Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2004 December 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 31[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:40, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Freemasonic Order of the Golden Centurium[edit]

Not encyclopedic. Substub. Non-notable. Link in article leads to page doubting existance of subject organisation. Sc147 01:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-encyclopedic article which is a platform for a link. Rje 14:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable and perhaps nonexistent. Nothing could be said here that couldn;t be said on a larger article, if appropriate, but not even really seeing a need for it. DreamGuy 02:59, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable (if real). Jayjg | (Talk) 21:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was article already deleted. Joyous 03:10, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Schrift[edit]

There's no place for explaining translations. Page is not linked to either way. --Anthony Liekens 23:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was the one doing the translation thing, but only to remove a bad referral. Deletion is the better solution. --Yooden 00:50, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. Ливай | ☺ 21:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it should be a redirect to [[S%FCtterlin]] as it was in an earlier revision. S Sepp 16:20, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I found no evidence that the word Schrift is anything more than written language. The redirect is wrong. --Yooden 17:52, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 00:37, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Morris Peterson[edit]

Fascinating as this article is, it gives no context and little content. "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base" (what wikipedia is not). The stats may be true, but that doesn't make them encyclopedia, certainly not in the context of this article. Smoddy | Talk 00:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. After some brief googling, I didn't find anything that would distinguish this player to a sufficient extent to warrant an encyclopedic entry. --RidG | Talk 00:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, there are many articles in Wikipedia about sportspeople of a similar standing in both basketball and other sports. This article has improved since it was nominated for deletion, and as it stands doesn't break any of the current deletion policies. (I have restored the VfD tag on the article, it was removed by User:Boothy443) Rje 01:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep concur with Rje. Kappa 01:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn (I'll be outvoted if enough people think any professional basketball player in the US should have an article here). Wyss 01:29, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Tentative Keep. It may not be logical, but there seems to be wide precedent that all professional athletes are fit subjects for Wikipedia biographies. Certainly, we have many articles on professional rugby and football players on obscure English teams. I think this is too bad, but since the inclusion/deletion criteria are pretty vague, precedent is all we have to go by. --BM 02:10, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. The original vfd was for "dirty" article, which looked suspicious. People with "spectacular" ocupations are "notable" according to wikipedia criterion: there is high probability that the info about them will be sought for, however lousy ball players they are. This is not fair with respect to other decent people, but... Mikkalai 02:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not just an average BB player--frequent starter in the pros, and on some all-time top-ten MSU stat lists from his collegiate career. Article as tagged was a mess and didn't establish notability, but re-write is better. Niteowlneils 02:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep. Mikkalai, "other decent people" presumably only have to meet the same bar and you can write about them too.Dr Zen 02:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. JuntungWu 02:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Definitely. He's a player in an elite professional league! --LeeHunter 04:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep agree with Niteowlneils, sorry about the VfD removal. --Boothy443 04:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain: I thoroughly disagree with the supposition that any NBA player is automatically notable, or that any MLB player is, etc. These athletes need to be stand-outs on their teams and/or appear outside of their team. Geogre 04:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - the rewrite is good enough. I listed the page as it was a repository of statistics, not an article. Smoddy | Talk 11:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merely being signed to a professional team means nothing - they have to show that they can achieve at that level to be worthy of inclusion. Four years as a starting player for a team in a major league is what I personally feel is the minimum required in terms of duration, and from comments above it would appear that he has achieved that. Average Earthman 11:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep with the new edits. GRider\talk 17:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as re-written. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep, and cleanup the temp stub. Joyous 04:07, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Clydebank F.C.[edit]

This page is clearly written from a particular perspective, is about one brief moment in the club's history and is a personal essay. Smoddy | Talk 00:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Cleanup: This page appears to be a two year old press release by the UCS, so obviously can't remain as it stands. However, the team do deserve an article, especially after what happened a couple of years ago. Hopefully this VfD nomination and a Cleanup notice will inspire someone to write an article on the team. Rje 01:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Megan1967 01:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Cleanup: agree with Rje. --Boothy443 01:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Cleanup, this article is unacceptable as is... PoV, ad, limited context etc. Wyss 01:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This is clearly a copyvio, and I have reported it as such. - Vague | Rant 07:58, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Cleanup --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 10:46, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • /Temp written. --rbrwr± 14:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Cleanup I'm suprised there isn't a proper article on the history of this football club already.
  • Keep the new stub, delete the old copyvio a.s.a.p. Kappa 21:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Cleanup - as a football fan, I would like nice articles on all of England's 92 football league clubs, as well as those of the top divisions in Scotland.
  • Keep. Same reasons as Kappa's. Carioca 00:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:50, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Momasu-jin[edit]

Insignificant fictionary species. Featured in perhaps 2 or 3 dragon ball Z episodes. S Sepp 00:29, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

  • Either Merge into a relevent Dragon Ball Z article, or Delete due to zero context or notability. Rje 00:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, useless content. Wyss 01:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • merge. This should have been done in the first place. Be bold. Mikkalai 02:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Insignificant within the fictional oeuvre and worse than that outside of it. Geogre 04:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: subtrivial fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 10:45, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subtrivial even within the context of the fictional work it originates from, and of no significance or importance whatsoever to the wider world. Average Earthman 11:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is poorly written and the subject, as was noted in the comment above, is trivial even in respect to the Dragonball GT universe (many English-speaking Dragonball fans don't even know GT, much less a single episode in the series). The only place this could be merged in is a Dragonball GT episode guide or a species listing. However, there are no such lists available: let it die. Phils 15:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable even within context of the show. DreamGuy 02:59, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was turn over old article to WP:CP". A new stub has been rewritten, which seems to be acceptable, judging by the lack of discussion. Joyous 02:09, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Royal Rangers[edit]

This is pretty obviously an ad, but a Google on "Royal Rangers" does turn up quite a bit of content. Still, it's an ad. --Kelly Martin 01:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, reads like a promo, doesn't establish notability. Wyss 01:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement. Megan1967 02:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - But NPOV. --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 10:41, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Article content shouldn't be a reason for deletion. Johnleemk | Talk 16:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 23:34, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • As per Deletion policy (that some people could do with reading), keep and clean-up. Dan100 12:01, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Indeed, people should re-read it to see that advertising is a grounds for deletion. Geogre 13:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nothing here a little cleanup wouldn't fix. DJ Clayworth 17:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually it turns out there is something that cleanup won't fix. It's a big copyvio from the site it references. However I've written a Temp, so delete the copyvio and then keep. DJ Clayworth 02:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:09, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Bavarian berry[edit]

