Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 3

< February 2	February 4 >

February 3

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Block compress error: pending deletion. Joyous 01:53, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Czarwonica

Mispelled Polish word Czarownica, which is a direct translation of witch. Created by anon user as a definition of witch, then made into a redirect from the only page it was linked (Slavic mythology). Rubbish. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nothing here worth merging, stubby dictionary definition (that is mispelled). Megan1967 00:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Omar Filini 07:04, 8 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 redirect. This has been done. Tra la la, la la la la..... Joyous 02:06, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

The Arabian Knights

One of a number of animated segments from the 1968 Hanna-Barbera show The Banana Splits Adventure Hour. The segment is not notable enough for its own article, and contains no information that isn't present in the Banana Splits article (the Arabian Knight blurb appears in the Arabian Knight article). --b. Touch 00:15, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to ~~Arabian Knight~~ Banana Splits, nothing here worth merging. Megan1967 01:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Shouldn't it redirect to Banana Splits? --b. Touch 01:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Agreed vote changed, as above. Megan1967 05:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Agree with b. Touch, Redirect to Banana Splits seems to be the ticket. --Death phoenix 05:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Banana Splits. Talk about getting my memory jogged...! - Lucky 6.9 21:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Banana Splits. --Matteh (talk) 04:25, 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.

Daniel Poon

Non-notable. DJ Clayworth 00:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Siddha Guru Sri Alakh Puriji

Almost patent (religious?) nonsense; by reading the article I get no sense as to whether this "immortal" person is real or mythical; I suspect the author meant real. The google test yields less than 10 hits for this name. Amahabal 00:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is probably a delete just because it's pretty obscure but I don't see any reason to dismiss it as nonsense (at least no more so than any other religious idea). The belief that there are immortal rishis living for hundreds of years in the Himalayas is not uncommon in India. --Lee Hunter 01:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I have trouble understanding it, and it certainly needs NPOVing, but it seems like a valid religious topic. You wouldn't necessarily expect something like this to show up much on Google. Everyking 05:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: it is linked to Sri Deep Narayan Mahaprabhuji, the deletion of which was voted upon a few weeks ago (with a final decision to keep). The articles belong to a series of interlinked yoga-related articles mainly by User:Mansukram. In the votation on the other article, User:Utcursch wrote: "I am an Indian and I don't think this person needs a mention in Wikipedia. I would strongly recommend that other articles on swamis and yogis by User:Mansukram be deleted. Don't vote keep, simply because they are well-written or non-stub. Ask some Indians [...]; they know that these yogis are not really notable." On the other hand, in a country with a population almost the size of those of Europe and North America put together, even things notable to a small subset of the population may be regarded as notable enough for an encyclopedia with the scope of Wikipedia. However, all these articles need a clearer context and some kind of categorizing. / up land 07:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. For one thing, this article is a verbatim quote of a page on www.yotor.com [1], and the other articles in the series may well be also. yotor.com isn't cited in the article. That makes this a copy vio. Google turns up 1 hit on the full name of this guru, and only 19 on the phrase "Alakh Puriji", several of which are links to Wikipedia or its mirrors, and the rest to yotor.com and a couple of other bizarre sites, including another wiki. I don't think these gurus and swamis are notable, even in India, especially with the comment from User:Utcursch quoted above. Finally, the article (like the others in the series) is very poorly written, verging on being nonsense, and I doubt there is enough interest in these gurus that these articles will get cleaned up any time soon. So this just ends up being more crud in the Wikipedia. Delete this article and the others, and if these swamis and gurus are notable, someone else will come along and write a good, sourced, article eventually. But I doubt they are notable. --BM 17:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Actually it is not a copyvio – that page is a Wikipedia mirror. / up land 20:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete for copyvio and lack of sourcing. Katefan0 20:01, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable - fails Google test (less than 30 hits), possible copyright violation, Wikipedia is not a mirror. Megan1967 00:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- As I already pointed out above, there is no evidence of a copyvio in this case. And what does "Wikipedia is not a mirror" mean? There may possibly be good reasons to delete this (and presumably all the other articles in the series), but votes should not be based on false or unproven assumptions. / up land 07:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - You are right. yotor.com is a Wikipedia mirror. Sorry to have caused confusion. I should have noticed. Darn Wikipedia mirrors all over the place. No change of vote, though. --BM 01:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not-notable, possible copyvio. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Extreme Delete. Don't allow Wikipedia to turn into a platform for popularizing non-notable swamis and sadhus. There are thousands of them in India. Google returns Wikipedia mirrors. utcursch 05:27, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Extreme Delete agree with Utcursh. This would be roughly akin to giving every minister or nun an encyclopedia entry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:55, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

akin, but gurus have more to teach

It seems written well enough to me, so the issue is significance, notabilty. Unless anyone can come up with hard evidence that this spirit/man has impacted significantly on local customs/Hinduism/Indians/the world, I would vote to delete. HowardB 06:22, 8 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 01:51, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Bizzle

Um, well. It's a definition (although a bad one), but I don't think Wikitionary will want it. humblefool ® 01:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Yeesh. "Bizzle" is "double dutch jump roping talk--originated by Frankie Smith, popularized 15 years later by Snoop Dogg--for "boy", which in turn is slang for "friend". But yes, delete. --b. Touch 01:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I can't find evidence of this. References in Google seem to be to proper nouns and not this usage. JoaoRicardo 03:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 00:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delizzle. -Sean Curtin 07:15, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Shizzle, dizzle, bizzle...when will the madnizzle end? Deletizzle. Bearcat 07:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Fo shizzle. JimmyShelter 09:09, 8 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 01:51, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Animals in captivity

A signed POV essay. -- Curps 01:33, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Some parts of the essay appear to be copyvios; probably acceptable if attributed and quoted in a school essay but not here.-gadfium 01:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. Duplicates content on animal rights. JoaoRicardo 03:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV original research. Rje 03:18, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research/essay. --Death phoenix 05:27, 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 and redirect. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Trinity (gamespy)

Supposedly a name that users of this message forum use to refer to three of the forum administrators. Seems like extreme trivia to me. --Lee Hunter 01:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's extreme trivia, but it's still fact. And this is a reference website. I don't see the harm.
- The above comment was left by 67.170.128.204, the page's author. --InShaneee 16:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Facts are not necessarily suitable topics for articles. Please see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_general_knowledge_base --Lee Hunter 01:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect into ForumPlanet. The site seems notable enough, but let's improve its own article first instead of sowing stubs around. And as Lee Hunter adequately put it, simply being a fact is not enough to be in Wikipedia. JoaoRicardo 03:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect, as JoaoRicardo says. Rje 03:17, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Merge without redirect. This seems to be entirely non-notable outside of the community involved. (Before anyone asks, I don't think it needs an entry on List of famous trinities, trios, triplets, or threesomes, either.) --TenOfAllTrades 04:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect as suggested by JoaoRicardo. While non-notable outside the community, I think the parenthetical (gamespy) in the article title makes it specific enough for a redirect. --Death phoenix 05:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Don't merge or redirect, and remove reference in ForumPlanet, unless someone produces some evidence that this factoid is true. Why do we have an article on ForumPlanet by the way: that is just a section of Gamespy. Are we doing sub-websites now? --BM 17:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Factoids (I hope these will suffice)

Those links just show that the three login-names mentioned in the article have forums on ForumPlanet. The article under discussion claims they are referred to as "the Trinity". But, please don't go to any more trouble on my account to prove this. Even if it is true, my vote is still Delete, since the fact that three guys on ForumPlanet are referred to as "The Trinity" by the other people who hang out on ForumPlanet is not an encyclopedia topic, in my opinion. --BM 01:43, 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 Keep 6 / Delete 4. Keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Violet Scene

According to the article this disbanded group had one album and an EP. 171 hits on Google for Violet Scene, many of which are not for this group. Doesn't meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines --Lee Hunter 01:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Well, this band has certainly been found worthy of an article/biography on All Music Guide, whose editors' competence is, as far as I know, not in question. Rock fan

