Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 1

< February 28	March 2 >

March 1[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. Carrp | Talk 18:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sam Derry[edit]

A very sweet tribute, but there is no context or indication that this is an encyclopedic person. Joyous 00:48, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to say delete. Joyous 00:49, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah seems like a great guy, but not a particularly famous or influential. Delete, sorry. BTW, nominators don't usually need to say "delete". Kappa 01:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is at least one closer who doesn't always count a nomination as an automatic "delete" vote. I just like to be clear. Joyous 01:10, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I also usually don't vote on my own nominations, unless the ensuing discussion moves me to do that (and then, I don't always vote for deletion). Radiant! 13:53, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 04:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Concur, delete. Radiant! 13:53, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
We really should have a "Wikipedia is not a memorial" page that we can link to in cases like this - I miss my grandfather too; he was a wonderful person and I know lots of stories about him and he loved to paint so my parents' house is full of his paintings, but he never became famous for it. I'm sure that Grampa Derry was a wonderful person, but delete. DS 14:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- We do have such a page, although you have to scroll down a bit to get to it. It's on the What Wikipedia is not list. (Under Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, section 4 is Memorials: "It's always sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honour them....".) The shortcut link is WP:WIN. Oh, and delete, because Wikipedia is not a memorial. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 14:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Longhair 15:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete even though it brought a tear to my eye. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Carrp | Talk 01:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Null hypothesis significance testing debate[edit]

Delete. Looks like a poorly written high school essay. Oleg Alexandrov 01:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete … or worse. Paul August ☎ 02:32, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unsalvageable. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete This s not a kind of essay!? (PISA?) --NewAtair Δ 12:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Turns a simple concept into a rambling cranky POV hash not suitable for addition to the Null Hypothesis page. I believe he was talking about the debate in psychology... maybe. Jok2000 13:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article is indeed written in the form of an essay and it does not even attempt to explain what the debate is about. Jitse Niesen 14:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As noted on the discussion page, this is not notable, it contains nothing new, what is does contain is of dubious merit, it is not NPOV and the transcript of the discussion page suggest that the author herself attempted to delete it only be thwarted by a gallant revert. Let us allow the author her wish for oblivion for this article.Velela 20:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unwikified original research. Jonathunder 00:51, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 13:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses brouchures[edit]

I believe that articles about every one publication is in no way necesarry. But I think it is appropriate to have a list over Watchtower publications. So the articles about brochures and books should be kept going, but with some changes. Some of the books, however, could be described in their own articles. Summer Song
Unencylopedic. Delete. Neutrality^talk 01:32, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Looks like simple references to publications by WTB&TS, How can this be Unencylopedic? Keep. Dan w
Keep, with a Comment I started this article, it is part of a new wikiproject. The entire thing is a work in progress. If you feel it needs to be merged, changed or deleted, then why not give us constructive criticism on the project's talk page instead of arbitrarily marking it for deletion? Thank you, george 02:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Changing my vote to delete as I think the article in its' present form + the misspelling of the title is bad. I intende to reincarnate it as a description of these types of publications by JW's with proper spelling of the title and no links for each publication. (hopefully it will pass the "encyclopedic" test that way) george 00:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It seems a single link to the JW publications page placed in the JW article would suffice. Gamaliel 02:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a link farm. If it gets kept, though, please spell it correctly. Rick K 06:10, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unencyclopedic. Radiant! 08:37, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Any reason not to merge with Jehovah's Witnesses? Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and the few useful phrases should be inserted in Jehovah's Witnesses. --NewAtair Δ 12:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Merge if you have to. DJ Clayworth 18:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like a list of the titles of Jehovah's Witnesses 32-page brochures. The individual brochures are not suitable topics for encyclopedia articles and a list of them isn't, either. The fact that each brochure title is a red link makes it look like someone is planning to write a Wikipedia article on each brochure, which would not be a good thing. --BM 20:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
CommentIt appears this page will be deleted. Thanks for the critique. george
Keep (with reservations). I think this is appropriate IF it provided navigation to articles about the brochures. However it does not, and a category template could provide the same information. I'd like to see it stay if the articles are completed within a 45-60 day timeframe. If not, it needs to go.
Delete for reasons given by BM above. Fire Star 19:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - encyclopedic. Useful for research on the subject. Name needs fixing though. Might also do better as a category, though an annotated list article could be very valuable indeed - David Gerard 10:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep as an annotated list without red-links. dbenbenn | talk 13:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Carrp | Talk 20:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shadowstate[edit]

Non-notable band vanity -- Longhair 02:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- Longhair 02:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 04:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete for not meeting the Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 23:22, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, what they ^ said. — mark ✎ 11:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Carrp | Talk 20:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seaton Rothman[edit]

Non-notable -- 0 google hits Jok2000 02:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete Jok2000 03:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, the way it is written it's either a badly worded vanity piece or a sarcastic attempt at a personal attack. Megan1967 04:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No Google hits, and the 1 Yahoo! hit was for someone else. Vanity. DaveTheRed 00:59, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Carrp | Talk 20:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recess (TV series)[edit]

This honestly doesn't seem notable enough. It might be a Disney series, but they make hundreds of them, and I really don't think this is appropriate for an encyclopedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep This show was on network "Saturday Morning Cartoons" (for lack of a better description) for about three years, and now is playing on Disney's cable channel. We have a lot of lesser TV shows on Wikipedia than this. Bratsche 04:12, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article does not establish notability. Entire article merely consist of a list of fictious characters in the series. Megan1967 04:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Since when were television series not suitable? There's thousands of them already. Xezbeth 05:55, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This show ran for years and is still running on many television stations in early-morning syndication. Research. Cripes. Mike H 07:41, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Megan; the series may be notable, but this article is a Bad Thing. I'd say delete the article and rewrite from scratch as a description of the series, rather than a list of characters. Radiant! 08:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
- When something needs a rewrite, it goes on cleanup. It is not deleted. Mike H 08:55, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes, except when a future rewrite would benefit from having all current information erased first. Radiant! 12:10, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'm guessing this show's not really notable outside the USA, but here it's at least borderline notable. /sɪzlæk ˺/ 08:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wasn't there a Recess spin off film made? And it was (still is?) popular in the UK as well, being shown on ITV Nick04 08:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep TV series aired on major networks. Kappa 09:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Utter keep. Popular show on national TV in US and UK, so certainly notable. sjorford →•← 11:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. It's been on for several years on a major network, I don't see how it CAN'T be notable. --InShaneee 15:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi was kept, why not this? -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep I would say that pretty much any national network TV show is notable enough for an article, and this is more notable than most. 4 seasons on network TV, continued airings on national cable, it has a dedicated fan community, it's won Emmy awards, it's been spun off as a feature film, it's had several direct-to-video movies, it's had big-name guest stars like Eric Idle, James Earl Jones, and Dick Clark... do I have to go on? It's notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:54, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep! Encyclopedic article, notable program. Sure, the article needs a bit of TLC, but it sure isn't a VfD candidate. - Lucky 6.9 23:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The many TV series articles in existence pretty much indicates that such articles are encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Like most articles, this one can use some improvement but that's normal. 23skidoo 01:01, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep, notable show that lasted several seasons. --Matteh (talk) 05:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep very notable and popular Disney TV show. I will clean it up a little bit right now. --b. Touch 14:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. Notable TV series, encyclopedic topic. --Andylkl 04:19, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't watch television, but even I have heard of this one. Zetawoof 10:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. National release or better from a major company. - RedWordSmith 19:23, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. While there was a majority decision to delete the current version, there was a promise to improve the article which influenced subsequent votes. I am going to exercise my discretion and call this one a keep for now and mark it with a "cleanup" tag. If not substantially improved in a reasonable amount of time, it may become appropriate to renominate the article for deletion. (The pagemove to fix the spelling error would also be a good idea.) Rossami (talk) 07:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The_Religion_of_India:_The_Sociology_of_Hinduism_and_Budhism_(book)[edit]

Delete ~~Merge and redirect~~ - This text is already a subsection on this: Maximilian_Weber#The_Religion_of_India:_The_Sociology_of_Hinduism_and_Buddhism.≈ jossi ≈ 01:03, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, no redirect. I can't imagine anyone typing out the full name of that book. Megan1967 04:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Especially since it is misspelled. Buddhism. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:53, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete no redirect, as per Megan1967 and Jmabel. ~~However, perhaps merge some info. I may get around to it depending on time and motivation today. If someone else does it first, all the better.~~ Interestingly, no merge is needed; it seems that this article is entirely extracted (with new, disimproved headings!) from the existing article. HyperZonk^talk 16:58, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Move and keep. This is fairly well written and much longer then a stub. It is a subarticle from Max Weber, which is fairly long (and Featured, btw), so this article was created for eventuall expantion of the Max Weber article, for the purpose of providing more information to the reader interested in this area of Weber research - a purpose it already does well, considering additional information available in this subarticle (like the Hinduism link/see also template). Of course, if the title is mispelled, I will move it to a proper name later when I can login from my normal comp. Update: yes, that was me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Per Piotrus, no problem keeping (at corrected name) if he promises to expand. -- Jmabel | Talk

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Carrp | Talk 03:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PrivyPad[edit]

Does not seem notable, and reads like an advertisement. This website lists only ninety downloads in the past six months. Bratsche 04:07, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - This is advertising Demi 04:26, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
Delete as advertising. JeremyA 04:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Postdlf 06:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete No question. --NewAtair Δ 12:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just an ad. Zzyzx11 18:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Software to use while in the privy, apparently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:22, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 14:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

El Morya[edit]

New Age religious figure, presented as fact. Is there a larger new age section for this to be merged into? Bezthomas 04:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about Ascended Master? Bezthomas 04:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unencyclopaedic POV nonsense - "lord of the FIRST RAY (Blue Ray) Morya came to Earth as a guardian from the planet Mercury". Megan1967 04:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, whatever this is it is not rubbish. Koot Hoomi and the 1st ray all link to the teachings of Alice Bailey. People do genuinely believe in this stuff. If not merge into ascended masters but it would be wrong to delete this article as rubbish or the overactive imagination of one individual. 12,600 google hits, confirming the correctness of the article--SqueakBox 18:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
I have changed my mind because this is a copy vio of [1] so delete. --SqueakBox 18:49, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know how to do a copy vio so have rewritten the article to solve that problem. If someone improved my stub it might be worth keeping, otherwise delete. --SqueakBox 18:55, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
- What you do with copyvio is either delete it, or rewrite it as such. I believe you've done the latter, so that's pretty much ok.
I've heard of this before; it is in fact an existing (if rather small) religion. I'd say merge & redirect as I'm not sure how many First Ray Figures there are. Radiant! 19:41, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Carrp | Talk 03:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jason Frost & the Love Junkies[edit]

Here we go again. Notability is, at the very least, unverifiable. No entry at allmusic.com, Google turns up mostly bogus press releases and the like, and there has been repeated vandalism on the related VfD pages. Delete. Android79 04:58, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete along with all the others. Gamaliel 05:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, along with lower case redirect. Postdlf 06:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Once again, Delete DaveTheRed 06:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, please... Nick04 08:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hasn't this already been on vfd at least once. If so, can it be speedied. If not, delete because it fails to meet Wiki music project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 11:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If it was, I can't find it, but WP is being slooow for me today, stuff keeps timing out. Anyone else want to verify this? Android79 13:31, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  - See Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. If he had released at least two albums on Sub Pop, for example, or if he was the most prominent member of the early 90s Olympia scene, then he would meet the criteria, but this article doesn't claim either of those things. Tuf-Kat 22:19, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
    - Oh, sorry, my brain was turned off. You were asking for verification that this had been on VfD before, not that it didn't meet the guidelines. AFAIK, this article is new to the Wikipedia, though there are several articles on related bands and the like currently nominated for deletion. If there had ever been an article on Jason Frost & the Love Junkies, it was under a different name. Tuf-Kat 22:22, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for not meeting notability in music guidelines. Tuf-Kat 12:59, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete along with all the others. Can't this be dealt with as vandalism? --BM 16:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not enough notable references. Zzyzx11 18:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vote remains unchanged for the third time. Megan1967 03:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice. Someone keeps adding this. Jason Frost, Love Junkies, Blue Moon and Company, etc. Articles and links in Grunge rock. Utterly non-notable. Doesn't the speedy-delete criterion about recreating a deleted article apply even if the name keeps changing? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:32, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Death phoenix 01:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

