Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 12 May 14 >

May 13[edit]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was make redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Astrada[edit]

This was tagged for speedy deletion as vanity, but it doesn't fit any criteria IMO. What happens to surnames these days? Move to wiktionary maybe. Kappa 00:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Estrada (which I just turned from a redirect to Joseph Estrada to a disambig for about a half dozen Estradas in Wikipedia) - name is apparently a variation thereof. -- BDAbramson thimk 01:34, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Delete, don't redirect misspellings, as the CSD criteria for redirects is to delete typos. RickK 04:22, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with Rick. Megan1967 05:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Estrada. Variations on surnames which are actually in use, as opposed to misspellings which aren't in use, should be included. Cf Scottish clan - each has dozens of variations (Bean, Bain, McBean, McBain, Macbean, Macbain etc). --bainer 05:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, merge, redirect, whatever the content is valid. SchmuckyTheCat 15:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. PedanticallySpeaking 16:24, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Like I said when it was norminated for speedy, Keep, it's valid info. Robinoke 19:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Estrada.Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:10, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Delete Should be a speedy fails to establish encyclopedic merit.
  • Delete, non-encyclopedic. Radiant_* 12:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to delete. --Oldak Quill 16:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki. →Iñgōlemo← talk 04:39, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Delete NO REDIRECT. They guy who created the page is probably from Argentina, but Astrada is a lastname, that is true (Carlos Astrada, This Team's coach). To have an article about a lastname, at least of one like this, doesn't seem smart. Yet, do not redirect to Estrada, cause they are 2 diff. lastnames. --Marianocecowski 16:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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. Golbez 01:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ben_Himowitz[edit]

Obvious vanity.—Trevor Caira 00:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. James F. (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. — mark ✎ 00:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. vanity. Nateji77 01:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy if at all possible. I have developed the following theory on vanity pages: they're mostly people who are (a) getting their feet wet in Wikipedia, (b) don't know the criteria for notability, and (c) would be just as happy being able to present the information posted here on a user-page, if they were offered that opportunity before having their contribution chewed up and spat out in the vfd process. -- BDAbramson thimk 01:53, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
    • Original page was by an IP user, not a logged-in user. I don't think it's appropriate to userfy to an IP, though I generally agree with you about vanity pages created by logged-in users. (Delete this.) android↔talk 02:00, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed (hence the qualification, "if at all possible"). I'd go so far as to suggest we make a vanity page template that advises the poster that they have the option of making this a user page, and gives them a few days to get to it before we vfd the page. -- BDAbramson thimk 02:23, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. LouisRivera 02:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if you want to create such a template, by all means do so, but they have five days to Userfy the article if they want, we don't need to keep vanity articles lying around just hoping somebody does something with them. RickK 04:24, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. PedanticallySpeaking 16:25, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, as noted. Linuxbeak | Desk 18:02, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:11, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • I liked BD2412's template idea, so I was bold and created one and put it on the page. (Template:PotentialVanity) --Arcadian 14:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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. Golbez 01:23, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ethiotrans[edit]

Advertisement, vanity article, attempt at googlebombing ethiotrans.com. Along with the creation of this article, a paragraph was added to Amharic language, informing us that "You can see the list of languages what Ethiotrans is offering by going its web site http://www.ethiotrans.com". — mark ✎ 00:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, if it gets a strong cleanup. Nateji77 01:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. unless it gets serious cleanup. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete. Someone ought to look at [1] and determine if it's also a copyvio. ESkog 03:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, It's a copyvio and marked as such. Megan1967 04:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspected so but then I guess it's the owner of the website who put this here, making it less of a copyvio and more of a self-promo. Either way, it should be deleted. — mark ✎ 09:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte. PedanticallySpeaking 16:25, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:31, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Delete --Wetman 08:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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. Golbez 01:24, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Keith Arulanandom[edit]

Non-notable. "Not known for any major achievement." I'd say Userfy but he wasn't logged in when he made the page. Nateji77 01:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If he had a login account we could at least attempt to help him userfy, but that's not the case.EvilPhoenix
  • Comment. I sent an email to the address I found on the referenced webpage suggesting he userfy. Up to him now - if he pops up, good, if not, delete. -- BDAbramson thimk 02:31, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. LouisRivera 02:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, obvious vanity. Megan1967 04:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. PedanticallySpeaking 16:25, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and welcome him to Wikipedia. Linuxbeak | Desk 18:03, May 13, 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 all of these starships with List of Starfleet ship classes. Sjakkalle 08:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hokule'a class starship, Mediterranean class starship, Chimera class starship and Andromeda class starship[edit]

A page for a Star Trek starship class that never appeared on screen and was never even mentioned in any episode. AlistairMcMillan 01:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The entry matches other entries in the Star Trek area, though as yet is unlinked in the list of star trek ship classes article. It's brief, but if within Star Trek canon, might as well be kept. EvilPhoenix
  • Merge and redirect to some kind of list of minor Star Trek starship classes. RJFJR 02:23, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge all minor Trek ships. More useful to users that way anyway. -- BDAbramson thimk 02:26, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Delete as fanfic, as Alistair suggests. Radiant_* 08:54, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • (if I understand correctly, not canon implies fanfic, which in turn implies WP:VAIN) Radiant_* 11:07, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment - "Canon" is being used in a different context, here; it's mentioned in published works (so it's not fanfic), but those works aren't strictly considered canon by ST fans. It's a fine difference, but it keeps these from being fanfiction. A Man In Black 09:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. PedanticallySpeaking 16:25, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Starfleet ship classes, per WP:FICT. No significance outside of fictional milieu, basically minor trivia from non-canonical sources. Barno 18:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Starfleet ship classes, as per WP:FICT. --Carnildo 19:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as recommended by Carnildo. →Iñgōlemo← talk 04:41, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (are we just going to take this deletion lying down? er, sorry). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prostrate[edit]

Dictionary definition, should be moved to wiki dictionary if it is not already there --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 01:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User attributed it to American Heritage Dictionary; don't know if Wiktionary allows copying of definitions from other dictionaries (or if Wikipedia does). Fg2 02:15, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. No, it doesn't take copyright violations, and it doesn't even like people to rewrite definitions from other dictionaries, it prefers them to come up with their own definitions, to avoid propagating errors. Kappa 06:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. EvilPhoenix
  • Tagged as copvio. Kappa 06:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. PedanticallySpeaking 16:26, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's just a page with a VfD and Copyvio label on it. Could be speedily deleted. Harro5 01:23, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • The prodecure of adding a copyvio tag includes blanking the copyvio on the page. Kappa 06:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Wikipedia should have an article on the prostrate. This one needs work not deletion.--Heathcliff 23:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean an article on the prostate? Kappa 23:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bwa-ha-ha. Yes, I do. It's been one of those days! Change mine the delete.--Heathcliff 02:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. →Iñgōlemo← talk 04:42, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Delete. This isn't even votable. --Wetman 08:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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, pending rewrite. Golbez 01:26, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Don Plett[edit]

Appears to be a politician of no great import in Canada. Notability is borderline. Kelly Martin 01:31, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • There never was a copyvio notice. CDC only pointed it out on this VfD page above. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would one handle the copyvio if it never went through the copyvio process? Delete the history up to the copyvio? --Deathphoenix 03:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd take it an admin would be bold and do so, unless there was something else retrievable in the history. Samaritan 14:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable figure in Canadian politics. Capitalistroadster 02:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in its non-copyvio form, per CDC (and thanks, CDC). --Deathphoenix 03:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a protest against the idea that notability should be important in VfD. Klonimus 04:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for two reasons. It's a copyvio and copyright violation protocol should be followed, which calls for the new version to be written on the Temp page, and two, to counter Klonimus's extremism. RickK 04:26, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in spite of the fact that Klonimus is in favor of it. --Angr/comhrá 06:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Klonimus should read WP:POINT and abide with it. Radiant_* 08:54, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as an important politician. Notability itself, for the record, can become very POV. --Jamyskis 11:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's the president of the second-largest political party in canada, one that could form (<shudder>) the next government. Even if you think lack of notability is sufficient grounds for deletion, how could you think that he is non-notable? Ground Zero 14:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In my defense, the article didn't state that he was anything other than a minor politician, and I don't profess to be an expert in Canadian politics. IMO, the notability of a subject should be evident from the article itself. The notable content was there, but it's buried all the way at the bottom -- normally notability is established early on. My mistake for not reading as deeply as I should. Kelly Martin 14:40, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have now listed it at Copyright problems and put a copyvio template on it, as should have been done when the copyvio was first discovered. A new version can be written at Don Plett/Temp. RickK 04:58, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

