedy deleted. Content was: "Big Young Boobies." Neutrality^talk 00:47, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Axis and Allies. —Korath (Talk) 23:21, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Advanced axis and allies

A game that is still in the design stage. Unreleased products are not encyclopedic. --Lee Hunter 00:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Axis and Allies. — Gwalla | Talk 04:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. Redirect. --Ray Radlein 05:11, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, and also redirect the correctly capitalized version of AA&A. Radiant! 13:10, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or (weak vote) redirect to Axis and Allies. I'm a gamer and an occasional A&A player, but an unreleased product is never encyclopedic (not even Microsoft Longhorn), and an "advanced" variant of a medium-popular game wouldn't have enough noteworthiness for its own article even if it existed and had a bit of its own localized subhobby popularity. Barno 16:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I would prefer delete. Wikipedia ought not to be in the business of making predictions about future events. However, I also understand the argument for redirect to keep it from reappearing. Rossami (talk) 22:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect --Theo (Talk) 23:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:58, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Enabling Act (2005)

I ran into this page through a link which is creator made on Enabling Act. It looks like someone is using the Wikipedia for his power struggle in some student club. Not that no page is linked to this entry. eman 00:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Garbage. An article of legislation passed by a student organization is hardly notable, unless it serves as the springboard for significant legal case, or has achieved a kind of notoriety that is highly doubtful for something just enacted this year. For the sake of good taste, I deleted the final paragraph of this article, which read, in full:

A final message from the Fuhrer Elect

Ve have you by ze throat, you pig-dogs! You vill submit to ze rule of ze one-eyed axe murderer! Nnyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeess!

Enough said. --BD2412 02:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • As an addendum, the subject of this article does not even appear on Google, and even the club involved only has about 500 hits. Maybe if the club had an article (it seems notable enough, having served as a pass-through for a number of UK politicians, incl. Margaret Thatcher), the current 'controversy' would rate a footnote. --BD2412 03:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The pages are also linked in a horrible way (one guys name is linked to the article on Hitler, a girls name to the article on "Dog")... Delete! And yes, there is a junkyard for interesting deleted articles somewhere. Houshuang 05:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course, this article contradicts Wikipedia's mission. Deletion is the correct way of handling it. However, apart from the above "message", it is quite a humourous way to vent one's anger. Do we have a graveyard for such pages? I feel it's an interesting bit of Wikipedia history. Sebastian 03:38, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

• Delete this POS. The people link to crap like that too? They give Wikipedia a bad name. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (2005). Don't students have work to do these days? sjorford →•← 10:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is just sad. Kbdank71 14:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd hardly call William Hague a "glorious legacy", but there you go. Nick04 19:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yuck. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme kee^H^H^Hdelete. —RaD Man (talk) 02:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, IP-block, and send the page creator to a re-education camp.DS 13:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and subject the writer to the tortures suffered by Erich Muehsam who was arrested after the Reichstag Fire —ExplorerCDT 00:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, interesting article on a notable subgroup of the official opposition party in the world's most famous University. Overall sufficiently notable. NPOV and keep. Also rename to something less deliberately provocative. 80.255 11:05, 5 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) 17:09, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Casey and Andy

I see nothing to distinguish this from the masses of marginal webcomics out there. It doesn't even have an Alexa rank. (I am rather familiar with the world of webcomics. I wish this on e lots of luck, but I don't think it's significant enough for an article. The original article, before someone else wikified it, was a blatant ad.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add that for what it's worth, the author of the comic has been remarkably understanding and cooperative. This one clearly does not meet the Alexa requirements suggested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines. On the other hand, it does look like it meets the alternate proposal criteria (although I haven't waded through the archives to check for regularity). I'm inclined to err on the side of inclusion, although I admit that's partially because the author has been so nice. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not meet inclusion guidelines for webcomics. — Gwalla | Talk 04:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You mean the ones that are not official and say they aren't? - David Gerard 00:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • They're as official as any such policy, and have been in use for a while now. Furthermore, they actually set a lower bar than the usual Alexa test, so arguing against their validity hurts rather than helps the case for this article. — Gwalla | Talk 00:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Actually, Gwalla, it does meet those guidelines, with a run of nearly 450 strips to date. It's on Eric Burns' crawl [1] list, and it got one of his 2004 Shortbread Awards. I don't read it, but it pretty clearly meets the established criteria. The article currently in place sucks pretty badly, though. Definitely needs work. --Ray Radlein 05:08, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Actually, it only meets the alternative guidelines proposed by Eric Burns, not the ones that have been in use. — Gwalla | Talk 20:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • By the same token, since they were propsed, the alternate guidelines have been used at least as often as the original guidelines (which makes sense to me, since the original guidelines do not, IMHO, map very well onto the information space of web comics). If I had to guess, I'd guess that more than half of the currently existing webcomic articles would fail an Alexa test. Of course, if the article remains as stubby as it currently is, it doesn't much matter; but this is a comic which has been repeatedly Snarked; which has been discussed (maybe reviewed?) at Sequential Tart; and appears to have well over a thousand unique Google hits (there's almost 3,000 hits on "Casey and Andy", of which roughly half seem to be references to the webcomic). If it weren't for the fact that this is more like a hiccup than an article, I can't see it even being an issue. --Ray Radlein 21:13, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am generally in favour of keeping articles that can grow to be something, even substubs, but this is just a few words long. Doesn't even qualify as a substub, no matter if the subject is noteworthy or not. Houshuang 05:59, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree, this isn't even a substub article. Delete unless expanded before end of Vfd. No significant info will be lost for whoever wants to create a full article. Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's a good point; I can always just move this to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics great big list of "Articles we need" if need be. As it currently stands, it's arguably worse than having no article at all, since if it were on the list of "articles we need," someone might see it there and actually write an article. --Ray Radlein 09:52, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• I read Casey and Andy. I enjoy Casey and Andy. I (marginally) expanded the article for Casey and Andy. I vote keep for Casey and Andy. DS 13:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for meeting the criteria and being worked on. Kappa 13:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only meets alternate criteria proposal. Lacking traffic for any alexa ranking=un-encyclopdic. The old host, galactanet.com, only has an alexa rank of 498,184. Wikipedia is not a web directory, let alone a web-comic directory. Niteowlneils 18:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Er, turns out that that is the current home of the webcomic (www.caseyandandy.com redirects there), as well as other content. Too low a rank to keep. Niteowlneils 18:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• comment I am the author of Casey and Andy, my readers pointed me to this discussion. I apologize for whichever overzealous reader misused wikipedia by posting an advertisement. I thank whoever modified it into a proper stub. And I support whatever deletion decision is made. -ATW
• Comment: I deleted the overcompact character listing stub and replaced it with an actual description of each of the characters. The first four descriptions are directly from the comic's cast page (two with slight additions), the others were written by me. I did not add anything other than the character listing and I hold no delusion that my descriptions are particularly well-written, but I hope that they elevate the article beyond "stub" status and make it worth keeping and spending more work on. -- Milo, a fan of C&A.
  • Comment: Direct quotations from the website are copyright violations (as each of those descriptions is aparently the full text of each page that they appear on) and therefore it is not legal to add them in their entirety to a Wikipedia article unless the copyright holder releases them. — Gwalla | Talk 21:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Since the author himself seems to be aware of this discussion, it should be fairly easy for Milo to clear this or not; on the other hand, rewriting the character bios seems to me to be the better solution anyway, in the long run --Ray Radlein 23:04, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am the author and I authorize any and all reproduction of C&A images or text for Wikipedia. I'll post that in the Friday, March 4, 2005 newspost on the site to verify my identity. -ATW
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 05:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 00:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Susan Davis 16:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I strongly suspect that fanatic readers will continue to contribute. clarka 4 Mar 2005
• Keep - From what the Alexa test says, 200,000 is the requirement and having almost 500,000, this webcomic meets that criteria. AlmariaR 4 Mar 2005
  • Not to be too much of a wet blanket or anything, but 500,000 is worse than 200,000 in this instance. Lower is better (like golf, without the ugly pants and whispering announcers). While I definitely agree that Casey & Andy deserves inclusion, its Alexa rank isn't why. --Ray Radlein 21:31, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep as rewritten. —Korath (Talk) 23:25, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Onion dome

Website promo. No evidence of notability. Googling for "theoniondome.+com" yields about 100 hits. Delete, or maybe redirect? "Onion dome" is a term used in English for an architectural feature of Orthodox churches, but we don't have an article on that topic, apparently. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) Update: The article has been rewritten. Vfd withdrawn. Thanks a lot to TenOfAllTrades for stepping in! Wile E. Heresiarch 03:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity. Delete and redirect as Wile suggests. Radiant! 10:12, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Get rid of the website promo, but I've created a substitute article on the architectural feature on the talk page. Thoughts? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, how about if we move the new page to onion dome (lowercase letters) and redirect Onion Dome to that. I guess if you're willing to do that then I'll just withdraw this vfd. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • You're right; I missed the capitalization. I'll make the move, since it doesn't seem that anyone is going to miss the old version of the article. Checking the 'what links here' reveals that there were a few redlinks waiting for the architectural onion dome article to appear and no references to the Onion Dome website. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:53, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Unless it can be somehow proven that this website affects a number of Orthodox Christians, delete. History21
  • History21, you can sign and date your name with four tildes (~~~~). Hope this helps, Wile E. Heresiarch 00:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The article has been rewritten, and replaced with content about onion domes, the distinctive architectural features of Russian Orthodox churches. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, n. —RaD Man (talk) 04:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with Radiant. Megan1967 05:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. TenofAllTrades has done a good job. Notable feature of Russian architecture. Capitalistroadster 09:53, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 17:11, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Flavia Pennetta

Found this listed for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure why so I'm relisting it here. No vote at this time. Postdlf 02:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does not establish notability. Delete. -- Brhaspati (talk, contribs) 08:17, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

• she has 3 career titles and hasn't made it past the 3rd round in a Grand Slam, currently no. 25 in the world, she's on the WTA tour- weak keep--nixie 08:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Currently ranked 25th in the world. —Brim 17:39, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Done enough to meet my criteria for tennis players in winning 3 WTA tournaments and seven ITF singles tournaments and 9 ITF tournaments. Please see WTA page. [2]
  • Oops that was me. Capitalistroadster 23:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Capitalistroadster. —RaD Man (talk) 04:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Keep. Theo (Talk) 23:42, 5 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 MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 23:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Grow Up America!

This seems like mere advertising, the text looks like it was pasted from a promotion flyer, and the user does not have a user page. Book does not seem noteworthy (at least yet). Houshuang 03:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I'm new-- please forgive me for an errors I may make. This is a book which I bought, read and know to be notable and popular. If I should do more than I already have to make it worthy, please let me know what to do. I edited the text to make it more neutral and also added a personal profile since it is apparently important for credibility. izrunas
• Um you seem to have recycled the comments from the Amazon.com review [3] or somewhere. However the book is by a notable author, Michael J. Hurd, and should be kept if the article is fixed. Kappa 10:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe that copy/pasting a book review qualifies as copyvio. The book isn't notable where I live, but given its subject that isn't saying much :) I'd say merge or keep, depending on the book's notability. Radiant! 13:09, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Definatly a Copyvio at the moment, I vote Delete and stubify. --InShaneee 16:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Upon more reading of the rules, etc. for Wikipedia, I think it would be better to merge this entry into the Michael J. Hurd entry. Creating separate entries for the book seems overkill now. And incidentally, while portions of what I entered are indeed copied from the book's promotional material, I did so with the written consent of the publisher. Am I right, or what should I do? Thank you for your advice and guidance to this hapless newbie. izrunas
  • Getting consent from the publisher is a thoughtful step, and definitely puts you ahead of the game; I'll leave it up to others to decide the point at which promotional text is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. --Ray Radlein 01:17, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Michael J. Hurd. The author is notable, yes, but his article is still relatively short. There is no need for a host of subordinate articles. Maybe convert this article to a redirect. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 02:53, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge makes sense to me. izrunas, please also put a copy of the consent notice from the publisher in the article's talk page. That way, future reader/editors will know that the copyright permissions have already been granted. Rossami (talk) 22:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect. Rl 22:16, 5 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 merge and redirect to Sunpadh. Deathphoenix 01:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sinbad the Magean

Saw this up for speedy and thought I'd list it here just to be sly. It's at least prima facie valid, but 0 google hits for Sinbad + Magean. I refrain from voting at this time. Postdlf 03:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Would guess it's Sunpadh, and that Magean is an alternate spelling for Magus. I'm not sure either magian or magean are correct words. Someone familiar with Zoroastrianism might know. In any case should probably redirect to Sunpadh. DialUp 05:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sundpadh appears to be a notable figure from Persian history and, per the author of this article, the term Sinbad the Magean is from Arthur Goldschmidt Jr's A Concise History of the Middle East—a 500 page texbook that has been through at least 7 editions by 2001 and appears to be a popular introductory book for Middle Eastern studies [4]. DialUp 16:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with Sunpadh, on DialUp's recommendation. Postdlf 18:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 03:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dusty Rhoads