David E. Ritch[edit]

Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Darkcore 04:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How come an intelligent fellow like this missed the part about "please don't write about yourself?" Speaking of "please:" Please delete this with the proverbial extreme prejudice. - Lucky 6.9 05:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- He didn't write about himself. A quick google shows that Travis Ritch is his son. [2] Average Earthman 10:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, sounds notable, especially within the context of the Cayman Islands. "(firm he founded) was at one point the second-largest Caymanian-owned firm on the island.", received "Quincentennial Lifetime Achievement Award for Law", and an OBE. Kappa 09:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just under the bar of notability, possible family vanity. Megan1967 03:02, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All of you who have just voted delete, please do the following: 1) Open a new browser window 2) Navigate to http://www.yahoo.com 3) Type in the following: "David Ritch Cayman Islands" 4) Proceed to scroll through the pages of content about him. Had anyone else written this article, it would not be considered for deletion. Take off your butcher hats, please. I am very proud of my family but this alone is no grounds to delete the article. Anyone who earns a lifetime achievement award is notable. Call the LGB or the Governor up and ask them if they know who he is. He's represented the Cayman Islands at the EU Court of First Instance for heaven's sake. I know this all looks very self-important to a discerning panel of editors like yourselves but I ask you not to frame this in the sense that it is just a son putting his father on a pedestal - someone would have written this article eventually. In other words - exercise restraint and reconsider please. Travisritch 18:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If "someone would have written this article eventually", then you should allow that someone else to do so. Wikipedia articles must present a neutral point of view. We have learned that hard way that this is very difficult - to the point of being impossible - when a person writes about themselves or when a close family member writes the article. I believe that Wikipedia:No autobiographies applies. Reluctant delete. Rossami (talk) 23:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment. All of this is publicly available, factual, and provable with no more than a quick internet search. You will also note that there is not a single statement of opinion in the article. I would ask you to consider what I have written and not who has written it. Also I would note that Darkcore, who nominated this article for deletion, has been quarreling with me for quite some time on another matter. You were stressing the importance of a NPOV? Travisritch 01:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Umm... this has nothing to do with old, old discussions (which I would hardly call quarreling) regarding the Upper Canada College article, where you were quick to infuse your pro-UCC propaganda. By the way, I was not the only person involved there. Travisritch, you really need to get over yourself. Darkcore 01:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - You only have to look at the Talk page for the 2004 article to see that a number of people find the heavy use of titles to be POV. Also phrases such as 'His accomplishments have earned him great respect in the islands' tend to be viewed as too subjective for an encyclopedia. Personally, I feel receiving an OBE is a sign of notability, but I'd need the article to be edited for tone in some sections. Average Earthman 11:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Granted, although that isn't really a matter of opinion. You will find similar phrasing in many sources if you use a search engine from "Mr. Ritch is a self-styled known quantity when it comes to holding public office" to "one of the best commercial lawyers on the island." If it has to be edited to remain, I'd be willing to do that. Also, encyclopedias need to provide current and complete information. Just because he is a private citizen does not mean the use of his post-nominal titles is POV. Are we approaching a concensus here? Travisritch 01:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - No. A Google search of "David E. Ritch" brings 29 hits, at least 4 of which are from Wikipedia. A similar search of "David Ritch" "Cayman Islands" reveals less than 100 hits, most of which are lists (and not articles about him). In any other situation, that would fall under the bar of notability, regardless of how well regarded he may be in the Cayman Islands. Doing a search on my own lawyer revealed more hits than that, and he does not have a Wikipedia article (nor would I feel compelled to write one about him). Darkcore 02:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - A powerful argument, to be sure. But, a gaping hole emerges: by that logic, ANYONE who hits high is a notable person! Notability is not defined by clout. Does Paris Hilton have an OBE? That is the whole point of the Honours system and more specifically the Order of the British Empire, which was created to honour notable private citizens across the Commonwealth. And what's with the perjorative comment about Cayman? It has world famous tourism, prominence amongst the remaining colonies, the 5th largest financial center in the world, etc. etc. Lastly, I'd just like to say, that this page is by far much less nonsensical, better written, and more deserving of being kept than the large majority of articles posted on VfD. Travisritch 02:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - My comment was hardly pejorative; calm down. We aren't talking about the Cayman Islands anyway. I personally don't feel that his receiving an OBE makes him deserving of an article, but that is my own opinion. Darkcore 03:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid this falls under my notability bar, and as such, delete. Radiant! 10:24, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

He received some 550 letters of congratulation for that, most of which said it was the best deserved honour the person had ever seen. It was the only investiture singled out for publication in the newspaper, even pictures of the Governor's CMG were not in the paper and he has an article on wikipedia chronicling his career. If you understood the amount of change that has gone on in Cayman in the last 25 years, you would know why the work he has done for the community and the Government is considered so significant. Gave up millions of dollars of his professional time to do this work. There are articles which are much more useless that you could be spending your time on. A lot of these VfD articles are bands without a record! Anyway, I'm really tiring of arguing with you conventionalist hawks. You prowl the VfD page, chanting and rechanting 'what Wikipedia is not,' and defining notability from your basement, and I'm just tired of it. I resign the fate of this discussion to the admin who reviews it. Travis Ritch

~~Neutral~~. I suspect it could be rewritten as much less of a vanity piece/CV and focus on what establishes notability. Try starting with a strong lead paragraph. If you think you've salvaged it, drop me a note and I might vote to keep it. The way it reads now, it looks just below the bar. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:36, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Now there is something there to suggest why this person is notable. Unfortunately, it still reads too much like a CV and there is not enough about the notable aspects of this person. Still, I think there is enough there to establish potential for an encycolopedia article, so keep on the same basis we would keep a good stub. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:39, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Update Ok, I've changed it. Tell me where I went wrong. Travisritch 18:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite first. This article needs to be greatly changed by an outside user in order to keep a NPOV. Travisritch, we understand your beliefs about your father. However, right now as the article stands, it seems like a brag/vanity page. So, if someone is willing to change, and make it sutiable for inclusion, then I shall vote a Keep. If the article is not rewritten, then Delete. Bratsche^(talk) 02:18, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Update I've cleaned up the article a lot, and resolved some of the above issues. Take a look. Bratsche ^(talk) 13:19, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  - Oops, never changed my vote after the work done on the article. Keep. Bratsche ^(talk) 04:05, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 15:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disney's Toontown Online[edit]

This has been listed for speedy deletion for the past couple days, but we seem to keep on passing it over not knowing what to do with it. So I'm relisting it here. It's some kind of online computer game. No vote as of yet. Postdlf 06:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Toontown Online. Xezbeth 06:20, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect. There seems to be a description of a "cheat" technique herein that someone with interest may want to merge into the primary article. If no one takes up the torch, then just merge. HyperZonk^talk 16:54, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Toontown Online. Zzyzx11 18:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Carrp | Talk 03:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Joshua Melder[edit]

Vanity. Rick K 06:49, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Delete. Postdlf 07:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity Nick04 08:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Another vanity filled article. Zzyzx11 18:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ah, ha! Date of birth and hospital! Delete anyway. - Lucky 6.9 23:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:04, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 14:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Torrijos toledo[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Spanish history text. jni 09:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Almost certainly scanned or cut-and-paste (Google doesn't find it, so I'll guess scanned). Anyone think this shouldn't be copyvio'd? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, on closer inspection, I bet it's a cut-and-paste of some version of the Spanish Wikipedia article Torrijos (Toledo) (not the current one, but it's pretty close). I say we speedy-delete this and add a request at Wikipedia:Translation into English. I'll leave 24 hours to see if we have consensus on that. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:04, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Jmabel. This looks like it was taken from es:Torrijos (Toledo), which by the way looks like a copyvio in itself and hasn't got a single wikilink. JoaoRicardo 21:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 03:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Carrp | Talk 15:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Groynes design[edit]

Original research, as evidenced by this quote, "It is hoped that I am not breaking any WilkpediA rules by pointing out a groyne design that to my knowledge has not yet been considered. The details given below are patent free and given in note form and to the best of my knowledge are not known.". Radiant! 10:25, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, see wikipedia:no original research. Places that do allow original research include Wikinfo, Everything 2 and Urban Dictionary, apparently. Kappa 12:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. While we appreciate the kindness in first publishing your ideas here, please keep in mind that original research belongs elsewhere. HyperZonk^talk 16:55, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. Jonathunder 00:59, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Carrp | Talk 15:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Groupware X[edit]

Some kind of computer program interface, and also a webforum. With less than 300 googles, not particularly notable as either. Radiant! 10:28, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I ask: Why is it notable enough to be in Wikipedia? Zzyzx11 18:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn software and forumvertisement. Many of those google hits are irrelevant besides. —Korath (Talk) 09:06, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Carrp | Talk 15:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gwalior Children's Hospital Charity[edit]

They're a charity organization that gives money to the needy, and to the recent Tsunami victims. While that is laudable, I fail to see what's so special about this one. Radiant! 10:33, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Why it is notable enough to be in Wikipedia? Zzyzx11 18:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. not noteworthy. pamri 07:27, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete as copyvio. Gamaliel 19:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yijie[edit]

might be notable, but reads like vanity. Nateji77 10:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

delete. It's a copyvio, listed at WP:CP. Lupo 11:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The same article was splattered over Wiktionary, incidentally. They were thinking of transwikiing it here, until I piped up. ☺ Uncle G 18:37, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
Delete, copyright violation, possible vanity. Megan1967 03:07, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Carrp | Talk 03:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dilan shah[edit]

Vanity. Inter\^Echo 11:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 12:12, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. --NewAtair Δ 12:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Deb 13:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Why is he notable? Zzyzx11 18:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, reads more like a personal attack than vanity. Megan1967 03:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Note that the votes here were deleted twice by the same IP who also posted the article andy 15:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable (and annoying...). gren 00:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This seems to be some kind of personal attack. Has no place on Wikipedia.
Delete. Amusing, but we don't need any more articles by people fixated on "buggery of the anal variety."
Delete. Dumb and useless. Deadcorpse 22:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Gamaliel 19:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Refusenicks[edit]

Spelled wrong, Refusenik (Soviet Union) already exists. Squidwina 12:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rename and/or redirect. You don't need VfD for this. Kappa 12:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've redirected it to the existing article. Deb 13:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps should redirect to Refusenik instead? The other refuseniks are also Jewish. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:39, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

MSC Armonia (ship)[edit]

