Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 29

[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 17:57, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

John_Paul_Jenkins

[edit]

This page has no potential to become encyclopedic. 80.41.143.83 02:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Subject and centre of a prominent media scandal in the Welsh Assembly Election, 2003. Only Conservative on council for the fourth-largest county in Wales. Samaritan 03:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Strangely encyclopedic for an article that allegedly has "no potential to become encyclopedic".--Centauri 03:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possible autobiography. Orphan. Are we going to have aricles on every person sitting on any government council for every settlement in the world? No. Just isn't notable. -R. fiend 03:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes. Eventually.--Centauri 05:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Come on, do you honestly think that Wikipedia is going to have council memebrs for the tiniest remotest settlements in the world? Or that that's even an aim? Who'd update them daily? Where would people even get the information to do that? Are they any more notable than the guy who owns the local laundomat? We're talking hundreds of thousands of people who hold some sort of official position some sort of minor government body, not to mention school boards. We still don't even have articles for every member of the House of Representatives. Of course, you want to keep the principal of every high school as well. -R. fiend 07:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • That the House info is incomplete is entirely irrelevant. Because people are working on some pages of Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean they're diverting their efforts from other pages. Everyone works on what they're interested in, and only what they're interested in. - dcljr 10:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • I only mentioned the House to give an idea of what a pipe dream including every elected official in the world is. By the time we have the House complete there will probably be a new House (although with the incumbent re-election rates it won't be terribly "new"). I admit this guy may be notable enough for an article (I haven't competely changed my mind) but this idea of including any person who won an election (or lost, some people want to have articles for losing candidates as well) anywhere at any time is silly. -R. fiend 17:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • No, we aren't. The local councillors whom I vote for do a good job, but what they do is only relevant to a few thousand people, if that. I'd vote against encyclopaedia articles on them if their jobs were all that could be said about them. Unfortunately for those who also serve by keeping their eyes on vandalism and litter, politicians who are involved in scandals that reach national news outlets do rate the encyclopaedia articles, if only barely. TINJ. There's a lot of padding in this article, too. Weak Keep and send to Cleanup. Uncle G 14:44, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Keep. How is he not notable? He is the only Tory councilor for a large constituency in Wales, and was the centre of at least a moderatly well known scandal. We have articles on many Canadian politicians holding similar positions. Rje 04:12, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. His age alone is almost worthy of notability. Could use a bit more expansion with regards to the scandal if in fact it was as major a news event as Samaritan says. 23skidoo 04:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Barely notable. --JuntungWu 09:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If there was a controversy surrounding his previous candidacy, people may come to Wikipedia for NPOV information on him. That's what I do when I want NPOV information on anything or anyone controversial. --Angr 09:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to me it's already encyclopedic. Just because an article is short or very specific doesn't mean it's bad or useless. - dcljr 10:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Philip 15:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It seems like the most notable thing he did was say something construed as homophobic on a blog which later came back to bite him politically. Regrettable, but not particularly notable. --RoySmith 18:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Other than a single off comment (which he doesn't take full responsibility for) not notable or notorious. --LeeHunter 19:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 22:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough for me, for being the sole conservative representetive on two councils - particularly age 24. Carmarthenshire isn't some insignificant island nobody has heard of, but a significant area of south-west Wales. Thryduulf 23:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepThe facts in this article could be of use to someone, so i see no reason to get rid of it. bakuzjw (aka 578) 23:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You have failed only to explain how an encyclopedia can contain information that is not factual.--Centauri 22:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep (as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy), bogus nomination - David Gerard 22:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I thought this might get listed by the author at some point (look at the similarities in all the IP addresses used, including the one at the top of this page) but I haven't been keeping an eye on it. The author, who I initially thought was John Paul Jenkins himself but claims to be someone close to him seems to object to the idea that creating a Wikipedia article doesn't give you the right to keep unwanted facts out of it, in this case the only thing that makes this man notable: his (alleged) homophobic comments. I recommend a look at the article history and the talk page where I have tried to engage in discussion with the rather reticent author of the article. I have also made efforts to NPOV it and I intend to do some digging and write a bit more on what Jenkins is alleged to have said and the controversy that ensued. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why would anyone want to delete this? Good article, subject a local politician of some notoriety. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: this looks likely to be hugely more encyclopedia-worthy than, say, anything whatever in List of vehicles in Star Wars. But I still don't see anything noteworthy about this man. Welsh tories are indeed rare, but what has he done about it? He's made homophobic comments in an internet chat room, which is routine behavior for young right-wing twits, and then claimed that they were taken out of context, which is ditto. His campaign slogan was as vacuous as they come: is anyone going to respond, "No, lying down with Llanelli!"? He strikes me merely as a young right-wing nonentity. Tell me something he's done, and I'll vote "keep". -- Hoary 00:14, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. One on many tens of thousands of councillors and alledged comments were of mere local noteworthyness. -Tedmcshed 01:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • (This user's only contribution.)
  • Keep, notoriety, notability, already a well written article. Megan1967 04:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I want to say keep as an example of what one should expect from people of such political persuasion... but he is just a local councillor. And there are thousands and thousands of them. And most, I imagine, have opened their mouths to change feet on more than one occassion. Carmarthenshire deserves better entries than this!

  • Keep. Neutralitytalk 22:27, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Keep It might be of use to someone and it's encyclopedic. If there's room for the hobbyist posts, then surely there is room for this. Junes 23:45, 3 Feb 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. Joyous 16:12, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

The Great Riki

[edit]

Public access personality of only local interest. RickK 00:03, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 01:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not-notable. Rje 04:14, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --RoySmith 18:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Bart133 (t) 04:15, 3 Feb 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. Joyous 16:12, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

The Wrestling Scene

[edit]

Public access television show of limited local notability. See The Great Riki, also listed for VfD. RickK 00:10, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 02:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --RoySmith 18:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Mikkalai 22:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Bart133 (t) 04:16, 3 Feb 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. Joyous 16:13, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Mass After Dark

[edit]

Another non-notable local interest public access program. RickK 00:14, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 02:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --RoySmith 18:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Mikkalai 22:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Bart133 (t) 04:15, 3 Feb 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. Joyous 16:13, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

PACTV

[edit]

Non-notable public access channel of local interest only. RickK 00:18, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 02:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, barely notable. --JuntungWu 09:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --RoySmith 18:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. —Korath (Talk) 08:46, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Bart133 (t) 04:19, 3 Feb 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. Joyous 16:14, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Emmanuel Ceriz

[edit]
  • Only one Google hit for anyone by this name (at least with this spelling.) Nothing on Amazon. Sounds like vanity to me. Delete. RickK 00:34, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Pure vanity. Cannot find reference to him or his theory anywhere, contrary to the statement in the article. Theres another article at Transmutalism by same contributor on same subject that I put up for speedy as it only containes a link to his site. Sc147 00:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 22:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Bart133 (t) 04:18, 3 Feb 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. Joyous 16:18, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Thorne

[edit]

Non-notable principal of a (was tempted to say "non-notable") high school. I suppose, since every single school in the world is notable, that every single member of their faculty and janitorial staff are also notable, but I hope I'm wrong. RickK 00:47, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Your message is quite inappropriate in my mind, and is rather childish. Not only does your message have a mocking tone through out but it also reeks of elitism. While the content of the article may be in doubt, i see no point in having such negative and condescending message. From the looks of your homepage you are a veteran user, so i would think that you of all people would know how to best approach Vfd's but judging from your above message I guess I am mistaken. bakuzjw (aka 578) 01:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • [Personal attack removed.] Delete -R. fiend 02:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • This is crazy, the elitism here is amazing. But R. fiend, [personal attack removed.] bakuzjw (aka 578) 02:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • My guess would be that Rick's rant is not directed at Michael Thorne or the author of the article, but the "radical inclusionist" faction. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:49, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete It is understandable for a person (or his/her associates) to want to be present on the internet, meaning that a search for that person can unambiguously lead to information about that person. The vast majority of people are not present and of those that are the vast majority suffer from a lack of disambiguation; Michael Thorne is a case in point (take a brief look at the googling of this person) However, this really isn't the place for such indexing and disambiguation. What is a good place? The person wanting to be present should a) have a personal website or webpage (not an encyclopedia article) and b) be included in those online lists that reflect his/her desire to be seen. For instance, should there be a list of principals @ dmoz.org (see for instance architects which like most such lists is largely content-free). The best way to handle this, or so I've come to believe, is to have an organizational ownership for such lists; for instance, the National Council for Teachers of English or the National Collegiate Athletics Association. What's the boundary beyond which someone is "famous" enough to be listed here, in Wikipedia? This type of voting system is a major method of determining just who is "famous" enough and who is not; by consensus it seems that Mr. Thorne is not ... but not all the votes are in perhaps. Courtland {2005-01-30 USA 14:15 EST}
      • I just discovered the List of people by name in Wikipedia, where Mr. Thorne is not listed (see this subpage). Suggestion: put Mr. Thorne there with the information noted on this page and delete this page. In that way, his information will be preserved in Wikipedia without occupying an entire article. Thoughts? Courtland {2005-01-30 USA ~14:30 EST}
  • Keep The information contained in the article is not trivial, and will be found useful by some. PhoenixPinion 01:07, 29 Jan, 2005
  • Delete --fvw* 01:51, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Delete He's probably a great guy, but he doesn't seem to be notable enough for inclusion into the 'pedia. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:54, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 02:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Notable enough to keep. Needs bias cleaned up tho.--Centauri 03:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This information is true and it could be worth something to someone, i see no reason to delete it. bakuzjw (aka 578) 03:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and everyone calm down. Gamaliel 03:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete anfd remind everyone What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. humblefool 04:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete simply not notable enough to be encyclopedic. Rje 04:18, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Dante and Gamaliel said. Niteowlneils 05:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What humblefool said. —Korath (Talk) 06:00, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- kaal 07:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for total non-notability. KingTT 07:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ambi 11:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Schools are not inherently notable. Headmasters are not inherently notable. Having played American football and being able to play the guitar are not grounds for notability. No other evidence whatever for notability offered by the article. Wikipedia is not a list of all of the people in the world. Delete. Uncle G 14:25, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a list of everyone with a managerial job. --207.253.111.119 15:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This vote, as under wikipedia policy, should not be counted becuase it was cast by an anonymous user. bakuzjw (aka 578) 03:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. True is not enough, it has to be a little more notable than this. He is mentioned in the school article, isn't that enough? Feel free to create "HighschoolWiki", though. I might drop by to add my old headmaster. Alarm 18:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --RoySmith 18:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: WP != list of everyone in the world. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Particularly notable principles/head teachers etc. probably do deserve a mention - I can think of a couple in the UK that were the focus of significant media attention. Mr Thorne, on the other hand, does not appear to have had the time to become particularly influential, and has not been the centre of significant media attention. Average Earthman 18:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable --Neigel von Teighen 20:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Jayjg (talk) 03:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 18:15, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 207.253.111.119 said it best. - RedWordSmith 01:42, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP is not a list of everyone in the world, and this person is the non-notable principal of a non-notable high school. Bart133 (t) 04:18, 3 Feb 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. Article speedied. Joyous 16:20, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Gammal

[edit]