Delete, i could see if he was national, but he is not, or in a major market, not, or notible in the industry, not, or some kinda other news maker, not. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• from the article: He overcame numerous obstacles, such as an extreme addiction to donuts, to become one of the most well respected Disc Jockeys in the industry. The wattage and frequency makes me think it isn't a major radio station The link goes to a site that isn't up yet. Sounds like advertising/vanity to me. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. You know, I thought that I'd heard of him. Must have been that time I spent the weekend in San Luis Obispo and got drunk at the SLO Brewery. Maybe his band was playing. Anyway, the station is okay, but none of its DJ's are notable in the encyclopedic sense. Yet, at least. HyperZonk^talk 18:26, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, since there have been at least two baseball players, a professional wrestler, and (I think) a porn star and a popular singer whose names have been "Dusty Rhodes" or close homophones thereof, it's easy to see why you'd think so. :-) --Ray Radlein 01:24, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I remember him well here in Palm Springs! My jaw about hit the ground when I saw the name. The San Luis Obispo radio market is roughly the same size or slightly smaller than Palm Springs, which comes in as market number 151 out of 600 total. However, a 25kw Class A FM in SLO would have quite a reach along the entire Central Coast. KZOZ comes in crystal clear well past Atascadero almost to Salinas and, if memory serves, inland as far as Fresno. That's a reach, friends. Way too gushing now, but a possible keep with a major POVectomy and expansion. The overall notability needs to be reinforced as well. - Lucky 6.9 02:55, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Minor celebrity = notable. Keep.--Centauri 10:30, 2 Mar 2005
• Borderline delete as it has no independent verification - David Gerard 00:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I seem to remember a Dusty Rhoads DJ on Atlantic 252 (UK/IRL). I presume it was a *different* Dusty! zoney ♣ talk 00:25, 4 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 Redirect to Special:Random page. Note: this has already been done, and is currently listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. --Deathphoenix 01:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Random page

A prior VfD originally submitted by BmacD at 07:00, 28 Jan 2005. Possible speedy perhaps? -- Longhair 03:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- speedy. Nonsense. Longhair 03:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Just a title and weblink, no content. Speedy deleted. Fire Star 04:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Ok, it's justly deleted now, but how about making it a redirect to Special:Randompage ? Radiant! 15:10, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • I like it. If someone searches for a random page, that's exactly what they should get. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Fine with me. Fire Star 02:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • A good idea -- Longhair 06:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That makes sense. --[[User:BD2412/deletion debates|BD2412] 23:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, it doesn't leave the "Redirect from..." line, and is a cross-namespace redirect, which are usually considered harmful. As such, I've listed it on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. —Korath (Talk) 12:09, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm curious, why is this 'considered harmful'? The user asks for a random page, and gets exactly that: a random space. It's not really cross-namespace, as special:randompage once more returns to a normal namespace. Radiant! 14:38, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and absolutely do not redirect it across namespaces. I thought the consensus against such redirects was clear. jni 12:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a redirect. I could see using this to get a random page, as it is so easy to remember. The user gets what he asks for this way, and as Radiant said, it's not really cross-namespace. Jonathunder 07:09, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:57, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Half-Reality

As far as I can tell, this webcomic consists of exactly four panels. Which falls just a little short of any sort of standard eligibility criteria --Ray Radlein 04:52, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I can't even find it. A web comic that doesn't appear on the web definitely does not belong. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  Heh. To be fair, there was a link to it in List of web comics, which managed to get deleted (as links to non-existent articles often do on that list) in between the time it was added to the list and the time the Half-Reality article was created (oooops!). That's how I found it — by going through the edit history of the list article. Here's the link that I found in that list, and here is a link that actually points to the comic (yep, even the external link given in that list was wrong), which I used to come up with my "four panels" figure. I have the sneaking suspicion that I have just doubled their page views. --Ray Radlein 03:29, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

  That's even worse! Wikipedia is not for promotion of new web comics. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:16, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable webcomic, WikiSpam. — Gwalla | Talk 04:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above. DreamGuy 00:50, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Deathphoenix 01:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

vanavsos

This article is problematic in many superficial ways and in one deep way.

The superficial failings of this article could be corrected. The very name of the article, "vanavsos", is incorrect -- the Greek term has a standard English equivalent, "banausic" (see OED). The meaning given for the term is incorrect -- in fact, inconsistent with the quotes the article itself gives. The transliterations and etymology aren't quite right. The discussion of the sense-development in Greek isn't quite right. There are anachronistic references to modern fields, which could be removed. There is a connection to the constitutions of the Doric states which is not justified in the article, which could be removed. Etc. etc.

If those were the only problems, the solution would be to either edit the article, or to list it in Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention.

But there is a more basic problem: it is not about an important, recognized concept. It is taking a common Ancient Greek word which Aristotle uses in its ordinary meaning and elevating it into some sort of technical term in political philosophy. At best, this constitutes original research, an essay on the relationship of the Greek concepts of virtue (arete) and how it is incompatible with banausic occupation.--Macrakis 05:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposed resolution: Rename to Artisan Class in Ancient Greece

In the spirit of Wikipedia:WikiLove, I'm ignoring some of the provocative things that have been said, and will try for a constructive, positive, egoless resolution, taking advantage of everyone's contributions.

The core of this article as it currently stands seems to be the political role of the artisan class in ancient greece (the βάναυσοι). That is an encyclopedic subject, there is accepted non-original research on the topic (which it would be nice to cite at some point), and in fact it's not a bad name for it.

That seems like an awfully specialized subject, though, and I'd hope that we could come up with a more general article on the Artisan Class in Ancient Greece, with more content on its economic role, its relations with other parts of the population (citizens, metics, slaves, etc.), well-known members (Phidias?, Socrates?), patron gods/demigods (Daedalus?), and all that.

As for the name of the article: In the academic literature on this class, it is referred to either using the English term 'artisan', or with the Greek name in Greek letters, or the Greek name transliterated as 'banausoi' (the plural of 'banausos'). Liddell & Scott (the standard dictionary of Ancient Greek) translates it as 'artisan' (noun); as an adjective, it started out as the adjective 'of the class of handicraftsmen or artisans' and later developed into 'vulgar' etc. (in Modern Greek, it means something like 'uncouth', but that is not really relevant here). Of course, it doesn't have precisely the same denotation or connotations as the English word 'artisan', but there doesn't seem to be any danger of confusion by using that term. The printed index of the 1911 Britannica doesn't use the term banausos/banausic, and, to the extent one can trust the scanned version at 1911encyclopedia.org, they don't appear in its text, either (even though it does use the term 'metic'). Hence the recommendation to use the term 'artisan class'. --Macrakis 23:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A truly inspired suggestion, Macrakis. I do hope that this takes some of the heat out of this debate. --Theo (Talk) 01:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is the importance of the term: This ancient Greek term delineates the ethos of the commercial class from the ethos of the warrior class. It shows the bias of the warrior ethos and established, in the Greek republics, a "psycological distance" between the citizens and the traders. "Artisans" in the Greek language is "texnitai". This word "vanavsos" is to show that they created a term to describe their "bias" against the trader classes and to seperate the warrior ethos from the commercial ethos. This article is very necessary for understanding ancient Greek republicansim!WHEELER 15:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aristotle is pretty clear on this in Politics 1277a/b: ὧν ἓν μέρος κατέχουσιν οἱ χερνῆτες: οὗτοι δ' εἰσίν, ὥσπερ σημαίνει καὶ τοὔνομ' αὐτούς, οἱ ζῶντες ἀπὸ τῶν χειρῶν, ἐν οἷς ὁ βάναυσος τεχνίτης ἐστίν. διὸ παρ' ἐνίοις οὐ μετεῖχον οἱ δημιουργοὶ τὸ παλαιὸν ἀρχῶν, πρὶν δῆμον γενέσθαι τὸν ἔσχατον. That is: “One department [of slave/bondsman] belongs to the handicraftsmen (χερνῆτες), who as their name implies are the persons that live by their hands (χειρῶν), a class that includes the mechanic (βάναυσος) artisan (τεχνίτης). Hence in some states manual laborers (δημιουργοὶ) were not admitted to office in old times, before the development of extreme democracy.”

I think it's pretty clear from this passage that "banausos" is not the term of art in political philosophy that you're making it out to be, at least in Aristotle—in fact, he uses the word δημιουργοὶ to refer to the manual workers who were not admitted to office, not βαναυσοι. Your own quotes demonstrate that banausic does not refer to the commercial or agricultural sector, and your quotes about the love of money don't refer to banausoi at all. So where does that leave this article? Is a common Ancient Greek word for a kind of artisan worth a Wikipedia article? That said, as I suggested above, I do think it is worthwhile to have an serious article on the social/economic/cultural position of artisans in Greek society in the Wikipedia. --Macrakis 18:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As Nixon said, "Let me make this perfectly clear"---This is not about the "artisan class" it is about the ancient Greek warrior clan using a word to seperate their "*culture*" from the commercial culture. First, It is a word that describes the "prejudice" of the warrior class for the "values" of the commercial class. Moreover, it was a psycological device to train their people to turn away from the commercial fields of endeavor. To label this as the "Artisan class" is to destroy the fundamental meaning that this article is trying to portray.WHEELER 15:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no understanding Classical Greek republicanism without understanding this term! This term is very very very important to Classical Greek republicanism, i.e. Wikinfo:Classical republicanism which was removed from Wikipedia. Which SimonP gets all wrong in Classical republicanism.WHEELER 15:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know this is a hard concept to grasp. Not only am I a Doric Greek, but I have been trained as a soldier all my life and did six years in the USMC. This is my ethos. Most of you have been brought up in democracy, liberalism, modernism which colors and influences your thought. I have done nothing but read about the Greeks all my life. I have read Werner Jaeger, Kitto, Hamilton, Muller and others. I know ancient Greek culture, though I am not a Greek linguist whatsoever, but I do know Ancient Greek culture and because I have the same lifestyle and was trained as they were, I know from whence they speak. Please don't transport modern ideas and prejudices back into the classical world.WHEELER 16:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the introductory paragraph to dispel confusion. Please REREAD the article.WHEELER 17:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the title, the title needs to capture the essence of the material in question. I am all up for a better title, but "Artisan Class in Ancient Greece" is not one of them. This title is misleading because it is not about the "Artisan Class". It deals with virtue and how money is destructive of virtue and the warrior ethos.WHEELER 14:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My point on presenting my culture and my ethos is that I see what they see. The Spartans are a strange people, Rousseau commented on this, Paul Cartledge commented on this and many others. Why? Because they are namby-pambies. They are academics, soft and effeminate. How can soft and effeminate, lovers of themselves and lovers of money, understand a warrior culture. They can not. The Spartans are a "strange people". They don't understand and so they can not "correctly" speak of them. What they conjecture is misleading because they miss to catch salient points. Culture is very important. If cultural determinism is important to understanding people's actions And that culture impacts politics, Then Culture also impacts knowledge! What do the proverbs say, "It takes one to know one"; "Unless you have walked in a mile in the moccasins of the other, then you can't understand". Understanding is the key to knowledge. How can academics that have spent their whole life in a classroom have any understanding and/or sympathy (therefore "knowledge") for a warrior culture and ethos in which they despise. Its commonsense.WHEELER 15:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I think Macrakis you are turning this into something which is not intended in the article. you state that "this is an essay on the relationship of the Greek concepts of virtue and how it in incompatible with banausic occupation". This article only presents the concept current in Greek philosophy, and the language of the aristocratic classes. This article JUST presents the concept. In the minds of the Spartans, Kretans, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, there was already a concept of incompatiblity. It was a given. Why do you think that in Republic (Plato) that Plato doesn't give any room for the vanavsos. In order to understand Platonic and Aristotelian political philosophy and the actions of Thebes and of the Doric Greeks in this regard, this concept is necessary. Your attempt to slight and construe this into original research is an attempt at censorship. I agree that 30% of the [classical definition of republic] was original. But the vanavsos article is not original research at all. You are sliding the facts to get this deleted.WHEELER 17:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Votes