Specs of a cruise ship. While I understand the reasoning behind articles with specs on military ships, what exactly is the purpose of this one? The ship is googleworthy but I haven't found something notable happening on the ship. Radiant! 12:34, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete if not turned into an encyclopedic article (if that's even possible). -R. fiend 15:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's a real cruise ship. That's all the notability that's required.--Gene_poole 00:38, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If it was a military ship, I could see that. But a commercial cruise ship? There must be tens of thousands of them. Delete unless notability is shown. DaveTheRed 01:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Q: Since when are military ships more important that non-military ships? A: Since never.--Gene_poole 05:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Military ships can be and are decisive in winning wars. Cruise ships enable people to have nice vacation slides. Hmmmm, which is more notable...? DaveTheRed 08:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, a lot of people are interested in all things military, and information on it, and replaying battles, etc. Nobody much is interested in all things related to cruise ships, or replaying their trajectory, or anything. Delete. Radiant! 09:01, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious with that comment? There are tens of thousands of avid cruise ship afficianados in the world, who frequently spend hundreds (if not thousands) of $$$ on collecting memorabilia and reading the hundreds of books on the subject over their lifetimes. I really have to wonder what rock it is that some people spend their lives under when I see wildly uninformed nonsense like the above being peddled here as if it were fact. Oh, and by the way, keep, obviously. --Centauri 10:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep and merge into MSC Italian Cruises. The information is worth keeping but highly unlikely to ever stand on its own as an article. - RedWordSmith 05:50, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
- On further thought, I like this idea better. Merge with MSC Italian Cruises. DaveTheRed 20:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What RedWordSmith said. Right now, what we have isn't much more than the technical specs but they would certainly be worth putting in a real article. It should be retitled as MSC Armonia in the meantime. Given the cost, complexity and relative rarity of cruise ships, I believe they're more than encyclopedic. Many are promoted worldwide. In fact, I saw a couple docked in Puerto Vallarta that were absolute leviathans. I don't know which ships they were, but I can tell you they were a lot more substantial than the average Pokémon character. :^) - Lucky 6.9 18:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge cruise ships and similar leviathans. Kappa 11:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. Should someone bother to write a proper article on a cruise ship I'd proably vote to keep, but this short list of specs isn't an article. -- Infrogmation 21:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's only a list of the ship's measures! --Neigel von Teighen 21:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment. A notable ship, like a notable person, should have a discoverable birth-date. Sure, some cruise ships are notable b/c they were the largest of the time, or the first to have some unusual feature, or at least peripherally involved in some historical event. Show me something like that about this one, and I'll vote to keep; otherwise, merge with the line. --BD2412 01:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard 11:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Cruise ships can be encyclopedic. —Xezbeth 15:22, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. It was deleted as a copyvio. dbenbenn | talk 14:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MS Arosa Sun[edit]

Basically the biography of a ship, now scrapped. Radiant! 12:38, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - we have thousands of ship articles, many of which are far more obscure than this one. I think I even have a picture of this vessel that I can upload, probably why I added to my watchlist. Stan 23:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment I think it can be a good beginning, but it will be hard work...If a picture is uploaded and some copyediting is performed (I tried to do it, but couldn't!), it will be a good stub to begin with. --Neigel von Teighen 23:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems perfectly notable enough to be in Wikipedia.--Gene_poole 00:40, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Alas, 'tis a copyvio from several sources. Agree that a rewrite at the temp page would be a keep. BTW, how are you, Gene? Long time, dude! Drop me an e-mail when you have a moment. - Lucky 6.9 02:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems notable, though will need a rewrite if it is copyvio. Can you find the sources? DaveTheRed 03:03, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sure can: [3]. That was just the first one. :^) - Lucky 6.9 18:18, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep a rewrite - David Gerard 11:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 14:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MS Sea Breeze[edit]

Stub description of a ship by someone who worked on it. Radiant! 12:41, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. --NewAtair Δ 15:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Short personal reminisence about a ship. -R. fiend 16:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No vote for now on the rewritten version. I'm not sure every cruise ship is encyclopedic just for being a cruise ship. Maybe the scary list Korath mentions could just have short blurbs on each of the ships instead of article stubs. Beyond size, capacity, nationality, and location there isn't much to say about them, and all that info could be part of a chart. Merge and redirect then maybe?-R. fiend 15:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Not notable. --Cnwb 02:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ship vanity. DaveTheRed 03:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~. Military vessels are inherently encyclopedic. Cruise ships need some indication of notability. Even if you disagree, then this should be scrapped as useless and then listed at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Note also the scary redlinks at List of cruise ships. —Korath (Talk) 08:52, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral after rewrite. —Korath (Talk) 09:19, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I have made a rewrite of this article, hoping to save it. I think cruise ships are notable. These things are among the largest moving objects carrying people! Sjakkalle 14:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, cruise ships are notable, that is why we have a Cruise ship article... just like we have an articles on Accountants and Scientologists - but not on each individual one, because some are individually notable, and others are not. I stick with my defining characteristics of a notable cruise ship from a few articles back: date of completion or launch can be identified and first of its kind, largest for its time, or involved in an historic event. --BD2412 02:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree with you there. The reason we cannot have an article about every accountant or every scientologist is that there are too many of them. There are only a few hundred cruise ships in the world, and making an article on each of them is not as infeasible. Sjakkalle 08:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep, no reason not to - David Gerard 11:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. Absolutely no reason to not keep it. --Oldak Quill 15:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Cruise ships can be encyclopedic. Xezbeth 15:17, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 16:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maha Jana High School[edit]

Stub about a high school in India. Radiant! 12:56, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Should we mention EVERY High School of the world in the WP? No!. --15:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: Above vote was left by User:NewAtair. --Andylkl 04:02, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Another contentious High school article. Sigh. Delete. DaveTheRed 17:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, 150 years old, ~~notable alumnus Srinivasa Ramanujan,~~ and necessary to the description of its local area. 20:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Vote left dated but unsigned by User:Kappa.
- 150 years isn't old for a high school. For comparison, the high school I went to in Rotterdam is 674 years old. I know USA schools tend to pride themselves on the first five decades, but in most other countries that is nothing special. Radiant! 21:30, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems perfectly notable to me.--Gene_poole 00:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. - SimonP 01:43, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, sorry, universities and higher learning institutions yes but high schools no. Megan1967 03:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless someone comes up with something more significant than "someone sort of famous may have once went here, but we're apparently not really sure". -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Tygar 03:50, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "May have attended". No. Gamaliel 04:40, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ramanujan moved from Erode to Kumbakonam when he was eight or nine, so this high school is completely irrelevant to his life. -- Brhaspati (talk, contribs) 04:45, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
- Comment. Yes, after some brief research I found that Ramanujan joined the Town High School in Kumbakonam at age 11, . Even if he had really studied at this Maha Jana High School, he must have done his primary schooling there. The school is therefore not notable. -- Brhaspati (talk, contribs) 04:53, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
Delete. Although I think Bill Clinton might have visited it. Or not. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Erode and delete - Skysmith 09:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's a school, therefore there's no reason to delete. Keep, obviously.--Centauri 10:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. High schools are rarely notable. --BM 14:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Most schools are not notable. Joyous 00:36, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\^talk 00:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. BTW our own article on Srinivasa Ramanujan says that "in 1898 he entered the Town High School in Kumbakonam." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, BEEFSTEW score of 0 once the incorrect third sentence is removed. —Korath (Talk) 08:49, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ~~Merge any useful content to Srinivasa Ramanujan.~~ A school cannot have a separate article because Srinivasa Ramanujan studied there. utcursch | talk 12:36, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- ...I thought it was established that he didn't study there. —Korath (Talk) 15:24, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  - Right. Therefore there is nothing useful to merge. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notice to reviewing administrator: There was an attempt to vote stack on this article. See GRider's contributions. Votes beyond this point need to be reviewed carefully and considered carefully. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users must consider all policies and former consensus before commenting for consensus: Please note, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, is not the only policy to consider.

Considerations should also be made to the following as well:

Users should remember that the Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand. --BaronLarf 19:35, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Needs references, though - David Gerard 19:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deletioncruft. Wincoote 19:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete the school's one claim to fame seems questionable at best, and he's not exactly a household word anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:59, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand Drw25 21:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and make room for more BEEFSTEW. RaD Man (talk) 22:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:52, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, high schools and beyond are inherently encyclopedic (and I shan't get started on all the video game nano-cruft that lurks around here). Wyss 23:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Week keep. Needs more info about the school, but has potential to become encyclopedic. --Andylkl 23:38, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Notability not established. Jonathunder 01:02, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
Neutral for now. It's borderline. I suspect that if someone wants to salvage it, it can be done. What's there now would be no great loss, though. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:41, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Interesting school stub, wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 01:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep Notable -CunningLinguist 03:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There is no reason we can't have an article on every high school on Earth. --Zero 04:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. JuntungWu 12:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. high schools are notable RustyCale 13:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think schools are inherently notable. Further, "notability" is not listed in Wikipedia:Deletion policy (even though I wish it were, and have tried to include it), so isn't grounds for deletion anyway. Dan100 17:52, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
please keep this Yuckfoo 23:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neutrality^talk 23:12, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Should we mention EVERY High School of the world in the WP? Yes. LukeSurl 23:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
KEEP all REAL places -RickK^h^h^h^h^h. Schools are inherantly notable and this belongs on Wiki. ALKIVAR™ 03:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: In regards to claims of vote-stacking, their are large amounts of people who beleive well-written articles for schools are inherently notable. Merely bringing an article to someones attention is no more votestacking than providing a link for someone is. If you'll notice, GRider's contributions were far and wide and not concentrated on any bloc or mailing list group. Speaking for myself, I evaluated the article and voted to keep it out of sincere belief that it deserved to be kept and not out of any votestacking motivation. I have faith that the majority of the other voters did as well. Thank you for your time. -CunningLinguist 03:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: In defence of GRider, I agree with what CunningLinguist has said. --Andylkl 04:47, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  - I believe there was something going that could fairly be called vote-stacking. I don't think this activity helps Wikipedia. But it is an obvious way in which it has always been possible to game the VfD system. It's also nothing new; the members of m:AIW have never made any secret about their intentions to act as a bloc, and have often publicized school VfD discussions on their page in Meta. I also believe there is absolutely no cure for this than wouldn't be worse than the disease. If I were the acting sysop on this I would count all the votes made by people to whom GRider sent emails, as I don't suspect any of them of being socks. GRider should not be surprised if this sort of activity engenders mistrust on my part, but perhaps he feels he will never have occasion to seek my cooperation. Meanwhile, I intend to continue to read VfD, vote in those discussions where I think I can contribute or have strong feelings, cast my vote, and move on, and I advise others to do the same. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Incidentally, the whole notion of "consensus" invariably implies the possibility of "tyranny of the minority." It comes with the territory. The Society of Friends was willing to wait something like a century and a half patiently building consensus on the issue of slavery... Dpbsmith (talk) 23:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. JeremyA 04:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. High schools are not inherently notable. --Carnildo 04:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. not notable even if real.--LexCorp 05:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep The Steve 07:00, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's a real place, Mark Richards 21:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Radiant! makes a compelling point. (The school that I went to is just shy — no-one is completely sure about the founding date — of being 1100 years old at this point.) Being 150 years old may make a school stand out from the crowd in the United States, but it does not in India.
There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of schools in the world. An encyclopaedia is not simply a directory. It contains knowledge, not mere information. To be worthy of an individual article an entity in a crowd of hundreds of thousands or millions has to stand out from that crowd. For a school, there has to be something more than can be inferred from the fact that it is a school (and thus has all of the acoutrements that that entails, such as enrollment, teachers, songs, crests, buildings, sports teams, and so forth). As Korath points out, this one has nothing.
Furthermore: It is both saddening and amusing to see the block votes above. It's saddening to see identical votes being cast across all of the different articles, giving the impression that the voters have not in fact read the actual articles that they are purporting to be commenting upon. It's amusing to see the votes being cast in this case, given that this school doesn't actually exist by the name given. There is a Mahajana Pre-University College in Erode, which has gone by that name since 1971-1972. But even before that its name was Mahajana Higher Secondary School. The only Mahajana High School is in Mysore, not Erode.
So much for "real places" and the well-researched assertions of notability. Delete. Uncle G 17:50, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
- Please remember to cite your sources so others can verify your research. GRider\^talk 18:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 16:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Malen[edit]

