Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 30

[edit]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Torrent Typhoon

[edit]

Bear with me. I am not sure which thing on the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not this fits but...if you go to the torrent typhoon main site and click on "About", it eventually points to this particular wikipedia page. It either violates Wikipedia is not a mirror or Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider. In either case, its a deletion candidate. On top of everything else, its an advertisement for the site. --Woohookitty 00:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agree with submitter. See: [1]. Apparently wikipedia is being used to provide an easy-to-update page for the vendor in lieu of updating a page on their site.

--Tabor 00:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ended up on the wikipedia article through that same link. This is an abuse of Wikipedia. Oska 02:42, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence this site is encyclopedic; The page is POV and promotional. However I disagree with the nominator and a couple of the above votes about the reasons for deletion. If this were to be a good Wikipedia article, there would be no objection to the site linking to us. We should evaluate the article according to the same criteria as any other. Perhaps, in time, we should expand the guidelines of Wikipedia:autobiography to include promotions such as this? Andrewa 05:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I see little difference in the content from that found in say Microsoft Windows. If it is POV then we can change it. --Rjstott 05:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: This website has existed for less than two weeks, and it's not yet known how many people will ever know of it. Microsoft Windows has been available for twenty years and nearly all the computer users in the world know of it. If you don't think that's a significant difference, fair enough. I do, so no change of vote. Andrewa 11:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Rjstott, I'm not sure you quite understand what they did. They basically are pointing their website back to a Wikipedia article, which is very very against policy. Very. :) Content doesn't matter that much, honestly. --Woohookitty 05:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC).
  • Comment. I think I understand perfectly well and wonder what the fuss is about. Both of the policies cited need a serious stretch of imagination to cover this situation if it is really seen as a no-no. Do you suggest that if the referring web-site had a copy of this then it is ok. There is serious merit in having a definitive view and that that definition would be the one in Wikipedia. The problem I see is that the creator of the page might suppress any change and keep it POV. However the rules of Wikipedia would sort that out and have already given the article Public Domain status?--Rjstott 09:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Woohookitty, how do you feel about this blog entry from a Macromedia employee? --guest 00:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm no expert here, but I'd vote Kill simply because this is POV and reads like a brochure. It may be good, but is it NPOV ? --Simon Cursitor 09:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Our deletion policy doesn't support deletion of articles simply because the content is POV. Needs a lot of cleanup to remove the superlatives and whatnot. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Agree that POV is not an issue regarding deletion, this is a very important point. But the issue here is that this article is promotional by its very nature. It's not a notable site, not yet at least. It has only even existed for two weeks. No change of vote. Andrewa 15:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I have now edited it to remove the promotional language. The subject is probably NN because it's so new, but I could be persuaded otherwise by someone familiar with the BitTorrent community. FreplySpang (talk) 12:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This web site was created on April 18th, 2005 -- almost two weeks ago. So I agree that it is not notable yet, unless someone provides evidence to the contrary. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The site probably isn't notable yet. — P Ingerson - Talk - Contribs 13:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is much condensed now, and I put all the information that was on it on my About page... so I think it is fine now. If growing 7500% (literally) in 1 week doesn't constitute "notable" I do not know what is (Source: Publicly-viewable stats page). --SubKamran 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. OK, I'm satisfied. I'll even add a link to the main site for you. My main objection, which was the fact that it was pointing back to Wikipedia, has been taken care of. Thank you. --Woohookitty 19:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Struck my keep vote. Right, still doesn't hit notability. My bad. I shall slap myself silly. ;-) --Woohookitty 20:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not yet. "We have served 19704 searches," says its front page. For a search engine, that's nothing. The article says it "will search the major torrent websites and pool their results onto one page;" so it's a metasearch engine, or a script that relies entirely on results from other sites. It's longstanding official policy that Wikipedia is not a web guide, or a vehicle for self-promotion. I can't see squaring this with a keep vote, or I could write my own metasearch script and spread notice around and have a Wikipedia article the next week. I hope keep voters understand how low this would set the bar for the notability of websites. Userfy to User:SubKamran or a subpage, without a redirect from the main article space. Bring it back to the main article space if and when it starts getting cited in major media, hitting the high ranks in Alexa, etc, and if someone other than the person behind the site puts it there. Samaritan 20:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Notability is all very well to apply to people (because there are so many of us and we're vain and like to see our names on websites, and most of us aren't of much interest to anyone beyond our families) but here we have a publicly available (if very new) website and an article containing verifiable information about it. That is all that Wikipedia policy requires of an article. An article about a website of this type doesn't have to establish "notability". The question is whether or not it's an accurate article about a website that people may wonder if they want to use. They could try the website if they knew (or guessed) the URL or they could enter the name in Google and be brought to Wikipedia to read about it first. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I disagree with ya a bit, Tony. I think notability is an issue no matter whether it's a company or a person. Otherwise, Wikipedia could very easily become a web directory and it shouldn't be. I mean I work for a small ISP in Wisconsin that has 7,000 users. Are we public? yep. Are we notable? No. We're just a plain ISP. The problem with opening up that can of worms is that Wikipedia is not meant to be a web directory. Once Typhoon Torrent becomes well known, great. Otherwise (and especially in an age where using open source materials, anyone can make a program), we're opening ourselves up to alot of crapola that doesn't belong here. You describe it as whether or not its an accurate article about a website that people may wonder if they want to use. Isn't that a description of a web directory or search engine? That's what web directories or search engines are for, NOT an encyclopedia. --Woohookitty 22:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert, non-notable, WP is not a web directory. Quale 22:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it proves its notability in the long run, a better article will organically reappear. In the mean time, they shouldn't use wiki as free advertising. Feco 05:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I fail to see how it is advertising now that all the fluff has been removed and I do not link back to it anymore. All in all, I don't mind if it's deleted if it goes against WikiPedia's policies. Let's examine it now: 1) "or vehicle for propaganda and advertising" -- The article is now in a neutral point of view, no advertising, I do not link back to it anymore. The article provides a brief and concise explanation to what Torrent Typhoon is. But like I said, I will not cry if you remove it if it goes against policies. --SubKamran 1 May 2005
  • Wait and see - it can always be re-nominated for vfd if the article fails to develop. -- BDAbramson thimk 03:03, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
    • Comment: An enormously significant precedent if we adopt it. Will we similarly defer deletion of every website article, every garage band vanity, to see whether they develop? For how long? No change of vote. Andrewa 19:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I meant wait and see if the article develops, not if the company develops... but your point is well taken. I change to no vote. -- BDAbramson thimk 19:48, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a web directory. Tobycat 01:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Become notable first, write article later. Gamaliel 08:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 07:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Child (archetype)

[edit]

A child prodigy might be a stock character, but I don't see how this is. Gazpacho 00:12, 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 00:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slüge

[edit]

"Man, I can't move after that meal! I've got the slüge."? Is this another hoax dicdef like Amby? Some people have to much time on their hands... Delete --Dmcdevit 00:12, 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 that this is an invalid nomination this belongs on IfD not VfD. This image has thus been listed on Wikipedia:Images for deletion#April30. Sjakkalle 09:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Ca241.gif

[edit]

I've updated the image and re-did the naming convention:

Image:CA-241.gif. Thus, there is no need for the old one.. I've updated all the links already, but somehow wiki sin't updaing the "what links here" list.