    • Disputing this because I see no evidence of a copyvio in the latest version of the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I sent a message to CDC's talk page asking him to write it, but you cited him in your edit summary, so I think it's okay. --Deathphoenix 18:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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 Transwikied by Dmcdevit. Golbez 01:28, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Probity[edit]

Dictionary definition - redirect to Wiktionary - Tom Barnwell

This page is now preserved 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 Speedied. Golbez 01:28, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Brennan Keegan[edit]

vanity page --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 02:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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 Speedied. Golbez 01:28, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

B.D.C.[edit]

This article is about a 'secret' organization. Since secret organizations can not be verified they are generally considered non-encyclopedic. Google hits=0 for most of the material (the acronym B.D.C. has several unrelated meanings), I tried several forms without success. Page was created by an anon and this is the IP's only edit. This may be a hoax. Should be deleted if it can't be verified.RJFJR 02:13, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I nominated it for Speedy deletion as well.EvilPhoenix
This page is now preserved 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. Golbez 01:28, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

HYBRID (RPG)[edit]

Non-notable kookery. Let's not all make fun of the crazy kid, now. -Sean Curtin 02:16, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Pointless (and possibly joke) RPG with a link to one of the most pointless and longest text pages ever. Nestea 03:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bwa? ESkog 03:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 04:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete. PedanticallySpeaking 16:27, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fascinating. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 19:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way to confusing Greyhead 20:47, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:15, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete -- not notable, still somewhat interesting as psychoceramicruft. Haikupoet 00:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not pass GO, go directly to Delete. Mothperson 01:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too bad, though; if this were original, it'd be BJAODN material for sure. A Man In Black 09:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • LMAO. I found this on the internet like a year ago, and yes, the kid is out there where the buses don't run. He is continuing to write new rules I see. He should start his own wiki for the RPG alone. That way it can be user-edited so that it makes actually sense to the unmedicated reader. (delete) — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:00, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:29, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Banana Wolfing[edit]

Original research, not encyclopedic. The term "banana wolfing" returns zero hits on google. There is little scientific evidence to support most of the article's claims, except for the statement "Bananas, being high in tryptophan, have the potential of being a relaxant." Thus, the rest of the article is original research. Since the tryptophan content of bananas is already mentioned in the tryptophan article, this article should be deleted. - Jersyko 02:34, May 13, 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 Speedied. Golbez 01:29, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

List of surnames from smaller cultures[edit]

Hilarious. Not only is the title POV, but the list deserves a place on the list of shortest articles (entire text was "Spevack"). This either needs retitling and greatly extending, or getting rid of (and since we already have various lists of surnames by nationality, I'd favour the latter). Grutness...wha? 03:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't think there's a surname on the planet that can not be fit into a more precise list of surnames by nationality or similar affiliation (except maybe fanciful surnames, such as where gadflys legally change their name to a number). But I don't see the harm in it, so no vote. -- BDAbramson thimk 03:43, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Speedy as Patent Nonsense. NatusRoma 03:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, this should have been speedied under point 1. No meaningful content or history. Megan1967 04:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. RickK 04:27, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would have speedied this as short article with very little contentif it hadn't come here. Delete DJ Clayworth 04:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, no meaningful content. Mgm|(talk) 08:22, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. PedanticallySpeaking 16:27, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: At the risk of pedantry, I think that someone should point out that Wikipedia:criteria for speedy deletion#Articles point #1 reads Very short articles with little or no context.... It's an x not an n, and it's a significantly different concept. On the other hand, Wikipedia:criteria for speedy deletion#General point #1 reads No meaningful content or history (e.g. random characters). See patent nonsense. There's been a lot of discussion of what patent nonsense means, but this doesn't seem to qualify. No vote (only because consensus seems to be strong anyway). Andrewa 18:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Deleted. No context. Content was: Spevack {{listdev}} Mikkalai 20:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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

Snadium[edit]

Patent nonsense. No hits in google. Samw 03:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy deleted as nonsense.-gadfium 04:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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 (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Sanders[edit]

