Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 29

April 29

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 redirect Tyrant CDC (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Tryanny

Appears to be a joke. There are two references to establish this entry. The first gives the definition, not of tryanny, but of "tryanny of numbers", which is almost certainly a typo for tyranny of numbers. In fact, the link to the glossary page shows tyranny, not tryanny.

The second reference is to the title of an article by Henry Kissinger, where the body of the article refers to tyranny.

There is nothing to support it is anything but a typo for tyranny.

Tabor 00:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, after some googling I agree with the nomination. Kappa 00:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tyrant. This article should be regarded as a typo for tyranny which in turn redirects to Tyrant. Zzyzx11 | Talk 00:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tyrant. Megan1967 01:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• dleete. Any two letters in any word may be occasionally swapped. Even though Wikipedia is not paper IMO even yahoo servers will not house all posile typo redirects. Also, no reason to encourage dyslexics. Mikkalai 04:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. It is unreasonable to expect people to make loads of redirects for every possible typo, but such redirects can be useful. Sjakkalle 09:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirects are cheap. Deletion would be harmless too, however. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 14:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 02:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redirects are appropriate for likely misspellings, particularly when it would be difficult for the user to know the correct spelling. Tyops on the other hand, don't belong as redirects. Following this to its conclusion would require quite a few redirs for tyrrany alone: ytrrany, tryanny, tyarny, tyrrnay, tyrrayn. Quale 10:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 01:08, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Beatrice Oczki

Unverifiable and/or prank fiction. Only 5 displayed hits, 4 of which are Wikipedia and its mirrors/forks, the other being a tripod.com user page with no sources referenced. Niteowlneils 00:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• delete unverifiable. Mikkalai 04:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If we can verify it, merge and redirect with spontaneous human combustion (where she's already mentioned). Otherwise delete. Binabik80 05:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too obscure and unverifiable. --Mecanismo 21:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• The police records and/or parts of the death certificate should be public info, though it may require a physical visit to some place like the basement of the county courthouse. The local library is likely to have copies of the local newspapers on microfilm or microfiche, again requiring a physical visit. AlbertCahalan 20:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Her main claim is to be "oft cited", but Google seems to disprove this - SimonP 01:08, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 05:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

London NW2

Articles on individual postal codes are not practical or desirable (as per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Conclusions#Postal codes). Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:34, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. For two reasons. (1) - (less important) - the London wikiProject is busily going through all these at the moment expanding them into reasonable articles. (2) - (more important) - the inner London areas are called by these names in common speech. If you go to London you'll hear people using these terms in much the same way that they'd use the names of suburbs in other cities. To delete an article on NW2 would be the equivalent of deleting an article on, say TriBeCa. Grutness|^hello? 00:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I have often wondered what the "SW1' reference on the London based TV show Spooks was about. Thanks to this artilce and Grutness I now know.--Commander Keane 02:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. While individual postcodes are generally not of great interest, their importance in London is the exception that proves the rule. However, the London Wikiproject should expand the article which is currently a substub. Capitalistroadster 03:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep In my opinion the so-called consensus, doubtless reached by a handful of the quarter of a million registered users, is a misjudgement and should be disregarded. Oliver Chettle 03:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, in London postal codes are a common shorthand for areas of the city. I'm not sure NW18 would be encyclopedic, but NW2 is. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:47, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What Oliver Chettle said.--Gene_poole 04:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Postcodes in London have more substance than just a postal abbreviaiton. The other posts seem to get the idea and I agree. CoolGuy 05:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand London NW3 is a good example of what this article could potentially become. Binabik80 05:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- the London suburbs are often referred to by postal code, and many of the codes (especially close to the centre) represent agglomerations of historical villages which deserve to be remembered. --Simon Cursitor 07:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree with the above reasoning. Mgm|^(talk) 08:56, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I oppose articles on postal codes (or area codes, which we have!) the London codes are more neighborhoods than just postal codes. RickK
• Keep. Trust me, I'm a Londoner. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. London codes are technically quite different and thus should not be judged under Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Conclusions#Postal codes. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Opposing Bourgois deletionism Klonimus
• Keep -- Longhair | Talk 04:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Someone Wasn't Listening

Band that has only released a self-produced demo, thus not meeting the standards at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Only one hit for "Someone Wasn't Listening" "forgotten hero", at a site where you can download their 'demo' mp3s for free. Orphan. Niteowlneils 00:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Binabik80 05:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 20:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, obscure and possibly vanity. --Mecanismo 21:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 01:10, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide/Working version

Originally created for dispute resolution, now inactive --DanielNuyu 00:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• If its just a duplicate article list for speedy deletion--nixie 03:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• extremely strong and obnoxious keep. It is not a duplicate article. It is a temp working version. Reasonable time since last edit did not expire yet. If you don't like it sitting here, talk to the authors first. Mikkalai 04:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep looks ok to me (as long as the 'working version' changes!) CoolGuy 06:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Not a duplicate, but a working version. Armenian Genocide is suffering from a serious content dispute. Having this article around can help editors reach an agreement without constantly reverting the main article. Mgm|^(talk) 08:39, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. Move it to User space until completed. RickK 19:54, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for then history. Speedy it when the originator says it's okay (per deletion policy). Raise this again if someone links to it from elsewhere in article space. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with MGM. If it helps resolve disputes I see nothing wrong in keeping it. Megan1967 01:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Huh? How is keeping POV versions of an article helping to resolve disputes? RickK 07:09, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • The function of this article is to reach agreement on the content of the main genocide article without having to revert or edit the existing information. There is nothing wrong with doing that. Megan1967 08:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I am strongly opposed to working on temp articles in the article space, but I guess I'm outnumbered. This really should be in some User space or else the original article should be deleted and this one put in its place. RickK 20:45, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, failing that move to another namespace. Kappa 10:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, working version serves purpose 141.211.138.85 06:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, it's basically the same article. 199.164.68.191 14:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

San Renard

Delete. This is a non-notable vanity article. Note the words 'spawning' web comic. It is not even a reality at the moment. This is the only instance I could find on Google [1] --Randolph 01:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I did find some more references on Google through searching with 'san-renard'. --Randolph 01:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 02:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, new webcomic --nixie 03:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until it's famous. Then when it gets famous, ask for autograph. -- 8^D ^gab 05:24, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Quale 20:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics. --Carnildo 22:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Bastards.
• As a writer myself, I have a soft spot in my heart for burgeoning artists. I would invite Sam Renard to build his own user corner of the site, link a few scans to it, and let us see what he can do. Just like I have. So--if I'm reading the guidelines right--after my hundreth issue, and if my sales are good, does The Belch Dimension Comics get its own Wiki page? The_Iconoclast 19:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 23:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Robert L. Berenson

A Google check reveals two plausible Robert L. Berensons for articles... but between them they have only 127 google hits. And the information here doesn't say anything about the notability of whichever one is mentioned. Grutness|^hello? 01:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 02:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing here to suggest that this guy meets the criteria for biographies--nixie 03:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 20:15, 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 speedy delete. – ABCD 23:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Steve DeMatteo

Non-notable. So little content I'm tempted to just delete it as a speedy. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (don't count implicit nomination). -Frazzydee|✍ 01:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This is definately speediable under criteria 1. Speedy delete --nixie 03:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Cheese puffs, indeed. -- 8^D ^gab 05:23, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
• speedy delete CoolGuy 06:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted. This has been a persistent vandal target (under various capitalizations) for reasons unbeknownst to me. Postdlf 07:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Joe Nicora

Just another non-notable web designer. Hits are mostly forums, resumes, his sites, etc. Niteowlneils 02:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no significant contributions to web design--nixie 03:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, although playing football for Walla Walla Community College was a nice touch. -- 8^D ^gab 05:21, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Binabik80 05:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Quale 20:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (block-compress error). – ABCD 23:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Union/temp

• delete. No one works with this temporary page for over 4 months. Mikkalai 02:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete as the user who asked about it on its talk page got no response. Binabik80 05:48, 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 COPYVIO

Meta-Compilation

How-to essay, delete--nixie 03:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It is a Copyvio. Not a subject of deletion policy. Mikkalai 05:10, 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 - redirected - SimonP 01:13, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Caddery

• Delete. This would have to qualify as such an obscure use of the term as to be non-notable. Whats the word people use here? neologism? I have no idea what that is, but its sounds relevant. :) I get one reference with a Google search on 'caddery' + 'cadmium' and that is to a forum post heading, which doesnt really qualify as a reference. --Randolph 03:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This particular anonymous user 24.48.229.57 seems to be a bit of a troublemaker on looking at his contributions. --Randolph 03:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete - non-notable CoolGuy 06:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect: the word caddery is attested for the activities of cads; this is discussed at rake. Redirect there. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, I'm having trouble finding caddery in the dictionary. I think to even associate it with the word cad or rake is probably being a bit creative with the English language. --Randolph 15:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strike that. I found it used in that context in some Google references. --Randolph 15:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Even if verified (which I can't), this would be a mere dicdef. Redirect to rake per Smerdis. Rossami (talk) 02:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Smerdis and Rossami. Samaritan 14:00, 30 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 - merged - SimonP 01:15, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Rahi

It's a fantasy world neologism that means animals. If you replace the word rahi with animal the text reads animal is the name given to the different and unique species of animals that live on the island of Mata-Nui in the world of Bionicle, a subset of Lego. Most animals live in the wild, however some animals have been "tamed" by the local villagers (called Matoran) and are used to help the Matoran in everyday life. Every fantasy world has wildlife, are they notable or encyclopedic just because they have a neologism instead of just calling them animals? I don't think so. delete Sabine's Sunbird 04:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• merge/redirect to BIONICLE, if rthe word is indeed from there. Mikkalai 05:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• merge & redirect as Mikkalai says. Binabik80 05:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• merge/redirect to BIONICLE, per [User:Mikkalai|Mikkalai]]. Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, Apr 29, 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 speedily deleted as part of vandalism

Barrett's Lesophagus

• We have a perfectly good article at Barrett's Esophagus. This is silliness. If there is a grounds on which this can be speedied, I'd welcome it. In any case, Delete -- Jmabel | Talk 04:42, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• speedy deleted as part of vandalism of several pages by user:166.94.6.40. Mikkalai 04:59, 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 Speedy

Hariram

Delete – may be in view of the article being not suitable for wikipedia / information stated in the article may not be available in the public domain. The article was originally created by me when I was very new to wikipedia.--Bhadani 04:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• speedily deleted. WP:CSD General #7. Mikkalai 05:42, 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 - kept - SimonP 01:16, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Marks

Hi Kevin. I like your demonstration. In fact, I've done one too on the same topic. Delete - no encyclopedic content and probably vanity. CoolGuy 05:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I'm for the deletion of this. I have a feeling this article sprung up because I kept removing this same info from the podcasting article, it's just too much irrelevant niche information. Adm58 05:44, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't write this; someone who knows me and my work on Podcasting did. I'm in a quandary, as it seems I'm not supposed to make it more useful myself (by, say, listing the other mass-adoption technologies I have built ) but instead to rely on the kindness of strangers to do so. Have I got this straight? Kevin Marks 07:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm against the deletion of this, which I also didn't write.