• Keep. It is for Classical studies. It is a word used in Aristotelian, Platonic texts and any student needs to know the meaning of the word. I cite sources and it is a good article and not orignal research.WHEELER 19:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - whilst I agree with Macrakis, WHEELER raises a good point. The actual article should be on Wikipedia, but there are many flaws with it in its current state. It is original research - see the original research definition, in particular: an article is original research if it "provides new definitions of old terms". In the article, you state (as an example) "Plato and Aristotle teach that the highest thing in man is reason and therefore, the purpose of human perfection lies with the activity of reason; i.e. the 'theoretic' or contemplative life. Trade, industry and mechanical labour prevent this idea.". Well, you may think trade, industry and mechanical labour prevent activity of reason, but playing the devil's advocate, I'd be perfectly prepared to refute that claim (I am, of course, assuming that the "therefore" is your own thoughts and ideas, and not Plato's or Aritotle's. If I've misread the passage I apologise, but my point remains - much of the article is original research). Nick04 19:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is precisely my point in this whole debate on the deletion process here at wikipedia. NickO4 is the perfect example. The article states the thought of Aristotle and Plato. nick04 wants to argue with them and place "modern" ideas back into the classical world. "Well, you may think trade, industry and mechanical labour prevent activity of reason, but playing the devil's advocate,. This article is not about MODERN people agreeing with the thought of Aristotle or Plato, it is about presenting their thought AS IS. Only by Understanding HOW they thought can you understand the WHY they said the things they said. This response by this Wikipedian shows the falacy and the damage being done to the Classical world and its studies. This man wants to "reinterpret" Classical thought in the light of Modern Thought!!! This is not right!!!.WHEELER 19:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete original research. - SimonP 19:55, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Portions would be appropriate for an ancient-Greek dictionary, and I'd vote to delete them as dictionary definitions; the balance of the article's text is idiosyncratic inference, POV, and original research. The conclusion that "Plato and Aristotle teach" anything at all about "modern fields such as lawyering and journalism" is inappropriate on Wikipedia, and removing all such conclusions would leave only a patchwork of quotations holding the article together; as Macrakis says, this is not a widely accepted synthesis, term, or concept. (The main author has in the past made collaborative editing of his submissions next to impossible, so improvements to the lesser problems Macrakis identifies are unlikely in any case.) -- Rbellin|Talk 20:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your comment, "The conclusion that "Plato and Aristotle teach" anything at all about "modern fields such as lawyering and journalism" is inappropriate on Wikipedia" is very impertinent. You may not take any teaching from the Classics, but all of Roman Catholic philosophy, theology and ethics comes from Plato and Aristotle. You and your people may not like this information and refuse to read anything classical because they are "DWEM" and you despise classical learning and philosophy doesn't mean that you can delete information based on these grounds and your prejudices. What about the rest of us that have a love of the classical world? What about the Roman Catholic philosophers and students who love to have this information? There are "*other*" people out here that do love this information.WHEELER 17:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please re-read, and please try to understand, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and refrain from making ad hominem arguments based on your (erroneous) suppositions about other contributors' personal beliefs. This is flamebait, not constructive discussion about the article's merits or lack thereof. -- Rbellin|Talk 04:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you look below, I answer all the charges of it being 'original" research. And I ask you, How can it be "original research" when, the word was taken into the English language as early as 1845? And what do you mean by 'modern'? 1935 is not "modern" enough for you? When does "modernity" start, anew every 20 years. So books in the l960's is ancient and no good?WHEELER 16:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Stone me with a blood-red crow, but I can't see what the problem is. I have removed the "modern fields" phrase (which was a bit dodgy), but the remainder of the article looks like a perfectly valid discussion of an ancient Greek word/concept and its context, amply supported by relevant references. It needs some cleanup, but what article doesn't? Keep. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 02:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Original research, and if the original author won't allow others to edit it, it's not likely to change. SlimVirgin 22:53, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, because the basic topic is valid. The content needs a lot of work to strip out novel interpretations, but if poor content (or difficult contributors) were a basis for deletion, WP would just now be getting up to its 1,000th article. :-) Stan 16:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I'm torn on this one. Everything that Macrakis says about it is surely true, yet GeorgeStepanek also has a point. It seems that, if it were moved to the correct title, and the inaccuracies (what's wrong with the tranliteration, though?) and personal research removed, it could be a useful article. And yet, and yet... the only genuine English word that corresponds to the Greek is an adjective — and it seems odd to have an encyclopædia article with an adjective as a title (banausic what?); we do seem to be dealing more with a dictionary article. It's also true that WHEELER has a tendency to fight tooth and nail to prevent changes to what he sees as his articles (though the Arete (excellence) article has seen a softening of that position, so there's hope). In the end, though, I don't see that I can vote otherwise than:
  Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • WHEELER has asked me to look at the article again, and there's no doubt that he's put a lot of work into it. I disagree with some of the claims (such as that writers like Aristotle disn't distinguish between artisans and slaves), but that's not the point. Discussion of the concept doubtless has a place somewhere (in a discussion of Aristotle, in a discussion of ancient Greek class-consciousness, etc.), but there's just no reason to think that the Greeks (who, aside from Aristotle, seem not even to have used the noun to refer to people, according to my Liddle & Scott) recognised the concept concerned. I've contacted friends who are Classical scholars, but haven't yet heard back. As soon as I do, I'll report here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP, adjectives, ancient and otherwise, are encyclopedic, and I urge the deciding admin to ignore votes such as the above, which are not based in VfD standards. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

???? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, even though it needs work. The subject seems valid to me; unusual but not insignificant. The intransigence (or otherwise) of the article's originator has no bearing on the validity of the article. Mel Etitis raises an interesting point about adjectives as topics and, although I cannot think of the deadjectival noun form of 'banausic', the solution to that issue is to use the deadjective as the title (what can that be?).--Theo (Talk) 17:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If by 'deadjective' you mean 'noun', then the answer is that there isn't one in English; the word exists only as an adjective. That was rather my point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was being slack and using deadjective as a contraction for deadjectival noun. Your suggestion that there is no such construct does invalidate my titling proposal. In my opinion, it does not make the topic invalid, however. --Theo (Talk) 18:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with 'deadjectival noun'; how do they differ from ordinary nouns? As for having an adjective as the title of an article, I'm not making a grammatical point; rather, I think that encyclopædia articles should be about things, people, places, concepts — in a word, subjects rather than properties. I'd find it equally odd to have an article entitled, say 'Philosophical' rather than 'Philosophy', or 'Humorous' rather than 'Humour'. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A deadjectival noun is one derived from an adjective. "Usefulness" is an example. What price banausicness? banausicity? No, I thought not. --Theo (Talk) 19:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, what I'd call a back-formation. How about 'banausickle'? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I reserve 'back-formation' for neologisms; long-established back-formations get the spurious gravitas of being 'deadjectival nouns'. [How long before we indent this conversation off the page?] --Theo (Talk) 21:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To Theo, we just start a new line. Look, the word in Greek is a noun not an adjective. It may be an adjective in English, but it is a noun in Greek. One just says "vanavsos" and one means the working class. One can say of the perioci of Lacedæmonia, that they are vanavsos. The vanavsoi don't have political rights. The vanavsoi are in rebellion. The vanavsoi are not literate enough to do politics. It is a noun in Greek texts. WHEELER 21:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, no, it's a noun in modern Greek, we're agreed — it's just that there's no noun in English that's derived from it, only an adjective. I'm a little surprised that you say that it means the working class, though; isn't that a figurative, not a literal use? In modern Greek, I thought that vanavsos meant literally 'crude', 'coarse', 'rough', 'vulgar', even 'obscene'. In ancient Greek, though, it was an adjective, surely; I can't find a mention of it as a noun except in Aristotle, and he seems to be creating a noun for his own purposes. Do you have any other references for it as a noun? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As far as my greek knowledge says me, the transliteration would be banavsos not **vanavsos. --Neigel von Teighen 21:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No, the transliteration is fine for modern Greek (and modern Greeks pronounce ancient Greek as if it were modern). The standard English transliteration is 'banausos'. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The "b" in Greek is pronounced as a "v" sound. If the "B" is used then English speakers would say the term with a "b" sound. I don't think that would sound right. And i would like to add that in understanding freedom and liberty, the Greeks did not consider the vanavsos as participants in a city's political life. Aristotle, and Plato did not include the vanavsoi in the political franchise. This word and concept are important to understanding the Greek mentality.WHEELER 21:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neither Plato nor Aristotle were democrats, so I'm not clear what you mean by 'franchise' here — and they were surely included in the franchise in the Athenian democracy at the time (given that the term itself was only used as a noun describing a class of person by Aristotle, so far as I can tell). But that's a discussion that should really take place elsewhere. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, β in Modern Greek is certainly pronounced like English 'v', and it would be completely appropriate to transcribe a Modern Greek word that way. However, the term in question is being cited from classical sources (as I mentioned in the Talk:Vanavsos page). The conventional transliteration of β in the Latin alphabet is 'b' -- we don't even need to worry about what the actual pronunciation was in classical times, just know that this is the standard convention. Surely it doesn't make sense to re-write all Greek words borrowed into English following the Modern Greek pronunciation?: 'violoyia' (not biology), 'taftoloyia' (not tautology), etc. Moreover, there is an existing, established English version of this term: banausic. And what's wrong with saying 'the franchise was not extended to banausics'; anyway, the WikiPedia is not about introducing new terms like 'vanavsos'. --Macrakis 23:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. You're confusing two things here: English words with Greek roots, and transliterations of Greek words. 'Biology' is no more a transliteration of the Greek than would be 'viologhia' or 'violoyia'; it's an English word whose etymology is Greek.
2. What's wrong with the sentence you suggest is that 'banausics' isn't an English word.
3. In so far as Wikipedia delas with concepts that have only non-English names in non-Roman alphabets or other symbol-systems, then transliteration is necessary, and doesn't constitute the introduction of new words. For example, neither qi nor arete is an English word, but there's no problem with having articles on them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, after having read all the arguments above. Jonathunder 00:44, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

• Delete for all the reasons given. Or redirect to artisan. If it is kept then the title should be banausoi (for a class), banausos (if people do not like plurals) or banausic as a real English word. --Henrygb 10:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the time being. Needs much work, though. Could become encyclopedic. Smoddy (t) (e) 19:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an encyclopedic subject, and the article is not original research (at least not by my understanding of the policy). The concept is an ancient one, I think the main problem is that WHEELER has covered it in a more academic way than is usual on Wikipedia. The article might need a better introduction, to more clearly place it in its proper context, but other than that I see no real problem that can't be sorted out by a spell on "Pages needing attention". Rje 20:24, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• (changed from keep to Delete, see below WhiteC 05:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)). Many of these arguments seem to be about transliteration, and I don't see those as valid arguments to delete. There is some similarity to artisan, but I don't think the concepts are interchangable (from what I've read in this article). I agree with Rje--the article could probably use work, but remains valid content nonetheless. WhiteC 21:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This is why I tried to divert the stuff about transliteration to a separate section below (but too late). That's a side issue. The central point is in Macrakis's initial comments:
    “But there is a more basic problem: it is not about an important, recognized concept. It is taking a common Ancient Greek word which Aristotle uses in its ordinary meaning and elevating it into some sort of technical term in political philosophy.”
    All the research that I've done supports this; the ancient Greeks simply didn't use the term in a way that warrants an article. Aristotle himself didn't use it in the way that the article states. Some of the quotations offered below could be taken to support WHEELER's contentions, but are more naturally read otherwise (references to 'the corrupting influence of the marketplace' just don't naturally refer to the supposed concept of 'vanavsos'). I do agree that some of the material would probably fit somewhere, so WHEELER's undoubted hard work needn't be completely wasted. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mel. This is not a concept of Aristotle. It was common throughout the ancient Greek cities. Aristotle just gave it a philosophical underpinnings. Sparta and Thebes organized their societies around this concept without ever reading Aristotle or Plato. Plato uses this extensively in The Laws. I have added much content and bibliography of the stuff. Please read.WHEELER 21:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Points taken, Mel. Wheeler, since you asked for my input, I have to say that I am unqualified regarding fine details of ancient history/philosophy (along with the other people you list). I probably wouldn't have looked at this article myself, unless there are links to it from some other philosophical article I was reading. Is there a list of ancient philosophical concepts somewhere in Philosophy:Ancient Greece or something--I guess if the concept were mentioned somewhere like that (before I posted this), I'd want to keep it, but otherwise not. So, I'm changing my vote above. WhiteC 05:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe what I am hearing! We are in the midst of building an encyclopaedia. Either I am charged with original research because i put the bare bones out and other Wikipedians charge me alone with having to write a complete and thorough article at the onset or now, they want to delete because, I WHEELER, haven't had the time and the knowhow to put other articles on the encyclopaedia to mesh with vanavsos which is now the supposition and reasoning of WhiteC. This is absolutely outrageous! I am benumbed with consternation at all these floating reasons that have no bearing on the essence of the question! These people don't charge others with "these crimes" only myself and create "rules" that I must abide by but noone else. By WhiteC's argument, "The article must be deleted because it is not linked to any other article's". To WhiteC, this illogicity is glaring, "How are we to build an encyclopaedia when others are going to delete articles because they are not connected to something else?" I am floored by the "reasonings" imagined in order to get this article deleted.WHEELER 18:09, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, see Wikipedia:No original research. Rhobite 18:24, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, moved to Artisan Class in Ancient Greece, with some re-edited material under a subsection "Elite views of the artisan class." No one who has read anything about the failure of Hellenistic science is likely to mistake the gist of this as "original research," no matter how "difficult" a couple of administrators find this particular editor. A discussion that is highly revealing and not Wikipedia at its normal self. --Wetman 16:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but under a name or phrase which captures the concept in english, since the current title does not seem to be an english word, just a transliteration into english.--Silverback 17:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The essence of the article is a concept which many people would want ro research on. HOWEVER, it should not be left as it currently is, especially the article's name should be a recongised English word. The word vanavsos does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, therefore in the eyes of most English speakers it is not an English word and shouldn't be in an English language encyclopaedia. REX 19:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, under whatever title is agreed to on the article's talk page. Paul August ☎ 17:52, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. According to WHEELER, "The question is 'Should people be voting on something they have not a clue on?'." On Wikipedia, the answer is "Yes, that's our policy." You've been around long enough to know this. You talk about the commercial ethos and the warrior ethos. Well, the Wiki ethos is that of open source. The theory is that, if we let a bunch of people without professional qualifications write and edit and delete pretty much as they please, a good encyclopedia will somehow emerge. I know you disagree with the theory and with the policy. That's certainly your privilege, and you have good company, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica pooh-bahs. As long as you stay here, though, you have to recognize that that's the way it works here. The MediaWiki software is available under the GFDL for anyone who wants to start a similar project but with stricter quality controls. By the way, to save you the trouble of clicking through to my user page, I'll admit right now that I'm not qualified as a classicist. JamesMLane 08:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. And it is very clear to me. This is in a sense "stricter quality control". Yes. But the "quality control" on wikipedia is Marxist and Fabian, Humanist and Modern. You have laid out very clearly to me that "who is in control here". The standards being that people who are ignorant of any subject but with a bias to protect can delete stuff off of Wikipedia. And that is not professional, academic, righteous (justice) or truthful. I understand perfectly what you are saying. I will not start another page nor work for Wikipedia (though I will transfer stuff here). I see clearly where this is going. I can do better and stop wasting my time here because surely I am. Thanks Mr. James MLane. You have certainly opened my eyes to the fundamental core of Wikipedia. And that yes, then Wikipedia is run by a cabal.WHEELER 14:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, you have exposed the "hypocrisy" here. All evil is hypocritical as Cicero has pointed out. "Coherence" and "Consistency" are hallmarks of truth which is missing here at Wikipedia. If this is "Free and Open content" and "Open Source" then why is there a deletion notice on vanavsos and why did the Classical definition of republic get deleted? There is a major flaw in the system. Quite prescient of those who practise "dissimulation". You say one thing but do another and this is the sign of it.WHEELER 15:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ad hominem arguments. What is the major flaw in the system (as opposed to the people who run it), apart from the fact that some articles which you like are being deleted? I understand your desire to defend them tooth and nail, but you need to pick your fights and decide which things to compromise on (easy for me to say I know), rather than to make enemies with anyone who disagrees with you. Personally, I think that your articles (the ones I have looked at) are good writing about things which deserve to be included in Wikipedia and do not constitute 'original research', but probably should be parts of a larger article on Ancient Greek society as it impacted philosophy, rather than separate articles. If you are looking for something similar to Wikipedia, which has centralized editing, try h2g2 at [5] Thanks for your contributions. WhiteC 23:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep But not in its present form. Contains some relavent info for Classical studies. Wikipedia has many articles on individual words, like it, so why not this ancient word? Possible changes: one brief article on the word, and then some of the info can be transfered to another article focussing on social structures of the ancient Hellenistic world. Paradiso 07:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If this article is deleted i'm going to be really pissed off. Actually, I probably won't notice, but I'll still be pissed in principle. No good reason to delete this excellent content. --Alterego 07:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