IRCcruft. RickK 00:53, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. It does mean "old" in Swedish, the usage used in this article would be a neologism in English. If this article is kept it has to be changed, I find the language used in this article highly offensive (the lingua spoken by my family is not some "funny" language). Rje 04:30, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism if true but I didn't know that others than Swedes used "gammal". Maybe I haven't been on IRC enough. In Swedish it's used and no neologism, but still nothing deserving of an encylopedia article (but probably a mention in an article about the word "gammal" in wikitionary). I'm not offended if people call Swedish a funny language, but obviously if this article for some reason is kept that should be rewritten. - Jeltz talk 18:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 22:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Thinks the author that Wikipedia is a chat log?? --Neigel von Teighen 23:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • A hopelessly badly researched ("or some other funny language") dictionary definition for a borrowing into slang. Since Wiktionary has no need of this, Delete. Uncle G 17:05, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry, I just discovered that a "friend" of mine used my computer to add this as a joke. Yes it's a term really used in IRC but I totally agree this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Please feel free to delete it asap.
    • IPs match. Speedied admitted joke article by "author" request. — Gwalla | Talk 23:48, 2 Feb 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. Article speedied. Joyous 16:22, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

List of Number 1 albums from the 1960s (UK)

[edit]

This topic does need a page, but what is there at the moment ("The Beatles") is worse than a redlink as it implies we have an article. -Thryduulf 12:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
note: I originally nominated this for deletion on the 9th of Jan, however it seems I cocked up adding the section to the main VfD page. I only noticed when it showed up on my watchlist after the anon user below posted their comment (I added the user tag). I have added it to the 29th Jan page to give it a fair hearing. Thryduulf 01:12, 29 Jan 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. Joyous 16:28, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Semitarian

[edit]

Seems to be wholly made up (Google returns only one unrelated hit for this term). -- ChrisO 01:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • And one usenet hit unrelated to either. I used to be what the article describes, and have never heard this term. That the author can't spell vegetarian is not a good sign. (For a widely-used related term, see flexitarianism.) Delete, though it does have a nice ring to it... Samaritan 02:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 02:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete'. Neologism. Bacchiad 07:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism of admittedly small useage (more likely none). Edeans 01:52, 3 Feb 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. Joyous 16:29, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Arshad Iqbal Dar

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a memorial. --fvw* 02:01, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

  • delete nonnotable. Mikkalai 02:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 02:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair 03:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I regret your loss, however Wikipedia is not a memorial. Rje 04:34, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Sad as it is, WP isn't a memorial. Sorry. Inter 13:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I concur with the above remarks. Cataclysm12 22:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I concur. Bart133 (t) 04:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wikipedia may not be a memorial, but it is an encyclopedia. Need I remind you of the fact that encyclopedias have their genesis in very humanitarian goals? The only thing appropriate, then, is to keep the article, and it's hard to understand how anyone could want to attack something so pitiful. 142.151.177.134 02:54, 4 Feb 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. Joyous 17:49, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Leckhampton, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge

[edit]

Didn't we agree that we didn't need separate articles on each university building? --fvw* 02:14, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notable buildings in their own right can and should have separate articles.--Centauri 03:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the "awesome place!" "Come on down!" crap and merge the little bit of useful factual information into the Corpus Christi College, Cambridge article. There's plenty of room for it. -R. fiend 03:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. They are supposed to grow up and stop vandalising especially if they have gone up to Cantab. -- RHaworth 08:09, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd argue for keep if there was any degree of architectural notability for it but for Leckhampton there isn't (I used to live further down the same road in one year at Cambridge). Dbiv 10:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question for fvw: What agreement do you refer to? It would be better if you argued for deletion of the text based on its own (lack of) merits. Whatever happens to this article in its current state should not be taken as a precedent whenever somebody writes a competent and substantial article1 on the King's College Chapel, Cambridge, for instance. / up+land 11:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
1By "a competent and substantial article", I mean something other than "King's College Chapel is the chapel of King's College. It Rocks! O Yeah!" / up+land
If I may address this, I think fvw is correct when he says there's an agreement that we don't need articles on each university building. That's not the same as saying there should be no individual articles on any university building. King's College Chapel, a very famous building in its own right, could get an article if the information couldn't be dealt with satisfactorally in the King's College article. There are articles for important buildings on some important colleges, but that doesn't mean everyone's encouraged to write an article on their dorm. This example, at least, and many others, is not worth a breakout article. -R. fiend 16:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It should get a separate article anyway, which can then be categorised in architectural categories where the general article would hardly be appropriate Philip 10:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As someone else intelligently said: categories are made to serve articles, articles are not made to serve categories. -R. fiend 18:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Universities have buildings. So what? --BM 17:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. The college may be notable, but not each and every building. --RoySmith 18:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm a former member and I don't regard it as a subject of encyclopaedic note. Merge anything useful into Corpus Christi College, Cambridge Qwghlm 00:35, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Idont Havaname 01:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It isn't just one building of course, but many; and the Leckhampton house is listed in the 100 most notable buildings in Cambridge here. Mlm42 18:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • So you think that we should have separate articles on the 100 most notable buildings of every university in the world? Or just Cambridge? If not all universities, how do you propose we decide the quota for each university? This school vanity is really out of control. --BM 19:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • You're asking me big questions about the future of Wikipedia to which i have no answers. But this article is here, now, and it seems reasonable to me. Mlm42 00:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • That can hardly be determined through quotas. As R. fiend points about above in his exegesis of fvw's nomination, each building should be judged on its own, and it is likely that Cambridge has more buildings of historical or architectural significance than, say, Ohio Wesleyan University. / up+land 08:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 23:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a keep now. / up+land 23:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) Delete (as I didn't vote above).There is nothing worth keeping in this article, but if somebody would show that there is something of interest to say about Leckhampton, I would be happy to change my vote. / up+land 08:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Korath (Talk) 08:50, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC) Merge. —Korath (Talk) 00:17, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge. Xezbeth 18:16, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has been substantially revised and expanded by knowledgeable people, putting rest to previous concerns about tone and triviality. Dreadnought1906 01:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, I should point out that Leckhampton is more than a hall of residence or an anonymous University building. Leckhampton is a substantial campus sprawling over many acres and including architecturally important buildings, notable sculpture and one of the UK's important gardens (much visited by connoisseurs).
    • It is controversial to what extent Leckhampton has an identity different from Corpus Christi proper and, as one similar and nearby site has already been carved off into its own college (Clare Hall), knowledge of this campus is important for those interested in Cambridge's future development.
    • The site is also important in its own right to those interested in the development and history of the Fitzwilliam Museum, parapsychology and the social history of postgraduate education. It would be convenient for article writers on these subjects to be able to link to Leckhampton directly and cleanly, rather than refer to a section buried in the main Corpus page.
    • Vote is user's first edit. --fvw* 01:56, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has been heavily added to since it was nominated for deletion, and mentions several features of Leckhampton which are significant in the wider context of Cambridge. A merger with the main Corpus Christi article would make the latter too unwieldy. James von Mann 01:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Vote is user's first edit. --fvw* 01:55, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
    • Comment: It has gotten better and I am considering changing my vote to "keep", but I would like to at least have the names of the architects of the buildings and preferrably a couple of images. I am sure someone at Leckhampton has a digital camera. (Try to get the Henry Moore sculpture in the foreground.) It also needs some NPOVing, but that is easily done. / up+land 10:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 10:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Vote changed following lobbying (and their edits). Author - you must provide a map link. If you are an Arts person, find a Natural Science or Maths person to help you. Likewise re photo - see above. -- RHaworth 15:54, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  • Keep. I concur with the previously expressed view regarding the importance of Leckhampton as a signpost in the evolution of postgraduate education within Cambridge University. This fact alone differentiates the site from the main Corpus Christi College buildings, with the site comprising what is a separate community. It is this closely knit community that permits Leckhampton to serve the same purpose for Postgraduate students that the main College site does for the Undergraduate community. As such, I believe that Leckhampton is worthy of a separate article, being an unique development in the history of the University as a whole. --BrianColeman
    • What an interesting topic to choose for your first ever edit to Wikipedia, BrianColeman. Dbiv 09:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • It sure is a good thing Wikipedia is being so welcoming to its new members (who happen to know the importance of Leckhampton). Mlm42 09:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Clearly a Keeper. Gravitodeathdeathrivercamscooper 22:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • please keep'. Yuckfoo 22:48, 4 Feb 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. Joyous 17:45, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Giles Coren

[edit]

non-notable. Mikkalai 02:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • A columnist for The Times of London is supremely notable. And before you say he's just or mainly notable as a food and restaurant critic, the first page of ten Usenet hits for the same Giles Coren draws from soc.culture.welsh, uk.rec.models.rail, alt.books.george-orwell, sci.military.naval, comp.sys.acorn.misc, soc.culture.hmong, soc.culture.lebanon, alt.support.childfree and rec.music.artists.springsteen (twice!), all in legitimate posts referencing or discussing something Coren has written about, mostly unrelated to food. Strong keep. Samaritan 02:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Columnists of major daily newspapers are inherently notable and encyclopedic. It doesn'tmatter if he writes about politics or macrame.--Centauri 03:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons stated above. 23skidoo 04:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I've categorised it.Philip 14:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A regular columnist for The Times is notable in my view. --JuntungWu 16:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional Delete. It's certainly possible that Giles Coren is notable, but there's not enough in the article to show me that he is. Prove it to me (in the article, not in the VfD comments). Samaritan's comment above tells me more about the types of things he writes about than the article does. Right now we've got a stub that needs expanding. How long has he been with the Times? Is he politically conservative or liberal? Are his political views in line with, or in opposition to, the editorial opinion of the paper he writes for? How often do his columns appear? Some samples of his writing? Has he won any awards? Has he done anything else other than write for the Times? Is he a London native? These are the sorts of things which would make the article interesting. --RoySmith 19:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • What you are saying that it should be deleted for being a stub, and that is a totally unacceptable proposition. Philip 10:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • No, that's not quite what I'm saying (although, I'll admit my statement above is a bit misleading in that regard). What I'm saying is that there's no evidence (or at least wasn't any when I made my original vote) that the guy was notable. Certainly the paper he works for is notable, but I don't believe in notability by association. Surely there are non-notable people on staff at The Times, just like there are at The New York Times, the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, BBC, etc. All of these are notable news organizations, but that doesn't make everybody who works for them notable. What I was really saying is that it's not up to me, as a reviewer, to do the research to prove that the subject is notable. The efforts that went into making notability arguments on the VfD are lost once the vote is over; that same effort put into improving the article has lasting value. Anyway, I see that the article has improved enough for me to now change my vote to Keep. Cheers, mate! --RoySmith 15:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Bizarre. I try to make it more comprehensive, more than a 'stub' as asked, add some interest and an example of his humour, then someone removes it again! I give up! Just delete it, unless someone else wants to write something.
  • keep, Its a valid stub with a large potential. Thryduulf 23:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Last time i checked The Times was a pretty big newspaper, its just a stub, i am sure people will add on to it over the years. bakuzjw (aka 578) 23:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This isn't a vote on whether we should delete The Times, though. It's a vote on whether we should delete Giles Coren. RoySmith said it all and said it well. Uncle G 01:26, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
      • RoySmith later changed his vote to keep. What about you? Philip 03:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I wrote this (admittedly somewhat daft) brief article because I wanted a tiny recognition for Giles Coren as both a writer of harsh wit and sheer oddity. For the most part, writers for The Times tend to be very conservative (William Rees-Mogg) or very liberal (Libby Purves). Mr. Coren stands out for his sheer 'irrelevance' and nihilistically dark humour. It would be a tad disappointing to delete this entry. I don't follow the minimalist arguments,- surely it's best to have as much knowledge as possible? Then again, I don't pay for Wikipedia's bandwidth etc. I suppose the subject is not particularly important compared with major characters in past and present society. Then again, I note nine noted users read it in a matter of days....
    • One of Wikipedia's most important policies is that you don't have to pay to contribute, any more than you do to read it. Philip 10:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The World Is A Bigger Place Than The US - David Gerard 23:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm amazed that there are people in the civilised English-speaking world that haven't heard of him! Mind you, I could understand Americans not knowing him ;) Grutness|hello? 05:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Charming. And yet if an American makes one similar comment, he gets jumped on... Meelar (talk) 07:09, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • (a) not by me he (or she) doesn't; (b) where has an American made a similar comment and been jumped on? (c) I'm constantly being told - by Americans - that Americans don't speak "English"; (d) you obviously fail to understand the purpose of a smiley. Grutness|hello?
  • Keep I've never heard of him either - and I'm not American. But, on the basis of all the above, I should think a regular contribtuor to one of the World's most famous newspapers is a name to be kept. --Marcus22 13:53, 2 Feb 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. Article defaults to keep. Joyous 17:42, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Allan Scott