There are two separate issues here: 1) Is the original entry encyclopedic? No. 2) Would a useful entry about Kevin Marks be appropriate to Wikipedia? Yes.

Kevin Marks (Principal Engineer at Technorati) is a very well-known and influential person in blog circles, both for his technological savvy and for his interesting comments. At Bloggercon 1, he was the undisputed hero of the gathering--see this blog entry for details: http://betsydevine.weblogger.com/2003/10/05#a651

I have tried to make the entry more encyclopedic , because I do think it would be useful to many people. Betsythedevine

A suggestion which might get around the letter of the Wiki-law (well, it bends it a little, perhaps...) Kevin - write an article about yourself as your user page, and tell us when you've done it. Another Wikipedian can then use that as reference material for writing an improved Kevin Marks article. (You can always blank the user page again once it's done, or ask a friendly admin to do it for you :) Grutness|^hello? 13:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• 'Keep. Betsydevine has turned this into a reasonable stub and he appears to be a pioneer of podcasting. 203.26.16.66 23:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Autobiography. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Please don't take this personally but I don't think this rises to the level recommended by criteria for inclusion of biographies. It would be appropriate for your user page but not yet for the main article space. Rossami (talk) 02:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Criteria for inclusion of biographies seems strongly biased against those of us who work in non-traditional media. I have produced CD-ROMs that sold in excess of 2 million copies, and museum installations viewed by hundreds of thousands, yet as these aren't Audio CDs or books, they are not discussed there. Again, this is not autobiography: I am attempting to avoid that. Grutness's suggestion seems a good one. Kevin Marks 08:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep or do what Grutness suggested. CD-ROMs and museum installations should count for biogaphy criteria too. Kappa 23:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep reasonable stub, but Grutness suggestion is perfect. The best article would be about Kevin - what he's done and how he contributed to podcasting, rather than a verbatim record of a speach he gave. I got to this page whilst researching Podcasting and it really doesn't give me much information about Kevin - but there should be some there so I say keep the page and improve it. Damphlett 08:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Anthony Perez

Unverifiable article about a non-notable person. Angela. 05:20, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - vanity CoolGuy 05:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity article. Binabik80 05:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 20:12, 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 - deleted - SimonP 01:18, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

List of small-time bands

If this is a policy page, it has the wrong title

• Strong Keep - Ain't meant as a policy page - it's just meant as a list. I keep seeing examples where a band doesn't meet criteria for inclusion, but seems notable enough to go on a list of local bands. Like I say on the article's talk page, I am not in a band myself and don't have a horse in this race. I just think this page could be a useful alternative to VFD's on "music notability" disputes. Mcsweet 05:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Small-time bands or the like. --SPUI (talk) 06:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if the band is not notable it shouldnt be on wikipedia period. Having a list like this could be seen as a way to circumvent the music notability guidelines so I dont agree with it on principle. Megan1967
• Delete - i agree with Megan CoolGuy 06:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - A list of past or present bands who have not achieved notability as measured by the guidelines would be a long list indeed. Capitalistroadster 06:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Yah man, my band is like playing at the quad this weekend........... Strong Delete ;) Adm58 07:04, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Please see the article's Talk page for my reasons. Soundguy99 07:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it doesn't meet the guidelines, it's out. We could argue how many of these guidelines are needed for inclusion, but listing local non-notable bands only serves to circumvent established guidelines. Mgm|^(talk) 09:12, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Fine, delete, delete - but if a list of small-time bands is beyond the pale, then actual articles about small-time bands should be, too. These don't seem to be dealt with as stringently. That's why I created this page in the first place: as a soft landing place for those vanity band pages that seem to hang around forever - a place that would allow Wikipedia's band coverage to be de-cluttered, but gently so. After all, there are a lot of band pages hanging around that don't meet criteria, but which no one actually has the heart to delete. This was supposed to help fix that. Mcsweet 09:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If you are aware of any bands that don't meet the inclusion criteria laid out at WP:MUSIC, go ahead and list them on VfD (or let me know on my talk page). There is usually little argument against deletion unless someone discovers verifiable information that shows the band in question is notable. (Incidentally, Delete this list.) android↔talk 15:57, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree. If we have guidelines on WP:MUSIC, then why should we keep those that fail that test. Zzyzx11 | Talk 18:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think that local music subcultures have a place within Wikipedia..not exactly as a list, however. I think it could be very useful if such a thing could be done with the local bands of major cities. If you're interested in putting a sub-page of say... Culture of San Diego, that would be great. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is better served with List articles being done in category listins instead of simple articles. --Maciel 17:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as it is easy to become biased. Also no useful information added (unless each item is an article). --minghong 18:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- content isn't encyclopedic. ---- Longhair | Talk 01:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Un-maintainable POV list. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy keep due to erroneous nomination --SPUI (talk) 06:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

F-V (New York City Subway service)

good content but there are already pages on this CoolGuy 05:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and improper nomination, F (New York City Subway service) and V (New York City Subway service) redirect to it. --SPUI (talk) 05:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not Jenga. Stop trying to knock out perfectly good articles. silsor 05:57, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm really sorry....made a mistake. CoolGuy 06:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No hard feelings - I was pretty sure it was all in good faith. --SPUI (talk) 06:33, 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 speedy delete. – ABCD 23:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Mortadelos

• delete - not english CoolGuy 05:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep - spanish
  • anon; page author. Mikkalai 06:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Created by jokster. Mikkalai 06:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense Sietse 13:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A rough translation of the introduction: The 'mortadelos' are rats with only one foot, a human foot. They are 15 cm long. Ther are of fluorescent red color and glow at night. They are born 150 y.o. and die with 149 y.o. after only 2 days.--Nabla 13:46, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted patent nonsense. — Smerdis of Tlön 14:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Dave Slusher

Delete, I don't feel this individual is significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. Furthermore, the article has been around for a while and isn't progressing past substub stage. Adm58 20:53, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• delete - but i predict we're going to see a lot of podcaster vanity pages in the future! CoolGuy 06:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Binabik80 16:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment From http://www.dragoncon.org/people/slushed.html there was a person by that same name who hosted a radio talk show called "Reality Break" that was broadcast on NPR where he interviewed 200 authors, artists, editors and other people in the fields of literature and comic books. Would this be notable enough for a rewrite? Zzyzx11 | Talk 18:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 20:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in current shape. However if Zzyx11 were to rewrite it about the fellow with a nationally braodcast program in the US, I would vote to keep.203.26.16.66 23:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• We're voting on "Dave Slusher is a software engineer by vocation and a podcaster/radio talk show host by avocation." (it's been that through its history). Are we sure this isn't the same person as the rewrite candidate? Keep and sort this out! Samaritan 13:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • We don't go to VfD with the articles we wish we had, we VfD with the articles we've got. I don't think there's any way at all to tell if this is the same guy, so it isn't verifiable. The great danger is in falsely confusing them, not falsely removing a perhaps notable stub bio which can easily be recreated if warranted. The best solution is to remove this article and start fresh on the notable Dave Slusher. Quale 04:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 01:20, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Bhadani

Incorrectly created vote page. PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR VFD!

Delete – an Indian surname which already finds mention in the main article Mahuri. This article was created by me when I was very new to wikipedia.--Bhadani 05:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per authors reason. Megan1967 06:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. utcursch | talk 13:02, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with Mahuri. Binabik80 16:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above Kappa 23:49, 30 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 - should be merged - SimonP 01:22, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Lohani

Incorrectly created vote page. PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR VFD!

Delete – an Indian surname which already finds mention in the main article Mahuri. This article was created by me when I was very new to wikipedia.--Bhadani 05:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as per authors reason. Megan1967 06:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. utcursch | talk 13:02, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with Mahuri. Binabik80 16:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above Kappa 23:50, 30 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 - should be merged - SimonP 01:22, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Tarway

Incorrectly created vote page. PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR VFD!

Delete – an Indian surname which already finds mention in the main article Mahuri. This article was created by me when I was very new to wikipedia.--Bhadani 05:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as per authors request. Megan1967 06:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. utcursch | talk 13:02, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with Mahuri. Binabik80 16:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above Kappa 23:50, 30 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 - no consensus - SimonP 01:25, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Vinodini Tarway

Incorrectly created vote page. PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR VFD!