Was marked as a speedy because advertisement, but I think it's an attempt at an encyclopedia article. I doubt much more can ever be said than this one line, so delete.-gadfium 01:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, no, it's a pure ad. Wyss 01:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, that's an advert, or yoghurtcruft. :) Rje 02:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • del until Fresh n Fruity will be written. Mikkalai 02:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Gotta stick with speedy delete as spam. Or yogurt, as the case may be. See what happens when you mix dairy products with web surfing? Yup. Wikilactose intolerance. - Lucky 6.9 02:32, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should have been a speedy. Obvious spam. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately, without an external link in the article, it definitely doesn't correspond to the definition of vandalism/spam in the criteria for speedy deletion. Wyss 05:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deletion at 21:37, 1 Jan 2005 by User:Andrevan who wrote nonsense vandalism vanity garbage

Goed Twee[edit]

Delete. Vanity.-gadfium 01:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. Vanity at its worst. -RidG 01:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Repulsive vanity. This should be held up as an example to others. Rje 02:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mikkalai 02:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as horrendous vanity. Keeping this up for five days is too good for the guy, but what the hey. - Lucky 6.9 02:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, apparently vanity, notability not established in article. (Unless he really is a god, of course. That would be notable, but only if verifiable). Dpbsmith (talk) 03:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete—but fearfully. Everyking 04:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete? Seems like this should be speedy-deletable as vandalism or as nonsense. In any case, Delete. --BM 19:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as silly vandalism. Wyss 23:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:10, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sabastian Boaz[edit]

Vanity. Delete.-gadfium 01:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Rje 02:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 02:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Sticking by my delete as vanity and not very detailed vanity at that vote. Buh-bye, Mr. Boaz.  :^) - Lucky 6.9 02:29, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn vanity. Wyss 23:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. vanity. Cleduc 07:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:14, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Geozones[edit]

Original research, neologism. --Nike 03:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Original research: A proposed system. When arguing against the status quo, one must first offer a case for change, then offer a plan that will address the needs set forth in the case. Otherwise, it's a doodle. Geogre 04:17, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable (only a fraction of the 288 google hits were about this time system.) - Amgine 04:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable orginal research. Rje 14:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as an ad for original research. No evidence of peer-review, etc. Wyss 23:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:13, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cesidian law[edit]

Appears to be original research by "his majesty Cesidio Tallini" [1]. There are 375 Google hits for Cesidian law but they seem to be mostly variations on, or references to, versions of this document. --LeeHunter 03:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing original about Cesidian law any more. It is available as a wholistic article on the Fifth World Wiki, or the new body of law is available in several wikis as the basis of Cesidian law, which is jus cerebri electronici or the right of the server. This concept is also mentioned in a related article about the Fifth World, and is also mentioned in the article about jus soli, or the right of territory. You also forget that Cesidian law is already the law of the Fifth World, and many individuals, some organizations, a community, and several Fifth World nations are already following this law, and recognise this law.--IndigoGenius 04:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I also disapprove of your concept of the "Fifth World". For that reason, and for others, I say delete. DS 02:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    On the bright side, his links made it much easier to clean up the other articles. --—Ben Brockert (42) 06:14, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a rant, and rants are not encyclopedic in addition to being original research. I would support a summary of the underlying belief system expressed here (although not using the term "Cesidian law", which is unique to this individual as far as I can tell), only because the delusions underlying it are common to a significant group of people. But this article is not that. --Kelly Martin 04:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Is International law or Roman law or Mosaic law a rant? Please provide justification rather that ad hominem attacks, which are illogical. Please also provide your signature if you are a human being.--IndigoGenius 04:17, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - original research/self-promotion/vanity. IndigoGenius is Cesidio Tallini. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. most of the article is the text of other (non-notable, vanity, original research) pages that have been already deleted. --—Ben Brockert (42) 05:22, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: original research/vanity/promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If Ben Brokert's point is true, it seems like it should be speediable. Surely, just a few changes and a different title shouldn't get your original reseach another 5 days on Wikipedia while another VfD is conducted? --BM 12:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, vanity. Rje 14:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as vain, rantish original research. Wyss 23:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks like the New Year for you folks in the UTC time zone is a deja vu for me in the Pacific Standard Time zone. I know I've seen this. This has been deleted at least twice before, maybe more. Delete and pass the tinfoil hats and noisemakers. Happy New Year! - Lucky 6.9 01:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • You're thinking some of IndigoGenius's other pages which got listed here and deleted many months ago. As noted above, this page incorporates large chunks of text from them. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable vanity nonsense, speedy for stealth attempt to bring back already deleted pages if we care to, otherwise let it run out its days and get deleted normally. DreamGuy 03:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • The only thing you guys will delete here is the idea of Cesidian law in the Wikipedia, not the fact that Cesidian law is already a legal standard, whether you lawless people follow it or not. The only thing you guys will delete here is the idea of a living Fifth World in the Wikipedia, not the fact that the Fifth World (or Age) has already started and is alive and well. You guys are like the rabbis in Jerusalem just prior to the destruction of the Temple. Your temples too, your sacred cows, shall be destroyed, including this temple here; you just don't realise how silly you are, but a few Native Americans already know who I am. --IndigoGenius 20:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    And a happy new year to you, Mr. Tallini. --—Ben Brockert (42) 21:19, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research and an attempt to recreate previously deleted material. -Sean Curtin 06:32, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. this. crap. Cleduc 07:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:16, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Geotecture[edit]

Neologism, vanity. -- Nike 04:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Definition, not an article, and a copyrighted one at that (see [2]). Added the copyvio tag. -RidG (talk) 04:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed the tag. The supposedly copyrighted page is a Wikipedia mirror. That means that there is no definition in the dictionary, ergo a neologism. -- Nike 04:50, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • Doh. Sorry, the Webster-Dictionary in the URL threw me off - didn't see the Wikipedia mirror. -RidG (talk) 05:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. Rje 14:03, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, dicdef of a trivial neologism by a little-known author, possible stealth ad. Wyss 23:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the article, but the info on the talk page should probably go to the Earth sheltering article. By the way, how old does a word have to be before it is no longer a neologism? LowKey 13:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See the article on neologism. -- Nike 01:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Carried out at 18:10, 5 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality

News relating Pratibha Bharati, Moradabad, India[edit]

This reads like a poorly written human interest news article for a local paper, not an encyclopedia article. No potential to become encyclopedic. Paul August ☎ 04:39, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Poorly written, and does not appear to contain any salvageable information. -RidG (talk) 06:50, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • A probably copyvioed infodump. Delete. --Slowking Man 08:05, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rje 14:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Smoddy | Talk 15:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, wiki is not a newsletter, blog, bulletin board or data dump. Wyss 23:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-encyclopedic entry. Megan1967 00:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep and a suggestion to merge with Autistic culture. Joyous 01:55, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Autistic community[edit]

Merge with and redirect to Autism and/or Asperger's syndrome. Neutralitytalk 04:32, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

  • No, there is an Autistic community. The Autism article as it stands is 46KB, this makes a good article by itself. It definitely needs cleanup though. Maybe we could ask at the boards they link to for assistance? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This subject is more than notable enough on its own to merit an article. I agree with Ta bu about being able to search for help to make this article better, and I think that's a better solution than merging it with an already huge article. Yelyos 05:08, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agrees and believes that every group deserves recognition of their own communities