[edit]

Looks like a test page. Was deleted by the same user. Probably candidate for speedy K1Bond007 02:49, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete speedily -- Longhair 03:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep new stub--I had just finished cleaning up his brother's article so I recognized the name, so I just ripped some stuff off of his IMDb pages. Niteowlneils 04:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish his own notability. Megan1967 04:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominated for an Academy Award, therefore notable. — Gwalla | Talk 23:41, 2 Feb 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. Joyous 17:40, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Osiris-Dionysus

[edit]

Hopelessly POV. If it were well-sourced (which it isn't) it'd be original research. Small amount of salvageable content is redundant with less-POV life-death-rebirth deity and Historicity of Jesus. — Bacchiad 02:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Solved by a redirect to The Jesus Mysteries, the book where the article's claims come from. Bacchiad 08:13, 29 Jan 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. Redirect is done. Joyous 16:24, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

San Fransisco japanese school

[edit]

Not notable enough to warrant an article. Longhair 03:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleted. Content was: 'There is a Japanese goverment school that teaches Japanese/cacasian students. There is also one in San Jose. It is a great school. grades:1-6 anny comments? discussion time!!' Neutralitytalk 03:59, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:33, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Sho Ishii

[edit]

Non notable high school student. Don't see any relevant hits. From article "...third string football player in...the "International Christian University High School"..." Niteowlneils 03:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. A non-notable high-school student who's made at least one enemy at ICU High School, it looks like. Poor guy. Maybe I should walk down there and warn him. --Calton 06:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:01, 30 Jan 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. Joyous 16:34, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Brick - Kiln Oven Baked Clay

[edit]

Duplicates content on brick. JoaoRicardo 04:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This 'brick' definition previously entered by JoaoRicardo was not properly linked back to Construction Materials - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction#Construction_materials - PRIOR to my entry - there was no entry at all. I simply added 'Brick' to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction#Construction_materials.

  • delete. the title is werid, too. Mikkalai 23:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • It was a badly written redlink at construction, since corrected. Merge with brick if there is anything to merge, otherwise simply Delete. Uncle G 01:30, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
  • Looks like an editing experiment. Delete. Edeans 03:43, 3 Feb 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. Joyous 16:35, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Soulm8s

[edit]

Delete. band vanity -- Longhair 04:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Homepage is a Geocities website. Google gives 236 hits, mostly messages from a mailing list. Probable vanity. Delete. --Slowking Man 04:46, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity and advertising. A band that performs at weddings and corporate functions and has only one gig in February (accoording to their web site.) Going by Google, there's a dating service that better belongs under this article title, but even it isn't particularly notable. --TenOfAllTrades 04:50, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity band article. --Deathphoenix 05:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advertisement, band vanity. Megan1967 02:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion, and no evidence of notability is given. Tuf-Kat 05:59, Jan 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. Joyous 00:41, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Sani Luba Nursery and Primary School

[edit]

Institutional notability creep hasn't expanded to include all daycares and primary schools yet, has it? Zero hits for "Sani Luba Nursery", and just one for "Sanni Luba Nursery". Niteowlneils 04:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Very small primary school. Delete. --Slowking Man 08:20, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, We keep pretty much every article about schools. Inter 13:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if we keep "pretty much every article about schools"--granted, in recent months high schools have had a reduced chance of being deleted, but I don't remember seeing a similar trend with younger schools. A year ago, most all pre-university schools were routinely deleted--extrapolating the expansion creep is kinda scary. Niteowlneils 19:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, sanity-creep is reassuring. --Centauri 22:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So, what, you think Wikipedia should have separate articles for every DMV branch office and state-run liquor store in the world? That's where we're headed. Niteowlneils 01:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Your point being? --Centauri 10:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --RoySmith 18:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, we do keep pretty much every article about universities and high schools. The battle of high schools has been fought and largely won by the school inclusionists, although those who think a high school needs some claim to notability haven't completely given up. We are now fighting through Middle Schools, and the school inclusionists are still mostly winning, although not as often as with high schools. I knew it was only a matter of time before we would start having to argue about nursery schools. Why can't we have a Wikipedia policy on this rather than letting it be decided by chance -- by whoever happens to be voting in any particular week? Delete. --BM 00:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and hopefully, if there are amore than a couple brief comments to be made the next time someone writes a school article, High School, Middle, or Elementary, it will have enough usefull information in it to keep it from showing up here.Weaponofmassinstruction 01:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless. No information. Non-notable. Gamaliel 01:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough. I agree with BM, there should be a policy in regard to schools other than universities which I have no problems with. Megan1967 02:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Philip 10:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No information for a probably non-notable establishment. Average Earthman 18:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No information, which is probably appropriate. Jayjg (talk) 03:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - insignificant - Skysmith 09:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 18:20, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 00:22, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons stated...and not because it's a school. - Lucky 6.9 19:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nursery schools are not inherently notable. Fight trollish hyperinclusionism. — Gwalla | Talk 23:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this uberschoolcruft. What's next? Local day care centers? Edeans 01:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice, reasons stated over and over. —Korath (Talk) 03:54, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:40, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Tsunamis.com

[edit]

Site ad. JoaoRicardo 05:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not a website worthy of an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not a list of websites. Brim 07:09, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Belongs in the main article's external links, at best. KingTT 07:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, It's all been said. Inter 13:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, website advertisement, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:09, 30 Jan 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. Joyous 00:39, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Joana Chen

[edit]

A vanity page, non-notable, created by an anon. Why would someone want to keep it in the first place? Wikiacc 22:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. -Hapsiainen 22:15, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity/non-notable. Rje 05:55, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity. Interesting article about the love lives of preteens. Whoopee. --Deathphoenix 07:53, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not likely to be vanity, looks more like a joke by a vandal. Andrewa 09:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Whatever it is, it doesn't belong here. Inter 13:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a waste of time and space, although I am new here, I still feel that Wikipedia is a place for useful information, not a forum. BMSSA 19:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Brim 01:36, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity, possible hoax. Megan1967 02:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and speedify? Irpen 02:31, 3 Feb 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. Joyous 00:36, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Pancake adventures

[edit]

Delete - incoherent vanity. Speedy-delete candidate, IMHO - DavidWBrooks 16:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please read the VfD instructions. —Ben Brockert (42) 05:18, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (not speedy) non-notable, vanity band article. --Deathphoenix 07:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. RHaworth 08:05, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Delete, Not notable, but it isn't CSD. Inter 13:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, vanity page. Brim 01:44, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:12, 30 Jan 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. Joyous 00:38, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Toukon Retsuden

[edit]

Another non-notable public access television program of local interest only. RickK 05:23, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Public-access television programs are inherently notable and encyclopedic. Keep. No, wait, I changed my mind. Delete. --Calton 06:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Mikkalai 23:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Can't hurt to at least try...ntsecrets

  • Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 02:14, 30 Jan 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. Joyous 00:34, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Catch and Release

[edit]

Movie that hasn't started filming yet. Wikipedia is not a fortune-teller, and this is a good example of why it shouldn't try with this type of thing (future Olympic Games, sure; future regularly scheduled elections in politically stable countries, why not; both have plenty of concrete facts known in advance)--this article has a different estimated release year than IMDb has. Let's wait until it's "in the can", at the very least. Niteowlneils 05:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed. As far as I know this isn't a notable film yet. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 09:59, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Come back when the film has been made. Inter 13:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Catch and Delete. --RoySmith 19:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Keep There is already one relevant wiki link to this future movie from the Jennifer Garner article, so having this as a place holder cuts down on dead wiki links at least (my pet peeve). Either way we will (eventually) need to disambig between Catch and Release (movie) and Catch and release (fishing cliche). Article should be labeled a sub stub and sent to clean up (POV issues) if kept. zen master T 01:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete future events. Rossami (talk) 22:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this hoax or promotion (whichever). Edeans 03:48, 3 Feb 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. Joyous 00:33, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Salem alsudairy

[edit]

Blatant self-promotion. This IP address put up four copyvios immeditely before this article. -- RHaworth 05:33, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 07:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Vanity. Inter 13:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:16, 30 Jan 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. Joyous 00:32, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

WikiWoordenboek:Lijst van woordsoorten

[edit]

A list of examples of word categories in Dutch language. It's redundant because Dutch grammar already contains examples. I don't think this will be very useful for Dutch wiktionary or wikipedia either. The title suggests that it was intended for the Dutch wiktionary.