  • Delete, for reason stated above. --atanamir 00:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Image deletions should be on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion (and tagged {{ifd}}), not here. Samaritan 01:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Nominator appears to have now removed the VfD tag from this image and replaced it with {{ifd}}, but has not yet listed it on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. I'm assuming they are about to. This discussion should then close here. Andrewa 05:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I am closing the debate now, and have listed the image on Images for deletion. Sjakkalle 09:18, 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 00:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emolene Benton Jones

[edit]

Delete: non-notable person, not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an obituaries listing. --Durin 00:53, 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 deleted by User:Tony Sidaway. (12:02, 30 Apr 2005 Tony Sidaway deleted "Elefalante" (Patent nonsense)) Sjakkalle 06:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elefalante

[edit]

Made up word; only 1 hit on Google

SPEEDED as Patent nonsense --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • looks like a nonsense speedy to me. --Dmcdevit 01:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Entire content "Elephalante is another way of saying elephant. Invented by Lonnie." No history, no inbounds. Samaritan 01:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Neologism. --Durin 01:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Megan1967 02:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; Samw 03:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Nonsense. Sjakkalle 09:36, 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. – ABCD 00:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wongoose

[edit]

"Wongoose is a mythical animal, often talked about in Southern Indiana," etc. Only edits are by User:Fourtrax200, creator of Elefalante. 2 web hits don't confirm any such use of the term. Samaritan 01:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SPEEDIED as Patent Nonsense. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I believe the entry is talking about non-sensegoose instead of Mongoose. In the classification given in the mongoose article, there is no such W. I definitely E-suggest Delete. -Svest 01:55, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. Megan1967 02:20, 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 00:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Americofascism

[edit]

Here we go again with another brand of fascism! We already got a quite considerable collection of A/Z-fascisms. I don't doubt that we will be having a big list. Please, I suggest to delete all X-rated fascism articles or at least merge them into one general article so people can add aliens-fascims entries if possible. Svest 01:13, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Rename it American fascism. I voted first to delete this crap as for all of the X-fascisms that are not based on academic basis and probably used as personal arguments. But I am changing my vote now in order to be fair to myself and not to be a stupid.
I changed my vote according to the basis on what Islamofascism was kept. Islamofascism was kept because of the arguement that the term is being used widely (the same applies to American fascism but not to Americofascism). It was kept also because of the famous google hits (the same applies to American fascism but not to Americofascism).
Some helpful facts:
--->Islamofascism gives you 601 nail bombs. (I mean hits) -taking google shadows into account
--->"American fascism" gives you 445 BGM-109. (I mean the same as above and this time please use quotes when searching).
Does this sound fair or stupid? Please correct me if I am wrong. Let's googlewhack. Cheers and respect for all votes below -Svest 22:25, May 1, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up
It sounds misleading to me. Even taking "shadows" into account, (and I'm not exactly sure what those are) Islamofascism gets 610 (not 601) Google hits, and 997 Yahoo hits. On Google "Islamic fascism" gets another 521, "Islamist fascism" another 296, and "Muslim fascism" another 129, for a total of 1556 (though there will no doubt be some overlap). All of these pages are referring to the same topic. On the other hand, "American fascism"'s 436 (not 445) hits refer to all sorts of things; movements in the 30s, modern day Republicans, Lyndon Larouche, even the Green Party! Anyway, if you want to write a history of Fascist movements in the U.S., feel free, but Americofascism is simply a WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, how dull --Doc Glasgow 01:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Anti-American sentiment. Gazpacho 01:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Delete, disruptive intent has become clear. Gazpacho 22:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this shit. Do not redirect. Neutralitytalk 02:28, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As I have placed the POV, you can see my reasoning.
  • Delete. Do not redirect. Quale 04:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism, POV. Firebug 04:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this but we should have an article on the ongoing discussion, which is real, whether Bush's America is fascist.Grace Note 04:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It might be reasonable to have an article on criticisms of America regarding accusations of fascism (although all such representations would have to be sourced, and this would have to be watched very carefully for signs of POV-pushing), but this article isn't it. Firebug 04:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Gracenote, why dont you make such a article.Klonimus 20:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • LOL. Give me a chance. I have to dab American football in about a thousand articles first and then write Brisbane's suburbia. An article about accusations about the USA can keep, so far as I'm concerned. If it's still interesting a year or two down the track, that'd be soon enough. I don't think encyclopaedias necessarily have to keep up with the pace!Grace Note 03:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--and I strongly disagree with universal merging. if someone can cite prominent usages of a term, that should count towards notability. Meelar (talk) 08:12, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
    Well, it shows that people have used the term, not that it actually means anything. A series of articles on Uses of the term "Islamofascism"/"Judeofascism"/"Christofascism"/"Littlegreenmanofascism" would be properly sourced to such uses, but articles about phenomena of those names? I have real doubts that the latter are justified just because the names exist. Grace Note 10:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If the term is used in a notable fashion it deserves a WP entry. It has yet to be shown that Judeofascism or Americofascism are at all notable outside the minds of people trying WP:POINT. Klonimus 20:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what a "notable fashion" is. Are insults notable because of who uses them or why they used them? Maybe. But writing about the use of an insult is, as I said, different from writing about the insult itself. If I note that X calls Y a Zhead, does that merit an article on Zhead? I think the article is then actually about the use of Zhead as an insult, not Zhead itself.Grace Note 03:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Made up just to prove a point RE: Islamofascism TigerShark 10:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Islamoneologism. Klonimus 20:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: If Islamofascism is allowed to exist, I will vote keep for this. Delete Islamofascism first, then we can delete Americofascism. We need to be a NPOV encyclopedia, and I don't think it is consistent to allow an article such as "islamofascism" to exist while deleting one such as "Americofascism". - Stancel 17:29 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: But one is a notable political epithet used by numerous notable people, and the other is a seldom-used (never by anyone important) neologism. Meelar (talk) 03:41, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless we include Beninofascism or Tajikofascism as well. —Seselwa 21:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:POINT ..... no really! WP:POINT how many more of these are there going to be? Dalf | Talk 00:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:POINT. Rhobite 03:15, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep until islamofascism and judeofascism are deleted, then delete. If the mentioned two articles, or one of them, stays, then keep. DeirYassin 22:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Will the create-an-article-about-whatever-fascist-o-fascists ever be stopped? --Mrfixter 23:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This rubbish isn't even worthy of a redirect. Tomer TALK 22:38, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete FroggyMoore 01:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and slap around whoever put this up in the first place. 3 non-Wikipedia Google hits. Pure wankery. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with DeirYassin on principle. JamesBurns 01:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a combination neologism and WP:POINT behavior. Tobycat 02:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Move to American fascism. Wikipedia is the place where the term goes when it gets legs, not where it goes to grow them. -- BDAbramson thimk 06:05, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pure neologism and WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism, WP:POINT. Binadot 19:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no way that this merits an article on Wikipedia. At most, it should be mentioned in a more general article (perhaps fascism?). M412k 19:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to American fascism, or better (for naming purposes), Fascism in the United States and redirect. Alternatively, place any useful content in fascism as M412k suggested. Looking at the article, however, I doubt that it does have any useful content. It is two paragraphs in length, providing an inadequate number of examples or evidence. The subject of Fascism in the United States could be addressed, either in its own article or as part of the fascism article, but not in the manner presented on this page. Ben Babcock 23:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
Do not put votes in this section