More Information

• "Many communities took steps to exclude those engaged in trade and industry from participation in politics; even where the marketplace was allowed to intrude upon political life, the merchant and the craftsmen were generally objects of contempt, ridiculed on the stage, if not banished from respectable society." Republic, Ancient and Modern, Rahe, 1992. pg 44.
• "Cicero was by no means the first man to reach this conclusion. Centuries before, Xenophon, Plato, and Aristotle had addressed the corrupting influence of the marketplace...". ibid, pg 46.
• "The ancients feared commerce not simply because it encourages economic specialization and contributed to a differentiation of interests. They worried that trade would erode the fragile moral consensus of the community...." pg 59.
• "The fact that there had to be a law at Athens against heaping insults on those practicing a profession in the agora indicates just how difficult it was to overcome this prejudice." ibid, pg 251.WHEELER 19:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Qualified to Vote

SimonP is an anonymous user. What's his qualifications for voting? Anything? There is nothing on his page!
JonathanThunder, another practically anonymous user.
Macrakis, a software engineer. I don't go to the software section and edit there do I?
Von Teighon shows no expertise in either philosophy, Greek philosophy, or classics.
Nick04, what's his expertise? I can't find none on his user page either.
Rbellion is a Marxist and an advocate of the Frankfurt school. Of course, he will vote against this material.
Slimvirgin edits articles like these [Bernard Williams], [Rat Park], [Rihab Rashid Taha], [Jeremiah Duggan], [Steven Emerson], [John Cooley], [Kenneth Bigley] etc. What's his expertise to vote on something classical?

Other than Mel Etits and Stan Shebs who has done extensive editing in the Classical field. I find noone qualified to judge anything in the classical world.WHEELER 19:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sir R. W. Livingstone was the President of Corpus Christi College in Oxford. These people claim to be bigger than this scholarly gentleman?WHEELER 19:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sir Livingstone writes: In some states these theories were actually applied. Sparta excluded the industrial, commercial and farming class from citizenship. In Thebes no retail trader of artisan was eligible for office till ten years after he had retired from business." This is footnoted as follows: "See the admirable discussions in Newman's edition of the Politics, vol. i, p. 98f., which I have used in what follows."

He continues on pg 113:
"The aim of a journalist may either be to enlarge the circulation of a paper or to give his readers a true and intelligent picture of the world; of a lawyer either to extend his practice or to help justice be done; of a business man either to grow rich or to play his part as a 'nurse' of the community. These alternatives are not exclusive. But where the former predominates, the amount of arete generated will be small, and journalists, lawyers and industrialists will be banausoi rather than men." WHEELER 19:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I ask that all read User:Mirv.WHEELER 20:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Qualifying votes like what you're doing is not part of the VfD process, except for the determination of sock puppets and the like. Besides, as I read in this discussion, one can glean many errors/problems in this article without having the same purported depth of knowledge on this topic as yourself. Your display of hyper-elitism really won't help your cause. If you can't win on your arguments, then that's that. Move on. It's not the end of the world if the Wikipedia doesn't accept a particular article. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 04:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The question is "Should people be voting on something they have not a clue on?". Do Software engineers run the philosophy departments on College Universities? Do Software engineers decide who gets degrees within the philosophy department? No. People in the academic system are judged by their peers. All I am saying, is that the "Vanavsos" Article be judged by people who are classicists! Why should people ignorant of the subject matter be voting about something they have no clue on what they are saying? And what is happening here, is that these people are damaging, through their ignorance, classical studies and knowledge! That's the essence of the problem here! This is commonsense. WHEELER 14:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not allowing a particular article in doesn't damage a subject. It's possibly an omission, and if so, people can look elsewhere for info. And I think contributors should be able to vote on any VfD's they want to vote on. Wikipedia isn't a credentialing service. Hey, that sounds like something to add right after "Wikipedia isn't a link farm" in the FAQs. LOL — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 21:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You sound like a true professional. What is really going on is censorship. Wikipedia touts itself as "Free and open Content". And by gathering a group of "Fabian Socialists" and other fellow travellers, we can delete information through the power of democracy and "sanitize" Wikipedia for only articles that fit modernity and marxist views.WHEELER 14:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who ever suggested this was a professional encyclopedia? — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 21:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As for your "marxist" claptrap, there's plenty of articles that would satisfy "the right" in here. Plenty. But it's not as if we can leave out "the left" as well. All viewpoints belong, as long as they have encyclopedic relevance. I really don't understand why you're using up so much time wailing about such minor issues. The Wikipedia is the encyclopedia of the people, and if you can't get the people to recognize a few obtuse concepts, then boo-hoo-hoo. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 21:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Mr Stevie the man please see my response above to Mr. James MLane. Vox populi, vox dei, which you have now turned around to vox populi, vox veritas. Everything revolves around the people which I like to call the "Herd". You are right. Thanks Mr. Stevie the man and Mr. MLane.WHEELER 15:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Qualifiers for "No Original Research

A wikipedia entry (including a part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas, that is:

• It introduces a theory or method of solution, or
  • "Vanavsos" is the thought of the aristocratic people and philosophers of ancient Greece. It is an established fact.
• It introduces original ideas, or
  • This article establishes nothing new or original.
• It defines new terms, or
  • It keeps to the orignal meaning of the word.
• It provides new definitions of old terms, or
  • No new meanings are advanced.
• It purports to refute another idea, or
  • does not do this.
• It introduces neologisms.
  • not applicable.

However all of the above may be acceptable content once they have become, a permanent feature of the public landscape. A few examples of this include:

• The ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal; or
• The ideas have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).

What the real problem is
The real problem is this: " a permanent feature of the public landscape". Because of the loss of classical learning, reading and schooling in the classics, many are ignorant of this fact. This information is strange to the 21st century man but in Victorian England, 1920's America and England, this was a common knowledge. The word entered the English language and was understood to be such. It is in the OED. This meets none of the criterial of Wikipedia:No original research.WHEELER 20:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, moved to Artisan Class in Ancient Greece, with some re-edited material under a subsection "Elite views of the artisan class." No one who has read anything about the failure of Hellenistic science is likely to mistake the gist of this as "original research," no matter how "difficult" a couple of administrators find this particular editor. A discussion that is highly revealing and not Wikipedia at its normal self. --Wetman 16:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but under a name or phrase which captures the concept in english, since the current title does not seem to be an english word, just a transliteration into english.--Silverback 17:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Undecided Am awaiting my orders from the cabal to see what our collective opinion is.AndyL 18:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please add votes above the "More information" mark so that they can be counted

Transliteration

I've started this in order to avoid cluttering up the voting any further. I'm not arguing for the retention of this article (my vote, above, stands), but a number of people have raised and argued about an issue that's of more general importance.

An article on, for example, graves should start with the origins of the term and associated concept (in fact the Wikipedia article is a stub, but the principle holds); nevertheless, the article is given the modern English spelling, not 'græf', and the modern spelling is used when talking about ancient grave mounds, etc. Why then, when we're talking about a word that exists and is used in modern Greek should we use a transliteration alien to the modern pronunciation? It's not even as if such transliterations are accurate representations of how Aristotle or Euripedes, for example, would have pronounced the language. Is it, at least in part, that non-Greek Westerners feel that they own the ancient language and culture, and that modern Greeks are merely its degraded descendants who can be ignored? I'm sure that such an approach is usually unconscious, but I suspect that it's widely prevalent. (There's a G. K. Chesterton essay on this sort of topic, but I don't have the reference to hand.)

If there's an English word derived from the Greek, then of course it should be used in an English-language encyclopædia, but where the word is solely Greek, then surely good practice (not to mention good manners) dictates that the Greek pronunciation be used to transliterate it — not a transliteration of the conjectural (at best) pronunciation of people dead for 2,500 years, but of the pronunciation of the living, breathing users of the language. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, Modern English has borrowed this word from Ancient Greek, not from Modern Greek. Using a transliteration reflecting Modern Greek pronunciation would be like borrowing a word from Latin and using modern Italian pronunciation for it, or borrowing a word from Sanskrit and using modern Hindi pronunciation and transliteration for it. --Angr 14:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But, first, this word doesn't exist in modern English — that's the point (as has been pointed out a number of times above); English has the adjective 'banausic', but no noun, so it hasn't borrowed it from anywahere. Secondly (and less importantly), the relationship between Latin and Italian is very different from that between Ancient and modern Greek, nor is transliteration an issue in the former case (besides, Latin is pronounced in many ways; being brought up a Catholic, I was taught to speak Latin in a much more Italian way than my current colleagues in Classics in Oxford — and you should hear the Latin grace as spoken in Pembroke College, Oxford; I'm told that it's the northern European style, very Italian, much more so than my early training). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's get this right: we're transliterating an ancient Greek word into English, right? That word currently does not exist in English. Modern Greek ࣔ Ancient Greek. We do not know exectly how people spoke in Ancient Greece. We should use the system used by the greatest number of people, particularly scholars. While some scholars would pronounce Ancient Greek with a level of the modern style coming in, they would not read the one as the other. The normal way of transliterating β into English is as "b". The way to obtain a "v" would be to use the pre-Classical digamma (Ϝ). If we were expecting the French Wikipedia to transliterate a modern English word, we would like them to use a modern system, not Chaucer's pronounciation. Mel's point about his pronounciation (and Pembroke College's) is about a modern dialect of Latin, not of the original language. It would also make most sense to someone who is not au fait with Greek tradition or pronounciation to comprehend. Smoddy (t) (e) 15:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. No, we're transliterating a Greek word into English; it existed in Ancient Greek, it still exists in modern Greek — it's just Greek
2. The normal way of transliterating 'β' varies according to context; when dealing with modern Greek, the normal way is to use a 'v'. Modern scholars, especially when writing in more popular contexts, often use old-style transliterations (such as 'Euripedes' rather than 'Evripidis' or even 'Evripithis') when dealing with familiar names and words, and more accurate modern transliterations otherwise.
3. Transliterating isn't an issue from English to French.
4. You seem to have missed my point about Latin — and no, it has nothing to do with dialects, modern or otherwise.
5. Someone who isn't au fait with Greek will hardly be affected by the difference; they'll only have the English transliteration. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. But the article is about the ancient word.
2. I am currently studying classical Greek. I have recently been to Greece. I do know quite a bit about transliteration. If I could pick you up on one thing: writing in more popular contexts. Are we not trying to make an encyclopedia understandable to the average man-on-the-street? I would also say that the concept is classical, ergo the transliteration should be by normal standards for classical work. If someone said to me, "Who wrote Iphigenia in Aulis" (for example), I would say Euripides, not something along the other lines. I realise that is, to an extent, your point. However, it is highly inconsistent. This encyclopeda should be clearly understandable to someone approaching the concepts for the first time. This inconsistency isn't.
3. Point conceded. It was the nearest comparison I could draw.
4. Then, pray, what was your point?