Translation: all lines contain a few examples of word categories, e.g. the first line says: noun (substantive) examples: house, table, cupboard, cloth, animal. Sietse 06:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Probably accidental misplacement by Dutch Wikipedian. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 10:01, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki if appropriate and possible. Delete if not. Uncle G 13:45, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Delete, I don't think that they have any use for this in the Dutch wikipedia. They probably already have examples of words in their articles about the wordclasses. Jeltz talk 19:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki anything useful. Megan1967 02:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Looks like some article in the Wikipedia namespace for another wiki. —Cantus…☎ 06:40, Jan 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 merge. Article has been tagged for merging. Joyous 19:48, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Exogenous factor

[edit]

An article already exists for exogenous. Exogenous factor is not a special term used in biology — it's just a factor that's exogenous. Brim 06:33, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep and expand. Exogenous is a disambig page with a brief description of exogenous factor. This article has the potential to be expanded. --Deathphoenix 07:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The title is too specific, the majority of the article is just a restatement of exogenous, and the rest just comprises further examples of the use of the adjective "exogenous". Merge with exogenous until it becomes large enough to break out to exogenous (biology). Uncle G 18:45, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Keep, in definite need of expansion. Megan1967 02:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak merge of additional examples to exogenous. —Korath (Talk) 08:56, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Brim. Exogenous and endogenous are just English words. They happen to be used frequently in economics and biology, but there is nothing preventing anyone from using them in any context. We already have an article for exogenous, which mentions some of the economics and biology uses. This is bad enough, since it is just a dicdef. Tacking on 'factor' and creating another article just compounds the issue. Both this and exogenous should be deleted as dicdef's --BM 18:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to exogenous seem more appropriate. It can be broken out to a separate article when it's grown. (I note that it's an orphan so there is no complication about inbound links.) BM's argument that it's a mere dicdef is compelling, however. I will not object if the decision is transwiki. Rossami (talk) 22:23, 1 Feb 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. Joyous 17:23, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Ross

[edit]

Article does not establish notability outside of current events. RickK 06:55, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep, or merge and redirect; not sure where. "His execution will be the first New England has seen in 45 years" merits mention somewhere. —Korath (Talk) 07:29, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. If and when it happens, it belongs on Current events. RickK 07:30, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't understand.
    • Keep the article.
      • Those comments by the article's author, IP 68.103.217.180. Please sign your votes, and they'll count a lot more if you either use the standard format, or create a userid, or even more if you do both. Andrewa 09:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. By the time this vote is decided, the article will probably have grown significantly. Andrewa 09:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I agree with Andrew. Inter 13:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I totally agree with Beginning. To even post a deletion notice is ridiculous.Squiquifox 14:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) The fact that he will now not be executed makes no difference to my keep. How quickly can this issue be decided. I would like to see it resolved within 24 hours? Right now the consensus is to keep the article. --Squiquifox 21:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Article does not establish notability outside of current events." I find the above argument to be implying that "if the guy is dead, he's notable (outside of current events since he'll be dead as the first guy executed in NE in 45 years) but not alive". I agree with the logic (this is an encyclopedia and not Wikinews) but find the end result (wait until he's dead before writing about it) perverse. --JuntungWu 16:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't say that. I don't think he would be notable once he's dead, either. By the way, his execution has been at the least postponed. RickK 21:13, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. That was just my overall impression. --JuntungWu 12:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems to me if they guy's notable it's only for being the first person executed by a New England state in 45 years. Well, so far he hasn't been. Think of him as an American Idol contest who might win. Not notable until he does. Right now he's scheduled to be notable next week; does that make him notable already? I'm tempted to think not. If waiting until he's dead to write about him is perverse, well, I've been called worse things (hell, I spent $15 to enter a death pool for 2005). Anyway, even if he is the first person executed in these parts in 45 years, I'm not sure that makes him any more than a footnote on the capital punishment page (or related page). So I guess that's a delete. -R. fiend 23:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepThe death plenty is becoming an issue again, and this guy will be the first man to be put to death in New England in 45 years i think he should have an article on Wikipedia.
  • Strong keep. Notorious serial killer; murders paralyzed an entire region for years; committed brutal murders in at least two states (Connecticut and New York) and possibly more; focus of major debate over death penalty; case has been heard by U.S. Supreme Court multiple times; over 86,000 Google results for "Michael Ross serial killer", the majority of which aren't news briefs but lengthy articles and websites about him and his crimes; etc. This is not simply a local case or a current event. I can't fathom this even being discussed for deletion. – Beginning 00:44, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Awesome. Then please edit the article to indicate all of this. The article as written at the time of nomination had none of this information, and therefore I will repeat, "article does not establish notability". RickK 00:47, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • Again, fair enough. I agree that you were correct in making a nomination in the first place. --JuntungWu 12:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • With all due respect, you could say the same thing about virtually every stub on Wikipedia. The article has been expanding, so I really see no need to delete it. – Beginning 00:44, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for above reasons. --Idont Havaname 02:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, until article establishes notability. Megan1967 02:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:09, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Serial killers are always encylopaedic. Zerbey 22:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Michael Ross has been a prolific writer in the press, including New York Times. If you decide to delete him because you think he is not significant enough as an individual, fine. But if anyone here wants him deleted because they disapprove of him being publicised, you have no right to be using any encyclopedia - this view would mean deleting people such as Hitler, Franco etc. Alan Moroney, Brighton, England 31 Jan 2005
  • Move condense to a mention at Capital punishment or something. As of 1 Feb 2005, no regular Wikipedia articles link to Michael Ross, a symptom of low value. --Wetman 21:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • A single current event does not make an encyclopedia article. Transwiki to Wikinews. Evidence does not yet support my understanding of the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Rossami (talk) 03:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONGLY KEEP. Concur with what Beginning said. Neutralitytalk 06:17, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:31, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Javanoir

[edit]

Non notable ad for a web forum. No Alexa rank, the only Google hit is for the web site itself. A search for "javanoir" shows up about 1,350 hits for "javanoir.net", but this article refers to javanoir dot org. Moments after this article was put up, the apparent author posted up a message on the Javanoir forums saying that Javanoir has joined Wikipedia, which also made the "Latest news" on their web site at the time of this posting. --Deathphoenix 06:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note: Pzkfw5 just blanked this page. --Deathphoenix 07:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Andrewa 09:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Not notable. Inter 13:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 23:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.bakuzjw (aka 578) 00:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an index for obscure forums. --Idont Havaname 02:00, 30 Jan 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. Joyous 00:31, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Can tab

[edit]

Is this some kind of joke or something? Seems more like a how-to. Maybe this can be moved to Wikibooks... but what the hell? — Brim 07:33, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Nonsense. Delete. RickK 07:38, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just some kid playing. -- RHaworth 07:55, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. Great, now I have lots of small cuts on my fingers and blood all over the keyboard. --Deathphoenix 08:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete while at least some of us are still capable of typing. (;-> Andrewa 09:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A new contributor testing wikipedia Alexs letterbox 09:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Patent nonsense. Inter 13:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Construction guide for a "novelty" "toy" made out of a ring-pull. Delete. Uncle G 14:17, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under the Patent nonsense guideline. --Idont Havaname 02:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:26, 30 Jan 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 3 / Keep 2 / Merge and redirect 2: No consensus. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

KC Armstrong

[edit]

At the request of User:Alkivar, I looked through the personalities listed at Howard Stern and, after looking at the articles and doing a bit of research, I don't think that this person warrants an individual article. Simply appearing on the The Howard Stern Show does not mean a person is relevant or particularly notable. --Slowking Man 07:51, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to The Wack Pack and redirect. --TenOfAllTrades 18:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. User:Xpendersx has been removing the VfD notices from this collection of Howard Stern related articles. --TenOfAllTrades 18:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a member of the Wack Pack this time, as far as I can tell, so a redirect there is no good. "An associate producer" for a radio program isn't terribly notable, and this article says nothing. -R. fiend 19:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • like it or not but the stern show has over 20 million listeners a day and as stupid as these guys may seem to you they really have quite a fanbase and following. they arent just people who come on the show once a year but they are central to many of the shows bits and have been parts of some of the most innovative radio of the last 20 years. as far as the wack pack not being notable just because they only appear on the howard stern (they actually alos travel the country and make paid personal appearances) you cant just dismiss someones reason for notoriety just because you're personally not a fan of it. thats like saying that Tom Brady isnt relevant because he only plays football. Xpendersx
  • Weak Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 02:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Howard_Stern#Regulars_on_the_Howard_Stern_show and redirect. I think it should be okay to add one line descriptions to that article, right? --Deathphoenix 04:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Sterncruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. KC is everyday member of the Stern crew, anyone who has listened to more than a few broadcast of the show knows that. -- Judson 23:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why can't Alkivar post his own vfd's? Again, KC is on the Stern show all the time. Bacchiad 02:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge 3 / Delete 3 / Keep 1: No consensus between merge and delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jeff The Drunk

[edit]

(Same reasons as above listings) At the request of User:Alkivar, I looked through the personalities listed at Howard Stern and, after looking at the article and doing a bit of research, I don't think that this person warrants an individual article. Simply appearing on the The Howard Stern Show does not mean a person is relevant or particularly notable. --Slowking Man 07:52, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to The Wack Pack and redirect. Not notable outside Howard Stern Show. --TenOfAllTrades 18:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Wack Pack, trim to a sentence or two and merge. -R. fiend 19:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • like it or not but the stern show has over 20 million listeners a day and as stupid as these guys may seem to you they really have quite a fanbase and following. they arent just people who come on the show once a year but they are central to many of the shows bits and have been parts of some of the most innovative radio of the last 20 years. as far as the wack pack not being notable just because they only appear on the howard stern (they actually alos travel the country and make paid personal appearances) you cant just dismiss someones reason for notoriety just because you're personally not a fan of it. thats like saying that Tom Brady isnt relevant because he only plays football. Xpendersx
  • Weak Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 02:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Howard_Stern#Regulars_on_the_Howard_Stern_show or The Wack Pack and redirect, as per my above vote on KC Armstrong. --Deathphoenix 04:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Sterncruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Just delete it! LegitReality 20:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not just a one-shot deal; on all the time. Bacchiad 02:38, 3 Feb 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 alive. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge 2 / Redirect 1 / Delete 2 / Keep 1: No consensus. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

High Pitch Eric

[edit]

(Same reasons as above listings) At the request of User:Alkivar, I looked through the personalities listed at Howard Stern and, after looking at the article and doing a bit of research, I don't think that this person warrants an individual article. Simply appearing on the The Howard Stern Show does not mean a person is relevant or particularly notable. --Slowking Man 07:53, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was 3 Merge / Redirect, 1 Keep, 1 Weak Delete: Merge / Redirect. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Elliot Offen

[edit]

(Same reasons as above listings) At the request of User:Alkivar, I looked through the personalities listed at Howard Stern and, after looking at the article and doing a bit of research, I don't think that this person warrants an individual article. Simply appearing on the The Howard Stern Show does not mean a person is relevant or particularly notable. --Slowking Man 07:54, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to The Wack Pack and redirect. Not notable outside of Howard Stern Show. Also readded VfD notice; someone stripped it the first time. --TenOfAllTrades 18:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • So you click on his name under "Members of the Wack Pack" and you get this article saying only "he's a member of the Wack Pack". How is that useful? Classic case for a redirect. No merge, as there's no info to merge. -R. fiend 19:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • like it or not but the stern show has over 20 million listeners a day and as stupid as these guys may seem to you they really have quite a fanbase and following. they arent just people who come on the show once a year but they are central to many of the shows bits and have been parts of some of the most innovative radio of the last 20 years. as far as the wack pack not being notable just because they only appear on the howard stern (they actually alos travel the country and make paid personal appearances) you cant just dismiss someones reason for notoriety just because you're personally not a fan of it. thats like saying that Tom Brady isnt relevant because he only plays football. --
  • Weak Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 02:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Howard_Stern#Regulars_on_the_Howard_Stern_show or the The Wack Pack and redirect, as per my above vote on KC Armstrong. --Deathphoenix 04:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Sterncruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Just delete it. LegitReality 20:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, Redirect as indicated above. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 08:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge and redirect 4 / Weak Delete 1 / Keep 2: Merge and redirect. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Crackhead Bob

[edit]