Delete - perhaps not encyclopaedic. Article was created, when I was very new to wikipedai.--Bhadani 05:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. utcursch | talk 13:03, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. not encyclopedic. Svest 13:06, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• In its current form it's unencyclopaedic, but I think it could be improved if given context. A female vice chancellor at an Indian university might be notable enough to merit inclusion; I know absolutely nothing about Indian gender politics or higher education (whether or not this is a significant university) and therefore don't feel I can vote, but I ask for input from anyone who does know. Binabik80 16:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, assuming "She shall always remain a fountain of inspiration to all Mahuri Vaisya folks" is true. Kappa 17:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The fountain of inspiration part is probably overblown, and being a female university administrator per se (in the country of Indira Gandhi) probably doesn't do it, but there's a good chance Vice Chancellor is an important position. I know in other countries the Vice Chancellor is commonly also the university's President and chief executive officer while the Chancellor is a titular head. Verifiability is iffy as the only hit for +vinodini +tarway is a Wikipedia mirror, but I see no reason not to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. (Not least since the creator is modestly voting delete!) Samaritan 13:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • • My comments - In India Vice Chancellor is the highest authority of an University and a Vice Chancellor reports directly to the Governor of an Indian state. Governor acts as Chancellor for all the Universities located within a state. As regards the verifiability of the facts, a call to the present Vice Chancellor of that University would be sufficient. I donot know his name or tele number. There will be hundreds of documentary evidences to prove that there was a Vinodini Tarway who became a Vice Chancellor. Actually, I can expand the article with a lot of inputs. Anyway ... life is like that ... By the way, she was also the first woman vice chancellor of any University in Bihar, very few among Indian women vice chancellors, postgraduate with a PhD etc. etc.--Bhadani 16:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for filling us in! And please do expand. Samaritan 18:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I also thank you for your insight. I myself searched hard on several search engines, could not get her name, except some info on Vinobha Bhave University and the present Vice Chancellor's name, etc. with a remarks: list of former vice chancellors will be updated or something like that, tele-no of the university was there, may be old, I am not sure, as during last one/two years several telephone numbers have changed. But, if one is really interested, one can surely get the correct telephone number. I have updated certain information. I would like to make only one observation - in Indian states of Jharkhand and Bihar, several governement and private records are yet to be digitalized and placed on internet, so searching several things may yield poor result or no result. --Bhadani 02:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Please see my all earlier remarks and comments, and then: Now, though I have created this article and even recommended deletion, I am having second thoughts after adding fresh inputs to the article. So, I am voting for Keep. In case, wikipedia does not allow such a voting, my vote may please be discounted while deciding this issue. As I have myself initiated for VfD process, I am not withdrawing my nomination for VfD--Bhadani 02:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. not notable, obscure and, on top of that, an orphan page. --Mecanismo 21:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Daddy Zero

Some goth store in Florida--Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Only about 100 hits for "Daddy Zero" -potato -"zero tolerance" and other than the first few are mostly other uses. First vfd nom of User:12.10.248.51's recent contribs. Niteowlneils 06:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Binabik80 16:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Most likely unnotable. Nestea 18:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, advertisement. Quale 20:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as Quale puts it. --Mecanismo 21:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Joseph W Murphy

(And the redir to it, Holly Ivoska--zero hits.) Apparently they run the Daddy Zero and have little other notability. Joseph supposedly is associated with Toosquare magazine (next), but toosquare "joseph w murphy" gets zero hits. Another from User:12.10.248.51. Niteowlneils 06:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While hits might be at zero all the information listed is true and factual. Toosquare Magazine is/was an important cultural entity in the tampa area. The Joseph W Murphy and Holly Ivoska pages are being expanded to include important local cultural references to large concert events, death metal bands, and other items of 'note' that these two are/were involved in. (Note from Binabik80: posted by 12.10.248.51)

• Delete. I lived in Tampa (St. Pete, actually) for 4 years & I've never heard of Toosquare Magazine. I don't dispute the factuality of the article's contents, but I dispute its notability. Please remember to sign what you write here. Binabik80 16:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Quale 20:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Factuality is not a criterion for creating an article. RickK 23:07, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as Megan1967 puts it. --Mecanismo 21:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Toosquare

Just another web-zine. Not a large number of hits, and an Alexa rank of only 1,616,674. Another from User:12.10.248.51. Couldn't find independent confirmation of claimed 'award'. Niteowlneils 06:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non notable website. Sjakkalle 09:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. Binabik80 16:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable cubed. Quale 20:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:28, 30 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 23:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Tainted Poetic

Unverifiable neologism and/or prank fiction. Gets two unrelated hits and "tainted poetry" doesn't fare much better--some hits, but ones I checked were other uses. Another from User:12.10.248.51. Niteowlneils 06:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism. Sjakkalle 09:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism and, from the description in the article, grafitti. Binabik80 16:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, possible prank. Quale 20:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 01:29, 30 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. —Xezbeth 05:00, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Joseph D Holland

Only notability claimed is a 'contributor' of Tainted Poetic, above. Otherwise, the article says: "Semi-literate poet, author and artist. Important deeds include humorous antics and procreation." Zero relevant hits. Niteowlneils 06:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Sjakkalle 09:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Distinctly less notable than even the other articles in Tainted Poetic/Toosquare series. Binabik80 16:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 20:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:29, 30 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. —Xezbeth 05:00, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Meacrob

delete - unverifiable and even if true, would belong on wiktionary CoolGuy 06:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It's an allusion to a South Park episode, It Hits the Fan, where Cartman starts using the word "meekrob" (or "meacrob", we only hear it spoken so we don't know how it's spelled) in place of "shit". Redirect to It Hits the Fan. --Angr/_comhrá 06:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Southparkcruft. Nestea 18:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weird. Delete, I guess. Everyking 18:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Angr. Meelar (talk) 19:44, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a term that will ever be searched, so no need for redirect. Quale 20:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 01:31, 30 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. —Xezbeth 05:26, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Boom goes the dynamite!

This phrase doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Only 493 Google hits. Firebug 07:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) Note: actual number of hits is 737 zellin 21:50, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I get 1060. But we should not only count them, see: (Wikipedia:Google_test#Google_bias). We should actually read some of those. Try this one: 4 minutes of fame --Nabla 23:09, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

• delete. Vanity? How can a phrase used in a college's newscast in March 2005 (last month!) be notable? The article about Brian Collins the notable student who said it should be deleted too.--Nabla 17:38, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnotable quote. Nestea 18:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Brian Collins vanity. Quale 20:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, good grief. Delete. RickK 23:10, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete slightly incoherent, not notable Sensation002 02:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a notable phrase. Boom goes this article! Sjakkalle 13:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'll copy-and-paste my comments from the Brian Collins VFD discussion. I fully own up to not being a Wikipedia regular but from what I know of the site's policies, this is certainly notable. Search for "boom goes the dynamite" on Google. His inept bumbling has spread all over the world; they've even appropriated the phrase on SportsCenter. Tony Kornheiser did an entire radio segment on the lad (see here), and Scott Van Pelt said "It has cult status at this point. Everyone I know that's in the business has seen the video clip." (See here). I think if you're mentioned on the sportsillustrated.cnn.com website (the former link), you're definitely notable. It's Internet lore, like the Star Wars kid. If Wikipedia has room for that, it would be hypocritical to delete this. (By the way, Google is 1000 hits now, evincing the phrase's rapid rise in popularity. It's been sampled for radio promos all over North America, the clip was shown in Ireland, the phrase was used on SportsCenter..."boom goes the dynamite" has entered our collective consciousness. Anyway if you want to dismiss my comments simply because I'm a non-regular go ahead, but I'll note that I ventured here specifically to look for Brian Collins and boom goes the dynamite!.)
• Keep. Excellent points made, noteworthy keep it. Brian1250 09:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Brian Collins should it survive. zellin 18:04, May 7, 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 - merged - SimonP 01:27, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

OpenTalk

This article was based on the rumor that Apple would rename Rendezvous to OpenTalk in a future version of Mac OS X. Very few with knowledge of the Mac's past rbelieved the rumor, and it's been proven wrong since. Rendezvous became Apple Bonjour. The OpenTalk name is just another rumor, not really worthy of note. I suggest deleting this. An alternative would be to redirect to Apple Bonjour, but I don't think this term is important enough. (Apologies if I do this wrong; first RFD.) --Steven Fisher 07:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

redirect and merge with Apple Bonjour. Good first RFD - once you remembered to sign ;) Grutness|^hello? 07:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Apple Bonjour. Megan1967 01:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Apple Bonjour.--Prem 15:14, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 05:02, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Burningdown

Vanity band posting. Delete. Postdlf 07:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete The page has also been vandalised at least twice since appearing here. Binabik80 16:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. One of the anonymous users who vandalised the page was the article's original author who blanked the entire page, both the VFD tag and the content. [2]. I'm not sure if it is a signal that this user also wants it to be deleted. Zzyzx11 | Talk 17:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, he did acknowledge this on Postdlf's talk page. [3]. Zzyzx11 | Talk 17:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • He's since returned to editing the content[4] so we might as well play this out. Postdlf 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 01:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Quale 04:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• The page has been (almost) blanked again - this time the anon did leave the vfd notice and a substub, but I've reverted anyway as a lot of information was summarily deleted. Note that there are two different IPs at work, which may or may not be the same person. Oh, for what it's worth, delete like all other student garage bands. sjorford →•← 18:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 05:01, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Enrique Burton

Unverifiable article about a non-notable person. Angela. 08:16, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

• vanity - Delete or userfy if the author logs in. Dunc|☺ 09:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Binabik80 15:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Zzyzx11 | Talk 17:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. Quale 19:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. He would be notable if he won the Nobel Prize in Economics for 2003, as the Spanish-language text of this article currently states. He did not, however. It was won by Robert F. Engle III and Clive W.J. Granger. See nobelprize.org. Ground Zero 16:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 01:33, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Frontman

Dictionary definition, already transwikied. — A.M. 08:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• keep & expand I think there's room for expansion here, comparison of different styles, whether they play instruments, female frontwomen... Dunc|☺ 09:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If someone wants to expand, I encourage them to do so ... until then I say delete. Binabik80 15:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Right now it is blank after it was transwikied. If nobody wants to modify this by the time its VFD process ends, then I see no point in keeping a blank article. Zzyzx11 | Talk 17:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, already in wiktionary. Megan1967 01:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, revert back to the version with content, and allow for organic growth. Kappa 23:44, 30 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. —Xezbeth 05:03, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Ad astra

NN song, not even mentioned in the (moderately short) article on the band that apparently sang it. Almost a speedy given the lack of info here. Grutness|^hello? 08:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) see note below.