Per the introduction at the top, I think an article on "The (mis)use of the word Fascism" or perhaps "The use of the word Fascism in political epiteths/political discorse" or some other title. Most of these articles are not even for valid neologisms they are just people disrupting Wikipedia to try and make a point. Dalf | Talk 00:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, the indignation expressed above — yet Islamofascism was kept. Motes and beams. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I voted to re-direct Islamofascism since I don't think the article can be keep strictly to the use of the term as an insult. But, Islamofacism is the article people are trying to make a point about anyway. The general consensus is that its a bad point, by virtue of Islamofascism being a pejorative term that people are likely to encounter and look up, while the others are just madeupwords. In any event my indignation was aimed at the fact that the point was made properly in the VfD there when several people commented we were inviting people to create americanofascism or hindufascism or or or ..... Actually going and creating one of the articles to prove the point was counter productive but realtivly understandable. Creating a second article with even less merit than the first (and I mean this in terms of probability of encountering the term not the supposed phenomena) after the fist was delete. At this point even assuming good faith it is starting too look like it is just ment to disruption of the wiki or as some kind of tantrum. Dalf | Talk 20:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


And you vote delete? Is this Wikipedia?!!!

[edit]

I just wonder how hypocrite some of wikipedians are! WP:POV is the only reason they got to delete this article. I haven't seen this reason in Islamofascism at all. Are you familiar with AMAZON.COM?! ([2])! Folks, there is no single book named after Islamofascism; not even the term is used in any book in this world! Not even one about the term Islamic fascism ([3])!!! More than a dozen about American Fascism ([4]). For google analysis, please refer to my vote on top of this page. Cheers and respect -- Svest 03:25, May 5, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ruppoman

[edit]

Fictional character from an apparently not notable comic (not sure if web, print, or ???). Only 36 displayed hits for Ruppoman, one for "Ruppo-man", none for Ruppcomics. Searching for "Rupp comics" gets hits for Rupp's Comics, but that website isn't related. Niteowlneils 01:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 07:23, 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 delete. – ABCD 00:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Sammer

[edit]

Delete: not notable, vanity. Article was originally marked for speedy delete but author and originator of article is erasing delete tags. Thus, the VfD page to continue discussion and keep it up for delete. --Durin 01:46, 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 00:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Ransom Bailey

[edit]

Delete: Non-notable, autobiographical vanity. --Durin 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. – ABCD 00:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdwanker

[edit]

Ridiculous. -- 8^D gab 02:13, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Festigio

[edit]

Although I love family guy, this article is a meaningless waste of server space. Not encycolepedia nor wikipedia worthy.

  • DeleteCollins.mc 02:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The article would be welcomed when it is the right time. I mean who says you are a festigio? Svest 02:28, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: not notable. --Durin 02:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --Randolph 04:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A completely random word from Family Guy. What is so special about that? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. — P Ingerson - Talk - Contribs 13:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There for you will not take offense when I delete this article.NatusRoma 21:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Family Guy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:52, 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 00:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ransom Julaney Jones, M.D

[edit]

Delete: not-notable, not encyclopedic. --Durin 02:37, 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 00:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Ann Jones Bailey

[edit]

Delete: Not notable. Not encyclopedic. --Durin 02:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Non-notable. Quale 07:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing special or noteworthy about this person. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete although I'd like to know more about the brother who was locked in a mental hospital for sending a love letter through the US mail! What sort of fascistic police-state laws have you got over there in the Land of the Free? — P Ingerson - Talk - Contribs 13:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Tobycat 02:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don Keegan

[edit]
  • Delete - I stumbled across this article by looking for a "random page", and was perplexed at what I read. Shouldn't encyclopaedia entries be reserved for people/places/things/etc. meriting them? This is not one. If you allow this one, my companies and I will be the next to be immortalized in this questionable manner. Will Wikipedia become a place where one can post one's resume or into which one can place links directed to pages which are, effectively, advertisements? Eventually, if this kind of behavior is permitted and encouraged (by any failure to delete them), that is exactly what will happen. I guess if Wikipedia doesn't care that their hard drive space is being occupied by egomaniacs, then fine, but this is clearly not someone worthy of an entry. Sorry for my longwindedness. I'm new to seeing crappy entries like this, but am keen to improve Wikipedia as much as possible.
  • Delete - vanity CoolGuy 03:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - agreed. this is not a relevant encyclopedia entry. freestylefrappe 03:10, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Randolph 04:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Quale 07:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Silly vanity. It degrades in the last paragraph. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, thy name is Don. Leithp 19:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated. Of course, I'd be willing to change my vote if Don will agree to let me drive the Enzo up on Mulholland... - Lucky 6.9 19:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scree-Fice