Delete. This band lasted from 1995 to 2000. They recorded only two independend albums, won no major award. Only 171 Google hits. Some of the ex-members then went to form Still Doing Sky, which is not in AMG and gets 50 Google hits. I often trust AMG, but I'll disagree with them in this one. JoaoRicardo 03:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Mikkalai 07:12, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless verifiable references are given - David Gerard 10:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable - fails Google test. Megan1967 01:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If All Music Guide which is a comprehensive guide to music think that this group is notable enough for an article, it indicates that we should consider doing the same. I have added to the article and wikified it. Capitalistroadster 06:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
'keep. Yuckfoo 01:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, clearly fails inclusion guidelines. —Korath (Talk) 07:40, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) Keep per Tuf-Kat. —Korath (Talk) 17:19, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Band promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Grue 10:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, now meets WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion (through the national tour of Norway). Tuf-Kat 16:42, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\^talk 18:44, 7 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 01:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Anders Valen Mørland

Not yet notable. Delete.-gadfium 01:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity. JoaoRicardo 02:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Rje 03:22, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable vanity. --Death phoenix 05:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Vanity. Inter 09:57, 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 01:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Universe of Evil

A synopsis for an episode of the Hanna-Barbera cartoon SuperFriends. Not encyclopaedic in nature, nor is this--or any individual episode of the show--notable enough for its own seperate article. --b. Touch 01:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not encyclopedic. I would vote a merging to Superfriends if this episode was in someway more remarkable than all the others, which I don't think it is by seeing the Superfriends sites on dmoz. And this isn't an article, it's just a synopsis. JoaoRicardo 02:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete & merge. Mikkalai.
Merge anything useable to Superfriends, and add redirect. Megan1967 01:04, 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 01:48, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Derwent Center of Universe

Cannot find in Google. Possible joke page. Delete.-gadfium 02:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I can't find evidence of this. JoaoRicardo 02:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable, possible original research. --Death phoenix 05:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable - fails Google test, possible hoax or vanity. Megan1967 01:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Even less notable than Derwent, Central Alberta (which is at least a real place). Denni ☯ 01:31, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mike Hancock (Canadian politician)

~~Insufficiently notable.~~ -- Curps 02:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, the fact that he was a mayor was mentioned only in passing in the middle of the original copyvio resumé/CV and I must have missed it, and Google on a common name like this didn't help. -- Curps 21:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep Mayor of a city of 90,000 people. That's notable for me. The article needs a lot of work though. --Lee Hunter 02:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Strong cleanup and keep.--Centauri 03:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's a copy violation[2]. I don't know if I made a faux pas by listing it for copyvio while it's on VfD, but I'm supposed to be bold. >_> I left the VfD message up as is, and replaced the content with the copyvio. The mayor does deserve an article, though. ?Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-3 03:46 Z
Keep iff someone writes a non-copyvio article. The topic is worthwhile. (Otherwise, delete, and let someone else have a go at the redlink.) --TenOfAllTrades 04:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There's a nice fresh non-copyvio piece I just wrote sitting at Mike Hancock (Canadian politician)/Temp. Keep it? Samaritan 05:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep! mayors deserve their own articles! Especially mayors if large cities like Brantford. Earl Andrew 05:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep the new non-copyvio page -- James Teterenko (talk) 06:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep non-copyvio version. And remove copyvio from article history. Mgm|^(talk) 10:11, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. James F. (talk) 12:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've deleted the copyvio notice and moved Samaritan's temp page to the main article title. Oh, and my vote is keep; IMO, mayors pass the notability test. Bearcat 21:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Spinboy 04:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually, putting "Mike Hancock mayor Brantford Ontario" into Google gives you several pages of legitimate hits. But I am not convinved this is the point. I have made the point elsewhere that just serving as an elected official in some two-bit town (sorry, Brantford, I'm sure you are all lovely people -- but just 90,000 of you) cannot possibly entitle someone to an encyclopedic entry, or we will end up with millions (yes, millions) of them. Look -- how many Indian towns are there with 90,000+ inhabitants and a mayor. What about Indonesia, Brazil, or the USA? If the time comes that Mr. Hancock achieves some fame or notoriety (e.g. he serves more terms than any other Canadian mayor, he bankrupts Brantford by siphoning off city funds into his car dealership, or whatever) then give him his entry. But not just for being a mayor (and for only two years so far). Delete HowardB 06:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually no, you wouldn't wind up with millions of articles. If the planet had one million cities with more than 90,000 people the population of the earth would be 90 billion.--Lee Hunter 12:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, quite possibly. Note I said "elected officials". People are putting in aldermen, councillors, etc. Living, and dead. So let's go back over the last 100 years or so -- many officials only serve one term -- say 4 years or so? I don't what to get pedantic about this, but the point is, there will just be too many. HowardB 13:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep iff the copyvio is fixed. --Neigel von Teighen 14:03, 8 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 8 / Delete 1 / Merge and redirect 2: Keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

C'tan

This is details of an old role playing game. Wikipedia is not a fan site. The same goes for all the articles in Category:Warhammer 40,000 species. --151.204.6.44 02:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Necron. I don't see too much problem with the playable races, but I don't think each piece of Warhammer 40000's, expansive, background merits its own article. --Rje 03:26, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect as suggested by Rje. Fan material of this nature is notable enough, but probably not enough to warrant its own article. --Death phoenix 05:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keeep. Eventually yes, each piece of any fictional universe will have its place on Wikipedia. Sure, creating few words stubs for fictonal minor things is rather pointless, but this article is longer then a stub. Basically, if an article about fictional thing is a stub, then merge it. If not, keep it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Unless cultural significance beyond this game can be shown, this is non-notable on its own. Martg76 00:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, article provides important information, why delete it? --Jonus 13:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as long as its identified as fictional, what's the problem?--Dzimmer6 22:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
please keep this. Yuckfoo 01:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Warhammer 40,000 is neither old nor a roleplaying game. -- Necrothesp 04:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, plenty of other parts of fiction settings (including characters/places/animals/races from Games, Books, Comics, Movies, Mythology) are included in Wikipedia as long as style is kept encylopedic and article is identified as belonging to a particular fictional setting. I think it's great you can look up all sorts of info about different fictional settings. --Waza 00:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep I don't understand what the person who reccomended this for deletion was talking about. C'tan plays an important part in certain aspects of the game, and it is not outdated.
Delete. Obviously this is going to be kept. However, this is far too low level a detail from a fictional universe -- one that is not even all that popular -- to merit a separate article in a general encyclopedia. It wouldn't even make it into an Encyclopedia of Popular Culture. --BM 14:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\^talk 17:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Although merger with the Necron page might be a good compromise The IP 04:13, 10 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shelly Kagan

Non-notable? Bart133 (t) 03:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment: About ten minutes after the VfD notice, the original author tried to blank this article, and about ten minutes after the revert, the original author tried to blank it again. I don't know if this means it's a candidate for speedy deletion, but FWIW, "Shelly Kagan" gets about 850 Google hits, most of which appear to be about a Professor at Yale University. --Death phoenix 05:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Lean towards keep. Probably pretty notable, though the current article doesn't say why. He used to be on the faculty of the University of Pittsburgh, which is in the running for being the top philosophy department in the US. He left there because he is married to a midwife, who couldn't practice in Pennsylvania at that time. Then he was at University of Illinois at Chicago before taking his current endowed chair at Yale. To be honest, I don't know his work, but I went to college with him (Wesleyan University) and he was one of the sharpest people I knew as an undergrad. Given that and that his career trajectory has been duly impressive, I'd be surprised if a little research would not demonstrate notability. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
- I actually couldn't find that much biographical information on the web, and could substantiate only the UIC connection and not even the Pittsburgh one. Anyway, forgot to vote, so keep. JuntungWu 09:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - I can attest to that from personal acquaintance -- I visited him there -- but I don't have written sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Clearly very notable. A five-minute look at JSTOR brought up several journal articles (not just reviews) written on aspects of his work, and even a "mini symposium" on Kagan's The Limits of Morality consisting of three papers published together in the journal Ethics in 1994. However, the present article reads just like an entry in a university directory, and I can't see the value of keeping it unless it is expanded. OTOH it was slapped with the VfD-notice two minutes after creation, which may have frustrated and confused some newbie planning to do just that. I don't like subsubstubs like this, but it should probably have been given a chance for a few days before being VfDed. I wish there were a way to suspend voting in a case like this, to make the author understand that keeping the article is entirely a matter of filling it with content and that the work is not going to be wasted if it is done. / up+land 07:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. No worse now than lots of other stubs, and there is no doubt that Kagan deserves an article. /up+land 16:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'll try cleanup. JuntungWu 07:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Holding an endowed chair at an Ivy on its own clears the average professor test, exceeding most university presidents, politicians, executives, athletes, actors... Definite keep and expand. Samaritan 07:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This philosophy professor at Yale is well-known. It is too bad we can't remove the VfD tag now, and let the person who was going to write the article get on with it. Biographies need to establish notability, but lets not swoop in with the VfD tag minutes after an article is started, unless there is good reason to think the author is up to no good. Assume good faith. --BM 15:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep this highly notable individual. —RaD Man (talk) 20:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable, article needs expansion. Megan1967 01:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Notable philosopher with a couple of significant books to his credit. Capitalistroadster 08:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
keep'. notable. Yuckfoo 01:04, 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 01:48, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Andrusia