(Same reasons as above listings) At the request of User:Alkivar, I looked through the personalities listed at Howard Stern and, after looking at the article and doing a bit of research, I don't think that this person warrants an individual article. Simply appearing on the The Howard Stern Show does not mean a person is relevant or particularly notable. --Slowking Man 07:54, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge into The Wack Pack and redirect if this is all there is to be said about him. Otherwise this will be a forever-stubby article. --TenOfAllTrades 18:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Reminds me of my old college friend Crackpipe Dan. I wonder what became of him. Anwyay, redirect to The Wack Pack. And note that the VfD tag was removed by the article's creator (I restored it). -R. fiend 18:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • like it or not but the stern show has over 20 million listeners a day and as stupid as these guys may seem to you they really have quite a fanbase and following. they arent just people who come on the show once a year but they are central to many of the shows bits and have been parts of some of the most innovative radio of the last 20 years. as far as the wack pack not being notable just because they only appear on the howard stern (they actually alos travel the country and make paid personal appearances) you cant just dismiss someones reason for notoriety just because you're personally not a fan of it. thats like saying that Tom Brady isnt relevant because he only plays football. Xpendersx
  • Weak Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 02:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Howard_Stern#Regulars_on_the_Howard_Stern_show and redirect, as per my above vote on KC Armstrong. --Deathphoenix 04:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Sterncruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, Redirect as indicated above. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 08:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, Redirect Good idea guys! I have heard of crackhead bob before, however, he is surely not notable enough for his own wikipedia search. Definitely merge with Howard Stern and ROCK ON!!! User:Mamasita
    • Comment: This vote by a new user whose only contributions so far have been to VfD discussions and who was accused in a prior VfD discussion of being a sockpuppet.
  • Keep. For same reasons given in all of the other ones. This agenda-pushing campaign is getting tiresome. Bacchiad 02:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I am voting keep despite the fact that someone may be angry when they don't find 'Crackhead Bob the Great' of Navarra on this page. --Ahmed Stephens 04:14, 6 Feb 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. Joyous 00:30, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Mark Lei

[edit]

Notability not really established. This looks very much like a vanity page to me. Mr. Lei is almost notable, but not quite. LizardWizard 08:32, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. Note that his University of California Chinese Alumni Association is currently on pages awaiting translation. — Ливай | ☺ 08:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just found that the content is more-or-less exactly reproduced at Xiaomao lei. The two should probably be listed for deletion together, but I'm not sure if doing that retroactively is kosher. LizardWizard 09:05, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 23:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another fictional character! Is there a writer interested in all these characters that appear in WP? :) --Neigel von Teighen 23:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to user page. User:Marklei has created an account, and has blanked this article.-gadfium 23:24, 30 Jan 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. This has been done. Joyous 17:09, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Minor races in Star Wars

[edit]

This article has no purpose now, because I have moved over what information on here, that was not on the larger and more important List of Star Wars races already. For example, since P'w'eck is a race, even as minor as it may be, it is still a race. However originally because of its minority factor it was not featured on the "List", but rather on "Minor races". But then some races ended up duplicating on both. Both had Wookiees, Jawas, etc. But the List had more and yet some sections had nothing for races. For those that I could add something I did, and I moved over Chazrach, Gorax, Massassi, P'w'eck, Shistavanen, and Teek, all of which were not in the "List". When I could no longer find new information to move over, my job was done, and now I request that the second article, the minor one, be deleted as a means of saving space. Riffsyphon1024 08:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • It's not necessary to save space. Just redirect it. Kappa 09:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't standard form be for List of Star Wars races to be a point-form list, and breakout articles describe each major race, with Minor races in Star Wars for brief descriptions of minor races? On that assumption, keep and refactor? Samaritan 14:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • For now, redirect to preserve attribution for GFDL. —Korath (Talk) 15:20, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
So you're all saying it only needs to be redirected, rather than all put in one area. I was seeing some of the more well-known races to have their own articles like Wookiees and on that List it had one sentence. Check the List to see what I mean. If we list all of the races on the big list and provide links to the races with their own articles, then wouldn't that work? Then the List could be for the minor ones. Riffsyphon1024 20:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If someone thinks that this should be revamped rather than deleted, then what do you consider minor and major, and then would this second separation be more sufficient? I can, if given a line between true major and minor races, shift races back, and delete those in Minor that are Major. Then maybe this article doesn't have to be deleted. Riffsyphon1024 21:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep, article could do with cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 02:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But if it has the same stuff that the larger article has, only less of it, then what's the purpose?Riffsyphon1024 02:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Don't you guys get it? I already have merged it. The minor article just needs deleting now. Riffsyphon1024 03:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What does it matter if it is deleted or becomes a redirect? Gamaliel 03:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is specically a "problem that doesn't require deletion" on the policy page. "Article duplicates information in some other article" -> Merge/redirect. Kappa 06:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand what happened when I redirected it. Yes, the page doesn't have to be deleted, but everything that links to it, now links to the List. Sorry if I sounded stupid back there, this was a first time for me. I'll get better at it. Thanks for the advice. Riffsyphon1024 08:24, 30 Jan 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. Joyous 00:29, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of images/Chicks

[edit]

Poorly named, no pages link to it, and just generally a bad idea. - dcljr 09:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, poorly named, no identifying subject, but images cuold be placed elsewhere if there was supporting text. Alexs letterbox 09:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. You bet it's a bad idea. Even if it were named "List of images/Women" it would still be a bad idea. Oops, forgot to sign! I'm: --Angr 15:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's not a bad idea, but since it isn't for anything, there is no need for it. And the wording is a bit on the poor side. Inter 12:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or rename to images/TotallyHotNakedChicks Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:22, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Each image is presently used in at least one article. Totally refactor to include Image:Chicks.jpg and Image:More_chicks.jpg... or delete. Samaritan 14:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sillyness by an anon. -- Infrogmation 19:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are probably a hundred thousand websites with images of naked women on them. Statistically at least one of them will deal with just free images. Thryduulf 23:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Joke. Mikkalai 23:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And that's all they could come up with. ÅrУnT†∈ 23:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, silliness by anon. --Idont Havaname 02:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ROTFLMAO. Gamaliel 02:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. But before deleting, add Theresa Knott's great pair of tits. (Or is that a pair of great tits?) Dpbsmith (talk) 00:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Those are a pair of great tits aren't they? Rje 04:16, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't VfD take long enough to load already without the added weight of JPEG imagery? GRider\talk 18:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. So silly. Why? Why? TomTheHand 05:48, Feb 1, 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. Article already deleted. Joyous 17:07, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ashlee Simpson on MADtv

[edit]

Sigh. More AshleeCruft. RickK 09:10, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Well-written, coherent article, but hopelessly unencyclopedic. -- Curps 09:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd agree. Non notable. --Woohookitty 09:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree. Muya 09:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete trivia. -- Hoary 09:37, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Delete: subtrivial fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete isn't she getting old yet. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is insanity. Ambi 11:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Enough with Asslee already! Inter 12:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please. - Vague | Rant 13:15, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete kill the Ashleecruft, or at best beat this article down to a sentence or two and slip it into the main Ashlee article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Make the point to the editors concerned, and without using sockpuppets. Don't involve everyone, like this. Delete. Uncle G 13:56, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • The article is to this point entirely the creation of, and the sole creation or contribution of, User:Zzzz, in case anybody felt inclined to blame Everyking. Delete; I'm with Uncle G in suspecting disruption. Samaritan 14:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivia. --BM 14:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete angrily as someone having fun at my expense, and giving more attention to bad jokes than is warranted. Everyking 17:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is not wikipedia's job to describe comedy skits in detail. A sentence to the affect of "the incident was parodied on MADtv" in the Ashlee Simpson article under the SNL fiasco would be sufficient. -R. fiend 18:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Ashlee Simpson, cut the Ashlee Simpson article way down, and restrain Everyking's Ashlee fixation. —tregoweth 18:57, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Apologies to Everyking for assuming he created this. —tregoweth 18:59, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • It would be kinda crazy to cut down the Ashlee article and merge this, considering what's in the article now is all vastly more notable than this. People who accuse me of endorsing trivia should note that I think this level of detail is somewhat excessive, and it's especially bad considering that I don't believe it was created in good faith. Everyking 19:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN as an amusing example of parody. Kappa 19:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this parody. - Jeltz talk 19:50, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge anything useful into the main Simpson article. 23skidoo 00:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge a bare reference or the briefest of summaries into the Simpson article. This level of description is unnecessary, and every instance in which a particular person is spoofed on a particular TV show certainly doesn't justify a separate article (Bill Clinton on SNL, Liberace on SNL, Tina Yothers on SNL...). Postdlf 00:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No merge, or at least no more detail than a single sentence, as suggested by R. fiend. This is Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Of course this is a personal attack on Everyking. It is a light-hearted "just kidding" attack, and it is vaguely amusing, and the point that it is illustrating even has some validity to it, but at its best this is a self-referential Wikipedian in-joke. Stuff like this really does need to be discouraged on principle. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, though maybe to BJAODN so that we can have some record of having deleted some Ashleecruft as a bad joke. --Idont Havaname 02:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • We'll have this page as the record of deletion. Whatever the level of amusement the article generates, high or low, I think that not letting this escalate into a disruption war supercedes other considerations. Uncle G 14:17, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial un-encyclopaedic ashleecruft. Megan1967 02:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • You see, the function of this article is to make legitimate articles look absurd by association as "ashleecruft". Everyking 02:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • It is true that someone is probably having fun at your expense, but this is easy because in fact you have indeed polluted the Wikipedia with ashleecruft. The article is being deleted because of the policy against disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, not as some kind of endorsement of the legitimacy of all the other ridiculous Ashlee articles. --BM 12:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, what a nice thing to say. Add to Wikipedia's store of knowledge and someone accuses you of polluting it. Everyking 14:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • This article could have been created by either side of the Ashlee Simpson debate, either by one side as a parody of Ashlee Simpson on SNL to demonstrate where that path leads, or by the other side to attempt to discredit the opposition by attributing unworthy tactics to it. However, the motive is unimportant. As BM and Dpbsmith have said, we delete this because it is disruption. Uncle G 14:17, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
  • Move to BJAODN. Gamaliel 03:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • If the facts are accurate, their decription in straight-faced encyclopedic style does make it a very moderately good joke. However, it was created in bad faith as mockery of User:Everyking. I don't think it should be moved to BJAODN because that would be rewarding a very mild, and possibly some will think deserved personal attack, but a personal attack nevertheless. If moved to BJAODN the context should be explained. I don't know what others think, but I think this was specifically created as a parody of Ashlee Simpson on SNL. For the record, it should be mentioned that the latter article, in turn, was a breakout from History_of_SNL:2000-2010. The breakout was performed by Jeff Schiller following a long-running struggle over wording, who said "make the damn thing its own article and let those Simpson fans (and you know who you are) do all the justifying and weedling they want. Let the edit wars take place in that article and leave the 'History of SNL' out of it." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic, a disruption of the site and as an attempt to make one of the site's best users look foolish. - Lucky 6.9 22:05, 1 Feb 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. Joyous 00:28, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Gliiim

[edit]

Looks like a hoax to me. Googling for Gliiim yields nothing. Googling Wombatnet Asiaconnect yields nothing. Supposed press releases (external links) go to Microsoft Press (books). Borderline speedy; second opinions? Wile E. Heresiarch 09:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looks like a PageRank manipulation attempt to me. —Korath (Talk) 11:18, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Nothing to see here. Move along. Inter 12:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete what appears to be nonsense. Agree with Wile E. Heresiarch, I get three (unrelated) Google hits for Gliiim, none for Wombatnet Asiaconnect. --Deathphoenix 04:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I smell hoax. Delete. Edeans 03:59, 3 Feb 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. Article defaults to "keep." Joyous 17:05, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Jorge Castillo (cook)