[edit]

An "internet meme" with 28 web hits and zero usenet hits? Featured in print in Omlevex. Samaritan 03:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Utterly non-notable, not encyclopedic. Quale 04:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Internet meme" is just the new name for "Neologism". — P Ingerson - Talk - Contribs 13:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable and, incidently, largely forgotten on the forum it was originated.
    • Above unsigned vote from User:69.201.34.195 at 21:49, 30 Apr 2005
      • Thanks, man. I'm still new to this Wikipedia thing and was wondering why my stuff wasn't getting signed. 69.201.34.195
  • Delete Not notable or encyclopedic. Tobycat 02:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 07:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deep pocket

[edit]

Delete, possibily transwiki-ing first. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. —Miles←☎ 03:21, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ccleaner

[edit]

Advertisement for freeware product - regardless of the advertisement aspect, is it notable enough for inclusion? --Dcfleck 03:23, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mustard juice

[edit]

Stupid. Neutralitytalk 03:10, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: What minimal content there is here, if any, should be merged into Mustard. --Durin 03:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Idiotic. Nothing to merge. Quale 04:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mustard sauce is a suspension. Suspensions separate over time. Not notable. Gazpacho 05:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial. Megan1967 08:02, 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 Richard I of England. Postdlf 07:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Basile

[edit]

Already merged majority of content with Richard I, person is not notable otherwise. Don't believe a redirect is needed but may be a solution. --Wgfinley 05:07, 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. Postdlf 07:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Ran (So Far Away)

[edit]

songcruff, their is no reason why this neeeds it's own page I sugest Merge and Delete Deathawk 06:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, a hit song and representative of its time, no reason to merge or delete anything. Kappa 07:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Top 10 hit in US and number 1 in Australia. and probably top ten in the UK in 1982. Given that it is a well-known example of a one hit wonder, the song is probably as well known as A Flock of Seagulls who performed it. Capitalistroadster 08:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster. —Markaci 2005-04-30 T 11:33 Z
  • Keep per Kappa and Capitalistroadster. Samaritan 12:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep N-Mantalk 13:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- notable song by a notable band, if only for a non-notable period of time. - Longhair | Talk 16:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs more cowbell. Klonimus 04:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I keeeeept, I kept all night and daaaaaay. -- BDAbramson thimk 04:48, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
  • . . . . . . . groan. . . . . . . . Thank you very much (not) for ensuring that the song is now stuck in my head for the rest of the day. Soundguy99 19:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Postdlf 03:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Percleus

[edit]

What do you think? I don't have any idea except this one -- Svest 06:37, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable, not sourced. Quale 07:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Just wanted to note that the article has been updated so that it is now sourced. No change in vote because now it's clearly non-notable. Quale 05:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, the article currently seems more like an ad for this content management system software. Second, I only get a couple of Google hits, thus not notable yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I am changing my vote to Abstain. As of now, I am unsure how widespread it is now, and how it might be spread out in the future. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is indeed www.percleus.com. It's a CMS like Slashcode, PHPNuke, etc, it's in PHP (they nearly all are), it's verifiable, and there is at least one site powered by it (I updated the article). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes it's real, and appears to power a whole two, apparently non-notable web sites. Is that sufficient? Maybe not, but I'll abstain. :) — RJH 02:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 07:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Perception

[edit]

Blogspam —Wahoofive (talk) 06:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 07:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 08:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No Alexa data for thepeoplesperception.com. 3 threads on their web board, one that it's testing, one that registration's closed and one spam. Samaritan 14:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promotional and not notable. Tobycat 02:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS between keep/merge alternatives. Postdlf 03:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Post Literate

[edit]

Dicdef —Wahoofive (talk) 07:00, 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. – ABCD 17:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Butcher of Brentwood

[edit]

Non-notable nickname for O.J. Simpson. Only about 75 hits on Google. Firebug 06:59, 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. Postdlf 03:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Travail

[edit]

Non-notable band —Wahoofive (talk) 07:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, broke up before they even toured or recorded anything notable - fails Wikipedia notability guidelines. Megan1967 08:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Megan, where'd you get that? Keep and expand. Quick searching shows they were nominated for one or more Dove Awards; those are the award for contemporary Christian and gospel music. Samaritan 13:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All Music Guide notes one album to their credit recorded in 2000. As the band has been nominated for a Dove Award which is a notable award for artists in that genre, this band is notable within genre. Capitalistroadster 18:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Kappa 19:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, WP:MUSIC requires as a criterion of notability that they win a major award, not just get nominated. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Suggests, not requires. From its introduction: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when decided whether or not to keep an article that is on votes for deletion." The music guidelines are not themselves restrictive, official policy or semi-policy. Samaritan 22:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the article noted that the band had been nominated for a Dove Award, it would be easier to determine whether the band was notable. Also, if that award really is a significant award for artists in that genre, WP doesn't know about it. From Dove Award:
"Hence, the Doves are not taken particularly seriously by many musicians or music fans."
I don't have a strong feeling about this particular case, but the current article completely fails to establish any notability at all. Instead of telling us about what quick searches show, how about fixing the article so that the band's notability is evident to everyone. Quale 04:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then that's a borderline POV/original research or at least poor wording problem with Dove Award. In the Christian music community everybody seems to know about them, and anybody curious about Christian music would quickly too. It's like contending in Grammy Award that they aren't taken particularly seriously by many musicians or music fans in China. Samaritan 17:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 07:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Jubara

[edit]

Vanity, NN. Rl 07:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Quale 08:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The only google web or groups hits for her name are a high school graduate from Green, Ohio. Samaritan 14:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, not-notable, and silly. Tobycat 02:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Postdlf 07:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mirengoff

[edit]

Reasonably large number of google hits - but he's a blogger, so there would be. No evidence of notability in the article. Is this guy worth an article, or is it just big name no blanket? Grutness|hello? 07:47, 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 delete. – ABCD 00:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shitpoo

[edit]

If its for real, its certainly not notable - no google hits. Andypasto 08:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn. RickK 08:21, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probable hoax. Even if not a hoax, by the article's own admission, it's non-notable. The earliest known introduction to this game was in January of 2004, in a last period study hall in a Wisconsin High School. Quale 08:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons above. -- Hoary 08:27, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. I could use the phrase "Wikipedia is not toilet paper" but that would be way too obvious. Megan1967 09:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think I need to say more. -- Natalinasmpf 09:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably a real game really played by high school students, but that does not make the game notable. Sjakkalle 09:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For all the reasons stated above. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fifty-two card pickup sounds like a more notable game than this. Nestea 19:48, 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 07:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Blaire Lady