Hoax. Thue | talk 03:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete nonsense. There is a Lake Andrusia, and a few people with that surname, but no Kingdom of Andrusia. --Death phoenix 05:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Speedy Delete as nonsense. Xezbeth 06:36, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax. jni 17:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable - fails Google test (clear majority of hits not related to the Kingdom of Andrusia, possible hoax. Megan1967 01:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, nonsense hoax. Bart133 (t) 02:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nn hoax. GRider\^talk 17:20, 8 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 01:47, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Myra lymba

Hoax, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Andrusia. Thue | talk 04:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Andrusia. --Death phoenix 05:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Speedy Delete as nonsense. Xezbeth 06:36, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax. jni 17:12, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, see previous VfD comments on Andrusia. Megan1967 01:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax. JoaoRicardo 05:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn hoax. GRider\^talk 22:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete this non-notable hoax. Bart133 (t) 02:21, 8 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 01:47, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

NCOR

Anarchist workshops and films meeting. Looks like vanity to me -- Chris 73 Talk 04:10, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Seems to be another non-notable event at a university (American University in Washington D.C.) --Death phoenix 05:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless somebody can prove notability. Last year, you could hardly tell they were here, and my freshman year, I missed them completely. Doesn't seem like a significant event. Meelar (talk) 06:03, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Xezbeth 06:36, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. jni 17:12, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete this vanity page. Bart133 (t) 02:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
don't delete, this is a really important event despite having smaller turnouts in the last couple of years. (User:66.195.209.200)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

London Calling (song)

Certainly a notable song by a notable band, but this article says nothing. Anyone doing a search will type "London Calling" and get the album, which gives them more information. An easy keep if anything consequential is said about it, but until then it's useless. I'm all for articles on songs when they're notable and say something useful and interesting (I wrote Rock the Casbah, and would love to see this article approach that one) but if Wikipedia is going to be home to 100,000 articles that say "X is a song by Y" then I'd like to nip this in the bud. Yes, I know, "VfD is not cleanup/expand". I could put a request for expansion on this and wait for something to happen, but an "expand or die" ultimatum might actually get the ball rolling, and if it doesn't we'll get rid of a useless article and hope thousands more don't pop up. I will gladly change my vote if this becomes a real article. -R. fiend 04:17, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- As promised I too am now voting keep. Good job to all who ~~expanded~~ wrote this brand new article. And this is no more abuse of VfD than creating a useless substub and forcing others to write your article for you is an abuse of the Requested Articles process. -R. fiend 17:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'll second ~~delete~~ unless it says something. Kappa 05:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- OK it does say something now, keep. Kappa 06:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, you don't pull up the sapling on the grounds that it's not grown yet. You've got to start with something sometime. I was going to try to articulate the song's meaning, but actually I'm not exactly sure about it. Everyking 05:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is a clear abuse of the vfd process, the poster even admits this. While I sypathise with the good intentions, vfd is too clogged already to become an extended cleanup forum. 213.206.33.82 05:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is why the stub and sub-stub tags were created. Isn't there a song-stub tag floating around? 23skidoo 05:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Putting tags on this thing (as it was, "X is a song by Y") is basically asking someone to create a new article from scratch. Let people expand things which have some useful information already. Kappa 06:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. VfD is not Cleanup or Requests for Expansion. Szyslak 06:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. VfD is not Cleanup or Requests for Expansion. Repeat of sentiment of fellow editors. JuntungWu 07:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A stub for something the potential nominator considers both notable and expandible should not be on VfD. Put on a {{song-stub}} or other appropriate tag, take it to Talk:The Clash, Wikipedia:Requests for expansion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board, etc. Keep. Samaritan 07:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I have added info on lyrics, recording, chart success and critical impact so that it is no longer a stub but a fully fledged article. #15 on Rolling Stone's 500 greatest songs of all time list.Capitalistroadster 09:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Bogus VFD. Lack of content is not a reason to delete. It is an opportunity to add content.--Centauri 11:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep because it has been expanded. If it had remained as a useless substub, I'd have been quite happy to say delete and list on requested articles, as I would rather there was a redlink than a link to an article that tells you nothing. Average Earthman 11:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, agreeing with what Kappa and Average Earthman said. Whether you're an inclusionist or deletionist, attacking someone for nominating an article that currently has no useful content whatsoever for deletion is uncalled for. —Korath (Talk) 15:55, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Ditto Average Earthman, Kappa, and Korath. --BM 16:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I ditto that ditto and I believe kudos and not censure are in order for "R. fiend" for being bold enough to bring the problem of factual but woefully inadequate nanostubs to light. While this might not be a cleanup page per se, countless excellent articles have resulted from substandard articles that were listed here. Oh, and someone shoot a Barnstar over to Capitalistroadster, OK? - Lucky 6.9 18:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I am inclined to agree that having an article on every song is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. Megan1967 01:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep--Xadai 02:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep all notable songs by notable bands. —RaD Man (talk) 22:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, even though the song sucks. Da 'Sco Mon 01:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, for notability and kick-assness, would have voted delete for the original version Tuf-Kat 16:45, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, quite notable, though it looks like another vote is hardly needed at this point. Antandrus 16:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep The nominator went to some length to explain his reasons, but it was still a misuse of votes for deletion. Philip 05:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and guess what... VfD is not cleanup. GRider\^talk 17:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- ...but it is a fuckload more effective. -R. fiend 23:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Block compression error; deletion pending. Joyous 01:45, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Bill Rodenbaugh

A coder at ForumPlanet. Significant only within the Gamespy community, where he has achieved 'cult status among a few select users'. Not otherwise notable, as far as I can tell. --TenOfAllTrades 04:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete non-notable, possible vanity article. --Death phoenix 05:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Xezbeth 06:37, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardo 18:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Bart133 (t) 02:22, 8 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 8 - Delete 4 = Merge 2 -> Keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Acorn Community