• Might be notable as motto of Kansas, University College Dublin, and the Royal Air Force ... Keep as edited. Ben-w 16:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — if I recall correctly, it was also the name of a magazine published by a space advocacy group. — RJH 17:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewrite. Zzyzx11 | Talk 17:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewrite as reasonable stub. Well done, whoever rewrote it. 203.26.16.66 00:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Aw, thanks. Ben-w 02:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• much better as written, I change my vote to keep. But... I thought the RAF motto was Per ardua ad astra rather than just Ad astra. Grutness|^hello? 05:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It is. I've altered the article to match. Grutness|^hello? 06:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As per Grutness. P Ingerson 12:26, 30 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 - redirected - SimonP 01:34, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Operator_precedence_in_C

It is a (bad) dupe of C_syntax#Operators. Pablo

• I redirected it to C syntax. This is a search term someone might enter. By the way, in the future, if you create an article and want to delete it, then assuming you do so before other people have added to it you can simply put {{delete}} at the beginning of the article to mark it for speedy deletion; be sure to put in the edit summary that you are the original author. Firebug 11:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep. It's a good redirect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:50, 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 - kpet - SimonP 01:35, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Transatlantic tunnel

Hoax presented as fact. I'd say delete, but an argument could be made for rewriting the article describing the hoax (if it's in fact famous enough) -- Ferkelparade π 10:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep if this can be rewritten well enough to describe the hoax. (The audacity of it made me laugh; that's worth something, right?) Discovery Channel has apparently ran a show about it called Extreme Engineering: Transatlantic Tunnel, probaby similar to that mockumentary Dragon show. There is also a 1935 movie of the same name. addesso 11:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as fiction presented as fact. The hoax webpage as such doesn't seem to be notable emough to warrent a page. Martg76 12:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. Martg76 12:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Have we a page on Harry Harrison's book A Transatlantic Tunnel, Hurrah!? (I could have the spelling slightly wrong on that... If so, redirect. If not... BJAODN, then fulfil the D of the acronym. Grutness|^hello? 13:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep now. Good work Tony. Grutness|^hello? 11:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Allow someone else to make a rewrite about the hoax, but this article should be deleted. Sjakkalle 13:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) Valid stub now, Keep the rewrite. Sjakkalle 08:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Binabik80 15:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. The idea of a Transatlantic Tunnel is a commonly used as both a dream and a hoax. I would like to see an article detailing how this idea has been tossed around. For example, there is the web site currently on the article, the special on the Discovery Channel [5], and a movie based on the idea [6]. And it gets over 62,000 Google hits. [7] Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — alternate history fiction. Somebody sure went to a lot of effort with the linked web page. I'm not quite sure why. The topic of very long, underwater tunnels like this can be covered on the main tunnel page. — RJH 17:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Worthy topic, hoax content. Delete unless rewritten. Meelar (talk) 19:42, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC) Keep the rewrite. Meelar (talk) 00:58, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Quale 20:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is hoax presented as fact. The hoax deserves an article describing it, but this is faulty info that needs to be deleted.
• Keep. Rather well written hoax. Too lovely to delete. Write it up as a hoax. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If somebody rewrites it to discuss proposals and the use of it in fiction, keep. If it is not rewritten, delete. Sorry, Tony, well written or not, we can't start keeping hoax articles. RickK 23:13, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I made a good sf-stub out of it. Spoilsport. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's been rewritten, as is a fine stub by now. --ScottMorrison 00:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it now! Bravo. I've moved the article and this VfD from Transatlantic Tunnel to Transatlantic tunnel, since it no longer describes a proper name but the concept. Samaritan 00:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Tony Sidaway's well written stub. 203.26.16.66 00:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the concept of a transatlantic tunnel has appeared in science fiction magazines before and also a British movie. It is already a feature article on Discovery magazine [8]. Megan1967 01:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- having looked back, I'd have voted to keep the original version, if it had been labelled as a hoax, since it appeared to be an article about a hoax, rather than being a hoax itself.--Simon Cursitor 09:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now a useful page with some capacity for expansion, I have a vague recollection that a transatlantic tunnel appeared in a science fiction film, possibly based on something by H.G. Wells. PatGallacher 13:16, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
• Keep -- article has improved, warranting inclusion. - Longhair | Talk 01:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Keepp - Agree with Longhair. Johntex 01:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 01:37, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Gay Tijuana

• Delete. Note suitable for wikipedia. May be wikitravel. --DuKot 15:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like an advertisement pages. --Chakravyuh 01:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• As much as I like obscurity, we should merge and redirect this to Tijuana. Also, this article name is too obscure for Wikipedia since it is an adjective then a noun. --SuperDude 00:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Note: this was never listed on the main VFD page as far as I can tell - I am adding it to today's page for further discussion. sjorford →•← 10:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A listing of a handful of gay bars doesn't really seem notable enough to merit a merge into Tijuana. Binabik80 15:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic. Quale 19:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I've mentioned this on Talk:Gay village. It may be that somebody could make something encyclopedic out of the gay scene in Tijuana, so I'll reserve judgement... Samaritan 00:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. Delete Oliver Chettle 02:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Rename and rewrite. The article as it is currently written is barely adequate for moving to Wikitravel or some any other copyleft travel website. On the other hand, an article about Gays in Tijuana could be encyclopedic. As an fairly wide-open border town in a generally very conservative country homosexuals in Tijuana have been alternately ignored (but not really tolerated) and repressed. BlankVerse ∅ 09:31, 30 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 - kept - SimonP 01:39, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Crocker Motorcycles

Apparently this isn't even the original company which made the Crocker motorcycle; they are a company that makes out of production parts for restoration of those motorcycles. Halfway through, the POV even changes to first person and starts to read like a brochure. Google returns 45 hits, mostly sales references. Are they notable enough for an entry? addesso 10:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete The original company might warrant an entry, but the paucity of Google hits concerns me. Binabik80 15:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Advertisement. Quale 19:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Entire article rewritten by Andrewa. Now a fine article and worthy of a Strong Keep vote. Quale 07:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Stubified, and I expect this article will grow very rapidly! In any case, a classic and well worth an article. Andrewa 20:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly good encyclopedia article, should not have been listed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article was completely rewritten after the vfd. Original fully deserved deletion and most certainly should have been listed. Current article is very good. Quale 07:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Article modified by Andrewa (thanks!). addesso 23:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done Andrewa for the rewrite. 203.26.16.66 00:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Vroooooooooooom Klonimus 03:45, 30 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. —Xezbeth 05:05, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Junauto

The number of google hits (3500 or so, not all of them for this Junauto) suggests possible notability, but the article needs a lot of work to prove it's worth keeping. Grutness|^hello? 12:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 01:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can show major connectability.  ? stubby ? --Simon Cursitor 09:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not enough there to establish notability. Quale 04:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable at all, no potential Bluemoose 15:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep FroggyMoore 01:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 05:06, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Pete Clifton

Non-notable vanity page --217.169.9.2 12:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. A simple Google search indicates he is notable. utcursch | talk 12:58, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Non-notable??? He's the editor of BBC News Interactive. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable media and Internet person. 203.26.16.66 00:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops that was me not signed in. Capitalistroadster 00:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Oliver Chettle 02:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Quale 04:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete FroggyMoore 01:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 01:40, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Mégadôme

Less an article than an advertisement. NN. Grutness|^hello? 12:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Six Flags La Ronde. Zzyzx11 | Talk 17:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Somewhat eclipses its site in international interest. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Six Flags La Ronde. Megan1967 01:44, 30 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 speedy delete --Carnildo 22:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Melvin guaman

Delete, smells like a hoax. KFP 13:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree, doesn't google and is self-contradictory. Terrace4 13:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not even very funny. Binabik80 15:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Someone would appear to have got Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia confused. Average Earthman 16:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Seems to have been speedied by User:Charles Matthews, reason given was obvious hoax. No vote from me. Andrewa 21:05, 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 - deleted - SimonP 01:42, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Gestion de Recursos Humanos

Comments from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

• In Spanish, probably redundant to content we already have in some article on personnel or human resources departments. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:23, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. I made a rough translation. Please feel free to polish it up.--Jondel 07:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The reference at bottom Manuel Labrado, Washingtons DC, 27 March 2005. makes me think it's from a magazine or newspaper. --Drini 23:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that the content of this article is already discussed in the human resources article, and that it can be deleted. Sietse 13:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Binabik80 15:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, duplication. Megan1967 01:45, 30 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 - should be merged - SimonP 01:43, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Rahaga

Surely this isn't something that needs its own article. Merge and redirect to Bionicle. Grutness|^hello? 13:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge without redirecting. Svest 16:45, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, assuming the material is to be kept. The redirect is harmless, useful, and avoids any possible problems with the GFDL. Andrewa 21:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • PS: You don't need to hold a VfD vote if you want to merge and redir, just do it. Discuss it on the article's talk page if the article has been heavily or recently edited. Not here. Andrewa 21:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I know that - I've been doing that frequently with things I know about, but all I know about Bionicle is that it stole borrowed a lot of Maori mythology. Grutness|^hello?
• Cruft. Merge and redirect to Bionicle. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Bionicle --Neigel von Teighen 21:03, 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 - kept, much chnaged since nominated - SimonP 01:47, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Shadow of Death

I've read the article twice, and I'm still none the wiser. Anyone know what it's about? Grutness|^hello? 13:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It's an expansion for Heroes of Might and Magic III, so redirect there unless someone can make an article out of it. —Xezbeth 14:02, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Heroes of Might and Magic III. Zzyzx11 | Talk 17:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Content is worthless; delete to keep a redlink. Failing that, redirect I suppose, but delete is preferable. Meelar (talk) 19:34, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete substub without useful content or context. I wouldn't oppose a redirect either. Mgm|^(talk) 21:09, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Heroes of Might and Magic III. Anyway, this can't be an article by itself. --Neigel von Teighen 21:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Until then, BTW, I've moved this to Heroes of Might and Magic III: Shadow of Death, where it should be. —Simetrical (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, I'm willing to work on it.
• Merge & delete into Heroes of Might and Magic III. I improved it, but I doubt enough could be said about it to make it an entire article. It should probably just be copied into the HOMM3 article and deleted. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:04, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete —Xezbeth 07:19, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Dino and The Disciples

This looks like either vanity or nonsense to me. Creator has a history of nonsense edits, this doesn't qualify for speedy though. Rje 14:01, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I am in total agreement with you. Svest 16:40, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't google. "described as best new metal band." By who? Best of what? The country? town? year? Only first names of members. And calling Norway the Mecca of Metal is promotion. Mgm|^(talk) 21:12, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- band vanity - Longhair | Talk 04:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 04:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:14, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Brian Driscoll

delete - Vanity page which is a cut'n'paste from his webpage Mariocki ^TALK 15:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Binabik80 15:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete (but almost the Ireland rugby captain Brian O'Driscoll) Dunc|☺ 15:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. As per Wikipedia:Autobiography, if and when he becomes notable, the article should be written by a third party. Zzyzx11 | Talk 17:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 01:47, 30 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 - deleted - SimonP 01:48, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Joan of Arc (historical figure)