Christina`rain 05:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep The community itself has gotten press lately. It's notable. The situation is very comparable to Deaf culture, and this article will probably grow to be as valuable as that one.
  • Strong keep. Samaritan 07:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no reason to delete this, and if it's a merge/redirect you want instead, there's no reason to bring it to Votes for Deletion. I think it's best left as a separate article though, as autism is pretty lengthy as it is. Ливай | ☺ 08:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep although the article would need significant expansion - Skysmith 09:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's good. --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 10:17, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, just a collection of bulletin boards and chat rooms. Not notable. --fvw* 13:25, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
    • I think that the article being only a collection of chatrooms and bulletin boards is indicator that an article needs to be expanded, not deleted. Q0 00:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Due to the size of Autism merging back isn't an option. And the community is indeed notable. Keep and cleanup and see if it can be cleaned up in, say, a month. Mgm|(talk) 14:17, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Szyslak 18:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's helpful. Wyss 23:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep for every reason listed above. GRider\talk 23:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs to be cleaned up though. Megan1967 00:50, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with extreme prejudice and expand. Ropers 03:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Autism. Cleduc 07:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There is an article autistic culture on wikipedia. I wonder if it would be a good idea to merge the two articles? Q0 21:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The autistic community is real and valid, and the statement from the autistic community about minority status is important. AmyNelson 17:53, 8 Jan 2005
  • definately keep - perhaps could be merged with autistic culture, but this should not be dismissed. the autistic community is still growing both online and offline and this is something that should be recogonised 18:00 8th Jan 2005
  • Keep Why is it many people in this Wiki community seem to have something against Aspies and the people that try to represent us? WelshAspie 22:45, 10 Jan 2005
  • Keep Or merge with autistic culture. There is an active, vibrant autistic culture and community on the Internet and to some extent offline as well; it deserves recognition. Bonnie Ventura 20:35, 11 Jan 2005

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with Jesus. I have added a message on the talk page that stresses the merge/redirect idea. Joyous 02:02, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus: the Jewish POV[edit]

Certainly a good idea for an article, but this is no more than a duplicate copy of Jesus with a few sentences and changes incorporated to it. I wish someone would write a significant article on this subject. Meanwhile what should we do with this one? --Subramanian 05:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete as it is a fork of an existing article (if Proposal VII passes, we'll get to speedy these things). Ливай | ☺ 07:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The Jewish POV regarding Jesus belongs in the article about Jesus, not in a separate one. Delete. --Slowking Man 08:01, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia does not write multiple articles from different points of view. Incidentally, when I suggested that forks be speedy deletes, I was thinking of something like this, not of complex situations like the Abu Ghraib photos. Isomorphic 09:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete it brings no new information that couldn't be obtained from the jesus page. Xtra 09:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; there's nothing worth merging. —Korath (Talk) 10:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Jesus. --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 10:17, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 12:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is a fork. Contains no information that is already present in Jesus. Rje 14:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Forking an article to introduce a certain POV isn't acceptable. Merge useful info in Jesus and delete. Mgm|(talk) 14:17, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

-- To add additional info, I compared the two entries copying the text to a word processor and highliting the changes. The only significant difference is the short section on Resurrection, and the only one a merge would need to acknowledge. Subramanian

  • Merge. The aforementioned section on Resurrection is not bad. --Subramanian 18:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge Resurrection section and delete. --G Rutter 20:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 21:01, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, no new information that already exists in Jesus article. Megan1967 00:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fork --Jiang 01:39, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete due to its being a fork. Josh Cherry 01:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Jesus or Jesus and Resurrection of Jesus (Jesus: the Jewish POV is different from Jesus [3] in two places). I don’t agree with the opinion that we should delete the new text just because it was written in a forked article. Rafał Pocztarski 13:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • But I do think that all of the redundant text should be removed. If the new text (the difference between Jesus and the Jewish POV) was bigger than 2.5 paragraphs [4] then it might be an interesting article, but right now it is just an interesting section. See also: VfD/Jesus: the Christian POV. Rafał Pocztarski 04:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork, little useful new information, if any. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the unique information, no need for a gazillion articles on any controversial issue. Mntlchaos 16:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. – Quadell (talk) (help) 16:29, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 12:21, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

List of tent makers[edit]

It seems to me that this is unlikely to become an encyclopedic entry, and is instead really an attempt at witnessing. --Kelly Martin 05:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. I would have listed this for speedy, as it seems like a fairly content-free article to me. --Carnildo 09:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, contains no useful content, as is. And can never become anything more than an advertisement index. Rje 13:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Slay the abomination!!! Phils 17:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This can never be a complete list without the mythical "Omar the Tent Maker," manufacturer of plus-sized muu-muus. I have to admit, I got a chuckle out of the title because I totally did not expect to see anyone listed other than poor Omar! - Lucky 6.9 23:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • "Omar the tent-maker" is the translation of the name of the non-mythical Omar Khayyam. He wasn't actually a tent-maker, though (and I am not actually a metal-worker). Dpbsmith (talk) 02:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: LOL! I honestly didn't know that's where the term came from. You so smart. - Lucky 6.9 22:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not bad-faith [sic], but a good example of what wikipedia is not. Wyss 23:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing useful: see point 7 of what Wikipedia is not. Megan1967 00:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:50, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Kelly Martin. This has about as much potential to become encyclopedic as a List of carpenters whose only entry was Jesus. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. However, there are nearly as many "merge" votes as "keep" votes, although there is considerable disagreement about where to merge. I've listed this at WP:DA, and put a message on its talk page, so that another group in the Wikicommunity can be bold and hash out where it works best, or whether it should stand alone. Joyous 02:28, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Fursona[edit]

Non-notable niche neologism (whoops, alliteration), and largely a dictdef. 12,400 Google hits. Delete. - Vague | Rant 07:50, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

  • Furry fancruft (Oh no, I said the secret word)! Merge with Furry lifestyler. --Slowking Man 08:14, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Furry lifestyler. Rje 13:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Rather Merge with Furry, there's already a little list of furry slang terms. --Conti|✉ 20:28, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The list of slang in furry only gives one-sentence definitions, this article is much more extensive than that and a lot of information would be lost in the process. And merging with furry lifestyler would be just plain wrong, the term is definitely not exclusive to that subgroup. Bryan 20:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge it, Wyss 23:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with what? --Andylkl 08:08, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge: DCEdwards1966 23:38, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with what? --Andylkl 08:08, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - too much information to merge Zetawoof 21:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge - Nowhere near enough notable information to keep it as separate article. DreamGuy 01:59, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Merge with what? --Andylkl 08:08, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Megan1967 02:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. Not a neologism; you won't (generally) find specialized slang and/or jargon belonging to any group in a general-purpose dictionary, until that term 'breaks out' into the wider world. That being said, though, I can't see that it isn't doomed to be a dictdef. IceKarma 14:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to transwiki to Wiktionary. IceKarma has convinced me that it fits in with their regulations for inclusion. - Vague | Rant 04:37, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's much more than a dictdef. --Andylkl 08:08, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Andylkl. --Fibonacci 05:30, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep new non-copyvio article. Joyous 02:31, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Zpanel[edit]

