Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 15[edit]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fraudulent hoax[edit]

Delete. Changed from a speedy candidate to a VfD nomination by the author's (User:SamuraiClinton) request. Simply not needed – both Fraud and Hoax are adequately covered in their respective articles, and an article on Fraudulent hoaxes, whatever that might mean, would only dilute the content. Note that the author also added merge directives to Fraud and Hoax without giving any real reason why such a merger would be appropriate. Also note that an RfC is ongoing for SamuraiClinton. android↔talk 00:02, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • This article was made so that content from fraud and hoax that mention them being used on each other could belong here. I think we should keep this. --TheSamurai 23:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't make any sense. "Fraudulent hoax" gets less than 100 distinct hits on Google; it simply isn't a term with enough currency in the real world to warrant its own separate article. It's more than sufficient for fraud and hoax to link to each other; there doesn't need to be a breakout article for when the two overlap. Bearcat 00:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, won't become an article, dictdef at best. Tempshill 00:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think it's a reasonable idea, frauds and hoaxes are similar enough to be merged. Unfortunately hoaxes are pretty much all fraudulent, so this wouldn't be the way to do it. Kappa 01:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I think they're pretty different concepts. Hoaxes are an attempt to spread misinformation (i.e. "Good Times" email virus warnings) while frauds are deceptive schemes run for profit (i.e. pyramid scams). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:23, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is no more necessary than an article on Untrue lies. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Has about as much meaning as the phrase "Non notable School". Klonimus 04:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • ...or "inclusionist trivia." --Calton | Talk 06:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. So is there any difference between "fraud" and "fraudulent hoax"?--Calton | Talk 06:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fraud refers to schemes for personal, usually material, gain, hoax to pranks and jokes that might produce fame or notorierity but no direct material benefits. (Of course, the difference may blur in some of the tricks of P.T. Barnum that were exhibited for money). The problem may be with the term "fraudulent" which in effect means "false". In this context, "fraudulent hoax" would mean "a hoax that does not exist". More reason for delete, in fact... - Skysmith 08:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with reasoning of Skysmith and Starblind. Mgm|(talk) 08:04, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article serves no discrete purpose and has nothing in it worth salvaging. Naturenet 12:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete in agreement with the others. Oliver Keenan 14:53, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all of my arguments have already been made by others. hydnjo talk 15:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same here. --Djacobs 20:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete SamuraiClintoncruft. RickK 23:02, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What everybody else said. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. Rhobite 00:03, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Crap. Postdlf 09:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not useful. Wmahan. 04:15, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Delete I hate to destroy someones intellectual submissions, but this just isn't proper here. --Fritz9000 07:22, 20 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 Keep --SPUI (talk) 04:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Waking the Tiger[edit]

This was voted for undeletion. Accordingly per procedure I am relisting on VfD. I currently have no vote on this article. If I decide otherwise I will enter an explicit vote below.

  • The article was originally entitled "How to Heal Traumas,"
  • The original reason given for deletion was "Barely coherent, New Age-ish, unreferenced essay with a special guest appearance by Medusa. In cleanup for more than 6 months. Completely idiosyncratic non-topic."
  • The original debate is at Talk:Walking_the_Tiger/Archive:Votes_for_deletion:How_to_heal_traumas.
  • The article at the time of deletion is essentially the identical to the oldest revision of the current article.
  • The second VfD debate is at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Waking_the_Tiger; most of the delete votes argued that it was re-creation of previously deleted material, most of the keep votes argued that it was a new article about a reasonably notable book.
  • The VfU discussion centered on the issue of whether this is a re-creation of material voted for deletion, or completely new material. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Votes

  • Keep, seems notable enough. --SPUI (talk) 00:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I just edited the article and added a lot of hedging. Previously it was unacceptably presenting as true the various theories about the author. (I know nothing about this alleged book.) Tempshill 00:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I change to abstain; my edits were only to make the factual claims barely acceptable in the event it turns out to be a keeper; I don't endorse the continued existence of the article. Tempshill 00:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I'm unsure of its notability, but I'll give a 2,183 Amazon sales rank the benefit of the doubt. No judgment from the previous VfD should carry over to this substantially different version. Postdlf 00:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The deletion of this article at the close of the last round of Vfd -- which reached no consensus -- is itself procedurally questionable. Be that as it may, IMO, we must make a decision about the article as it exists, not to enforce some procedural pet peeve. Keep, by the way. Jgm 02:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Amazon rank over 10,000 Suggests this is a notable book. Klonimus 04:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Book's notability is established. Sjakkalle 07:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per the above. Radiant_* 07:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Seems notable. Megan1967 08:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Keep and expand. Oliver Keenan 14:53, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Voted undelete in VfU. Notable in my view. --JuntungWu 14:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems OK to me. --Monoet 16:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are worse things you can write an article on than a book you can buy in bookstores and order from Amazon. 24.4.127.164 05:19, 21 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 (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 00:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Photoshop tutorials[edit]

Consists of a little advice on how to make one; non-encyclopedic. Tempshill 00:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Doesn't belong here. Either delete or transwiki to Wikibooks; no strong preference which. —Korath (Talk) 01:21, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Photoshop tutorials are heavy on the internet, but a how-to on making a tutorial? Not on this Wiki... Nestea 02:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki, though I'd have to say I don't particularly find a how to-article on creating tutorials useful. Mgm|(talk) 08:06, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki this sucker to WikiBooks. Otherwise WP will end up hosting tutorials for every program out there. Your mom is a sexy beast. At this rate we'll end up with a tutorial for every version of SimCity. --Coolcaesar 19:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-encyclopedic. Commander 17:57, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just delete it, do not transwiki. Wikibooks doesn't need the random stuff that washes up on the beach of Wikipedia. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikibooks. Megan1967 09:46, 17 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. – ABCD 00:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

High decline[edit]

Delete - neologism, dicdef at best. FreplySpang (talk) 01:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - agree. original research --Anonymous Cow 01:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, dictionary definition. Megan1967 08:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I concur. --Coolcaesar 19:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whatever you may think about Waterworld, it doesn't seem to meet the stated criteria. RickK 23:03, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dicdef. Wmahan. 04:22, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
  • Transwikied This belongs in Wiktionary. It is a useful term and totally removing it seems to be a waste, unless of course it's already in Wiktionary. --Fritz9000 07:19, 20 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 redirect to SEX (computers). – ABCD 00:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SEX (Computers)[edit]

Zantastik marked this vfd on March 8, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 00:05, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • looks like a dicdef at best, IMO. Also states that it was a straight copy from "the jargon file". del BigFatDave 02:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete? See Wikipedia:More_bad_jokes_and_other_deleted_nonsense, #38. Now check this article's history. Possibly deleted before? Nestea 02:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This was copied verbatim from The Jargon File. Wikipedia is not a Jargon File mirror, even for its non-joke entries. android↔talk 02:33, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Useless duplication of the (far better) SEX (computers) that resurrects content that has already been BJAODNed once. Delete if you believe that no-one will look for this rather than simply looking for SEX; Redirect otherwise. Uncle G 11:18, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
  • Seems to be a possible copyvio too. Delete K1Bond007 19:27, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect to SEX (computers). Grue 20:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to SEX (computers). Not a copyvio -- the Jargon File is public domain. --Carnildo 22:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to SEX (computers). Megan1967 09:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to SEX (computers). Wmahan. 04:19, 2005 Apr 20 (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 00:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saint Maximixin[edit]

Delete personal revalation like original research is unencyclopedicTjc

  • Delete but thank you for sharing, Barbara Ann. --Wetman 04:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:07, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Megan1967 08:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, factually disputed, potentially offensive, unprovable, not verified, invitation for vandalism. Oliver Keenan 14:53, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saumya Meattle[edit]

Vanity. Non-notable president (41 Google hits) of non-notable web design company (121 hits). --Lee Hunter 22:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:14, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 08:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Lee Hunter. Tempshill 22:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, promo, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Wmahan. 04:21, 2005 Apr 20 (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 00:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sean Kruger[edit]

Non-notable, (zero google results for "sean kruger" +magician). Prob vanity. Delete--Halidecyphon 07:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. -- Scott eiπ 08:34, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:22, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Haven't ever heard of the guy or the trick in question. If he's remotely notable I probably would have. Mgm|(talk) 08:10, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, obvious vanity page. North where? Tempshill 22:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Wmahan. 04:23, 2005 Apr 20 (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. Mackensen (talk) 04:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shahed University, Tehran[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

  • In Farsi I guess. Thue | talk 16:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<end moved text>

  • It's been 2 weeks, and nothing beyond noting what language it is in. Delete unless someone writes something relevant in English. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:07, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:25, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't speak Farsi, but just based on the size of what is there, I'd have to say it's a sub-stub. It doesn't seem that deletion would make much of a difference.
  • Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 08:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki or Delete give this mess to the persian wiki. Klonimus 20:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a stub: Farsi is indoeuropean and no one can write an encyclopaedia article of such size in an IE language! :) --Neigel von Teighen 20:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Cleanup, Expand - this appears to be a genuine university, which would make it inherently encyclopedic - and a poor start does not make it unencyclopedic. I restored the {{notenglish}} tag, in the hopes that it may yet be translated, but if not, we should still have an article in this space. -- 8^D gab 20:48, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
    • Yes, and I just found it via the category in the restored template. But you neglected to add a notice on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, as that template requires. So all you did was move it into limbo. Speaking as the person who administers Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English: it had its two weeks. No one picked it up. Yes, this is a legitimate topic, but please don't throw it back to us again. In general, in my experience, most articles in Arabic and Persian don't get fixed. You want to write on this topic? Fine, be my guest. Meanwhile, I would rather not clutter that project page with things that are unlikely to be translated. Make it an English stub and keep it? Fine. Delete it as a sub-stub? Fine. But don't send it through the Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English process a second time, it's not fair to those of us who try to keep that moving. I am removing the {{notenglish}} tag. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:05, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Shenanigans. – ABCD 20:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shananagans[edit]