It's a commune of "less than 20" somewhere in backwoods Virginia. Delete. Postdlf 05:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Xezbeth 06:37, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. Settlements are inherently notable, even "somewhere in backwoods"; especially "somewhere in backwoods". It is an offspring of Twin Oaks, hence growing, not dwingling. Mikkalai 07:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. A Commune (intentional community) founded in the United States in the 1990s is rare and likely to be intriguing, and this one is. If they had even fewer people, but a municipal charter, they'd automatically be notable, and yet they're far more socially, economically and psychologically distinct than just another municipality. There's enough culture in this place that this former member comments on life in its gay minority! It is "daughter community" of Twin Oaks, a highly notable and historic commune close by whose article indeed references Acorn Community in its article. The dismissive "somewhere in backwoods Virginia" tweaks me uncomfortably, as it sounds like systemic bias. Samaritan 07:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable settlement [Personal attack removed].--Centauri 11:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I found a Website for the commune, and while it seems well-enough established, I'm not sure that it really rises to the level of encyclopedic notability in and of itself. However, in this day and age the idea that any communes at all would thrive is interesting to me. I would support creating an article about well-established communes that are functioning modern-day. Maybe even just expand Commune (intentional community). Katefan0 19:30, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
- If someone wants to take on the task of creating Thriving intentional communities or such as that, I'd think this would be a good one to include. But as the page stands I don't think it's inherently encyclopedic enough to warrant keeping it. Delete in current form. Katefan0 21:04, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 20:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment—I didn't find anything online about it that wasn't written by its participants. What is the evidence that this particular one is notable? And yes, a municipality of fewer people would be notable, because as a municipality it would have official government recognition, a listing in the census, and perhaps most importantly, the ability to pass laws. Municipalities, even small ones, therefore necessarily have an impact and notability beyond the people who live in them, and are verifiable beyond what the residents say about it. What impact has this had outside of the less than 20 who live there, and how would we verify anything about it without any external sources? I might change my mind if we could get some outside information. (p.s., I live in Virginia) Postdlf 20:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Neutral. Could it maybe be merged into Twin Oaks? As it stands, it's a bit ad-copy-ish. There may be an article worth having, but this isn't it yet. I can think of 20 intentional communities I've known, at least approximately this size and of many years duration (though not all survive). In general, I wouldn't consider them worthy of individual encyclopedia entries. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:09, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep but cleanup and expand. Let's hear more about the "rocky history" and the differences with Twin Oaks. I'm sure there's an interesting article here somewhere. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. I can't imagine how anybody can think this is remotely encyclopedic. Rick K 00:38, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I wont dispute that some communes are notable, however Acorn Community just isnt that noteworthy from others that would warrant an individual article. Apart from the description of the commune, the article itself does not establish notability. Megan1967 01:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Gamaliel 01:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. We have articles on established cities with less than 10 people; communes are rare these days; and this one gets around 700 Google hits (for "Acorn Community" Virginia), so it appears to be for real. As GeorgeStepanek indicated, let's see what sort of potential can come from this article. --Idont Havaname 02:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. I don't see how an intentional community can be inherently notable. JoaoRicardo 05:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, keep it for now to see if it expands.
- Above vote was by User:ShaunMacPherson. --Idont Havaname 18:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This document is notable and encyclopedic. GRider\^talk 18:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Twin Oaks and redirect HowardB 06:52, 8 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 (13 delete, 4 keep, 1 redirect). A copy of the text and a request have been left on Talk:Paris Hilton to merge anything salvagable into Paris Hilton. Mgm|^(talk) 13:17, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thats hot

Not encyclopedic, and I very much doubt that the phrase originated with Paris Hilton. Delete.-gadfium 05:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, she did try to copyright the phrase, just like Donald Trump tried to copyright "You're fired", but the term is hardly notable, and I have a suspicion that it's past its shelf life, anyway. Delete. Rick K 06:44, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Strong BJAODN. Samaritan 07:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Mikkalai 07:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC).
Delete Just because some celebrity tries to copyright a phrase that's existed for well over 100 years doesn't mean we need to be a forum for his or her inane ideas (unless it hits the public radar).Zantastik 08:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect with a short note on Paris Hilton's page. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)
Delete Non-notable. Repressed apostrophes everywhere, unite! --Plek 11:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If she really did try to copyright it, then a short note may well be appropriate on Paris Hilton. I don't think a redirect is, though. (Besides, missing apostrophes make my eyes bleed.) —Korath (Talk) 21:33, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect. I don't even this this is worth mentioning in Paris Hilton but if someone else does, preserve attribution by copy-paste please. Rossami (talk) 00:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardo 05:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'm sorry to say this but you are all mistaken. Paris Hilton didn't invent this phrase, but she did trademark it. I think she deserves recognition as this popular phrase's owner. LeeJacksonKing 15:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Anybody who makes a product or who provides a service, or who is planning to do so, can register a trademark for about $50 per category. If the product fits in multiple categories, or you want to use the same trademark on several different products in different categories, you can pay for multiple categories. If Paris Hilton has registered the phrase "That's Hot" as a trademark for some line of products that she is planning to market, so what? It doesn't mean she owns the phrase, and she'll lose her rights to the trademark if she doesn't market products in the registered categories by some defined date. If she owns the rights to market "That's Hot" brand lipstick (for example), that does not prevent you from registering and using the phrase for your "That's Hot" line of corn flakes (unless she registered that also, and actually markets corn flakes under that brand). It certainly does not mean that you have to pay Paris anything when you use the phrase "That's Hot" in writing or conversation. None of this makes the phrase, or her association with it, notable enough for a general encyclopedia. --BM 02:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- BM, you are WRONG. It says Paris Hilton is going to use the trademark on clothes and accessories [3]. More important, however, is the use of "that's hot" in everyday conversation. LeeJacksonKing 15:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Are you an expert on trademark law? I'm not either, but I think I probably know more about it than you do. Paris Hilton cannot possibly have trademarked the use of the phrase in everyday conversation, and if she has applied for its use as a trademark on clothing and accessories, and paid the fee, that means (a) in order to keep the mark, she has to market clothing and accessories with that trademark before some time limit expires; (b) as long as she has the trademark, nobody else can use the trademark for clothing and accessories; and (c) people can register the trademark for use on other types of products, for example, "That's Hot" brand microwave ovens. Regarding (c), in rare cases, a trademark owner can prevent people from using the mark, period. For example, the Coca Cola company can stop you from marketing Coca Cola brand toilet paper, even though they haven't registered the trademark in that category and don't market toilet paper themselves. But that is pretty rare, takes decades of intensive marketing to establish, and doesn't happen automatically no matter how much marketing is done, especially on "weak" marks, such as "Thats Hot". Paris Hilton and her "That's Hot" trademark are far from being in that league. --BM 16:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fancruft, phrase not worth an article by itself. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. How ironic, this slogan was the subject of several Saturday Night Live skits last weekend. GRider\^talk 18:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Spinboy 23:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Omar Filini 07:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Even if you think it's corny or not, the phrase has indeed become a part of pop culture! -- Judson 22:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Thats not cool --Audiovideo 23:38, 8 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. Mgm|^(talk) 13:24, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hagen Kleinert