Warrior who fights Soviets, pirates and cowboys? Huh? Sounds like fanfic, or a character from some RPG somewhere, or maybe from an anime or something. Since he and his army don't google, can anyone inform me what this is about? Radiant! 13:03, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like nonsense to me. Delete. -R. fiend 16:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete none of the significant elements in the article come up on Google, so I suspect this is either somebody's fanfic or something, or just nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:05, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Well UMovie is Chinese, but I haven't a clue about the remainder. Perhaps it's a Taiwanese Sci-Fi series? Anyway I abstain. :) — RJH 17:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Could be an ad for an upcoming movie project, or patent nonsense. Delete. Bezthomas 01:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Carrp | Talk 20:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mainspawn[edit]

Musician that is, according to his own website, working on his first album. Radiant! 13:01, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Is there any notable information? Zzyzx11 18:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 03:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete for not meeting the Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 23:24, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Carrp | Talk 20:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Malicious Intent[edit]

Icelandic band that started in 2003 and still hasn't made a record. Radiant! 13:06, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. If this band hasn't made a record, then why should it be notable enough to be in Wikipedia? Zzyzx11 18:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 03:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete for not meeting the Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 23:25, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Death phoenix 16:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Margaret Dolan[edit]

Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of Records. Radiant! 13:19, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. -R. fiend 16:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as below. Delete. She slips under my bar of notability by quite a bit, I fear. HyperZonk^talk 16:50, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into the National longevity recordholders page. I can see no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't include information comparable to the Guinness Book of Records. It's all notable. — RJH 17:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Because most if it is trivia, and that's the opposite of notability. I think that many Guinness entries deserve a note in the appropriate article, but few of them deserve entries of their own. Radiant! 19:42, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  - I can see a case for consolidation for certain notable facts of this nature, rather than deletion to save a few electrons. RJH 18:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I have merged this, do we want a delete or a redirect? HyperZonk^talk 17:54, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  - Redirect would be appropriate, I'd say. Radiant! 19:42, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect works for me. DaveTheRed 03:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to National longevity recordholders. Keep. Megan1967 03:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep—the oldest known person in a country's history, if that's what this woman is, is inherently notable in her own right. Everyking 04:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think this is also very notable. If Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of Records, we might as well delete Robert Wadlow, too. Mike H 04:25, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Antandrus 04:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(Keep or merge), since it's been merged may as well just redirect Kappa 11:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, but only as a formality - I suspect that no-one will ever search for 'Margaret Dolan'; rather, they will search for 'oldest woman' or something along those lines. The Guiness Book of Records-style categorised organisational structure isn't very compatible with Wikipedia's atom-based approach. More pertinently, was she Ireland's oldest woman? These four links [4] [5] [6] [7] seem to be the only ones that mention her, and the third (posted in 2003, which mentions her having her 111th birthday on 'Wednesday 28th') suggests that she was actually 112 when she died. Are there pictures, more reputable sources, a photograph of the grave, something actually from the Guiness Book of Records? -Ashley Pomeroy 17:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

15:31, 11 Mar 2005 Quadell deleted Marion Rudy (Listed on WP:CP since March 2.)

Death phoenix 16:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Marion Rudy[edit]

Former engineer that holds three patents. Radiant! 13:21, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete'. Looks like vanity. Not every person to invent something is notable. -R. fiend 16:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'd consider Nike Air sneakers a notable invention. His full name should be Marion Frank Rudy. — RJH 17:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 03:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Its a copyvio. I don't think that a few patents for sneaker design makes someone notable, perhaps he could be mentioned in the Nike Air Article, merge--nixie 04:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Given that it is a copyvio, delete if a temp file isn't written. However, given the prevalence of the product it would warrant a keep if a decent version is written. Capitalistroadster 09:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If that's all there is to say about him, I'd have to argue for delete even of a non-copyvio version. However, a mention in the Nike Air article would be welcome. Rossami (talk) 23:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I would agree, if we had a Nike Air article, but it seems all we have is a brief mention of the shoe in the Nike, Inc. article, which is really all it needs, I'd imagine. There are millions of inventions, and most of their inventors are not encyclopedic. -R. fiend 15:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Carrp | Talk 20:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ged martin[edit]

Appears completely unnotable to me. Delete. Lupo 13:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity. -R. fiend 16:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable vanity. Zzyzx11 18:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Carrp | Talk 18:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Symbols that are both country codes and chemical symbols[edit]

This is an interesting article which someone has obviously put a lot of work into, but I'm not sure it's really encyclopedic. I would be happy not to delete it if someone could suggest how it could be of some use. Cadr 13:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I entirely don't see the point of this. It may be merged as a series of footnotes to country codes or chemical symbols, if someone really wants to do that. But since the two are very unrelated, delete. Radiant! 13:52, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I am the author and I want to keep this in Wikipedia. — JIP | Talk 13:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That isn't really a valid reason...--InShaneee 16:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - I thought so. But it was worth a try anyway. — JIP | Talk 17:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's unusual...but I have trouble seeing how this is potentially useful, or why someone would be looking for this information. How is this more helpful than List of prime numbers that are invalid North American telephone numbers, for example? Delete, unless a use for this list is suggested. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 14:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Concur with TenOfAllTrades on all counts. --InShaneee 15:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Trivia. --BM 16:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Another one in the same category as Square root of three ratio geometric sequence timeline. Phils 17:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Apologies to JIP who made this, but I can't imagine this info having any use besides mere trivia... and not even the fun/interesting kind of trivia either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, they really have nothing to do with each other. DaveTheRed 17:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Irelevant non-connection. Trivia. Drivel. Average Earthman 17:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is utterly unconnected and coincidental; there is no relationship being described. What is there to say about the fact that "Belgium" and "Beryllium" both are abbreviated as "Be"? What does that say about either one? I can't even fathom why this was created. Postdlf 18:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. JIP, I'm sure you put your time and effort on this article. But remember: you always have to think about how useful the article will be for the reader. Zzyzx11 19:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If they were kind of connected, I could see the logic...but I've yet to see a chemical formula which uses country codes... Nick04 19:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This tells us nothing that the articles in Category:Lists of two-letter combinations don't already tell us. And those articles tell us a lot more besides. (For example: NO tells us that it's a country code, a chemical symbol, a word, a compound, an album ...) There's no need for a list to duplicate a category that is already populated, even without taking the rather bizarre juxtaposition into account. Delete. Uncle G 21:05, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
Delete. Useless non-encyclopedic trivia. Binadot 22:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I actually found this kind of interesting, but the information is already there in the individual two letter acronym disambiguation pages such as Pa and Ag. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:46, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is well-researched trivia but still trivia. Sorry. Sjakkalle 09:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Would it be OK for JIP to move this to "User" space? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:43, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. I'm still new at this so I am not sure how to do it though. — JIP | Talk 09:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - (If people don't consider the page to be objectionable in user space) all you need to do is use the move function to move it to User:JIP/whatever. Then the deletion will just take out the redirect. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:53, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
    - Moved. Feel free to delete the original article, its contents are safe within my user space. I think. — JIP | Talk 18:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Carrp | Talk 20:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RMA divided[edit]

Vanity article that does not give sufficient details. No Google hits for "RMA divided". No 'What links here' articles. No categories. Recommend: delete. Noisy | Talk 14:25, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Well, no hits that have anything to do with this band. When they meet the WP musician notability criteria, we'll create a new article for them. HyperZonk^talk 16:49, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not enough notability. Zzyzx11 19:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Carrp | Talk 03:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The pussy pirates[edit]

Local band, doesn't appear to have any material released save a few mp3's on their own site. Delete for non-notability, vanity. --InShaneee 15:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- Delete. Not enough notability. Zzyzx11 19:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Jazz-Punk is a style they've created"...??? Well, they do think a lot of themselves... but they didn't bother to put their surnames or home telephone numbers on the page, so delete. --BD2412 23:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no released material = not encyclopedic. —Stormie 13:46, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:38, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Carrp | Talk 18:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Kingston Advice"[edit]

Another not terribly notable Clash song. While the Clash has quite a few songs that I reckon are worthy of articles, few of them are off Sandinista! (great album though it is), yet there seems to be a drive to get an article for every song on that album. This one is just a really bad, incorrect article anyway. The single sentence synopsis seems to be taken from just 2 lines in the song. Delete this. Maybe someday someone will write a good article on White Man in Hammersmith Palais. Not holding my breath though. Oh, and the quotes don't belong either. -R. fiend 15:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While I'm all for keeping albums, I'd prefer not to keep songs unless they're really really notable on their own (meme-level). As such, delete. Radiant! 19:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as per my previous votes on these album tracks. Megan1967 03:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
~~Any reason not to merge this? I agree that it shouldn't exist independent of the album. —Korath (Talk) 08:34, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)~~
- Do you mean other than the fact it's factually incorrect? -R. fiend 16:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Hm. A point. I missed the "incorrect" in your original post, sorry. (Delete.) —Korath (Talk) 17:29, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
~~Rename, then merge/redirect. Kappa 11:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)~~ no vote Kappa 00:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:26, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Skip's Magic Board[edit]

A forum which "opened its doors on October 30th, 2004 as a friendly outlet for members of the SDMB"...

Delete -- a 4 month old forum is not notable Longhair 16:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not enough notability. Zzyzx11 19:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:15, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Zor[edit]

Vanity. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, at least the article doesn't mention anything that makes him notable. Thue | talk 16:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not enough notability. Zzyzx11 19:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete for someone whose claim to fame is being an "internet personality", his real name scores 0 Google Hits. Neither of his email addresses Google either. His website seemed to be down when I checked, so I can't comment on that, but I do notice it isn't a personal domain. It seems to me that an "internet personality" would at least have one of those. Oh well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:54, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Not notable. - Longhair | Talk 23:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 17:07, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Score magazine[edit]

This is spam and needs cleanup. It may however, be spam on a notable subject, or just any old random porn mag, but erm I think we need to decide this. If we cut out the crap it becomes, "Score mag is a porn mag founded in 1993 with pictures of women with big breasts in", so I'm leaning towards delete, partiuclarly with the contempt that spammers have shown fo rthe wiki process. Dunc|☺ 16:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete as it is. It's long, but lots of the information is trivial in an encyclopedic context (the dressing room has a jacuzzi? so what?). However a quick look around shows at least four other publications with the same name, maybe an article could be rewritten for one of these: http://score.fr a french printed cinema magazine http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/ online magazine about film & TV scores http://www.scoregolf.com/ golf magazine, both print and online, and Amazon lists something expensive called Score and published by "Society Of Composers & Lyricists" ... it seems to be their quarterly newsletter, according to http://www.thescl.com/site/scl/section.php?id=4505 Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:45, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep but major rewrite needed. I don't see a problem with an article on this particular magazine, as it does have some notability on its own merit. Score Group, which publishes it, puts out a whack of other magazines, too. But it needs some major reworking to remove the spammy and POV elements. Plus, I recommend replacing the cover scan with just the logo, as the illustration might cause offense. 23skidoo 00:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this article is advertising and a porn site directory --nixie 04:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Starblind, delete. Radiant! 09:03, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as advertising and copyvios from all over the place (pick almost any sentence and google it) and maybe list on Wikipedia:Requested articles. —Korath (Talk) 09:03, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep but major rewrite needed. Hello everybody. Thank you for bringing up this discussion. I am the person who wrote this article. True. The article is biased. I worked for the Score Group for three years and have come to learn the operation in-depth. I came into contact with all aspects of their business and work very closely with the owners themselves, who I learn to sincerely appreciate. Having had some experience in this industry I came to the realization that what Mr. Fox had done over the years was not only a highly professional, respectful endeavour but also a benchmark to others in this field. Mr. Fox himself spent not less than 12 hours a day at the office and his attention to detail was unbearable to us, employees.