Delete - Vanity page with no content. Briangotts 03:15, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:26, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Shenanigans; plausible misspelling. android↔talk 01:23, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • no content, not notable, best just to redirect and prevent a respawning of this silliness. BigFatDave 02:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Mgm|(talk) 08:11, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Shenanigans. Megan1967 08:28, 15 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. – ABCD 00:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shondrella Avery[edit]

Completely idiosyncratic non-topic--not much of a career, yet, to speak of. Cigarette 19:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neutral, I don't care either way. Cburnett 22:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:29, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN Mwanner 01:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, microstub. Megan1967 08:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, not an article. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:49, 16 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. – ABCD 00:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sidwood[edit]

  • del. non-notable, original research. Most of (small) number of google hits are from its webpage or close. No solid secondary references. Mikkalai 06:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:32, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • NN, thank the PTB that each char. doesn't have it's own page to be deleted too. BigFatDave 02:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 08:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:50, 16 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. – ABCD 00:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Simon Olsson[edit]

MCBastos marked this vfd all the way back on December 8 with the comment "doesn't seem important enough", but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 00:34, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete NN Vanity. "Simon Olsson"+"progammer" only came up with one result and it was a Wikipedia mirror site talking about this article mentioning "computer programmer." --Anonymous Cow 02:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "Simon Olsson" + "Fredensborg" also came up with nothing except his profile on a music fansite. FreplySpang (talk) 14:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:50, 16 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. – ABCD 00:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sinclair Schuller[edit]

This is clearly nonsens. I have googled and find nothing to support any of the content. The sinclair disambiguation page should also be edited demo 17:50, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

  • Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:43, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just silly. If anyone finds it funny, it could be moved to BJAODN. Mwanner 01:50, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • NN, and not even amusing enough for BJAODN, del BigFatDave 22:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't even appear to make sense. ebc29
  • Delete, nonnotable, vanity, not funny enough for BJAODN. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:53, 16 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 merge and redirect. Mackensen (talk) 04:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sisterhood of the Wesp[edit]

  • Delete this - there are STILL no valid hits on either Google or Yahoo.

Ed Otto 1806 29 Apr 2005 (IST)

  • It sounds like nonsense and has exactly 0 hits on Google. Stellertony 04:54, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • "What links here" indicates that it's a fictional group in the continuity of Araña. Even if that article itself was not a disaster area, it's not a series notable enough to need breakouts. Merge anything useful into that article and delete this one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Content-free typo of a very minor subject. Delete. -Sean Curtin 01:48, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nothing useful here. Delete. --Pc13 08:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:46, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • The title should actualy be "Sisterhood of the Wasp". I am not surprised that there were no hits in Google. The only links I found though were summaries and reviews of this fairly recent series. See for example: Spider.fan reviews] User:Dimadick
  • Merge per Antaeus Feldspar. It can break out if it's got actual info. Mgm|(talk) 08:13, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Araña. Megan1967 08:36, 15 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 keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Slitz[edit]

Unless more information can be added I see no point in having this on Wikipedia.bakuzjw (aka 578) 02:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and Expand But without more info, deleteZantastik 03:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, platform for an external link. (This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution.) —Korath (Talk) 00:48, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, this magazine is very notable in the Nordic countries. — JIP | Talk 04:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as there is no content. Then list on requested articles. Radiant_* 07:56, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Megan1967 08:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep, and invite expansion. Oliver Keenan 10:44, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a valid stub. Notable magazine. Jeltz talk 16:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable. Oliver Keenan 10:05, Apr 24, 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. Mackensen (talk) 04:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sons of california[edit]

Delete as non-notable. Wikipedia is not a lyrics archive, and information about all college fight songs, including Berkley's, is already available at fight song. If there is a consensus to keep the article, it needs to be moved to Sons of California. --Halidecyphon 21:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:49, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, wikipedia is not a lyrics database. Megan1967 08:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as a Berkeley alumnus, I never found the song to be that interesting (it's kind of corny) and Wikipedia is not a lyrics database! --Coolcaesar 18:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm also a Cal alum. Redirect to fight song. RickK 23:10, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and delete. Mackensen (talk) 04:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Soviet behavior toward its ethnic Poles[edit]

KNewman marked this vfd on January 25, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 00:50, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

St. Stephens High School[edit]

Delete. Not notable. There are a million St. Stephen's schools out there. --Wtshymanski 04:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, BEEFSTEW score of 0. (This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution.) —Korath (Talk) 00:57, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A School of Distinction! In the Top 10% of all High Schools in NC!!. Klonimus 04:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as yet another "bored student" nanostub. This says nothing. - Lucky 6.9 05:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: The website is just this side of useless. No history; no nothing. Klonimus' comment got me to thinking about expanding this but there isn't anything to latch onto. Heck, they haven't updated the site since the beginning of the school year. For example, the "upcoming" 1954 reunion is still scheduled...for last October. - Lucky 6.9 05:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A BEEFSTEW score of 0 is impressive. Ambi 05:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiability established. Article subject is not nonsense, vanity or original research. --Centauri 05:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 06:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. What Centauri said, too. —RaD Man (talk) 06:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I already lined out the disruptive {{vfd}} include which RadMan put on this page, only to have him reinstate it with a nasty note on my talk page. Perhaps others can help me convince him of the error of his ways. This is vandalism. —Wahoofive | Talk 01:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Wrong. Vandalism is when you edit votes which are not your own. I also notice your account was created just one month ago. Welcome. —RaD Man (talk) 02:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not noteable. Vegaswikian 06:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even the school's own website establishes notability. It claims the school is in the top 10% of schools in North Carolina, but never provides verification for that claim or even a definition of what criteria were used. No history of the school is given; no indication of whether the school is public or private, and if private, whether secular or religious, and if religious (as the school's name implies), what denomination it belongs to. In short, no encyclopedic information is available about this school, meaning that this substub has no hope of becoming encyclopedic. --Angr/comhrá 07:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this is way below the bar. Concur with Angr's comments. Radiant_* 07:57, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, horrible. Dunc|☺ 08:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Make a mention in an article about the locality and delete - Skysmith 09:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --Bucephalus talk to me 11:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:56, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable The JPS 18:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. When this school is mentioned in the same sentence with Choate, Andover, and Philips Exeter then it can come back. --Coolcaesar 19:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete another "st.blabla high school". Grue 20:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • merge and redirect probably Yuckfoo 01:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Particularly egregious example of a poorly written article about a non-notable school. Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another article on a non-notable topic. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Indrian 04:02, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: school vanity, not notable. Jonathunder 03:45, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
  • Keep There is a place on Wikipedia for schools. --ShaunMacPherson 03:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ... but not every school on the planet. -- Dcfleck 13:18, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Mackensen (talk) 04:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Gordon[edit]

Wikipedia is not for personal homepages. The article does not have encyclopedic potential, as Gordon is not (yet) a notable chess player. Possibly a vanity page. Foolip 14:41, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity, not notable. Android79 23:31, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the reasons stated above. Foolip 01:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity page, he doesn't sound notable. Howabout1 17:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. (My vote below.) —Korath (Talk) 00:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • It was removed out of process. I remember voting on this from the main VfD page. No change of vote. android↔talk 01:24, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if he won the championships under the accomplishments section, he's well on his way to being world-class. Reminds me of Josh Waitzkin &#151 FoodMarket&nbsp&nbsptalk! 02:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. I mean come on, every high school has a chess competition. Being one of the few nine-year-olds who play chess doesn't mean you're a child prodigy. Radiant_* 07:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • From what I read, it looks like it was _national_ championships he won (in his age group), not high school competitions, Radiant. &#151 FoodMarket&nbsp&nbsptalk! 12:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I know that. My opinion is that there's too many chess competitions for the winner of any of them to be notable, at anything less than world-class level. Radiant_* 14:47, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity, non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:57, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - he's clearly a very able chess player who has won a national competition. I doubt this is vanity because it is created by a registered user whos name is not Stephen Gordon. Oliver Keenan 14:43, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • For the record - it doesn't have to be written by oneself to be regarded WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 14:47, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • It may not have been created by Gordon, but it was very likely created by a friend of his, given the upload of a rather candid photo – looks like it was taken with a camera phone or similar. android↔talk 14:48, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep national champions, even if children. How else are you supposed to spot a notable child? Kappa 14:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree with Kappa. Besides, U.K is a MAJOR chess-playing nation, arguable third in strength to Russia and China in terms of world-class play. Any junior player who has won multiple national championships there is notable &#151 FoodMarket&nbsp&nbsptalk! 15:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable child chess prodigy. IMHO it would be a bit more notable if he was a pinball wizard. Klonimus 21:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • You mean if someone wrote a musical about him? Radiant_* 13:07, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a personal page and a vanity page too. --Neigel von Teighen 21:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Vanity, delete--nixie 01:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)--nixie 01:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Perhaps in a few years he will warrant an article. --NormanEinstein 22:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep iff someone cares to add some references. —Korath (Talk) 11:49, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stewart Marsh[edit]

Vanity. And it failed the google test. Lots of Stewart Marshes but most have to do with a knife company. --Woohookitty 03:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 01:03, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. NN Mwanner 01:39, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, he got lots of medals but I don't think any of them were outstandingly difficult to obtain. Kappa 01:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep FroggyMoore 22:42, 19 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 merge. Mackensen (talk) 04:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stifler's mom[edit]

(marked vfd without comment by Grenavitar at 23:33, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC))