2005 British parliamentary candidate who came in 4th with 4.3% of the vote. The constituency itself was only notable in that the Labour majority was reduced, and the victor seems to be an unordinary MP. Delete. NatusRoma 03:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I think 4.3% is very good for a Green candidate in a national election. Kappa 07:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, every other politician seems to find his or her way into Wikipedia, so why not this guy? Jamyskis 12:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of stronger notability is provided. Losing candidates from major parties for a nation's highest office generally get enough detailed media coverage and general public attention to be notable. A fourth-place finisher from a minor party for an ordinary legislative seat, however, isn't encyclopedic unless there was some really major issue related to that candidate's involvement. No indication of that is in the article. Kappa continues campaign against notability with above vote; Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Barno 14:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fair enough, though Robert Kilroy-Silk made it into fourth place as well in his constituency, rather embarrassingly for him, yet he still warrants a place. In any case, it's your opinion and I respect that. Jamyskis 18:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike Sanders, Kilroy was at one point a Labour MP, and appears to have been notable for more than just coming in fourth. The only other bit of trivia related to Jacob Sanders is that he's a nephew of American politician Bernie Sanders. I don't think those two facts warrant inclusion. NatusRoma 19:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any politician who has stood in a national election is notable. -- Jonel 15:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Jonel. His politics does not come into it. 194.203.22.148 15:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have all sorts of obsure politicians here, that's one of the reasons Wikipedia exists! PedanticallySpeaking 16:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Standing in a UK Parliamentary election is not actually that difficult (if you are willing to risk losing your deposit, as Mr Sanders has done), and Mr Sanders was neither extraordinarily successful or unsuccessful. Average Earthman 18:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. – Kaihsu 20:26, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Keep. Losing a parlimentary seat isn't quite notable, but the (trans-Atlantic) familial connections to other politicians pushes it to notability. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:18, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Keep. – mildly notable for his good share of the vote, but even so, I can't see any reason why standing in a parliamentary election does not justify an article. It's not that hard to do so, agreed, but then not that many people do it, and those that do often have other, interesting, attributes. Naturenet 21:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a lost cause, but I have to protest at this notabilizing of everybody who ever ran for public office. Millions of people do this every year. Most of them have fewer accomplishments than are listed on our typical vanity page created by a high school sophomore. It's absurd that we reject successful businesspeople as "self-advertisers" and people with some community stature as "vanity", but carefully list every idiot who got 100 people to sign their candidacy petition! ---Isaac R 02:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Running for parliament is not the same as running for a local council, so "millions of people" doesn't apply to this case. The concept of "notable" should not get in the way of "verifiable and important to users". If wikipedia is doing its job of explaining national politics, it needs to cover these idiots minor party candidates. Kappa 06:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can I just point out an error in Isaac R's comment? It's not 100 signatures needed to run for UK Parliament. It's ten. Oh, and 500 quid for the deposit. Oh, and you can't be bankrupt, a judge, a bishop, a peer or in the army. That's about it really. Average Earthman 10:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sanders, however, also received the Green Party nomination for his office, if I understand the facts. Getting that nomination presumably took more than 10 signatures. This is still borderline notable IMO, but the family connection with a quite notable USA politician makes this entry interesting (should be expanded though). The fact politics "runs in the family" and so on. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:21, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
      • Who said anything about local elections? There are about a hundred national legislatures on this planet, with a collective membership of maybe 20,000. I guess I was overestimating when I said that millions run for these 20,000 seats every year, but it's gotta be in the high six figures. Is every single one of these people notable? Or are British politicians more notable than others? ---Isaac R 17:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This wasn't a particularly good result even for a minor party candidate. Do we include every candidate at a UK general election in recent years? This must be thousands of people. If you vote to keep this, you are setting a very problematic precedent. We would have to include candidates for legislatures in other important countries. You were warned! I'm prepared to include all MPs in recent years. PatGallacher 11:18, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
Don't forget to read this before you do. And don't sweat about precedents. Naturenet 15:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have fun with that, PatGallacher. Also remember Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 17:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not paper, but it not a general knowledge base either. The "not paper" argument says we draw our boundaries very broadly -- but we do draw them. Please don't trot it out every time you disagree with other people's definition of notability -- it's not relevent. ---Isaac R 17:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have now read these linked articles, and I stand by my vote to delete. There are over 600 seats in the UK House of Commons, an article for every MP in recent years (which I am prepared to go along with) already takes us into 4 figures. An article for every candidate, or even every one from the dozen or so semi-serious parties with significant representation in elected authorities must take us into 5 figures. And then you have the issue of candidates from other countries... PatGallacher 21:00, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • I remind people that wikipedia is not paper when they use arguments about "thousands of people", or even tens of thousands of people. Kappa 20:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge database: "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement." I don't think that getting 4.3% of the vote in a Parliamentary election is really an achievement. For example, [3] estimates 3,521 candidates for the 2005 general election. Going back even a decade suggests upward of 10,000 candidates. Thus, standing in a Parliamentary election is not in itself a notable achievement. Something more than the bare fact of candidacy is necessary to prove sufficient notoriety. NatusRoma 21:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kappa, I've responded to your "not paper" argument any number of times, and you've simply ignored me. Ok, you have no obligation to do so. Bu if don't want to defend your argument, don't complain when nobody pays attention to it. ---Isaac R 01:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that anyone interesting in this election will be interested in its candidates indicates adequate notoriety. Kappa 21:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had a friend in college whose roommate's brother ran for Congress in California in 1980 and lost. I don't even remember the guy's name. But if this article is kept, I'll call my friend and see if he remembers his name, then we'll collaborate on a 3000-word aricle about the guy. You know, just in the interest of wasting everybody's time on such highly "notable" material. C W Merchant 20:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Get the name, do the research, write the article. I'll read it, and if anyone puts it on VFD, I'll vote to keep it. -- Jonel 01:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better get started, because this VfD is headed for a "no consensus", which is effectively the same as a "keep". ---Isaac R 02:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a politician who didn't win a seat is not notable. Cedars 15:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete you do realize that there are hundreds of thousands of people that ran for national parliaments? Or even been elected there? Grue 18:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Failed minor candidate who garnered a tiny percentage of the vote. Many comments here describe him as a politician, which is inaccurate. To be a politician you have to win an election. Gamaliel 07:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not elected = not notable. Radiant_* 12:47, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As long as the article is free of POV and vanity, his notability is sufficiently established. A measurable percentage of votes in a national election (especially when that nation is so central to this language version of WP) is well within a reasonable threshold of notability. Dystopos 21:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Kingturtle 02:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete →Iñgōlemo← talk 04:49, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Keep of course Tedneeman 23:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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. Golbez 01:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Eaglesweb[edit]

looks to me like a vanity page for his own webpage - delete -- Mariocki TALK 04:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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 (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Menomena[edit]

Bandcruft. Notability not established in article. Kelly Martin 04:19, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Speedy Delete if no one objects. Vanity. --Chiacomo 04:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:NMG. Their website is very very ugly. --bainer 05:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as band vanity. -Jamyskis 12:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. PedanticallySpeaking 16:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and cleanup. The article is terrible but I doubt its band vanity. Probably released artist: see here and the 23,800 Google hits for Menomena. That said, [www.menomena.com their website] isn't for the epileptic. 20:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Allmusic has writeup, and album in national release. so they reach notable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:27, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it is improved to meet the music-importance criteria. Vegaswikian 07:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has completed a national tour of the US and released an album according to their Allmusic.com article. [4] Capitalistroadster 08:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vain. Radiant_* 12:47, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete →Iñgōlemo← talk 04:51, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Keep for the reasons that Capitalistroadster listed. Clearly Diluted 02:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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. Golbez 01:31, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Chien chern khor[edit]

Not notable. DJ Clayworth 04:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, most likely vanity. Students are not encyclopaedic. --bainer 05:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete. Vanity - Barfooz 09:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. --Jamyskis 11:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. PedanticallySpeaking 16:29, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy if at all possible, otherwise delete (I note that a userfication pitch has been made on the talk page, and that's really all that can be done to notify the poster in a case like this). -- BDAbramson thimk 18:45, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 20:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenga[edit]

tyrenga shows zero google hits and duplicates the Beast of Exmoor article - Merge and redirect with Beast of Exmoor -- Mariocki TALK 04:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The proper response would be to add the {{{merge}}} tag, but now that it's here, I vote Merge and redirect to Beast of Exmoor also. --bainer 04:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. For reasons stated by Thebainer. PedanticallySpeaking 16:30, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Beast of Exmoor is outdated and presents this animal as a mythical beast. Photos prove otherwise and a new Zoo-ological name is given to support this. Zero google hits mean absolutely nothing. Try looking up "Bexmoor Cat" which was published in the British tabloids- no hits as well. Merge and redirect Beast of Exmoor article to Tyrenga

  • Delete. This is the new name given to the mysterious large cat formerly known as.... Who has given it a new name, a British tabloid? The article's author? Its nonsense. This, of course, is the best part: But the skeptics have been proven wrong. The big cat that roams Britain is a mystery no more. The Tyrenga has been photographed on at least two occasions.... Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster were photographed on considerably more than 2 occasions...and they still don't exist. There is nothing here to bother merging with Beast of Exmoor. func(talk) 04:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete→Iñgōlemo← talk 04:53, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:32, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Burning Wench[edit]

vanity band page. "Burning Wench" gets exactly 3 Google hits —Wahoofive (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, band vanity, fails to establish notability as per WP:NMG. --bainer 05:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. vitriolic, offensive. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete, those three Google hits aren't even related to the band. Non-notable and vanity, although I'm not sure "vitriolic" and "offensive" are really good reasons here. --Jamyskis 11:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. PedanticallySpeaking 16:30, May 13, 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. Golbez 01:35, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ashburn Xtreme[edit]

      • VfD split since most people have different opinions on Ashburn and Hayden. Radiant_* 12:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

199 google results, copyvio, started by vandal. Lotsofissues 04:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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. Golbez 01:34, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Bob Hayden[edit]

Bob Hayden, chief of an amateur league. 100 hits for name with USA hockey, I'm grouping together because the pages are both started by same vandal. Lotsofissues 04:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EvilPhoenix
  • Keep and expand Bob Hayden. Hayden has had a major role in the development of hockey rules in the United States, both in his current position and in his former position as head of the National Ice Hockey Officials Association. Scimitar
  • Agree with Scimitar. PedanticallySpeaking 16:30, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have edited Bob Hayden to further show notability and flesh out the article. Scimitar
  • Keep Hayden. -- BDAbramson thimk 18:47, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Keep Bob Hayden, BTW there is no VFD notice on his page. Capitalistroadster 08:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hayden. Radiant_* 12:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP Kingturtle 02:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep →Iñgōlemo← talk 04:55, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hesher[edit]

Seeming hoax or neologism. Of the 63 Google hits, only a handful are for this meaning. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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. Golbez 01:35, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Metal/punk[edit]