See point 2 re consistency. Modern Greek ࣔ Ancient Greek! Smoddy (t) (e) 17:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no expertise in naming, or in Latin and Greek etymology to English etymology. So I leave this argument up to experts. My only thought is to make the word understandable to illiterate and unclassically trained high school students.WHEELER 17:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. My point is that there isn't an ancient word and a modern word; there's a Greek word. Besides, I'm not talking about this article (which I think, on balance, should be deleted as non-encyclopædic).
2. The point about popular writing is precisely that; as we're involved in popular writing, we might think of following the lead that I cite. (Also, however it's transliterated, I'd say Evripidis (the 'd' being more of a 'th'), as would most Greeks.)
3.  
4. My Latin comment was a response to yours; you then treated it as a separate point in itself.
5. The consistency can be found if one treats well-known names to be English borrowings (as in the 'biology' example used at one point above); then borrowed words, being English, are spelt as the English spell them, but transliterations conform to the Greek pronunciation.

Where are you studying Classics, by the way? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To be entirely fair, I'm not. I'm studying for my GCSE, but I do read an awful lot (far too much) and consider myself to have something of a flair for understanding languages.

I'm now rather confused as to the points I was making. However, I think: a) article should be deleted, but not enough to vote; b) use the transliteration that makes the most simple sense. I think I shall leave this discussion now. Sorry to have had a bit of a dispute... Oh, and I think Wikipedia should respond to trends, not try to set them. Smoddy (t) (e) 18:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

“I'm studying for my GCSE” — that's good to hear; there's still someone out there doing it. The Classics faculty here has slowly been forced to admit people who have neither Greek nor Latin, because of the shortage of qualified candidates. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

After considerable thinking... for the Greek word Barbarian we use the English word "b". I am all for changing the title of the article to "banausic" or something similar. WHEELER 18:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But that's for an English word with a Greek root; it's not relevant to the question of transliteration. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have sitting in front of me the OED and the word is used in English language as an idea from the Greek classical world. So the "idea" was transported to English culture. The word may be dead now but in Victorian England it was real. As for transliteration, we can keep that in the body of the article but for the title of it, maybe we go with banavsos, banausos as with like "Euripedes". The word was used as late as 1957.WHEELER 19:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:57, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Lion vs Tiger

Original research. RickK 06:41, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't belong here. utcursch | talk 06:58, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Just my POV, but Tigers always win ;) <3 Delete. Tygar 08:39, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. —Brim 17:37, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — Plenty of web hits and there was a show about this on the Discovery channel. Besides I could actually see some interest in this issue among younger readers. It does need to be cross-linked. — RJH 17:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless good verifiable sources (who are those "zoologists who think the lion would win") are provided prior to expiration of VfD. Too speculative. Not encyclopedic. Personally I think that it is just as likely that if "a group of wild lions and tigers" were placed in a pit, that the outcome would a bunch of little ligers and tigons in about 105 days... Dpbsmith (talk) 18:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That's assuming if both cats are fed. Megan1967 05:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Lion vs Tiger is one of the biggest animal debates on the web." ...not until Microsoft give their next OS the codename "Lion"...Doesn't belong on Wikipedia, not encyclopedic. Nick04 19:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Whatever. Tiger Hand always beats paper. --iMb~Mw 01:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no useful information here--nixie 02:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Is this supposed to be a parody of Star Trek versus Star Wars? Gamaliel 02:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and wikify. —RaD Man (talk) 04:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, almost every "X vs. Y" or "differences between X and Y" article is unencyclopedic. Radiant! 08:25, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Recycling Troll 10:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that the above user's sole raison d'etre is to follow me around and make tiny edits to articles I have just edited, and to vote the opposite of the way I vote on VfD pages. RickK 23:41, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that the above user's personal attack is completely untrue. I think this article is worth keeping, I was interested to read it even if Rick was not. The Recycling Troll 14:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, Rick's statement seems entirely factual. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This gives the notion to many that lion vs tiger is entirely 50/50 however this has not been widely accepted. Very informative. Delete. Fredrik | talk 10:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Can you believe many students are taught to write in this style? Anyway, delete this article for being speculative original research on an encyclopedic topic. -R. fiend 17:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, at least. Could be a deletionist trap set to embarass any inclusionists who might vote to keep it. --BM 20:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • <rubs hands together> Excellent.... Gamaliel 21:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Comparison articles are pointless. --Woohookitty 01:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - possibly add info to each page for the "younger readers" but not necessary Selphie 12:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) *talk*
• Delete X vs. Y articles usually not encyclopedic. --Holdek 22:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

• Keep This should be kept, it does not break any rules and shows no bias toward neither animals.
• Great Article Why should we delete it? It has some great info in it.
• Keep I've always wanted to know who wins between these two animals, so I think it should be kept.
• Keep Maybe wikify instead.
  • Above four unsigned remarks added all within a period of of a few minutes of each other by 24.6.241.70 Dpbsmith (talk) 01:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

• Delete. Neither original research nor dubious claims are allowed on Wikipedia.
  • Above remark by User:Andrew pmk Dpbsmith (talk) 01:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

• Keep Nice topic and shows no bias in it.
• Keep. Not a bad way of writing it but needs to be wikified. Keep it.
• Keep Good read on a very close match up.
• Okay It isn't the greatest but it is okay to keep.
• Keep. Not bad, wikify it though.
• Keep As long it does not contain any bias which I don't see, I think it is fine.
  • ALL of the six unsigned remarks above were added in a single edit by 24.6.241.70. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

• Keep While it is true that X vs Y articles are usually not worth keeping, (of course Supreme Court cases are worth keeping), this is an exception. A pretty good and decent article. Sjakkalle 12:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • User first signed up with this name on the same day he/she made this vote. RickK 00:08, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly speculation. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Tiger, of course. Also, delete. -Sean Curtin 03:16, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Lest we be swamped with Portugese Man-of-War Vs Gila Monster or Arboreal Salamander Vs African Palm Swifts. Although I wouldn't mind seeing Kodiak Bear Vs Anne Coulter ;P Sabine's Sunbird 03:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Boxer vs. Wrestler! Karate vs. Judo! Roger Maris vs. Mark Maguire! And, of course, List of hypothetical contests!
• Delete. Original research. Un-encyclopedic. Sock puppets. DaveTheRed 06:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very interesting topic, could use more authoritative sources, though. - Marcika 07:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not encyclopedic, original research. Jonathunder 00:47, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
• Delete as nonencyclopedic, speculative and just plain pointless. DreamGuy 00:49, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely silly. BTfromLA 09:17, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very Interesting article.

• Note: The above line is yet another edit by 24.6.241.70, who has a number of votes here in the double digits. The unregistered user should know that he/she is wasting his/her time, as multiple votes do not count. DreamGuy 03:09, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research, non-encyclopedic speculation, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 18:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Scropt

Appears to be a neologism. May be, uh, original research. Or hoax. Google search is complicated by many occurrences of "scropt" as a typo for "script". However, the same author created a redir for scroptaru (now deleted) — this gets zero google hits. -- Curps 06:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism at best. BTW, "scroptaru" might indicate that the original poster was Japanese, as it looks like a Japanese-language based gerundification of a foreign verb ("scropt" would not be a Japanese coinage, though "sukuraputeru" might be ;). HyperZonk^talk 18:17, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I wrote it as a joke in an attempt to get trillian to look it up. It's a fake word I made up some time ago, originally made up to mock someone who misspelled script. It has no place on Wikipedia or anywhere else and should be deleted. Though if you look up "scropted" on google you will find a result on a message board of someone using it in context. Though one hit from a message board does not warrent an article. Speedy Delete it if you want. -Ryowolf

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Cool Hand Luke 07:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dynamic elements

A page that was created from copyrighted content. That describes something in an unusual way that was specific to the original article (doesn't really make sense out of context). That is linked by nothing. Should be deleted. AlistairMcMillan 07:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I've added copyvio. Delete in any event, as this is a unique idiom for topics covered elsewhere with more standard language. HyperZonk^talk 17:04, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Cool Hand Luke 07:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The static part of HTML

A page that was created from copyrighted content. That describes something in an unusual way that was specific to the original article (doesn't really make sense out of context). That is linked by nothing. Should be deleted. AlistairMcMillan 07:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete linkspam, info already covered elsewhere. --InShaneee 16:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I've added copyvio. Delete in any event, as this is a unique idiom for topics covered elsewhere with more standard language. HyperZonk^talk 17:05, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (with a recommendation that it be included in BJAODN). Rossami (talk) 01:20, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Underwear Wearer

Non-encyclopedic. Delete. utcursch | talk 09:47, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• BJAODN --Plaque Saalt 09:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Karada 09:59, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN and ripe for it! --Reiners 10:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN Damn! You beat me there! --North Lights 10:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ASAP - why are we wasting time discussing it? Deb 12:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN =D - Mailer Diablo 13:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and "where" isn't the same as "wear"! --Christofurio 13:52, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN - --Sufferage Tennero 09:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN - Funny Article! --Liquor of Northren Ireland 09:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Save it into BJAODN. Zzyzx11 01:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for putting a smile on my face. Zzyzx11 06:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Ahahahaha... BJAODN. Tygar 05:42, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Chrysalis 05:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN - This kind of thing just isn't "nessescary" --Teknic 06:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN --Phil | Talk 13:20, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Runaways (comics). Note: this has already been done. Deathphoenix 01:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sister Grimm (comics)

This is a page about a character from the Runaways comic book series. However, the information on the Sister Grimm page is duplicated from her entry in the Runaways page. The series is a minor cult hit and I don't feel there's the need, at this moment, to either expand on Sister Grimm or even to turn it into a redirect for Runaways. Both pages were created by the same anonymous user, who has a bad grasp of English and has a tendency to do lists instead of coherent sentences and paragraphs. Delete --Pc13 10:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. Red links encourage the creation of fannish stubs like this. -Sean Curtin 00:32, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Runaways (comics). (Everything already merged). Pc13 is right about it being redundant. RJFJR 01:18, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect is right. The series is quite good, personally, but until the character does something outside the series, this is pointless. SpiritGlyph 20:18, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Transwiki to WikiSource. Deathphoenix 01:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Long telegram

Delete or transwiki to wikisource (if it is not a copyvio and not already there). This is the text of the document described under X Article. But under a title of Long telegram it is pointless. -- RHaworth 10:44, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

• Transwiki and delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Yuval Madar

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 17:18, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

G. W. Grider

Resume of a military guy. Radiant! 11:52, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 12:47, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Well, it's not that he's just a military guy -- he was commander of the USS Flasher, the WWII submarine which sunk more ships than any sub in US Navy history, and apparently was a one-term congressman from Tennesee. But the article doesn't say any of this! So he's notable, but not as demonstrated by the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if the article is cleaned up and expanded to include notability (sorry, military info and war is not my subject or I would do it). Not only commander of the USS Flasher, but also served on the USS Wahoo (believe it or not), this gentleman does appear to have established a certain degree of notoriety in the field of US Navy submarine warfare. HyperZonk^talk 18:30, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — Notable. Just needs further cleanup and expansion. Thanks. — RJH 17:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He was a congresscritter from Tennessee in the mid-sixties. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:38, 5 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) 17:21, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Gabor A. Somorjai

Chem professor at UCLA. Article fails to establish notability, and he gets a couple hundred google hits. Radiant! 11:56, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn.