You can call this smut, you can call it self-promotion, but the truth is that I felt I could truly make a contribution in this particular niche and about this particular magazine. I no longer work for them. I quit my job on October 2003 and presently do not maintain contact with anybody at the office so this article could hardly be construed as self-promotional. All this data can be easily verified by calling the company and talking to any of the owners or Human Resources Dpt.

Indeed, the article is biased but because of my personal appreciation of what they had given me over the years. This is why I agree that a rewrite may be needed. As you can see in my profile (contributions) I could not seriously be considered a spammer for this is the only article I wrote. I would specially take note at how hard I worked on this article given all the rewrite that took place. Some of the free samples about the magazine are mine, such as adult-magazine.ws. Other sites had been found on the net.

I am aware there could be conflicts of interest in this area and that some of the opinions voiced here may carry, perhaps, ulterior motives, but I may also be wrong about this and everyone participating here might have a sincere desire to make this article as impartial as possible. My understanding of the essence of wikipedia is that contributors are welcomed as long as they can prove to have some expertise in some areas and be willing to offer an impartial, wholesome view. I failed in the second aim but I invite others to help me rewrite this article in a way that can be accepted. Please bear in mind that I have left open most of the local links so that OTHERS could contribute as well. Further proof that I was not attempting to spam or create a promotional page. The article had been reviewed by others months ago (about 4 months) and was never objected. This makes me think twice about why it has raised concerns now...

Finally, I must apologize because of my language is not english, but spanish. So my effort in writing the article and communicating with you has been and is considerable.

Thank you. Wikirober 11:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Added: Regarding the comment 'Plus, I recommend replacing the cover scan with just the logo, as the illustration might cause offense'... I understand some people may prefer not to have breast models (dressed) pictured on wikipedia, even if it does not violate TOS, but if you remove this cover you remove the heart of what SCORE is about. Both showcased models, Julia Miles and Linsey Dawn Mckenzie (under contract) are closest to the true essence of what this organization is about. That cover hasn't been placed randomly but has been carefully selected among hundreds because of what those two ladies represent. There is NO other model that carries The Score Group legacy better than LDM. I believe this particular cover is an honest representation of their mark.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Death phoenix 01:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of deaf people[edit]

Inappropriate article for an encyclopedia. Perhaps a better article title? Alex.tan 16:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Sorry but I don't see that a list of people who achieved notability in spite of such a handicap is inappropriate. But perhaps the title is not considered PC? — RJH 17:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't see anything wrong with this list either, although including everybody who lost their hearing in old age might make it unwieldy. sjorford →•← 17:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't think "deaf" is an un-PC word, given the number of charities that use it in their names (RNID, etc). Nick04 19:19, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. What is this, some sort of vendetta on deaf articles? Please note that I've been trying to get to this article to improve it but the anti-deaf crowd at Wiki is attacking deaf articles so frequently I haven't had the time. Inappropriate? With all due respect, it's a much needed article. Don't delete! No! No! No!. Just because the article can't be worked on on Alex's timetable is no reason to delete it. Oh! Now I see. Alex is an M.D. who believes medical science trumps social science. Ray Foster 19:35, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
keep this definitely Yuckfoo 19:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, then create a category of notable deaf people (we wouldn't want everybody's grandma in there, after all). Radiant! 21:27, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
I suspect that I see where the problem lies. It's nothing to do with political correctness or vendettas. Not assuming good faith has blinded you to the obvious. Ray Foster looks at the title but instead reads List of deaf people notable for their leadership and accomplishments; whereas Alex.tan looks at the title (and the opening paragraph of the article), reads List of deaf people, and is horrified at the prospect of Wikipedia becoming a directory of people who are deaf, a prospect that those who have dealt with how lists tend to grow will find all too probable. This article needs to be Renamed to nip things in the bud. That could have been done immediately, by just being bold, without need for bringing the article to WP:VFD. Uncle G 21:43, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
- I don't think it needs to be renamed. Notability is implicit for lists. Keep. Gazpacho 00:07, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - A notability barrier is implicit for the lists themselves as a whole, but not necessarily for their individual entries. Indeed, one of the ways of including information that does not warrant an article in its own right is to include it within a list, providing context. Unfortunately, there's a tendency to over-wikify lists, especially lists of people. Then as a consequence of that people "helpfully" re-colour redlinks by adding sub-stub biographical articles that will never expand. And as the edit history of this article shows, we've already had non-notable deaf people added to it as redlinks at least once. This article does not make the inclusion criteria clear. It's title gives no clue that it is not a "list of deaf people", neither does its opening paragraph, and one has to read to the very end of the preamble to see the phrase "notable for their leadership and accomplishments" occur at all. The case for renaming is a strong one. Uncle G 13:27, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
Keep, see Talk:Deaf#Disambiguate_the_.22List_of_deaf_people.22.3F for ongoing discussion on cleanup/renaming. --Pengo 22:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I see nothing wrong with the word "deaf", and I think it's already obvious that only notable people should be included on the list. If we have a problem, we can always make it a redirect to List of notable deaf people. Binadot 22:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep but I think all the "in later life" entries should be removed. Just about everyone who lives to a certain age experiences some degree of hearing loss. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:18, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Even if there is a category, it doesn't serve the same purpose as a category. Rick K 06:21, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep if the name is changed to List of notable deaf people and all the entries can be verified. Those who have lost part of their hearing due to old age do not necessarily apply - Skysmith 09:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 14:47, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Kaskad[edit]

Alleged defunct KGB guard team, no subtantiation. Radiant! 12:52, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. "Kaskad" + "KGB" does google [Search] to 103 pages; some of them are non-Wiki resources that seem to substantiate the veracity of the article. Whether this passes notability tests is another issue. I will abstain from voting till I see some more discussion. vlad_mv 04:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As this made it through VfD with one comment and not a single vote, I'm relisting it. —Korath (Talk) 16:44, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Seems to be notable, if you're into the cloaks and daggers stuff. Which I'm not, so the opinion of an afficionado would be welcome. HyperZonk^talk 18:33, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. They seem to be somewhat notable. - Jeltz talk 21:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge into KGB, where it belongs, even if you are into cloak-and-dagger stuff. --Calton 23:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to have several links in what links here indicating a certain degree of importance.Capitalistroadster 09:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to The Picture of Dorian Gray. This has already been done. Death phoenix 16:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Picture of Dorian Gray (Chapter 12)[edit]

Well written and researched, but do we really need an entry for each chapter? --InShaneee 16:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not in my opinion. Could be merged, if anyone is interested and thinks the material is noteworthy. HyperZonk^talk 18:36, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's a noteworthy book, but that doesn't mean it should have individual articles per chapter. We don't have individual articles for Shakespeare scenes in his plays, do we? Nick04 19:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- We don't because no-one has created them yet; however, is there any reason in particular why we should not at some point in the future? — Dan | Talk 04:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep, we have articles for individual star trek episodes and bible verses. Kappa 19:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- True, but we don't have articles on individual scenes within Star Trek episodes (I hope). Bible verses are often cited or quoted without further reference to the rest of the work. Even then, I would only encourage Wikipedia articles on specific Biblical passages that are frequently cited. Chapter 12 of Dorian Gray doesn't stand on its own; delete this article. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:16, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That's my view as well. If there were a series of Dorian Gray books, then each one would be worthy of a chapter, or if the book was a series of short stories, perhaps. Delete and add a synopsis to the main article if one isn't already there. 23skidoo 00:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Books yes (if notable), but no to separate articles on the chapters of books, however notable the books. --BM 21:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Ten, delete. Radiant! 21:25, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The book is a masterpiece, but we can't have an isolated article about a chapter. Would you like to have an article for each chapter of The Lord of the Rings or the Popol Vuh?? Surely not thiugh the notability of them --Neigel von Teighen 21:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- There are, in fact, articles on the other chapters. This is well-researched, culturally relevant, encyclopedic information. — Dan | Talk 04:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not Cliff's Notes. And that Bible verse thing was a bad idea too. -R. fiend 21:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't Wikipedia rival Cliff's Notes? We're aiming for world domination, after all. :-) — Dan | Talk 04:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Some bible verses are notable but other than those few parts of books don't deserve own articles. - Jeltz talk 21:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Merge. If such an article is written about every chapter in the book, then a main article should be created which links to each such article. However, if this is just a one-time article, not the start of a project, then delete, or better yet, merge into the main article. 141.225.146.182 22:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Sorry, but individual book chapters rarely, if ever, need articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:08, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Binadot 22:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Having an article for every chapter of a book would be chaos. DaveTheRed 00:55, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete - agree with all the above but have in mind that there are another 19 articles (Chapters 1 through 20) which all are identical in approach if not in content. There is also a perfectably capable article The Picture of Dorian Gray Velela 13:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I do not understand why a single "perfectly capable article" which covers the very basics would be preferable to a number of far better articles which cover the novel in depth. — Dan | Talk 04:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Individual chapters of Dorian Gray are not important enough to sustain their own articles. What next? Perhaps an article about a specific page of Dorian Gray? My vote remains to delete this, and all the other chapter's as well. DaveTheRed 05:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. One article covering the whole book is just fine. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. Everyking 04:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Dorian Grey is eminently encyclopedic. — Dan | Talk 04:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
One chapter?!?!, DELETE or Merge. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge entire series and redirect. There is no reason we couldn't stuff this all in one article. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 04:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is the author of the contentious entry, checking in to give his view. My reason for thinking that each chaper of this novel deserves a Wikipedia entry is best summed up in one of the comments above: 'We have articles for individual Star Trek episodes.' My reason for not starting out by putting all of this material on one page is that this one is already getting prohibitively long. However, I appreciate that the preferred approach on Wikipedia is to develop material on one page and then divvy it up into separate pages when necessary. So if I've been presumptious in creating entries for individual chapters, and people vote to delete, merge, or whatever, then I will accept the decision with good grace and even help to do whatever is decided upon without losing any more of the content than is necessary. My ultimate ambition is to have as definitive a set of resources for a msterpiece of 19th century literature on Wikipedia as already exist for such geeky fictional universes as Star Trek, Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings. But if I need to go about it in a different way, then I am happy to do so.AncientHaemovore 17:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Addendum. As an interim measure to clarify matters, I have created this new page linking to each chapter entry I have created. If it is decided that these chapter entries are not to be deleted, then I will incorporate the list of links to them into this page. If it is decided that these entries are to be deleted, then I will follow the good guidance of my fellow Wikipedians in sticking the material wherever they think it should go, if indeed they think it belongs on Wikipedia at all.
Merge and delete the empty shell, although I admire and encourage the author's attempts to write about the book. My central reservation is that I don't believe the chapters can be dealt with as individual items, without a lot of clumsy cross-referencing. If we are to assume that each chapter will be read about separately, we would have to re-introduce the characters, plot, setting, themes and so on with each article; and if we are to assume that the reader is to read about each chapter sequentially, they should all be in one single page. I believe that whereas deliberately episodic works such as The Martian Chronicles, The Bible, perhaps Robinson Crusoe or Captain Scarlet lend themselves to such atom-splitting, this book does not. On an equally important level, we must all remember that Wikipedia's articles are a journalistic collection of ordered, referenced facts from external sources, and not original essays, no matter how well-written. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You offer cogent reasons for merging the chapter entries that I've created, in particular your point that items to be read sequentially should only exist on a single page. One could argue that such items should spill over into vertically subordinate pages if they become too long, but that's not the same thing as creating a series of horizontally equivalent pages, as I've done with Oscar Wilde's novel. Whatever the outcome of this vote for deletion (and I repeat my offer to tidy up the mess myself if necessary, rather than leave the admins with the headache of 20 content-rich pages to merge and/or delete), I welcome the opportunity to reflect on what a Wikipedia entry should be. I'm sure this isn't the first time that a pedantic devotee of a book (or film, piece of music, etc) has come up against the limits of how minutely detailed Wikipedia content should be, and it certainly won't be the last. AncientHaemovore 19:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Merge, and Condense. This is a lot of good work, and if there are entries on individual Star Trek episodes, as has been pointed out, a detailed entry on a very excellent book is only natural. Twenty detailed pages is too much, so make it one very good one.--SpiritGlyph 21:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
IMPORTANT NOTE. This vote for deletion is no longer necessary, as I've just put the contentious page and all similar pages out of their misery myself. Ashley Pomeroy and SpiritGlyph have succeeded in convincing me that all of this content should be kept, merged, and condensed. I've therefore come up with a solution that will allow me to present the same information clearly, in significantly condensed form, on the existing page for The Picture of Dorian Gray. If you go to that page and look under the heading 'Individuals referred to in the novel', you'll see that I've begun to do exactly that. I've also converted my 20 chapter pages, and my interim page of links to these 20 chapter pages, into redirects pointing to the main page for the novel. It only remains now for people to stick all of these redirects on Redirects for deletion, if they're considered redundant. Thank you for all your constructive criticism. And to the person above who said Wikipedia is not Cliff's Notes - Cliff's Notes will be forced out of business by the time I'm done with classic literature on Wikipedia. 'Nuff said. AncientHaemovore 21:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Excellent job with the merge, and love the enthusiasm. Keep up the good work! --InShaneee 19:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:14, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Good Charlotte Live[edit]