Non-notable software project. --Carnildo 08:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Correction. It's an advertising copyvio non-notable substub from [5] --Carnildo 10:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Things that look like advertising need to justify their existance with some indication of notability. This doesn't. Isomorphic 08:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are multiple references to it from google. jroberts 09:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Quick searching shows a number of discussions of this project on various tech forums, etc. -RidG (talk) 09:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Copyvio. - Vague | Rant 09:50, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep .. and obviously clean it up and remove copyvio. --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 10:13, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and send to cleanup - David Gerard 00:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, clean up the copyright violation. Megan1967 02:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Article already deleted prior to closing the discussion. Joyous 02:33, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Dark Wonderland[edit]

Article for a minor film that has yet to be released. --Carnildo 09:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not because it's a minor film (if released it will be huge) but this is the equivalent of film vapourware. This has been rumoured since December 2000, and the supposed scriptwriter has already debunked this title. Xezbeth 09:26, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Copyvio. Reported. - Vague | Rant 09:39, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Probably not a good idea to remove the VfD notice when throwing a copyright tag on, so I replaced it. I say delete as it's non notable until it starts making actual progress. DreamGuy 03:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Additional comment: If it's noteworthy that a film was in development, perhaps a summary should be added to the page for the game. Once an actual movie is going somewhere a redirect or separate article with the title of the movie can then be made. DreamGuy 01:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • It might be a good idea to keep the page if it can clear up confusion on the matter? I have written a rough entry below. If nothing else, this might help you decide whether or not this deserves an entry at all. Though I think I agree that until there is an official announcement, this is something like "film vapourware".
Additional comment: I think that is a good idea, DreamGuy. Is it acceptable then, for me to append my entry for "Dark Wonderland" to the entry for "American McGee's Alice"? Then this entry should be deleted. 08:17, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
Works for me. Someone on that page may say differently, but I don't see why they would. DreamGuy 09:05, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
Done. My vote is obviously to delete, now. Eradicator 22:07, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. I've investigated the Universe of Warcraft, and it seems that Orc (Warcraft) might be the best match for a merge, so I've left a note at WP:DA suggesting this. Joyous 02:43, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Blackrock Orc[edit]

Wikipedia is not a plot guide for video games. Isomorphic 09:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, or perhaps Merge if there's somewhere to put it. This is super-obscure though. Xezbeth 09:33, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge, It should go with the game. Irishpunktom 10:08, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, incorrect title too. It should be Blackrock clan. I could accept a list of all orc clans in Warcraft though, but I don't think that any such exists. Jeltz talk 10:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is of no significance whatsoever separate from the Warcraft computer game, which already has sufficient reference to the plot. Average Earthman 11:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, too obscure to be worth merging anywhere. Rje 13:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this would be worth merging if there were a list of Orc clans appearing in the Warcraft series. No list no merge. Blast it. Phils 16:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Prefer merging somewhere; otherwise keep. Everyking 06:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 16:15, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, with the game. Megan1967 02:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 00:04, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Psychotronics[edit]

  • Lengthy and entirely non-NPOV paranoid rant with no basis in fact. -- Karada 09:43, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, silliness. I hope it's a hoax. Shimeru 11:38, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • This technology has come a long way, even foil hats are rendered ineffective. Quick, delete before the Trilateral Commission finds out that we've seen it! iMeowbot~Mw 12:03, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Hang on, the version of the article from 21 November is a lot more reasonable, displaying healthy skepticism. In this form I'd keep, since it does explain what the tin foil crowd are talking about. I've gone ahead and put that version back for now. iMeowbot~Mw 12:17, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the reverted page. Rje 13:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the succinct, NPoV version, it's helpful. Wyss 23:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep with iMeowbot's revert. GRider\talk 23:29, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep reverted page. --Viriditas | Talk 11:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep NPOV version. Megan1967 02:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 11:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:08, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

I.P. Freely[edit]

Just a joke name. We don't need an article on every joke ever made by kids in a playground (or on The Simpsons). sjorford 10:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. This is patent nonsense. --Carnildo 10:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's rubbish and nonsense, but sadly not patent nonsense as it is readable. It is, however, not even slightly worthy of an encyclopedia article, even if it were true. Which I'm sure it isn't. Smoddy | Talk 12:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. And no, Al Coholic, Homer Sexual, Mike Crotch and their humerous friends don't need pages either. Rje 13:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The concept might be worth an article, but you couldn't find it under this title, even if you wanted to. Deb 14:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Certainly does not merit own article. Believe this might be intended as humorous vandalism, i.e. symbolic urination into Wikipeedia (motto: we're number one!) Could conceivably be worth a mention or listing in some article about children's folk culture if actually researched and not just someone's off-the-cuff reminiscence. I question its accuracy, as in my elementary school, it was "I. P. Daley," which is a better joke since Daley is a common surname. I don't suppose any schoolkids are geographically literate enough to be aware of the Yalu River, which suggests that this particular piece of wit actually originated in the adult world. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:10, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, though an article on schoolyard humor (if not already written) might be an interesting idea. BTW in my neck of the woods the name was I.P. Nitely. 23skidoo 17:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as silly vandalism. Wyss 23:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- although, at my elementary school, we were all so amused by Lake Titicaca that we never got a chance to be THIS creative. But that's just a peak into my sadly non-notably life. --Christofurio 01:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's either vandalism or a speedy candidate. I'd be rather amused to see a list of all those wonderful authors like Claude Balls, Hu Flung Dung, Willy Makit, and Betty Wont. Maybe not here. Abstain giggling. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. until humorpedia is launched. Cleduc 07:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:11, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Video game dreams[edit]

Original research, also not really any encyclopedic potential, I think. Similar articles like perldreams and wikidreams have already been deleted, and I think this one should be removed too. Sietse 10:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete -- it could have some encyclopedic potential as a brief subsection of a page on dreams, assuming there are actual sources and support to be found, but even if that were the case, it doesn't really have the makings of a separate article, as far as I can tell. Shimeru 11:42, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless it can be shown that this isn't original research. - SimonP 18:11, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn original research. I had a grocery store dream last night, btw. Wyss 23:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Hypnagogic dream (currently a redirect) or Continuity hypothesis and merge. The general idea is not original research. This is a real, notable phenomenon, although poorly understood. See also: [6][7][8] [9] [10] --Viriditas | Talk 11:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: A proper discussion of rehearsal or the continuity thesis would incorporate all of those phenomena, including riding a plane after you've landed, etc. The matter is not to do with video games, but with the way the brain works. Geogre 20:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Hypnagogic dream. Megan1967 02:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as not even notable enough for a redirect. DreamGuy 03:12, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comment As a few others have pointed out, the objection to the article isn't the subject matter, but this take is original research and the phenomenon has nothing to do with video games. Wyss 16:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agree with Wyss. Mrwojo 22:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:17, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Faber Florez[edit]