Metal/punk is a music genre combining metal and punk. Nothing links here. Let's delete it before anything does.—Wahoofive (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to find something appropriate to propose a redirect, such as hardcore punk, Metalcore, or Grunge, but nothing seemed particularly appropriate. Also, the article asserts that punk and metal are seemingly disparate, yet from a brief glance at the punk pages, it does not seeem like that would be true, so I call the accuracy of the article into question as well. EvilPhoenix

  • Delete. An article on the crossover of metal into punk and vice versa might be useful, but I wouldn't call it a specific genre. Most bands that are influenced by both styles will call themselves "metal" or "punk" or (most likely) just "rock." Soundguy99 16:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or possibly merge with Metalcore). Accuracy may be imperfect, but can be improved. Musical genre is notable, especially if explanation and links expanded. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:24, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think this is a real genre of music Stancel 00:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obscure genre title. Nothing which cant be found in Hardcore punk and Metalcore, already. Megan1967 01:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quale 07:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cross-section. Radiant_* 12:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete →Iñgōlemo← talk 04:56, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (already transwikied). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Percussive maintenance[edit]

Partial VfD, didn't see where it originated. Article is currently flagged for transwiki. Abstain. Radiant_* 17:39, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Transwiki and probably merge to an article on maintenance of electronics; this is a widely-used term, though it's tongue-in-cheek. But I doubt it has potential to become encyclopedic enough for its own article. Barno 18:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. --Carnildo 19:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If you can't fix it with a hammer, it's really broken." Soundguy99 14:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In NASCAR Nextel Cup auto racing, teams which spend $15 million a year on shops and precision machine tools and computer-controlled test equipment and the best engineers still rely on a sledgehammer and a baseball bat when a wreck knocks a fender against a tire. Barno 16:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary and delete. →Iñgōlemo← talk 04:58, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Just transwikied for you. --Dmcdevit 23:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and merge with an electronics per Barno. This was actually my article before I started wondering if it really belonged in Wiktionary, so I flagged it as a tranwiki candidate to gauge opinion. Jamyskis 07:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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. Golbez 01:36, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Purple koosh[edit]

Bandity. "Purple koosh" +Barkmeier gets zero Google hits. RickK 05:14, May 13, 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. However, Sherurcij, this wouldn't have happened if you hadn't saved a sub-sub-stub. You ARE allowed to make a full article before hitting Save. --Golbez 01:37, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Willie Morris Bioff[edit]

Not notable, little useful content --  B.d.mills  (Talk)


Yeah, how about we wait till I actually add content, seeing as how the page was added about 3 minutes ago? The whole purpose of a stub is to give the very minimum of detail until you, or somebody else, has time to add more.

  • rolls eyes*

--Sherurcij 05:25, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, seems to be real, see this Time article. Involved with Frank Nitti in extorting Hollywood studios. --bainer 05:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My apologies if I was too quick for you. If one is editing an article, it helps if the article isn't saved until it is more complete. Otherwise mistakes like this can happen. All too often such skeleton articles aren't actively being edited and a vfd may be justified. In this case, the article stub would be improved if it had more information than a three-word sentence without a verb. --  B.d.mills  06:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes! I agree with that completely. Try to make a more complete article before posting. I do. Mgm|(talk) 08:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Sherurcij, I'd like to offer you a friendly encouragement to strive for politeness. I'm sure that calmly explaining here on the Vfd talk page that you will be imminently adding to the article will provide adequate reason for a stay on deletion. You've been on Wikipedia a good while now, and it looks like you've been working hard to make improvements during that time, so well done. I look forward to seeing this article improve in the near future. EvilPhoenix

  • Keep, Times article suggests it's worth an article. Mgm|(talk) 08:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: only 3 words - is it not a {d}-case? AN 09:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as #1. Radiant_* 11:06, May 13, 2005 (UTC) Keep as expanded. Radiant_* 16:01, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hurry up and add something, or delete. Stubs are good, but even they tend to be longer than three words. --Jamyskis 11:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless somebody does expand the stub soon. A page with so little information and where over 30% of the text is mis-spelled is not really worth keeping. Keep - now a decent article. Naturenet 12:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quickly jumping on people scares them off. Please don't bite the newbies. PedanticallySpeaking 16:33, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • How does an editor who's been active since October 2004 with 500+ edits qualify as a newbie? android↔talk 18:22, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless expanded (even a little). There's no point to keeping a three-word nanostub around. Keep as rewritten. Thanks, BD2412. android↔talk 19:46, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I have found significant material on this person, and am expanding the article now. -- BDAbramson thimk 19:12, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Keep as re-written. --Carnildo 19:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new version looks great. Keep as it is. Jamyskis 20:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. If the article is indeed kept, it should be moved to William Morris Bioff. -- BDAbramson thimk 21:08, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Keep VfD abused as 'emergency cleanup' scores again. Good work, BD2412. --Unfocused 21:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original content of the article was: A Mafia extotionist. That's a pretty clear speedy candidate under criterion A1. I wouldn't call this abuse of VfD. android↔talk 21:55, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's abusing the VfD page. If people who are watching the page want to try and spend time salvaging an article, more power to them. I've done a little bit here and there to articles that I thought were worth keeping. Either way, we end up with less garbage, or better articles. EvilPhoenix
  • Strong Keep.  BDAbramson thimk has done an excellent job of expanding the article into a quality piece of work. Well done. It shows the Wikipedia system is working - an unsatisfactory article that should be deleted has been improved into a good article worth keeping. --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 00:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now, with huge extensions => Keep AN 10:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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 (transwikied already). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crunch time[edit]

Dicdef—Wahoofive (talk) 05:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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. Golbez 01:38, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Koontz[edit]

My hoaxometer is blinking... I have not been able to verify this. Can anyone else? I would suggest redirecting this title to Jeff Koons, as it is not an entirely improbable misspelling. Uppland 06:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Smells like a hoax to me, too. I've done a fair bit of research into Warhol for my job as an artist and arts writer, and I don't recognise the name. The text is pretty hoax-y too. Grutness...wha? 07:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , unless verifiedEvilPhoenix
  • Delete, unverifiable, possible hoax. Megan1967 09:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. PedanticallySpeaking 16:34, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Definite hoax. Nothing in this article googles appropriately. A valiant effort, though...I give it 6 out of 10. func(talk) 05:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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. Golbez 01:41, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Illusion avenue[edit]

Band vanity -- Longhair | Talk 08:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 08:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. --Jamyskis 09:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 09:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.EvilPhoenix
  • Delete. 22 google hits for "Illusion Avenue". Identified as an internet-distributed band no different from the rest. Hedley 20:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anvil with the book[edit]

Short, unclear. Maybe it should be a stub, maybe it should be cleaned up. --BradBeattie 12:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be improved, but NOT deleted. It is a valid reference to a major european party and its history. --Yafuetodo

It should be improved but we need a GFDL-friendly picture. --Error 23:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this was nominated on May 5, but not added to the vfd page until now - I'm adding it to today's page to give it full time for discussion. sjorford →•← 08:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seastrunk[edit]

Requesting deletion, because Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base (genealogical entries) --Eponymous Coward 08:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite dish installation[edit]

Given that this article is written entirely in a non-encyclopedic format about a topic that is non-encyclopedic, I recommend this article for deletion. See What Wikipedia is Not, subsection "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base." - Barfooz 09:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SIV.AG[edit]

Advertisement for a company with an annual turnover of 14.2 Million €. If the noteability can't be established and the language toned down a lot, Delete. --S.K. 11:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cleanup. It's spam, but it's also a quite (allegedly) significant company, so an article should be available about it.
  • Cleanup. NPOV articles about companies over arbitrary size are encyclopedic. --Unfocused 15:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Notable German company. Megan1967 01:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article only needs to be cleaned up a bit. But I agree with Megan and I researched the company and it is a notable and interresting company. Just ask the guys to clean it a bit up.
This page is now preserved 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. Golbez 01:42, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