[edit]

I e-mailed this guy asking for him to inform me about the history of a oparticular soda company famous in Peru.Thats how he found out about our project. The fact it was written by an anon tells me it could be a vanity page made by himself. Delete "Antonio Get away from the Bull! Martin"

  • I've added the {{subst:vfd}} header that AntonioMartin forgot. Co-author of a book that appears to be real. But the standard caution on autobiography applies. Weak keep, if the facts check out. Uncle G 14:08, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Keep. The book and Food Network appearances are real. The book was published in Oct. 2004, but I suppose its existence, combined with the multiple TV appearances, makes him reasonably noteworthy. However, we may need a disambiguation: there's also a Jorge Castillo who is a Spanish surrealist painter and sculptor, and who is probably better known than Jorge Castillo the Cuban cook. Shimeru 19:22, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 02:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Published author, numerous TV appearances, clearly notable. Gamaliel 02:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Here is a link to some press coverage: [1]. Gamaliel 23:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Writing a cookbook and appearing on TV is no big deal. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:05, 30 Jan 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. This has been done. Joyous 17:02, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ronnie Martin

[edit]

Non-notable, seems to be a vanity page. Botsie 11:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, If he's the frontman of a band which got lots of releases, it seems notable enough. The article could really need a facelift though. Inter 12:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, agreeing with Inter. Samaritan 13:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Joy Electric. He is essentially the band. Megan1967 02:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Joy Electric. Especially as he's the only member of the band there's no reason for him to have a separate article. -R. fiend 18:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: He is the frontman of a band with lots of releases (and almost 40,000 Google hits on its name). As such, I'd say he is definitely worthy of his own article. On the other hand, he is not only the frontman, but the band. With no other members around, the best option to avoid overlapping information might be to redirect, as R. fiend suggests. (Also, note that there is an 1926-1940 NHL player with the same name. [2]) / Alarm 22:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Ronnie and JE are both notable, and Ronnie has done work outside JE. I'll try to get an expansion ready soon for this article. --Idont Havaname 02:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Updated vote: Keep or redirect. Either one is ok as long as he gets mentioned here in some form. His only other work that I know of is that he founded an indie record label called Plastiq Musiq, which licensed some of its artists to Tooth & Nail Records in the late 1990s and then went underground again; they have around 20 releases total, which isn't much for a record company that's been around for about 7 years now. As for the hockey player by the same name (Google returns 22 hits for "Ronnie Martin" NHL, compared to over 1700 for "Ronnie Martin" "Joy Electric"), he only had 13 goals and 16 assists in 94 games in the NHL (his penalty minutes weren't high either) and played most of his career in the minor leagues, so he doesn't need to be mentioned in a disambiguation page or anything like that. --Idont Havaname 03:22, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Redirect. Gamaliel 03:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have restored several votes that seem to have been deleted by accident, see this diff. / Alarm 09:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Redirect. Although Ronnie has done work outside Joy Electric, it is for this that he's primarily known. GBrady 15:22, 2 Feb 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. Joyous 00:26, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Rohith Suresh

[edit]

I'm embarrassed to admit that I edited this page some time ago, before only realizing now, when re-editing it, that it's most likely a hoax. Rohith Suresh gets only 9 Google hits. He's a member of fourth division Scottish cricket, and does not appear to have starred in the porn movie stated, especially not with a monkey which is what the original version claimed... — Asbestos | Talk 13:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Maybe even speedy as possible slander. --LeeHunter 15:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 23:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 02:50, 30 Jan 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. Joyous 00:26, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Inglosh Lengaegi

[edit]

If vowel rotation is a recognised practice then this should be in a separate language encyclopedia, not in the English version. Altogether I'm not convinced that it's a recognised practice though. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 13:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Appropriate for an Inglosh language wikipedia if anyone sets one up. Dbiv 15:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And I'd like to thank the author for creating a page full of rid lonks. -R. fiend 22:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 23:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. (This page should be relocated to in:Inglosh Lengaegi if an Inglosh wikipedia is set up (not likely)) Wikiacc 23:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And delete any Inglosh Wikipedia, should someone try to start one up. --Angr 13:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this elaborate and marginal joke. Edeans 04:04, 3 Feb 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. Joyous 00:27, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Mr Zinky

[edit]

Vanity page? No age, nationality, verifiability and criteria for notability. Mandel 13:50, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • If the subject cannot be identified, Delete as a hoax. If the subject can be identified, Delete as non-notable. Uncle G 02:34, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, hiphop vanity. Megan1967 02:53, 30 Jan 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. Joyous 00:24, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Vowel rotation

[edit]

Looks like a prank-cum-nonsense article tbh. "The famous" Leare Songlitun gets precisely zero google hits. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Inglosh Lengaegi above. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 14:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Vowel rotation is an important practice for replenishing pages of their nutrients. Unless it's not. Delete. -R. fiend 18:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering the vowel rotation scheme, you should probably be googling for "Laura Singleton" instead. However, although this gets you 1,010 hits, adding "vowel" will bring you down to 0 again. In plain Inglosh: Diliti. / Alarm 22:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 23:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • BJEUDN. Raven42 00:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd weakly suggest a redirect to Al Bhed, Substitution cipher, or Vowel shift. - RedWordSmith 00:41, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Vowel shift, nothing here worth keeping. Megan1967 02:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vowel shift is probably not an appropriate redirect because it is a)an entirely different concept, and b)a real phenomenon rather than BJAODN fodder. --TenOfAllTrades 04:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as drivel. --Angr 13:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)
  • Dileet thees silli jok. Edeans 04:07, 3 Feb 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. Joyous 16:59, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Mike de Anime Live

[edit]

Can you spell V-A-N-I-T-Y? Plus, it's patent nonsense. Delete, including the images. Lupo 14:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • F-I-C-T-I-T-I-O-U-S T-W-A-D-D-L-E. Er. Apparently not. This isn't amusing enough for BJAODN. Delete. Uncle G 18:49, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Delete. Could have been speedied with the 'nonsense' tag. --LeeHunter 19:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just vanity. No need to shout. Mikkalai 23:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable vanity, hoax. Megan1967 02:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete definite vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 05:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this must be somewhere near the edge of patent nonsense. Gazpacho 05:16, 30 Jan 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. Joyous 16:57, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Jill Talley

[edit]

Actress who appeared in a music video and did a little voice work in a cartoon. Doesn't seem notable. --LeeHunter 14:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • She was a regular cast member of Mr. Show, so that should be mentioned in the article and it should be a keep' based on that. I'll expand the article to establish notability. -R. fiend 18:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A few articles actually link to it. Mark as stub. Brim 01:43, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, borderline notable. Megan1967 02:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough. Gamaliel 02:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. She's notable enough, having appeared in enough movies and shows. See her IMDB entry. --Deathphoenix 05:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 23skidoo 18:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Matteh (talk) 19:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. JamesMLane 08:49, 2 Feb 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. Joyous 00:24, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Muhammad Kara

[edit]
  • I can't find any mention of this footballer on Google. --LeeHunter 14:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page. --Dryazan 15:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity more appropriate for a user page. He's the member of an under-19 youth squad which, unless it were a championship team of some sort, puts it under the notability radar for me. Sorry. --Deathphoenix 05:20, 30 Jan 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. Joyous 00:23, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Emma Buhse

[edit]

Listed for speedy deletion due to non-notability but not a speedy candidate. No vote. Dbiv 15:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, doesn't establish notability. Smoddy | ειπετε 17:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for non notability. Thryduulf 23:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 23:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. non-notable. Brim 01:41, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 03:01, 30 Jan 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. Joyous 00:23, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Styerism

[edit]

Google has never heard of styerism, or of styerisms; neither has their Usenet archive. This seems to be a personal attack on someone who named himself after a popular gun, and as such would be non-notable. DS 16:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - doesn't appear notable Smoddy | ειπετε 17:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 23:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 03:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism based on a non-notable online handle. --Deathphoenix 05:22, 30 Jan 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. Joyous 00:21, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Jacob Oeth

[edit]

Not sure why this hasn't been deleted already... Non-notable vanity about a high school student. Dr Gangrene 16:20, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, of course. Smoddy | ειπετε 17:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Phils 17:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rje 17:44, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Brim 01:39, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Oh, lord. Vanity. Shuai 01:57, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lord RM 03:35, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Saga City 22:21, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:21, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

The yen

[edit]

I can find no evidence for this page not being vanity. It feels like self-promotion, especially given that the second link goes to a page to chat to band members... I can't get the first link to take me anywhere. Smoddy | ειπετε 17:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Chris 73 Talk 17:06, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity, the language used is very similar to that on the band's website. Rje 17:10, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion, and no evidence of notability is given. Tuf-Kat 06:00, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not an article; it's propaganda --Neigel von Teighen 22:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete', though a redirect to yen could get this taken care of right away. -R. fiend 23:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band advertisement, band vanity. Megan1967 03:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to yen. -Sean Curtin 03:49, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Vanity...band promotion. more like a home page here, not a encyclopedia entry. Shuai 01:59, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:20, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Euro assimilation

[edit]

Original research. --fvw* 17:21, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

  • delete, the term seems to be in use in a small number of places with a different meaning - the homogonisation of European cultures, tradtions etc as a result of an increasingly powerful European Union. Even this however fails the notability test (5 google hits, compared to the article's definition which rates 0). Thryduulf 17:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 23:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Well written article. However, it's original research. --Deathphoenix 05:23, 30 Jan 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. Article speedy deleted. Joyous 16:55, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Lil Flash Bandits

[edit]

Non-notable. Bart133 18:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • L'il Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:59, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • CSD criterion #4 ? Uncle G 19:04, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Agreed. CSD-4: No google hits, no context, no content. Mikkalai 22:19, 29 Jan 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. Joyous 19:59, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

6'4"

[edit]