  • Strong keep! Stifler's mom is an important piece of popular culture; she has developed quite a following among American youth. 4.224.207.108 23:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge this one-sentence 'article' with American Pie (movie). Neurophyre 18:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP so long as it is embellished to include the name of the actress as well as the sex situation plotlines from the trilogy. 68.55.194.209 00:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 01:06, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to American Pie (movie). The plot summary there is so underdone that this could easily go in. Rewrite, anyone (haven't seen all of it, so can't really do it justice). Meelar (talk) 01:08, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • merge with American Pie (movie), or Jennifer Coolidge, or both. Not quite obscure to be AP-cruft, but it's close. BigFatDave 02:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • merge It is notable but doesn't deserve to have a seperate article on it. MILF.... --Anonymous Cow 02:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the info with the movie (not necessarily the actress, the idea isn't famous because of the actress). Maybe there should be a List of minor characters from the American Pie trilogy. -- 8^D gab 02:48, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
  • Piecruft. Merge and redirect to American Pie (movie).Martg76 13:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. - MILF - Darwinek 08:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, subtrivial moviecruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to the movie. Radiant_* 13:07, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect Alai 04:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This deserves a much larger article. --Fritz9000 07:21, 20 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. – ABCD 00:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Astrid Lagunes Padilla[edit]

Looks like Vanity. Head of a Mexican travel agency. The "You can contact TURISSSTE at..." sentence at the bottom suggests that this is an ad. It claims that Padilla "made the headlines", but doesn't substantiate that. Google search for "Astrid Lagunes Padilla" returns 10 hits and "Astrid Padilla" gets 6 hits. -Eisnel 01:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ad/Vanity Mwanner 01:34, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity/Ad Tempshill 22:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As above --Carnildo 22:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity Dsmdgold 23:48, Apr 18, 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. – ABCD 00:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saturnfans[edit]

A forum for Saturn automobile fans. Delete as advertising. --Henrygb 01:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, there is alreay an external link to this website on the saturn page. --nixie 02:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, an exlink is enough. Gazpacho 02:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the existing link is just fine. Vegaswikian 06:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Cleduc 02:27, 17 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. – ABCD 00:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perry So[edit]

This was listed on speedy deletion, he is conductor, not vastly famous, I brought it here to let the community decide if he's worth including --nixie 01:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN. Seems to be a legitimate faculty member at Yale, but that's not enough for encyclopedia inclusion. —Wahoofive | Talk 16:53, 15 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. – ABCD 00:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

YourLost[edit]

Originally placed for speedy delete as nonsense. In fact genuine but not-notable web-forum. Delete as vanity --Henrygb 01:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Tempshill 22:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. My lost what? RickK 23:16, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence of notability, vanity and/or promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:52, 16 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.




Edit this page? As if we'd do a naughty thing like that.


ps. here is a photograph of a tiny, tiny penis. You may recognise it and cry now, tiddledicks. File:Www.scielo.cl/fbpe/img/rmc/v131n1/img07-01.gif


This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oliver & Lopez[edit]

Looks like a high school video from a study project and a yet to be produced movie, delete as non-notable. Rx StrangeLove 01:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as link spam. - Lucky 6.9 02:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 08:47, 15 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. – ABCD 00:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

David McGowan[edit]

Article about the head of an English department at a college preparatory school. Not notable; however, the article itself is admirably neutral. Delete as vanity/unverified/non-notable. Meelar (talk) 02:10, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. Revived 02:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. --Coolcaesar 19:20, 15 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. – ABCD 00:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rita Monaldi & Francesco Sorti[edit]

I get no hits for publications for either of them in the academic Harmonie Press Music Index Online. A google seach shows that they've written 2 da vinci code like novels. --nixie 02:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Coolcaesar 19:20, 15 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. – ABCD 00:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Awpwhore[edit]

Vanity and/or non-notable. Revived 02:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is well known in gaming community. Possible new slang? not sure about notability. DEL Who 02:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia isn't the place for possible new slang, delete--nixie 07:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity neologism. Megan1967 08:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to CounterStrike where it will find the context it so sorely needs. "Awp whore" is already mentioned on that page. FreplySpang (talk) 14:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Tempshill 22:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. --Carnildo 22:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • is this gamecruft, or just a neologisim?, whatever, del BigFatDave 23:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, gamecruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism Dsmdgold 23:53, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Mackensen (talk) 04:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yu Yu Hakusho Episode summaries[edit]

Sorry, this does not seem encyclopedic to me at all. WhisperToMe 02:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't think it's an unencyclopedic topic, but it's utterly rife with typos and bad grammar, only covers a handful of episodes (of which there are surely dozens) in waaay too much depth, and (sniff, sniff) smells like it was copied from somewhere. If it's to be done, start from scratch and do it right. -- 8^D gab 02:57, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag for cleanup and expansion. This is an encyclopedic topic, and the content is quite far removed from nonsense or being unreadable. Meelar (talk) 03:28, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Leaning toward keep if this isn't a copyvio. Man, talk about a cleanup job, though! BD's solution isn't out of the question IMO. - Lucky 6.9 03:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Reading through the article, I'm afraid I'd have to agree with 2412, even if I think it's a worthy topic. Delete content, list on requested articles. Radiant_* 07:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic, possible copyright violation, cruft. Megan1967 08:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Megan1967 --Bucephalus talk to me 11:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep unless proved to be a copyvio. No reason that Star Trek should be allowed to have episode summaries if this isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote. If it's a copyvio, it's not from the web-- it would have to be a text source. I'm really opposed to all of this pop culture stuff, but clearly there is presently a huge precedent for including it. Is there any hope of creating a WikiPopCulture project and transwikiing all the pop culture stuff over to it? (sigh) Mwanner 12:37, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Another idea would be to create a "minipedia" within wikipedia which doesn't show all the pop culture, high schools and uninhabited villages to casual visitors. Kappa 14:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually there were plans for a 'light' version of Wikipedia, which seems to consist of a series of pages that link to 'highly encyclopedic' articles. What exactly qualifies as such is unknown to me, but likely would not include Yu Yu Hakusho. The idea was to get a comprehensive 'pedia with about 10000 articles. I don't believe the project is presently active. Radiant_* 15:45, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Starblind. Kappa 14:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep looks like crap, but if we delete this, there's a lot of other stuff that has to go, too. Condense with great gusto, though. --InShaneee 15:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I already voted but I'd like to chime in again and state that I very much oppose just assuming something is a copyvio because it's long and in-depth. Accusing an editor of having unlawfully copied an article is one of the most serious accusations we can make here on WP, and in the spirit of assuming good faith, we shouldn't do it unless we have some sort of evidence. If an article is deleted, it should be based on something provable. Voting to delete because something might be a copyvio is silly (and a Google search verifies that this isn't copied from the web and doesn't look like a print source either). Deleting based on looking like a copyvio is every bit as silly as putting someone in prison because they look like a criminal type. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • I understand that copyvio is a harsh accusation - I suggested it based not only on the length and depth, but also on the writing style, the format of the original posts (with large blocks of centered or indented text dropped in at a time) and the fact that it was initially posted by an anon (e.g. someone who may be unaware of copyvio policies). No offense meant to anyone, but it has enough signs to at least raise legitimate suspicions. Also, it turns out that there were a something like 112 episodes, and a few movies. As I said before, I'm not calling this unencyclopedic, just suggesting that, all things considered, we may be better starting from scratch with this one. -- 8^D gab 06:21, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • Keep, seriously in need of a clean up and probably some trimming as well and I suppose renaming for capitalisation... There are two series listed on IMDB does anyone know if it's the 2002 or the 1992 version or is the article meant to be about both? Lochaber 17:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, subtrivial fancruft, probable copyvio. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Popcult trivia, WAY too granular. --Calton | Talk 02:18, 19 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. – ABCD 00:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Forex2u[edit]

Delete as advertising for a non-notable site. 290 google hits. Aside from that, retail forex trading (the topic of this site) isn't for the wise or the faint of heart. Feco 02:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    • note that the article has been expanded with info about what foreign exchange is, but this is already covered in the related, encyclopedic articles on various aspects of the forex market. Feco 06:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, reads like an ad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. --Carnildo 22:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, advert. Tempshill 22:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad. SeventyThree 22:37, 15 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 merge and redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Larry Foard[edit]

Listed on speedy, resume cruft as it is, guy claims to have written the sofware for MUSH --nixie 03:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guy did write the original version of TinyMUSH, based on the TinyMUD code, for what it's worth. --Squiddhartha 16:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Programmers don't inherit the notability (slight as it is) of their programs. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to TinyMUD Radiant_* 13:09, Apr 18, 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. – ABCD 22:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aggregation awareness[edit]

It would be nice to think that the writer knew what he or she was talking about, because there's no clue for the casual reader. This might as well be in Swahili for all I can get out of it. And the phrase "Aggregation awareness" gets a mammoth 15 Google hits. Grutness|hello? 04:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Deletion optimizer directs the admins to use the highest level of delete available. - Jersyko 04:28, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe a merge to query optimizer? The sum total of my experience with database systems is a two-hour intro ten years ago, so I can't vouch for its accuracy, but it seems reasonable. —Korath (Talk) 19:07, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the fact that this apparently isn't the usual name for this isn't helping. "Aggregation awareness" as a phrase only occurs in Oracle 8i marketing blurbs and as a section heading in a paper. The more well-known concepts appear to be materialized views and aggregation tables (and perhaps summary tables) — see view and table. And read this. Uncle G 02:35, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
  • Delete as content-free. --Carnildo 22:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, indeed content-free, and a dictdef even if the words meant something. Tempshill 22:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsense without context. Dsmdgold 01:48, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Walhus[edit]

Vanity, not encyclopedic, advertisement. The link in the article goes to a commercial website. The article should be deleted. - Jersyko 04:16, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for reasons stated. Major link spam now but possible userfy soon. - Lucky 6.9 05:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy - vanity. — flamingspinach | (talk) 06:26, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
  • Userfy if author wants it, otherwise delete. Megan1967 08:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, prima facie vanity. Tempshill 22:43, 15 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. – ABCD 22:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Surrealist Group in Ioannina[edit]