[edit]

We read that My Blaire Lady was a trail blazing radio show that ended in 2005. The embers of the trail have gone cold with remarkable rapidity: Google shows half a dozen or so hits. One of them is "User Info" about "blahthequah" which says in part: I am the host of the My Blaire Lady Radio Programme -- though a prolix disclaimer toward the end warns that none of this need be true. Intriguingly, My Blaire Lady is the first and so far only WP contribution by Blahthequah. Vanity, not notable, delete. -- Hoary 08:39, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE, which will be implemented pending resolution of block compression errors. Postdlf 07:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rifai

[edit]

Precedent is not to keep articles about non-notable family names. RickK 09:17, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, geneology. Megan1967 09:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is no place for geneology. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This is definitely one precedent well past its use-by date. When Wikipedia has articles on every surname in the world it will be that much closer towards achieving its goal. Keep.--Gene_poole 06:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 05:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not notable. Tobycat 02:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into an article on whichever family of surnames into which this one falls. Almost every surname in the world falls into some family, based on derivation or structure (see Smith (surname) for an example of an article that covers a wide swath of topically and structurally related surnames). -- BDAbramson thimk 14:03, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was already DELETED. Postdlf 03:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wings Of Fire/Temp

[edit]

We have an article on Abdul Kalam which mentions this book. Its not significant enough for its own entry. Andypasto 09:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I just reviewed the Abdul Kalam page and concur. I guess my initial stub is redundant. -- Botsie 09:51, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:19, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Pierre Clèment

[edit]

"Pierre Clèment" -wrestler gained an impressive five google hits. And not a single one of them was for this guy. Six letter word - begins with D. Grutness|hello? 10:49, 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 - deleted - SimonP 04:21, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Tommy Cookson

[edit]

I'm sure that Tommy Cookson does a great job, but so do most other head-teachers, teachers, principals... Non-notable, so delete. SteveW | Talk 11:52, 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 16:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental combo

[edit]

Cannot find anything on google to substantiate this term as real. It claims to be popularised by "Ian Mitchell" but it appears as a red link, and again does not turn up on google. Delete as not notable or encylopaedic. --TimPope 12:08, 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 16:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Keramati

[edit]

Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. Thue | talk 13:57, 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 16:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Jam Fly Jive

[edit]

Local band making up stuff about a $1 million record deal with Warners, topping the charts in Ireland and a critically acclaimed tour of the U.S. 14 Google web hits and their own website provided seem to disconfirm this. Samaritan 15:05, 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 04:22, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Roman army formations

[edit]

Nothing in this article that couldn't be merged into Military history of the Roman Empire -- Longhair | Talk 15:12, 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 04:23, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ancient roman army formations

[edit]

Nothing in this article that couldn't be merged into Military history of the Roman Empire -- Longhair | Talk 15:17, 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. – ABCD 16:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geminosity

[edit]

Not Notable *Delete Collins.mc 15:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete No Content, can probably be speedy deleted Fornadan 15:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete because the original author blanked the content before the VFD tag was placed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:35, 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 16:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Evolution 2000

[edit]

Without the link at the end of the article, it would be impossible to find the geocities homepage of this game that apparently had its team assembled two weeks ago. I'll go out on a limb and predict this will never become notable. Rl 15:35, 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 16:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To Live is to Die

[edit]

Non-notable band. Not listed in allmusic.com. The top results on Google for "To Live is to Die" is lyrics to the Metallica song even "To Live is to Die" + "Cleveland" doesn't bring to their official website until the 2nd page results. Chill Pill Bill 15:37, 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 04:25, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Vestavia Hills High School

[edit]

This seems to be just another high school, and as such is non-encyclopedic in my view. (I moved this here from Candidates for Speedy Deletion). Rje 16:11, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"John Wayne" Edwards

[edit]

I tried to clean this article up, but it almost looks like the original author went out of his way to make it impossible to find any relevant information. Possibly NN, vanity, or hoax. Odd. Rl 16:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This guy is linked to on the Toronto Argonauts page, but i can't find one single mention of him on the Argonauts' website. I also can't find anything on google for John Wayne Edwards and the Argonauts except for Wikipedia mirrors. Furthermore, i can find nothing about any football players named "Edwards" going to play in the CFL on the Missouri Southern State University website. Looks like a hoax. However, i will change my vote to keep if anyone can substantiate this guy's existence. R Calvete 17:41, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Delete --Spinboy 18:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can find out who this is suppose to be referring to. I did a few searches and could not find out. Kingturtle 20:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. And shouting doesnt help the article either. Megan1967 04:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. There is no "John Wayne" Edwards who played for the Argonauts. Perhaps it's a vanity from a guy who went to training camp, but was cut? --Deathphoenix 04:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here worth saving. Kelly Martin 15:11, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - found to be a copyvio - SimonP 04:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

M.O.P.

[edit]

The page M.O.P has the same subject as M.O.P. (with a dot on the end), but is more Wikipedia-style. Altough it has less text (measured in words), it is more informative. The text of the page that is voted for, for deletion also seems to be copied from a other source, but I haven't verified that.

  • Merge the two articles and make one a redirect, if copyvio concerns are cleared up. The submitter is right--M.O.P. (with the period) feels like copy that came from somewhere else, but a cursory Googling doesn't locate it. I don't know what the correct name for the merged article should be. Does the period belong or not? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: forget VFD. This article is a copyright violation. The text is lifted directly from here. Please remove the VfD tag and replace it with a copyright violation tag. Kingturtle 20:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, copyright violation. Megan1967 04:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to M.O.P N-Mantalk 20:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chile imports and exports

[edit]

Unsourced, unformatted, unlinked. I would redirect to economy of Chile but I doubt anyone will search for these keywords. Delete if not cleaned up and renamed. Neutralitytalk 18:52, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 00:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kismet H.C.