Promotion of own website Drw25 17:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Come on, if anyone wants to find this, they'd search for the band name Good Charlotte, not the name of the website of the band. This is just stupid advertising. Average Earthman 17:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This should be a speedy deletion—it's really nothing more than a link. Postdlf 18:12, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not even the band's web site. This is just an "ad" for a fan site. Vanity is perhaps the more accurate raison d'eletion. :) HyperZonk^talk 18:26, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:14, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ad for a fan site. Zzyzx11 00:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, website advertisement, band vanity. Megan1967 03:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion; block compress error. Joyous 03:14, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Bawia[edit]

Delete - Does not appear to be notable. There is a website and Google only produced links to that website.Ganymead 04:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As this made it through VfD without a single vote other than the nominator, I'm relisting it. —Korath (Talk) 17:18, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. In my opinion, this is not quite at the bar for notability, being strictly a local SIG. I'm open to arguments to the contrary or counter-examples of prior concensus. HyperZonk^talk 18:17, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:16, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not enough notability. Zzyzx11 00:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. --CDN99 16:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 14:50, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Kees A. Schouhamer Immink[edit]

first the peron who created this article 137.132.3.11 has a history of vandalising a number of sites, and therefore his or her word should not be trusted with this article. I think lacks notability as well.--SqueakBox 16:05, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. A Google search seems to establish that the essential facts of this page are accurate, and the awards this individual has received would appear, in my opinion, to qualify for passing my notability bar. YMMV. HyperZonk^talk 18:19, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Appears to be a notable person in the history of digital audio and video. see [8] Capitalistroadster 19:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Appears to be notable. Zzyzx11 00:18, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:13, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Jerk hacking[edit]

Delete gamer vanity. Some term only used by some users only on some gaming forum. Postdlf 18:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Made no sense to me. Delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:16, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not enough notable evidence. Zzyzx11 00:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, stupid. K1Bond007 03:34, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete please, What is this about? i have NO idea. Gazeofsorrow 04:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Carrp | Talk 15:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hanung jati purbakusuma[edit]

The article was marked for Speedy by 4.64.14.220 as non-English near-gibberish self-promotion. It was previously marked for translation, and per translation policy it should be marked for deletion since it was not translated within two weeks.

Delete - comment: the article in question is about someone (called "Hanung jati purbakusuma"). Language was listed as "unknown" on the pages for translation entry - I believe it's Indonesian. Nick04 22:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete or move to appropriate language section. Cnwb 23:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Translate it or else. Zzyzx11 00:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki into the Indonesian Wikipedia, if there is one. — JIP | Talk 08:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete guys, don't waste your time bothering w/ that article, it's basically a self-biographical story written by someone (claimed to be Hanung Jati Purbakusuma), the person is no one (he even listed his phone number & e-mail address). That article doesn't even worth to be in Indonesian Wikipedia. What a waste of space. Just a kid who wants to draw attention by writing total crap at Wikipedia.
Delete. Don't bother to transwiki; likely a waste of time. jni 16:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just read the article, it's basically a vanity page in Indonesian. --Andylkl 06:47, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:12, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Secord[edit]

Non-notable stub. Vanity. Delete. --Spinboy 18:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete 96 Google hits, and quite a few of those are other people entirely Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:20, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
The article in its entirety: "Doctor Andrew Secord is a Professor of Economics at St. Thomas University (New Brunswick) in Fredericton, New Brunswick." From a quick search, that seems to be about all there is to say about him. An average professor at a small (enrollment of 2800) university. Delete, without malice. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless someone gives notable evidence. Zzyzx11 00:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no evidence of notability. Vanity just might be right; user's only other contributions were to make a change to Economy of the United Kingdom and then self-revert. Bearcat 04:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless someone can provide something to establish notability. -- James Teterenko (talk) 05:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. This article has already been redirected to Antenna. Death phoenix 17:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Antenna (astronomy)[edit]

this page duplicates Antennae (astronomy), and an admin reverted my speedy request. The name is also wrong, being it's called the antennae. Also, there are several types of antennas/antennae used in astronomy, so this title is ambiguous in any case. 132.205.45.110 19:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Redirect and merge Since the two pages have basically the same data, one should redirect to the other. slambo 20:56, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Likewise:
1. If you want to fix the name, get yourself a pseudonym, and just be bold. However, be aware of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions, especially with regard to "the".
2. The next time that you see two or more duplicate articles, do what it says to do in Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. Don't come to WP:VFD. Deletion should not be the only tool in your toolbox.
- COMMENT I don't think this should exist as a redirect, since it is confusing. Antenna Galaxy would be a proper term to redirect from, not Antenna (astronomy). 132.205.45.148 19:40, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Uncle G 21:38, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect. Antenna is an alternate spelling of Antennae [9]. Zzyzx11 00:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Death phoenix 17:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Caughtem[edit]

I believe Gotem(speech), a close ally of this "article", has already been through VfD and failed. It's time to delete Caughtem, too, for the same reasons. At best it's a neologism, at worst a hoax. Either way it's an orphan to boot. (It was labeled a "linguistics stub", which I changed to a normal stub, because even if it does stay, it has nothing to do with linguistics.) --Angr 20:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Patent nonsense, speedy delete. Martg76 21:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Someone find some justification for a speedy deletion. Let's get it out of here before the trolls return. -R. fiend 21:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable neologism of no encyclopedic notability. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete local neologism is not of common interest. - Jeltz talk 21:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This article is a very obvious minor variation on Gotem(speech) that was created almost as soon as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gotem(speech) was closed and the original deleted. Speedy delete under a combination of criteria G3 (silly vandalism) and G4 (re-posting of previously deleted content). Uncle G 21:54, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
Speedy I agree. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:05, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep or could this be moved to Wiktionary perhaps. bakuzjw (aka 578) 22:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless someone provides more notable evidence. Zzyzx11 00:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Deleted - re-posting of previous deleted content. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment Deleted content was: Dpbsmith (talk) 16:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Caughtem is a word of particular interest in Florida. It's origins are unknown, although it is suspected to be similar in meaning to gotem(speech). The word can be used in jubilant or otherwise celebratory situations, as well as if a person, place, or thing (see noun) is in a difficult situation requiring outside intervention. Caughtem is a controversial word because its similarity to gotem(speech) sometimes invokes cognitive dissonance during colloquial speeches as listeners are unable to distinguish differences in meaning.

Delete. Good call by Jayjg. Not the identical sequence of wors, but patently an attempt to recreate an article within a topic area that was judged to be wildly unencyclopedic in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gotem(speech). I'm formally adding my delete vote just in case the speedy doesn't stick. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 17:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lucidný sen[edit]

moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English
posibley SlovakianGeni 19:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Possibly copied in part from [10]. Take a good look at this before you translated, see if it's a copyvio. Also, is there anything worthwhile here that's not at Lucid dreaming? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:35, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, it's had it's two weeks, little has been translated, and there is no sign of anything useful here. Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:14, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

22:55, 1 Mar 2005 DavidWBrooks deleted Joe tonks (patent nonsense)

Death phoenix 17:07, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Joe tonks[edit]

Not encyclopedic. Appears to be prank or vanity. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Joe Tonks exists, he's an arty fellow from sheffield -- AJPECK 21:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Joe Zombie[edit]

Are stick figure Flash cartoons about violent zombies rare? No. This is just not notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless someone provides notable news and references. Zzyzx11 00:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, promotion. Will reconsider if evidence of notability is produced. —Korath (Talk) 08:59, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:06, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Puff and Tuff[edit]

Is it a game? Is it a story? It's non-encyclopedic in either case. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Childhood fancy... Nick04 22:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I am still confused as to what it is.... Tygar 22:24, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't get it. Zzyzx11 00:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete sounds like someone describing a make-believe game they'd played as kids, which was apparently not too long ago if it involves Pokemon. I actually find this article really cute, but of course it cannot stay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:36, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:05, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ziggy Boogy Doog[edit]

Even if this was an article on the actual Flash cartoon, rather than just a catchphrase from it, it would still not be encyclopedically notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete - but if you see something this lame, just mark it for speedy deletion, so it doesn't have to linger for a week. Obviously it's a feeble joke. - DavidWBrooks 22:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Unencyclopaedic, unless it's found to be a friend of Ziggy Stardust (kidding) --Neigel von Teighen 22:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Needs notable news, references and sources. Zzyzx11 00:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
what a bunch of geeks you all are. Pricks. (This unsigned comment was from User:83.67.27.45, the author of the article --BM 14:55, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC))
Delete. Demented. --BM 14:55, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Infrogmation 20:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:04, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

BlazetheMaster[edit]

Vanity page for someone's online gaming alias Cnwb 22:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Leave it, It is historically accurate. --unsigned vote by 24.45.233.85, who has six edits.

keephm blaze pointed me here and it is helpful.. i think its useful and want to see him add stuff to make it better :) --unsigned vote by 24.28.123.143, who has ten edits.

I agree, Leave it as its a good learning tool for any age of empire gamer. --unsigned vote by 24.56.204.172, whose sole edit is this vote.

Good stuff. Leave it. --unsigned vote by 80.99.13.211, whose sole edit is this vote.