Fork of main article Joan of Arc. Noisy | Talk 15:47, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Speeded as a fork of Joan of Arc. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony, that was too hasty. There may have been a reason for it. We should've at least let the vote play out normally. Everyking 22:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to duplicate content on Wikipedia. It disrupts the history. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You should let the vote play out regardless. It hurts nothing to leave it around for a few days so it gets a proper vote. Everyking 23:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have a point, but if it gets speedied asap then there's less chance of having to merge diverging histories. VfD's resulting in deletion votes last at least FIVE DAYS, which can amount to a hell of a lot of history. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine, have it your way, I wouldn't want the article around anyway. Everyking 00:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Duplicate of main article with no links to it. Noisy | Talk 15:47, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• So she's not Noah's wife? Delete as fork. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:20, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Who are they going to confuse her with? Joan of Arc (the sandwich)? Delete. Nestea 18:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a Joan of Arc movie, not that it's relevant. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Tentative delete, but I'd like to know why this was created. Conceivably, I guess there could be a legit reason. Everyking 18:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicate. No need to add specification in the brackets, there's only one Joan of Arc. Also, references seem to be missing in the duplicate. Mgm|^(talk) 21:14, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete duplicate fork. The historical figure is properly at Joan of Arc rather than a modified title—it's only any other use of that title or name that should be disambiguated. Postdlf 21:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:16, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Scott Weinberg

Delete, vanity/tribute, non-notable. Good wikilinking though. FreplySpang (talk) 17:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. He is a seoncd bass (sic) seems his claim to fame, with one public performance in a choir so far. As my teachers used to write on my report cards, room for improvement. Andrewa 20:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Cheerio Scott. Leithp 15:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Quale 04:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 05:07, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Neototalitarism

Neologism. The only google web hit for +Neototalitarism +Rendón (or Rendon) is a Wikipedia mirror. About 65 web hits for this term, 55 for Neototalitarian and 24 for Neototalitarianism; they don't seem to show a common meaning for the terms, just a bunch of people recreating the neologism. Redirecting to totalitarianism would suggest a troublesome precedent that obscure neologisms should just redirect to a related word, which would validate those neologisms before demonstration they even had commonly accepted meanings. Samaritan 18:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with Samaritan. Meelar (talk) 19:33, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Samaritan and Meelar. Quale 19:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree. If other (notable) authors could be cited using the term for this or other purposes, we might have a useful article. But this as it stands is not encyclopedic in any way. Andrewa 20:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since no credible third party references were found. Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Samaritan, Meelar, and Quale. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 01:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably anti-Chavista propaganda. —Seselwa 22:00, 30 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. —Xezbeth 05:16, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Aviad Rozenhek

The article says the subject is "unknown." See concurrent vfd for his former band Nuctemeron. Samaritan 18:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This poetic genius may be non-notable, but he is honest when he says he's unknown. Quale 04:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 05:16, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Nuctemeron

"it was notable for its continued strive for excellence in terms of poetry and musical complexity. this is one of the reasons they never got an album or a show out." See concurrent vfd for frontman Aviad Rozenhek. Samaritan 18:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't appear to pass the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Kappa 19:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 01:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete'. Non-notable, vanity. Quale 04:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 05:11, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

James longstaffe

Besides his unverified and presumably unreported "claim" to have accurately predicted 9/11, no claim to notability. Samaritan 18:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Smacks of Vanity Roodog2k 18:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 19:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. --Quale 19:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ground Zero 19:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. GrantNeufeld 20:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. His claim of having predicted 9/11 is the only worthwile part of the article. Rest is complete vanity, I have a varied CD collection too. Unfortunately, none of it is verifiable. Mgm|^(talk) 21:18, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 01:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hey, if I knew which bourgeosie apartments he lived in, maybe I could find out if he's notable when I'm at home next week! Adam Bishop 06:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Sjakkalle 09:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Userfy to User:Revisionistking - not notable, vanity. --Deathphoenix 04:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed my vote to Userfy --Deathphoenix 04:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Make that my vote. Samaritan 18:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 05:12, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Shuai Su

Entire content: "Born in August 1979,PRC. Primary Educated in China, persuing his MAin University of Ottawa. He has worked for 2 years in Beijing after he has got his BA in Beijing Broadcasting Institute." Samaritan 19:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, and many kudos to Samaritan for his informative and useful nomination style. A lot of noms (sometimes my own, I confess) make it hard to tell what the article is about, and thus whether or not people might be interested in the topic being discussed. This, on the other hand, is crystal clear. Meelar (talk) 19:32, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment' (no vote) Well all VfDs have a link to the article, which you should always click before discussing. Sometimes it's a good idea to look at the article history too, before commenting. I also think Samaritan is being a good guy, but let's not do anything to encourage people to vote without actually looking at the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I think what Meelar means is that people skim VfD looking to decide which articles to look at/vote on based on their areas of interest, and the nomination text can help. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Right. I always read the articles I vote on, but don't read the articles I don't vote on. Meelar (talk) 10:00, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Spinboy 19:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. GrantNeufeld 20:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, vanity. --Deathphoenix 04:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 18:50, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Trond lykken

Entire content: "Trond Lykken is a handsome boy from Larvik, who works in the company http://www.proweb.no Proweb AS]. He was born in the town of Porsgrunn, in the year 1977. He is the son of Alf Lykken and Betsy Lykken." Samaritan 19:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• delete, no claim to special fame or influence. Kappa 19:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Quale 20:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just a regular guy. Mgm|^(talk) 21:18, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 01:48, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

GRBLink

Vanity page about a 14 year, perhaps creator User:Redstar. Readers starting to find it marginally entertaining, be forewarned about the sexual reference to his less than 10 year old sister. *sick* Samaritan 19:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or speedy as possible personal attack. Kappa 19:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 18:50, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Aaron Wissner

Teacher and school board candidate. While I'd probably vote, even campaign for the guy if I found myself in his school district, he's not yet encyclopedic. The creator is anon so the obvious path of userfying this is not available. Samaritan 19:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• delete, he does an important job, but he doesn't seem to be specially famous or influential. Kappa 19:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd imagine there are rather a large number of school boards, and there are a very large number of teachers, and some proof of achievement exceptionally beyond the average would be required. Average Earthman 20:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:56, 30 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. —Xezbeth 05:18, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

The 5th Heaven Movie III: Alone in Florida

Delete. An advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. I can't find any evidence that this movie actually exists, nor can I find any information on any of the "incredible all-star cast". Possibly made-up, or vanity. --Quale 19:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, along with The 5th Heaven Movie II: Family Vacation Blues. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 20:31, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete both, no such thing as a tv show called "5th heaven" (refers to "7th heaven"). Either hoax or non-notable film. No IMDB entry. Mgm|^(talk) 21:25, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• All star cast of people nobody ever heard of. Delete both. Is there a 5th Heaven Movie I article? If so, delete that, too. RickK 23:16, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• I could swear we deleted the "series" this was based on. I've jury-rigged a vfd notice at The 5th Heaven Movie II: Family Vacation Blues pointing here; delete both. It's just so childhood fantasy, although admirably enterprising childhood fantasy. Samaritan 23:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • We did! but it's back now, created by User: 69.65.67.95 who also created Movie III. (Movie II is the work of User:24.91.218.114.) I'm speedy-tagging the recreated 5th Heaven. Samaritan 23:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Samaritan is right. I distinctly remember this "5th Heaven" idiocy from a few months back. I think it's the same IP as the "Cartoon Vandal." - Lucky 6.9 23:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both, not notable. Megan1967 01:58, 30 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. —Xezbeth 18:48, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Jacquie Lamer

Student/teacher vanity. delete --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't appear to be specially famous or influential. Kappa 19:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see anything special about this person to warrant an article. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 04:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The D3

Delete. Non-notable, vanity, not encyclopedic, completely uninteresting. --Quale 19:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity, non-notable. Possible redirect to The Mighty Ducks (movies) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:22, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete BBcruft —Wahoofive (talk) 21:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless --Neigel von Teighen 21:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable BB clan. Andrewa 23:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 01:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Possible redirect to The D4? Grutness|^hello? 05:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --minghong 20:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 05:26, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Brian Collins

Delete. Non-notable, vanity. --Quale 19:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Note: Above edit is by User:66.188.68.46 --Carnildo 23:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Edit deleted per user request Sensation002 00:28 Apr 30, 2005
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity. --Carnildo 22:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as is I don't believe Collins wrote this to gain notariaty. I do believe someone else wrote this OF him, thus making it biography. --Godsbest 15:54, 29 Apr 2005 (Vancouver,BC)
  • Note: Above edit is written by User:66.199.175.231, then signed by User:Godsbest, a user with only 10 edits. --Carnildo 23:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Regardless of what you believe, and regardless of who wrote it, it's still nonsense. Delete. RickK 23:10, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - appears to be 'famous' for 15 minutes for a very bad student sports commentary. I don't think we need articles on everything that the mass media shows to fill the space. Average Earthman 12:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable.-- Nabla | Talk - 15:02, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
• Keep as is This is not vanity. It's about a piece of internet lore, similar to the "Star Wars kid," although less known. Wikipedia is a good place for finding out about these little pieces of internet legend, so I think we should keep the article. I saw the video on a website and looked it up on wikipedia, so it's at least useful to someone. -- dcb11
  • Comment made by 129.67.17.153
• Keep. I fully own up to not being a Wikipedia regular but from what I know of the site's policies, this is certainly notable. Search for "boom goes the dynamite" on Google. His inept bumbling has spread all over the world; they've even appropriated the phrase on SportsCenter. Tony Kornheiser did an entire radio segment on the lad (see here), and Scott Van Pelt said "It has cult status at this point. Everyone I know that's in the business has seen the video clip." (See here). I think if you're mentioned on the sportsillustrated.cnn.com website (the former link), you're definitely notable. It's Internet lore, like the Star Wars kid. If Wikipedia has room for that, it would be hypocritical to delete this.
  • Note: Above edit by 141.149.36.30 --Carnildo 23:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep zellin 18:03, May 7, 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 - kept - SimonP 01:50, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Prairie school (now The Prairie School)