A height and the people who reached it. Not encyclopedic. --LeeHunter 18:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • If this were a list of notable people who were unusually tall (where I'm handwaving "unusually"), i.e. as tall as or taller than some boundary height that marks them as exceptional, it might be more worthwhile. But an article for only those people who were exactly 76 inches tall ... No. Merge to such a list, or Delete. Uncle G 19:13, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • This is actually just one article in a series of articles, guys. I just happened to start with 6'4". Lighten Up. Getalis 1:48 PM, January 29, 2005.
    • It's actually User:12.215.72.34 who was the creator of the article. If you speak for xem, then it should be apparent to you both that this is a poor idea that a lot of people disagree with. As both I and User:Sjorford have suggested, a far better approach is to pick an arbitrary height, above which people are "exceptionally tall", and then have a single List of people over 2m tall (say) article. No-one reading an encyclopaedia is going to think of pulling up a 6'4" article, let alone the even more absurdly named 6 ft 4 in (1.93 m); and having to navigate from article to article to see who is taller than who renders what would probably be the most common use of a list such as this a lot harder than it should be. If we are going to have this at all, have one article, with everyone in height order. This is why my vote was Merge. Uncle G 01:04, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
  • Delete before he gets around to even more articles. By the time we get to my height, we should have 90% of the adults on the planet. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete mundane information. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 20:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting stuff. What's unencyclopedic about Abraham Lincoln's height? If we were listing everyone, that would be a problem, sure, but that doesn't seem to be the intention. The names need standardisation, true. Andrewa 20:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hopelessly ethnocentric (a list of people taller than 2 meters would be a bit more universal). Oh yeah, it's not notable either. --21:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. While a list of very tall people would be fine (perhaps there already is one?), I'm not sure 6' 4" is tall enough. Maybe List of people over 6 feet 6 inches tall, or List of people over 2 metres tall. sjorford:// 22:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oy. Delete before all of the other threatened articles get created. RickK 22:20, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic material. -R. fiend 22:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mikkalai 22:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete before it is too late. --BM 00:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • A list of extremely tall and extremely short people would be interesting, but this is pointless. Delete the whole series. Tuf-Kat 01:10, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. If anyone needs to know about heights, FamousHeights.com has it. --Idont Havaname 02:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, unmaintainable un-encyclopaedic trivial lists. Megan1967 03:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And the rest of the series too. -- Hoary 04:01, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
  • Delete, not really that encyclopedic. Rje 04:18, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 07:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and the rest of the height series. For most of these people, it's not verifiable how tall they are/were, and it doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of informative: it is neither actionable nor interesting. --Angr 13:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

*Keep! Very interesting! Dwain 17:23, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all. —Korath (Talk) 09:03, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - merge relevant into to articles about the people concerned - Skysmith 09:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all per reasons given above. Rossami (talk) 03:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Another pointless height article. ral315 21:42, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

See also

[edit]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 00:06, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Cartooning Team X

[edit]

Intramural hockey team. --LeeHunter 19:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non notable. Mikkalai 23:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, team vanity. Megan1967 03:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Xadai 03:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 22:32, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:06, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Cabbage joke

[edit]

Seems to be an article on a single joke which I've never heard of before. Is it really that famous? If not, should probably be deleted—we generally have articles on categories of jokes, like knock-knocks, but not on individual ones. Psychonaut 19:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • "Knock! Knock!"
    "Who's there?"
    "An 'I can invent a joke like that one!' article."
    Wikipedia is not the Denis The Menace Joke Book. Delete. Uncle G 19:34, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Infrogmation 19:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Joke. Riffsyphon1024 21:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't see any possible reason why this should be merged into joke. Delete. It doesn't even qualify for BJAODN. RickK 22:22, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well it certainly doesn't qualify for GJAODN. Delete, this is not a jokebook. -R. fiend 22:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Brim 01:39, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, trivial, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Last I checked, there was a jokebook section in Wikibooks. If anyone is interested, it could be moved there. It is not an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 03:39, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not encyclopaedic... Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 16:54, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Nat belz

[edit]

Article fails to establish any grounds for notability. Uncle G 19:17, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

  • (Very) Weak keep. From google search, he seems to be the actual publisher of a magazine (Explore!), and has been mentioned in the national newspaper Christian Science Monitor. If kept, the article stublet should be moved to Nat Belz (where it would still be an orphan). -- Infrogmation 19:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Create the Explore! article and redirect there, since this is the only reason of notability. Being a magazine editor is a plain regular non-notable job. Mikkalai 22:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 03:12, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Magazine editors are not inherently notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:07, 30 Jan 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. Joyous 00:04, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Voluntarianism

[edit]

No hits on Google for this word. --LeeHunter 19:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I show 59 hits on Google for this word. Also, it is a derivative of the word 'voluntary' and is meant to represent a form of government by which the people have a choice under which conditions they volunteer to live under. I strongly believe that we need such a word in today's political environment so as to describe such a belief. --Zaw 19:40, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Above is User:Zaw's sole edit. An article about voluntarianism might be interesting and worthwhile; however, the existing article, stripped of POV, would be pure definition. Delete and if desired start from scratch; nothing helpful here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I got 55 Google hits, but they don't seem to relate to this article. The voluntarianism of Duns Scotus for example is described as the view that the divine will took precedence over the divine intellect. Other significant philosophers have also used the term, but this article seems to be the dicdef of a neologism for a recent and rather wacky idea, written to promote this idea. No useful content. Andrewa 20:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. neologism, non-conventional, too close in sound to voluntarism, possibly original research. Mikkalai 22:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have edited the definition to remove any personal views. The word is indeed a neologism, and was coined out of a political discussion group meeting recently that I had attended. Everyone engaged in the conversation had agreed to its definition, I merely want to share the word with others who may be looking for such a term. --Zaw 22:32, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • This completely misses the point of an encyclopedia; in order to even find it, they would have to already know the term and therefore be looking for further information. Wikipedia isn't here to promote neologisms. An encyclopedia is a repository of established knowledge, not a meme vector to promote new coinages. Delete. Bearcat 00:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sheesh. Wikipedia is not a forum for sharing the great new word you just came up with. Josh Cherry 01:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 03:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it catches on, resubmit it in a year or so. If it doesn't, it is just a neologism. --Woohookitty 07:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If you didn't hear this word before, you abviously know absolutely nothing about political science, it should be expanded a lot though, much more to say, very encyclopaedic. Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)
  • Delete. Aside from Google, I did a JSTOR search of the word, which surveyed 34 Political Science journals along with over 100 journals from other disciplines. No hits for "Voluntarianism." Author of article has confessed it to be neologism. If it's more than that, I'd love to see a citation. --Fastfission 05:28, 3 Feb 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. Joyous 16:53, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Keller Junior High School

[edit]

Non-notable. Bart133 20:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Schaumburg, Illinois Riffsyphon1024 20:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If the sum totol of articles about schools keeps popping up as being similar information as "Keller Junior High School is just that, a Junior High School. It is located in Schaumburg Illinois.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keller_Junior_High_School" then it is no wonder so many people want to automatically delete a page because it is a school.Weaponofmassinstruction 00:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Gamaliel 05:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Being a stub isn't a reason for deletion, and neither is being a school. Philip 10:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --JuntungWu 12:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not an article, no evidence of notability. Jr high schools are not inherently notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing to merge. Better a redlink than this complete waste of time. Average Earthman 19:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Wile said. Plus, before 18 school attendance is compulsory in many countries--articles for schools are like articles for [[automobile insurance in Idaho]] or [[driver's licenses in Western Australia]]; sure it impacts thousands of people's lives, but not in a uniquely significant way. Most schools are cookie-cutter copies of thousands of others (there are 16,054 public middle/junior high schools in the US alone). Second choice is merge/redir to Schaumburg, Illinois, although that will probably be one of the smallest merges in Wikipedia history. Niteowlneils 19:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually, if redired, Community Consolidated School District 54 would be a better target, as it has more info on the school. Niteowlneils 21:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Another inherently notable public institution.--Centauri 22:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. People have kids; they send them to school to be educated. Many aspects of this phenomenon are documented at length in the Wikipedia. School nostalgia and vanity to the contrary notwithstanding, the school that you went to is insignificant; the school I went to is insignificant; the school that practically everybody went to is insignifcant. --BM 22:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it gathers references and substance - David Gerard 23:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another inherently non-notable public institution stub. Jayjg (talk) 03:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. →Raul654 06:20, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

It would be legit if someone from the area added more schools to a list within Schaumburg, wouldn't it? Riffsyphon1024 07:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Schools are inherently non-notable. --Carnildo 07:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can I have an "auto-delete" vote for articles like this? :) — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 08:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Schaumburg, Illinois and delete - Skysmith 09:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 10:31, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\talk 18:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Like someone already said, junior high schools are not inherently notable, except for specific examples. sugarfish 18:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as poorly written newbie experiment and not because it's about a school. This is nearly useless as it stands, even for alumni or anyone researching the subject, remote a possibility as that might be IMO. For the record, I don't vote de facto either for or against school articles. I do, however, vote against pure nothingness like this. - Lucky 6.9 19:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Carrp 19:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why hasn't been speedided? --Neigel von Teighen 19:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established. Just because someone is too lazy to write more than one uninformative sentence does not mean we should indulge that person by keeping their contribution of dubious worth. Even if a good article is just waiting to be written on this very school, it will be written by an interested party whether this worthless sentence is here or not. Indrian 00:27, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Indrian, can I quote you and everyone else here who thinks well-written articles on schools should be kept and not VfD'd into redlinks? I have a few lined up as long-term projects, noably those related to #Manitoba_School_Divisions Weaponofmassinstruction 06:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect what little there is here to offer. —RaD Man (talk) 10:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is about 2 schools. I've improved the article now and established the notability of the schools. --Andylkl 11:22, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A 2002 teacher award and a third-place competition finish? This is notability? --Calton 11:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Ben Brockert (42) 00:00, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this. Yuckfoo 19:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep One shouldn't have a reason to keep, the page, but a reason for deletion must be present... Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)
  • Delete. {{school identical to tens of thousands of others|name=Keller Junior High|location=Schaumburg, Illinois|notableperson=Helen Keller|meaninglessaward=Golden Apple}}. —Korath (Talk) 04:14, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. TomTheHand 04:15, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Schoolcrufta delenda est! Edeans 04:24, 3 Feb 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. Joyous 20:25, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

6 ft 3 in

[edit]

This article is un-encyclopedic, and I see no point in keeping it. Dr Gangrene 20:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Perhaps the "point" will be clearer when I get the rest of the Height Series pages up. Until then, try to calm down.

Getalis 20:28, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/6'4". Andrewa 20:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, if it can be made into a sizable list. I'm sure someone would want to know what tall people there were. Riffsyphon1024 21:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Topic's totally irrelevant --Neigel von Teighen 21:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Given that I voted Delete for 6 ft 4 in (1.93 m), I'll let you guess what I vote on this --RoySmith 21:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per 6'4", but more so. sjorford:// 22:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/6'4". RickK 22:24, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, just like 6' 4" (and why isn't the naming system for this series even consistent?) -R. fiend 22:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pointless. --LeeHunter 23:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 23:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless. Mandel 23:21, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please don't put up any more of your "Height Series" articles. Write an article about human height instead, if something similar doesn't already exist. I am sure encyclopedic things can be said on that subject. But one article for each half-inch of height is stupid. What's next? How about various penis lengths? Seems to be a lot of interest in that, judging from the email I've been getting. --BM 00:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepJust interesting to have lying around. bakuzjw (aka 578) 00:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • A list of extremely tall and extremely short people would be interesting, but this is pointless. Delete the whole series. Tuf-Kat 01:09, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • (No vote) What if all of these things were in one article? Kappa
  • Delete, see my previous comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/6'4". Megan1967 03:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and take the whole series with it. -- Hoary 04:13, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
  • Delete and concur with Hoary. Ambi 07:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Completely harmless. If you aren't interested, just ignroe itPhilip 10:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. —Korath (Talk) 09:04, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - merge relevant into to articles about the people concerned - Skysmith 09:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Another pointless height article. ral315 21:42, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

See also

[edit]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. This has been done. Joyous 20:35, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Timeout

[edit]