Note : 24.45.233.85 deleted the reason I listed for deletion (vanity page). Also, all voters thus far are non-registered users. Cnwb 23:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete if possible and block the talking hosiery. They never learn, do they? - Lucky 6.9 23:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Speedy. And I'd encourage the person writing this to go over Wikibooks and write their strategy guide there. Wikibooks actually might want it. :) -- Bobdoe (Talk) 23:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. /sɪzlæk ˺/ 23:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
DONT DELETE _ Very accurate reference, historically significant, Re: Criminal sect 3344.21 sub section 453 -- unsigned comment by 24.45.233.85, moved from VfD log page. Note that 24.45.233.85 already cast a vote.
Delete. Not encyclopedically notable. Wikipedia is not here to be a strategy guide. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gaming alias != notable. DaveTheRed 01:18, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If the socks want it kept, then it can't be worth keeping! Miss Pippa 18:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, sock supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:18, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable in any way (an online gamers call sign could only be conceivably notable if they were one of these professional gamers playing at tournaments around the world). Has there every been any article supported by socks that was worth keeping? You want to write this stuff, get your own webpage. Average Earthman 11:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Infrogmation 20:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- "historically accurate"?! Zetawoof 11:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 17:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kevan Lannister[edit]

Minor character from A Song of Ice and Fire. Fancruft that could not be expanded in any meaningful way. Indrian 22:33, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

~~I suggest we Merge all the minor characters into one article.~~ Zzyzx11 00:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment -- On second thought, I'm not currently familar with A Song of Ice and_Fire. So I currently abstain until I read all the articles in Category:A Song of Ice and Fire, List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire, and List of places in A Song of Ice and Fire. Because I want to make an informed opinion. Zzyzx11 00:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've read the books, and while he is not one of the main characters, he is a notable secondary character. The series is popular enough, and we have extensive character pages for other novels such as Dune. Alternatively, I suppose we could merge all the characters into one large list, but I prefer the former option. DaveTheRed 01:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Name one notable thing he has done. He basically just follows Tywin around as his second-in-command. Indrian 03:15, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
  - I think he's notable in that he's one of the head honcho's of house Lanister. But whatever. Kevan's a weak keep for me. The only characters you nominated that I really think should be included are Asha and Rickon. DaveTheRed 05:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As it stands I think that Kevan shuld be redirected to House Lannister, until the author is ready to expand this article. The same information in on both pages--nixie 01:49, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge with more minor characters. If his entry there becomes too large, break him out. —Korath (Talk) 08:57, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Prompted by similar problems a few weeks ago I have tried to start a discussion about what to do wrt. merging on Talk:List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire and would appreciate comments there. Thore 19:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) Later edit: I have moved the half sentence that was the entire contents of this page to House Lannister#Kevan. If this VfD ends in merge, this page can be redirected there. Thore 15:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 17:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oberyn Martell[edit]

Here is another minor character from A Song of Ice and Fire. Only appears in a few chapters before dying. Fancruft. Indrian 22:39, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Weak Keep. He only appeared that once, but he had been mentioned numorous times before and after. And his scene was amonge the more memorable in the series. But he's minor enough that I'd cry no tears if deleted. DaveTheRed 01:48, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Mabye a list of minor characters could be made for these? merge--nixie 01:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge/redirect. -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Haven't read the series yet, but on general principle I think minor characters should be merged into a single article. Radiant! 15:19, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with more minor characters. If his entry there becomes too large, break him out. —Korath (Talk) 08:56, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Prompted by similar problems a few weeks ago I have tried to start a discussion about what to do wrt. merging on Talk:List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire and would appreciate comments there. Thore 19:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) Later edit: anticipating a merge consensus for this page (as well as for a handful of other similar pages) I have copied the information of this page to House Martell. This page can be redirected there when this VfD is over (assuming the result is indeed merge) Thore 10:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 17:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Asha Greyjoy[edit]

And here is another minor character from A Song of Ice and Fire. This is a series of little importance in literary history and without the same level of popularity as J.R.R. Tolkien or Robert Jordan. While the books definately deserve an entry, the literally hundreds of characters found therein do not. Fancruft with little hope for expansion. Indrian 22:48, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Asha is an important secondary character in the series. ASoIaF is not as popular as Lord of the Rings, but I'd say it rivals The Wheel of Time or even Dune in the fantasy genre. DaveTheRed 01:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Asha is hardly an important secondary character. She has only appeared in three or four chapters out of over 150 and has not done much of note. As for popularity, when three straight books in the series become #1 New York Times bestsellers, then I will be convinced that he is as popular as Jordan (not making a statement on quality here). Indrian 03:13, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
  - She was prominent in the Theon plot thread, and besides she is certainly the most interesting character nominated so far. Also I know that all three made the NYT bestsellers list, but not the specific rankings they achieved. Once again, I would also support a Merge to a minor characters page too for all these characters. DaveTheRed 05:27, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - A minor character page would be appropriate. It is not the information itself that I do not like so much as the proliferation of small articles that could not be expanded to full length. Indrian 05:56, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Merge/redirect. -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Conur with Indrian, merge. Radiant! 15:19, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with more minor characters. If his entry there becomes too large, break him out. —Korath (Talk) 08:56, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Prompted by similar problems a few weeks ago I have tried to start a discussion about what to do wrt. merging on Talk:List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire and would appreciate comments there. Thore 20:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) Later edit: I have merged the paragraph that was this page into the House Greyjoy article. If this VfD ends in merge, this page can be redirected there.Thore 09:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire. Death phoenix 17:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: to be consistent with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rickon Stark, I changed the redirect to House Stark, which seems to make more sense. --Death phoenix 18:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rickard Stark[edit]

A Song of Ice and Fire again. This particular character has been dead fifteen years when the series starts and did not do much important that is recounted in flashbacks or the like. Fancruft. Indrian 22:52, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Rickard is too minor to deserve an article. DaveTheRed 01:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. Redirection discourages recreation. -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge with more minor characters. Radiant! 15:20, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with more minor characters. If his entry there becomes too large, break him out. —Korath (Talk) 08:56, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Merge --VivaEmilyDavies 03:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge with more minor characters ScottM 05:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Prompted by similar problems a few weeks ago I have tried to start a discussion about what to do wrt. merging on Talk:List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire and would appreciate comments there. Thore 19:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) Later comment: I have merged other Starks into House Stark, including this stub. This page can be redirected as soon as VfD is over. Thore 14:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 14:56, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Internet background noise[edit]

A complete un-wiki like, un-formatted, incorrectly-spelled, factually baseless article. I say it should be deleted. Lockeownzj00 22:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the time spent writing about the entry could be more productively used to correct any mistakes on the use of English language of that article and more importantly, one could try to update it, empower it since it is a term that exists and the phenomenon it describes annoys millions. So, I would prefer not to be deleted. Soulmann 02:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete...too short. I guess you could try to transwiki to wikidictionary..but .. umm.. it seems like this is mostly POV, and probably wouldn't fly there either. Tygar 02:39, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - this is a real phenomenon. It is also a substub, which is a Good Thing. sjorford →•← 09:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- out of everything Lockeownzj00 lists as a problem with the article, only one of them actually falls under the deletion policy: factually baseless. Unfortunately, that's mistaken; the article is accurately describing a real phenomenon. If cleanup's needed, let's do cleanup, but VfDing this is a pointless waste of time. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:48, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep Looks like it could be a useful article if it is expanded. --Holdek 21:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, has potential. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:48, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Have cleaned this up a bit more. Seems useful. Drw25 13:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Real phenomenon, as anyone who ever tried to run a packet sniffer on an unfirewalled link knows. cesarb 09:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to House Stark. Note: the merge has already been done. Death phoenix 18:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rickon Stark[edit]

A three year old as A Song of Ice and Fire begins. Minor character. Fancruft. Indrian 22:57, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. He is the youngest son of the main family in the book. He may be only 3 or 4, but he is oft mentioned in the first two books, and his character will very likely be greatly expanded in later books. DaveTheRed 02:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes he is the youngest son of the main family and yes by book five or six he may be important, but right now he is just a wild four year old who whines about everybody leaving him and has a wolf that likes to bite people. Hardly notable for this encyclopedia in my opinion. Indrian 03:10, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
If he's not significant enough for his own article, merge and redirect. (House Stark, maybe?) -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge with more minor characters. If he becomes major in the next book, break him out. Radiant! 15:28, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with more minor characters. If his entry there becomes too large, break him out. —Korath (Talk) 08:56, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with more minor characters, he is just a minor character right now. (forgot to sign in the first time) ScottM 05:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Actually, I have already done so (together with some other minor characters). This page can be changed into a redirection to House Stark when VfD is over. Thore 14:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 15:03, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Monica de Bruyn[edit]

Monica de Bruyn has requested deletion of the page Monica de Bruyn. No permission was given for publication; information is incorrect. monicadebruyn@newyork.com. For publication one MUST ask for permission in advance. These are the rules and everybody knows it - except Wikipedia. -- unsigned comment from 149.123.12.74, moved from VfD log page

keep - many (Dutch) google entries: seems interesting; if this is a copyvio it should be listed on WP:CP; if it is wrong, fix it. Mozzerati 00:13, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
~~Keep~~. I'll give Ms. de Bruyn the benefit of the doubt and assume she knew nothing about this absurd attempt to delete the article on the untrue premise that "one MUST ask for permission in advance". If such a principle was actually true, no journalism could take place except by permission of the subjects. I suspect what really happened is that someone created the article to be unilateral praise of Ms. de Bruyn and didn't realize it would be edited to NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) Update: changing my vote to Weak keep. It's still of course quite ridiculous that we would delete an article just because the subject was under the mistaken impression that their permission was required. However, a Google search only turns up about 312 hits, some of which apparently belong to an unrelated children's book author, so notability may be the actual deciding issue. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As long as information is factual and NPOV, I don't see a problem. Cnwb 00:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The article was apparently created by an anonymous fan of hers. Several of us cleaned up the puffery, but that was months ago, so I don't think the deletion request is based on the NPOVing. Any copyvio has likely been reworded. Notability: She's one of the columnists listed at http://www.blueagle.com/ (though I admit I don't know their criteria), and she has a nonfiction book coming out later this year, so I'd be inclined to keep even without the Dutch notability. JamesMLane 00:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As long as it is factual, NPOV, and not copyvio. Zzyzx11 00:49, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If the information is incorrect then Monica de Bruyn should correct it. -- RHaworth 01:01, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
For publication one MUST ask for permission in advance. These are the rules and everybody knows it. Sez who? Keep, minor but still notable enough. --Calton 01:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Actually, she doesn't seem all that notable, which the article makes reasonably clear. If this had been proposed for VfD in the normal way, I don't know that I would have voted to keep it, even though I don't think we should delete the article just because the subject objects to it. Actually, I don't see any reason why someone would object to it, either -- unless she finds it "damning by faint praise", or in this case, non-praise. I suspect that Antaeus Feldspar has pegged the situation pretty well. I'm inclined to vote delete anyway because of the notability issue, but the unreasonable demand to delete it makes me feel contrary. --BM 03:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Despite this weird vfd nomination, this woman appears to be a journalist of little note, 'delete --nixie 04:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Subjects of Wikipedia articles do not get the choice of whether or not they can have their articles deleted. Though it would be a good way to get the article kept. Rick K 06:27, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 06:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'm curious, if her book were published would that make a difference for you? Part of my thinking is that, with the article already in place, we might as well keep it, instead of deleting and then re-creating it later this year because her book has pushed her over the bar. My personal opinion, which I know others don't share, is that, if someone has written a serious nonfiction book, published by a genuine (non-vanity) publisher, and someone else has created an article about the author, then the article shouldn't be deleted. JamesMLane 10:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Megan and delete. It does look to me like people are voting to keep because the nomination is so weird, as BM suggests. Radiant! 09:00, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
~~DELETE!!!~~ Too bad, RHaworth, I ain't going correct anything here. I was NOT born on Jan., 5, 1977. I NEVER had throat cancer. How did you get this information? This article is rubbish - no permission for publication was asked. DELETE. -- unsigned vote by 149.123.12.74, who already voted as the initiator of the VfD.
Delete. Doesn't seem notable enough. De Bruyn's opinion is irrelevant, of course. When permission was mentioned, I thought this was a copyvio, but if the info is incorrect, then it's obviously not a copyvio. Gamaliel 19:04, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: BM puts it very well. Neither the article nor the website make this person seem very notable. However, it's hard not to feel inclined to vote keep when you read the latest addition to Talk:Monica de Bruyn by the person claiming to be Ms de Bruyn:

And now remove this page or else other measures will be taken. No permission for publication was given, nor by my p.a., nor by me. CORRECT information about me - see, CORRECT information - will be published when WE say so. We are not too crazy about people who publish INCORRECT information.