Non-notable school article. Linuxbeak 19:59, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Non-notability not established. —RaD Man (talk) 21:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• A little POV too: "Although it is touted as being an elite school, it is very unfunded and does not offer the same educationial quality as public schools in the area." (Apparently spelling is one of their weak points.) —Wahoofive (talk) 21:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup/expand, or merge somewhere until expanded. Kappa 21:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Burgundavia 21:21, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup and NPOV as necessary. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 21:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Miss Beadle helped teach Mary her Braille. I mean, uh, notable school. Yeah, that's it. Mike H 21:25, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • lol Linuxbeak 21:30, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Once the POV is removed there'll be nothing left but "The Prairie School is a school." I do like the implication that wealthy parents, rather than academic achievement, is the only requirement for university admission. --Angr/_comhrá 22:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep it please Yuckfoo 22:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Prairie School and merge add a dablink there if consensus is to keep the material. Gazpacho 23:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Why should a prep school be merged with an architectual movement? Gamaliel 23:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel/S Gamaliel 23:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Enthusiastic keep. Note that it has now been expanded. While still short (and expandible), it's now the best-contexted, most informative school article we've had up here in a while. Samaritan 00:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course. All schools deserve an article. Oliver Chettle 02:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; what's the harm? If Wikipedia can make somebody happy at negligible cost, while maintaining the quality standard of an encyclopedia, why not do it? — Dan | Talk 03:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep... fine. Rdsmith4 pretty much said something that made me change my mind. Linuxbeak 03:17, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Delete, Delete. There is essentially no NPOV content in this article; if all the non-NPOV content were removed the article would be a content-free stub. Might as well delete it. If someone actually puts content in the article, my opinion will be irrelevant and the closing admin will presumably ignore it. Kelly Martin 03:20, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. But if it is kept the POV needs to be removed. Comments about underfunded seem like an attempt to solicit funding from all of the big Johnson executives that send their kids there. billlund 03:26, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not Jenga. Stop trying to pull out perfectly good articles. Klonimus 03:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 07:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Gamaliel. The JPS 09:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Racine, Wisconsin unless more note can be established. Doesn't appear to be a private school attracting students from a wide area, so if it's influence is geographically limited, a mention in the respective geographic article may perhaps be the best place for this info. Although looking at the location on the satellite view on Google Maps, I wonder if the architecture is of any note? Average Earthman 12:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good little article. 165.228.129.11 01:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. seems like a valid school stub to me. definately passes the pokemon comparitivity test ;)  ALKIVAR™ 04:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as it is a high school with verifiable information. --BaronLarf 02:18, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep decent school stub. =) --Andylkl ^(talk) 07:41, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Lochaber 17:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lovely article. Very pretty picture. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Schools are notable, certainly as notable as south park episodes, and there's a project to write an article about every such episode. --Zantastik 19:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jonathunder 22:00, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiability established. Non-"notability" not established. Article does not contain nonsense, original research or advertising. All schools are enduring social and physical institutions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia ergo it must be encyclopedic. Did I forget anything? --Gene_poole 07:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Noisy | Talk 10:14, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This school is notable. -CunningLinguist 23:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and refine policy to prevent future VfD nominations of school articles. In my opinion, schools with more than a few students should automatically be considered "encyclopedic"/wikipedia-worthy. Wikipedia will not be improved by the deletion of this article. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 20:49, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Intrigue 18:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

I would like to hear WHY this article deserves to be kept. As far as I can tell, it's not notable and Google is agreeing with me. Linuxbeak 00:09, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• It's a school. All schools are more notable than tens of thousands of things that have an article. This is not a mere academic encyclopedia, but a complete reference library. You deletionists are wasting your own and everyone else's time as you have no hope of winning. In other cases deletionists have backed down because they have realised that their activities are a waste of time; why not over schools? Oliver Chettle 02:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not arguing with you, because you're talking to me in contempt. If you want to have an intelligent conversation, I suggest using my talk page. Linuxbeak 03:07, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry if Oliver Chettle appears a little impatient, he seems to be forgetting that some people are new to the whole school notability battle controversy. My perspective is that schools are important, but there are great numbers of them and they are somewhat generic, so it might be best to merge some of the weaker articles. This article establishes enough "distinctiveness" to make it interesting. Kappa 07:29, 30 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 USERFY. Sometimes you have to just ignore all rules and do the right thing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of people who changed the world

Do you need a reason? Inherently and irredeemably POV, also inexaustable - Who hasn't changed the world? --Doc Glasgow 20:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Inherently POV. Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Doc is right. This is just list for list's sake. Derek Ross | Talk 20:16, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with you lot. — JIP | Talk 20:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless. Quale 20:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Depending on how one defines the term, the world has been changed either by everyone or no-one. If we reason that breathing oxygen changes the world (which it technically does), then I guess we all deserve an entry. But nobody can be said to truly change the planet Earth in any noticable long-term way. Some would argue that pollution has changed the world somewhat, but that's certainly not the work of any one person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:32, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, misguided Gazpacho 20:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• PS On another note, this is also inherently POV and a likely magnet for vandalism/nonsense. Current examples from the list: Amanda Smith (which one do they mean? none of them have articles currently) and John Weasley (a Harry Potter character on whom we also have no article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:40, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. an irrelevant POV list --Neigel von Teighen 20:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. The title sounds like a bad joke. -- Natalinasmpf 20:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Oh, you've got to be kidding. Gamaliel 20:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete List is rather unmaintainable and list articles should be done in category pages.
• Delete inherently POV and too hard to maintain, all celebrities have changed the world significantly in some way. Side note: I'm not sure John Weasley exists, but he sure isn't a Harry Potter character ([http:www.hp-lexicon.org see Harry Potter Lexicon]). He's only shares some of the characters' last name. Mgm|^(talk) 21:29, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know... there is a J K Rowling interview which mentions a "John Weasley" but that might just be a trascription error. Googling shows mostly Potter fanfic characters and partial names... there was apparently an American Idol singer named John Weasley Stevens, for example. Ah well, suppose it's a bit of a moot point at the moment anyway.Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: A little background. The contributor is 12 years old, a newbie who has already built an excellent user page and signed up for the Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce. I agree with most of the above, but maybe a little more encouragement on his talk page would be good too. No vote (mainly because it's unnecessary). Andrewa 22:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy to User:ImpalerBugz with great affection and respect. This made me smile. Thank you. I love Wikipedia too. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I moved it. It's a good list, but POV. I like this guy, he's cool and eager and bright. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:47, 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 REDIRECTED to The Wizard of Oz. Unsigned vote was disregarded. Consensus among remaining votes is not to have as an independent article, so redirect seems like an appropriate resolution. Postdlf 03:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Flying Monkey

The flying monkey creatures in the Wizard of Oz doesn't need an article. I tried to search if Berry College's football mascot really is a "flying monkey." According to their official athletics website as of now, they don't have an American football team (don't think the person is implying soccer because this school is in the state of Georgia) and their team name is Vikings/Lady Vikings. [9] In addition, searching "Flying Monkey" + "Berry College" doesn't come any regarding the school's athletics. The article's creator's recent article Michael Bailey is currently in VfD and has history of vandalism but has done some legit edits. --Chill Pill Bill 20:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Wizard of Oz. Minor character. References to Berry College seems false. Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Monkeycruft to Wizard of Oz. -- 8^D ^gab 21:06, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
• Delete. The creatures in the The Wonderful Wizard of Oz are described as Winged Monkeys not Flying Monkeys, so a redirect should be from that or from flying monkey anyway. So I doubt even this redirect is of any value. In any case, if we must redirect, redirect should go to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, as Wizard of Oz is already a redirect, and points to a disambig! No big deal. Andrewa 21:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Andrew. Megan1967 02:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep FroggyMoore 02:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • FroggyMoore's votes are becoming more and more bizarre. RickK 23:03, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Concur with FroggyMoore. --SuperDude 05:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. check out my more relevent re-edit of the entry. I suspect the Berry college part of the original entry was just meant as an insult to the college; their mascot is a viking. May 10, 2005

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. CDC (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

MCB Clan

Empty/inactive article; last message from author of article dated March 2005 Linuxbeak 20:47, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Nothing is there, did you ever consider marking it as Speedy delete? Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Created March 26 05 by an anon with the contents "This page is still being made, sorry for the delay."; no edits since then besides the vfd. No inbound links. MCB is probably Methodist College Belfast, created by the same IP. Samaritan 21:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted, CSD criterion #1. 5 Google hits, all mirrors or irrelevant. Andrewa 21:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Dark Spiritz

A computer game "team". Only 42 displayed hits. Niteowlneils 20:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable --Neigel von Teighen 20:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 21:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No, no, no, no, no!!! Gaming clans aren't notable and don't deserve articles. (period) Mgm|^(talk) 21:32, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clancruft. Nestea 02:23, 30 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 Messiah. I did not merge any content; feel free to peruse the article history and see if there's anything worth gleaning, if it really suits your fancy. Postdlf 05:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The Day of the Lord

Unencyclopaedic. --Neigel von Teighen 21:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Christian eschatology. This is a useful search term for people who haven't a clue what eschatology means (or probably how to spell it). Andrewa 21:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 205 000 hits for day-of-the-lord. Redirect per Andrewa, and merge if there's anything here to add there. Samaritan 13:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • ...per Shimmin below. Samaritan 18:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. I'm not sure that there's much to add. --G Rutter 13:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Except that it's an important term in Jewish eschatology, too. Redirect to Messiah. Shimmin 13:35, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Messiah. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. CDC (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Petrodollar recycling

This is a personal, PoV essay. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The topic is notable. Just improve it, not delete it. Cut it down into a substub if you must to eliminate the POV. -- Natalinasmpf 21:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The topic is definitely worthy of an entry, but the current one contains unsupported assertions and value judgements that are not relevant to the definition of petrodollar recycling. 65.248.243.100 (talk · contribs)
• Comment: I think this should be stubified at least, but I'm surprised we can't redirect it somewhere. Don't we as yet have anything on this? Good topic if not! No vote as yet. Andrewa 21:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Rewrite to a substub. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Visit Wikipedia:Deletion policy and pay attention to the bit about articles needing attention. Or you could of course just fix it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Substubs are generally considered harmful. Keep. The re-write actually explains what its subject is. --Carnildo 23:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Would vote delete if not improved. Would vote to keep decent stub Capitalistroadster 00:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Have rewritten this article. Important economic topic relating to the 1970s oil crisis and the world economy. Capitalistroadster 01:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Good rewrite. Andrewa 03:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is not Jenga. Stop trying to pull out perfectly good articles. Klonimus 03:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important topic. Rewritten article is good. Should fix the busted external links. Quale 04:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; the rewrite, and the comments of those voters not concerned with making snide remarks but with improving Wikipedia, have convinced me that I was over-hasty. (The advantage of the VfD here seems to have been that a bad article became a good article, so I'm not too remorseful.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No need for any remorse. The original article was poor, and from what little was there it wasn't clear that the topic could be salvaged. Your action led directly to the current good article. Thanks. Quale 23:21, 30 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. CDC (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Henry Fairbairn

Blatant ad for an owner of a local structural engineering design company. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No inbound links; Delete ads. Samaritan 22:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert, non-notable. Quale 04:34, 30 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. CDC (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Jacob Johnston

