Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 1 May 3 >

May 2[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Zhe[edit]

No claim to special fame or influence. It had a cleanup-importance tag for a while. Kappa 01:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although "crushed orange juice" is a cool name. Quale 02:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Megan1967. (Also as per Quale--Crushed Orange Juice is a cool name.)--Jacobw 14:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete a father named "crushed orange juice" is pretty notable. Klonimus 01:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the person who is supposed to be "crushed orange juice" coincidentally bears the same name as the president of Taiwan. Unfortunately, Chen Shuibian does not mean "crushed orange juice".Iluvchineselit 16:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. Speedy it in fact. Chameleon 16:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CiChuan? Chen Shuibian? delete asap.
This page is now preserved 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. Postdlf 23:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-time[edit]

Looks like a neologism, and doesn't have any meaning different from "wiki" + "time", so I don't recommend transiki-ing to wiktionary. Kappa 01:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Wikiholic. -- BDAbramson thimk 02:04, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, dicdef. Quale 02:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mr. Paul Morrison  ;-) - Svest 04:21, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikiholic. Megan1967 05:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A quick google does turn up uses of the phrase "wiki-time," but with enough inconsistancy of meaning and context to suggest that it doesn't have any commonly accepted meaning. (And, of course, even if it did, the appropriate place for it would be wiktionary.) --Jacobw 14:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to be a neologism. Maybe a delete could be prudent. --SuperDude 06:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic and not needed. Wikiholics and many wiki users will know what it means without an entry.--WCFrancis 18:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not worth directing to Wikiholic. StuTheSheep 02:33, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

passwird.com[edit]

Advertisement. silsor 01:24, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nothing but an ad for a site that has nothing but ads. CryptoDerk 01:27, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. I mean STRONG. KTC 01:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. --Randolph 02:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete adspam. Samaritan 02:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advert. Quale 02:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promo for undeserving site. -- Hoary 04:40, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising websites may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. --Jacobw 14:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reasonably encyclopedic subject, verifiable article. Evidence that, while it isn't exactly e-Bay, it's in fairly wide use. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from anon (User:132.236.209.126: I do not believe this article should be deleted. How is passwird.com any different than EBay or Froogle. Both those sites are the same as Passwird.com. They find deals and post them for you. Froogle is most like passwird.com and there is a Froogle wikipedia link. Froogle allows you to find deals for certain products. Passwird automates this for you. The site makes no money and is made to simply help others find bargains online just like Froogle.

Please consider this before deleting this page. I believe this page should be kept online.

  • response to anon: eBay is an auction site not a list of bargains and has entered the public consciousness (i.e. people know about it without having ever used it themselves). Froogle, although not as widespread at the moment, is part of the ever-expanding Google empire. Both are therefore notable. Passwird.com is a website where a student is trying to make money from affiliate links. Not notable. 'Delete. SteveW | Talk 01:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 930 Google hits, 88 links. Delete as advertisement for a non-notable site. --Carnildo`
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

De-Regulator[edit]

[1] Not finding much Google feedback. Lotsofissues 01:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 02:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed. Google wins. ESkog 18:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to add. StuTheSheep 02:40, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plebvision[edit]

[2] 26 Google hits NN neologism Lotsofissues 02:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable neologism. Quale 03:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 10:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Quale, Lotsofissues, and Megan1967. If for some odd reason this is kept, it should be transwiki'd to Wiktionary, and given a thorough scrubbing to remove the heavy POV. But first choice is to get rid of it, until and unless the word actually achieves some common currency. --Jacobw 14:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep,[3] 127 different Google hits in Usenet 21:09,Qualia 2 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by TUF-KAT. Sjakkalle 12:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Furcism[edit]

Non-sense Svest 02:24, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I speedied it, as it was clearly patent nonsense. Tuf-Kat 02:27, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 05:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wei Han[edit]

Not notable Svest 02:27, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • The entire content was "see Panda", which I speedy deleted. Even more confusing than the "article" was this vfd. There wasn't any content by which notability could even be assessed. Postdlf 02:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was also blanked by its only author, btw...so likely a test page. Postdlf 05:48, 2 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. jni 13:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gober[edit]

Vanity injoke page. Ben-w 02:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. These are tedious. Quale 03:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Joke by person or persons using several IPs and one registered userid. This userid has a history of vandalism which one of the IPs shares (and again). Andrewa 03:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 05:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't know who or what the author of this page is lamely poking fun at, but it is pretty clearly a personal attack page. --Jacobw 14:50, 2 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. Postdlf 23:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WRDZ[edit]

  • Keep and wikify. There are numerous station articles on wikipedia. This is no different from any of the others apart from being a mess to look at. --Randolph 02:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Kappa 03:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Process started by User:Sensation002 but not listed for vfd. I've done the listing, but the original vote for deletion by Sensation002 has been rescinded. --Randolph 03:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Randolph and Kappa. Svest 03:24, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A lovely article now. Samaritan 05:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep N-Mantalk 20:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Updated article is good and encyclopedic. Even if it were a stub, radio stations have notability in part because of their limited number. Quale 22:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs to be moved to WRDZ-AM. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:39, 7 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. Postdlf 23:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WKTG (FM)[edit]

Delete doesn't seem notable at all.Sensation002 02:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC) edit/sorry i forgot to sign. i will rescind my vote but i thought that radio stations were under vanity.[reply]

  • Keep. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on radio stations. Georgia guy 01:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one of many radio station articles. I see no reason to delete this one. --Randolph 02:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The article creator has removed the vfd notice. --Randolph 02:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The process has started now, so we might as well finish it. I've listed this page on Votes for deletion and I'll replace the vfd notice. --Randolph 02:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep licensed radio stations. Kappa 03:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, of course. If deletionists think VfD is too crowded, and inclusionists that too many notable subjects are nominated, surely we can agree on a way to quickly get thought-better-of non-candidates out of the queue more quickly? Samaritan 05:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep VfD Killed the Radio Star. Klonimus 06:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep N-Mantalk 20:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The updated article is already slightly useful, and it seems an article on any full-power radio station would be worth keeping even if only a stub. Quale 22:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable radio station. Nothing that can't be dealt with in the town's article. Gamaliel 09:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please Yuckfoo 00:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all licensed radio stations. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 11:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all radio stations SchmuckyTheCat 00:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Should be moved to WKTG-FM to conform to other station articles. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as merely one of a zillion radio stations, one for which no notability whatever has been hinted at. On the other hand, if there is some policy to keep all radio stations, well, keep it. And if there is no such policy, there shouldn't be -- after all, the majority of radio stations (with a great number of honorable, encyclopedic exceptions) are uninteresting businesses that pump out muzak and advertising. -- Hoary 08:28, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bernhard[edit]

Vanity Svest 03:20, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Another vanity article of a non-notable college student. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Quale 03:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:30, 2 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. jni 13:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Penfield[edit]

NN --Chill Pill Bill 03:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 04:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:31, 2 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. – ABCD 18:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Modern kicks[edit]

Vanity/bandcruft; a google on "Modern kicks" didn't turn up anything obviously related to this band. Kelly Martin 04:24, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 04:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 04:49, 2 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. – ABCD 18:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jtank[edit]

Vanity; unable to easily find any references to this individual using Google. Kelly Martin 04:27, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Quale 04:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:50, 2 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. jni 13:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine burbank[edit]

Another vanity article of a non-notable college student. Her "claim to fame" is that she "allegedly consumed four domino's pizzas in one sitting." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. -- Hoary 04:38, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Quale 04:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Samaritan 05:32, 2 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 NO CONSENSUS. 10 delete votes to 7 keep votes. Postdlf 23:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sharyn clough[edit]

She is a professor of mine at Oregon State University. She is all into feminist philosophy, philosophy of science, and some pragmatism. She's pretty cool I'd say. Delete the article as it stands; though if this VfD inspires some person or persons to improve this article on this cool prof, that's cool too. (I'll revisit the page later and may change my vote.) -- Hoary 04:35, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

  • Delete. Even if the subject is notable, there's nothing in this worth saving. Quale 04:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's an orphan article so there is no pressing need for an article on this professor. I could put in the basics on her position at Oregon University, but it would still be an orphan article. --Randolph 04:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Incorrectly titled and has no useful content. While I tend to be on the inclusionist side when it comes to academics, that is for articles that have content. Also, she's an assistant professor rather than a full professor (i.e. in a post that wouldn't be called a professor in Europe). Average Earthman 08:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Inspired by this VfD, I've revised the article to conform to Wikipedia standards. I hope Hoary won't be offended if I respectfully say that, if my doing so inspires him to rewrite articles in the future rather than putting them up for VfD, that would be cool, too! The time it took me to google Prof Clough and rewrite the article was probably no more time than it took to put the article up for VfD. --Jacobw 15:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS: I haven't retitled the article to give it proper capitalization, since one isn't supposed to move articles that are up for VfD. Perhaps when the VfD concludes, if the vote is "keep", the admin can move the article to its proper place.
      • Hey, that's cool, Jacobw. Even cooler if the nitwits oh-so-biteable newbies who create "articles" such as this would do so themselves. But undergraduates write the durnedest things! If I may quote our heroine: Teaching 20 year olds every year will either keep us young, or drive us insane, or some combination of the two. -- Hoary 15:58, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
      • Comment. At the request of Jacobw, I've revisted this article and looked it over. I still find it runs close to the wire on notability. I've been looking for reviews of her publications and haven't found anything interesting. I did find a small mention of her in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[4], under the Analytic Feminism section[5]. One of her publications is listed in the bibliography and she is mentioned once in the article,
"In addition to Langton and her colleagues' work on pornography that uses philosophy of language mentioned above, other analytic work on language can be found, for example, in Hintikka and Hintikka (1983), Nye (1998), Tanesini (1994), Hornsby (2000), and Clough (2003)."
I also found some neat pics of a trip to Sweden for a International Women Philosophers convention/seminar on her home page, but that might not qualify as notability. ;) --Randolph 16:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: rewritten page still doesn't seem very notable. Orphan page with no inbound links (except for VfD) and only one outbound. OK, she's an associate professor and a feminist scholar. No information on what degrees she holds, whether she has won any awards, if she edits a notable journal, whether her work has been cited by other scholars, etc. Still not notable. Quale 18:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rewrite fails to establish notability. RickK 23:31, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless extrapolated upon to include information that is usefull or interesting.
  • Delete not notable professor. CDC (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of room for expansion and organic growth. Klonimus 01:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, as opposed to inorganic growth, or what? -- Hoary 03:27, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
    • An article on virtually anyone employed by a university would have room for expansion and 'organic growth' (even myself). Average Earthman 08:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. She is a published professor with two books: Siblings under the skin: Feminism, social justice, and analytic philosophy and Beyond epistemology: a pragmatist approach to feminist science studies on LOC. Megan1967 04:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not establish notability beyond that of an average professor. Gamaliel 09:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Sheldrake 19:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor is it toilet paper. Nor is it a place to have an article on every college student's favorite professor/faculty member, nor is a place to have an article on every worker's favorite boss. RickK 22:08, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not appear to pass the average professor test. --Carnildo 23:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please Yuckfoo 00:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, published author, mentioned in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and seems notable in the field of feminist science studies. Kappa 09:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even my profs are more famous than her. Hmib 00:24, 6 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. – ABCD 18:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AA the Band[edit]

Unsigned band vanity/self-promotion; amounts to little more than "Some students at Concordia University had a band" + excessive POV; not suitable for Wikipedia—mjb 05:08, 2 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 - should be transwikied - SimonP 14:42, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Inside reverse fold and Valley fold[edit]

These two pages are how-to techniques for origami folds. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:07, 2 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, which will be implemented pending resolution of block compression errors. Postdlf 23:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Martz[edit]

Non-notable radio news director. "Pam Martz"+KCJJ gets exactly 9 Google hits. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Useless substub created by known vandal. We let this one live for awhile because it was actually the most competent thing he ever created, which isn't saying much, yet he still edit warred with us over whether it was a substub (as I and four others believed) or a bio-stub. We should've killed it long ago. Postdlf 05:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think the plan is to replace all substub tags with specific stub tags. Kappa 12:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to KCJJ. Samaritan 05:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which User:Haydes also created, coincidentally. We haven't seen anything from him for several months...was he finally banned? He certainly should have been.(see, e.g., [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10]) Postdlf 05:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I added "As of 2005, Pam Martz is the station's news director." The "honorary... award" the article says she won looks to be an honorable mention for Public Affairs, in the Small Market class. [11]. Ah, I won't ask for a redirect. Samaritan 06:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 05:50, 2 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. jni 13:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How much exercise does a teen need to be healthy[edit]