Does this constitute a bannable offence by Wikipedia:No legal threats? Information in the article that is claimed to be incorrect by the poster should be verified or removed, though. / Alarm 19:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blanking the article, as User:Monicadebruyn did, will certainly constitute a bannable offense if she does it again. Rick K 23:08, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete this page. -- unsigned 'vote' by Monicadebruyn; however, 149.123.12.74 is also claiming to be Ms. de Bruyn; since neither has threatened to sue the other for impersonation, it is pretty clear that they are one and the same. This then makes the third attempt to vote by 149.123.12.74.
Comment: I've discovered there is a children's book artist/author with the same name, born 1952, author of books including The Beaver Who Wouldn't Die. Most likely this is not the same person. Gamaliel 20:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, despite the almost-overwhelming temptation to vote "keep," out of spite for the ill-mannered Ms. de Bruyn. P. S. Evidence for non-notability: no hits in New York Times online database, under any of these spellings: "Monica de Bruyn" or "Monica deBruyn" or "Monica de Bruijn" or "Monica deBruijn" or "Monika de Bruijn" or "Monika deBruijn". Dpbsmith (talk) 20:27, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep what is notable, she is notable enough in the Netherlands and this isn't the wikipedia you have to be notable in the States before you get in encyclopedia. Waerth 20:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Borderline notable, although as a journalist myself I have to find the rationale for this VFD questionable. If there are errors, correct them. If it's a copyvio, when mark it as such, or better still, write something new. If she didn't want to be listed anywhere, she should never have entered this industry. 23skidoo 02:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- One wonders what kind of journalist thinks that she has to get the approval of her subjects before she writes articles about them. Rick K 05:19, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. Besednjak 13:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Please, will the people asserting that she is notable help the rest of us understand why? The situation is confused by the existence of a childrens' book author or illustrator of the same name who is almost certainly not the same person. It's a little hard to construct a good Google search but when I search for pages a) in English, b) excluding the words udry pictures illustrator wikipedia lewinsky, I only get 84 hits. She gets zero hits in Google groups (USENET), where right-wing commentators are frequently discussed. And the New York Times knows nothing about this New York resident. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Not my strongest "keep" vote ever -- a contender for my weakest, in fact -- but I'm swayed by: the listing of her column on BlueEagle (though I admit I don't know their criteria); her registration with a European speakers' bureau (same admission); evidence of Netherlands notability; forthcoming nonfiction book. JamesMLane 06:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - BlueEagle doesn't look all that impressive to me, in fact, I got the impression it was a Geocities site. Gamaliel 17:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I have a big problem with people who are judging the notability of a Dutch journalist by whether she has hits in English. en.Wikipedia is specifically designed to cater to an international audience. Checking for hits in Dutch seems obvious to me. Mozzerati 20:16, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
  - Delete as nonnotable, regardless of whether that's what the rude anonymous poster claiming to be her wants or not, because it's the right thing to do. I also would like to add that I have a big problem with the assumption that someone would be notable enough for an English language encyclopedia based solely upon Dutch notability. Google hits in Dutch are completely irrelevant for this vote. Let the Dutch language version of wikipedia vote on her Dutch qualifications for notability. DreamGuy 01:38, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
    Clarify: Dutch notability is relevant. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the culture-of-English-speaking-countries Wikipedia (de facto by practical considerations, perhaps, but not de iure). If, say, Dieter Bratwurst is notable enough in Austria to have an article in the German Wikipedia, he could have an article in English too, regardless of whether anyone has heard of him internationally. It's true that notability is more readily established on the Dutch Wikipedia, but that doesn't make it "irrelevant" here. 82.92.119.11 01:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Jeroenvrp 01:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete - seems non-notable as yet to me. -- SGBailey 00:46, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
Keep out of sheer cussedness. I don't think we should be removing even a borderline article under threat by its subject of an (unjustified) lawsuit. Sets a lousy precedent. She has no case. BTW, DreamGuy's apparent claim that foreign-language articles can't establish notability seems to me to be equally ridiculous. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:53, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Keep because she is just above the bar of notability, and also to spite her. DaveTheRed 19:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Flinders University. Death phoenix 18:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ASMS[edit]

Another school article... --Neigel von Teighen 23:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete and merge with Flinders University. Cnwb 00:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Flinders University. Zzyzx11 00:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Flinders. Universities deserve their own articles, schools within universities do not. DaveTheRed 01:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge this thing. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Block compress error; pending deletion. Joyous 03:03, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Nexuscience[edit]

This page describes a non-notable former Wikipedia mirror which was not in compliance with the GFDL and has since gone offline. Apparently it was tagged for deletion a couple of times before and reverted by IP users. NTK 23:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete interesting story behind it, though. Their website now says "account suspended", so I guess it's all over but the screaming. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:45, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no longer online, wasn't notable while it was--nixie 01:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Scooby-Doo. Redirect is necessary to preserve edit history for GFDL. Death phoenix 19:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adult themes and the Scooby Gang[edit]

Should be merged into Scooby-Doo and then no redirect. Thought I'd ask for a consensus since this isn't clear cut. --Woohookitty 23:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Information: The content of the article was originally a subsection contained within the article Scooby-Doo. On 7-JUL-2004, Marcus2 cut the adult themes section out and placed it into the separate article. I have invited Marcus2 to come to this discussion and explain his reasons for doing so, since this discussion is essentially about undoing his work. Kevyn 03:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No objection to merging into the Scooby-Doo article, as it could be legitimately be a subsection of the main article. Full disclosure: I am a major contributor to the article -- I am convinced that Velma is a lesbian, and Johnny Bravo is just a beard. Kevyn 00:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment How/why is Velma a lesbian? She's a cartoon character for a Saturday monring cartoon, for crying out loud! --b. Touch 03:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Scooby-Doo and Delete. Zzyzx11 00:52, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Delete as above. No redirect needed since I doubt anyone will type this particular header into the search engine. The subject matter is widely debated and worthy of being mentioned, though be cautious of POV. 23skidoo 00:59, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Although this is not supposed to be a strictly 'family friendly' site, there is something to be said for segregating discussion of adult themes (which in this case border on fanfic) from the main content of the article. But do add something about the theory that Scrappy-Doo is the illegitimate child of Scooby and Velma. --BD2412 01:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The idea of segregating adult themes -- especially on an article about a childrens' cartoon -- had ocurred to me when I first responded to Woohookitty's adding this to VfD. (I suspect it was probably one of the reasons the article was created separately in the first place, before I started adding to it.) That is, I believe, the only possible reason for not merging here, and I'm not convinced it's a strong enough reason. Especially if the section on adult themes is treated encyclopedically. Kevyn 02:55, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and link from the article about Scooby Gang (see BD2412's comment) Tygar 02:37, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. If you guys do vote for keep, do we at least agree to change the name? I think "Adult Themes in Scooby Doo" or "Hidden Themes in Scooby Doo" are better titles...and much more likely to be searched for. --Woohookitty 02:49, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If the vote is to keep, then I concur with the change in name... personally I like "Adult Themes in Scooby Doo" better, but this is relevant only if the vote is to keep. Kevyn 03:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - I agree with the name change (although if linked from the Scooby article the name is not as important). --BD2412 04:38, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge back to the main article. It's really just fan-fic type speculation--nixie 04:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
either Keep or merge. What if Daphne is a lipstick lesbian? Why is Shaggy called Shaggy? Tune in next time for another edition of Scooby Scooby-Doo!! Megan1967 06:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep separate from the main article so kids can avoid it more easily if they want to. Kappa 08:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge. WP does not censor for age categories. (see WP:WIN) Radiant! 09:02, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Yeah if we start separating articles based on age, that is one massive slippery slope. --Woohookitty 09:26, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Concur. Also, I had forgotten about the specific policy relevant to this: What Wikipedia is Not: Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Kevyn 18:38, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - True, but censorship would be deleting the article altogether - having a separate article linked to the original page is hardly in the same category - more like segregation of material that (at least arguably) stands on its own as an article anyway. --BD2412 19:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I cut this article from the main Scooby-Doo article because it is irrelevant to article as a whole and it had taken too much space in the article. Marcus2 19:04, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Well since I don't think we're going to find a consensus, I think renaming might be the best thing to do once the 5-6 days have passed. I always love how minor things become life or death on Wikipedia. :) --Woohookitty 19:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to buck the trend and argue to delete this as unverifiable speculation about fictional characters. The fact that a lot of kids made similar guesses does not make them any less speculative. The few bits that are verifiable and encyclopedic should be discussed in the main article. Rossami (talk) 23:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Delete; do not merge. While Wikipedia is not and should not be censored for minors, this is inappropriate content for an article on a major children's television show. —Korath (Talk) 09:18, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. It's amusing, but right now it looks like a mix of original research and idle speculation. Do we have sources for the interpretations assigned to the in-show events? Sourced comments from the series creators? Outraged press releases from Christian fundamentalists? If there is supporting documentation, then we should keep this article (with an appropriate link from Scooby-Doo). Otherwise, it's just a glorified Scooby-Doo fan forum post. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The phenomena of reading adult subtexts into Scooby-Doo is indeed a verifiable pop culture phenomena, and a very widespread one at that. It is encyclopedic and should be covered. Here are some verifiable sources:
  - [11] Google search for "Scooby" + "drug" returns 97,000 matches. A large number of these are joke explanations of the adult themes in Scooby, conservative bloggers decrying the moral problems of Scooby, or stoner sites celebrating the Scooby drug culture.
  - [12] Nostalgia Central starts off it's review of Scooby-Doo with the following sentence: "Let's get one thing straight: Drugs! This show is about drugs, conceived by people on drugs, written by people on drugs and mostly watched by people on drugs."
  - Scooby-Doo Movie Drops Drug Subtext The Associated Press ran a story in 2002 on the new Scooby-Doo movie and how the filmmakers were intentionally toning down the TV show's adult themes for the big screen.
  - [13] Entertainment Insider's DVD review of the complete first and second seasons of the TV show (1969) talks at length about the show's subtext.
  - The phenomena is so widespread and recognizable in pop culture that Kevin Smith was able to parody it in his 2003 film, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back
So does the article need to be re-written to be more encyclopedic, with verifiable sources? Yes, I think it does. I will volunteer to do that, once a decision is made as to where the article is going: Is it going to be a subsection of Scooby-Doo, or will it be a separate article? Kevyn 17:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'd say Merge. I'm not too sold on keeping this subarticle seperate from the main one, and I made the Scooby-Doo article shorter on purpose (by moving the info on the various versions of the show to Scooby-Doo series guide) so that more information about the show could be listed here. --b. Touch 03:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge. While interesting and valid, this information is not important enough for its own article. Psychonaut 03:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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