• Keep, a leading researcher in surface chemistry sounds notable. Kappa 13:44, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Winner of the Wolf Prize in Chemistry for 1998 which is one of the most prestigious prizes in chemistry. Capitalistroadster 14:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • PS. Also won National Medal in Science in 2002 [6] for lifetime achievement in science. Capitalistroadster 14:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Oops, my bad. Sorry. Radiant! 15:18, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Expand to include notability as established by CR above. Barno 16:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, should have checked the what links here tab --nixie 02:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Notable. Megan1967 05:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have expanded the article noting his awards and his contribution to surface chemistry. I have also added some info his family being helped by Raoul Wallenberg to stay out of the Nazi death camps and participating in the 1956 Hungary uprising. No change to vote. Capitalistroadster 09:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Cool Hand Luke 07:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

GBZ

Callsign for a radio transmitter. However according to Google, the TLA is used a lot more in other contexts. Radiant! 12:00, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- it's an interesting radio transmitter. Haikupoet 00:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - one of those oddball subjects that make Wikipedia interesting. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and wikify --nixie 06:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, interesting and verifiable. Create a disambig page if you feel the need. —Korath (Talk) 07:43, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 23:29, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Gary Scavone

Professor that fails the professor test. Radiant! 12:41, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, he co-authored the Synthesis Toolkit. Kappa 13:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Synthesis Toolkit seems notable enough and we have an article on Perry R. Cook the other inventor. Capitalistroadster 14:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, but is there anything else of interest about Gary, or should we simply merge & redirect to the STK? Radiant! 15:13, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — I added a link to his home page, which includes his resume. He appears well published. — RJH 17:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Most of those publications are conference proceedings, not books, chapters or journal articles. For now I say merge--nixie 06:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Synthesis Toolkit. Megan1967 05:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I think professors with a reasonable number of publications are notable and should be kept. This one, however, is an assistant professor that actually has published very little, as far as I can see. His PhD seems to be unpublished. There's only one book chapter, and one co-authored article in a peer reviewed publication. Some 20 conference presentations is not enough in itself either. For the time being, it seems that Synthesis Toolkit is his only claim to notability, which makes me go for merge and redirect - unless someone proves to me that STK is extremely notable in itself. / Alarm 17:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 00:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. (I count 2 delete, 1 keep with no reason given and one too ambiguous to interpret. Reviewing the article, I concur that there has been no evidence presented that this person yet meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies.) Rossami (talk) 01:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

George conyne

Professor that fails the professor test. (The books listed are those he contributed to, not those he wrote). Radiant! 12:58, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — RJH 17:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Radiant appears to be incorrect according to Amazon.co.uk, anyway - ISBN 0312079516 Woodrow Wilson: British Perspectives, 1912-21 author G. R. Conyne. Anyone know if this series ever did happen? Any progress towards it? Average Earthman 18:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• 3 original published journal articles since 1992, author of one book that is not in my university library, delete --nixie 02:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 23:33, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Glasspacks

While the word does google, none of the hits are related to this article. Neologism? Obscure techtalk? Radiant! 13:04, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, real thing. Nice of you to check out all 25,800 hits for the word, but I think you missed out this one and about 830 others [8]. Kappa 13:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Very well, but maybe we require a disambig then? Radiant! 14:12, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think there's anything to disambig it with yet. There's a band "glasspack" [9] and a company [10] but they don't have articles. Kappa 15:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • True, but there could be. The question is, is the band more notable than the term? Or the company? Radiant! 16:09, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As the article states, a glasspack is a popular type of muffler among certain (young male?) automobile owners—distinctive enough from OEM and other aftermarket mufflers to deserve its own article. Should be titled in the singular, however. But it's not made of glass, (it uses fiberglass for sound-deadening), nor does it amplify sound (as anyone who's ever had a set of lake pipes can attest). The fact that a company and a band took its name is another indication that it needs its own article. DialUp 17:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. They're filled with fiberglass as DialUp pointed out. My brother had a set on his old '67 Mustang. Ah, memories. Even with "freeway gears" that car was a holy terror and the 'packs were a major reason why. Correct errors and remove the "ricer" POV comment. - Lucky 6.9 20:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. OK stub. Mark for cleanup, though, as I don't think the information is very accurate. I was never part of the hotrod culture but even I heard about them. Good chance that someone wise in the ways of J. C. Whitney will expand it into a real article someday. They didn't amplify the sound though surely they were louder than the standard article. I wonder what the deal was? Perhaps they deadened the sound just exactly enough to make the car barely legal while providing the minimum back pressure? Presumably the ostensible purpose was to increase the engine's power, not its sound. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now I've gotten interested... I like this: http://www.v6z24.com/howto/glasscat says "How to install a Glasspack in Place of Your Cat: If your cat has gone bad, and you want a simple fix without making the car sound too loud and possibly like crap, you can reaplace the cat with a glasspack muffler. Keep in mind that this is illegal, and will be noticed if inspections are done in your area. It is also not the greatest for the environment, but do as you wish... ;-)"

• Weak keep and cleanup, including making title singular. Glasspacks are the most well-known generic type of aftermarket exhaust, and maybe the most well-known term for aftermarket equipment of any sort. Dpbsmith's guesses were correct: The purpose was a modicum of sound-deadening with a minimum of backpressure. In the fifties and sixties, most hotrodders didn't understand the effects of exhaust-pipe diameter, stepping, and length that affect resonance and thus affect evacuation of burnt gasses from the cylinder. So they often used the biggest available headers dumping into big glasspacks, which sounded testosteronous but resulted in less than optimal torque and power. When I was the sort of teenager who valued power over handling, I had them on a 1972 Pontiac GTO with a 400-cubic-inch engine, and it scared neighborhood pets. Barno 18:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I made a hasty attempt to fix the article, which actually had lots of problems (it didn't not make it clear that the "glass" was fiberglass, and it implied that these devices actually amplified engine noise), but if you actually know something about them I'd appreciate it if you would take a quick pass over it yourself. Something ought to be said about the cultural context (teenagers, testosteronosity, etc.) but it should be carefully NPOV... Dpbsmith (talk) 19:51, 2 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 N/A. jni 18:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wood inlay

Copyvio. Text even carries the copyright notice. See [12]. Inter\^Echo 13:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Copvio gets listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, not here. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 17:27, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Glebe Point Road

While I understand the use of articles on interstate highways, I fail to see why we should have an article on a street in a city somewhere. Maybe WikiTravel wants it. Radiant! 14:08, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Very well known major high street in an historic area of inner Sydney. Easily the basis of an excellent article. Strong Keep.--Gene_poole 21:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per above, but I'm not too happy about the "local aborignal population" comment. Kappa 00:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, however as previously stated, better suited for Wikitravel, if we have one. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • We do, but for legal reasons it seems we cannot transwiki there. However, for a fact-based article there's nothing to prevent someone from starting a similar article over there. Radiant! 11:59, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --SPUI (talk) 02:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup. Significant Sydney road. Capitalistroadster 10:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have started this myself wikifying it but needs more work.Capitalistroadster 10:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The US POV on VFD is ridiculous. Keep - David Gerard 00:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is it ridiculous? Radiant has a point. Wikipedia is not a roadmap. Megan1967 00:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Because it is a very significant part of Sydney. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Show me a roadmap that shows that "The street is lined with terrace houses". Show me a roadmap that shows that "There was an active tramway on Glebe Point Road between 1892 and 1958 when the trams were replaced by buses." And so on. --SPUI (talk) 00:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Definite Keep. Lacrimosus 00:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Most definitely keep: I live in this part of the world and this is major geographical landmark (if that's the word for a road). - Ta bu shi da yu 00:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. It's starting to get quite frustrating when perfectly notable Australian articles get put up for deletion because Americans haven't heard of them. Ambi 03:40, 4 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 (so keep). Cool Hand Luke 07:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Glenrose Shopping Centre

Small mall in Australia. Belongs in WikiTravel but not here. Radiant! 14:08, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Good local content article needing minor NPOVing. Keep. --Gene_poole 22:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiTravel. There are millions of shopping centers in the world, not all of them deserve an article in Wikipedia. And even this article admits that the shopping center is small. DaveTheRed 00:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If we can not transwiki, then delete. DaveTheRed 02:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - looks like a strip mall to me. Cannot transwiki to Wikitravel, they are not us and are under a different license. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That's true, but wouldn't it be quite possible to start a WT article with roughly the same information in it? Radiant! 12:00, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, local landmark. Kappa 00:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• As strip mall does not need an article, merge, with the Glenrose suburb article, see Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory for a good example--nixie 01:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep or merge --SPUI (talk) 02:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all local landmarks. —RaD Man (talk) 03:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment What do you consider a local landmark? Is my local Stop N Go a landmark? How about my small neighborhood park? A particularily busy bus stop? Because I consider all of those to be just about as encyclopedic as a local strip mall. DaveTheRed 05:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Radman's vote above is frightening. RickK 06:01, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • They've been known to frighten small children. —RaD Man (talk) 02:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. We don't have an article on Belrose, the suburb of Sydney that this mall is located in so we can't merge. Perhaps we should add Belrose, New South Wales to the list of requested articles and add something about this mall to that article. Capitalistroadster 10:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong concur with RickK. We obviously have to draw the line somewhere, as some individual houses can also be local landmarks. If the only interesting thing we can say about <city><building> is that it's a <building> in <city>, then it should be merged because it can never be more than a stub. Radiant! 12:00, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• We don't have to "draw any lines" anywhere. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. Oh, and seeing as none of criteria for deletion are met by this article, keep.--Centauri 10:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. If we have no need of drawing lines anywhere, then we have no need for vdf. No lines anywhere means we can keep everything. DaveTheRed 20:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• US POV-centric nomination. Keep. Needs verifiability added - David Gerard 00:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Australia POV-centric vote. Ignore. Needs to not assume unstated motives for nominations -- Cyrius|✎ 03:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Does not seem to be anything noteworthy. --Henrygb 01:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A strip mall would have to REALLY stand out in some way to be noteworthy. This doesn't. Jonathunder 05:09, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• merge. - unfortunately the 'host' article doesnt exist yet. Bluemoose 18:40, 12 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 Merge and redirect to James Stewart. Note: this has already been done. Deathphoenix 01:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gloria Hatrick McLean

Former model whose son died in 'nam. Article doesn't establish notability, but does google a little (about 150). Radiant! 14:14, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• The article says she was married to Jimmy Stewart. Keep or merge with his article. Kappa 14:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Jimmy Stewart. As I understand it, they were married between 1949 and her death in the 1990's. Capitalistroadster 10:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with the merge. Radiant! 11:55, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, Radiant, you put it up for deletion, now you want to merge? you could have used the merge tag! Bluemoose 20:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 01:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Grant Park Neighborhood Association

Very localized club, relevant only if you live in a certain neighborhood of Atlanta. Radiant! 15:33, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Miss Pippa 18:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - neighborhood associations fall below my personal bar of granularity. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:12, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly good local content article. --Gene_poole 00:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • A sentence and a link does not make a good article, delete --nixie 01:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Local information is relevant. Furthermore, this article could be expanded. Andrew pmk 01:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notablility not established. There are literally millions, maybe tens of millions, of such associations. Some of them are notable. Nothing in this article indicates why this one would be. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:20, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not sufficiently notable in an encyclopedic sense. Jonathunder 05:06, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

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

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

Comment: The lack of civility demonstrated by a few members in this discussion thread is disturbing. Please remember to assume good faith. Rossami (talk) 01:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Granges

Small-time localized political party that never amounted to anything much. Now defunct. Since the word googles a lot, this article might be better spent discussing something else entirely. Radiant! 15:34, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe, since we can always look them up in Britannica [13] instead. Kappa 16:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Grange movement. Kappa 16:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. Redirect. Miss Pippa 18:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Grange movement. This article appears to have at least a little bit of expanded information. Ah, what the heck, I'll do the merge hopefully by the time you have read this. HyperZonk^talk 18:39, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: In fact, in doing research for the merged information, I found that there are substantive errors in this article. Merge (of correct information) is now complete. HyperZonk^talk 19:09, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you Zonk. Kappa 00:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I love the comment "never amounted to much." :) I hope the nominator isn't American. If so, it's quite an embarassment.-- Decumanus 01:20, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
  • Nope, I'm not. That was because of this line, "Eventually farmers lost interest because of the failure of most of the legislation the Granges proposed." Radiant! 08:22, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well that's a relief! -- Decumanus 08:39, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
• Actually the Granges were an important and influential movement, and still around today...but they are already covered in another article. Merge and redirect to Grange movement. Kaibabsquirrel 03:12, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Obviously, redirect. A textbook example of how not to demonstrate notability in an article. "Napoleon was a Corsican corporal who later was active in French politics." -- Jmabel | Talk 01:23, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, I wish radiant! would actually check rather than just delete everything. Bluemoose 20:35, 12 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 ambiguous.