[edit]

I'm reopening this VfD because the previous one only got two votes, ending in no consesnus. But as far I can tell, the objection stands. I can find no evidence of meeting any of the WP:MUSIC guidelines. They are not on Allmusic, but after some more searching on Google I can find only one self released CD [7]. Looks to me like non-notable band vanity (check out the pre-cleaned-up version). Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 06:35, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Postdlf 04:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Petpet

[edit]

Non-Notable, advertising. тəzєті 20:00, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 04:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates

[edit]

Rejected policy proposal that User:Netoholic nonetheless continues to refer to as though it was authoritative. Should be deleted in order to prevent any such further abuse. LevelCheck 20:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • The page makes several valid points whether it is "authorative" in some undefined sense or not. Sounds like the problem, if it exists, is with Netoholic, not this page. Pcb21| Pete 22:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - this nomination is intentionally disruptive (just like Template:Utterlyrejected was), created by what looks like an agenda-pushing sockpuppet account. The vast majority of the text is not mine, but from the database developer User:Jamesday. VfD is not how you handle your issues with policy proposals. -- Netoholic @ 22:18, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Keep. Already has {{notpolicy}}. Contains some useful information and generally sensible advice. Not surprising if Netoholic often refers to it. But even if it didn't, I'd still oppose deletion because we don't generally delete rejected policy proposals. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP!. VFD is not the place to deal with Wikipedia policy. BlankVerse ∅ 01:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tony Sidaway and BlankVerse. There should be a form of vote to speedily lift candidates like this out of the VfD pile. Samaritan 01:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and admonish LevelCheck to nominating non VfD stuff to VfD, as it waste's everyones time. Klonimus 04:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Historical policy proposals are valuable. --iMb~Meow 15:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Stuff like this should not be deleted. N-Mantalk 20:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- While I find this page's content objectionable in nearly every particular, I will defend to the death Netoholic's right to voice his opinion. It's true that he has attempted to raise this to the status of policy and, failing to succeed, has cited it as if it were policy; but I trust his able mentors to control this in future. Also, it's history and it's Talk history is a valuable record. It is more use to us as common property than if it were to be userfied. — Xiong熊talk* 03:11, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • Keep. The only policy pages that should be deleted are those created in bad faith. --Carnildo 05:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, either by moving to Netaholic's userspace (similar to the way he moved Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits to userspace) or mandating that his name be in the title, such as Wikipedia:Netoholic's interpretation of Jamesday's concerns about meta-templates. Then he can't refer to it as if it were policy, but the content will still be available. The technical issues are fact, but the methods of dealing with these issues are highly contentious opinion. Let's keep this out of the Wikipedia space until it becomes policy, to prevent abuse. - Omegatron 14:59, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • That doesn't make any sense, since the directive and technical description of the problem is from the database developer User:Jamesday. Anyone who thinks other wise hasn't read his posts on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 15:07, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
      • Jamesday contributed about 34% of the current version. A plurality of the content was contributed by Netaholic. - Omegatron 15:38, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
        Hum. That title was originally my suggestion on Wikipedia talk:Transclusion costs and benefits and in case it's not obvious, I wasn't seriously advocating such a move. JRM · Talk 14:54, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
        Yeah, I just copied it here.  :-) Yes, I thought you were serious, but I still think one or the other is a good idea. - Omegatron 15:13, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy due to User:Netoholic's repeated insistence on referring to it as policy, as exemplified by his comment above and by instances such as the WP:TFD nomination of Template:Prettytable. I agree rejected policy proposals should generally remain in the Wikipedia namespace, but the level of abuse surrounding this particular proposal makes that no longer a viable option in my opinion. Firebug 05:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't care what Netoholic does or has done; as it stands it should be treated like any other policy proposal. If you don't like Netoholic's actions, go take them up with Netoholic. JRM · Talk 14:54, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
    We already have. See here. This isn't just another policy proposal... - Omegatron 15:18, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, I know. Sorry. "Again". JRM · Talk 15:23, 2005 May 4 (UTC)


Comment Of tangential relevance to this VfD is this recent arbcom decision on the subject: "The questions raised by Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful are referred to the Wikipedia developer committee for their consideration. Pending a decision by the developer committee or their designee the lack of community consensus regarding the matter shall control unless a consensus is reached.". In effect, arbcom has delegated the determination of validity of this proposed policy to the developers rather than just accept consensus. This may be a little ultra vires for arbcom, but they're not known for their modesty. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please not use freaky legal jargon while discussing the ArbCom? It scares the hell out of some of us. :-) JRM · Talk 00:30, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
It is my interpretation of this text (which I studied in the original) as excluding the possibility of deletion at this level of process. On the other hand, the text also renders the page impotent until either (a) the developer committee renders an opinion or (b) community consensus congeals -- I believe, whichever comes first. Not that I should be so bold as to advance this interpretation past this comment. — Xiong熊talk* 03:09, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved to User:GenderStudies/Semiotics of gender. Noel (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semiotics of gender

[edit]

Another article by "the undergraduate student authors of this collaborative classroom project", see also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Why Gender/Gender Construction. Same reasons apply, this is an essay, not an article. (And it is highly inappropriately named, as are many of their articles, too.) Anyway, 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.
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 08:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The article was speedy-deleted because, after the nomination of this page, a user noticed that the page had been deleted twice before. —Seselwa 22:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A list of Albanian Web-pages on Religion

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a web directory. —Seselwa 21:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Agreed. --TheParanoidOne 21:52, 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. Postdlf 04:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Song

[edit]

A non-notable song (albeit by a notable band). -℘yrop (talk) 21:19, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 17:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Adventure 3

[edit]

An unreleased game should not have a page of "speculations".

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 07:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EJay Day

[edit]