Listed for speedy deletion by Tezeti, but not a speedy delete candidate. Edit summary was (unprofessional,report format, original research,). Agree, delete. Eric119 05:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Original research/personal essay. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essay. Quale 05:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Klonimus 06:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. — JIP | Talk 06:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essay. (Don't use the word "I" in an article) Mgm|(talk) 07:37, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • From Q Who?, section "Quotes":
      "You want me to say, I need you, Q? Well, I need you!"--Picard
      =)
      Perhaps this should read "don't write articles in the first person"? — JIP | Talk 07:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does. Can't you see ;) Mgm|(talk) 18:19, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 14:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Denice Cassaro[edit]

Note for Anonymous users (voters): Please bear in mind, as stated by Bearcat below: the unsigned votes of non-users can be (and usually are) disregarded in the final tally. Svest 00:21, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

With all respects to Ms. Cassaro, I don't think she's notable enough to be included in Wikipedia at this time. Kelly Martin 05:49, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Quale 05:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crap. Postdlf 05:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With all respects to LGBT's, I just wonder why a Topical Interest Groups Co-chair of Community Development of Lesbian, Gay Bisexual and Transgender Issues at Cornell University called Ms. Cassaro couldn't mention her title! Because of the reason of not mentioning that, I vote delete. Indeed, it's vanity and non-notable. Svest 06:00, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Denice is notable for bombarding the undergraduates with emails about campus events. Every single person who has been an undergrad at cornell for the past 8 years knows Denice very well, that makes her notable to about 100,000 or more people. Much more notable than many minor politicians or schools. Klonimus 06:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Klonimus is notable for bombarding the VfD page with extreme inclusionist votes with questionable logic. That doesn't mean Klonimus meets standards to have a WP article. Delete this article, notability not established, not even close to having it suggested. Barno 16:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Inclusionism is not a crime. If you look at my votes you will see that I often vote to delete. Klonimus 01:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The same applies to the extreme exclusionist votes by mister Klo. More than I agree with Barno, I see you deserve an entry in WP rather than her. We accept to include an e-mailer and exclude notable articles just because of non reasonable POVs. Cheers and respect Svest 01:39, May 3, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up.
          • Please do. Klonimus the inconsistant inclusionist Klonimus 01:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I'd rather go for Klonimus the inconsistant exclusionist. See?! The proof is that you excluded my signature (I know it was unintentionally). I replaced back on its right place. ;-) Cheers and respect Svest 01:54, May 3, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up.
              • Neither inclusionism nor exclusionism is a crime or sin. Klo is noted for votes that include/exclude all of a category that isn't policy, similar to many of Kappa's votes, rather than explaining what fact about the topic meets what policy. That doesn't make him encyclopedically significant enough for an article. If Ms. Cassaro is a mailbot as suggested below, I doubt that's pioneering enough or widely enough noted for an article. Its contents as it stand show no reason to differentiate Ms. Cassaro from hundreds of other shills doing a job that has an impersonal feather-touch upon the e-mail accounts of a few thousand people in one place. Do the students at Cornell's joint projects in places like Hong Kong have their educational experience revolutionized by the name on their internal announcements? Barno 15:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, i hope we don't start accepting e-mailers as wp material, since the world is full of (your company/university here) with notable e-mailers. Feydey 07:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. I don't buy Klonimus's reason for keeping a person whose main claim to notability is writing e-mails. Sjakkalle 09:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Cornell University - she should get no more than a line in that article. The school, of course is notable. To students attending the school in recent years, she may be notable. To the rest of the world... not there yet. -- BDAbramson thimk 18:28, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • Is there a university (or even a little community college) that does not have a communications person publicizing current happenings and housing? Would Cornell lose its prestige if this person didn't make the entire community aware of for-sale items? I work in Ithaca and subscribe to the Ithaca Journal; I can tell you that this person isn't locally notable to a non-student, so I can't see how she'd be notable in a broader context. No change of vote. Barno 19:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability not established. Martg76 19:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability not established. Sietse 20:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, (author's vote) notability is established by over 18000 undergraduates (and probably another 18000 graduated students) knowing Denice by e-mail address, not her face. Her reputation is very wide reaching, and she performs an important role in community development, much like a town crier of the days of yore. Would more information and research be useful in placing this article in the keep pile? Opakapaka 23:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're all attempting to do exactly what we were warned not to do during freshmen orientation - Don't delete Denice
  • Delete. Sockpuppet limit has been breached. RickK 23:33, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • In Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Paul Eastlund, no less than RaD Man, GRider and I were among those voting to delete the editor of the Cornell Review. This can't be promising. My friend at Cornell says: "Apparently she's in charge of a mailing list. I'd delete it -- no sense in making her job follow the poor woman around." Samaritan 00:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that someone so important is not mentioned on Cornell's article really surprises me. Non-notable. Delete - SteveW | Talk 01:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Denice is a bit different than her opposite number at other universities. She's got a cult following and she's got undeniable charisma. That woman is going places. Cakedamber 03:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Charisma? My brother got one too. Who are her opposite number at other universities that are listed in WP? Cheers and respect Svest 03:45, May 3, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up
  • Keep Denice is definately a person of myth and legend here at Cornell University. Everyone knows the name but few actually know who she is. --Xtreambar 04:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to non-notability and sockpuppet activity. Perhaps a small mention in the trivia section of the Cornell article, but I'd have to see significant evidence of notability beyond the campus before I could vote to keep on a subject like this. Gamaliel 09:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Klonimus voted "keep". --Carnildo 23:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated. There was also an organized attempt at Cornell to disrupt this site. Let's not feed these trolls more than necessary. - Lucky 6.9 22:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keeping this could set a bad precedent, imho -- taviso 10:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cleanup and expand, borderline notability. Megan1967 11:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - utterly unencyclopedic - no evidence that she does a job any different from at thousands of other major institutions. CDC (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SchmuckyTheCat 00:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • She's unremarkable and the article is jocular and tiresome. Delete. -- Hoary 08:33, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Possible Sock Votes[edit]

Note: This section is used for comments about possible sock puppeting votes. Please vote at the section above. Svest 00:21, May 5, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up

  • Keep Yes! I agree!--128.84.190.253 23:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep it!!! Denice Cassaro is one and only.. it would be a disgrace to take her down!
  • Keep! She is a part of the Cornell experience and there is no reason to delete her entry. She plays a huge part in the communication of the Cornell community. She is a fine example of journalism making the entire campus aware of the current happenings, housing and for sale items.
  • Excuse me - but I've asked other undergraduates to put in their opinion on Denice. They, unfortunately, do not have screennames. This fault doesn't come under the category of sock votes (which would imply that I am commenting as more than one user); instead it is merely like an author attempting to rally for the support and expression of opinions of the people he knows. Opakapaka 02:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The definition of "sock puppets" includes "people who've never contributed to Wikipedia except in an attempt to stack a VfD vote"; the unsigned votes of non-users can be (and usually are) disregarded in the final tally. Bearcat 03:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is false. Denice is not human, she is a self-aware artificial intelligence.
  • Keep - She's important, notable. It can be edited so it's not vain, and we needn't sacrifice much by way of length. JP vote from 128.253.240.204


What is said in the main article[edit]

Let's be objective and talk about the article before Cassaro. This is what the article says:

  • ...a name on the mass e-mails sent to every student... What is so special? Cc, Bcc!
  • ...all freshmen are told during orientation week: Don't delete Denice... IMHO, I am freshman of WP and therefore I am not scared to delete it neither it would be funny if I don't!
  • ...rivaling even Cornell Information Technologies (CIT), the mother of Cornell cyberspace... Why not become a CIT Mother of Cornell cyberspace herself? How come Cornell Information Technologies (CIT) got no entry in WP?
  • I am not going to discuss the paragraph called The following because it is just a following of the above.
  • ...Denice is in fact a real, warm-blooded human being. Residential Advisors (RAs) and various groups have often invited her to dinner... ;-) No comment!
  • ...Residents were eager to shake her hand and make her acquaintance... Why not become a Mayor as she's notable than many minor politicians or schools as Klomimus claims above?
This is vanity before anything else! Svest 04:16, May 3, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up.

Keep it! As an undergrad at Cornell, I will remember her name FOREVER

Keep it. It's harmless, and very true. And meaningful to some.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comrade smith[edit]

Vanity for somebody whose only claimed notability is that he posts messages on forums. Delete -- Hoary 06:45, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

  • Delete, useless, pointless self-promotion. Feydey 06:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I post on forums too. Can I have an article now? Delete, self-promotion. Mgm|(talk) 07:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied. Content was "Comrade Smith

Comrade smith is a devoted communist. He really dosen't do much. But lets move on to the point of communism. You se there really are not many sources that will view communism in a good light, I am here to give a positive view of communism and suggest books that one can go to to find more on communism and to learn why it is frowned upon.

You see in the opposing system to communism ,Capitalism , people can work very little but get paid very much. Now ,you may see this as an oppertunity but let me assure you it is not, for only 10% of people have 60% of the worlds wealth between them"

Meelar (talk) 08:52, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT without merging. No voters wanted the content preserved; the only conflict was whether a redirect should remain, over which there was no consensus. Please feel free to relist the redirect on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion for a separate discussion on that issue. Postdlf 23:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cuisset[edit]

President of Delphine Software. That's it. Delete, unless we're told something ever so slightly interesting about him. -- Hoary 06:51, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

  • The wiki article on Delphine Software says it shut down in 2004 and says he was "company lead designer". But unless someone can expand on him, delete it. Grev 07:45, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as just another not-sufficiently-notable failed entrepreneur. Some of the company's games are well-known enough to have gotten WP articles or redirects, but that doesn't persuade me that the bankrupt company should keep an article or keep redirects among its erstwhile names. I'm definitely not persuaded that the former "company lead designer" and president (was he also the cook and chief bottle-washer?) is encyclopedic. Barno 19:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. It seems that everything notable about him is already on the Delphine Software. If he has no notability outside that context, this article must go. Quale 22:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's wrong with redirecting to Delphine Software? RickK 23:34, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • There's lots wrong with redirect. If he's not notable enough for an article on his own, he's not notable enough for a redirect. In the future, if WP has an article on a notable Paul Cuisset then the redir will force a disambig. Good editorial taste in an encyclopedia doesn't just consist of everything you add — what you choose leave out is just as important. Quale 03:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • nothing at all - Redirect as above. SteveW | Talk 01:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect SchmuckyTheCat 00:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:54, 7 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. Postdlf 23:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kensington Town Hall[edit]

No information about where it is, either (the only places listed as having both Kensington and Flemington are Pennsylvania and New South Wales, but that was after a search - there's no info here about it). So ambiguous and non-notable as to almost warrant a speedy. Grutness|hello? 07:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the links and added the dates during which it was a town hall. It perhaps has an intersting past which needs input from someone in Victoria--Rjstott 07:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might merit an article if it was architecturally or historically important, but if it is the article gives us no clue about it. A decent article would also need a photo. Unless the author is willing to expand it, it should be deleted. Adam 10:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The most notable Kensington Town Hall is in London. I don't know whether it might be notable enough and I doubt very much on the evidence before us that the Melbourne one is. Capitalistroadster 11:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 13:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even as a Melburnian, I've never heard of this. After a brief period as a town hall (for a now defunct town) it's just a private building. Compare Brunswick Town Hall. --bainer 13:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is a private building of no architectural or public significance, delete. Private buildings, unless significant, should not have articles lest they be blatant advertisements for the private owners and/or occupiers. There does, however, seem soom potential in this article.--Cyberjunkie 14:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- possibly merge anything useful into Kensington, Victoria. - Longhair | Talk 02:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gamaliel 02:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge. Its historical importance is its use as a town hall. It remains to be seen what other interesting information might appear. Until an author or authors are willing to expand it, it should be merged into an appropriate Melbourne article. Dystopos 02:34, 6 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. jni 13:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mikel Are-O-Bino[edit]

[12] A grand 0 Google hits.