Vanity?--ZayZayEM 06:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) If Dr. Kleinert was of real encyclopediac value (more than just being a real person) he would have more than "Clean ups" and "dead ends" [4]. This page is quite obvious self made and hence both Vanity and Self Promotion. It therefore needs to be deleted. A lot of people seem to be quick to jump on articles link Chonk for exactly the same reason, this guy gets off because he's an academic, smeg off.--ZayZayEM 00:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No. A very quick check seems to confirm that this is indeed an important university professor, the author of 8 books (most seem to be available on Amazon) and 350+ scientific articles. Heads a research team of 25 persons and has had a "festschrift" written to his honour by other scholars. Gets almost 5,000 google hits. Granted, his web design skills might be somewhat limited, but that alone shouldn't stop someone from getting into Wikipedia, should it? Obvious notability, strong keep. / Alarm 17:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As I pointed out on the talk page a while ago, it is almost certainly autobiographical; it is created by User:Kleinert, and later edited by an IP traceable to the Freie Universität in Berlin (if I remember correctly from when I looked into this). However, he is clearly notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and in spite of the obviously autobiographical origin, I vote to keep this. It would be good, though, if some physicist could take a look at the article and write a fuller description of Kleinert's research. / up land 20:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with up land's conclusion that this is autobiographical. Wikipedia:No autobiographies is a principle worth defending even if we temporarily lose an article. (However, I would have no objection if this is moved to his user page nor will I object if someone else later writes an article about him.) Rossami (talk) 00:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, needs definite cleanup and expansion. The professor passes notability test. Megan1967 01:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- How?? 5,000 google hits, 8 books and only 350 scientific articles is actually not that much. A lot of mediocre academics have acheived this and more. Someone is going to have to come up with a very clear reason why this guy is notable. This page at least needs to eb deleted on standard grounds that vanity pages and autobiographies are not wikipedia content. I have no problem if a future page gets written up, I'll deal with notability then. This page needs to be deleted because the snail's pace of Wikipedia, plus the general non-notability of this character means it is not likely to be cleaned up any time soon.--ZayZayEM 02:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - How is 5000+ Google hits and 8 books not notable? There have been people with fewer hits and publications that have biographies in Wikipedia. I'm not suggesting the article remain unchanged. As I said, it needs cleanup to make it NPOV. Megan1967 06:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - The onus is not on me to prove non-notability, it is for keepers to prove notability. Thats how things usually work. This article has not be nominated due to non-notability. It has been nominated as vanity, self promotion and autobiography - I have shown this to be correct. If you'd like to disagree with those then your vote might make sense. If those go through with a keep I really expect those who vote that way make an effort towards cleaning the article up.--ZayZayEM 06:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - Actually that statement position is incorrect. It's up to the person putting up the article for deletion to provide evidence why (non-notability, vanity etc.), not the keepers. Remember this is Votes for Deletion - so technically anyone who abstains/no votes, is voting for its retention by default - its up to people who wish to delete the article to prove otherwise (non-notability, vanity etc.) by majority, not the keepers. Another thing is you've made a comparison between this academic and the artist Chonk. Chonk in no way has scored +5000 Google hits or written 8 books. So professor Kleinert is not in the same category as Chonk. Megan1967 01:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        CapitalistRoadster has done an excellent job in tidying up this article. My vote remains unchanged ie. keep. Megan1967 00:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        Just for the record, it's 3 books, by any realistic account. Multiple editions/volumes should not inflate the count.--192.35.35.34 20:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No auto-biographies. Writing hundreds of article is not necessarily a notability proof. We should look for quality, not for quantity. Where were these articles published? What impact did they have on the physics community? A professor writes articles all the time, most of them is soon forgotten. JoaoRicardo 05:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. "No autobiographies" is a good principle, but it's not a hard rule, and in this case, it seems the individual in question may be reasonably noteworthy. True, professors write articles. He's published roughly one per month since 1967, at least some of which are in scientific journals I recognize (and I'm not a physicist). Eight books seems like a pretty big contribution to his field. The article needs cleanup and expansion, but that isn't valid grounds for deletion. Shimeru 06:05, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Writing books is what academics do. As mentioned previously, notability is in quality not quantity. A quick Amazon search yields only two of these books in various editions. If these guy really is notable in the world of physics A) Soemone else would have written an article (or at least expanded on this one) B) At least one physics article might link to him Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies is for Biographies not Autobiographies. This guy seems a pretty average professor - not wikipedia content. We wouldn't let a musician in just because they had 8 CDs of realtively unknown status.--ZayZayEM 07:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - We wouldn't? Name three musicians who had 8 CDs released by an independent label (let alone a major corporate one) who we wouldn't include, and I'll change my vote to delete. Kleinert's books are not vanity-published. Shimeru 20:29, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. More than sufficiently notable individual.--Centauri 06:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I am not all that convinced that userfying and rewriting may not be the best solution (as a way to eat the cake and still have it), but unless the rewrite is made by somebody expert in the field, it is not going to look much different from the present stub. Compared to the contributions in the same genre we get from some teenagers, this vanity article in its present brevity is downright modest. But as for notability, the professor test speaks of an "average college professor" ("If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included"), obviously referring to the American conditions for reaching professorhood. I would claim that any German professor can be assumed to pass this test with flying colours, even before making any independent assessment of the value of his or her publications, simply because the bar for getting a professorship is so much higher in Germany than in the US. Had Kleinert been a baseball or football/soccer player, there is no doubt that he would have been considered notable for much less. / up land 06:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Expand. Writing eight books on physics as a professor of that subject in a major university suggests that this man is notable. I would also suggest that the average professor rule be recast as the average academic rule. to account for cultural differences as noted by Uppland. Capitalistroadster 08:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Have expanded it somewhat to include details of written works. His most notable work Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Statistics and Polymer Physics has had four editions with the latest two editions including financial markets. Has cowritten a paper with notable physicist Richard Feynman. Capitalistroadster 05:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - I have toned the book list down to something more reasonable: 3 books, not artifically inflated by listing multiple editions or multiple volumes.--192.35.35.34 20:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep He was my professor at university; believe me, he's notable enough (reasons above) Lectonar 10:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete I don't know the field at all (Physics) and so the chap may well be notable. But I do know that writing articles - and having them published - is standard form for all Professors over here (EU). In itself, therefore, that would not seem to make anyone particularly notable. Going beyond that stage and having chapters in books and then books published under your own name would be going some way toward notability - but even then the books need to sell and, really, to be the stuff of some import. So, all in all, a weak delete. But if he is prominent in his field then I would change my mind to a definite keep. --Marcus22 12:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I am a physicist at Harvard, and the amount of his publications etc. justifies a Wikipage. I believe that if the page is deleted, someone else will start it again, anyway. --Lumidek 19:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I have read a few Google hits, and this guy is notable in the usual sense, even if the current page is not that interesting. Charles Matthews 20:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. If this article is written by the professor himself, and not a relative or someone with the same name, then it is vanity, by definition. Wikipedia prohibits autobiographies/vanity. Maybe it shouldn't. What is actually wrong with vanity? If an article is about a notable subject and the information contained therein is verifiable, what does it matter if the person wrote it himself? If by some amazing chance, President Clinton had decided to write a Wikipedia article about himself (perhaps in conjunction with his book tour, or something), would we have deleted it as "vanity", assuming that it was NPOV, true, and verifiable? In fact, "vanity" is rarely provable; it is only a suspicion. We delete, as vanity, bragging articles by high school kids. But these are just as deletable for not being notable, not being verifiable, and being most probably false. Perhaps we should stop using unverifiable suspicions of "vanity" as reasons for deleting articles and stick with notability and verifiability. --BM 01:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Reply. It prevents the "Well President Clinton did it" response to any other would be autobiographers trying to add themselves to Wikipedia. If someone is notable enough for inclusion, they really shouldn't have to add themselves. Hence why vanity is a label, not a definition, in this context.--ZayZayEM 09:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Re-reading the comments, I'm going to vote Keep. Perhaps it is vanity, but Lumidek is taking responsibility for this article, which is good enough for me. --BM 01:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Hear hear BM. I have often used the term vanity used for people who are notable in their fields but who the person using the term hadn't heard of. Sticking to comments of not notable and not verifiable for votes would be much better. While the article as it was gave indications that he had written it, it would be good news if a Professor of Physics at a notable university was writing articles for Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 05:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The article has now been largely rewritten by Capitalistroadster. In order not to set a precedent (and to get that matter out of the air) we could still userfy this article, and then have Capitalistroadster cut-and-paste his own version to the article space. Anyone for this solution? / up land 10:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. (geesh Florentin Smarandache has a page!) The only issue is whether it's autobiographical or self-promoting. To that effect, a small warning Kleinert, please stay away.CSTAR 04:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Professor Kleinert's work is certainly notable within physics. Richard Feynman, for example, was absolutely brilliant in developing the path integral approach to quantum mechanics. But he was unable to actually solve it for simple systems, like the hydrogen atom. Kleinert solved the latter. Much of his work is like this. A theoretical genius comes up with amazing mathematical frameworks that promise so much to come, but gets bogged down, and Kleinert finds a way to push the method through. Very important work, but no revolutionary discoveries, no grabbing of attention. Kleinert was collaborating with Feynman during Feynman's last illness. If you look in Physics Today, Feb. 1989, at the page of photographs of Feynman's last blackboards, you'll see Kleinert's name.--192.35.35.35 14:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- Thank you for that info. I have added it to the article. Capitalistroadster 14:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes, and it came out all wrong sounding.--192.35.35.34 20:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Don't blame others for trying. /up land 20:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - You are correct, I was out of line. I personally did not want to get involved, just supply the informative comment above, but having my words permuted into amateurish bad science left me feeling grumpy about having to get involved. That and fixing Cap's overstated booklist.--192.35.35.36 23:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No hard feelings. I would welcome it if you obtained a username and started contributing more regularly.Capitalistroadster 08:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - I have removed the attention template--the article has reached a decent minimum. I am contributing regularly, and except for Wanda Tinasky, having fun. I don't want to get sucked into things too deeply, though, so I avoid having a name.--192.35.35.35 16:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
An interesting one. I would generally say that if the subject of an entry is the only one interested enough to write the article, then the subject isn't noteworthy enough to be included. Anyway, doesn't he have friends/students/admirers that he could have asked to write it? But, by now it weems to have been "de-vanitised" sufficiently, and it seems Herr Kleinert is probably notable enough, so why not keep it HowardB 07:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, appears to be a professor of note. Unless, of course, we are running out of disk space. In that case, delete. —RaD Man (talk) 09:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and follow up on up land and Capitalistroadster's leads about globalizing the "average professor test." Samaritan 00:48, 10 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. dbenbenn | talk 15:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lucian Yahoo Dragoman