  • Delete, Vanity, Spam, Non-Notable, Extremely unknown and non-notable group with no credible history at all to justify any encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is being exploited for the purposes of cheap promotion. Who are these people in this group? What justifies a Wikipedia article on this unknown entity? Please consider the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the place for Vanity articles and Spam.Classicjupiter2 04:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as absolute nonsense, link spam and "content" that does little more than echo the title. - Lucky 6.9 05:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — flamingspinach | (talk) 06:29, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 08:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, spam. Seems to exist only as a platform for a link. Is it just me, or does anyone else notice a whole lot of dubious articles linking to this surreal coconut site? Possibly a stealth spam campaign? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:02, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • It does give me a sense of deja vu, yes. (delete btw) Radiant_* 14:48, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, surrealist vanity vandal spam. Cleduc 02:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Largely on grounds of content being minimal to the point of tautology. Alai 07:31, 17 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 redirect to fox. – ABCD 23:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vulpine[edit]

Substub dicdef. +sj + 05:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I would say Wiktionary but there's already an article there, Vulpine, which contains the same information.
  • Be bold and redirect to fox, this in not a vfd matter --nixie 07:09, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree: redirect to fox. Fg2 07:18, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to fox, per nixie and Fg2. -- 8^D gab 15:31, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Paternology[edit]

Orphan article. Google shows 3 hits for the term, all of them unrelated. Non-notable, unverifiable. Dave the Red (talk) 05:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete absent verification that it exists and is practiced by more than one person. Gazpacho 06:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and rename to Patternology, which does garner at least 80 hits on Google, though they appear to be not all totally related. — flamingspinach | (talk) 06:20, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
    • The article talks about the study paternity not patterns, the suggestion to move it to patternology (which is some new age healing technique, also un-encyclopedic) is not valid. I see no evidence in the scientific literature for paternology, delete--nixie 07:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Upon further inspection, you're absolutely right. I change my vote to delete. — flamingspinach | (talk) 15:31, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 08:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. FreplySpang (talk) 15:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to feminism. The article is about neither paternity nor patterns, but paternalism (e.g. the idea that males run society) as a focus of sociological study. However, it also says that this area is "yet to be completed and endorsed with facts and experiental knowledge", ergo it is not independently notable. -- 8^D gab 15:16, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. There are no Google hits for the term as described in this article, and one vague hint that the word might be used somewhere in infectious disease or mycology (fungus) research. (I've checked a stack of online and dead tree scientific references, and can't find it defined anywhere.) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 22:38, 15 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. – ABCD 22:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog The Movie: The Doomsday Project[edit]

Another unofficial Sonic movie, un-encyclopedic, delete--nixie 07:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; see above Lectonar 07:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable fancruft. — JIP | Talk 07:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, fancruft. Megan1967 09:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Like she said. --Calton | Talk 10:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, fancruft.--Bucephalus talk to me 11:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-canonical Starblind
  • Delete NN K1Bond007 19:17, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - fancruft --Anonymous Cow 20:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • See also: Roboticizer. Delete all. RickK 23:24, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • This page is certainly worth keeping given that it's an important part of an established fictional universe.
    • The above comment is by Thelogicalone (talk · contribs), who vandalized this discussion page. I've reverted. Uncle G 02:41, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
    • Comment: also, according to the article, it is fan-made and unofficial, and thus not part of an established fictional universe. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Keep This film is canon; it was taken from a TV series and has NOT been altered from the fictional universe. It is up here for the fans.


Hi, I am a SatAM fan that just came to this page. Please keep it! What will it take to keep this page?


Yes, please keep it! I'll even start a petition if you need it. We were denied a third season! Please don't take this away from us!


There is no reason to remove this page when taking into account the fact that the "Mobius" page has a fan-made map of Mobius. This movie is not "fan-made." It is simply all the episodes of an entire story arc that took place during the series' run and in that order.

these unsigned votes are all from user:24.4.106.240
  • Delete. If socks want to keep it, it should go! P Ingerson 20:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC

Seriously, if the Mobius page can include a fan-made map of the planet then what's wrong with this here?


What would it take to keep this page on Wikipedia?

unsigned comments again from user:24.4.106.240
This page is now preserved 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 22:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Social Impact[edit]

Random stream-of-consciousness article that happens to be linked from the Wikipedaholic test. Delete. +sj + 08:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete original research/essay. FreplySpang (talk) 15:01, 15 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. – ABCD 22:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Teleplan[edit]

This article was created in January. First part looks like advertising, then comes a "Is this a beautiful fairytale or what!!" which makes it look like an attack or parody. Teleplan is probably a notable business, but this article should be deleted. Sjakkalle 09:09, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete That's wierd, reads like a real article that got vandailsed, but history shows just one author. Delete, let somone make a good article someday if notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:06, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Actually, it's a copyvio: [1]. Looks like it was a cut'n'paste by a disgruntled employee. -- Mwanner 12:21, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 23:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RopeMarks[edit]

Vanity page, promoting web site RopeMarks.com Delete. -Big_Iron 09:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete self-promotion. Mgm|(talk) 11:19, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity, advert. Alexa score of 710,318 in case anyone is worried that it might be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:07, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Cleduc 02:26, 17 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. – ABCD 23:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Graveyard Greg[edit]

A webcomic writer of webcomics which we do not have articles on. Notability not established. Sjakkalle 09:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - seems like advertising/vanity. The JPS 21:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can't bring myself to vote Keep (I'd just as soon toss all pop culture stuff) but I do get 9600 google hits on the guy. Mwanner 12:40, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. He writes at least one comic that should have an article under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics guidelines. --Carnildo 17:46, 20 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. – ABCD 23:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ohhla[edit]

Alexa ranking of 9722, possible link spam. I thought I'd put it here rather than act on the speedy tag already placed on it in case someone more in touch with hip-hop wants to argue in favour of it. No vote.-gadfium 09:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 10:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Before being cut and pasted on to other lyrics pages, most of the rap lyrics on the internet were originally posted on this website. Your Alexa ranking is misleading because these websites hardly ever give credit to OHHLA, so they won't get picked up in a search for "OHHLA". CPS 18:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable and high enough Alexa rating. Grue 20:09, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Alexa is a perfectly legitimate ranking in this case. No evidence has been offered that large scale cut and pasting did occur and even if it did the ranking would in fact be lower, not higher, due to the number of users visiting each page to copy the information. Leanne 01:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Look up the lyrics to any rap song and see what you get. There will be dozens of lyrics pages with the exact same lyrics as OHHLA, which gets its lyrics from online contributors. It's easy to tell that these lyrics are the same because they almost always have mistakes. If you could find online lyrics to a rap song that aren't identical to the lyrics on OHHLA, I'd be impressed. CPS 23:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, wiki-spam--nixie 02:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, link spam. JamesBurns 06:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, website vanity. Radiant_* 13:10, Apr 18, 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. – ABCD 23:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The Day Mobotropolis Fell."[edit]

  • Delete It is an unofficial fan made movie. NN.Lectonar 06:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - make the movie more popular first, and then the fans can add it to Wikipedia's base of knowledge. — Rickyrab | Talk 07:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was originally going to VfD this myself, but hesitated. Now that it has already been VfD'd, I can vote "delete" because it's non-notable fancruft. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, fancruft. Megan1967 09:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Made by editing the cartoon? Yeesh. --Calton | Talk 10:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. because this is not even fancruft. Fancruft is at least of interest to fans. Sjakkalle 12:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually I think this fits the orginal definition of fancruft, before it underwent semantic drift. Kappa 14:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- This film is especially notable being that it has kept the series alive for many fans.
    • The above unsigned comment is from Thelogicalone (talk · contribs), whose only other contribution to date has been to vandalize another VFD discussion page. Uncle G 02:44, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable Dsmdgold 01:33, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

On befalf of SatAM fans everywhere, I request that you keep this page. Reason to keep this page: http://www.satamsonic.com/forum2/index.php?act=ST&f=29&t=6043

Unsigned comment by User:24.4.106.240, whose only contributions are on articles and VfD's about unofficial fan movies about Sonic the Hedgehog. — JIP | Talk 03:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, vanity, advertisement. --InShaneee 18:51, 21 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. – ABCD 23:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blournalist[edit]

neologism, zero google hits, do not transwiki --nixie 10:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete not encyclopedic, would be prepared to consider a transwiki if somebody could prove the existence of this neologism, I can't seem to find it anywhere. Oliver Keenan 10:48, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, dictionary definition. Megan1967 10:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism dic def. Mgm|(talk) 11:20, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, awful-sounding neologism, hope it never takes off. Kappa 14:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, Maybe the sound isn't right, but "blournalism" has been used before (not here) and if blournalism is ok, shouldn't the noun be as well. User:usherml 10:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Well Bournalism gets 26 google hits, 6 unique. More than 0, but still looks like a protologism to me. Kappa 17:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: neologism. Blournalism doesn't need an article, either—it only draws six unique Google hits. If a word nominally related to blogging can't generate some serious Google hits.... --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, replace with redirect to blog to keep everybody happy. Radiant_* 13:10, Apr 18, 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. – ABCD 23:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yvonne Vera[edit]

Not notable, delete. Feydey 10:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) -- As I look at the article now, keep. Feydey 13:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep, look at the what links here Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year, List of African writers, List of African writers (by country), Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts. --nixie 10:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Additionally, keep published authors. Radiant_* 11:12, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Mgm|(talk) 11:20, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable author. Er... nixie? Doesn't "speedy keep" imply that the nomination was made in bad faith? Sjakkalle 12:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't intend to imply that the nomination was made in bad faith, however I would expect and editor too look at what links here and do a google search before nominating something for deletion (I do), that way things that are quite obviously valid but badly written etc. don't get stuck on vfd--nixie 13:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Feydey has only been an editor since late March this year, give them the benefit of the doubt as a n00b, since they have already struck out their vote. Megan1967 01:08, 16 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. – ABCD 23:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Five Borough Bicycle Club[edit]

Spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, notability not established. Martg76 13:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete what links here is empty and most of the google hits seem to be lists of clubs. --Laura Scudder | Talk 17:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I am the communications coordinator for this NYC-based club, and established this page to replace what was originally posted as the "Five Borough Bike Club". The proper spelling of my club spells out Bicycle. I updated the original entry with a redirect to this page. Also, all the links are to various pages of our website; if that is not appropriate for the entry, they can be removed.----Bhoberman 22:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, clubs are not inherently notable, the notabilty of this one has not been established--nixie 02:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vaNNity. Radiant_* 13:11, Apr 18, 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. – ABCD 23:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aled Seago[edit]

Self-confessed vanity page of school student. See Talk:Aled Seago. --Theo (Talk) 13:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete below the bar of notability, some nonsense about 'village idiot' and 'town idiot'. Oliver Keenan 14:49, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Abuse. Average Earthman 22:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • well below the bar del BigFatDave 23:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity Dsmdgold 01:50, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sounds like a "friends of gays" deal. Haikupoet 00:39, 18 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. – ABCD 23:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keoka Maine Coons[edit]

Advertisment for a cattery, there is already and extensive Maine Coon article, delete --nixie 13:56, 15 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 keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

KSEX[edit]

Porn internet-radio station. Was tagged and detagged for speedy, I'm bringing it here because it might be regarded as promotion and I'm not sure how to test notability for this kind of thing. 66,600 google hits [2] for a porn internet-radio station. Kappa 14:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notable radio station. Article needs expansion, but is a viable topic. 23skidoo 19:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep radiostations, especially porn ones. Grue 20:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It would appear that it is an internet 'radio' station. Anyone with broadband could set up an internet 'radio' station. Average Earthman 22:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, it's concept is quite original, at least I haven't heard of porn radio stations before. The fact that one of the hosts is a porn actress with "world gang bang record" only adds to notability. Grue 06:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • The latest internet fad meets porn. And you're surprised? Average Earthman 15:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm surprised it even took this long. Megan1967 09:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think radio stations are inherently notable, not in this day and age of media consolidation. There are some stations notable for being pioneer stations (KDKA and WBZ come to mind), and others that are regionally notable for one reason or another, and a borderline case might be WXKS-FM in Boston (Kiss 108, Just Another Clear Channel Slushbomb), whose main point of notability is its sponsorship of the annual Kiss Concert, which is a fairly high-profile free concert. And then you've got (again in the Boston market) WKOX, whose only claim to fame is being one of the local outlets for Air America Radio -- not notable enough IMHO. As for web radio... well... not so much. But see my point below. Haikupoet 22:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Grue's reasoning seems specious. RickK 23:28, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there is one thing we don't need it is advertising for pornographic radio stations. Sjakkalle 09:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: pr0ncruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete internet radio stations --nixie 02:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless article establishes notability. Gamaliel 02:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- it's more or less the radio equivalent of Adult Video News, and appears to be fairly notable within the porn industry. I personally would enjoy it much more if there was other sexual content that didn't revolve around the porn industry per se, but that's a personal opinion, not a vote. Fact is KSEX is notable for being about the only service in its particular niche. Haikupoet 22:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's at least as notable as all the individual radio masts and power lines that have their own articles. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable and unique. I agree with Rick though on Grues reasoning. Megan1967 05:58, 20 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 move to Rural markets. – ABCD 00:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RURAL MARKETS[edit]

Original research (doesn't appear to be copyvio) Smoddy (tgeck) 14:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) Move to Rural markets Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    • General comments - The term "Rural Markets" have come into circulation for last 10-15 years in the context of Indian economy, particularly, after economic reforms and the green revolution which created a lot of purchasing power in the hands of rural folks of India. This segement of Indian market, particulary, consumer segment, has attracted the attention of big corporates and even of several multi national corporations operating in India. A re-write of the article is required to make it to conform to wikipedia standard and the points must be made clear. I am not sure, but I do have a feeling that the article has been made / written in a style to look like an original research, whereas the factual position is that most of the points are now well accepted reality of the Indian economy. I will try to do revision / give some inputs, so that a consensus may be made for keeping or deleting this article. Right now, I searched the Google - "Rural Markets" gave me 62,600 hits - naturally, the subject has been engaging the attention of people, and the article should find a place in wikipedia. Even, rural markets of China have been gaining prominence. If the consensus emerges, the spelling of the article should be like this: Rural Market --Bhadani 21:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I have done a revision, which include removing a lot of extra materials. In view of the changes, a fresh stand may be taken - to keep or to delete. I am not participating in the voting process, as I have myself done the revision. However, to attract the attention of the 3 Users who have expressed their opinion, I am requesting them to have a relook at the article --Bhadani 07:41, 21 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. – ABCD 23:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Klichet[edit]

Appears to be a vanity page for a single theatre group. Barring a reason that this particular group is notable, this isn't encyclopedic -- Kaszeta 14:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete: vanity, not-notable... abundance of cliches... possibly Merge with user page. --Addama 15:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, replace with redirect to cliche as improbable misspellgni. Radiant_* 13:13, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uberhax[edit]

delete nonnnotable neoleetism. less that 200 google hits, means that online community didn't embrace it at all. Mikkalai 14:53, 15 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. – ABCD 23:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mark hopgood[edit]

Delete - just a self promotion page for him and his company -- Mariocki 14:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable vanity. --Laura Scudder | Talk 17:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • At least he tries - he tells us that he's notable for making a piece of software. Nonetheless, delete. DS 18:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity by someone who was too lazy to capitalize the name. Jonathunder 03:48, 2005 Apr 19 (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 23:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

EACOMM Corporation[edit]

There's nothing in the article that lifts it out of the "advertising or other spam" category as far as I can see, reads more like a directory listing and doesn't indicate notibility of any kind, Delete Rx StrangeLove 15:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity page, POV, etc. Get rid of it. If they want attention it's their problem to go pay for TV advertising time. --Coolcaesar 19:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisment. Megan1967 01:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, its not even big enough to warrant an entry. Stranger
  • Revise, i think the problem is how to present it without sounding like an Ad. Anonymous
This page is now preserved 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 23:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Elf Only Inn[edit]

Stub about a webcomic that has been defunct since last august. The article doesn't establish any kind of notability. Radiant_* 15:35, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable, and non-informative anyway. The JPS 18:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless. Grue 20:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As I recall, the most noteworthy thing about the comic is that it stopped updating as soon as it was invited to Keenspot. --Carnildo 22:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can be saved, but needs more input.
  • Delete. Useless!! --Neigel von Teighen 20:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Extravagantly poor article, but this was a pretty popular web-comic in its time. (Though admittedly not the BEST EVAR. (Sorry.)) Admittedly no real loss if this particular content is binned. Alai 04:29, 20 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. – ABCD 23:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Howard Bettany[edit]

This is unencyclopedic trash, apparently written by someone who needs to think more about what it means to kill people. It had a VfD tag on it before, but didn't get its own page, just added to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/James Ballance near the end of that "debate", so I can't argue that there was consensus to delete this one as well. CDC (talk) 16:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Googling on "Howard Bettany" + "sniper" returns nothing. FreplySpang (talk) 17:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The 'godfather of all sniping techniques'? No he isn't, snipers go back to at least the American War of Independence. Average Earthman 20:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trash! --Neigel von Teighen 20:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ditto. -- Mwanner 21:46, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • if anything, redir to sniper, but I'd rather see it deleted BigFatDave 23:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. DDerby 03:36, 16 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. Mackensen (talk) 04:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A55RGY[edit]

Delete. I'm hard pressed to see the encyclopedic value here. Despite the fact that this number plate has been mentioned on the Internet, no less. -- Egil 16:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OTOH, we do have Dick Assman; is A55RGY less noteworthy, and if so, is it enough to be deleted? Acb 16:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete If anyone thinks it's funny enough, it could go to BJAODN. And yes, I think it's fair to say the A55RGY is considerably less noteworthy than Dick Assman (though I'd have nothing against moving it to BJAODN, too). -- Mwanner 21:28, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Dsmdgold 01:46, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, i live in Sweden and have still heard about it. // Liftarn 07:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with last paragraph of License plate#Plate numbering and lettering, which discusses this type of issue, and redirect A55RGY there. / Uppland 07:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, agree with Uppland.-gadfium 00:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - very not notable. It is an example of something and not something in itself. - Tεxτurε 22:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Stupid enough to keep. Linuxbeak 01:58, Apr 30, 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 (and move). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of arctic explorers[edit]

Redundant with List of explorers. Delete. If decision is to keep, should move to List of Arctic explorers. --194.73.130.132 16:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote by User:Shimmin
This page is now preserved 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 (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 23:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Robert Muchamore[edit]

Non-notable book author. Delete. --cesarb 16:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity/advertising The JPS 18:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite thoroughly. Amazon suggests he actually sells quite a few books. Average Earthman 20:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is borderline. Not yet notable - those books listed are not even published yet. No Amazon sales rankings are listed. Megan1967 02:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite, This article should be rewritten by a fan instead of the man himself. BTW I would volunteer. And his books are published I own them! Unsigned vote by Palm9999. User's first edit.
This page is now preserved 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.