Lotsofissues 07:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was one inbound, from Jedi#Pre-Ruusan Old Republic Jedi, salted by the article's creator, an anon IP who previously alternately added then deleted Mikile Bino (also 0 google hits) from lists at Jedi. Someone named Michael is inserting himself into the Star Wars universe. Delete. Samaritan 13:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No links to the page except VfDs, not a real part of the Star Wars univerese. It appears to be a character created just to play through Knights of the Old Republic.-LtNOWIS 15:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT, non-canonical fanfic at best, probably just an RPG character and vanity. Nothing real to transwiki to the sw-wiki project. Barno 19:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probable hoax, certainly non-notable. Quale 22:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sounds like someone with an active imagination is trying to canonize their Knights of the Old Republic character. --NormanEinstein 02:42, 3 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. jni 13:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Giannotta[edit]

A non-notable vanity page. Grev 07:35, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, personal self-description, full of 'intends to' rather than actual achievements. Average Earthman 08:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure vanity, non-notable. Quale 22:27, 2 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. jni 14:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPNT[edit]

The acronym is by no means in widespread usage. It is limited to maybe two or three forums within Singapore. Even then it is limited to only one or two of the subforums. How this can constitute an article is beyond me. This is the first of three I'll be putting up for deletion voting. CABAL 08:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NPNT Klonimus 01:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. it's fucked up ...anonymously added at 18:25, 2005 May 7 by 202.156.2.58
  • Delete for the reasons given by Cabal. -- Hoary 02:26, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 18:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Morrical[edit]

Morrical+Liberty+Butler = 90 google hits, almost all of them for Phil Morrical, and (virtually?) none of them for this possibly mythical organisation. Grutness|hello? 09:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-verifiable, possibly non-notable. Quale 02:48, 3 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. – ABCD 18:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metrosolaris[edit]

0 Google hits

Lotsofissues 07:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FICT, just a few paragraphs of backstory (which even violate NPOV, fictionally) as intro to some unidentified science fiction novel or TV series or game. No encyclopedic content even if the milieu had been specified. Barno 20:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. Quale 02:50, 3 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. – ABCD 18:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ASGM[edit]

Limited to one or two subforums within two or three forums within a single country. This hardly constitutes widely-used Internet slang. Second of three I am nominating for deletion. CABAL 08:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable foreign acronym. Megan1967 10:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Collins.mc
  • Delete. Not notable, and the acronym is not in English anyway. Quale 02:50, 3 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. jni 14:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Project Hull Breech[edit]

7 Google hits

Lotsofissues 08:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's unnotable, unreleased modcruft for now. Try again if it actually gets popular. Nestea 22:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- however merge any useful info into the Half Life 2 article if it's wanted there. I tried visiting the Project Hull Breech web site listed in the article and it was offline. No response, nothing. - Longhair | Talk 02:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable computer game mod. Quale 02:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreation of Hull-Breach under a misspelled title (though with different content). Not notable. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 13:26, 3 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. jni 14:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NMNHNLM[edit]

Last of three being nominated for deletion by me. As again, extremely limited exposure of the acronym, with a user base that hardly constitutes even a full forum. CABAL 08:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable foreign acronym. Megan1967 10:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. "Foreign" is pretty subjective though and not a valid reason for deletion. Leithp 15:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neo-acronym, not in widespread use and not significant to the general public nor to any field of knowledge. "Foreign" in terms of "not being used in the USA" (substitute "UK" or "Canada" or even "Australia") is not a valid reason for deletion, although "not used in English-language speaking or writing" could be, since this is the English-language edition of WP, with separate content from the Deutsche-language version. Of course, those who RTFA'ed before voting know that the acronym is for an English-language phrase. Barno 20:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 02:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 02:53, 3 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. jni 14:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Bernhardsen[edit]

I found 6 Google hits for the name "Kenneth Bernhardsen", but I doubt they concern him. (No hablo el Norwegian, so I can't tell for sure, but most of the hits seem to be lists of names, high school sports rosters, that kind of thing.) Anyway, on the off chance this isn't a hoax, it's at least about a non-notable subject. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:16, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

One other thing: The author, 195.1.15.179, keeps trying to add this article to April 29 and 1988. His other edits are vandalism. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:32, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur. Delete. THE KING 08:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable, likely nonnotable. Postdlf 08:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear case of a vanity-article. Shanes 10:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I feel that if this article was to stay it needs to include a lot more information as to why "Kenneth Bernhardsen" is of such importance. Although it says he is a healer, solid facts is needed to substantiate this claim.
  • Delete, it's a player of the Azeroth game (some think he's a bot or cheat/hack user, the article claims), with birth location listed as a fictional place in that fictional world. Vanity, gamecruft, no potential to become encyclopedic. Barno 20:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the other places the author has tried to place this content, I'll bet he just turned 17 years old a few days ago. Barno 20:19, 2 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 to delete, but as the content has already been merged, and the consensus minimal, I will leave it as a REDIRECT to James Shepherd Freeman. Feel free to list on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion if you disagree. Postdlf 23:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Freeman[edit]

Google doesn't seem to have heard of him. He's categoried as a Secy of Labor, but Labor's never heard of him. He was asked by Reagan, and then -- nothing? Also delete redirects leading to him. He may be real, but we need references. --Golbez 08:24, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless somebody can verify this—I couldn't. The two other Freemans added by this IP are real enough, but this one smells like a hoax. If he had been such a "prominent corporate and political figure", something should turn up. Also, the way this article is linked from Shirley Temple and Union Carbide makes me less than confident that this article is for real. He allegedly dated Temple when his father was posted in Hawaii—before World War II, i.e. before 1942. In 1942, he would have been 16 years old, Temple 14... Barely possible, but still... Lupo 15:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable, hoax. Megan1967 04:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I have long been acqainted with the Freeman family - specifically with the late Jim Freeman Jr. - and submitted the related articles while I was working on a project for the Walker County (Alabama) Historical Society. The family has done an enormous amount of good for the community of Jasper and the state of Alabama - as well as the city and state of New York (where they raised their children on Park Ave. and in White Plains), and while they remain a generous and somewhat legendary local entity, I suppose Jim Freeman's (James Freeman Jr.) entry doesn't qualify for placement with wikipedia. While his information is accurate (he was indeed asked by Reagan to serve as Labor Sec, but declined in favor of retirement/ also, did date Ms. Shirley Temple as a young, fifteen year old teenager while she was filming a movie on location in Hawaii - the relationship being more interesting than notable), his work with Union Carbide - and a socially/politically connected life - hardly qualifies him as an encyclopedic article. His heritage was quite distinguished (did in fact drop out of the naval academy, however, using his father's connections had the dismissal recorded as "medical"/ after rejecting a military career, followed more in his grandfather's footsteps of business and politics), and while the family's legacy continues to some extent, I will surrender the entry for deletion. My reason for such an awkwardly long comment here is that, after by chance coming across the "up for deletion" message on his page, I wanted to explain the submission of his bio in the first place - out of respect. Thank you for the work you do, I think this is a fantastic reservoir of information. --Original Author 08:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. I appreciate the author's thoughtful and judicious comments as well as his or her contribution of research. The story of Mr. Freeman is of interest, but his notability is primarily through family connections. I propose merging his biographical information into James Shepherd Freeman. Dystopos 02:43, 6 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. Postdlf 23:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kujawiak Wloclawek[edit]

Not notable, 147 google hits.

Ok, my search didn't have the special characters which made all the difference.--Silversmith 11:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to withdraw this nomination from VfD for the above reason.--Silversmith 11:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Polish soccer club although in a lower league. Capitalistroadster 11:40, 2 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. jni 13:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beanaby[edit]

Article claims that Beanaby is a portmanteau of Beanie Baby, and on Feb 13 was tagged need-to-verify. Google turns up no hits for beanaby other than WP mirrors, and eBay has none for sale.

I think that redirect is inappropriate because the name is not in usage and could eventually be trademarked by somebody else. Sympleko 10:56, 29 Apr 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, which will be implemented pending resolution of compression block errors. Postdlf 23:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Díaz[edit]

This is at least 90% a hoax, if not entirely - Barranco Hondo doesn't exist as a Spanish football team for starters. This shows some bizarre editing by the creator of the article. Whether there is a real Pablo Díaz I'm not sure, but if there is, this ain't him. sjorford →•← 10:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 04:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FroggyMoore 01:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a user known for strange VfD voting. Unless he can give us some information that proves this article is not a hoax, this vote should not be taken seriously. Indrian 02:49, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is almost certainly a hoax. In addition to sjorford's points above, there are zero google hits for "Igueste Republic" other than two mirrors of this article. Indrian 02:49, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 02:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of user interface markup languages[edit]

I believe that this piece of information is best served with the User interface markup languages category. So, for redundancy's sake of redundancy, I propose that this article is deleted and all the references made by it may be preserved by the inclusion of the articles in that category. Mecanismo 11:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Nothing wrong in this article. An article gives a different (more flexible) view other category. If we delete this article, all the articles in Category:Lists of software need to be deleted as well. No. --minghong 11:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see anything wrong with this either. — JIP | Talk 11:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is redundant. Wikipedia has it's way of creating lists which has the ability to automatically group new articles in a category. Because a wikipedia's category can also serve as an article (it holds text and automatically groups the articles), the hand-made lists are a very poor way of doing things. So, to enforce wikipedia's way of doing things and to clean it up in the process, the deletion of this article in favour of a category listing is the right thing to do. --Maciel 11:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the same person that wrote the original request. Not everyone may notice it, because he altered his signature. At least I didn't until now. -Hapsiainen 13:21, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • I didn't altered the signature. The signature appears this way by default. I just press the "your signature and timestam" and the signatureappears this way. And, if you look carefully, why would I want to conceal my identity while signing all the posts with a reference to my user page? And on top of that, the administrators can compare IPs and my entries are all made by the same IP. --Maciel 18:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, this is my fault. Mecanismo wrongly put marked the page as "pending delete" and speedy deletion. I corrected that and created an entry here, signing using Mecanismo's name instead of my name as I thought Mecanismo won't comment here again. I was using the name Mecanismo, which is clearly wrong. --minghong 18:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK. I didn't look at the first edits. And I added more wrong-looking signatures for Maciel, because I used the first signature as a model. -Hapsiainen 19:52, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Categories can't contain nonexistent articles or links about articles. -Hapsiainen 11:51, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Non-exitent articles, if they are indeed relevant, should be created as stubs and added to it's respectful categories, which brings added value to wikipedia as a whole. Therefore, the "red link" argument is a non-argument. -Mecanismo 12:08, May 2, 2005
      • But you can't get read those (sub)stubs in the same page, if you only put them to a category. -Hapsiainen 13:11, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • You can't? Are you sure? You create an article, you add it to a category, you mark it as stub and there you have it. What's the dificulty in that? --Maciel 16:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • When you go to the category page, you can see only the titles of its articles. You can't see the article contents, so you can't read the them. Reading a book title isn't the same as reading a book. -Hapsiainen 16:16, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, I believe you are wrong. The category pages are just like the article pages, with the added bonus of organizing the lists automatically. The category page can have an article if you write one there. Plenty of category pages have articles written in them. Therefore, a category page is better suited for list articles than a regular article. Nonetheless, the list article in question doesn't have content in it, which makes this a non-issue. --Maciel 17:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup. Besides, one can also put a short description behind the item. This is not possible using categories. --minghong 18:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I can't copy and paste a category. Kappa 12:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can edit an article and add the category, which is easier and works better than adding it to the article. -Mecanismo 12:08, May 2, 2005
  • Keep. --Viriditas | Talk 12:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, lists and categories can exist simultaneously. Lists can sort info in more ways than just alhabetically (like this one does). Can add birth dates in case of people. Non-existent articles should be created. But it's always better to create articles than mere stubs. If a link is blue, people expect an article, not just a few lines of text. Mgm|(talk) 18:24, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, in some cases simple list articles can coexist with category listings and in some cases they are even better suited. Still, undoubtedly category pages are better suited for this kind of list. Regarding the "better nothing than a little" point, I believe that you are wrong. If an article doesn't exist, people move on but If an article exists even in a stub form, the user has some information available. On top of that, the user can pick up where the article was left and bring in a small contribution, which is frequently done. Besides that, the stub articles are listed in a stub category, where users browse to see where they can contribute to developing articles. Therefore, there is only advantages in the "mark article as stub and add it to a category" way of doing things and so, this list (and others) is better suited as a category page instead of a simple article. --Mecanismo 08:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We obviously need to document the past discussions of lists versus categories better. We repeat this discussion here regularly. Andrewa 21:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lists and categories have different functions. RickK 23:36, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
It is already settled that category pages have better list functionality than regular pages. So, in your oppinion, what can a simple page do that a category page can't ? --Maciel 06:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regular pages can list things which don't have their article, see the redlinks on the article? Sjakkalle 07:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you wish to list an article that doesn't exist, create it, add it to the category, mark it as stub and move on, which is extremelly trivial thing to do and this has already been stated. On top of the strong points which make this the right thing to do, an article marked as stub gets the attention of contributors (being automatically listed in the stubs section), while a red link doesn't bring any added value whatsoever. --Mecanismo 07:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you create an article as a stub, some person has to look at it, and recategorize it as a specific type of stub. Also the only type of stub that is really easy to create is substub definitions, which are not encouraged. Kappa 08:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recategorization of a stub is a non-problem. But if someone believes it is a huge impediment, they should know that it is only made if the article is marked as a common stub. In the case of this article, that isn't needed. Please take a look at category:Computer language stubs --Mecanismo 11:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists can include red links. Lists can include more information than a category does, such as birth and death dates, nationality, a little bit of information. Do you think we should get rid of January 1 because we can create a category:January 1 and add it to every page linked from the January 1 article? Look at all of the information that would be lost. And are you really trying to encourage the creations of thousands of substubs? Do you know how many people would come down your head because you created a tiny article for every redlinked entry in every list page? RickK 22:16, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I already refuted those points in the past. Please read the comments above. And I'm not claiming that every list created in a simple article page should be converted into category page. Only the lists which are, like this one, better served with a category article should be converted/removed in detriment of the category article. We, as wikipedians, should strive to add value to wikipedia, whether it is by the introduction of information and cleaning up the "bazaar" mess. --Mecanismo 02:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- useful list - Longhair | Talk 02:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is saying the information that the list holds isn't usefull. The whole pointis that, because of the existing category and the nature of a category page being better suited for this kind of list, this article is redundant and should be removed. This is a cleanup issue, not a censorship issue. --Mecanismo 02:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Rick. Megan1967 04:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • according to WP:CLS, in order to a list article not to be redundant, it has to do significantly better job of presenting the articles than the respective category. This list article doesn't do that. Therefore the elimination is well deserved. --Mecanismo 20:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is better organized than an alphabetical list would be. Kappa 12:12, 4 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. jni 14:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The DynamiX Clan[edit]