Non-notable and/or unverifiable. Zero hits for "Camp Star" "Jacob Johnston". Niteowlneils 21:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The project - a kid organizing a day camp for other kids - would be immensely heartwarming. If it was confirmed and the scope was wide enough he could have become a media hero, but until then, *sigh*, delete Samaritan 22:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a good idea for kids but sorry Jacob just isnt notable. Megan1967 02:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 04:34, 30 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. CDC (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Notable Young Rappers

Subjective and difficult to maintain (and would be "Notable young rappers", if anything). Does "young" refer to length of career, or chronological age of the individual artists? Zero hits for exact phrase. Seems partially redundant with List of hip hop musicians and Category:Hip hop groups. Niteowlneils 21:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I find the title POV. I agrre that "young" is subjective. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but let's organize a VfD house band called The Notables. :) Samaritan 22:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, not notable. Megan1967 02:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently subjective, so list membership is not well defined. Quale 04:32, 30 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 - merged - SimonP 01:55, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

A1 (rocket)

And the A2, A3 etc. They're quite small and I've merged them into a single article called Aggregate series. Oberiko 22:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Aggregate series. The aggregation of these small articles seems reasonable (although since it was not done with a move and a developer-assisted merge, the edit histories did not come along). Redirect all the superseded articles, don't list them on VfD. -R. S. Shaw 19:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Aggregating the Aggregate series -- delicious.
• Merge - However, if merging the article Aggregate series I would prefer to see a more meaningful or at least informative name, perhaps Aggregate series (Nazi Rocket Program); A1 (rocket) article title conveys more information.--AYArktos 03:30, 30 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. CDC (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Pumpy

"Pumpy is a housecat who gained renown in various television appearances in the late 20th century..." Tagged as nonsense, but it makes sense, and a cat on TV could be notable. Couldn't get any google hits for it though. Kappa 22:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable feline. Megan1967 02:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Most probably nonsense/hoax. Sjakkalle 13:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probable hoax. Quale 21:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Pumpy was also the name of the cat in Catherine Rae's Brownstone Facade. Except that one was a female. Just a bit of trivial trivia to chew on. The_Iconoclast 19:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (block-compress error). CDC (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Starfleet Xtreme

A gaming clan. Orphan. Likely vanity. delete --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Samaritan 23:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clancruft. Nestea 02:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Quale 07:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Set phasers to delete --Bucephalus talk to me 11:16, 30 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. Postdlf 03:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Why Gender/Gender Construction

Article looks a lot like another essay that is not quite encyclopedic material. Several definite statements are made which are everything but uncontested or uncontestable. For example, the first four sentences contain four statements which would provide enough questions for about 40 books; they can under no circumstances be left like this. Same is true for much of the rest. Maybe there is some usefull stuff in there, but I'd say that if one takes anything out that is questionable, there isn't much left. -- AlexR 22:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I made a (hopefully) complete list of all the articles and contributors of this school project, there is more work to be done: User:AlexR/school project -- AlexR 08:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Note: I recieved a mail today from the instructor, and she is perfectly willing to help to either move the contributions of her class to WikiBooks, or make them encyclopedic. Under these circumstances, please do not delete the article yet. Voting of course or debate can and should continue. -- AlexR 08:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If anybody wants to try to extract the encyclopedic content out of this article, they have five days in which to do it. Until then, it's original research. Kelly Martin 22:46, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. original research. -R. S. Shaw 22:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Gender Construction and Why gender both had the exact same content, so I've redirected both to Why Gender/Gender Construction; if this is deleted, those redirects should be too. No vote from me. CDC (talk) 23:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them all. original research, POV, unencyclopedic, etc. Gender issues are already well covered on the Wikipedia (I've had to point to the numerous gender articles several times when editors have confused sex and gender). On the other hand, Why sex is a highly debated topic in biology and probably should have its own article. BlankVerse ∅ 08:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. I disagree that gender issues are already well covered, but this essay as it stands doesn't extend the coverage usefully. I'm concerned about the other contributions of this author, GenderStudies (talk · contribs), which also look like original research. FreplySpang (talk) 12:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Essays are never proper encyclopedic material, and as mentioned, is original research. Dysprosia 13:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• "Don't delete". This material is encyclopedic in reviewing orginal rsearch on the subject of gender studies in early modern visual culture, a topic not otherwise found in Wikipedia. It organizes the material according to topics in use in the field and summarizes the state of the issues. Gender issues are not well covered with respect to visual culture. I am writing as the instructor of these students. User: Claire Farago/Claire Farago
  • Welcome to the Wikipedia Prof. Claire Farago and students. You should each sign up for a User account so that you won't be anonymous, and so that you can take advantage of features such as having a personal Watchlist. You should also familiarize yourself with the various Wikipedia policies and learn how to properly edit and "wikify" a page. Specific to this debate, you should read What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:No original research. From what I've seen so far, the articles that you and your students have been contributing have been little more than student essays or perhaps journal articles, and certainly not the type of article that would go into a general encyclopedia. A more encyclopedic article might be "Gender role representation in the visual arts". You might also take a look at some of the other online encyclopedias such as Encarta and the Encyclopedia Britannica to see if they have any similar topics. To see examples of what topics are currently covered by the Wikipedia, look at gender and art. You might also investigate the Visual arts WikiProject for ideas and help. BlankVerse ∅ 01:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• The same thing or a fork has been recreated today as Why gender/gender construction (complete with vfd tag that didn't point here, which I fixed). No vote; mistitled but there's probably saveable content here. Samaritan 14:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Note: Somebody - probably the author - tried to NPOV the article by inserting weasel stuff. I uphold my VfD, because stating that one defines terms just for one article does not help, either. -- AlexR 17:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Don't delete: We are the undergraduate student authors of this collaborative classroom project. We are in the process of adding references and we are new at this. We are responding to your constructive criticism. We agree with those who think that gender issues and visual culture need more coverage. We invite you to join us in adding good information to the site. -- GenderStudies 12:44, 30 Apr 2005 (MST)

• Frankly, even though I welcome collaborative efforts and everything, there is a difference between articles and essays, and this is not an article. Weaseling around with the definitions will not help, either - for WP purpose one does not re-define a term, although of course one can concentrate on a particular usage. Then there is the title, which is extremely useless for this article. "Gender construction" could be a much wider topic, after all, the world does not consist of Europe in the Renaissance only. And "why gender" is a question (which is not even remotely answered in the article/essay, either), and a question is usually not exactly a good article title. Not to mention that WP lives from the linking between articles, and who is ever going to link to an article with that title in a text link? Same, BTW, goes for some of the other titles of other articles you choose. Making tons of redirects which, should articles be written which fit those redirect titles much better than this one, will not lead to it any more, and are therefore not exactly helpful, either. Seriously, you missed the point of the Wikipedia with this article (but also with at least parts of the other articles). Articles are articles, and essays are essays. If you want to put essays somewhere, try Wikibook. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you will have to write articles. Oh, and kindly stop that renaming, doubling, and making of redirects. Somebody will have to clean up after you, and the admins have better things to do. Lastly: I did not write this to discourage you from participating in Wikipedia, but to help you become better contributors. -- AlexR 19:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy It's a draft page in a subspace of Why Gender. And redirected from there? What's this? Oh hmm, well anyway, right idea, wrong spot. Move it to the relevant user space, and users can stick it back on the wiki when done. Essays are okay, we can wikify them better later, especially from user space. This page is still being worked on, so it's really REALLY too early to make a call on doing anything else to it anyway. Kim Bruning 20:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Going to have to delete this. Andre (talk) 00:25, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Possibly nice essay (haven't read it), but this is an encylopedia not essay respon. -- KTC 01:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Refer to Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Teletraffic Engineering and Wikipedia:School and university projects for more on use of wiki in collaborative school projects. Feco 05:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy is OK with me; presumably, under these circumstances, it would be understood that a subsequent re-creation of the article, in proper form, would not be a candidate for speedy deletion. To the authors: I've looked at this article and a few of the others, not the whole set, but your main problem is that we don't publish original research. A scholarly paper would try to add something new to further the discussion, but an encyclopedia article merely reports on the discussion. I assume some passages in these articles are intended to summarize the thoughts and arguments that have already been presented by experts in the field. In those instances, you should step back one pace from the discussion, and describe the different views or schools of thought, with proper attribution. For an example from a completely different field, see our article on Steady state theory. It tells the reader about a group of physicists, summarizes their beliefs, names the most prominent proponents of the theory, presents its strengths and weaknesses, and assesses its current status among experts in the field. You should be especially careful to avoid stating a conclusion or an interpretation as if it were an observed fact. (A prime example in this article is the beginning of the second paragraph. These statements may be considered self-evidently true in some circles, but Wikipedia articles are written for the general reader, and statements like these should be attributed to the scholars who've propounded them.) JamesMLane 08:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments

If this article is really causing anyone distress, then why not help by posting your own research. This would be much more productive than merely throwing around juvenile put-downs. It is important to realize that regardless if you agree with someone's work, it doesn't discount the effort and time that went into writing it.