This article is about a non-notable American Idol finalist who has not done anything notable outside of finishing last in Season One. Delete as non-notable and unencyclopedic. Hermione1980 21:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, apart from a brief appearance on TV, no significant achievements or influence. Average Earthman 22:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have articles on almost every AI top 12 finalist. The finalists are seen and voted on by millions. Gamaliel 22:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Will vote to delete any other bio article whose only "notability" is a top 12 appearance on American Idol. Contestants names should go in the American Idol article unless otherwise notable. (Winners are probably notable.) Apparently we should include a bio for every person who won a single game of Jeopardy over the show's 40 year history. When we've done that, we can start working on Family Feud winners. As winners all these people are clearly more notable than are American Karaoke losers. Quale 23:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep or merge, top 12 is reasonable. Accepting articles is not the same as saying we have to create more of the same. Kappa 23:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just to clarify here—the only reason I put this article up for deletion is because EJay Day has done absolutely nothing that I know of since American Idol. Sure, he was on the Season One tour; he was also on the finalists' album (I think). But he has done nothing on his own aside from that. I'm not saying we need to delete all Top 12 articles; but I agree with Quale insofar as people whose only notability is finalist status on AI. The only exception to that would be current finalists, who haven't had a chance to do anything "outside" of AI. Hermione1980 23:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even on WP:MUSIC (which is a guideline, not a restrictive minimum!) he can be said to meet criteria 2 and probably 4! Equal footing with other top 10 or 12 AI finalists. Samaritan 23:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets Wikimusic Project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 01:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, top 12 on fox's most popular tv show is notable. Jendeyoung 9:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, personal tastes aside, American Idol is the most-watched television program in the United States for the past decade - the history of folks associated with it is of encyclopedic - if not historic - value. The subject is the first finalist ever to be voted off the show. This is one of the resaons we point out that Wikipedia is not paper. This article hurts nothing and enhances the main American Idol entry. DAVODD 16:11, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: If Ejay Day is so important to American Karaoke, mention him in that article. He is simply not important enough for a standalone article and he is not in the slightest bit notable outside the karaoke context. It does hurt WP to include these sorts of articles. It isn't a question of WP not being paper. It's a question of using editorial restraint and judgement, and not letting WP descend into a mudhole of utter mediocrity. Quale 19:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mediocrity also could be seen as being purposely incomplete. The information is of use to scholars of American popular culture. DAVODD 15:20, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • It's useful to scholars in context. Scholars of pop culture won't look up Ejay Day because he's simply not notable. If his only notability is in the context of American Idol then mention him in the American Idol article. Consider researching all the contestants of American Idol, The Apprentice and The Bachelor. Put the non-notable contestents in the articles for those shows and the information is in 3 places. Otherwise it's in 100 tiny articles, each of which say, "Person A is extremely notable because he/she was the nth person to lose in season m of the reality show zzzz". Quale 20:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 07:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Falling Up (band)

[edit]

SEE BELOW THE BLUE BOX RickK 22:12, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Relisting (see previous discussion below where consensus was to delete). Article fails to establish notability. Band's only album is an independent release. JamesBurns 04:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Err, so, why is this being relisted? If it is recreated deleted content, it can be speedied. Me confused. android↔talk 04:22, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • It has been. The article was listed on VfU and then undeleted, and the VfU for it deleted after having been there for only one day. I have redeleted it and restored the VfU listing until the appropriate five day VfU voting period has expired. This VfD should not be here until the VfU period has passed. Invalid VfD listing. RickK 04:30, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • This article has been deleted twice and recreated twice. So far I cannot find anything in the speedy deletion policy which states why this can be recreated even though the author is claiming ignorance of the original vote and that they are not the same person as the first article author, although the article is dicussing the same band. I was unaware someone had removed the VfU entry after only one day. JamesBurns 05:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RickK#Response for the old and new content. This is in no way a recreation of deleted content. --SPUI (talk) 23:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • The only major difference between this article and the first is that the author has bothered to write their names in full rather than their first names. The grounds for deletion was on notability - it had nothing to do with how badly written the first article was. JamesBurns 06:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Please, go to the link I provided above. There's a whole new first paragraph about the band. This isn't really the place for you to argue bullshit anyway, as it's inactive. --SPUI (talk) 06:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • You really need to change your tone of language SPUI. For an admin you are setting a poor example for people reading wikipedia. JamesBurns 04:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • Er? I'm not an admin. I wouldn't want to be an admin. --SPUI (talk) 07:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 16:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Falling Up (band)

[edit]

Article fails to establish notability. Band's only album is an independent release. JamesBurns 08:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep if their album was released by a third party, not themselves - David Gerard 09:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established. And, come on, hotlinking the band members' first names? Radiant_* 13:13, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 14:38, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

OK, here we go again. Despite the unanimous delete votes from the previous VfD, this article was listed on VfU, and after a contentious vote, there was a slight majority to Undelete. As per proper VfU procedure, the article should have been re-listed on VfD, but that was not done, so I have now done so. This band is not notable. Delete. RickK 22:12, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. BEC Recordings is owned by the same guy who runs Tooth & Nail Records (the BEC article is going on my to-do list now). They're both pretty important labels, serving as an important "incubator" for bands like The O.C. Supertones, MxPx, Project 86, and Zao, which have all gone on to be major members of their respective music scenes (T&N also released an EP by P.O.D.). If a band joins one of these labels, they do tour on a national scale, and they do get a strong fan base in the Christian circles, beyond what they'd get as a local band or as an internet-only band. A Google query for the band name now results in over 68,000 hits, and "falling up" crashings gets about 5000 hits (which is pretty good for a Christian rock album; it out-Googles several recent albums by the Newsboys, which were atop the Christian charts for a while, for example: [9] [10] [11]). --Idont Havaname 02:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sorry but this band still isnt that notable. BEC Recordings is not Epic or Warners - its a specialist label for mostly Christian bands many of them very obscure. A fair slice of those Google hits are by fans leaving messages on blogs about the band. As has been pointed out on vfd before, the Google Test is not a good indicator of notability for music or pornography. Their "national" tour seems to be mostly confined to churchs, religious festivals and small stadiums. JamesBurns 04:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want this to sound like a personal attack, but... if every band that is on this site has to have a page full of #1 hits and several national tours in which they sold out every NFL stadium, should we delete all the others (including those who started some of the more obscure musical genres)? That's a strict criterion; Christian rock basically is on the fringes of mainstream rock, so its bands don't sell a lot of records and are mainly stuck in the church culture. Pretty much any Christian artist that isn't Third Day doesn't crank out #1 hits in the general market or sell out a very large stadium in every show. (Also just a side note: several Christian festivals - see Cornerstone Festival for one of the examples - draw tens of thousands of guests.) Falling Up is also featured on X 2005, a compilation of Christian rock hits from 17 bands, most of which have articles on this site that have been accepted without question. If you'd like to go through and delete all of those bands too, go ahead and do it. But keep things standard across the site. --Idont Havaname 05:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never mentioned #1 hits. Should we make exceptions to Christian bands just because they wish to be identified in that genre? I dont think so. Notability should be across the board, not just one particular market. JamesBurns 08:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 04:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Idont Havaname did a nice job with a recent update on the article, and it now makes a good case for the band's notability. If the article had always been that good, it probably wouldn't have been up for VfD. Quale 05:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A decent article, and what else is going to use this title? Wikipedia is not improved by deleting this. --L33tminion (talk) 05:21, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hasn't changed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any band whose article was created by one person, deleted, and then created by a second person who was completely unaware of the first article must be known by enough different people to be famous enough for Wikipedia. (By the way, I have heard of the band too.) Wiwaxia 07:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you know they were completely unaware? We're only taking Cookiemobsta's word for it. Another editor quizzed Cookiemobsta whether they were User:EskimoJoe, EskimoJoe has subsequently "disappeared" and Cookiemobsta has gone silent. Megan1967 08:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, whatever happens to this article User:Cookiemobsta deserves some WikiLove for creating a band article that doesn't have redlinks for every effin' member, album and song. Soundguy99 08:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are notable in the Christian Rock genre. Arguements for Delete all seem to be very weak indeed. Robinoke 08:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Their Allmusic guide entry notes that their 2004 album Crashings made the Billboard Christian Rock and Heatseekers charts. [12] As a result, they are notable within genre. They have also toured extensively meeting the Wikimusic Project guidelines.