Not notable, advertising. Only a single google hit which happens to be their own website. —Xezbeth 11:54, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete since the subject doesn't look notable. Xezbeth, don't tag an edit where you nominate an article for deletion as "minor". Sjakkalle 12:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried to clean it up a bit before, but it looks like the author just wants it the way he likes it, and doesn't want it to be a wikipedia article. THE KING 12:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity, spam, not notable. There was a software company called Dynamix which made The Incredible Machine and other stuff though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:15, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm a little disappointed that apparently nobody has yet attempted to discuss this article with its author and protector, either on his user talk page or the article talk page. If notability can be established, we could protect the page, but I doubt that anyone will bother now considering the history of which this is just a sample. We have a few days to start a discussion with the author, but a difficult one it may now be. Probable delete, but no vote as yet. Andrewa 21:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion on the notability and relevance of this particular article with the author can be done here on the User Talk page or The Article Talk Page. The main purpose in making this entry was to be a brief up about this Club for the readers who will be coming from the Computer Club page as this article is linked to the Computer Clubs article on Wikipedia. The DynamiX Clan page has now been edited to suit more to the Wikipedia guidelines. Your co-operation will be highly appreciated. -- The Author of The DynamiX Clan

  • Comment: Thank you, User:Ayush Gupta. Normally we sign and date contributions here with four tildes, ~~~~~ , and I've moved your contribution to a more logical place in the discussion. Still no vote from me. Andrewa 01:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity, promo. Megan1967 04:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Check once more. If it still doesn't fulfil the critera, delete. I modified it to an article informing of the unique role DynamiX is playing, rather than the blatant-advertising type. You can talk to me about the page as I'm the President of the Clan and assume responsibility for my team members.--Shashank shekhar 07:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually gonna say Keep 'cause it honestly sounds notable to me; but I also disclaim any knowledge of computer clubs in general. Marblespire 08:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A computer club that gets a single google hit is notable? How? —Xezbeth 09:03, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Grue 18:54, 6 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 - kept - SimonP 14:43, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

E-121 Phi[edit]

Nearly speedied as utter nonsense, but maybe someone here knows what the writer is on about. Grutness|hello? 12:19, 2 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 BJAODN and DELETE. Postdlf 05:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus mitwurst[edit]

I smell a hoax. Sietse 12:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ASAP! Deb 12:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could have been speedied as patent nonsense. BTW, it should've been "Mettwurst", not "Mitwurst"... Lupo 14:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost seems a shame, there's a lot of work in this. Leithp 16:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually quite funny. Move to BJAODN. Martg76 19:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN. Best candidate for ages. Possibly autobiography (of sorts), see Google, but his blog profile times out when I try to load it. Andrewa 20:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it's witty!! -- which is a rare thing in these benighted days--Simon Cursitor 20:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree. That's why we have BJAODN. Andrewa 21:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Strong agree. V. amusing. --maru 01:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. Mildly amusing, and it does look like it was a lot of work. Quale 21:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN Yummy pork sausages. Klonimus 01:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmmmm......pork. BJAODN as a truly witty bitty. There are lots of articles "wurst" than this one! - Lucky 6.9 07:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Megan1967 11:22, 5 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. Postdlf 02:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanatühi[edit]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand what this is about at all. Deb 12:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I can't assess whether all this is a true saga or just patent nonsense, but it seems to be part of Estonian mythology. See also Toell the Great. Weak keep, unless someone knowledgable shows this to be PN. ("What links here" is your friend.) Lupo 12:51, 2 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. – ABCD 18:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mangok[edit]

Mangok -wikipedia yields 440 Google hits, of which the first 10 seem to be about 10 completely different subjects. Doubt that this Mangok is any more notable than the others (i.e., not very notable) Grutness|hello? 12:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 04:24, 3 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. Postdlf 02:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William IV of the Netherlands[edit]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If he becomes king someday (which seems likely), and if he takes the name William IV (which according to Regnal name he has publicly stated his intention to do), then Prince Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands can be renamed King William IV of the Netherlands. But this fork is totally unnecessary. --Angr/comhrá 13:04, 2 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. jni 13:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean bishop[edit]

Not sure how this has escaped deletion for so long -- the subject is clearly non-notable. Deb 13:44, 2 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. jni 13:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What will happen in next five years? An online survey of eTourism trend.[edit]

An anon placed an inappropriate delete tag. The article is from newly registered User:Hanahana, who I've welcomed with an explanation of why this isn't quite a Wikipedia article. An editor interested in the passenger travel and tourism industries may find some points of information to merge into related articles. Samaritan 15:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, original research. Jbinder 22:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nestea 22:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 02:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Really, we need to move faster on this sort of VfD. Klonimus 05:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all the above. Grutness|hello? 08:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as discussed above. Moreover, the article's title should not be a question. Ben Babcock 12:41, 4 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 - It is clear this page isn't getting deleted. Whether this page should be moved is a policy decision that probably shouldn't be decided by a single VfD vote. - SimonP 14:46, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Portal:Cricket[edit]

Previously Cricket (portal).
Also see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Portal:Cricket, which contains discussion on the same article (but not on the same title).

Like all other wikiportals, this belongs in the Wikipedia namespace under the title Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket. Move, then delete the redirect. Neutralitytalk 00:21, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

This vote is now closed. It was about moving the Cricket (portal) page and deleting the redirect that would appear on Cricket (portal). The page has now been moved (to Portal:Cricket) and a speedy deletion request has been made for the redirect on Cricket (portal)., jguk 17:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Move to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket. Neutralitytalk 00:21, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. VfD is not Wikipedia:Requested moves. JRM · Talk 15:28, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket. — Dan | Talk 02:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket. CryptoDerk 02:46, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Invalid VFD. Also, the placement was chosen to appease the "no self references" hard-liners, who wouldn't allow a link to the Wikipedia: namespace from cricket (sport). --SPUI (talk) 02:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Uhh...can't we use {{portal}} in cricket, just like we do in every other article with a wikiportal? Neutralitytalk 02:56, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • No - we can't because that is placing links to Wikipedia-specific pages in article. Those are not allowed on a permanent basis. --mav 03:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket --mav 03:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket — Trilobite (Talk) 04:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's about time we had portals for readers for more widely covered subjects rather than just portals for editors. A positive improvement to Wikipedia, jguk 06:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: Wikipediaspace is only suitable for administrative pages. It is not a readerspace. This portal is for readers. It would therefore be entirely inappropriate to move it to Wikipediaspace. It could be moved to Portal:Cricket, for example, if people are concerned about it being in the mainspace. But then disambiguation pages are non-articles in the mainspace already - so why move it at all? jguk 15:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This isn't a Wikiportal. A Wikiportal is a portal for editors and, as it is administrative in function, goes in Wikipediaspace. This a s portal for readers, so they can find their way round pages easier - therefore it is entirely inappropriate for it to go to Wikipediaspace. In response to concerns about this page being called Cricket (portal) it has been moved to Portal:Cricket, which is pretty much as good a solution to this as we are going to get, jguk 16:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In its current form, more of the "portal" has to do with the hosting functions of the Wikipedia project (and the WikiProject)--the kinds of things that go on the main page--than with providing a topic guide of signposts for the cricket-curious reader. So I think at least of some of this should move (see vote below). Demi T/C 16:22, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Keep. VfD is not for deciding page moves. Neutrality's nomination ("I'd ordinarily put this on requested moves, but items there get much fewer outside input than at VfD...") shows this nomination has nothing to do with deletion. I urge any administrator closing this debate to not necessarily interpret the "move" votes as a consensus to move this article. People may not come to vote as the article will obviously be kept, and this is not the place to discuss page moves. If one wishes to move the page, please bring it up on the talk page of the article and on Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks like a useful addition, as Jguk indicated. Jonathunder 15:28, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Move, delete redirect. silsor 15:30, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move, delete redirect. After some thought, I believe that this is a valid VfD, as it proposes to delete the redirect, thus removing all traces of the portal from the main namespace. Just like an article at Cricket should be about cricket, an article named Cricket (portal) should be about a portal named "cricket", or something like that; it should not be a portal itself. What the article is saying, is: "These are some useful Wikipedia articles about cricket"; it is therefore more about wikipedia itself than about cricket, and it should therefore be in the Wikipedia namespace. Eugene van der Pijll 15:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If I may comment: There is no redirect to delete, as the page has not been moved—it is customary to discuss page moves on the discussion page or on RM first. Also, deletion of redirects is discussed at RfD, not VfD. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move: Whether Wikipediaspace is appropriate or not is debatable. What is certain is that it does not belong in the article space.--Cyberjunkie 15:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite. To the extent that the "portal" is a guide to the topic of Cricket in Wikipedia, that should stay in with the articles. We have other forms of "guides"--for example, agglomerative articles that incorporate excerpts of content "from the main article" but that are articles on their own because the overview is more effective that way. We have the navigational aid of disambiguation pages. There clearly is some need for establishing a practice for topic guides and other relevant meta-information. Until a better one presents itself, I suggest writing them in the main article space, where this article is. The business about featuring and showcasing articles is, I think, a function purely of the project and not the encyclopedia, and it should be moved to the WikiProject page or some other page in the Wikipedia: namespace. Demi T/C 16:22, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket. older≠wiser 21:10, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete from the main namespace; not an article. Whether it's moved first or not isn't a question for VfD. —Korath (Talk) 22:37, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
All above comments relate to the page in its old location, Cricket (portal). Its new location is at Portal:Cricket, as moved by Jguk, after SPUI closed the vote, with the rationale that it was an invalid listing.