I count 4 clear "deletes", 2 clear "keeps" (one from a user who created an account the day this VfD opened) and 3 "redirects" (none of which really argued for an actual merge). When investigating the article myself, I found that there was an unresolved copyright violation still in the history. As such, I am going to call this one as a delete (which is pending because of a block-compress error) with a recommendation that it be recreated after deletion as a redirect. Rossami (talk) 01:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Green Ranger

Ok, we've extensively discussed pokemon professors... now how do you feel about lesser-known enemies of the power rangers? Radiant! 15:36, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or keep assuming Antaeus Feldspar tells us it's not fanfic. Delete if fanfic. Kappa 16:44, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but cleanup. I don't know much about Power Rangers, but I vaguely remember this was a big, important story arc at the time. Miss Pippa 17:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I need to check with my PR-fan friends, but I suspect this is a big ol' Delete -- the real Green Ranger would be just as important as any of the other lead characters of the series -- he wasn't a "lesser-known" enemy; he was a major enemy who then became the sixth member of the team. However, a Google search on "Rudy Gomez" and "Green Ranger" together gets zippo hits, so I suspect this is fanfic. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) Update: All my PR-fan friends agree this is completely non-canon; one phrases it as "b---s--- on an insane degree." But as Aranel points out, a redirect to Power Rangers is a more useful fate than deletion, so that's what I'm changing my vote to. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Power Rangers (unless you can find something better). Before the edit that got it listed here, this redirected to Power Rangers. Actually, I seem to have established that redirect, and I still think that a redirect is a better use of our time than a deletion. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Its Re-Directing Time! we can morph it back into its power ranger's parent article, somewhere. Tygar 08:37, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• The Green Ranger had 7 episodes as an enemy (where he was under control of the bad guy), if I remember correctly from my childhood days. He became a good guy when the mind control had been worn off somehow, and became a regular on the show afterwards (so I think the article is fairly significant... if not keep, then redirect). I don't remember how he was under control though (might have to do with the coins the article mentioned, but I'm not sure). The Dragonzord and Dragon-dagger flute I remember vividly though. The character's name however, was not Rudy Gomez... it was Tommy. I don't know his last name though. This might be a cross between a fanfic and the actual info of the character. For sure though- this article is not complete in information, so it could also be regarded as stubbed (if this gets moved or so). Shadowolf 10:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose we could do with a List of Power Rangers enemies or something like that. Radiant! 12:00, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia already has "Category:Green Rangers" which lists various incarnations of the Green Ranger. User:Dimadick
• Delete - Actually knowing a little bit about Power Rangers, I can tell you that the first Green Ranger, and the one that this article is about, is Thomas Oliver and not Rudy Gomez. This leads me to believe that it is fanfiction. Besides, Tommy being the Green Ranger is easily explained in his article... kelvSYC 16:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, so there's already an article on the Green Ranger, hehe. Then this one is pretty unnecessary. One of the problems is probably that no one really knows their characters full names, so it makes the search difficult... but I just noticed they are listed in the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers page anyway. So I guess delete to this one is a-ok afterall. Shadowolf 03:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. -Sean Curtin 03:20, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Having deleted the content, I am not going to create this as a redirect, though I have no objections if any other reader/editor is bold and does so. Rossami (talk) 00:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Great Leviathon

We've seen pokemon, now what about yu-gi-oh? "From Doma saga, it appeared as Orcahalos Kyutora, stopped by the power of Timatus, Critias and Hermos after destruction of Alantis. Dartz steals the Egyptian God cards so the beast could appear in it's Kyutora, but Yugi with the Timatus hindered it." Radiant! 15:40, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup and expand. Or merge. Kappa 16:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This needs more than just a cleanup, it needs a total rewrite from scratch, even if Great Leviathon is notable. (And the article does nothing to establish that -- or to even make any sense to anyone who doesn't know Yu-gi-oh!) Miss Pippa 17:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Leviathan. Mistitled? Incidentally, Building The Great Leviathan is a painting by William Parrott, in the National Maritime Museum in London, referring to the SS Great Eastern I believe, and is probably far more notable than this (I've not seen this Yu-gi-oh thing, but I doubt it's of the Akira or Princess Mononoke levels of quality Japanese animation). Could also be a reference to Thomas Hobbes 'that great LEVIATHAN called a COMMONWEALTH, or STATE '. Hobbes has 350 years on this Japanese manga. Could have a redirect to the relevant subset of the Yu-gi-oh article. Oh, and Hermann Melville used the phrase as well. So, classic painting, classic English philosophy, iconic American literature or a Japanese kids thing? Average Earthman 21:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• *winces* Delete this GOOPTI, and redirect to Leviathan. Merge relevant content, if any, to Yu-gi-oh. --L33tminion | (talk) 23:28, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article does not establish notability, fancruft. Megan1967 04:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this. It is important!!!! 67.110.225.100 17:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I went to a Levi-a-thon once. I've never seen so much denim in my life. Anyway, delete this as fancruft. The title could be some sort of unrelated redirect, I suppose. -R. fiend 20:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft. Grue 12:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - This is a very minor part of an element of the Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters storyline, which could be easily explained in an article about Dartz or Doma. Besides, the name of the article is incorrect, as stated before. kelvSYC 16:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this fancruft. Merge relevant content, if any, to Yu-gi-oh.Don't bother with the redirect to Leviathan - Leviathon is not a common misspelling IMHO --Cje 11:03, 12 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 ambiguous. I count 5 clear "delete" votes and 7 clear "keep" votes (but 2 of them were from anon or very new users and are discounted). Even after discounting the anon votes, this discussion fails to reach a clear concensus to delete. The decision defaults to keep. Rossami (talk) 00:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Truelove Eyre

Hoax / not verifiable. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Eyre Empire. Rhobite 21:04, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm reiterating my nomination to delete this article. All the new references are genealogy sites, which can have a tendency to accept and repeat unverified information. Some of the sites even admit that this story is apocryphal. Rhobite 19:15, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • You are correct to state that the story is apocryphal. I personally believe that a centuries-old legend is as least as notable as, for example, the Drug urban legends included in Wikipedia, but you have every right to disagree. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 21:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The author clearly states that the subject of the article is mythological and openly acknowledges that many sources have it to be pure legend. While wikipedia may have no room for a man who was never born, we certainly do record myths and folklore that achieve particular popularity. This one has obviously circulated for hundreds of years (see, Eyre Empire). Also, keep in mind, while there is no clear historical precedent to prove his existence, there is also nothing with which to disprove it. No premise for deletion. Maybe relist as, "Legend of Truelove Eyre." History 21

It's irritating when the author of an article pretends that he's an innocent bystander. You ARE the author. Rhobite 00:54, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - A google search for "Truelove Eyre" produces utterly nothing. I suspect it is in fact a vanity (if you can call it that) page written by an "Eyre", or whoever owns the page it links to - a "fictional genealogy" if you will. Complete rubbish, and a hoax. And to comment on the points the user "History 21" raises - "while there is no clear historical precedent to prove his existence, there is also nothing with which to disprove it". Well, I'm not a historian, but perhaps you'd care to tell me how William the Conqueror granted Truelove "significant lands in Ireland", when we wasn't in control of Ireland at the time? Nick04 22:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, changed vote following extensive rediting, and realising some of my comments out of line. Nick04 08:52, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete - yes, I know I've changed my vote twice, but having only just glanced over at the Eyre Empire article, I suspect I've beein hoaxed...and even if you discount the Eyre Empire, the article as it stands now (even after extensive revision) is nothing more than a) family legend, and b) genealogy, which don't belong here. Nick04 22:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have put a lot of work into totally rewriting this article to remove the Eyre Empire-type rubbish that the original author invented, and to base it very soundly on the wealth of legitimate references that have subsequently been found and cited. Please do not make a superficial decision based on an entirely different article. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nick04, google has no hits for Truelove Eyre, but yahoo does (quite a few actually). You should always try BOTH engines when doing a search, especially if you can't find anything on google at first. Secondly, Truelove Eyre's existence or nonexistence is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Only the legend ITSELF is relevant, as it is widely well known tale in Britain. If there was a widely known "Legend of the Bat Boy," I expect that wikipedia would have an article on it. "In 19th Century Romania, a false but highly believable story circulated...blah blah blah...this folklore has become a part of Romanian history and lives on to this day." You get the picture. The story itself is famous, that's what matters. But just as an aside, the Gaelic name for Ireland is, "Eire." That's no coincidence. Go to yahoo. History21

Keep thank you, Nick04, but I'm serious about what I said.

You don't get to vote twice. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - unverifiable. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know that I don't get to vote twice, I was just emphasizing what I had said before. You all don't seem to understand what I'm saying here: nothing about Truelove Eyre is verifiable. But the fact that a legend surrounds him IS verifiable. It is the LEGEND that we are reporting. For all I know, William the Conqueror could have falled from his horse because he saw a shiny coin on the ground--I DON'T CARE. The story, however, is a significant part of folklore and should be shown on wikipedia. It is made perfectly clear in the article that the story is largely thought to be myth. History21

• Delete. Even legends are verifiable: you can verify that people believed them at the time. This has not been done for Truelove Eyre. I don't consider a family album to be a sufficiently authoritative citation for such a supposedly significant historical or mythological figure. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 02:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The supplied references (below) now convince me that this is a notable and verifiable legend. I have done a major cleanup of the article and removed the spurious claims, particularly regarding the "Eyre Empire". The remaining facts are well supported by the references listed. Despite the utterly bizarre behaviour of the author, this is a actually a notable subject. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 01:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable, probably hoax, as the Eyre Empire nonsense shows. RickK 05:58, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • The new edits don't change my vote. It's still non-notable, bogus genealogy and not of encyclopedic interest. RickK 05:37, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not verifiable with no Google hits and no reliable reference from a paper source cited. Capitalistroadster 10:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Change to keep because of George Stepanek's edits. Well done George. Capitalistroadster 07:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, largely because the Eyre Empire ridiculousness has made it impossible for me to assume good faith, and so much of the article is unverifiable. Foobaz·✐ 00:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because of GeorgeStepanek's edits. Foobaz·✐ 01:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Legend verified and Once again, legend verified. 168.184.90.11 01:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm a registered Wiki user with hundreds of edits to my name. I have no vote on this issue yet; I'd just like to provide some actual Google hits here, so as to clarify that this is NOT NONSENSE. It may not be notable, but it's not nonsense, okay? Sheesh. Note that many of these are for "Truelove who was henceforth called Ayre/Eyre", or similar phrasings. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] (a 100-year-old transcript which refers to "True Love" instead of "Truelove"), [20] (a history of the family name 'Truelove', and how it's associated with Eyre), and [21]. I'll grant that many of these have similar wording; this is apparently because they're all quoting the same centuries-old source. That source's reliability is another issue, of course. If this is a hoax, the hoaxsters have put an enormous amount of work into it over a long, long, long time. The ineptness of the page's defendants shouldn't be a factor in deciding whether it's worthy of being kept or deleted. DS 14:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ahh, that's better, GeorgeStepanek. Pleasure working with you; I now vote keep. DS 03:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for providing sources, but they only establish the origin of a name, not the existence of an entire empire, or any of the other fantastic claims made in the article. 68.18.28.36 09:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Abstain KEEP --Sn0wflake 23:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am changing my vote one more time due to a simple fact: this article is a legend, yes. But WHO SAYS legends are not Wikipedia material? I have seen such ridiculous articles get away from VfD's axe... so even whitout full knowledge of this article's subject, I can't let it be deleted. Do you all remember that rule? Yeah, that one... assume the best? It's part of the Wikipedia's utopia, and it's one that we should take into consideration here. I hereby change my vote to Keep and it will stay that way. Please rethink your Delete votes. --Sn0wflake 00:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nobody says that legends are not Wikipedia material. Hell, many of the pages I work on here are about legends. But this particular alleged legend, strongly linked to hoax articles whose only claims to verification are on non-authoritative web pages that could very well be passing off fake lore as folklore, isn't notable and is very likely to be completely bogus. DreamGuy 19:28, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I just read the link provided by 168.184.90.11, and i'm starting to think it sounds like Truelove was the man's old surname, i.e. his name was Bob Truelove, and he was rechristened Bob Eyre. This would explain why "Truelove Eyre" gets no Google hits. Does this sound reasonable to anyone else? Foobaz·✐ 06:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In medieval Europe people didn't really have surnames. They were indentified by their occupation (e.g. "John the Smith"), their location (e.g. "John of York") or their nickname (e.g. "Edmund Ironsides"). "Eyre" was just a nickname. "Truelove" may have been another nickname: it certainly sounds like one. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 21:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So, if we can't even verify that a man with the name "Truelove Eyre" existed, why are we voting to keep an article about him? Foobaz·✐ 22:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did King Arthur exist? Certainly not under that name, but it's the name that we know him by now. Likewise Truelove Eyre appears to be the best extant name for this individual (if he existed). GeorgeStepanek\^talk 23:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me the only people who call him Truelove Eyre are the people using the four IPs involved in this and the Eyre Empire article & discussion. Surely the article is valuable, but i don't believe it belongs at its current name, nor should it mention the name Truelove Eyre, since i highly doubt that was the brave man's name. How about moving the article to Eyre legend? Foobaz·✐ 00:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yep, that sound like a good idea. It agrees with the quote that "hereafter instead of Truelove be called Eyre". But can we rename the article before the VfD has run its course? GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One cannot verify the Truelove Eyre legend without thus verifying the Eyre Empire itself, as it is said to have stemmed from him. Therefore, I counsel patience and caution before recklessly acquiescing to the validity of either article. 168.184.90.11 (talk · contributions)