Vanity. Please use Babelfish if you don't understand Spanish. Sietse 10:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity or not, it's a language vio --Boothy443 11:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete. Ought to be grounds for a speedy, really. Shimeru 12:05, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Okay, Florez finished school and got a job. Yay for Florez, but it's not an encyclopedia article. Delete. iMeowbot~Mw 13:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Rje 13:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, v. Wyss 23:10, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Megan1967 02:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. No more of a speedy than if it were in English, though. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. puro vanidad. deberia ser rapido. Cleduc 07:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:52, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Pagan holiday[edit]

What Wikipedia articles are not #8 -- personal essays. SWAdair | Talk 10:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • If you rearrange "Christians," you get "Can this, sir." It must be a sign. Seriously, delete. Original research, borderline vanity (lots and lots of first-person), rant, unsubstantiated attacks, and blatant factual errors. Shimeru 12:02, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Smoddy | Talk 12:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, heavily POV essay. Rje 13:43, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personal essay. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. On a different note, I ate cereals this morning. Phils 15:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A blog essay. --Wetman 20:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, and a chair is for sitting upon. Sometimes. Wyss 23:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. And author should be made to read Santa Claus. DJ Clayworth 17:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:50, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Adam Margolin[edit]

  • Delete,This is a joke going around my High School. Even the responses to it's calls for deletion are jokes. Nrbelex 04:52, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete it: clearly a joke. I know the author and he personally told me that it is a joke. Shutranm
  • Delete. Vanity page. Most of his papers cited appear to be either submitted, in press or conference proceedings. I can't see a single article which is a first author journal paper in the list on the page. Unless this guy published a groundbreaking work in Science, Nature or PLoS Biology, other workers in DNA microarrays such as Michael Eisen are far more deserving of an article than a first year graduate student. --Lexor|Talk 14:02, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, Not notable. --fvw* 13:23, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
  • Delete, reads like vanity. Rje 13:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn vanity, cv. Wyss 23:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:50, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Pazaak[edit]

Neologism Smoddy | Talk 12:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Either merge into Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, or delete as utterly non-notable (even by the standards of fancruft). Rje 14:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It's not a neologism, but this text is incredibly devoid of information. Merge into proper Star Wars-related article. or delete. Mgm|(talk) 14:31, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Wyss 23:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: A game you play in a videogame. It's a lot like 21. Geogre 20:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into a Star Wars article. Megan1967 02:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Broon[edit]

Slangdef. --fvw* 13:18, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

  • Delete dicdef for a little-used slang word. Rje 13:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Please delete! Smoddy | Talk 14:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, has no potential to be expanded. Mgm|(talk) 14:33, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Phils 15:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this dicdef of nn slang. Wyss 23:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete dictionary definition. Megan1967 02:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:55, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Emporte Par La Mere-Captain Of the Sea[edit]

I came across this on "Orphaned Pages". It's about a film that hasn't been released yet, and I can't believe this is the correct title. Deb 13:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Guess how many Google hits? [11] Smoddy | Talk 14:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It looks like the title of the article is the French title followed by the English one. If it's kept it needs renaming, but I have no problem with deleting this until it is actually released. Right now, it's not notable. Mgm|(talk) 14:36, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as an ad. Wyss 23:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, as it stands it hasnt been released so that makes it not notable for inclusion. Megan1967 02:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:04, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fredrik Lindqvist[edit]

Not sure if this is a vanity page or an attempt at a user page. Either way, it doesn't belong. Deb 13:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete as it was created by an anon it can't be userfied, so it has to go. Rje 14:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete --fvw* 14:25, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
  • Delete - if it's real, it's completely unnotable. If it's not, it's rubbish. Delete either way. Smoddy | Talk 14:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnotable. The information in the article looks realisitic and locations, companies and the university exists (I think it's a part of Gothenburg University). Jeltz talk 16:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:59, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Torism[edit]

Dictdef, neologism. --fvw* 14:24, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

  • Delete Appears to be a tirade about one person. I would have speedied this. --LeeHunter 15:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this nonsense. Rje 18:35, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Borderline speedy IMO, it probably does make sense to those in the know and I dread to think what it means. Highly probably a cowardly personal attack. I'm not quite willing to speedy it, I'd very much like to blank it but that violates current policy, assuming the VfD notice accurately reflects it. Difficult. Andrewa 20:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, some sort of PoV rant, too bad it's not a speedy. Wyss 23:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Megan1967 02:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 00:56, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Venieri[edit]

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 14:37, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

  • Article was edited (and VfD header was removed, *sigh*). I edited further, moved and now withdraw this nomination unless anyone objects. --fvw* 15:02, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
  • Keep and close debate. Hang in there, your good humour in trying circumstances is appreciated. Andrewa 20:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, could do with further expansion. Megan1967 02:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Strong suggestions to move to SIDO and disambiguate. The move is complete Joyous 03:19, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sido[edit]

Firstly, page has wrong name (as it is an acronym, should be SIDO). Secondly, the content of the page is very minor, and the subject matter does not seem significant enough for an article. Smoddy | Talk 15:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Perhaps it needs to become a disambiguation. Jeff Knaggs 16:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  1. There is a SIDO in India (same function)
  2. Società Italiana Di Ortodinzia
  3. A German Gangsta-Rap "Artist"
  • Either Delete it or change to all caps and disambiguate. Wyss 23:03, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to SIDO and disambig as necessary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Certainly should be SIDO, not SIDO. Disambig seems in order. Seems a perfectly likely topic for a good article, even if current content is only a stub. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:41, Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus so article defaults to "keep." Joyous 02:55, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Possibility[edit]

Unresearched stub with no possibility of becoming encyclopedic. ➥the Epopt 16:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure whether or not this could become encyclopaedic, but this isn't useful anyway. Redirect to logical possibility until someone has something to say on the matter. --fvw* 17:02, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important topic, growing stub. Possible cleanup but that page is overloaded so I think not. Logical possibility is a technical article, and not a suitable redir for this. Andrewa 20:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. As presented, this description is nn nonsense. Wyss 23:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, could do with expansion. Megan1967 02:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, there is a possibility it will become encyclopedic. ;) -Ld | talk 21:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