Jguk made this comment when moving the page: In response to SPUI's closing of the vote and the comments below, the page has been moved to Portal:Cricket, which hopefully is a happy medium between most of the views expressed below, jguk 16:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • My delete still stands. This is still in the main namespace, and should still be deleted from it. Also, since this was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 17:18, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Have a look at the page history. You'll see a nice bit of edit-warring going on about whether the VfD is valid. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket, and delete redirect. Megan1967 04:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this has again been removed from the vfd page out of process, I'm again taking it to today's page. Stop it. —Korath (Talk) 15:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there somewhere better than the delete/move/keep hellhole of Vfd (either listing in this case) to discuss a major innovation like a new type of page in the main namespace. So far I can see precious little debate at all, mostly only "move, because that's where the other portals are" without taking time to figure out whether they should be, and then a load of nonsense about procedure for vfd. Pcb21| Pete 21:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pete: you have displayed something that few others in this discussion (including myself, to my shame) have: a willingness to look at the issues. I hope something good can come out of this discussion. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is some very modest discussion going on at the other VfD (please don't laugh): Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Portal:Cricket. I completely agree this doesn't belong here and it's painfully obvious no consensus whatsoever is going to come of this. The best thing we can do is wait for this to blow over, temporarily stick the thing somewhere we can all agree on (or have least disagreement on, something) and then use the talk page. Of something. A new page, perhaps. One in the Wikipedia space. But at this point I'd settle for "anywhere but here". JRM · Talk 22:05, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • Move and delete redirect. See my comment at the other VfD. JYolkowski // talk 22:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Yuckfoo 00:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if my vote wasn't clear. --SPUI (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket, and delete redirect. clarkk 13:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In my opinion, non-editing readers should never need to enter the Wikipedia: namespace. --Theo (Talk) 13:57, 7 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. Postdlf 02:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-fiddler[edit]

2004 neologism with about 42 web hits (+2 for wikifiddler), some unrelated and the rest apparently all from just one author's posts to The Register. External links could possibly be merged to Criticism of Wikipedia. Samaritan 16:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Register's influence is likely to ensure this slur becomes widely used by critics. (I was aware of it — and amused by it — long before I signed up here.) It seems to me that the best way to defuse this would be for it to become common usage amongst those against whom it is targeted. (I want it on a t-shirt!) In any case, its deliberate exclusion from wikipedia's extensive lists of such terms would seem odd. --JEREMY 16:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. Rmhermen 16:27, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Attempt to promote a neologism. No useful content yet either, even Wiktionary would not be interested IMO. The fact that this particular neologism is associated with a campaign to discredit Wikipedia is interesting too, but irrelevant to the decision as to whether we delete the article. Andrewa 20:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: For more amusement, see here for a squeal when this was first deleted, and here for a copy of the "article" headed from Wikipedia... (both links current as a write, but no promises...!) Andrewa 20:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 21:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. Quale 21:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The keeping of this neologism would seem odd. RickK 23:38, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Megan1967 02:14, 3 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. Postdlf 02:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pay less books[edit]

Spamvertising; at the very least has severe NPOV issues. Onlyemarie 16:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Advertising. Very cheeky abuse of our site. Andrewa 19:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bookstores can be notable! I daresay that before Wikipedia some of us even hung out in them. :) But delete unless some Malaysian (or West African?) bookstore culture fan writes something entirely different in this space. Samaritan 20:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advert. Also, of course bookstores can be notable, but simply being a bookstore is not in itself notable. Quale 21:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why not? Simply being a school is in itself somehow notable. RickK 23:41, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • In most developed countries, the barrier to creating a school is far higher than the barrier to creating a bookshop. Kappa 23:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Really? I can't put up a sign on my house saying "RickK's Elementary School" and start charging tuition? Who's going to stop me? Even if it's not accredited, so long as I live up to the advertising that I will be educating somebody, there's nothing illegal about it. RickK 00:19, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • No, being a bookstore isn't in itself notable. Since you asked, I say that being a school also isn't inherently notable. I vote to delete most high schools and elementary schools that come up for VfD. Accredited universities are notable. They are relatively few in number and usually have distinguishing characteristics. A few high schools may be notable, but vanishingly few elementary schools are notable. At the high school level and below there are a practically infinite number of schools, scarcely distinguishable from each other. Quale 03:42, 3 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. – ABCD 18:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kefka's_Revenge[edit]

This is a page that was created by a single user about a video game that's a fan-made reconstruction of Final Fantasy 3 (which in America, never really sold that well anyway…) and it's not finished. I'm sorry, but it's just too soon to write about this game. If it can boast over let's say 100,000 or so users, then yes, maybe it can be added back. But at this point, it's way, way too obscure for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion of personal projects. Let's remove this article from now until it achieves some wider notoriety outside the community of FF remake fans. ---Carl 17:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's more than the "coming soon" empty article it started as and it sounds like a rather ambitious project, but right now, it just comes off as original research. - Lucky 6.9 17:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI don't see the big deal. Yeah, it's unfinished, but it has information about the game if anyone was interested about Final Fantasy fan games, and it can always be expanded apaun. I think that rather then deleteing it immediately, we wait for expansion. There is always that possibility. - Dooz0 18:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vaporware game-emulation project. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This game may someday become as widely played as Final Fantasy 3 in which case an article can be written to document its notability. Until an actual delivered product generates some notability, and not just a coming-someday announcement or a few rumors on game-chat forums, I can't vote to keep the page. Barno 20:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you have to be pretty darn noteworthy to be on wikipedia before you exist. This ain't. --InShaneee 20:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "KR is nothing but quality." I'm surprised nobody said anything about POV. Delete. Nestea 22:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I like is how some of you say that it isn't popular enough, and then if you look at some of the stuff you guys made, no one's heard of a lot of things you made. Lucky 6.9, what is Crusader 101? I've never heard of that. Same thing with Clutch Cargo, Lalo Guerrero, and several other things. Little hypocritical? I mean, isn't there beauty in being able to learn about things you were previously unaware of? Or am I the only one who cares about learning anymore?- Dooz0 22:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Careful with the personal attacks. I've been nice up until now and I don't think it's too much to expect the same in return. Go back and read each of the articles you mentioned. Feel free to Google them as well. I think the articles more than sufficiently cite the notability of their subjects. The "Crusader 101" is one of the most collectable toy cars of the postwar era and when one comes up on eBay, the bidding gets fast and furious. At least one eBay store does a land office business selling reproduction parts. It was also the cover subject of a national publication. "Clutch Cargo" introduced a new optical printing technology and Lalo Guerrero was a national treasure by any yardstick (including that of a President of the United States) and a man I'm proud to have known. I hope this game takes off. I really do. I love FFIII. However, it simply doesn't ring the notability bell at this point. - Lucky 6.9 07:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't attacking you, I was giving examples. The point was that those aren't popular topics, yet those are good articles. I'm saying that it doesn't need to be popular to be a good article that deserves a place in an encyclopedia. The reason that encyclopedias leave somethings out is because of it can't cover everything. It has limited space. That's the wonder about Wikipedia; There is so much more information here. And one of the reasons for deletion is that it isn't popular enough. I think that's just totally bogus, no offence. There's never anything wrong with having more information. PS: I seem to be inadvertanly attacking you a lot. Do note that none of it has been on purpose. Dooz0 20:40, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, a Google search results comparison: "Kefka's Revenge" 181; "Crusader 101" 508; "Clutch Cargo" 24,600; "Lalo Guerrero" 33,900. --Carl 14:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Point taken and apology accepted. - Lucky 6.9 22:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you feel these article dont meet wikipedia guidelines please by all means put them up for vfd to settle it. Megan1967 02:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you completely missed my point. Dooz0 02:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the page. Ya know, I admit that I'm the creator of the KR article, and I'm also the creator of the article's subject matter. If you HONESTLY FEEL that your precious "WORLDWIDE FREE PUBLIC" encyclopedia is tainted, or in any way degraded, then go ahead and remove my article. I was only contributing, and I made every attempt to follow the submission guidelines. I went back and reviewed all the policies and sure enough there is legitimate reason to delete this if you want to badly enough, but it's not something blatantly wrong. And it looks as though one of my pals has already removed the biased material as well. Maybe it's not popular enough for you, maybe all my years of dedication and hard work dont impress you, and maybe you think you know everything already and dont deem my project worthy of knowledge. Just remember, if you delete this, you delete my PRIDE and ESTEEM as well. Do you want to do that to an innocent and hard-working man? --Nakednerd 02:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but that is total bullshit. We are not deleting your pride and esteem, we are deleting what you think is your pride and esteem. Which is silly of you to begin with. You have worked for three years on a game that, from the looks of it, will be polished, will be playable, and possibly will even be good--something that many published games can't honestly boast of (Baten Kaitos for example). Be proud of that. Take esteem in that. Because you should. Three years is an incredible amount of work and dedication, and you have every right to be proud of yourself. What you should not do, however, is be offended when we tell you that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, is not for advertisements, and is not for vanity. It's about things that have made an impact, in other words, not about things that will. Very simply: It is not that we do not value your work, it is that this is not the place for you to boast of it. Marblespire 08:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable (yet), speculation. Megan1967 02:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, simply an advertisement for an uncompleted fan-mod. --Trypa Party 03:04, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reasons for deletion well established. Quale 03:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OGM LETS DELETE EVERTHING --Nakednerd 06:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calm down, OK? No one wants to injure your pride. Look, if you're the one going through the hard work of writing and designing the game, why not move the info to your user page? All you have at present is an odd little sentence. This way, the information stays intact and when the game takes off, boom! Transfer it to a new article. - Lucky 6.9 07:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll do you one better, Nakey--build your own website and link it to your user profile. When I first got here trying to promote my book Almasheol I found that Wikipedia, like most major bookstores, has an innate prejudice against P.O.D. house-produced books. It bothered me somewhat, but eventually I accepted it. I realize I could sell a thousand copies each of Almasheol and Postcards of the Hanging and still not be seen as anything more than a two-bit "vanity" publisher. I'm sure if I published through a legitimate mainstream house, they'd welcome me gladly, but until then, I'm experimenting with web-distributed chapbooks, 'zines, and other alternative publishing channels. Perhaps you can donate copies of your game to public and school libraries--better distribution, great publicity stunt. It's what I'm planning to do with my books. The_Iconoclast 19:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I remember those! Looking back, I may have been a bit harsh in my voting. If so, I'm truly sorry. Are the books selling? - Lucky 6.9 22:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet. I've won a couple of minor awards, though, for my work in Writer's Digest-sponsored contests (who have done quite a bit to legitimize self-published writers, God bless 'em). I even did a web-interview last year, and some movie people I've talked to think one of my stories has great film potential. I'm afraid, however, I still haven't seen what I'd call "mainstream" success. Whatever that is. I'm trotting a new novel around to legitimate houses through an agent this time, though all they seem to be doing so far is drinking my wallet dry. Ten-percenters, yeesh. The thought of paying someone to print your work is such a stigma, so the P.O.D. writer will always labor under a cloud--but I do enjoy designing my own covers and I like the freedom the format offers. The major houses are very cliquey and incestuous, wanting to stay with big names and not giving new authors a chance. A thought: are there competitions for self-produced video games? Once N.N. has a workable prototype of his game, he could send it to them for a review. The_Iconoclast 14:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just made a daring stunt as a final slap in your face by editing the article so that it meets your standards of being notable and popular. While I agree that vanity pages should not exist here (pages created to promote one's self or one's work), I still think it deserves to stay because it has an informative approach and it certainly does have significance as stated in the opening of the article. I realize it will be deleted nonetheless, so go ahead and have a field day. Moving it to my user page would defeat the purpose -- I only registered so that I could create the article. The fact is, KR will never be notable or famous according to yous, but its mere oppressed existence is more than evidence of encyclopedic qualification. Or something?? Nobody cares about a Naked Nerd, other than wanting to get rid of him. So LATER dudes. --Nakednerd 12:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh...NN, first calm down. Second, consider the fact that you're adding an article about a as-yet unreleased product on a general reference site with articles on people, places and things that have come before. Simply put, Wikipedia is quite possibly the world's biggest stinkbomb of a site when it comes to promotion of any kind. I work in an advertising and marketing capacity. I've won awards for my schtick. I cannot write an article in the same breezy style I write a radio ad. Wikipedia is dry, dry, dry. I think "Kefka's Revenge" is going to be a knockout. When that time comes and it's a well-known game, it'll be more than deserving of an article and I'll defend its right to be here. Don't leave over this. You're obviously an intelligent (if sensitive) person. I can really relate with the "sensitive" part. - Lucky 6.9 22:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How 'bout now? Is it good enough yet? --Nakednerd 22:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Among the article content added in the latest edit is "The responses were discouraging and impetuously negative, yet the duo retained their integrity and superiority." The disclaimer at the end, though valid, lacks encyclopedic style. Encyclopedias need much less bogosity (except on 01-April, which this isn't). And Lucky 6-point-9 was correct: It's got possible future notability but doesn't yet have verifiable notability to WP's standards. For now, you can userfy all this, and once there's a hundred thousand or some huge numbers of players in several English-speaking nations (this is the "en." Wikipedia), you are welcome to put it back into article namespace as a starting point for other editors to work with. And Lucky's also correct that you're fully welcome to help the rest of us collaborate, regardless of whether your article gets deleted in this case. By the way, "playing the villain" is a more interesting approach than most games have, and KR has a better chance than most computer games to achieve notability. Barno 01:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NN, I don't think you get the point. Just beacuse it exists does not make it notable. It must be notable in order to stay on Wikipedia. Kefka's Revenge, so far, has no notability whatsoever. It's just another fangame. If something happens to it, such as it getting wide popularity, then it IS notable. Nestea 22:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think YOU get the point. What's the big deal about notability? I bet there's tons of shit on this site thats barely notable. KR is notable enough for me. Why do you care so much?--Nakednerd 03:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I care so much because Wikipedia does not revolve around you. Nestea 11:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nor around you. Dooz0 04:36, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
          • Nor around you. It's the people's encyclopedia! Nestea 20:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once more: Notability to the public-at-large is the prime factor for inclusion. At present, your rather ambitious and worthy project is virtually unknown. No one...and I mean no one...is going to come here and search for "Kefka's Revenge." Why? No one other than you, I and a handful of Wikipedia users even knows it exists, at least not yet. You're right in pointing out that there are articles on lots of really esoteric subjects. However, esoterica and obscurity do not necessarily mean non-notable. I've written about some rather esoteric subjects myself. BUT: Everything I've written about is notable in some way and I go to great pains to indicate that in each article. If I may offer some further advise, it would be this: Lose the chip on your shoulder, my friend. You are taking this matter too personally and lashing out at other users isn't exactly according to Dale Carnegie. You've been treated with a great deal of kindness, respect and support. Please consider doing the same in return. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 03:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Growth potential. -- BDAbramson thimk 06:28, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fantasy future-ware with less than 70 displayed hits and no Alexa rank. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, five-line sigs not withstanding. Niteowlneils 17:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, based on the nonsense in the history section. CDC (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and article is unverifiable; no reliable secondary or tertiary sources corroborate the facts in this article (what facts there are). JRM · Talk 18:15, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
  • A semi-well-done article about something that at this point does not deserve an article. Delete. DS 21:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:26, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Try again if and when it happens and is verifiable. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:08, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Look, man, think of the precedent this would be setting. Do you have any idea how many fangames there are that can claim to be of similar quality and merit to Kefka's Revenge? Not that are, but that can claim to be. What makes this different from all the creative and fanfic projects that I started, or that anyone else does? What makes it inherently better? What makes you so special? Those aren't necessarily rhetorical questions, by the way. If you have valid answers, by all means, this is the place to provide them. DS 17:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said we're special. And I dont want to exlude other fangames, either. That's why I listed them in my article. I dont see anything wrong with having fangames on this encyclopedia website. If you want it to be so professional then maybe it should be published instead of being openly editable. Isn't it the point to allow the community to add more content? I understand sometimes stuff would be inappropriate and not worthy, but surely this article is developed and informative enough to warrent a small page of its own. No big deal. --Nakednerd 18:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC) And by the way, we're special because we have playable content, something that most other games never achieve. That's stated in the article, I believe.[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. There are thousands upon thousands of user-created mods to old Nintendo ROMs, or games which individuals have made with shareware RPG maker type software. Notability in the case of an independently developed video game would probably require some sort of legitimate site reviewing it, at the very least. ESkog 18:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article appears to be at least half BS. How could you draw up a pie graph like that? I mean, how would you calculate the percentages? And at the end of one section, it says that the section is bogus. Sure, a fan-made game like this could be notable enough, but I'm not seeing any evidence that this one is. Delete. Everyking 08:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You guys are using the word NOTABLE so damn much that I had to go look up its definition to make sure I remembered what it means. It means something is worthy of notice, or is characterized by excellence or distinction. By this definition, I see no valid reason why KR' "non-notability" should render it deletable. I think it certainly is notable according to this definition. It mentions nothing about FAME or FORTUNE like all you seem to value so much. The game I am making is remarkable. I don't care how many people are unaware of it yet, but it's true. So stop going delete crazy on my notable project. Either that or come up with a better argument. If fame is your game, then youre lame. HA! (but do NOT take it personally) because as stated before, there exists other articles pertaining to lesser known topics. Thanks bros! --Nakednerd 12:18, 7 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Commonwealth Society[edit]