• Delete - Obviously, this is at best a legend, and it doesn't seem to be a notable legend at that, as a google search reveals. Furthermore, a legend which people insist 'may be true' is what is generally called a hoax or, when pressed, a conspiracy theory. There is no verifiable fact at all in the article as it stands, even after the edits. This Truelove is not mentioned by anyone (that I was able to find) as the founder of the Ayre or Eyre families, and the Eyre family crest does not feature a leg in armor. Finally, to say that 'historians cannot definitively confirm whether or not Truelove actually existed' gives his legend far too much credit; historians actually appear not to care at all. Squibix 19:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have rephrased these statement to better reflect the references. I have also listed the eight references that DS found, which appear to be independent of each other at least back to 1900, if not earlier. If it is a hoax or a conspiracy, then it's a very old one, and certainly nothing to do with the Eyre Empire nonsense (although it has been a bit of a job removing that author's ludicrous inventions). I urge you to take a look at the references, and reconsider your position. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 03:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - At worst this is a hoax that has managed to confuse some of the editors voting above. At best it's horribly nonnotable and unverifiable. Either way it doesn't belong here. DreamGuy 01:00, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • How can you say that it is "unverifiable" if you haven't taken a look at the references? I am getting rather frustrated with opinions like this, that clearly been made only on the most cursory examination of the evidence at hand. Please read the article closely, compare it to the source texts, and then (if you are still unconvinced) provide a reasoned explanation of why you think this subject is invalid. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • George, have you compared Eyre Empire and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Eyre Empire? THAT is why people want this nonsense deleted. The whole thing is of a piece. It's all a hoax. This person, even if he were a real person, does not qualify for an encyclopedia article, And are you REALLY trying to claim that Ireland got its name because of a person whose last name was Eyre? RickK 00:55, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • Truelove Eyre, as I have rewritten it, does not state that Ireland got its name from a man named Eyre. It is not "of a piece" with Eyre Empire. Forget Eyre Empire. I have totally rewritten the article based on a significant number of independent, verifiable references. Please address your comments to those references, and to the article as it stands. Can you not see how much of a logical fallacy it is to say "article A is rubbish, therefore article B should be deleted" if articles A and B have different authors? I am now the author of Truelove Eyre, not the idiot person who wrote Eyre Empire. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 01:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Those links you gave above are personal pages and sites that allow the gneral public to add info about their families. There's nothing authoritative about them that would make them reliable sources, and they seem like a relatively easy way to slip bogus family history out onto the web. But even if this were true, it's not encyclopedic material. It's completely and utterly nonnotable, and even if you give it the benefit of the doubt there, it's fringe nature added to the very real likelihood that someone is out there pulling your leg and we have an article that needs to be removed. Sorry you took time rewriting something so insignificant, but that was your choice and I don't think editors here should vote to keep it just because you trust those Internet sites you went to and rewrote something that undeniably started as a hoax article. The submitter wants you to believe that Ireland was named after his ancestor for crying out loud... can you say "untrustworthy source"? And is it really so hard for you to believe that if that person took the time to post the hoax articles here that he didn;t do the same on those personal pages and geneology sites that let people claim whatever they want about their families? Come on. DreamGuy 19:39, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, but your assertion that these "sites that allow the general public to add info about their families" is simply not true. This, for example, is the Chapter 15 of "The History of Bucks County, Pennsylvania from the discovery of the Delaware to the present time by W.W.H. Davis, 1876 and 1905 editions" which runs to over 15,000 words (not to mention the other 54 chapters). The idea that someone has simply invented this mass of material is, frankly, ludicrous. Have you even bothered to take a look at these sources? Rhobite is correct in pointing out that the story is apocryphal, but it is a centuries-old legend, not something that a contemporary individual has put together. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 21:40, 6 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 ambiguous.

I count 4 clear "delete" votes, 5 clear "keep" votes (but 2 are either anons or very new users) and 4 "keep as redirect" votes. Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to keep.

Personally, I am inclined to agree with the "keep as redirect" group. Noting that a redirect does not require the same degree of overwhelming concensus as deletion, I am going to be bold. Rossami (talk) 00:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bushists

Speculative opinion piece. Rhobite 21:15, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The term has entered into usage by the mass media. It represents a legitimate political faction. History21

  Sorry, I meant to say Keep I just learned how to do that History21

  You need to log in and sign your vote with ~~~~ to be counted. Gazpacho

• Delete unless someone adds more who/what/when details. As far as I know Zell Miller didn't endorse "Bushists," he endorsed George W. Bush. Gazpacho 00:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bushism. Precedent set by Stalinist redirecting to Stalinism and Marxist redirecting to Marxism. Also the title of the article should not be plural. DaveTheRed 00:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The difference is that "Stalinisms" are not words or phrases unique to the style of General Secretary Joseph Stalin. Maybe the polictical section of Bushism needs to be split out. Kappa 01:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It says explicitly in the article that this is separate from Bushisms. CPS 05:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • When I said redirect to bushism, I didn't mean the verbal gaffes. I meant the philosphy and doctrine of Bush. This is as per the second definition in the Bushism article. If someone wants to seperate that part out of the article as Kappa suggested, then bushist should redirect to that new article. DaveTheRed 07:53, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless some sort of proof of general usage is provided. I've heard "Bushisms" used quite frequently, but never heard this term. Gamaliel 05:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Bushist gets over 10,000 google hits, and they seem relevant. DaveTheRed 06:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, google hits don't do much to sway me as bloggers make up lots of terms and then try to write articles about them here claiming they are in wide usage. "Bushisms" has appeared frequently in major media and there's even a book by that title. Is the use of "bushist" this widespread? Gamaliel 21:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Stalinist and Marxist have distinct meetings in political science/history. Bushist has neither - plus this is a load of POV nonsense. Capitalistroadster 10:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Don't know really. May I just remind you that I put the page on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Political science before deletion was proposed, so maybe someone can come up with an NPOV definition saying it is a POV term or something like that? <KF> 11:12, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Bushist does appear to be on its way to being the word of choice to describe those who adhere to the policy of the current administration. Though precedent would seem to indicate the -ism suffix, in this case Bushism has already been widely adopted as a reference to his distinctive speaking characteristics (like Spoonerism). HyperZonk^talk 17:12, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep despite my misgivings about the article's author. The term gets hits on Google News, and i have faith that it will be NPOVed. Foobaz·✐ 00:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but should be called BushBots not Bushists (vote by User:4.65.88.1)
• Comment: The article says Bushists are also known as Neocons. Well, we already have an article on Neoconservatism (United States), itself a widely abused term, that has more verifiable details. Gazpacho
• Redirect to Neoconservatism (United States), possibly with a very minimal merge. —Korath (Talk) 07:56, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• See, this is why a politician named Rimsky-Korsakov would never get enough votes :) Anyway, merge & redirect. Radiant! 08:40, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Frankly, the merger of this with our neoconservatism article would achieve nothing but ruining that article. The claim that Bushists supposedly encourage Christianisation of America (whatever that means) would be nonsense in an article about neoconservatism which predates President George W. Bush's presidency by at least 30 years. Very few if any of the President's supporters identify themselves as Bushists unlike Reaganites which was a common term. Frankly, I can think of few Republicans or conservatives whose opinions do not waver in any way from President Bush's although most generally support the administration. No change of vote. Capitalistroadster 17:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. The "Bushists" article does not describe the reality of Bush's supporters. Rhobite 18:33, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • The term as I've heard it is used chiefly by opponents of the Administration, rarely by actual Bush followers. I think that the terms "bushist" and "neocon" are not necessarily synonymous, but if we do redirect to Neoconservatism (United States), then we should definitely not merge, because what's written here is POV and IMO unusable. DaveTheRed 20:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

http://ensign.ftlcomm.com/desantisArticles/2002_600/desantis606/bushistrightism.html The truth hurts

• Redirect, no merge. -Sean Curtin 03:23, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Cool Hand Luke 07:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He was a Crook

Source text, not an article. Probably copyrighted too. Should be delete. Thue | talk 21:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - comment: someone had copyviod it, but not put a source material. I've since updated that... Nick04 22:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Concur, delete as source material. Radiant! 08:43, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's definitely copyrighted. theAtlantic.com owns it, I think, or perhaps Rolling Stone. theAltantic.com now charges for admission to read it, though those other sites linked to appear to be fine with hosting it. Either way, it doesn't belong here. I posted to a talk page, then immediately deleted, then posted a link to the talk page's history/version that had it in there, and that needed to be taken down even (I think, as far as I can tell), so this should almost certainly be removed. Now, (and if a seasoned Wikipedian perchances upon this voting place) I'm curious: Can one link to the history/version of a page that gets deleted? Just curious. -209.6.22.123 02:47, 4 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) 17:39, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Eugene Skinner

Bescause this is silly. --NewAtair &#945 22:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Uh... a quick google search suggests that the town of Eugene, Oregon was founded by one Eugene F. Skinner. So why is this silly, as opposed to a stub? Keep as can clearly be expanded (either if true, or if a widespread myth). Average Earthman 23:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This ist not really an stub, it is only an one-liner: Founder of Eugene, Oregon.. Where in the hell is Eugene? --NewAtair Δ 23:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a sub stub then. Eugene is in Oregon. Which anyone with any ability to use an encyclopedia would be able to find. If only we had one handy, preferably online with a useful search function that we could type 'Eugene, Oregon' into... Average Earthman 23:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Ain't even that, IMO. Should be a redirect to Eugene, Oregon. This is useless as it stands. - Lucky 6.9 23:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment and question: The existing article already has a red link to Eugene Franklin Skinner listing him as the founder of the city. Can this be redirected now or does it have to wait out the VfD? - Lucky 6.9 23:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. Eugene, Oregon is a large enough city that its founder deserves his own article. DaveTheRed 00:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Why should the founder need its own article until there's enough material to put in it? Why not let it incubate in Eugene, Oregon and break it out only when it becomes a hatchling? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I've set it cheeping. Average Earthman 00:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Everything in this article and more is already in Eugene, Oregon, which has ample room for expansion. The chances that anyone looking for information on Eugene Franklin Skinner would not be aware of him as the founder of Eugene are zilch. If someone prefers to make it a redirect, though, they should also make redirects for Eugene F. Skinner and Eugene Franklin Skinner. Only having a single redirect does little good. Someone who knows he founded Eugene will find Eugene, Oregon. Someone who does a global text search on "Eugene Skinner" will find Eugene, Oregon. The only situation in which a redirect does any good is if we assume the unlikely scenario that someone a) knows the name, b) doesn't know he founded Eugene, c) doesn't do a text search. If we wish to serve this person, we can't predict which of the three likely forms of the name he will use, so we ought to provide all three. I say it's either three redirects, or none. I prefer "none." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Try applying that to fictional characters and see how far that gets you around here. I've expanded the biography with details. Average Earthman 00:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • See: Consistency, foolish, little minds, hobgoblin of. :-) Thanks for the expansion. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in present form. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Now a perfectly valid biography of a historical individual. Keep. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 01:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• What, this isn't about a Pokémon? Seriously, keep terrific new article. The Earthman comes through in the clutch! - Lucky 6.9 01:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with recent edits. —RaD Man (talk) 03:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Postdlf 05:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and kudos to Mr. Skinner for naming the town after his first name. I like his daring to be different. Meelar (talk) 06:38, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep. Well done Average Earthman, Apart from Eugene Oregon, Skinner Butte outside Eugene is named after him - imagine what fun Bart Simpson would have with that name. A Liberty Ship was named after him as well. Capitalistroadster 11:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • In fact it's probable that his name was the inspiration for the name of Seymour Skinner, since Groenig is from Eugene. See Springfield (The Simpsons). Somehow the fact that "Seymour Butts" is a common prank name seems to fit into the chain of creativity here. -- Decumanus 20:04, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
• Current entry looks good; keep. DS 14:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep new article. Average Earthman wins an Internet for his efforts. — Gwalla | Talk 04:56, 2 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 proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge to Lettrism (Keep 2; Merge/Redirect: 6; Delete: 1) --BM 22:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Letterism

This is rubbish. --NewAtair Δ 23:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with and redirect to Lettrism Kappa 10:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep art movements. Kappa 00:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, this movement continues to have wide influence. --iMb~Mw 01:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) Make that a redirect to Lettrism (& of course save any non-duplicated material). (both spellings are in common use) --iMb~Mw 05:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with cleanup. Spatch 01:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs cleanup and expansion; definitely an encyclopedic topic. Merge and redirect to Lettrism. I somehow missed that the first time around despite agreeing that that's the preferred spelling. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important movement in art, typology and graphic design. Cnwb 04:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Lettrism, which appears to be the same movement and the more common spelling and is already an excellent article. Andrewa 11:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, as per Andrewa. Radiant! 11:37, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, yes, but which spelling? When each is entered into Google by itself, letterism gets more hits, but if you restrict the Google search to art dictionaries, lettrism gets more hits. Having looked at some number of hits, I tend to also favor lettrism, but I would be interested to hear from someone with definitive domain knowledge. HyperZonk^talk 17:07, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: That may be hard to come by, see Talk:Lettrism! That talk page is also the page to discuss the alternative names IMO. But both names seem to have significant usage, so for the moment either redirecting to the other is OK IMO. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Indeed, lettrism would seem to be the way to go, then. Redirects are cheap, etc. HyperZonk^talk 02:18, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, cleanup and redirect. Agree with others. --Andylkl 04:17, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.