Note new VfD from 30 April 2005 at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robert Muchamore*--AYArktos 04:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 23:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ZERP[edit]

Product seems to be a rumor. As far as I can tell, nothing has happened for at least a year. If there is something to show, read the article. Until then Delete. S.K. 16:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Useless. The JPS 18:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete After the product comes out and proves to be notable, the article can be resubmitted. Mwanner 21:20, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shockers[edit]

Delete, vanity/non-notable. FreplySpang (talk) 17:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Big Keep. Some valuable informational value contained in article about this famous hockey team.arhca 3:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, delete. Feydey 17:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. Big delete The JPS 18:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Division 7? There are at least six divisions above them? I'm sorry, but that's got to be poor. Average Earthman 15:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • (Vandalised version of the above by Jasingh69 read I say no deletion. There are at least six divisions above them? They must be pretty good!. Average Earthman 20:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)) - Jasingh69, it's very easy to spot when someone changes the text of someone else's vote. Average Earthman
  • Redirect to Andy Borowitz, who uses this term for his fake news stories. Meelar (talk) 21:35, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I vote against deletion. The video does have Ron MacLean supporting the shockers.
  • Keep I too vote against deletion, these guys were on Ottawa radio and as the above fellow metioned were actually supported by Ron Maclean. If you aren't from Ottawa or don't know Ron Maclean please don't vote against them. treiber 20:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Shockers was a British horror/thriller TV series in the late 90s. I would suggest a rewrite as that if anyone could be bothered otherwise delete the present article as not notable, team vanity. Megan1967 02:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, This team has the complete support of As The Poets Affirm - a 7 piece band currently recording music for the upcoming Shockers DVD. atpa 02:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User vandalised Megan's vote, and has two edits.
    • Hmmm, what a surprise. Votes by new users whose only contructions are to this vfd and the article itself. That large picture does not help. I'm guessing 'As The Poets Affirm' are also not notable. So what if Ron MacLean supports them? Is this DVD going to be available through conventional sellers? Or does it involve a student multimedia project and a DVD burner on a desktop? We'll have s8er groups on here next with their home made DVDs. The JPS 21:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity and/or promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is probably my favourite page on Wikipedia right now. Half lion, half tiger.
  • Delete, and kill the socks. Radiant_* 13:22, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Dejvid 01:04, 19 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. – ABCD 23:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nokturnal and DJ Decay[edit]

Nokturnal is a vanity page for a nightclub, apparently by DJ Decay who is also unnotable. Dunc|☺ 17:29, 15 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 DON"T DELETE. Zero 07:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

St. Louis School, Hong Kong[edit]

Another unnotable school. Hideous POV. I don't know how this has lasted so long. Edit histoy is mainly anon IPs, and the cleanup and notability tags have been displayed. The JPS 18:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Agree completely. Tufflaw 19:21, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

*Delete, nearly 100% POV &#151; FoodMarket  talk! 20:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, worse than evah. Grue 20:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, vanity, notability not established. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 20:22, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
  • Delete. Remove all the drivel and you merely state that there is a school by this name in Hong Kong's Central and Western District. This is already stated in the article, so no merge. Average Earthman 20:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - indeed hideous POV. --Anonymous Cow 20:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I redid the article, it is now open for tender love and organic growth All school's are worthy of inclusion in a truely great encyclopaedia. Klonimus 21:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and tenderly love as above. Kappa 22:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 22:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and all other articles where there is an attempt to pack the vote. —Korath (Talk) 22:50, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Interesting precedent. Kappa 22:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Very interesting precedent. It seems that Korath is voting delete without evaluating it on the merits. Pray tell what is the attempt to "pack the vote." Klonimus 01:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • [4] —Korath (Talk) 02:49, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • Korath, Listing school's on User:GRider/Schoolwatch is not a crime. Both deletionists and inclusionists can use the information therein. Klonimus 06:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • It is really a sad, sordid state of affairs when someone is bothered or irritated by the actual improvement of an article. —RaD Man (talk) 09:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, yet another non-notable school. Tempshill 22:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Article much improved, but still non notable. Unless my original nomination acts as my vote, tenderly delete (otherwise this is a comment) The JPS 23:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • del I can state with confidence that not all schools are notable. Every school I attended before the age of 18 is NN. BigFatDave 23:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The tags are longer than the article itself, so Delete. Zscout370 00:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The tags are no longer, longer than the article itself. Klonimus 01:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This school is over 140+ yrs old. Keep and cue the Marvin Gaye tracks, baby. —RaD Man (talk) 01:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiability established. Article is not nonsense, vanity or original research.--Centauri 01:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is borderline notable, schoolcruft. Megan1967 02:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Indeed a distinguished school in Hong Kong, founded in 1846 and has brought up many notable people there, including legislative council member Wong Wang Fat. However this article needs expansion. Mark Shew 02:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User has three edits.
    • Who? Obviously isn't notable enough to have a wikipedia articles about him. The JPS 11:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh! You don't know him doesn't mean that the people in Hong Kong won't know him.
  • Keep. Undoubtedly this article has to be kept. It is such a great school with high quality, and so we should let more people know about it!
  • Keep. Current well-written article establishes notability. Nice save! - Lucky 6.9 05:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Klonimus 06:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. People have turned this article around from mostly vandalism to the beginning of a very interesting article. What about the history of the school, especially during WWII? Less about who is the current faculty and more about why this school is interesting. Good work! Shoaler 10:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • What makes this school notable from the hundreds and thousands of other schools? Who is the user with the WP:BEEFSTEW test again? The JPS 11:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nicely written but not notable. --Bucephalus talk to me 13:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this rewrite as well please ! Yuckfoo 01:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established, even after re-write. Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sufficient notability derives from being a school and this has more than average. --Zero 03:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I appreciate attempts to improve articles during the VfD process, but the rewrite here has failed to provide notability for this subject. Indrian 04:05, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 07:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with Indrian. Radiant_* 13:16, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as notable as any other School. Ejrrjs | What? 22:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There is a place on Wikipedia for schools. --ShaunMacPherson 03:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: There is a place for articles about notable schools, yes. Notability still not established here. Jonathunder 03:54, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite looks good.  ALKIVAR™ 09:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep improvement happens. Houshuang 01:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 39 hits? Sorry, that's a Delete from me for sure. Master Thief Garrett 01:36, 27 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 proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Essjay · Talk 11:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

John Lilburne Research Institute[edit]

This is the second VfD for this article. As shown below, the first time there was twice as many votes to delete, but it was kept. This article is a vanity/soapbox/original research by User:MPLX. The only Google references to this organization are from Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors. The same user who did this article also created a series of questionable articles and inserted original research on several more. The other articles by this person that are currently on VfD are:

Detailed info can be found on the various talk and VfD pages. --JW1805 00:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I (MPLX) left Wikipedia some months ago after running into the onslaught of the ill-informed Christian right wing. Although I am not monitoring Wikipedia and do not have any intention of rejoining Wikipedia due to the small cabal of noisy and ill-informed (as opposed to uninformed) people who love deleting stuff, I have been pressed to add this comment due to the sudden interest in deleting a few of the articles that I contributed to. (I have written about many topics.)
It would appear that someone has it their head to sever any ties between John Lilburne and the foundation of American law. This led to a constant barrage of negative comments on the Hugo Black article. Now I see that the idea is to claim that "Carolana" is a misspelling of "Carolina" and to go further and claim that the article about Carolana is a hoax. To this end both Dr. Kenneth Brown of the University of Houston and Dr. Eric Gilder of the University of Sibiu have also been smeared as being not noteworthy and at worst as the creators of vanity and even hoax articles. Such rants by the few lunatics who have gained a noisy control over Wikipedia are one reason why I left Wikipedia and why Wikipedia is in danger of becoming the refuge of right-wing idiots.
It would seem that a handful of people are trolling with the intent to delete anything that they may disagree with. I noticed the same approach was used on the subject of copyright law within articles dealing with the subject of recorded music and broadcasting which I also contributed to. Now I see that all broadcasts by 4FWS have been tagged as not worthy because they were on "pirate" radio stations - even though several were on licensed stations. However, everything is being smeared and tarnished to make it appear that everything and anything that I contributed to was either a hoax, a work of vanity or unnoteworthy. I also created the history of the development of the jet fighter, but I have not as yet (and probably won't bother) checked to see if those entries are also being targeted.
It is unfortunate to say the least because I thought that Wikipedia had merit, but when I discovered that a mere handful of dedicated zealots could take it over and put their own stamp of ideological approval on it - I left.
Before making more claims that Carolana never existed I would suggest that you perform a little serious research. Unfortunately the zealots have decided that they are a jack of all subjects (and master of none), and because they have never heard something before it means that the subject is either a hoax or a vanity creation by someone else. How pathetic for Wikipedia!

66.90.213.45 00:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (the former MPLX)[reply]



  • Strong delete. Whatever this institute might be, it's clearly not the subject of this incoherent article. Monicasdude 04:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original VfD had this article redirected, but the original author brought it back to life. Therefore delete outright or return it to Redirect. --Calton | Talk 06:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. - ulayiti (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. Do not redirect. Radiant_>|< 09:00, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: nonnotable, promotion, incoherent. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity junk CDC (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense. Nandesuka 22:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is this? An institute whose purpose is to prove that somebody name John Lilburne was an ancestor of Thomas Jefferson? Libertarian-geneological original research, unsupported, it seems. In that case, Delete unless author rewrites completely before this is closed. DavidH
  • Delete nn/possible hoax. --Etacar11 00:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. DS1953 16:10, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, vanity. Lovingly crafted, but still a vanity article. Tempshill 18:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and probably merge with Four Freedoms Federation (assuming it survives), per Gene poole's vote in the original discussion (archived below). Definitely needs a lot of NPOV, though. Lusanaherandraton 14:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to admins: if this page is deleted, you should also delete Genie Baskir. This is the only page that this links to (except a couple talk page references by original creator).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus; however, article has already been merged and redirected). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John Lilburne Research Institute[edit]

I am nominating this vanity page for deletion because I strongly suspect that it violates several Wikipedia policies, especially:

  • no original research
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox

A Google search for this so-called institute brings up only 501 hits.

The user who created this page has been attempting to link several pages (like Miranda v. Arizona) to this page when such links, if any, should link to John Lilburne. Furthermore, as I have already argued at great length on the John Lilburne talk page, Lilburne's impact on modern law may well be of historical importance, but in terms of how modern American criminal law is practiced at present, his impact is minimal when compared to giants like Blackstone, Story, and Ely.