Capitalistroadster 11:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, just isnt notable enough. Megan1967 12:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. Kappa 12:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. Shimmin 13:22, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. --iMb~Meow 14:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Never should've been deleted in the first place. Grue 15:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And another keep per Capitalistroadster. Samaritan 18:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Capitalroadster's argument seems reasonable enough. I wonder if the members of Falling Up know about all the trouble this article has created... Sjakkalle 06:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, If an article like this gets kept it will set a bad precedent - any band can put together an independent album and claim notability. Leanne 08:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Making an album might be easy, but charting is harder. Kappa 08:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That depends. The Billboard Christian Rock and Heatseekers charts aren't based on many tens of thousands of unit sales a week like the rock and pop charts. Making #1 on those charts would still be a little bit notable. Merely showing up on the genre charts (Top Ten albums of the year? Top 100 albums of the week?) is not notable by itself. How meaningfully they "charted" isn't shown in these comments. Having one release on BEC Recordings doesn't make a band notable; they have to do that themselves. I'm not convinced one way or the other by this discussion. No vote. Barno 14:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apologies for going silent; my access to the wikipedia is limited (I'm only getting on at the school library) but I'm still here. You also might be able to check IPs or something if you want evidence that I'm different from the first guy to make the article... Also, as far as notability goes; with Falling Up's Crashings being ranked as 9,427 in music sales. Britney Spears' "Oops, I did it again" album is ranked at #9,591 in music sales. Granted, if you added up all of Britney's albums she'd certainly outperform Falling Up, and this is only a statistic on amazon.com, but for them to outsell one of Britney's albums probably means that they're notable enough for listing on the wikipedia. (And the article Falling Up is about an album by Digby. On amazon.com's music rankings, Digby's album is ranked 96,371 in sales. It seems like Falling Up the band might be more notable than Digby's album, yet Digby's album has no controversy about it). -Cookiemobsta
  • Controversial to wikipedia, but not notable elsewhere - lets not get carried away with self importance here. Push comes to shove the general public doesnt give a rats behind about whats being said in this thread. JamesBurns 05:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for the record, I've turned the main Falling Up article into a disambig in order to reflect this and in order to eliminate redundancy with the article on the Digby album. By the way, I added more information to the article about the band. Turns out they've broken a sales record set by Kutless. --Idont Havaname 23:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, still not notable no matter how much is added to the article. Iam 03:14, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Gamaliel 08:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a big fan of Christian Rock, I can tell you this band has gotten heavy play on christian radio stations in the last year (as a side note, they're much better than a lot of recent bland bands like Kutless) Kertrats 00:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. There are four delete votes counting the nominator, and at most two to keep, one of which is doubtful. Postdlf 03:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason hogg

[edit]

Vanity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Not a particularly notable person. --Sgkay 22:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Quale 23:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Claim to fame: "Program Manager for Microsoft on the patterns & practices team." Samaritan 23:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Program Manager for Enterprise Development Reference Architecture (formerly codenamed Shadowfax). This is a major part of Microsoft's distributed network service strategy. He's not just some Dilbert, though he bears an uncanny resemblance to him. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. Needs to be at "Jason Hogg" not "Jason hogg". --Commander Keane 09:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • When EDRA reaches mainstream notability as the distributed disservice whose security failures or standards-breaking caused the Great Windows Crash of 2006, that might make Jason Hogg WP-worthy if he's still program manager or if he's blamed in Congressional hearings. Until then, no, not every department head at every big corporation needs an article of two or three sentences here. And one who is individually notable should have his surname's initial capitalized. Delete as first choice, move as Keane mentioned only if article bio-stub is kept. Barno 14:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 02:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew LaChapelle

[edit]

The author clearly thinks that he is funny, but this work of fiction is unencyclopedic and should be deleted JeremyA 23:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Joke. R Calvete 23:07, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Delete. Who does this guy think I am? Obviously this guy just can't stand limeys. 170.135.241.46 23:11, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC) (according to history R Calvete 23:22, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC))
  • Delete. Just delete this already, no need to discuss, really.
  • Speedy delete. Nonsense. Quale 23:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • He pipes each instance of his name to link to satire, joke and protected speech respectively, and what must be his friend's name to ronin and poodle. Speedy; admitted vandalism. Samaritan 23:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Can this get deleted faster? I'm done. Really.170.135.241.46
    • Above vote is from creator of the article - so speedy by CSD criteria 2, 3 and 7. Samaritan 23:59, 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. Postdlf 03:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MessengerDiscovery

[edit]

Advert for a non-notable MSN Messenger add-on. Quale 23:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - DavidWBrooks 23:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good stub, add-on for a very popular IM. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability of one program does not automatically confer notability on every third-party accessory program built to work with it. Stub is not especially good, looks like an excerpt from a promo with a misspelling. Given the frequency with which toolbar-style plug-ins from otherwise-unknown websites are found to contain spyware and unconsented adware, I am very hesitant to have WP list one without veteran editors speaking in its favor. No vote, leaning strongly toward Delete in lieu of better evidence. Barno 15:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, needs a major cleanup and expansion. 13,000 Google indicates some notability, [13]. Megan1967 10:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure that 12,000 of those hits aren't hapless users asking, "How do I remove this ***ware!!! ?" ;-)
Expansion will be tough and might require original research. I looked at the official website where you can download this thing, and there's no more info there than is in this article. In fact, the WP article is basically just the features list on the MessengerDiscovery website pasted into WP. Quale 20:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_April_30&oldid=1234126641"