MLSMORPG[edit]

Appears to be nothing more than a jab at World of Warcraft. Orange Goblin 11:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not worth salvaging Naturenet 12:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POVs are a poor substitute for the increasingly popular NPOVs. --EvilZak 14:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — No google hits outside of wikipedia references. It's also unclear what the technology difference is between this model and MMORPGs, which presumably also use multiple servers. — RJH 15:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV trash. Possibly neologism. Nestea 15:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless, most MMORPGS use this technology, waste of space.
  • Delete Neologism, gets 4 hits on Google, and two of them are Wiki mirrors, the other two are completely unrelated to this topic. Stancel 00:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently the author has never played Everquest or Ultima Online. A Man In Black 09:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd call it a sub-neologism, and possibly a redundant one at that, per RJH. I'm a Tibia gamer myself. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:16, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urophagia[edit]

Neologism, 12 google hits. Thue | talk 11:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect urine drinking to urophagia or both to urolagnia. With fecel paraphilias, a distinction is drawn between simply using the waste for sexual arousal and actual consuming it; such a distinction is less common with urine because fewer participants engage in one and not the other. I'm in between Kappa's and FreplySpang's opinions. --Gemini6Ice 10:10, 13 May 2005 (EST)
  • Delete joke text. Redirect to Urine. The term may just about be a word, but even if so, this entry is not encyclopaedic. Naturenet 12:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This entry is entirely factual and encylopedic, albeit short. Rename to urine drinking (which gets 14,500 google hits) and expand. Kappa 13:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to urolagnia, which is a recognized condition that this appears to be a part of. Even though I edited it a little, I'm not at all convinced that this isn't a neologism, albeit one that seems "properly constructed". --Unfocused 15:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, I change my vote as above. --Unfocused 15:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Urine, which covers some of the medicinal reasons why people drink urine and links to Urolagnia. FreplySpang (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stancel 00:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Urine. Megan1967 01:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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. (In the end the debate was about whether to merge or to keep, the keepers are in the majority) Sjakkalle 12:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1968 in France[edit]

  • Delete Merge with 1968 and delete - No content save a single vague reference to a student protest. - Tεxτurε 14:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Stubs, especially stubs for "Events in (Year) in (Place)" take time to develop. I think France is more than large enough to have plenty of notable events in 1968 to fill a page. --Unfocused 15:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change vote to Redirect. I don't know if it's more appropriate to redirect to the comprehensive and excellent History of France, or simply redirect to 1968. My slight preference is to redirect to 1968 so that browsers who type "2004 in France" can type the same for different years, and get coverage for the year where a "#### in France" article doesn't exist, yet still get French information for those years where there is content. Merge with 1968 and delete doesn't cover that as gracefully. Redirect to May 1968, suggested below, implies that only one event took place that year in France. --Unfocused 19:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, definitely keep after revision by Grutness. "XXXX in France" should also encompass articles that wouldn't be widely known enough for the general year, and I think this is the case here. I would now argue that in general, similar "XXXX in Place" articles should redirect to the general year referenced until someone takes the effort to find at least one item "not worthy" for the general XXXX year article, plus all relevant items from the more general year article that relate to the place. How many vote changes do I get before you cut me off?  ;)--Unfocused 15:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless somebody wants to expand the page. Current content is insufficient, compared to 2004 in France. — RJH 15:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep with these revisions. Thanks. — RJH 17:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If memory serves, this was a year of massive student protests/riots in France, similar to (maybe inspired by?) student protests in the U.S. around this time, but more widespread & violent. Soundguy99 16:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to existing detailed article on this subject at May 1968. FreplySpang (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read the rewrite. Thanks, Grutness, for the effort, but my vote stands. I don't think we need a whole series of "year in country" articles. Many things did happen in 1968 in France, but IMO "1968 in France" with no further qualification does refer to the events of May 1968. FreplySpang (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is weak now, but in time it should improve. EvilPhoenix
  • Merge with main year article at 1968 - many things happening in France at that time had an impact on the surrounding countries. Radiant_* 17:37, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with 1968 for now. We can always spin it back off if we determine that 1968 is filling up with French events. ESkog 18:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The new edits are enough to justify to me that the article should be spun off the main page. Put me in the keep column. ESkog 07:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to May 1968 which is almost certainly what someone searching for this was looking for. --Tothebarricades.tk 19:36, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Change vote to Keep. Good save - but the lack of other "Years in France" except for a few is troublesome. --Tothebarricades.tk 16:48, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because there isn't much content doesn't mean it won't be added later by people who know about what happened in France in the year 1968 Stancel 00:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 1968. Megan1967 01:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definite opportunities for growth. The student protest was big, but other things happened in France in 1968 which should be worth reporting, surely? The Grenoble Winter Olympics, an attempted impeachment of Pompidou, and the first nuclear tests at Moruroa, for instance. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete it. There's nothing worth merging with May 1968 (i.e. there's nothing at 1968 in France that isn't already at May 1968), and anything else worthwhile that happened in France in 1968 can be listed at 1968 and/or History of France. --Angr/comhrá 06:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a look now that I've had a go at it. Grutness...wha? 07:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well done Grutness for this.Capitalistroadster 09:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 1968 and possibly with May 1968 (but the latter is much more extensive in describing student revolt already). Weak keep (the additions make it stand on its own, if minimally). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:25, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • By Grutness's request I took another look at it, but I still hold that many of the events there (e.g. the olympic games) were of sufficiently global impact to get this merged with 1968 in general, as I voted above. Splitting the year categories by country is, I believe, overspecialized categorization. Radiant_* 11:42, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP Kingturtle 02:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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. Golbez 01:42, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Fractal jack[edit]

227 google hits for "Fractal jack" does not make them a notable band. I don't think we need an article on every band in existance. Perhaps an article on "Thrash metal bands of Scotland" or something could at least tie them into one article. --Silversmith 16:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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. Golbez 01:43, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Cenosillicaphobia[edit]

Probable nonsense, it's not in my rather large OED, answers.com dictionary or my (admittedly old edition second hand) medical dictionary, and gets 47 google results, of which several are wikipedia+mirrors and none appear to be verifiable and look a lot like jokes to me. Joe D (t) 16:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Wiktionary, pending verification, though it seems to check out in Google. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete. A Google search shows it's a joke, and not a very common one at that. --Carnildo 19:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google gives 48 hits, which must mean it's a neologism rather than an established phobia. Alot of the results are Wiki mirrors and others are joke sites. Stancel 00:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax/joke (but not funny enough for BJAODN). --Angr/comhrá 06:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Silica only has 1 L anyway. alteripse 15:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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. Unable to userfy. Golbez 01:45, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Eddie Royal[edit]

Not notable. (What sport is this, anyway?) Deb 17:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not sufficiently notable. College football is the sport, based on the positions played: "Quarterback, Runningback, Kick/Punt Returner, and Wide Receiver". An article, even a bio-stub, should specify what activity the person does that supposedly makes him significant. Barno 17:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy if at all possible, otherwise delete - looks like a vanity page. -- BDAbramson thimk 17:42, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Delete. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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

Georgia Rizk[edit]

A misspelling of Georgiana Rizk. 500LL 17:17, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • So boldly redirect - common enough potential mis-spelling that it deserves such. -- BDAbramson thimk 17:43, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above Kappa 19:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect done. The content was identical. A suspicion of copying from somewhere else. Mikkalai 20:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brandin Lea[edit]

Does not contain any info that is not in the main Flickerstick article, and does not link to any other pages

This page is now preserved 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, already transwikied. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes[edit]