--Coolcaesar 18:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep — and clean up/merge some elements of the article. You are joking when you say it "only" brings up 501 google hits, aren't you?? The JPS 19:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm not kidding. Typing in John Lilburne Research Institute into Google brings back only 501 hits, and putting quotes around that (in order to search on the phrase) returns only 9 hits (which all appear to be Wikipedia content, either direct from WP or mirrored). Why the heck should Wikipedia have a page on an institute that obscure? --Coolcaesar 19:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean now! Still, I think some reworking could result in this being a good useful article. The JPS 20:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. This article was written with love and care by an insider who tried to make this non-notable group sound as though it had an actual impact in the world. I would also vote for deletion of Four Freedoms Federation and all the other links these articles contain to non-notable groups and people. This set of inter-linked articles has the veneer of gravity to it, but it's all just a well-crafted set of vanity articles. Tempshill 23:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep unless you can show me why an organization that essentially went into decline around 1992 should have a lot of hits on Google in 2005? By this reasoning only current organizations can be mentioned. Second, this organization obviously did attract attention back in the period from 1984 to 1992, as referenced by publications and broadcasts. For some reason Coolcaesar who describes himself/herself as a "law student" has decided that it is of no consequence that Chief Justice Warren linked Lilburne to Miranda in his opinion of the 1960s, because according to some strange logic here, only cases of the present age are of merit according to this "know-it-all" law student who does not cite books but only various Internet research tools. But not everything is already on the Internet. That's one reason for having Wikipedia! Consequently Leonard W. Levy who won a Pulitzer in 1969 for his work (Origins of the Fifth Amendment) that has Lilburne at its core, is of no avail according to Coolcaesar, who actually went pretty much to the limit by virtually calling Justice Black a senile old git who could not remember the day of the week for adopting Lilburne as his hero. Coolcaesar dismissed Black's biography as being "what did she know, he was too old". I have not used the Heritage Foundation and many other sources for reference because the article is quite long already. However Coolcaesar is making a POV rant by his call for deletion to get rid of something that was news to him/her that did not fit in with something that he/she already knew because on this score Coolcaesar has gone to great lengths to explain his/her superior knowledge about all matters relating to law ... without having a clue as to who he/she is attacking. Anyway, its only a historical article, so whatever. However, if this article falls for this silly reason, then just imagine how many other articles totally unrelated to this subject would be immediately struck from Wikipedia using the same criteria used by Coolcaesar. The sad fact about many Internet junkies is that they declared war on traditional libraries and it is within the books of those libraries that the jewels of education are to be found. When the Internet swept in many libraries began dumping and sometimes selling huge quantities of books and anything else that was printed in order to make space for computer screens. Fortunately many collections were rescued, but not all. But what has been created is a world where books are dispised and the computer screen is thought to hold the keys to all truth. In 2005 it does not. MPLX/MH 02:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • None of the above rant answers the criticism that this odd set of articles is, collectively, a vanity piece that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. By the way, John Lilburne is not the subject of the discussion, but John Lilburne Research Institute. Tempshill 22:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What an odd article. RickK 06:58, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity/promo. Odd is right. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promo article. I asked some lawyers, and and only one had heard of John Lilburne, and called him a "footnote in English history" and not really part of legal history. Another said that to call him a "footnote" in legal history was overstating things. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It may well have been a crackpot group promoting fringe theories, that's all the more reason to ensure Wikipedia records its existence. The article does need some serious NPOV surgery though.--Gene_poole 00:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Radiant_* 13:24, Apr 18, 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. – ABCD 23:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vamp - Your sweet beasts![edit]

Delete. Advertising of very non-notable site (Alexa rank 0). See the similar vfd discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Vamp® - Your sweet beasts!. Feco 18:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - ad --Anonymous Cow 20:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find any online reference to it at all--which is pretty sad given the normal attention to detail the web lends to adult content. It's either not notable or a hoax. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable probably advertising. I'd have thought the image of the cover would stand a good chance of be a copyvio as well. Thryduulf 08:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete website has no Alexa score. See other VfD for further reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's just an ad for a basement-production porn site. Vengeful Cynic
  • Keep. It's a translation of an article at the Romanian Wikipedia. The magazine may not be known to most English-speaking editors, but it's apparently published in at least seven different European countries including Italy, Spain and Portugal. This seems to be verifiable to me. Although it may not be possible to do so using Google, Yahoo, etc, it should be easy to find the publisher's details, especially since we have a name and date for the founding of the magazine. It seems a bit much to complain that "the website has no Alexa score". Alexa tracks websites, not businesses. A business that has no significant web presence still exists and may be encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep provided it can be verified that this magazine exists and is as widely published a the article claims. / Uppland 17:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. So if it's on another language's Wikipedia we have to keep it? I don't think so. Advertising for a nn mag with no Alexa ranking. RickK 21:43, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • How on earth is a magazine supposed to have an Alexa ranking? Do we get rid of all articles about magazines that don't have websites? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:39, 17 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. – ABCD 23:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

118 999[edit]

Delete. Not encyclopedic, admitted parody. Tufflaw 19:18, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, but put into BJAODN. Made me laugh. The JPS 21:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Carnildo 22:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Josh Cherry 00:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN Dsmdgold 01:41, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Megan1967 02:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Must be a British thing. Sure doesn't make me laugh. RickK 07:00, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Didn't make me laugh either. Sjakkalle 09:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as self-admitted parody, and not even a funny one at that. Those Britons are crazy! — JIP | Talk 12:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. I may not understand the reference, but the European users sure seem to. - Lucky 6.9 08:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm European, and I don't understand the reference at all. — JIP | Talk 05:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak BJAODN -- probably funny to someone, but only in a "you had to be there" sense. Haikupoet 23:12, 17 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. – ABCD 23:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mike Baugh[edit]

Non-notable. Vanity page? Delete. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I suppose this is similar to listing all the actors on your favourite sitcom. Personally, I'd say if this is all they can say about him, he should be merged into the article of whoever it is that has employed him. Average Earthman 20:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect into something. The JPS 21:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Um...according to the article, he's 11 years old. "Mike Baugh" +wrestler gets no google hits. I don't think this person even exists, or if they do, they're an 11-year old and certainly not a professional wrestler. Delete unless proven factual. Meelar (talk) 21:34, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Oops, I missed that blatant clue (although it could be a typo meant to be 1984 I suppose). Average Earthman 22:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • An 11-year-old professional wrestler? Sheesh, right. Delete. — JIP | Talk 03:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. --Carnildo 22:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, hoax. Probably someone showing their son wikipedia. Megan1967 02:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable or fake. -- Paulley 13:14, 16 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stephan Kinsella[edit]

Stephan Kinsella is a non-notable corporate lawyer who has written some articles and contributed to some e-published legal treatises. This is a slightly edited down version of his autobiography, posted by an administrator at an institute of which he's an adjunct member. He does blog a lot, hence some Google hits. Delete -Willmcw 20:10, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity. The JPS 21:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't really give a crap one way or the other, but it is not a vanity page, I am not a "corporate" lawyer, and I still have no idea who was the one who posted the original entry. It was news to me and I still do not know who did it. Nskinsella 17:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Speedy Keep, Stephan Kinsella is my personal hero. Unisgned vote by User:157.252.160.135, (8 edits)
    • Don't you just love NPOV? The JPS 19:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable, although I really enjoyed his recent blog about farting in the shower.--Duk 19:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) [I think you are referring to this entry. 216.216.209.2 21:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)]
  • This notion of NPOV is comical. Willmcw clearly has an agenda. When he couldn’t get rid of Kinsella’s article through his claim of copyright violation he nominated it for deletion. Further, there are scores of less notable people with their own articles on Wikipedia. Unisgned comment by User:157.252.160.135
    • Feel free to list these alleged less notable people on vfd. Whatever agenda you claim the nominator has, other wikipedians have voted delete anyway. The only keep vote so far is from you, an anon IP. (cue the socks.) The JPS 21:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Take a look at the articles started by Willmcw has started, there are certainly less notable people among them. As to Kinsella's status as being notable, he is certainly considered one of the top authors in his field. The fact is the voters have no knowledge of that particular area. They would probably think Walter Block is similarly non-notable. As to my vote, clearly it was somewhat in jest, and like Kinsella, I don’t care if you delete the article. However, I won’t stand by and let you think there was some sort of legitimate process that took place in its selection for deletion. As to my not being registered, I don't intend to register.
    • That's absolutely fine. Whatever the motivation for nomination, the vfd process is legitimate. The JPS 22:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Keep your illusions. This process has no legitimacy at all. You're trying to pass it as "democracy" because there's a "vote" involved. 3 or 4 persons voting in support of their friend when he asks for it is hardly democracy (I'm using "friend" in the sense of "fellow Wikipedian aristocrat"). Wllmcw is clearly calling this vote because he felt offended that his GNU propaganda wasn't shared by the article's subject. Wikipedia is about transmitting knowledge, not forcing everybody to accept the GNU licence. --Franz1984 (forgot my password)
        • ROFLMAO The JPS 09:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote for keeping the entry. - mi6a2lm
  • I vote to keep this article. - Wolfe
  • I vote for keeping this entry. - Daugherty
    • Puppet 2: The Revenge of the Socks The JPS 21:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • to JPS, RE: Don't you just love NPOV?
        • Certainly do. Your point? The JPS 21:22, 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 redirect. Mackensen (talk) 05:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dogi[edit]

Dogi is simply a word that mean uniform.