  • 13:34, 6 Jan 2005 Cyrius deleted André Nilsen (recreation of vfd deleted content)
  • 16:29, 5 Jan 2005 Jimfbleak deleted André Nilsen (listed for speedy deletion)
  • 20:52, 4 Jan 2005 Jpgordon deleted André Nilsen (recreated (again, don't they get bored?) after vfd deletion)
  • 20:12, 4 Jan 2005 Mikkalai deleted André Nilsen (restored after vfd deletion)
  • 18:06, 3 Jan 2005 Rdsmith4 deleted Andre Nilsen (content was: '#redirect André Nilsen')
  • 02:08, 2 Jan 2005 Neutrality deleted André Nilsen (Previously deleted on VfD)
  • 20:47, 1 Jan 2005 Mikkalai restored "Andre Nilsen" (1 revisions restored)
  • 20:46, 1 Jan 2005 Mikkalai restored "André Nilsen" (1 revisions restored)
  • 20:44, 1 Jan 2005 Mikkalai restored "André Nilsen"
  • 20:43, 1 Jan 2005 Mikkalai restored "André Nilsen"
  • 14:37, 1 Jan 2005 Silsor deleted André Nilsen (unprotected: content was: This page was deleted after voting (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/André Nilsen) and is currently protected from repeated restoring. Please apply ...')
  • 23:19, 31 Dec 2004 Niteowlneils deleted Andre Nilsen (redir to deleted article--content was: '#redirect André Nilsen')

Closing this discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

André Nilsen[edit]

Either delete it, or keep it, but putting up a message saying it's deleted is the worst of the three possibilities. anthony 警告 16:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. (Note various warnings.) Sensible MWOT response to repeated vandalism, violates no existing policy AFAIK. Discuss at talk:André Nilsen or some other appropriate forum if a policy change is needed. Andrewa 20:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as is, as long as it needs to be protected to prevent re-creation. We've spent too much time on this wannabe already. Niteowlneils 23:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Happy keep year!!! GRider\talk 00:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this article should be kept because there clearly is a demand for it (a number of people in several countries have either contributed to it or recreated it already) and because I do not see the benefit of interpreting the criteria of notability excessively narrowly. Cheers, Erik
  • keep protected until additional reasons of notability will be provided. The proposals are welcome at the article's talk page. Mikkalai 20:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Please explain how this protected statement makes for a good encyclopedia article. He may not be notable, but it seems to me that all the reasons for deletion go out the window when we decide to have a page here anyway. anthony 警告 21:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately wiki doesn't have other means of banning certaing page names from recreation of persistent trolls. I even gave them some slack by posting the old text in the talk page talk:André Nilsen, so that they could enhance his notability. I have nothing against Mr. Nilsen. I am against the promotionalist efforts to present a student organisation as an advisor of global importance, with powerful spamming wherever possible in wikipedia. Mikkalai 21:39, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately wiki doesn't have other means of banning certaing page names from recreation of persistent trolls. AFAICT, there is no consensus that this particular page name should be "banned from recreation" in the first place. If such consensus is reached, that this page name should indefinitely be stopped from creation regardless of content, then I would support implementation of such a solution in a manner which doesn't otherwise break the functionality of the wiki. If it's so important that a page with this name never be created, then I'm sure someone will be able to code up a feature which allows this. But creating an article saying that the article was deleted defeats the purpose of deleting the article in the first place. I am against the promotionalist efforts to present a student organisation as an advisor of global importance, with powerful spamming wherever possible in wikipedia. Well, then the best solution is to create a neutral page on the topic. Page protection can be used to ensure neutrality, if necessary. Maybe I'm wrong, and you can explain to me what purpose this serves beyond that provided by the solution of protecting an actual article rather than a policy-violating self-reference. anthony 警告 00:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it deleted: it already died a VfD death once. If it's recreated (again), speedy it. -Sean Curtin 06:53, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Old discussion[edit]

Vanity, promo. Same anonymous editor has been salting other articles with links to oxfordgovernance.org. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: It is possible that the figure has achieved academic notability, but "also published many" doesn't do it. What is remarkable? How is this person a leader? What effects has this person had? The random professor test is important here: being an academic is tough, but it puts one in the company of tens of thousands. Setting oneself above and beyond the other fry in your shoal is what makes one an encyclopedic figure. Geogre 20:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • He is based at my college and is not just an academic who publishes but has founded several organisations working on politics and international affairs. Is that not leadership? Marie S.
    • Comment: I honestly don't know. Without the ability to verify, I have to work on the presumptive principle. I know a fellow who runs the Spenser Society (for the study of Edmund Spenser) and therefore automatically became the editor of Spenser Quarterly. That's great stuff, and he's an outstanding scholar, but it's not really a matter of notability: that's high achievement in a specialized field. Professors at leading institutions do that as a par for the course. That makes thousands of people around the world. Something more is needed. Geogre 22:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The above argument does not make sense. As opposed to the very specialist example of the Spenser expert, this guy seems to be a generalist who is involved in a range of areas from security and politics to business and economics. There is also no automaticity in what he does - he seems to have built it all up from scratch. Hanover. (this was added by 207.44.180.48. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC))
      • All other edits by above anon seem to be just vandalism. I don't think this vote should be counted. jni 06:18, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Just because someone has a CV doesn?t mean they are worth an article. Wait until he's done something really noteworthy for good or ill. Lumos3 23:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete fvw* 00:00, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
  • Delete jni 11:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Quite interesting. Rich. - Oxford.
    • Above vote is 163.1.160.62's first contribution to Wikipedia. jni 06:18, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - he's doing some great work.. Christiane
  • Keep. I agree with some of the concerns above but this isn't just the average CV. And the comparison to the Spenser Society truly misses the point! RM-B
  • Delete, not noteworthy for inclusion. Megan1967 02:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:22, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Jack-o-witch[edit]

Not notable. --fvw* 17:13, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Total vanity. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 17:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • marketing or vanity. Delete --AlainV 18:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/advertising. Rje 18:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, take a look at the source code of their webpage and see why this is nothing but a pure, in-your-face advertisement and search-engine ploy. Wyss 22:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable link farming. And boy is that site spammy. DreamGuy 03:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cleduc 07:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so article defaults to "keep". Joyous 03:02, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Tomika Skanes[edit]

Not notable, probable vanity. --fvw* 17:18, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity abstain, but her website has a no-right-click script on it. Kappa 17:50, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Contents blanked as copyvio. Kappa 18:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete for linking to a webpage with uselessly rude javascript (oh, and vanity too). Wyss 22:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. for some reason the Vfd tag got removed, now back on. Vanity and a half.--ZayZayEM 02:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. She has appeared in numerous big-name magazines and videos, which qualifies her as notable enough for Wikipedia. I'm glad I found this article and find it interesting. - Cow 04:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Cow above rewrote it and removed the copyvio tag, but the copyvio content remains in the history. Kappa 05:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As aforementioned, she has appeared with big-name artists in videos, as well as in big name print ads.JoelKirk--16:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, not notable. Megan1967 02:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment:There are a few people on Wikipedia not widely known, yet they are in the movie, music, or modeling business. Not too mention, they usually bring out a certain diverse outlook because of their heritage and/or acheivements.JoelKirk 04:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was the one who wrote the article, and can't see how it can be a vanity entry. I think she is well enough known as a model and on the online community to have a Wikipedia page.--JoelKirk 17:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (from previous abstain) especially since I can't think of any other famous Afro-Asian people. Kappa 05:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I didn't know that about Tiger Woods Kappa 00:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:23, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Aaron Senser[edit]