Not a disambiguation page. I believe this material was decided to appropriate for Wiktionary. Rmhermen 17:52, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge into John. -- BDAbramson thimk 19:48, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
    • I just tagged Juan (which has about the same amount of info) with a Merge into John notice as well. However, it would make no sense to delete this one and keep that one. -- BDAbramson thimk 19:52, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Keep and extend, as well as Juan (cf. Don Juan) --Hans-AC 01:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki personal names to Wiktionary. Uppland 21:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Radiant_* 12:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I just transwikied it. --Dmcdevit 23:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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, already transwikied. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hans[edit]

Not a disambiguation page. I believe this material was decided to appropriate for Wiktionary. Rmhermen 17:55, May 13, 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 the rewrite. Sjakkalle 09:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting of the elm[edit]

  • Mason-cruft? Nonsense? Rmhermen 18:09, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Please look at the Priory of Sion hoax in relation to this article. It has nothing to do with the Knights Templar. Rmhermen 23:32, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree that Priory of Sion is quite possibly not the historic body it is often seen to be - thanks for drawing that to our attention. But the existence of a substantial article about that body demonstrates the point that concrete reality is not a pre-requisite of notability. Cutting of the elm, like the Priory, is a notable tale of a legendary event - and, real or unreal, its notability is what we must consider. For examples of what I mean, see here [5] where the mythical event is used, rather feebly, as a simile about the Iraq war; and here [6] where it appears in the lyrics of a folk song. The event has notability beyond being simply a stand-alone fairy story. Naturenet 07:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just to be clear about my position. Rmhermen 23:32, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Cleanup, wikify, and merge to Knights Templar, or just delete if sources can't be found to verify this legend. Not nonsense but poorly written overview. I'm not sure whether this was a widely-retold image for centuries, or just another invention from The Da Vinci Code or a similar modern exploitation. Barno 18:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep good rewrite, which discusses limited verifiability of topic, and cites historical sources from the next centuries after the 1188 event, whatever that event truly was that led to the legends. There were a lot of period exploitations of the core legend, adapted to support the agenda of whomever was doing the rewriting. Bonus points to Naturenet for the research and rewrite. Barno 23:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verify and Merge, Knights Templar, as above. EvilPhoenix
  • Strong keep and clean-up The incident is well documented and appears on Google in many places retold in different ways, albeit that these may have a common source. It may be apocryphal but is certainly of significance and has its own name. Reason enough for an article. This article, although not devoid of merit, starts poorly, degenerates into gibberish, and is too obviously transcribed from another, uncredited, source. Editing is required, not deletion. Naturenet 21:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified Keep. Good clean-up and cites to sources. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:59, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean-up I searched Google and this might have been a real event. here's one of the results [7] Stancel 00:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it wasn't real, it certainly seems to be a legend with some significance. The fact that it has its own name is for me the clincher. Naturenet 15:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would probably vote to keep a decent stub but current article is too substandard to keep. Capitalistroadster 09:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with reservations. This article very weak but based on a quick review of the results of a Google search, I do think that there is a basis for a "cutting of the oak" entry and perhaps this discussion will trigger someone to improve the article. DS1953 21:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great job, Naturenet. This VfD resulted in a real article! DS1953 20:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Radiant_* 12:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
It's not significant in this context whether or not the story is true or verifiable. It probably is not - but then neither are most myths and legends. The question is whether it is notable. This clearly is notable for some people, with over 600 Google hits for a search on 'Gisors Elm', most of which are different and almost all of which refer to this tale. The article is poor but the subject is not. Naturenet 13:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being intrigued by this curious story I've put my money where my mouth is and rewritten the entire page. I guess those who said to delete were right - not a word of the original page survives. I still think it's a notable story and now a reasonable article. See how you like it now. Naturenet 19:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I like it now. The Knights Templars stuff is dubious, but the meeting of Henry II and Philippe II seems to be an old and well established story, true or not. func(talk) 05:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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. Golbez 01:46, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Jyiis[edit]

no such creature as this or grephauin in reality - and google and I agree that neither are notable in fiction--Doc Glasgow 19:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Cimino[edit]

Vanity page (posted by K357R31 which is identical to the "nick" used by an Andrew Cimino in registering for a Quake convention); a Google search on this name yields 47 hits, of which only 2 or 3 appear to be this same individual, with nothing to indicate he is notable. RussBlau 19:13, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of DVD[edit]

Impossible to maintain. Not meaningful. Heavy server load. DVD can mean many thing, e.g. movie DVD, application software DVD, OS DVD, etc--minghong 19:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Too broad, impossible to maintain. --Carnildo 19:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep and merge. This would be useful if it was a list of all the various things DVDs were used for (movie, DVD audio, etc.) and then merged with DVD. --Mitsukai 20:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The original poster hasn't logged in since last September, and this would be a ridiculously huge project, for marginal benefit. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete, unmaintainable list. Megan1967 01:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable. 23skidoo 13:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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. Golbez 01:46, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

List of R1 DVD[edit]

Impossible to maintain. Not meaningful. Heavy server load. DVD can mean many thing, e.g. movie DVD, application software DVD, OS DVD, etc--minghong 19:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Too broad, impossible to maintain. --Carnildo 19:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete hopeless project--Doc Glasgow 23:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable list. Megan1967 00:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable. A better idea might be to create an article listing major films, TV shows that are available in other regions, but not as yet R1. 23skidoo 13:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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. Golbez 01:48, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

List of R1 DVD by pictures[edit]

Impossible to maintain. Not meaningful. Heavy server load. Kill dialup users. DVD can mean many thing, e.g. movie DVD, application software DVD, OS DVD, etc--minghong 19:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Netflix lists about 40,000 titles (all for region 1) — we could easily fit those in. Not.—Wahoofive (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Wikipedia is not paper', but sheesh this could be big - what about re-releases? And is anyone up for regions 2?--Doc Glasgow 19:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too broad, impossible to maintain, and loading the page in any sort of completed form will kill the servers. --Carnildo 19:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainable list, potential servercide. Yikes, imagine trying to load that sucker on dialup. Even if it were separated out by first letter, as was suggested on the article's talk page, it would be horrendous. android↔talk 22:00, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unmaintainable list. Megan1967 01:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Either it will be grossly incomplete or it will be a massive article with thousands of pictures. Firebug 06:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unmaintainable and too big to consider even under "Wikipedia is not paper". Wikipedia is not Guzzlefish either. I disagree that we need to cater to dial-up users as most of the world is going to cable modems, but this one is a wee bit too much. 23skidoo 13:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry pancake[edit]

Nominated as a speedy due to lack of notability. This is not among the criteria for speedy deletion. No vote from me. Dbiv 19:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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. Article was salvaged from a speedy. Sjakkalle 09:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cross[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion as "vanity" but the article and talk page make some claims to notability so I'm bringing it here. No vote. Kappa 19:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep MDogg20 is a former Xtreme Pro Wrestling (XPW), and CZW star, currently working in Irish Whip Wrestling. --- Paulley
  • Keep. CZW's something like one of the biggest ten federations in the world and XPW's known too. To be honest, its close to Strong Keep. Hedley 20:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.EvilPhoenix
  • Keep. I don't know if Matt Cross himself is important enough to warrant a wikipedia article, but he has as much right to be included as a lot of other indy wrestlers. McPhail
This page is now preserved 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Holliman[edit]

Non-notable as far as I can tell. --Tothebarricades.tk 19:18, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. If you are the author of the page, please visit this page. EvilPhoenix

  • Weak Delete. As far as I can tell, he's just a regular climber, without anything particularly notable about him. Scimitar
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Macarro[edit]