Federal Commonwealth Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)


DELETE

  • It is not a registered organisation in any country.
  • It does not publish accounts.
  • It shows no evidence that it even exists outside cyberspace.
  • It was written by the organisation itself.
  • It does not provide any evidence that it is 'notable' or 'remarkable' in any way.
  • Wikipedia should not be used to 'recruit' members to an organisation.
  • There organisation website does not provide an address or contact details other than email and the address of a canadian condo.
  • When I tried to contact them regarding this issue on their website's forum, Several (although admitadly not all) provided responses which were very worrying, and used explicit insulting and vulgar language.
  • The article provides no outside or neutral viewpoints.
  • There are no outside or neutral references.
  • This organisation has either roughly 200 or roughly 50 members(sources vary). This in my opinion is too few for a wikipedia article. RepublicUK 09:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV
  • Non Notable
  • It already was deleted once and someone put it back.RepublicUK 06:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can the above be correctly summarized as "Not Notable" and "NPOV Violations"? Bo 15:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - Please provide sources for, for example, its not publishing accounts. And why you believe the fact it doesn't publish contact details makes it non-notable. Here are the google search results, including a BBC reference. [13] --Couter-revolutionary 09:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, did you research this at all RepublicUK? You said: "*There organisation website does not provide an address or contact details other than email." But, when I enter the "contact us" section, this is what I found:
"Federal Commonwealth Society
30 Dale Avenue, Suite 1003
Scarborough, Ontario
M1J 3N4 CANADA"
Please research something before making false claims. --Couter-revolutionary 10:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thats a residential address, also it is not for RepublicUK to prove NN it is for others to prove it is notable.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to the points you made:
This is a private address, It is not registered to any organisation.
Without publishing its accounts it is not an official organisation, I do not have to prove that it is not publishing accounts, YOU have to prove that it IS publishing accounts.
It is not registered with the electoral authorities in any of the nations that it professes to be active in, all political organisations and not just political parties have to be registered.
Google is a search engine and so can't be used for referencing.
The only reference for it on the BBC website is in the 'action network' section and was written by the organisation itself and has not been updated for almost 3 years. The 'action network' section can be written by anyone and needs no proof or evidence that what has been written is true. RepublicUK 10:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth do you know it is a private address, have you been there? "Suite 1003" sounds like an office to me. You have proposed it for deletion, you prove it doens't publish accounts. And yes, I too believe the proposal for deletion was in bad faith.--Couter-revolutionary 12:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is a private address because it is a condo.

You clearly don't understand how this works, I nominated it for deletion and you have to prove that it shouldn't be. I know it doesn't publish accounts by their own admission.

  • Keep. This is an organisation worthy of an article, particularly if one were to compare with the hundreds of far less notable articles on websites, etc. currently on wikipedia. I also get the impression that this nomination may have been in bad faith. An Edwardian Sunday 11:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What proof have you to say that "This is an organisation worthy of an article", it is not good enough to just state that, you must provide evidence, also on of the arguements to avoid during an AfD is "particularly if one were to compare with the hundreds of far less notable articles on websites" - provide evidence to prove notablility or else these words will just sound pretty hollow.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Just because there articles less notable doesn't mean that this should automatically existRepublicUK 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The organization has been noted in other online 'news' sources (generally unfavorably) including rumormillnews, irishunionism, and themonarchist. The article could use a more NPOV. - If it survives the AfD I'll work to provide that (Yes I know I should do so before, but I'm tired of working on articles that get 'flushed') - maybe someone else can make it more neutral while the article is being considered. Bo 13:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Blogs and internet forums do not satisfy WP:RS, its seems pretty much all of theGhits are for internet forums and mirrors.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You have not provided any evidence that it has been noted in the news.
  • Comment. Less than 200 members makes an organisation unremarkable RepublicUK 15:03, 23

February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - this user has made one edit! An Edwardian Sunday 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some independent sources include:
http://anglosphereunionnow.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_archive.html
Comment This is a blog with no references to the FCS, It doesn't even have a single entry and hasn't been edited for 2 years.RepublicUK 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/search/label/Churchill
Comment The only reference to the FCS is a very small link to a defunct website.RepublicUK 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.delhiin.com/wiki-Commonwealth_of_Nations
Comment There is no reference to the FCS, there is just a link at the very bottom of the page to the FCS website. RepublicUK 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=92732
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~springbk/links.html Bo 15:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not a reference, It is just a website with a link to the FCS website without any info about it whatsoever.RepublicUK 06:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.africancrisis.org/ZZZ/ZZZ_News_008690.asp another 'good one' Bo 15:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no evidence that this is anything to do with this organisation. It has a link to a website that has the same initials but a completely different name.RepublicUK 06:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is exactly the same as the african crisis link. RepublicUK 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are all blogs which are not independent sources.RepublicUK 06:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to take different views on the organization, and aren't hosted by the same group. Perhaps I'm confused on what counts as 'independent source'. Bo 21:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They could have been written by anyone of youRepublicUK 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These are not realiable sources.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Conceded - Sources listed (by me) are not Reliable, and do not met wikipedia's standard as 'citations' Bo 02:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. This organisation has set the process in motion with regards to registering in the countries it is active. But it isn't registered yet. - User:81.151.155.249
8th edit by this user. 6 of the others on the article under AfD. Tyrenius 02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment.Then it can have a page when it is registered.
  • Comment. Incidently How many of you are not members of this organisation?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RepublicUK (talk • contribs) 13:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. Wiki is not a crystal ball, if it becomes notable in future then an article should be written.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. RepublicUK appears to be a single-purpose account, with fewer than 50 edits here and a remarkable knowledge of things like checkuser requests (15th edit), vanity articles & references ([14]), and AfD. He has made only two edits unrelated to this topic. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you implying?RepublicUK 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is because this is a new accountRepublicUK 03:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. But what is YOUR reason for keeping.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.May become notable in future but is not notable at the moment and also there are no sources.--Vintagekits 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Almost all of the people that have voted are members of this organisation.RepublicUK 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You can not know that. I am not a member. It is irrelevant. - Kittybrewster 09:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- seems to be an important movement within the Commonwealth. Astrotrain 11:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On what basis are you making that comment.--Vintagekits 11:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It can't be an important movement within the commonwealth because nobody has ever heard of it
  • Comment. Please don't make assertions you cannot prove. You do not know who has/hasn't heard of it or who is/isn't a member.--Couter-revolutionary 12:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is for you to prove the Societies notablility not vice versa.--Vintagekits 12:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has only 50 members 50 out of more than 25% of the worlds population.RepublicUK 12:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your evidence for this comment? A reference?--Couter-revolutionary 12:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Non notable fails Wikipedia:Notability and its website looks as if it has been designed by someone who has created the project in their spare time. --Barry talk 14:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has been mentioned that the address is a residential address, I would just like to point out that that isn't true. There are many businesses resident in the same building as the provided address, and it appears on the satellite images, and internet research to be an office building of some sort. Also the claim it only has 50 members is shot down by the graph at the bottom of the main page that clearly shows exactly how many members it has, looks to be around 200 members. Not a lot I'll agree, but more than 50. Ben W Bell talk 16:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Comment. I find it interesting to note that the OP's very first edit on Wikipedia was to this article, to add something [15]. A couple of days later he added more information on it being controversial [16]. This was then deleted by an anon user, but RepublicUK then altered the article again [17], seemingly knowing something going on about the organisation. The following day he nominated the article for deletion. I'm sorry but I feel there is something else going on here, the OP expands the article, adds some bits that are removed and then nominates it for deletion. Almost all the OPs edits are to this article. Call me old fashioned but there could be something else going on here with this nomination, I think someone may be trying to make a point and this nomination is in bad faith and singleminded against his declared membership of Republic (whatever that may be). His contribs also seem to show a singleminded push against the organisation [18]. Ben W Bell talk 17:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree, there are signs of sockpuppetry, however, that does not prove the Societies notability. Maybe you should focus on proving notability and then we can fish out if or if not he is a sock.--Vintagekits 17:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - The manner in which the above comments appear is a violation of POV in itself. Where in Wiki's rules does it say that an organisation must present accounts to anyone? It seems a credible enough organisation, which, one should add, is well-known at London's Royal Commonwealth Society. But more importantly, the nominator of this AfD has clearly come to Wiki with an agenda, as demonstrated when he set up his User page, where he announced: "I represent the UK organisation Republic which can be found at www.republic.org.uk. So really, should we believe anything he says here? Christchurch 20:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Right that all well and good but where is the proof of notability?--Vintagekits 20:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator of this AfD is not required to challenge the opinions of each person who votes to keep (he has now posted 14 times on this page - his avid supporter Vintagekits at leats 7 times in the same vein). It is for Wiki editors to give their views and for the ajudicators to then decide. That is how the process works. Christchurch 20:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, actually that's not true, Vintagekits has it right. People on these discussions express their evidence and their opinion, the comments are not votes. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The comments, the manner of the comments, any evidence supplied and so on are taken into account by the admin who closes the debate, but the closing admin has the final say in the matter. There could be 15 people saying Keep, and 2 saying Delete, and it gets deleted on the basis of what is supplied, not how people believed they "voted". Just for future reference. Ben W Bell talk 22:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please, Ben W Bell, could you have the democracy bit put on Wikipedia's home page please. This seems to me important as the founders seem to think it is a democracy. David Lauder 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. Ben W Bell talk 08:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.No, how wiki works is on proof! When you state something even just an opinion you should be able to back that up with proof. So far NOT ONE EDITOR who has stated "Keep" has provided EVIDENCE of notability.--Vintagekits 20:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep saying that, maybe it shall become true.--Couter-revolutionary 21:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: seems verifiable and credible; has its own website and the subject itself is doubtless of great interest. Worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. 81.155.155.186 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd edit by this user, who has a very similar IP address to User:81.151.155.249 who has already !voted "keep" above. Tyrenius 02:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep:fulfils Wiki requirements. Notable in its own way and in its objectives. Chelsea Tory 21:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have a lot of votes here calling this organization "notable," but there is zero assertion of notability in the article. If you're considering using "notable" as your reason for saying this article should be kept, then please review Wikipedia:Notability first to see what "notable" actually means in the context of Wikipedia. If the criterion here is notability, the article as it stands right now fails. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable: zero gnews archive hits, zero gbooks hits, zero scholar hits. Rather than assuring us that this is a notable organisation, without any supporting evidence, the case for inclusion would be better made by proving the notability of the organisation by providing supporting sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: total and utter reliance on the internet, as proposed by Angus McLellan, should never be the last word. Libraries still exist will millions of books and periodicals one cannot find on the internet, which is not the be all and end all. This organisation is contentious enough (at least for those opposed to it) in its objectives to be notable. It has a website. Mr Darcy in his comment refers to a Wiki guideline, the template of which tells us is not set in stone. David Lauder 22:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, OK then, what written text/books provide proof that it is notable. All we need is Major Bonkers and we have the full set.--Vintagekits 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Vintagekits. You seem very busy on this issue.--Major Bonkers 11:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside and to be honest, I found that last exchange very amusing. Tyrenius 03:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As my dear friend Vintagekits says, printed sources would be absolutely wonderful. I don't see any in your comment here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thirded. Incidentally, "there might be printed sources that make it notable" is definitely not a justification for keeping an article. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable; no sources for the article except organization's own website. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are no references in the article and there is no indication that there has been any notice taken of this organisation by media or official bodies to signify its notability. Simple "keep" statements without verification are discountable. The BBC mention is not a news item but a post from the organisation itself by the look of it. If editors want this article kept, I suggest they get to work on it very quickly. At the moment there is no justification in the article itself for not deleting it. Tyrenius 02:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After much comment on this page I'm going to call for a delete on this. I can find no notability on the net for it outside of bits the organisation itself has posted or comments on forums. Even the webpage for the organisation seems confused as to what it is calling itself the "United Commonwealth Society" in most places rather than "Federal Commonwealth Society," and "United Commonwealth Society" receives exactly 0 Google hits which is damningly low (oddly enough doesn't even pick up the main site). Even the threads on the forums seem concerned more with less serious issues (not in itself damning) and seems more like a collection of like minded people (for the most part) hanging out rather than trying to achieve anything. Ben W Bell talk 08:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Without wishing to criticise anyone or Wikipeida itself, I feel bound to say that by some of the strictures outlined above that the Encyclopaedia Britannica whould have to shed most of its content. There are far far less important and non-notable organisation/group pages on Wikipedia. At least this one has a profile and a purpose. David Lauder 10:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The EB has different criteria to WP. It relies on the judgement of experts. WP can be edited by anyone, so verification is mandatory. Tyrenius 03:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The Society seems notable to me- I remember them being quoted by Sky News on Commonwealth Day in 2006. Astrotrain 10:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment If you can provide a supporting reference that is verifiable for their notability I will happily change my opinion, but I haven't managed to locate one. Remember, verifiability not truth (and I'm an Inclusionist). Ben W Bell talk 11:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Their website doesn't seem to even exist anymore. Will people still argure that they are notable?