This page contains nearly no content. And with a F word too. It should be simply deleted. Minghong 20:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Time-out. Niteowlneils 21:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I reverted Minghong's revision eliding the use of "fucking". Surely, if we can have Fuck as an article, we can deal with "fucking" in an article. Perhaps gerunds are offensive? Of course, the whole article is a fucking waste of electrons, so Delete or Redirect as per Niteowlneils. --RoySmith 22:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • we can have fuck article, but we don't need to fuck up every other article. Mikkalai 23:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect after. No need to keep this in the history. —Korath (Talk) 22:13, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Time-out. Megan1967 03:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Korath. We should Delete and redirect after. U$er 06:25, 1 Feb 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. Joyous 00:03, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Curtis Jensen

[edit]

Non notable individual. Originally listed as a speedy however questionable notability is not a criteria for speedy deletion. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 21:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Also, possible copyvio. [3] / Alarm 23:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 23:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity and copyright violation. Megan1967 03:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. U$er 06:25, 1 Feb 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. Joyous 00:02, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ddn

[edit]

Non notable organisation. Originally listed as a speedy however questionable notability is not a criteria for speedy deletion. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 21:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. A "secretive community" established in 2004 by "three anonymous visionaries" is just another way of saying "me and my two friends". / Alarm 23:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 23:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Josh Cherry 00:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's either a joke, or what Alarm describes. Ain't nothing on Google relating to this. HowardB 14:39, 1 Feb 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. Joyous 00:01, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Nhang

[edit]

Possibly a hoax or an in-joke - see this edit on wind-up. Googling nhang london brings back nothing significant; nhang "south london" brings back only WP mirrors. sjorford:// 21:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Well. Shit happens. Even it will be confirmed, still it would be a non-notable neologism, safely deletable. Mikkalai 23:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Josh Cherry 00:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, neologism, possible hoax. Megan1967 03:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nonnotable joke. --R. S. Shaw 20:43, 4 Feb 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. Joyous 00:00, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Y3K

[edit]

'CSD or VFD? That's the question' said Hamlet :). Being serious, I don't know if this is worthy to keep --Neigel von Teighen 22:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • official abbreviation? What organization is the official creator of abbreviations? The author obviously doesn't have a clue that the Y2K problem has been replaced by the Y10K problem, not the Y3K problem. What's there is speculation and nonsense. Delete. RickK 22:27, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • "There will be a big party"? Is this or is this not supposed to be an encyclopedia? Delete, or possibly redirect to 30th century. -R. fiend 22:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 22:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Complete silliness. Eric119 23:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Josh Cherry 00:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, original research. Megan1967 03:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. U$er 06:29, 1 Feb 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 wasdelete. Joyous 20:15, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

6' 2"

[edit]

This should be listed here for consistency with 6'4" and 6 ft 3 in. For me, it's just not notable enough a height - far too many people are 6' 2" for this list to be useful. A list of very tall people is one thing, but User:Getalis seems to want to create a whole series of these. sjorford:// 22:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. At the minimum, Getalis needs to establish a standard naming convention. The three listed so far are all different. RickK 22:36, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. If there is any encyclopedia value in these facts, they should be at List of famous people by height. Thryduulf 22:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) (5'5"ish)
  • Please take this vote as a vote for the entire series. Thryduulf 09:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And to save him and the rest of us time, I encourage the author to take a hiatus from creating these articles until the VfD matter is settled. -R. fiend 23:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pointless. --LeeHunter 23:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 23:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • As much as I hate to break up the circle jerk, why not let the series be completed in full before piling on with hysterical complaints? (I swear, the first whine was registered within five minutes of the original 6'4" being posted.) As for the naming convention, you are 100% correct. All future entries will be based on the "X ft X in (X.XX m)" standard, as suggested by andrewa. Getalis 23:47, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Common etiquette says one should never break up a circle jerk; you must wait for the participants to finish, or you may end up having to eat the cookie. -R. fiend 00:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. One problem with 6' 2" is that it isn't just a human height. You know, its a length; so a lot of things are 6' 2" long. Next thing you know we're going to need 6' 2", the disambiguation page. Leading to 6' 2" (Human Height), 6' 2" (Crocodile lengths), 6' 2" (Sea depths), etc. In other words, it is moronic. --BM 00:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote yet. Perhaps Getalis can explain what exactly the point of these articles is, as he clearly wants to build up a series. Dbiv 00:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The same as for the others: Merge to a single List of people over 2m tall article, or Delete. Uncle G 01:06, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
  • A list of extremely tall and extremely short people would be interesting, but this is pointless. Delete the whole series. Tuf-Kat 01:09, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I figure he's really just playing with our heads, but I'll play along for now. Delete. --RoySmith 01:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, see previous comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/6'4". Megan1967 03:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And the rest of the series too. -- Hoary 04:02, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
  • Delete all. —Korath (Talk) 09:07, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - merge relevant into to articles about the people concerned - Skysmith 09:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please let's just delete them all and move on. Life's too short. HowardB 14:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Another pointless height article. ral315 21:42, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

See also

[edit]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 00:00, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Moinque Rollin

[edit]

non-notable. Mikkalai 22:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Personal attack. Delete with extreme prejudice. RickK 22:51, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. I'd not object to it being speedied either. Thryduulf 23:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I change my mind, this is beyond NPOVing because of the POV nature and structure of the article, if the notability can be confirmed a new article can be started from scratch with NPOV. Wikiacc 00:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, POV un-encyclopaedic rant. Megan1967 03:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • From the linked news item: "The love triangle was painful to both women," [Ontario Court Justice] Robson said, adding the object of their attention "doesn't seem to be a very worthy candidate." Neither is this article... except for deletion. Note that the title presently misspells her first name. Samaritan 05:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Non-notable...spelling error in title...POV rant. I'm willing to speedy this. Bearcat 07:13, 30 Jan 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. Joyous 16:37, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Belsen Was A Gas

[edit]

Original research. Somebody's personal interpretation of the meaning of the song. RickK 22:34, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's a controversial song so I tried to address the controversy. If it wanders a bit into original research then parts can be rewritten. The original author didn't address the controversy at all, which made it flawed, so I tried to fix it, while explaining the views of those who see it as anti-semitic and those who don't. -R. fiend 23:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cleanup, if necessary. Mikkalai 23:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand, notable song by the Sex Pistols. Megan1967 03:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I say delete. Lester Bangs wrote about it in one of his essays, the most common version was recorded live, there was a second version recorded with Ronnie Biggs and some more words, it emerged at a time when the band were severely pissed-off, and the title is a pun. That's about all you can write about 'Belsen was a Gas' in an encyclopaedic context without rambling. As an interesting paragraph in the entry for The Great Rock and Roll Swindle a mention would be fine, but this isn't it. Although I was only a kid at the time, the analysis seems badly flawed, unaware of the contemporary context, both social and personal; people were a lot less touchy about swastikas and Nazis at the time, Johnny Rotten enjoyed shocking people, and the song's notoriety came more from the trivial pun in the title than any accusations of anti-semitism, which itself was much less of a sin in the late 1970s. The lyrics seem to be a spew of disgust and self-hate, and the article's assertations are couched in the kind of 'some people argue that' weakness which disgusts me. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • If it was less controversial at the time then that's probably worth mentioning in the article. However the song, having been recorded, still exists today, and remains controversial in present context (with the Sex Pistols still very popular today). I was a little uncomfortable with the "original researchishness" of it, but I attempted to address the song based on what I know of it and whatever information I could get off google as I waded through hundreds of pages, mostly of lyrics and tabs. If the song is seen mocking the holocaust, or as advocating killing Jews, I can't see it being not a big deal, even in the '70s. Anyway, I took out a couple lines and added a bit on the pun, which I thought too obvious to mention before, but it may not be. I wouldn't have written an article on the song myself, but the stub that was written really didn't say anything so I tried to improve it. As you seem to know a bit about it, can you confirm the article's assertion (by the original author), that the song's only studio recording is lost? It seems that the Ronnie Biggs version would have to be a studio recording, as I can't see a guy who was on the lam performing at a live concert. -R. fiend 00:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable song by notable band. Good work, R. fiend! - David Gerard 23:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think this is what was intended to be covered under "original research". Of course, documentation of the controversy would be very helpful. Nevertheless, the article overall was very informative, and the balance was factual. Agree with David Gerard. Meelar (talk) 06:58, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Clear keep in current form. More on the controversy would be helpful. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:15, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's lots to be said about this song; it's just as deserving of its own article as the many Beatles songs already on Wikipedia. I'm pleased to see that someone has created an article about "Belsen" and I'll probably end up contributing to it. Psychonaut 21:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. quercus robur 14:16, 5 Feb 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.

Keep great song and not anti semic

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 23:58, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ahmed Othman Al-Amoudi

[edit]

There's been plenty of time for this to acquire content, but it hasn't. Deb 22:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleted under CSD criterion #9. RickK 22:52, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Rick - I would have done it myself but I thought someone might still be planning to add detail. Deb 10:47, 30 Jan 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. Joyous 23:58, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Bella Heesom

[edit]

Vanity? Zero Google hits for "Little Miss Bakery" which are not Wikipedia or its mirrors pointing to this article. Nothing at imdb or ibdb. Only 176 Google hits total for "Bella Heesom", including all of the mirror links and this article. According to http://www.nrich.maths.org.uk/public/viewer.php?obj_id=679&part=solution&refpage=viewer.php and http://www.olemiss.edu/mathed/middle/sorry.htm, there is a Bella Heesom who was a secondary school student in 2003. RickK 22:45, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. nonverifiable. Mikkalai 23:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but, given the apple juice comment, almost worthy of a BJAODN entry... Grutness|hello? 23:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity or hoax. Megan1967 03:33, 30 Jan 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. dbenbenn | talk 00:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Xanadu (Soundtrack)

[edit]

This is a tracklisting for the soundtrack to a film and nothing more. Thryduulf 23:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Xanadu (film) 23skidoo 00:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • (expanded this article slightly) I was thinking merge too, but it's an original album with songs by two separate notable entities (Newton John and ELO). Also it had I think 5 singles released, one of which reached #1 in the UK. So keep, especially since there are zillions of single album pages around. Kappa 01:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, format and expand. (Yes GRider I voted keep for an album, surprised now?). Megan1967 03:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There are lots of soundtrack album articlesPhilip 10:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It just needs to be expanded. Want to see a good article about a soundtrack from a movie, behold: The_Goonies:_Original_Motion_Picture_Soundtrack! :) I was looking for this, and am very happy it is here. I am also sure other people have a burning desire to know about movie soundtracks, even if it is Xanadu's (not that there is anything wrong with Xanadu... need to be NPOV... :P).
  • Keep and expand, maybe put in a taxobox with the catalog number, label, etc. Nice expansion into a useful short article, BTW. - Lucky 6.9 19:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Xadai 03:04, 3 Feb 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. Joyous 23:57, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Gavin schmitt

[edit]

Looks like yet another vanity page. Should be deleted according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Vanity page. Wikiacc 23:20, 29 Jan 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. Joyous 23:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ashley Creighton

[edit]

Page appears to be a vanity page. Google search comes up with ~140 hits. None that are noteworthy as far as the Ashley Creighton that is mentioned in the article. Dismas 00:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. — Brim 01:30, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, possible vanity. Megan1967 03:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete —Mar·ka·ci 07:33, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP is not a social register, dahling. Edeans 04:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_January_29&oldid=1142647769"