Vanity. Non-notable. The most notable thing written in the article is that he has a Masters degree in History. Only Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors and an American 8th grader. --JamesTeterenko 19:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Tothebarricades.tk 19:58, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Comparing the current version with the original draft, I note that the date of birth, names of parents, location of birth, and school attended have all been changed since the article was posted. EvilPhoenix
  • Keep. An editor can be found, but with time this article will improve. I think you need to give it a better chance. Also, just because it does not return any results from google, I do not believe that to be a valid reason for deletion; the guy just does not have any pages made about him! In addition, what do you consider to be 'vanity'? Are not all biographies made for vanity? NO, the purpose of them is to inform you on a person's life, which is excatly what this is doing! Robert Molinaro 18:34, May 13,2005 (EST)
  • Keep. I've changed my vote after I made a major cleanup effort on this article. It now reads much better, has no spelling errors, and is ready to be built on. Harro5 22:58, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that it is now more readable. However, what makes this person notable enough for a Wikipedia entry? -- JamesTeterenko 23:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, importance is not explained and its content is chiefly vanity cruft. 119 02:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this person verifiable? Although Macarro is supposed to be notable (according to this article) as a scholar, the article has virtually no information about his scholarly career and, as stated above, Google yields no information about Macarro as a scholar. Also note that the cause and place of his death is given, but no date of death, which leads me to wonder whether Daniel Macarro as described in this article actually existed. Unless his existence is confirmed somehow, delete. --Metropolitan90 03:14, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. Zero Google hits for "Daniel Juan José Mártin Macarro", and only four hits for "Daniel Macarro", of which two are Wikipedia mirrors and the other two have nothing to do with this person. Wouldn't his name by Martín, anyway, not Mártin? Also note that the very original version of the story was entirely different from the current version. RickK 04:43, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not verifiable. The article editing history does not inspire confidence either. Quale 07:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading the original version of this page and seeing how it has changed without any references, this should be deleted. Also, feel free to voice your outrage at Macarro's featured article vote. Gee, this article looks like some awfully sneaky vandalism. Harro5 07:36, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not true. I am Daniel Macarro and this was a stupid joke played by friends of mine. They claim to be making it into the greatest article in wikipedia because they are morons, and yes the accent is over the i not the a.
  • Delete. Well i guess the secret is out. Its true that we [me and my friend] wrote this article as a joke. Its all fake!! Just go ahead and delete it...

You gotta give us props though... keeping it up as long as we did! 64.9.5.21 17:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Michael Carter[edit]

Vanity page. Page was originally created by user "carterartist", and reads like a vanity bio used in "about the artist" or pamphlet blurbs. Cursory Google search yielded no results. --Mitsukai 20:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kambojas[edit]

  • delete. Thoroughly useless as an encyclopedia article. Original research. A list of comments each and every menitioning of Kambojas in each and every text. Note I am not questioning the validity of the topic. I am against this article. IMO it is imposssible to clean it up. It is just a heap of raw data. Mikkalai 20:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, yes. Recently a huge chunk of it was moved into a separate article. Kambojas in Indian Traditions. Amost wikisource. Mikkalai 20:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Utcursch made the move - Maybe it may be good to consult him/her about it? Hedley 20:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I created a separate article because this was requested on article's talk page. Janitors find it hard to work on such long articles. utcursch | talk 06:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure. 451 google hits for Kamboja. Topic is notable but the multitude of info suggests it maybe is original research, or more likely, copyvio from a book (Google doesn't bring up any suggestions of copyvio. Its impossible to clean up and shouldn't be in the mainspace but maybe someone who wants to could take up the task of cleaning it up in their user area? I won't vote delete as its a notable topic with seemingly plenty of info, yet its far too garbled for cleanup. Hedley 20:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. It's too bad it's so garbled, there is a lot of (probably) good data here. Scimitar
  • Keep. Though the article is massive, and in poor condition, in perusing the talk page, it appears that there are those working to clean it up, and respond to critique that the article is too large. It's been a few days since the last edit, but it looks like it is being worked on fairly often. As far as it being original research, those in favor of moving it to Wikisource may be correct, but I do not support deletion. EvilPhoenix
    • On this view, it could be better to move the current text to Kambojas/Temp, and then keep a basic stub until it is cleaned up. This page isn't that you want to see on random page. Hedley 22:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page is now at User:Hedley/Kambojas in case it is deleted during attempts to clean it up. Hedley 22:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked version difference for several recent edits, and it does not appear to me at all that it is cleanup; it is rather pumping more and more raw data into it. The only possible solution is a complete rewrite from scratch, rather than cleanup. Of course, the material may be preserved, but not in the main article space. Heck, from the article it is even not clear whether Kambojas live today or not (or I am just too lazy to find it in the article). Mikkalai 22:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Mikkalai, of course, you are too lazy. The Kambojas still live in northern India, mainly in Panjab (Kamboj/Kambohs) and also in Afghanistan as Siyaposh tribes( Kamoz/Camojes/Kams). Though their numbers have greatly dwindled, and currently, total population still known by their ancient name(s) is etimated to be about 1.5 million approx. pl read: Kambojas and Kambohs section under Kambojas.KLS
    • I admit I am lazy, but not very "too". I am just an average reader. The section you refer me to is not only the very last one, it is some 50 pages down thru heaps and heaps of quotations from ancient texts in sanscrit. What you have written here belong not here, but in the very first lines of the article. I can only explain this by complete disregard of potential readers. IMO the current article is just a scratchpad for someone's original research. Mikkalai 16:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, I know, I know. KLS
    • I do agree that topic is a genuine one and wikipedia should have an article on this, actually I wanted to clean up (my comments on article' talk page), but I gave up, as I found that any cleanup will require a massive re-write, days of efforts, and saying goodbye to a lot of raw data. I suggest editors who placed these materials to remove certain sections and redo the remaining portions. I can do that myself - but I donot want to invite adverse comments, which such an action may entail.--Bhadani 02:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suggest to move all raw data into the talk page and fetch necessary pieces whenever necessary. The article must be made readable ASAP, since I do not deny it is an important topic and I am repeating again and again, my move is to delete the content, not the article itself. Mikkalai 16:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up Stancel 00:55, 14 May 2005(UTC)
  • Keep, it is a worthwhile subject but the references are way too many and too un-structured. I just cleaned up the Alexander and Mauryan Empire parts. Still a lot to be done (slashed?) on the rest of the article. PHG 03:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please notice that my move was against the content, which is to be deleted, because we are not writing research papers here. It is perfectly OK if a new article will be written. Mikkalai 17:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do agree completely with Mikkalai - I did a cleanup of two sections and merged them into one. The entire cleanup is a massive task, and a lot of info will have to be made compact. Let me see what can be done - for last few days, I was engaged in editing the WP:COTW Culture of Ancient Rome, may be this week I will try to do something about this article. I am afraid unless more editors step in, it shall continue to be a difficult task.--Bhadani 19:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Notable topic but article needs work. Capitalistroadster 09:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)pecial:c[reply]
  • Keep- I record a formal vote to keep, though earlier I had given comments here as well as on article discussion page. My only worry is that the size of the article should be made a bit compact, references may be rationalized and duplication should be avoided. Further, cleanup and wikification of the contents must continue on an on-going basis.--Bhadani 01:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and cleanup. Bubamara 23:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup. Deletion is not the solution. Maybe put it at Wikipedia:Article improvement drive. utcursch | talk 06:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • The artical is obviouslly way too long, but I don't see how deleting all of this information helps anybody. I would be for breaking it down into sub articals, but not for deleting it.
above unsigned vote by 4.157.35.40. utcursch | talk 07:38, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. —Theo (Talk) 21:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deguire[edit]