This news story turned out to be a hoax (not saying the poster of the article is hoaxing us), and the article even has a link to an article which discusses the hoax. Rick K 06:23, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

What's your vote, Rick? Mikkalai 09:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Delete and Merge with Yahoo!, Does Wikipedia have an Urban legends depository, or do we leave that to Snopes?--ZayZayEM 06:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Mikkalai 07:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC).
Keep. I think hoaxing a national newspaper is notable, and this seems the best title; alternatively, start an article on Libertatea and merge this. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:18, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There's Category:Hoaxes for this kind of article to fall into. Bryan 00:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps a merge into Yahoo!?--ZayZayEM 00:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable hoax, needs expansion. The name Yahoo is not exclusive to that product btw. We have an actor here in Australia who calls himself Yahoo Serious, long before the internet product existed. Megan1967 01:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Hoax does specifically deal with Yahoo! though. I don't think the hoax will be that notable in say 20 years.--ZayZayEM 02:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Yes, we have a category for notable hoaxes, like the Piltdown Man or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This one is not notable. It gets almost 300 Google hits, very few for something web-related. People will soon forget this and we'll have a ghost article. JoaoRicardo 05:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete I'm with JoaoRicardo. --Marcus22 12:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Weak weak keep. Barely notable as a hoax. JuntungWu 17:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nonnotable hoax. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep this and all other notable hoaxes. GRider\^talk 18:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Spinboy 00:00, 8 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 01:43, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

HGANB or Huki Gets A New Ball

The effort... The vanity... Simply wtf?--ZayZayEM 06:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Some incomprehensible web-cruft. jni 17:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable ad (use of the royal "We", etc). --Death phoenix 01:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Echo the "WTF" noted above. delete. humblefool ® 03:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Whatever it is. JoaoRicardo 04:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice and kindly add another WTF to the discussion. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 18:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
EXTREME DELETE. —RaD Man (talk) 22:31, 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 NO CONSENSUS.

The article was changed significantly on February 7. Only one delete vote was given after that point. dbenbenn | talk 16:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Astropolis

neologism (? at least I don't remember such in Star Wars, mentioned in the article), original research. Mikkalai 07:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep; vote changed after major rework. Mikkalai 17:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see any evidence of this term being any sort of common usage, even among scifi fans. Google mostly returned hits related to some sort of French techno festival of the same name. Katefan0 20:09, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Space station, nothing here worth merging. Megan1967 01:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable neologism, unless the French techno festival is notable enough to replace this article. --Death phoenix 01:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism, original research. JoaoRicardo 04:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A classic case for cleanup. Astropolis is hardly a neologism, it appears in the title of Eugene Jolas' Secession in Astropolis in 1929 for example. Probably this page should become a disambiguation, the term is so heavily used for so many things, by so many authors - including the French techno music festival of course. Andrewa 17:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- not neologism? A vocabulary entry, please. I doesn't matter that google gives 10,000 hits for the word. The only "cleanup" for the article is to ""delete". If one wants to write about French festival or something real, he is welcome. Even if you turn this article into a disambig, something should be done with the current content, other than to sweep the problem with it under the carpet. Just think that you are voting for the article Astropolis (city), not for Astropolis (disambiguation). Mikkalai 20:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment: I don't want a fight, IMO whether we keep this is not very important, but I think I must reply as the above is full of important misapprehensions. No, we are voting here for the article Astropolis. This, rather than Astropolis (disambiguation), is the best title for a disambiguation page if there's no clear winner for the unqualified title, as seems to be the case, but again that's not terribly important and either will do IMO. No, it's not a neologism, and yes, more than 10,000 Google hits do require some explanation, what is yours? No, we don't delete articles to clean up the history, even in the case of copyvios (unless asked by the copyright holder), and no, editing an article to improve it isn't sweeping a problem under the carpet, and that's a basic principle underlying many of our policies. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - So, according to your logic, if someone writes in, say, Nick article, that "Nick is the guy with the longest penis in Cupertino, CA" we shall keep the article? Even if the only possible cleanup is blanking? Only because the word exists? Mikkalai 21:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - Comment: No, I would not suport that argument, nor do I think it is a valid parallel to the current discussion. But I would argue that, if someone were to suggest that Nick was a neologism, then their logic was faulty. Wouldn't you? Andrewa 05:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Also, Andrewa gives 25,600 googlehits. let's have an article, then. BTW, is this you? Mikkalai 21:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - Comment: No, and no. There is another explanation for these Google hits, and that is that Andrewa is a standard tie-breaker when several people called Andrew all want a userid based on their Christian names, on the same system. (That's not rocket science surely.) All I was asking for was a similar explanation, I still think one is required to cover a gaping hole in the logic above, and it's not obvious to me what it might be. Andrewa 05:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Just to clarify my above vote, I think the current contents, although they need a lot of work, do contain some useful material. That is why it would be useful to keep this article as the basis of something better. Andrewa 20:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - 90% of the article was speculation. Deleted. Of the remaining 3 sentences, if you really want it, you must describe where and this exqactly term was used in the scifi Star Wars and babylon 5. I don't recall it used there. I admit, I didn't learn them by heart, but google search gives zero relevant pages, which is suspicious, in view of huge fandom. Mikkalai 21:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Comment: OK, I've now had a go at making it a disambiguation. No change of vote. Andrewa 10:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - Comment. I like the idea of a disambig page, but I'm still worried it is not a notable enough concept to warrant it. Besides the already cited work, which other science fiction works use the term astropolis? JoaoRicardo 02:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the current state the article is acceptable, and IMO the current VfD no longer applicable. Therefore I suggest to remove the vfd tag. Mikkalai 02:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete Omar Filini 07:15, 8 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 01:42, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ant Rite

The mysterious title has nothing to do with the contents of the article. Is it worth keeping and renaming, and if so, to what? -- Curps 07:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete - The name dosen't relate to anything and the text is incohesive. Some of the NPOV information could be useful in other articles. Cacophony 08:33, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The title comes from the fact that the author's name is Anthony Wright. Rick K 09:24, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is POV un-encyclopaedic, original research. Megan1967 01:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research/essay. --Death phoenix 01:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. JoaoRicardo 04:56, 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. dbenbenn | talk 16:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lordship Lane