I see what you mean, it now directs to the Toronto Transformation Party. --Couter-revolutionary 13:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wouldn't read too much into that, could be that their hosting company has had an issue. I've seen it happen with many websites in the past where going to the URL would send you to somewhere else hosted by the same company, probably be fixed in the next couple of days. Does make it harder to judge though, but that shouldn't be take into account I'd imagine it's just a mistake somewhere. Ben W Bell talk 14:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked out the Forum and apparently it is a server problem. Hamiltonguy 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)hamiltonguy[reply]

  • Strong delete. After waiting this one out for several days, and seeing no answer to the multiple requests for any outside sources, I am forced to recommend deletion. The information herein is unverifiable by any source other than the org's own website. This organization does not appear to have ever been mentioned in any reliable source, and the content itself does read like an publicity brochure. Given the complete lack of sources to refine the article, and the fact that it fails any test for notability, it needs to be deleted. The agenda of the nominator is noted above and is something to be discouraged, but his identification of this article as one failing to meet WP:V, the notability guidelines, and probably WP:NPOV as well is correct. Unfortunately, the personalities of the !voters appear to have come into play, and we have more block-voting on the Keep side by the same block who block-voted Delete on the AfDs for Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde, Diarmuid O'Neill, and Martin McCaughey. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can we be clear on this. The same editors may not turn up on the same AfDs. The same or similar editors may not reach the same conclusions as each other. Is this a Wikipedia policy? "Block-voting" is your personal opinion. What have you and User:Tyrenius (who regularly support each other and vote exactly the same way) been telling other users about personal opinions? Really, I think your attitude towards other users is outrageous and wrong. David Lauder 09:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is my take (and MrDarcy may have something different to say): editors often turn up on the same AfDs because they have the same interests. The problem occurs when those editors merely express biased opinions based on whether they approve of the subject or not, without attempting to objectively apply non-negotiable policies such as WP:ATT and WP:NPOV, or guidelines such as WP:N and WP:RS. No one attempting to do this could possibly argue for the retention of this article. This does become a matter of concern and needs to be addressed. MrDarcy and I have taken the same stance on this article, because any non-biased editor would have to !vote delete, if they were following policy. Tyrenius 23:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. The only thing that I would add is that I was pointing out that when those editors are expressing the SAME biased opinions, using the SAME flawed justifications, it looks like users are acting in concert to sway Wikipedia in one direction. And that, to me, is unacceptable. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Folks don't forget that some of us that 'voted KEEP' have actually posted material that we thought supported the position (the Africa Crises one where someone was making fun of the FCS as a racist organization that would support an "white" South Africa in particular looked 'good' to me at the time I added to this discussion), I have of course after review conceeded that the blog in question doesn't pass the 'reliable' test... But not all the 'Keeps' are from the established opposition party. Bo 03:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously not directed at you, because you are doing what should be done, namely searching to see if references are available to justify the article, not just saying keep based only on personal preference. However, as none of the refs are in the article to substantiate it, maybe you should reconsider your position now. Tyrenius 04:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We seem to have the same admins, as well.--Major Bonkers 13:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost like a family. Tyrenius 23:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete in general agreement with MrDarcy and also per my comment previously. I am disappointed that those wishing to retain the article do not seem to understand that this cannot be achieved merely by expressing an opinion, but only by providing proof through verifiable sources that substantiate notability. Otherwise the comments might just as well not have been written. I would ask the closing admin also to comment on this, if s/he feels it appropriate, for the benefit of contributing editors, as the problem is not restricted to this AfD. Tyrenius 03:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep is notable, and bad faith nom Brian | (Talk) 21:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once again somebody has said it is notable but they don't say how or provide any evidence for it, also this man is a member of this orgRepublicUK 23:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, but I can assure you I am not a member, as I am interested in politics that relate to New Zealand and the Commonwealth, I don't deny I watch with interest what they say (on their Forum etc) but I have never been involved in any business of this Society Brian | (Talk) 01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RepublicUK, you really should back up a claim like that with evidence, or else you shouldn't make it at all. Brian, unfortunately we have already established that this organization is not notable. Please review Wikipedia:Notability. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which of course I disagreed, however independent sources do seem to be a bit hard to find, perhaps this could be deleted for now, with the view to recreate, when the org comes more notable. I'll change my !vote to Keep Brian | (Talk) 03:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He just admitted he is registered on their forum, according to the FCS or UCS as they seem to be calling themselves now, that makes him a member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RepublicUK (talk • contribs)

Really? if thats the case I shall e-mail the admin now, and get my form registration removed, I can sure you, I have no conflict of interest here, however do you RepublicUK? do you want this article deleted because it is in conflict with your views? Brian | (Talk) 05:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would it be in conflict with my views?RepublicUK 05:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comments This bickering is quite irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether it is in accord with anyone's views or in conflict with them. All that matters is whether it meets wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, namely whether WP:N can be established with WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Good editors do not let their personal views dominate their editorial role. Tyrenius 06:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it has been decided that it is not notable, why hasn't it been deleted?RepublicUK 20:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because you've made a mess of the AfD and overwritten the first one. This needs to be sorted out. Tyrenius 00:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't create this page, I merely nominated the article. I beleive it was someone called 'kafziel' who started this page so don't get bitchy with me, take it up with them'RepublicUK 04:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where has it been established?--Counter-revolutionary 20:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I have awaited nearly two weeks before !voting on this one. The article has not been improved in that time nor has verifiable information regarding the Society from anywhere other than their own website.--Vintagekits 22:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't seem to have generated any non-trivial news coverage. Wickethewok 04:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. --Ragib 07:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Despite the immense amount of bickering, the answer to the main issue, which is does this article meet WP:ATT and WP:NOTE? is No. If those who are arguing so passionately for it to be kept would simply provide those sources, this AfD would be over. The fact that so far that hasn't happened is rather illuminating. EliminatorJR Talk 15:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a lack of reliable sources per EliminatorJR. Huon 21:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFD listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 5. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:CORP, WP:ATT and due to the mentions on membership and how to join Wikipedia:Spam. If someone tidies the whole article up and provides some reliable sources I will reconsider. Nuttah68 18:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've tried the 'tidy up' part. let me know, if you don't mind, if I did that well enough (It is a separate issue from Notability, which I don't think I can help them with). Bo 19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - all the links in the article are to sites affiliated with the organisation, hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability. Although the article asserts notability and the organisation looks like it might pass WP:N, it will have to be deleted unless sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:19, 9 March 2007 (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 a deletion review). 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 send to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Samaritan 18:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

National Union of Workers[edit]

Spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notable and encyclopedic Australian union, but copyvio from here. Samaritan 18:55, 2 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. Postdlf 02:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Martin (DJ)[edit]

No potential to become encyclopedic

Vanity Page

Created by members of internet message board "Metropol" to potentially embarass and slag off an unpopular member.

NPOV

The article's subject is of little relavance to Wikipedia

Above unsigned nomination by User:62.254.0.38

Attack page, was tagged for speedy deletion before. Also nominated: CRACKING as an unencyclopedic topic (if decision is to keep James Martin article, CRACKING should be merged). Alternative: move to user space. --MarkSweep 01:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. Crap. Postdlf 01:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, notability not established, nonsense, greasy singer Peter Andre, underage grirlfriend? Megan1967 02:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- reads like a semi-attack mixing an ounce of admiration for the guy. Regardless, we don't need it about. - Longhair | Talk 02:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Quale 03:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it again. Samaritan 04:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, and also note that one of the authors has vandalised this VfD page once already. What my vote they blanked said follows: Delete. No evidence of notability, his only claim to fame seems to be that he now presents for Rugby FM, a local radio station on which we don't (as I write) have an article and probably don't want one. There's a can of worms here, see User:Billbennett, the original contributor of this article (redirects to an article on himself, vanity?), and Source FM, the low-power amateur Uni radio station from which all these articles and more probably originate. Andrewa 19:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC) Watch this space I guess... Andrewa 07:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Not only does the notice ont he actual page saying this article has been considered for deletion keep being removed, but this Votes For Deletion page keps being vandalised by the authors too. Surely this is vandalism and misuse of wikipedia? Also delete CRACKING. Why either article has anything to do with Wikipedia is beyond me, put people seem obsessed with posting crap to do with this guy. The problem is, even if the article is deleted, the inssitence of these people will ensure it keeps being reinstated. Also, as I stated (before the entire contents of this page were blanked), references to this person keep appearing on theDisc Jockey page, even though he is unimportant, and has no reason to be referenced there.62.254.0.38 08:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why is he here, and why is he relavant? And why info about him liking Peter Andre and his sex life?212.219.188.240 09:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Consider creating a userid. Votes from IPs do count, but not much. If a hundred of you vote one way, and one logged-on user with a good contribution history votes against you, then I'd consider the vote won by the logged-on contributor. Other admins may be a little more favourable towards anons, but not much. Andrewa 21:19, 3 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. Postdlf 01:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Caldwell[edit]

Non-notable American Idol loser in season 2. This is the entire article text:

Kimberly Caldwell was a contestant on the second season of Fox Network's talent competition show, American Idol. She was the sixth person voted off that season.