It was actually a dumb hoax 4 years ago. I apologize for my childish behavior back then and vows that any future contribution to Wikipedia will be constructive. --WhereIsMarty (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

appears to be hoax, Louis-Martin Deguire gets no google hits. Rmhermen 20:34, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. A search on Google Canada yields one reference to the name as making hoax entries on an online Thesaurus site. --Mitsukai 20:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax --Scimitar
  • Delete. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 00:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Romulus Junius Brutus Caepio de Montford[edit]

reads like a hoax page. Google yielded no entries.--Mitsukai 20:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Page author also created vanity-seeming page Luke Bright with future predictions, that has already been nominated for nonsense deletion. EvilPhoenix
Comment:I'm a little concerned about Bobby Milligan, who may be making specious additions to the database. User created article Romulus_Junius_Brutus_Caepio_de_Montford, which has come up for VfD, and Luke Bright, which has been nominated for nonsense deletion. I'm concerned that user may also be represented by IP address 195.172.150.2, which has also been making connections and creating articles (such as Tiberius_Junius_Brutus), and seems to have vandalised Junius_Brutus_Booth in [this] edit. Please be aware, and check carefully any additions. Best regards, EvilPhoenix
'Comment on Comment. You need to read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. You accomplish nothing by complaining about other users here, accept to encourage offtopic personal arguments. ---Isaac R 02:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable, possible hoax. Megan1967 00:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Hoax, 0 Google hits for "Romulus Junius Brutus Caepio Vessey de Montford" Stancel 00:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but I do wish I knew where it came from. Doesn't read like your typical hoax. It's like somebody is channeling the ghost of some 19th century conspiracy buff! ---Isaac R 02:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'll agree with that. The writing is excellent, IMHO. But it appears to be excellent fiction, and not anything we can use, sadly. --Mitsukai 03:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del. This guy can write well but this is a hoax. muriel@pt 11:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, context suggests a hoax. Gazpacho 09:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every one of this user's contributions appears to be either a historical hoax or straight vandalism. Algebraist 10:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nord Lead 3[edit]

advertising (nomination by Ben-w)

Delete. EvilPhoenix

  • Delete, advert. Megan1967 00:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Possible copyvio from here? Check under manufacturer "Clavia" Soundguy99 14:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Ernest[edit]

Not notable. r3m0t talk 20:51, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International Holy Order of the Pancake[edit]

This article has already been speedy deleted 11 times from 1 to 13 May 2005 as nonsense. A vfd decision would make it easier to take further action against its constant recreator. Delete as nonsense/bad joke/vanity/not-notable. --Henrygb 21:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 11 times? Wow, that's nuts. Redirect to, oh, I don't know, Pancake to discourage (yeah, right) recreation. Someone ban User:Sillywilly and User:67.164.115.131 for recreating this page and for blanking this discussion, respectively. android↔talk 22:07, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Need I say Delete? I'm one of the people who repeatedly tagged with for speedy deletion over the past several days. The responsible parties should be banned. Kelly Martin 22:21, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 00:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pancake to discourage re-creation. Stancel 00:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete!!! All hail the Glorious Waffle!!! -- BD2412 thimkact 01:08, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Sean Curtin 01:37, May 15, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Society of Iran[edit]

This is a copy and pasting of the bylaws of a society. Also a copyright violation of [8], very possibly.

This page is now preserved 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Feldman (Academic)[edit]

Obvious vanity.José San Martin 22:25, May 13, 2005 (UTC)


Delete. If you are the author of the page, please visit this page. EvilPhoenix

  • Delete, vanity. Megan1967 00:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after expansion. Uppland 04:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC). [Earlier] comment: Not really that obvious vanity, and he is Rouse Ball Professor of English Law at the University of Cambridge. I assume that an English jurist does not get that position without being somewhat notable in his field. No vote yet, but I may vote keep with some expansion. Uppland 04:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: no evidence that Feldman wrote the article himself, looks like it's by a Cambridge student/graduate/enthusiast to me. In the British university system, unlike in the US, the title "Prof" is only given to senior academics, so a Prof at Cambridge is a pretty senior position. A google shows he's also contributed to books and been a legal advisor to the Houses of Parliament. Joe D (t) 20:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have expanded this article and I think it now establishes notability. Joe D (t) 20:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: holding a named chair at Cambridge is notable. Nice job expanding the article to make it encyclopaedic. Ben-w 23:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable academic. Well done Steinsky. Capitalistroadster 09:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article as improved clearly establishes notability. Being titled Professor at a UK university is already an admission that they are more than an average professor (in the US sense), holding a senior chair in Law at the University of Cambridge automatically indicates notability. Average Earthman 08:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. JuntungWu 12:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Kingturtle 02:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:SWAdair. Sjakkalle 10:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mungis[edit]

Text of the article is The name of a fictional character. This article not verifiable because there is no indication of what fictional work this character is from. --Allen3 talk 22:38, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. 770 google hits, but none appears to describe any fictional character (most are in German. -- BD2412 thimkact 23:11, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • delete no real content or context --Doc Glasgow 23:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Search engine hits but none make sense. Rogertudor 23:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily deleted -- very short article with little or no context. SWAdair | Talk 02:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sucanat Addiction[edit]

Original research, not encyclopedic. A google search for "sucanat addiction" produces zero results. Yet another "addiction" article posted by this ip that needs to be deleted. - Jersyko 22:38, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete - Addiction addict? Speculative--Doc Glasgow 23:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia doesn't have a Sucanat article even. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete. A shame there's no sucanat article, though. CDC (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no reason to have this page. There is now a sucanat article, so please add to it. Scorpionman 00:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Factual knowledge[edit]

Reason? POV rant based on non-notable scholarship --Doc Glasgow 23:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/When?. Kelly Martin 06:15, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Essentially patent nonsense. Deltabeignet 23:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obtuse and nonsensical. Rogertudor 23:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now greatly expanded – but not, I think, an expanse of greatness--Doc Glasgow 10:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete patent nonsense. Gazpacho 22:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This refers to the 'philosophy' of a Norma Ruth Jacobsen nee Hucke (formerly known as Norma Ruth Campbell and then Norma Ruth Gehring). Perhaps it should be summarized and put into a biographical article (there isn't one yet). There are no mentions of any contrasting philosophies or justification as to why 'Factual knowledge' should be based on these five questions only. WhiteC 01:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find anything for that name from Google or Amazon. Can you give more detail? The author has continued making new articles without regard to VfD or communication attenpts and, judging by the red links, means to create many more. I don't mind having an article about this theory if it is published and widely read. But this user seems to want to turn Wikipedia into Normapedia by presenting the material as definitive. Gazpacho
  • Delete this ridiculous load of nonsense. Kelly Martin 04:10, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take It Away[edit]

Appears to be poetry or lyrics of some sort. May be a copyvio. Kelly Martin 23:28, May 13, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Gehringer[edit]

Memorial for non-notable schoolteacher —Wahoofive (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs some maintenance around the asteroid list pages that link to him though, so that they wont anymore. EvilPhoenix

Weak keep. The guy may be unknown to most people (including me), but to have an asteroid named after you, you have to do something right in this life. The asteroid is real, by the way. Jamyskis 12:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, NN, there are far too many asteroids, and many of them are named after S.O.s, friends or whatever of the discoverer. Radiant_* 12:53, May 17, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Kelley[edit]

Self-article is clearly vanity and does not establish notability. Wikipedians should not write articles about themselves. Kelly Martin 23:40, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - no point in userfying, info is already on his user page. -- BD2412 thimkact 23:56, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Delete. Dankelley, please visit your talk page. EvilPhoenix

  • Delete. as the author, I also agree it should be deleted. I didn't see how, so I just removed what I had added (but not the flag, which I kept in accordance with my understanding of what's proper). Thanks, folks, for the advice. Dankelley 21:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AWhere[edit]

Sounds like advertising for a non-notable company's non-notable product. NatusRoma 23:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monica margolis[edit]

Article just appears to be a advertisement. Sgkay 19:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete notability not shown. Samw 20:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. Pavel Vozenilek 20:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Monica Margolis" only returns her website plus one unrelated, and one from Cindy Margolis website. "Monica Wesley" vocals (her previous name) returns a couple relevant links. She has worked with several notable individuals, but I'm not sure that she deserves a Wikipedia entry. —Markaci 2005-05-21 T 17:08 Z
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_13&oldid=1081092766"