Vanity, pure and simple. Neither imdb nor allmovie recognise this "actor". Rje 18:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 21:16, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Wyss 22:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as pure-D vanity. Gotta give him credit for "A Very Aaron Christmas!" - Lucky 6.9 23:17, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cleduc 07:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I restored the VFD heading on the page, which had been blanked by an anonymous IP. [maestro] 12:13, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I think we have a speedy now. Someone's blanked the page. - Lucky 6.9 23:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:25, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus: the Christian POV[edit]

Another of the Jesus series created by User:I834 - virtually no information and nothing not at Jesus. We don't need multiple articles on the same topics from different POV - just one NPOV article. --G Rutter 20:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. We also have Jesus NPOV, which I'll also list. Dunc|☺ 20:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rje 20:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 21:02, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jeltz talk 21:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this stub of a duplicate article. Wyss 22:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It sure seems like straight forks of existing articles should be speedy-deletable. I can't say that I can think of a single good reason for it. --BM 01:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quill 01:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is already pretty much covered in the pre-existing Jesus article. Megan1967 03:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would have voted Merge with Jesus if it was longer than one line of text, and I would have voted Keep if it was too long to merge with Jesus, longer than few sections. See also: VfD/Jesus: the Jewish POV. Rafał Pocztarski 04:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:25, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus NPOV[edit]

A redundant copy of Jesus. We don't need multiple articles on the one chap, whatever some think he's supposed to have done. Dunc|☺ 20:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete for the reasons given above. --G Rutter 20:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rje 20:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 21:00, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, amounts to a fork, unhelpful. Wyss 22:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete I'd like to see forks (or near-forks) of existing articles be speedy-deletable.
    • According to the edit history, the above vote was made by User:BM at 01:34, 1 Jan 2005. --G Rutter 15:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork Gazpacho 01:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fork. Megan1967 03:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Redirect has been completed Joyous 02:32, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Windurst[edit]

Fancruft, delete. Edward 20:25, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:33, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

James Joseph Kennedy[edit]

What makes this person notable? His son may be slightly notable, but this article reads like a genalogical entry, and not an article which establishes why this man should have an article about him. 172.169.21.14 20:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: non encyclopedic. DCEdwards1966 20:58, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the article is revised to explain why it should be kept. If James Joseph Kennedy can be linked to the Kennedy clan (JFK, RFK, Teddy, et al) then it should be kept. Right now the only notoriety here is that he was slightly related to a baseball team owner. 23skidoo 21:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this nicely written genealogical narrative as nn. Wyss 22:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable for inclusion. Megan1967 03:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was that it is a gigantic poo joke. I like poo jokes, but they shouldn't be on Wikipedia, so this has been deleted rather earlier than usual. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yopu[edit]

  • Hoax. Neutralitytalk 22:38, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not a hoax. Not all history has been recorded on the internet and can be found in google. (This line was originally put here to replace Neutrality's by User:Tteexx)
  • delete That's indeed what I thought - a lot of crap in that article, but I wikified it anyway. Seemed meaningless, but I wasn't sure, couldn't find anything else but this on the net so I guess it's a hoax too (and the pic doesn't look like someone living in 1250-something). Hoax? probably. --Anthony Liekens 22:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. Rje 22:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'm an historian studying quirky and unusual stories out of Tibet. Though this sounds ridiculous, it is a humours legend told by local villagers. Part of the story is lost in translation leading it to sound more fantastic than originally intended.User:Tteexx talk
  • Delete, possibly move to BJAODN.-gadfium 23:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is a big Poo movement. DCEdwards1966 23:26, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I laughed, but then I thought (deeply) what if it's true man, what if it's all true, I've never been to Tibet, but what if it's all true, THAT is all I'm saying, what if it's all true.
  • Delete unless an citation that can be independently verified is provided. Average Earthman 23:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, Interesting information. I previewed an abstract of the cited paper. - Dr. Li.
  • Keep, I have seen this statue in Tibet and heard this story. Don't judge this legend without the facts folks. -- Ed Jones - Tok, Alaska.
    • You've already voted, user:Tteexx. Andrewa 03:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • You're right Andrewa, I did vote (once). However, Ed Jones was from ip: 137.229.34.152 ... which from the looks of it, is in Alaska.
      • Quite right. Please sign your posts, and you'll save us all this trouble. Andrewa 03:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, This is a "legend" guys, so no one can prove it factual. Does wikipedia really want to censor all legends? (Fermin Salinas, DDS., Corpus Christi, Texas)
  • Delete, probable hoax. Note, all the keep votes are either by the article's author, or are unsigned. Wyss 01:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless main contributor to article provides verifiable evidence of the legend's existence and someone independent verifies it. I would suggest a print reference since that is the traditional Wikipedia standard for verifiability—such as a reference to a major journal, one that's carried by university libraries or major public libraries, or a book with an ISBN number. So far all that has given is a URL that yields a "404 not found." There seems to be no Google cache for the page, or does archive.org's "wayback machine" contain it. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
P. S. I've submitted a query to kuixing@panopticonasia.com and timothyfox@panopticonasia.com, editor and publisher of the cited journal, explaining the situation and asking whether such an article actually appeared; see Talk:Yopu for details. I'll summarize their reply here if I get one. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Citation:

  • KEEP - I feel this article deserves to be read. This is a story for the generations and nothing but good can come from the knowledge that it imparts. -- Josh
  • Comment Question for User:Tteexx. The image used in the illustration appears to have had the Adobe Photoshop "crystallize" effect applied to it. Can you tell us why this was done instead of submitting the original, unfiltered image? You identify yourself as "the creator of the image." Does that mean it is an original artwork by you? If not, what is the source of the image? Dpbsmith (talk) 03:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I am the creator of the image. Yopu lived in the 13th century so no photographs exist of him. I took a collage of pictures taken from the region and created a digital representation of what Yopu may have looked like. TTeexx
  • From the website: "The first of the twice-yearly issues of Kui Xing will be available, conditions permitting, in Spring 2005." Shimeru 03:44, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: I had some trouble finding this, so I'll mention there it is. Go to http://www.kuixing.panopticonasia.com Click "home," then "call for papers," then scroll down to "Submitting a paper," section (C), Calendar. However, and confusingly, clicking on "current issue" yields "Our apologies. The first online edition of Kui Xing is planned for Spring 2004." Dpbsmith (talk) 04:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable, probable hoax, possible Internet phenomenon. All keep votes are from the author or IPs with no previous edits. I've slapped a disputed tag on it, see the talk page. My guess is we'll see more and more of these, but probably the existing VfD and accuracy dispute procedures will handle them for the moment. Andrewa 03:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparent hoax. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Complete hoax. Holodoctor1 11:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, we can mark it disputed if we like, but the website seems like huge lengths to go to just to support a hoax article in Wikipedia. If the journal doesn't show up sometime over the coming months we can revisit this. (changing vote)--Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Huh? Nothing is supposed to be in Wikipedia unless it is verifiable. So far, this article is not verifiable. Have you verified it? Can you verify it? Nobody is disputing the existence of the online journal http://www.kuixing.panopticonasia.com. Nobody is suggesting that the website is a fabrication by User:Tteexx. But... that website says nothing about Yopu. Tteexx cites a nonexistent URL that returns a 404 Not Found. For an article that appeared in 2004. In a journal that says it will publish its first article in 2005. I mean, I could write an about the legend of the Miracle-working Hermit of Wachusett, citing http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/15/religion/02hermit.html as evidence of the legend's reality, and saying "True, the article I cited doesn't exist, but The New York Times exists." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually it says the first one is planned for Spring of 2004. The site is going through some changes and I'm sure the journals will reappear soon.
  • Delete, hoax or not verifiable. --fvw* 19:46, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  • Delete: It isn't verified or verifiable. I'd like us to be up to date as much as the next person, but encyclopedias report the accepted (agreed upon) truth. This is not a journal, nor a place for exciting breakthroughs or original research. Until this is verified and verifiable (and, btw, I at least am highly suspicious of the journal that exists only on the web), it's a hoax. Geogre 20:27, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I just heard the personal interview, and it made me weep! -Dune Zhu, Medford, Oregon
    • Posted by 66.169.253.2
  • Comment The journal, http://www.kuixing.panopticonasia.com is associated with a Yahoo Group named KuiXing. The group has seventeen members and 115 archived messages. None of them mention Yopu or Yopumundi or Lewinski or Manes. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it looks like a hoax, and talks like a hoax, and smells like a hoax, then it has to come with sources that are verifiable now. If, in addition, all but one Keep are demonstrably bogus, those sources better be blessed by Yopu himself. And I don't mean the little troll, which I'm mentioning for no particular reason at all. JRM 02:01, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, until it is proven beyond doubt that it's a hoax. Megan1967 03:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable, likely hoax. Jayjg | (Talk) 05:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Unsure. I'm 80% convinced this is a hoax, but there's that other 20%. Tteexx, if you have this alleged journal article why not show it to us? You can email it to me at nought_0000(at)yahoo.com (in Chinese is ok) and I will support you if it appears genuine. Either way, the onus is on you to prove that the article is for real. --Zero 08:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    I just noticed that the "I laughed" addition above was made by an anon who is obviously identical to User:Tteexx (see the article history). This is tantamount to an admission that the article is fake, so I'm changing my vote to delete. --Zero 08:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please don't try to deceive us. It isn't worth your time or ours. Everyking 09:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's a hoax. Smoddy | Talk 13:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a hoax, the bit about fertilizing rice which is not grown in any part of Tibet is a giveaway Fred Bauder 13:32, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow. The Pu Rebellion. We wouldn't want them to eat peasant poo. I suggest we delete this patent nonsense. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. Hoax. (this is a changed vote) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Additional comment made subsequent to closure of VfD is available, including promised followup relevant to evaluating the deletion decision, available at here. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete at 02:20, 3 Jan 2005 by User:Ta bu shi da yu who wrote speedy - c'mon!

The Dork Cheese[edit]

Possible vanity. NPOV, not notable. The creator is appealing against speedy deletion on the talk page, and it doesn't quite meet speedy criteria, so I'm listing it here. Delete.-gadfium 22:50, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 22:58, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Guess who posted it as a speedy...? Yup. Me (blush). Delete, and would a sysop please explain to the gentleman why this article is inappropriate? - Lucky 6.9 23:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, a non-notable player from a non-notable game. Add to the charges: NPOV and vanity. Rje 23:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Wyss 01:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NO PLS DUN DELETE IT!!!!!!!!!!

  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 03:14, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not subject to speedy delete, but that's a flaw in the rules. LostCluster 03:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Megan1967 03:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:34, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Exploratoria[edit]

Blog vanity. Neutralitytalk 22:56, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

  • 50 google hits, and borderline spam. Delete. GRider\talk 00:09, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Stubbish, confusing, badly written, NPOV-violating piece of vanity crap. Annihilate. Phils 00:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity/advertising. Rje 01:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this ad. Wyss 01:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Newfoundglory 11:55, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement. Megan1967 03:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was apparently Speedy Delete at 17:03, 1 Jan 2005 by User:Jpgordon who wrote nonsense vandalism.

Bancroft Clan[edit]

The page seems to be nonsense - "Bancroft Clan" gets one Google hit about some group in Australia... ugen64 23:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, with a vote of 6 delete and 4 keep. The article defaults to keep. Joyous 03:07, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiWhacking[edit]

Wikipedia is not a role playing game. There are some games in Category:Wikipedia games but this one never seems to have worked. Sortior 23:20, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, original research, wikipedia is not a blog. Wyss 01:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Nick nack WikiWhack, give this one the bone. DCEdwards1966
  • Delete, original research. Rje 02:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: And this one went into the deleted home. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete... and shouldn't we delete everything else in the Category:Wikipedia games list under the same logic? LostCluster 03:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Well... the thing is it is under the Wikipedia namespace, let us not forget that. The other ones are active "project pages" and I think that people do visit the other ones. The request, so it seems, was placed because it didn't work, and is likely inactive. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: As the creator of this page seems currently active, I'm going to ask his opinion. I'm fairly sure we'll be deleting it, but IMO a little courtesy would be appropriate here. No vote for the moment. Andrewa 04:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems like an interesting idea, though not a game that I would want to play. Keep it as an example of Wiki culture (albeit a failed one). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • No reason to delete. Andre (talk) 21:52, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why do you say that it's original research? It's an attempt to create a project in the Wikipedia namespace. No research at all as far as I can see. - Jeltz talk 22:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. In Wikipedia namespace. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 03:22, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. In part because of its location in the Wikipedia namespace, I see nothing wrong with keeping it. And its not a bad idea. →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 03:48, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:KellyCoinGuy I appreciate the courtesy of inviting me to this page Andrewa. Thank you. Courtesy is a good Wiki Community feature. As the original author of the page, I thought at the time it was an interesting idea... the goal was to see if participation in Wikipedia could be promulgated through the approach of a game. It didn't work, and I'm sure that by itself is interesting. Why didn't it catch on? Because nobody saw it, because nobody cared, because it didn't have a champion, or (my favorite) it was just a plain old fashioned STUPID idea. ;-) I won't venture an opinion as to whether the page should be kept or deleted, I am ok with it either way... but it does present an interesting sociological question about how the Wikipedia community is different than say, most chat rooms. I think Tony had the real insight about the significance of this page (if indeed it has ANY AT ALL). I will say this though, the Wikipedia:Wiki-Link Game is far more inane. The Wikipedia:Wikifun game seems fun, but doesn't contribute... maybe if it contributes, then it's not a game? Before deleting the article entirely, why not give it half a chance to succeed by placing it (properly) in the category Wikipedia games and see if it catches on then? 10 Jan 2005

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2004_December_31&oldid=1142648137"