  • Merge to Son Goku or Z Fighters. Mwanner 20:42, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, foreign dictionary definition, cruft. Megan1967 02:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The author of this acticle assumes that "Dogi" has some special meaning in the Dragon Ball Z cartoons. It is simplely another word for uniform, like "gi". Is there a way to link to the Wikidictionary for this word? 207.104.145.80 20:25, 2005 Apr 15 (transferred from this discussion page's talk page Uncle G 03:04, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC))
  • Redirect to gi. "Dogi" is in general use in martial arts, has no specific association with cartoons. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:02, 16 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. – ABCD 23:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ava Rose Hoffman[edit]

Vanity. --Neigel von Teighen 20:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete The JPS 21:03, 15 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. – ABCD 23:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anti Emo Armada[edit]

Delete. Not encyclopediac. No Google hits at all. Appears to be a personal campaign against something or other. --Wtshymanski 05:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable POV rant. They should all listen to Altan anyway. Dsmdgold 09:54, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • This nomination seems to have gone missing from the vfd page. Relisted. Oh, and delete. Thue | talk 21:05, 15 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. – ABCD 23:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Superstistics[edit]

del. neologism. 20 google tihs. Mikkalai 21:16, 15 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. – ABCD 23:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

M. Rasheed[edit]

Vanity page. Article should be deleted. Mindmatrix 21:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Highly notably delete The JPS 21:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Phils 21:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and make sure it stays deleted. No evidence that any of his books are on wide distribution, and it would appear that one of them has already been deleted in accordance with the VfD process and then promptly recreated. Average Earthman 22:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • NN, del BigFatDave 23:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:22, 16 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. – ABCD 23:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Monsters 101[edit]

Vanity page. Article should be deleted. Mindmatrix 21:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. The JPS 21:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless ISBN and proof of non-vanity publication provided. Amazon does not appear to stock such a book, for one. Average Earthman 22:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • the author is NN, and therefore the book is also. del. Also, there is a redlink to another book by this author on that page, can we pre-emptively delete that too? BigFatDave 23:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, book promo. Megan1967 02:23, 16 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. – ABCD 23:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marquette Radio and MUTV[edit]

These two articles are both non-notable on their own, and (I'd say) borderline in the Marquette University page. The redirect from MUTV to Manchester United made a lot more sense. Smoddy (tgeck) 21:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete both, not notable. Megan1967 10:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both, not notable. -- Mwanner 13:57, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Payroll tax[edit]

Payroll tax and Tax withholding in the United States describe the same thing. They each contain information not contained in the other, however, so they should be merged. Alue 22:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • keep. No they are not. They speak about very different things, only both articles are poor. Mikkalai 23:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • {{sofixit}} --Carnildo 22:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are 16 articles linking to Payroll tax so it only makes sense to keep it. And Tax withholding is quite another matter (even apart from the "in the US" issue), so I don't see a merge working. Fix. -- Mwanner 00:14, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep both, and separate. Please only vfd things you actually want to be deleted. —Korath (Talk) 01:32, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was userfy. – ABCD 23:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John Blossom[edit]

This is a vanity article, and I can't decide whether he's notable. If not, there's a few more edits by JBlossom that may need to go. Delete. SeventyThree 22:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Userfied and deleted. RickK 23:36, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Order form[edit]

Foodmarket created this discussion page on 2005-04-15 and properly transcluded it onto the VFD per-day page, but forgot to write xyr reason for nomination. This is not a vote. Uncle G 03:01, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
  • Haha I have no idea what I'm doing... anyway, Delete because wikipedia isnt a dictionary and the definition is poor anyway &#151; FoodMarket  talk! 06:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Just to make sure, Delete. --Sn0wflake 04:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP not a dict. -- Mwanner 14:06, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 23:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kan Wang[edit]

Delete as non-notable vanity. Google gives 40 hits for "Kan Wang"+yale. Feco 23:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep -- it looks like a notable position. This should have the same status as an aide of someone in Congress. CoolGuy 23:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete--no evidence of notability. And most congressional aides don't get articles either. Meelar (talk) 02:27, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. According to the Yale website [5] he is not even the head aide, his position is minion for one year. Megan1967 02:29, 16 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 keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mary Miller[edit]

Delete as non-notable vanity. Google gives 120 hits for "Mary Miller"+saybrook+yale. Feco 23:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep this "Feco" is going around saying that everything is a vanity page. Someone who is a notable professor and leader of a university is not a vanity. CoolGuy 23:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Well "vanity" has a special meaning around here, something like "not important enough". Anyway keep as the co-author of a book with an Amazon rank of 27,203 [6]. Probably passes the professor test in various other ways too. Kappa 01:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, she is the Vincent J. Scully professor of the History of Art at Yale, [7]. Is a published professor, with 10 listings on LOC, [8]. Megan1967 02:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Kappa, for pointing out the professor test. Keep definitely now that I ready that. CoolGuy 16:20, 16 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 merge and redirect (move first, as per Kappa). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

100mm cannon, 150mm cannon, and 75mm cannon[edit]

Tagged as {{unencyclopedic}}, these three articles just list specs for tank cannons. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • They appear to be related to some game, not real life, with the "damage per shot" and "special: kills infantry instantly". Without context, delete. Change vote to merge with PlanetSide Tanks, as suggested by Kappa, now that I realize what the article's about. But it seems irrelevant now, as the info appears to have been move already.-LtNOWIS
  • Delete. Agree with LtNOWIS --Neigel von Teighen 23:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with PlanetSide Tanks or keep, useful for fans. Kappa 00:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It may be useful for fans, but it does not work as a stand alone article. Delete, lacks context, not notable Dsmdgold 01:37, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • If it's merged, it will have context. Kappa 09:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Yay for that! Merging makes the world a better place! Radiant_* 13:26, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with PlanetSide Tanks, no redirect, it appears to be from that game. Megan1967 02:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge → PlanetSide Tanks. Out of context, I would expect 75mm cannon to direct me to a World War II era howitzer, and the others to link to more modern artillery or tank weapons. --Allen3 talk 03:17, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all: not articles, WP != game site. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:03, 16 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 vote was inconclusive so the result of the debate was keepAndyL 03:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rebel Youth Network[edit]

Delete as non-notable. Google gives 130 hits. Feco 23:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep as it is notably a part of leftist history in Canada, Quebec and the First Nations. They are linked with the Communist Parties, Young Communist League, and other history dating back over 70 years. I got 131 hits on google, and of course not many hits would come out now, the organization no longer exists! --Mista-X 23:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, how does it have a history dating back over 70 years when it only just formed in 2003 and is now defunct? Megan1967 02:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Because they where ex-communist party youth, (CP ws formed in '21) and ex-YCL (YCL was formed in '29), the name Rebel Youth came from the YCL magazine, many of the ideas of RYN can be linked back to these things, so it's a part of history on the left in Canada. --Mista-X 15:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. An encyclopedia with infinite space should be able to handle small, but historically notable groups such as this. CJCurrie 23:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, concurring. Samaritan 02:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but if it's kept, it seriously needs an NPOV cleanup. --Spinboy 00:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Editors of an encyclopedia of "infinite space" still need to craft the work with an eye towards crafting a high quality and discerning work. Indrian 04:07, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - will be of interest to left historians, people interested in youth groups etc. Indrian, the issues of whether the article needs rewriting and whether the topic merits an article are seperate. AndyL 16:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup as necessary. Kappa 18:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Formed in november 2003, faded away in 2004. Most fads last longer than that, let alone organizations. So, delete. Radiant_* 13:30, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What CJCurrie said. Ground Zero 14:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, go nowhere, do nothing group of 15 lefties. TDC 01:28, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Dagen 05:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a historically significant party. Ruy Lopez 05:50, 21 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. – ABCD 23:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The New Aggregation[edit]

Neologism created by vanity author whose own autobiography, John Blossom, was listed for VfD before I userfied it. RickK 23:34, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity --Neigel von Teighen 23:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Josh Cherry 23:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. vanity, (advertising?) - the link is to John Blossom's website, and the term is not widely used, 550 hits on google, many of which are irrelevant. SeventyThree 18:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Modifed entry. New to this, but I point out that Shore.com is not a personal Web site, our company is a group of content industry analysts who publish an email newsletter and weblog read by hundreds of content industry executives. Please see our press page for recent quotations in the mainstream press, including articles writeen by myself and other Shore analysts. I will trust the judgment of others on the value of this entry, but given the changing state of content aggregation I believe that it's an important part of an ongoing dialogue on the nature of content. Glad to heed advice on how to improve it. John Blossom 02:15, 18 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 vote was inconclusive so the result of the debate was keep for all four articles. - AndyL 03:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Young Left[edit]

  • It appears that this never made it main VfD page... re-posting. Vote Delete as non-notable. Googling "young left"+toronto-jays (need to omit the young left-handers on the Toronto Blue Jays) gives approx 500 hits. Feco 23:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Young Left article seems worthy of deletion on notability grounds. I tried to encourage improvement but on re-reading it seems unlikely to be notable enough to justify it. I vote Delete Johnnyio 04:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is most likely that this sock puppet troll Johnnyio is out for revenge, probably over the stuff in the Paul Robeson article with TDC. I think membership in the World Federation of Democratic Youth alone is significant enough for an entry. I vote Keep! --Mista-X 04:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Love out to Mista-X our brother from Canada, but I am not motivated by revenge I am just not at all certain a membership organization with no members is notable enough for an entry. If you are or were a member, perhaps there is more you can tell us about the organization to justify its article. I doubt membership of the World Federation of Democratic Youth is sufficient, and such membership would need to be established anyway. Good luck with it. Johnnyio 04:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I never said I was from Canada and why does it matter? Why do you assume that YL has no members? The organization is smaller than it was a year ago, but it still exists. Some of the members are currently abroad, and some are holding posts in student unions. When I get the chance to add more information I will. I am 90% sure YL was a member of WFDY, and perhaps I can e-mail WFDY to confirm this. At any rate, YL is a historical reality, which may be more than you can say for yourself. --Mista-X 04:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless something can be changed, Axeattack 05:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep group is relatively well known in Toronto. AndyL 07:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. CJCurrie 23:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Spinboy 00:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 04:08, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - SimonP 13:06, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, seems established well enough. Radiant_* 13:31, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ground Zero 14:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Lack of Notability TDC 01:21, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete YL not notable, the article itself acknowledges that. Dagen 05:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A significant Toronto left group which is recognized by the United Nations Ruy Lopez 05:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Recognized the United Nations? What are you talking about? Dagen 06:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. They're quite notable, actually. TIMBO (T A L K) 08:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I also must note that Johnnyio was blocked shortly after his posts here for sockpuppeting, POV pushing, vandalism etc. TIMBO (T A L K) 08:13, 21 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_April_15&oldid=1081091392"