Quale 19:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or add info to the main article on American Idol.--Silversmith 19:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. She is notable. I knew instantly who was the subject of the article just from the name. She has been active on the TV Guide Channel since her American Idol appearances and is currently part of pop culture. She actually gets more entertainment news coverage than many other previous contestants, even some who made it further in the competitions. Since there is an American Idol entry, this would probably be the best place for her, but I can see people trying to look her up by name, thus the redirect. -- Glen Finney 19:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say Keep as a seperate article. I'm not an American Idol fan but she is notable loser, I guess. As Glen Finney has stated that she has a TV career going on with TV Guide Channel and Fox Sports Net with their defunct (I think) television show, 54321. [19] In addition, she just recently signed to a major label record deal even doesn't mean she will release an album. --Chill Pill Bill 20:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: After actually reading the entertainment news story that I sourced, I say definitely keep after reading this line: "She appeared on a recent episode of FOX's "Life on a Stick" and is reading scripts for other projects." Some people actually care to give her television scripts. --Chill Pill Bill 20:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep if expansion is truly possible. --InShaneee 20:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Samaritan 21:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Megan1967 02:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable American Idol finalist. Mike H 08:07, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep and expand Yuckfoo 00:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete who's that girl? Grue 18:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have articles on almost every AI top 12 finalist. The finalists are seen and voted on by millions. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A.J. Gil and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/EJay Day. Gamaliel 02:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - although i hate it. Kingturtle 06:13, 7 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. jni 14:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chaoscipher[edit]

Seems to be self-promotion. The inventor's name comes up with 5 google hits - "Jesse William Ward " And Chaosciper as one word doesn't exist on Google.--Silversmith 20:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. Quale 03:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nonsense. -- taviso 10:36, 5 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. jni 14:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Bianchini[edit]

Delete; non-notable, probable vanity. Bio of an Italian web designer. His website lacks a portfolio that I can see; website has an Alexa ranking of over 2 million. See also Gianky. —Miles←☎ 20:01, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Quale 03:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I agree, I was the author of this vanity. Sorry, I thought it was easier to delete an article. Gianky 09:16, 3 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. – ABCD 18:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gronke[edit]

Neologism or obscure expression, unverifiable. A Google search indicates that it's non-notable. Sietse 20:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, slang definition. Megan1967 02:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably hoax, certainly a non-notable neologism. Quale 03:02, 3 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. jni 14:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Squeegified[edit]

Nonsense, though not quite sufficiently patent for speedying. --Weyes 20:31, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

I find it to be a fun word that i myself will start to use, so i say don't delete it-chris 5/2/05

i say leave it here,This is the best word i have ever heard in my entire life, i cant stop laughing-Brandon 5/2/05

  • Speedy delete, notwithstanding the glowing testimonials above. No meaningful content or links. Clearly irrelevant and non-encyclopedic. Onlyemarie 20:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although the article is absolutely hilarious.Sensation002 20:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Absolutely patent nonsense fully worthy of a speedy delete. Quale 20:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Patent nonsense, and expanding it does not make it less so. -- The Anome 21:16, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete this.

i think it's funny,so my vote is keep it:Nick

i love it, keep it:Frank

Some words defy common thinking and daily conversation, but challenge the sharper minds when looking for a different way to say things. This is worth keeping: Frenchie

Note the multiple revisions by 151.196.33.34 - snooooooooze. Onlyemarie 21:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, obscure dictionary definition. Mgm|(talk) 21:57, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

hello i'm the person w/ that ip adress and i would like to say that i'm chris and my friend nick who is over at my house said he wanted to vote, my father then came home from work told us to get off the pc and before we left the room we got him to read the post and he said he would like to make a comment and he signed under the name Frenchie.

This is an awesome word that will catch on-jack

you must be squeegified to want to get rid of the word-matt

sweet word,i like it so my votes a no on deletion-dan

so you know those are separte people from a school's public sever therefor they all have the same ip address attached.

  • Ok, you have the same IP address. But in Wikipedia, it is one user, one vote. And truely, other than people from your school voting for "keep" of the article, no one else has came over and voted to keep. I would not be surprised if an admin will discount the Annon. votes. If you do not want this situation to happen again, why not just create an account so this mess will not be happening. Plus, the main reason why most people want the article to be gone is that Wikipedia is not primarily used as a dictionary. That is where Wikitonary comes into play. It is also the meere fact that only a small group of people use this word and we are not a collection site of slang terms. Try the urban dictionary, or your wesbite to spread this term, not Wikipedia. Zscout370 (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del nn neolog dicdef —msh210 19:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

im the person that made this site and just so you all know how does a word start other than by someone taking the initiative to put it somewhere that people see it, and you said that wikipedia is NOT a dictionary so this means it should accept all terms that have meaning or sentimental value to people Comment by 141.157.76.84

I said earlier that you should put the term on YOUR personal website or YOUR blog, not Wikipedia. Though if you want to take the effort to make a word popular, more power to you, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Plus, this word does not have much meaning to many people, other than your schoolmates. That, to us, is not notable. If the term is used by half of the United States, we might think about it, but it is not. We got rid of terms before that were created, just like Squeegified, and we got rid of terms that appear in placed like the Urban Dictionary. I want you and your friends to read this to see where me and the others are coming from. Zscout370 (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

okay, i get where your coming from, but I would like to say that this word is not one that is only used by one kind of group, also that this is not a slang word because it isn't a shorter version of a word that we are to lazy to sound out. This is a word made up be people for people, which is how most words start and i therefore think it should be allowed to stay.


If you want to vote keep, that is fine with me. But I am just explaining on why myself and others do not want the word to be in Wikipedia. As for you claiming that the word is wide-spread, I have two words for you: prove it. Show us links, show us a Google search, show us stuff. Plus, since it is a made-up word, people might have some issue with that. As I said before, if the page here is whacked, then why not just start a website or a blog and then use the word there. It will still not be on Wikipedia, but I do not mind if you use the other methods to spread this word. I do not know if it will catch on. BTW, I want to clariify some of the votes people casted:

  • NN=Not Notable. Usually, this means that this person/place/thing/word/event/etc. is not really important to the world at large. Though the above things might be meaningful to some people, to most the world, they do not care.
  • Negoloism=That word is defined as a word that is just mainly in local use. This word qualifies at that, since it is only used by you and your pals.
  • DicDef=Dictionary Defintion. As I mentioned above, we have a project that deals with just dictionary terms, so articles that are usually just terms are frowned upon.

I know you want to keep the page, which I have no problems with, but I just think that this article will be deleted. Zscout370 (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

do you want me to put the names that go with the comments that have no names? also when we said widespread we were referring to our area.

Sure, but I am not sure it will affect the voting or not. As for the widespread factor, I am not sure what the benchmark is, but I think that just your school/region might not be good enough. Zscout370 (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism (or "protologism", if you prefer). --Angr/comhrá 02:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Neologism compounded with inappropriate bluster (NPOV) and falsified etymology. Dystopos 03:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you tell me to prove it but seeing as how you can type anything into google and find a naughty pic, i dont think that is the best search engine to use, and now it hasent gone international, but it could make it there with a friendly page helping it and then you all can say you supported the starting of this word

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY. jni 13:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Un seul crime, l'amour[edit]

empty page, should be deleted, or expanded

  • Speedy delete. Article is a CSD -- it originally contained completely unencyclopedic content, which was subsequently blanked. Kelly Martin 21:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saveetha Engineering College/Temp[edit]

Looks like a leftover from an old copyvio notice of it's parent article.--Nabla 21:48, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Unnecessary duplication. Megan1967 02:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I am not requesting the main article to be deleted, just this temp page.--Nabla 10:53, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fork created as a result of an erroneous copyvio listing, which was corrected by the original lister the following day. No significant editing history. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:19, 3 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. jni 13:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan Death Monkey[edit]

Blatant band vanity. CDC (talk) 21:55, 2 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. jni 14:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Remedy[edit]

Band vanity. CDC (talk) 22:00, 2 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. jni 14:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buzaglo[edit]

Delete: A surname? Is Wikipedia to become an index of all surnames now? --Durin 22:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, geneology, name cruft. Megan1967 02:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What Megan1967 said. Quale 05:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 07:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — There are plenty of surname pages, but most have multiple notable individuals or place-names. (See Jones for example.) This one apparently has zip. — RJH 19:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I once knew a Buzaglo, Delete. Jayjg (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into an article on the family of surnames into which this one falls. Although I'm a fan of the surnames, they need to be notable to become individual articles. However, we should most certainly have articles on families of surnames, and almost every surname in the world falls into some family (see Smith (surname) for an example of an article that covers a wide swath of topically and structurally related surnames). -- BDAbramson thimk 04:14, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
    • Note: This article may make a difference to some people - it describes how Israelis use the phrase, "the Buzaglo test" to say that sometimes persons in positions of wealth or power are treated differently than those named "Buzaglo" (i.e. the ordinary guy). The article says "[i]f you don't live in Israel, where the term is a household one, the odds are that you have never heard of the Buzaglo Test." -- BDAbramson thimk 06:20, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  • Keep There are entire wikipedia projects tracking surnames. SchmuckyTheCat 00:24, 7 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. jni 13:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Murdy[edit]

Not Encyclopedia Worthy Collins.mc

Could someone fill me in on how to post something for speedy delete? (do you need to contact an admin?) also, where would be a more appropriate place to post something like this/look for the answer? Collins.mc

To speedily delete something, just make sure it follows the guidelines at WP:CSD, and add {{delete}} at the top. I've deleted the page myself this time. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for trying to get rid of the garbage. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear: content was "Becky Murdy is hot". Clear speedy case. Meelar (talk) 02:32, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 14:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fort Street Class of 1969/Wikipedia:Fort Street's Nik Bogduk[edit]

The above page violates WP:NOT (no personal homepages; wikipedia isn't a file storage area).

This is a somewhat contraversial VFD nomination, considering the fact that it's in the user namespace. There was some discussion on the administrator's noticeboard about this a while back, but it doesn't appear that any action was taken until now. I think that it's important that we "make an example" out of this page by showing people that they can't just register for Wikipedia to use it as a meetup organizer or a yearbook- they can use meetup or wikicities for this.

We might be able to let this fly if the user made some contributions to Wikipedia, but (s)he has made no contributions to the 'pedia besides pages relating to this, and the other two pages.

You might also be interested in voting for this other nomination. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (don't count implicit nomination). -Frazzydee|✍ 23:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the user was told that this was inappropriate use. RickK 23:57, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - probably slanderous of this real person--AYArktos 01:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- if no contributions to the main namespace eventuate. - Longhair | Talk 01:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though with hesitation. It is user-space afterall.--Cyberjunkie 01:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web-hosting provider. --Carnildo 00:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to have no relationship to the Wikipedia project. As such, it is an abuse of the user namespace. Perhaps refer them to Wikicities? Andrewa 12:03, 8 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. jni 14:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fort Street Class of 1969/Wikipedia:Fort Street's Doc[edit]

Violates WP:NOT, for more info please see this vfd.

You might also be interested in voting for this other nomination. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (don't count implicit nomination). -Frazzydee|✍ 23:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the user was told this was inappropriate use. RickK 23:57, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity freak. hydnjo talk 00:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I suspect more slander than vanity. If this user isn't contributing to the main namespace, I see no reason to keep any of this rubbish about. Geocities anyone? - Longhair | Talk 01:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Cyberjunkie 14:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a webhosting provider. --Carnildo 00:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and the photo. Enochlau 06:20, 8 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. jni 13:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brentwood Beast[edit]

Zero Google hits. Created by a repeated vandal and troll. RickK 23:54, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, apparent hoax. Kappa 00:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Before someone else says it, "Cruftozoology." Samaritan 00:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of course. hydnjo talk 00:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be speedy deleted as nonsense. Firebug 00:46, 3 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_2&oldid=1081092825"