Roads are not inherently notable, and the article offers no evidence of this road's notability. Possible vanity. Uncle G 16:48, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Roads that appear in literature and are significant enough to have their own websites are important enough to keep.--Centauri 01:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Even a toddler can have a website these days. As it stands, there is no claim to notability. Simply having a crime novel set there is not enough. What was the importance of the street in the novel? JoaoRicardo 04:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep I've categorised it. There is no reason to suppose it is vanity. Since Uncle G is so fond of nominating articles for deletion, I would be grateful if he could sort out a working user page so we can find out something about him and try to fathom his motives. Philip 02:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep This article provides useful information and is categorisable as important, particulary due to the concrete house. Brendanconway 02:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
keep, a major enough road --SPUI (talk) 13:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. For the most part, roads aren't notable, which is a good thing because otherwise we'd have thousands of articles about roads, written by people who live on them. There are a few exceptions, but the road through a southern suburb of London, which is of marginal notability itself, doesn't seem like it is one, and the fact that some obscure 1946 crime novel had "Lordship Lane" in its title doesn't make it more so. --BM 01:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nonnotable road. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Not a vanity article; did I mention that Pissarro painted a picture of this locality in the 19th century? -- The Anome 12:59, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. High standard article and with a number of notable features including the Pissaro painting, heritage buildings and a famous person in Enid Blyton having lived in the street, it has enough claims to make it notable. Capitalistroadster 19:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. How many trivia items have to be associated with a road before it becomes notable? Enid Blyton lived here. (not Enid Blyton! Oh my Gawd, we have to put this place on the itinerary, Myrtle!) Pissaro painted it. (Oooh...) Oh, and somebody in 1946 wrote a crime novel with Lordship Lane in its title. (We have to read it on the plane.) And "Heritage buildings"! (That settles it. Cancel the Paris leg of the trip, Henry, so we can spend more time on Lordship Lane.) Seems like the threshold is pretty low for roads. --BM 21:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The bar for notability should be lower when something it part of a system, like roads or train stations. Or Rambot towns. --SPUI (talk) 23:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A bit iffy, but on balance I'd say keep. There are probably fifty or more London streets alone that have significant cultural or historical interest to warrant entries, and eventually I guess they will get them. I reckon Lordship Lane just about squeaks in. HowardB 07:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. For me, the number of trivia items required is about 2. Kappa 11:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The fact that google comes up with 20,900 results for a string search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Lordship+Lane%22&btnG=Google+Search) must mean something. I wish my street aroused such interest. --Waddypak 01:23, 12 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. dbenbenn | talk 16:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Beta m/Deletionaholics

Violates Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Rick K 10:05, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

LOL, Actually i found it funny that this page was put for deletion so fast. First i'd like to point out that votes for deletion of user pages is suppose to be done "in excessive or stubborn cases" as is stated on Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the comment on my user page was left after the VfD. I will try to work on the page, and probably remove the "list" of other users. It is sad that i wasn't given a chance to do so. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)
I have changed the page. RickK, if you could please answer what i've written to you on your talk page (and on mine as a responce to your post), it would be greatly appreciated. As the page is now i don't see how there can be any objections to it, i won't remove {{vfd}} so if either you or somebody else would do that it would be appreciated. Thanx Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)

Keep for the moment. This listing appears to be in violation of the current deletion policy in that the user was not contacted first. I agree that a previous version contained a personal attack. Andrewa 12:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Can you point to where you see something in that page that says that the user needs to be contacted? RickK 19:24, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  - At Wikipedia:deletion policy#What to do with a problem page/image/category there are two tables, the first is headed Problems that don't require deletion and includes the line Problem with page: Inappropriate user page. Solution: Talk to the user; if that doesn't work, come back here. You seem to have jumped straight to the second table, Problems that may require deletion, but the instructions clearly say Read the following two tables to find out what to do with a problem page (my emphasis). I think the intention is clear. What do you think? Andrewa 00:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - I think that policy is pretty obscurely-located. I never knew it existed, and when I read it when you first posted, I went right past it. Rick K 00:14, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - and not that it really matters but I only give no reason for deletion when it has already been stated by multiple users, or when the article really doesn't need a reason. Maybe I should just stick in a pun every time to keep you happy. Xezbeth 16:25, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Um voting without giving reasons is very stress-inducing because the vote and the voter are then unknown quantities. If someone wants to answer reason for deletion, maybe by providing evidence or improving the article, they don't know how or if there would be any point trying. Maybe the article doesn't need a reason, but they can't tell if the vote is about the article, or the topic. If a reason been given, it's not to hard to say "delete per (username) is it"? Kappa 19:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep in present form. I don't see why this should have been listed on VfD in any case. Agree that it did violate the "no personal attacks" policy. But this could have been handled in other ways. For example the page itself could have been edited, with an edit comment and notes on its Talk page. Suggest in any case that the page be moved to "Deletionoholic" to conform better with the spelling of alcohol. Is Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail) aware of m:ADW by the way? It's delightful, it's delovely, it's deletion

m:AID says "(There is currently no text in this page)", what is going on? Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)

Typo for m:ADW, sorry. See also m:AIW, m:Association of Mergist Wikipedians, m:Association of Apathetic Wikipedians, m:Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist, etc. VfD: Where the Elite Meet to Delete

Keep. Whats wrong with listing who the deletionists are? Can't this be managed without resulting to personal attacks? —RaD Man (talk) 20:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'd say it can't, as I don't consider myself a deletionist. I vote keep on "fancruft" all the time, for example. Xezbeth 20:14, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  - Nothing's wrong with it, except it's already been done (voluntarily I might add) at [[5]]. Making your own "hit list" of people you think should be labeled thus is not only redundant, it's mean-spirited and generally unneighborly. Katefan0 20:29, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  - There's nothing wrong with listing people who identify themselves as deletionists. There's quite a bit wrong with applying such a label to someone else. For example, how would you react if I were to include "RaD Man" on a list of "shameless extroverts" or "notorious Thespians" or "People that were forced to leave college because of matriculation?" Dpbsmith (talk) 20:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Hey now, why all the harsh analogies? How about a list of "lovely people who enjoy ice cream?" ;) Katefan0 20:36, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC) (I am Katefan0, and I'm a Deletionist.)
      - Comment: The original of this page was over the top and consituted a personal attack IMO, and would have been a possible RfC candidate if it hadn't been withdrawn. But it was withdrawn. All that was needed in this case was to point this relative newcomer to the relevant policies, which is exactly the procedure our current policy describes, see above. No change of vote. Andrewa 00:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My above comments aside..... I'm a little queasy about the idea of voting to delete someone's personal user page, short of ad hominem attacks or discriminatory or vulgar text. I happen to find the practice of making these sorts of "hit lists" personally distasteful but I'm not sure I'd vote to delete one of them on someone's user page. So I have to say, while holding my nose, keep. Katefan0 20:40, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I believe Beta M should have been contacted first. Listing a user page in VfD without doing this may sound like an aggression itself. But I do think that list should be deleted. It's unpolite to categorize people this way, associating them with a Wikipedia "philosophy"; let they categorize themselves if they want. I ask Beta M to remove it. JoaoRicardo 04:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Come one people, this is just ridiculous, read the page before commenting on it, i've already removed the list, and i've commented about the removal here (read it above). Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)

???? This is not intended as an attack or a rhetorical question, but I don't see that you've "removed the list." What I see at User:Beta m/Deletionaholics, now a redirect to "deletionoholics," is a list that names Xezbeth, Uncle G, and RickK and gives reasons for listing them. I believe it is "legal" but inappropriate to have this in your user space and I think it would be wise for you to remove it. Note that I voted "keep" above (under the nom-de-plume It's delightful, it's delovely, it's deletion) Dpbsmith (talk) 13:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Check the page history, or see below. It was restored by another user, not Beta m. Andrewa 21:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How unpleasant. Thank you for checking the page history, Andrewa, which I should have done myself. My apologies to Beta M for any confusion I may have created by my comment. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, teamwork. We only need it because we're all human. Andrewa 23:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I too see the list has returned, after being deleted. I think those on the list should feel free to remove their names, if they wish, and if added again then they can proceed with some sort of arbitration. I was actually thinking of adding my name. I've never actually been called a "deletionoholic" (just an old fashioned alcoholic, though that isn't true either), but if "frequently votes delete" (for shame, RickK, for shame!) is all it takes then I guess I fit the bill. I don't consider myself "deletionist", mostly because I think it's a stupid word. In fact, this whole thing is stupid, and I'm not going to cast any official vote, just my suggestion I mentioned. -R. fiend 14:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, and can I create a page User:R. fiend/List of people who vote to keep the shittiest of articles, voting without comment, and, I suspect, without having read the article in question? Not that I have any intention of doing so. Just wondering. -R. fiend 14:20, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - You certainly can, but you probably mayn't and definitely shouldn't. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought. -R. fiend 18:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - Comment: I'd recommend commenting on the talk page instead, we are creating a terrible precedent IMO if we all start updating user pages without the user's permission. If you do update another user's page (and that's what a Wiki is for), please be very careful not to impersonate them, even accidentally. As an example of this, if you check the history, you'll see that the list was actually restored by another user, and of more concern they also restored the personal attack at the same time. You'll also see that the page move by the user broke the links here, partly as a result of the person who listed this on VfD not following the instructions (please read them). I think I've fixed it all now. Andrewa 21:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Preliminary Keep under the general principle of giving users broad leeway and control over their user space. I agree that inflammatory personal attacks are not acceptable, but I don't think this qualifies. (Expressing POV about other users does not IMO equate to attacks.) Even if it did qualify, though, I agree under this principle that the user should be asked to change it first. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 22:47, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Ironically, this attack if it was one was a lot milder than what several of Beta m's accusers regularly get away with, IMO. But two wrongs don't make a right. No change of vote. Andrewa 23:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Although I agree that at the time RickK made the nomination, this page was just personal attacks and deserving of deletion. Now it's just an example of illiteracy. BTW, I've voted Delete hundreds of times--why didn't I make 'the list' :/ . Niteowlneils 19:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I see no evidence of abuse on this page within user space, nor in its history log. GRider\^talk 18:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Spinboy 00:03, 8 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 or REDIRECT. I'm going to redirect it to laugh. dbenbenn | talk 02:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Laff