The above comment was posted by 67.165.194.187. Eric119 00:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, sorry to have to say that, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research, no matter how much work went into it. Wikipedia is for articles, not essays. So if people do not want to write articles, then deleting the results of that is not a "juvenile put-down" but simply household cleaning. As I have told you before, if you want to publish essays, or course efforts that are not articles, or the like, do it on Wikibooks (or get a webpage). Oh yes, and sign your comments with -- ~~~~ ; otherwise somebody has to do it for you, as Eric119 had to. Otherwise, after a while, nobody will know who said what. -- AlexR 01:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Note there are a number of related pages Guilds and convents and Literacy and learning which seem to have been part of this project. Complete list at User:AlexR/school project —Wahoofive (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete all three. CDC (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Jim Smith Band, Falling Up The Stairs, One More Second

Local indie band and their two albums. About 77 web hits for jim-smith-band; including some unrelated, showing no coverage in the music press or the general press besides generic show listings, listings on websites that list bands, and at least one fan. Can't buy their albums on amazon.ca or amazon.com. Won a weekly contest on a talk radio station and a local talent search; finalists in a bar band contest and an obscure $35-a-submission "international award". The only inbound link, 2000s music groups, was added by the author of all this. I'd probably really like their music, but... well, someone has to nominate it. Samaritan 22:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. --Spinboy 23:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, not notable. Megan1967 02:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. These articles can be kept later if the band gets signed to a record label. --Deathphoenix 04:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:00, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Will Wheaton Junior

This does not seem to be notable or even real. google search turned up nothing. protohiro 23:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so he is real. Not really notable though, in my opinion. We can't include every aspiring/studio musician in wikipedia...protohiro 23:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I found Wil Wheaton Jr. at the Internet Movie Database, but this person has only 3 credits listed. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Exists and has produced and sung a song for a Hollywood movie, French Exit. I could go to a DVD store just about anywhere in the world and order the movie and watch (or at least heard) him sing it. This is encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The guy performed/wrote a song on a very small indie movie ten years ago. There are a lot of people in LA that match that discription. I have friend that appear on imdb and I don't think they belong in wikipedia either. Billy Valentine also sang in two movies (including "french exit") and does not and should not appear in this encylopedia. protohiro 23:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why shouldn't he? If he's on imdb, I don't see why not, because then we have a verifiable source. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• He also did backing vocals on Rod Stewart's When We Were the New Boys and Aaron Neville's The Grand Tour and Ultimate Collection, which I'm adding. Keep. Samaritan 01:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. His All Music Guide entry shows that he has worked on albums by a number of notable people. [10]Capitalistroadster 08:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, totally agree with protohiro. This is his job, folks. I mean, more power to the guy for being able to make a living by singing, but using his current credits as basis for a keep is like saying that every engineer and technician who worked on the Space Shuttle or every electrician, best boy, and makeup artist who worked on Star Wars deserves their own article, too. Soundguy99 14:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Credits are the only reason we list Tom Cruise. Acting is a job, too. imdb covers full cast and I don't see why we should not also do so. Until such as time as Jimbo runs out of paper. An engineer who designed part of the Space Shuttle? Include him too. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • comment Credits are NOT the only (or really even A) reason we list Tom Cruise. He is, without question, a notable person. He appears in the media. He is instantly recognizable to millions, if not billions of people. This makes his biography notable. Not the fact that he has film credits.protohiro 05:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep on the basis that his job is creative, like an actor or a space shuttle designer. Kappa 17:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment There are many people with creative jobs. There has to be a line somewhere. Do we just run a script to include everyone listed on IMDB? IMDB is a very different thing than wikipedia. It aims to track everyone that has been credited on film. Wikipedia is meant to includ biographies of notable people, not EVERYONE who has a career that fits a particular profile. Thousands of engineers worked on the space shuttle and its components. By this argument they should all be included. You also seem to be saying that all actors be included. Would this include everyone that had a bit part in a movie? Everyone that has appeared in an advertisment? The SAG has well over 100,000 currently active members. This seems excesive to me and outside the pervue of wikipedia.protohiro 05:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice. Vanity and entirely non-notable. Quale 21:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- an entry on IMDB and the All Music Guide indicates some notability to me. - Longhair | Talk 02:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

F.A.T.A.L.

I do not think the article should be deleted. However, neither should it be a whitewash. While a new edition of F.A.T.A.L. may remove many of the things which were criticized in the 'Atrocities Review', there can be no doubt that the initial verison did contain such items, and such criticism was warranted, if not embraced by the game's designers. I have just edited the page to be more neutral, and hopefully this neutral text will not be removed by anyone who wishes to erase history. Lest anyone doubt the veracity of the Atrocities Review, there are many copies of the original version of F.A.T.A.L. in circulation, and anyone can see for themselves that accusations of misogyny and rape, whether true or untrue, were entirely warranted taking into account the game's initial meaning and its content (both art and text). Comment made by 66.88.223.126

F.A.T.A.L. is little more than some guy's home made roleplaying game. As other such amateur project are not deserving of an encyclopedia article, I fail to see why F.A.T.A.L. does. Currently, the article reads like a press release. Unless Wikipedia has become free space for advertisement, it should be deleted. Comment made by 69.201.34.195

Response to previous comment: It is worthy of an entry not because it is someone's homemade RPG, but because it created a firestorm of debate in the RPG community. The entry should be less about the game and more about the phenomenon, perhaps, but it should not be erased from history. Edit (and if necessary, prevent it from being re-edited to read like a press release), but do not delete.-aeon Comment made by 66.88.223.126

• Delete Non-notable. Comment made by Gmaxwell

Either it should be deleted - because other folks' homebrews don't usually get their own pages - or it should document the controversy, which is noteworthy. The page as it stands is a wholly one-sided account of that controversy that glosses over the serious accusations that have been made against it. If you look at the page's talk page, you will see that I have provided a laundry list of things I see as incredibly non-NPOV about the page as it stands. It was also asserted on said talk page that the review I added the link to was full of lies and statements taken out of context; if you read the author's own rebuttal you will see that in fact only two things are described as out of context, and no clarifying context is provided.

Thus, the current article needs a thorough rewrite or to be deleted. teucer 00:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

DeleteFirestorm of debate? Lots of things cause a firestorm of debate within a spoecific community. If this were an RPG-specific encyclopedia, there might *might* be merit to it. But to the world at large, it is not even a worthwhile footnote. Someone wrote something offensive. People took offense. That guy and a few supporters and sock puppets fanned the flames. This is just business as usual on an internet forum. Comment made by 69.201.34.195

Keep One might say that entries such as Scree-Fice are also not worthwhile footnotes to the community at large. Like F.A.T.A.L., that originated on RPG.net, and apparently warrants an entry. If that's worth keeping then I'd wager this is too. aeonite

Delete It is obvious to me that FATAL's developers are going to remain determined to corrupt any attempts at a neutral article. Given that the game itself is largely insignificant to the RPG community as a whole, but for a spat of flame wars it developed, I see no reason why it even needs an article. Especially since keeping it NPOV seems to require a constant 24 hour campaign to ensure that users like Almafeta don't persist in using the article, and Wikipedia, as their own personal advertising venue.

Too much effort, for too little value. JArcane

• Strong delete. Executive summary for vfd types: So it's an excerable 900 page self-published PDF role-playing game full of rape and misogyny that attracted much understandable derision, and little to no following I can track down. Sample sentence: "Should any anus be stretched beyond the limit as determined by the table below, which differs from anus to anus, the orifice will rip to accommodate the incoming object. First, consider all relevant modifiers, then roll percentile dice and proceed to the following table." I'm still an inclusionist, but I couldn't in good conscience support keeping this without saying we should have articles on any given post on alt.sex.stories. No Alexa rank for fatalgames.com. Samaritan 03:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete This is Oddsod and I agree with JArcane. It is clear that any attempt at presenting FATAL's history on a freely editable Wikipedia article will be rewritten by employees of that development group. It is difficult to seem neutral on the topic, I agree - but then it is difficult to discuss the content of FATAL (such as recurring references to excrement, the excretory and reproductive systems of men and women, frequent misogyny and rape) without seeming biased. I do not believe Wikipedia should serve as advertising space. Comment made by 24.176.81.196

Heaven knows we cover harder things on Wikipedia, so potential bias shouldn't be a reason. But a self-published online shock game with no real following is not remotely encyclopedic. Samaritan 04:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not that the game itself is anything noteworthy in terms of shock value - humanity is endlessly inventive at this sort of thing and history is full of it. It is more that the people who wrote the original game, or their current employees, are actively trying to suppress the facts about their creation's subject matter. At the same time they are shamelessly lying and accusing everyone who presents a factually neutral opinion on that game while trying to turn the Wikipedia article into free advertising space. I do not believe that Wikipedia really needs articles that cause this much needless trouble. - Oddsod.

• Delete. No Alexa rank. Not notable. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Response to previous message. Whether Scree-Fice should have an entry is not important to the issue at hand. (and may be the logical fallacy Two wrongs make a right) But if it would make you happy, by all means, put Scree-Fice up for deletion, too. And any other entry you can think of to avoid this kind of ground shifting.

• I don't think the article should be deleted. I think it should be rewritten so that it is more objective. I was the original writer of this article, and I attempted to report it in such a way that would briefly describe the system, and explain why it had such infamous animosity in the RPG community. I'm thankful for the people who were more informed on the system and who could provide more information, but I feel people should try and leave value judgements out of it.

Yes, we may feel strongly about the game. But let's keep that to the forums, and provide an impartial description here, okay?

• Delete. Non-notable. Controversy about the wikipedia article doesn't make the game inherently notable, especially when there appears to be essentially zero interest in the game aside from the controversy which the game creators clearly courted. Just because something is really ugly, that alone doesn't make it encyclopedic. If someone wants to write an article about misogyny in gaming and use F.A.T.A.L. as an example, go ahead, but F.A.T.A.L. itself is non-notable. Quale 21:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Further comment on the notability of this article. Investigation of the FATAL_Creations Yahoo Group reveals a whopping 11 members, only 2 of which are regularly active, with another three or so contributing periodically, among them Almafeta. Whether Almafeta was indeed an official employee remains unclear, however her contributions were responsible for a number of major changes to both the game mechanics, and the game's marketing. As such I would suggest that said user remains of questionable NPOV in respects to authoring the article. JArcane

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged - SimonP 02:04, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Superliminal

Slang entry in a dictionary at best -- work coined once on an episode of the Simpsons. Tabor 23:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Made-up words in The Simpsons. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 00:59, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ex-cellent! Mr. Burns... uh, Samaritan 02:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• We could redirect to Supraliminal, which it is a common mis-spelling of - if we had an article on Supraliminal (unlikely, it would probably be a dictdef anyway). Grutness|^hello? 05:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Or treat it as a misspelling of Superluminal by redirecting to Faster-than-light. FWIW, that's the spelling that Google suggests for "superliminal." FreplySpang (talk) 13:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Shiri. It's as notable as the other words on that page, but it doesn't deserve it's own article.-LtNOWIS 17:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'm hesitant to recommend the creation of a disambiguation page for all the words this might be a misspelling of. This is rather an odd case, isn't it? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 19:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge content and disambig per L33tminion's suggestion below. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 18:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge content to Made-up words in The Simpsons and create a disambig for common mispellings. It's an odd situation, but I think that's the best option. --L33tminion (talk) 05:31, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Rangerdude 18:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, this does not even require a redirect, it is a made up word from a cartoon! Bluemoose 20:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• So made up words from cartoons should be deleted? What about super-notable ones, like D'oh!? The Simpsons is a very big part of our culture. Not that I don't respect your opinion-LtNOWIS 01:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, super notable ones are fine, this word was used once!, shall we make an article on every word from the simpsons just because it is popular? Bluemoose 09:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect, per Shiri above. --Dcfleck 22:10, 2005 May 11 (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.