Dictdef of a slang term. Rick K 10:11, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Gazpacho 10:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. jni 16:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to laugh I've seen this used as an alternate form of "laugh" for a long time, before its use on the internet. It seems to be used primarily in advertising, i.e. "lots of laffs". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:54, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Laugh, I've seen this term used in comic books and cartoons years ago. Megan1967 01:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary. The article laugh deals with the physiological and psychological aspects of laughter, and I don't think it should include a reference to a special way some people have to write the word. JoaoRicardo 04:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:09, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
delete. Yuckfoo 01:06, 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 merge/redirect. This has been done. Joyous 01:31, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation of names in A Song of Ice and Fire

This is a list of suggested pronunciations, but due to circumstances mentioned in the article nothing is entirely sure. Original research, not encyclopedic. Should be article on book itself if at all kept. Mgm|^(talk) 10:37, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

(I started this page.) I agree to some extend with the above arguments, and the page should certainly be more precise about the status quo of these suggestions. It is known that Mr. Martin was consulted about and has blessed the pronunciations of Mr. Dotrice on the audio book version, which lends some credence to them. I am looking for a quote from Martin to confirm this. Also, the pronunciations of Martin himself have been recorded and noted by very diligent listeners and can be considered stable and more or less canonical (though not to the degree of Tolkien's). The motivation to collect this information in a single spot is to make them accessible to readers outside the core fandom. -- That being said, the page in its current form could easily be merged with the List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire. The reason to start a separate page was to allow for names of places as well. Thore 10:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge into List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire. Propose a title change to "List of characters and places..." if you think it's important. — Asbestos | Talk 16:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge per Asbestos. —Korath (Talk) 21:02, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Merge anything useable into List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire. Megan1967 01:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge according to Asbestos' sugestion. JoaoRicardo 04:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't it all be merged into the main article on the book. Merge into A Song of Ice and Fire. Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
(I started the page.) Agreed with the suggestion of merging it into the main A Song of Ice and Fire page, and promptly done it. The main problem of sources that MacGyverMagic pointed out in the original VfD remained (and bugged by much more than the location of this information). I think I solved it by changing the list of pronunciations to explicitly present Roy Dotrice's in the audio books, rather than the received pronunciation that has been established in the fandom (even thought that happens to be the same, because Martin and Dotrice are friends and agreed on the pronunciation). Suddenly it's an objective list that can be verified against the audiobooks, edited, and extended. I am much happier with the status of the information now, mostly thanks to MGM's original objections. -- I am new to the deletion proces... what happens now? I moved the information to another page, so the VfD'd page can die. Am I supposed to do anything, or will that happen automagically? Thore 09:32, 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. Block compress error: pending deletion. Joyous 01:21, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Albanau Community

Online community, 2 links on google outside of the message board itself. vanity, delete -- Chris 73 Talk 11:42, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. jni 16:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. nn, advertising. Xezbeth 20:16, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable ad. Too bad Alexa only searches for the domain name and not subdirectories. --Death phoenix 01:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No claim to notability. JoaoRicardo 04:29, 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. Pending deletion due to block compress error. Joyous 01:18, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

European Forum

Same forum as the Albanau Community, listed above. vanity, Delete -- Chris 73 Talk 11:47, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not only is there woefully inadequate demonstration of notability, the phrase 'European Forum' is widely used by a great number of organisations that are far more notable than the one currently squatting on the page, for example the European Forum of the International Bar Association (that's lawyers, not servers of intoxicating beverages by the way). Average Earthman 12:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. jni 16:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No claim to notability. JoaoRicardo 04:29, 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 01:18, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Alliance of the Forgotten

Normally this would be branded fancruft, but it garners no google hits other than wikipedia mirrors. No idea what fictional universe these come from, but it's probably not notable. See also Tian Xen and Raetor Xezbeth 15:21, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Contextless fancruft. jni 17:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable, possibly original research? --Death phoenix 02:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fancruft. --Idont Havaname 02:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardo 04:18, 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 01:19, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Tian Xen

Normally this would be branded fancruft, but it garners no google hits other than wikipedia mirrors. No idea what fictional universe these come from, but it's probably not notable. See also Alliance of the Forgotten and Raetor Xezbeth 14:23, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Contextless fancruft. jni 17:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable, possibly original research? --Death phoenix 02:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fancruft. --Idont Havaname 02:41, 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 01:17, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Raetor

Normally this would be branded fancruft, but it garners no google hits other than wikipedia mirrors. No idea what fictional universe these come from, but it's probably not notable. See also Alliance of the Forgotten and Tian Xen Xezbeth 15:21, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Contextless fancruft. jni 17:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable, possibly original research? --Death phoenix 02:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fancruft. --Idont Havaname 02:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardo 04:16, 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 01:08, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Babyaphotoworkshop

This article is to be deleted because it is, in fact, an advertisement of a graphical editor Babyaphotoworkshop. --Maverick 15:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --Tothebarricades.tk 21:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete advertising to the n^th degree
Delete, unfortunately. *discreetly bookmarks linked site to get free graphic editor* ;) --b. Touch 03:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - spam. What about the other Babya products: Babya System, Bsuite, Babya E-Type? andy 13:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - The other pages don't advertise anything.
Delete -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 01:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete all as spam. The sockpuppet vote sure doesn't help the "keep" cause. Will they never learn? - Lucky 6.9 01:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, if it isn't advertising then it's trivial. RJFJR 04:23, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ad. Wyss 00:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
delete ad. Yuckfoo 01:07, 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 01:07, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hurr

Not sure if it's notable, but what's there is just an excerpt from what may be copyvio. Not to mention that the article it references claims it's spelled "Horr", anyway. --InShaneee 16:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Horr if it is a common misspelling or alternative name, otherwise delete. jni 16:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete what looks to be original research. --Death phoenix 02:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This could go into Battle of Karbala or Horr, and in fact both articles already contain this information. JoaoRicardo 04:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, reads like game cruft. Wyss 00:00, 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 DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 16:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fence Post repair

A how-to. Nothing more than a step by step guide. --InShaneee 16:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See also: Fence post repair and its current VfD. —Korath (Talk) 15:52, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Transwikibooks. They take how-tos, right? Delete if I'm misremembering. —Korath (Talk) 16:46, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Move over to Wiki books - Good information, Wrong place. mydogategodshat 02:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Even though there are how-to's on Wikipedia, they date back to before Wikibooks and are in the process of being migrated (at a glacial pace, admittedly). But this does not provide a justification for new how-to's on Wikipedia. Transwiki. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 20:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete this one too. Wyss 23:59, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikibooks. Megan1967 05:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete DIY info. Edeans 04:57, 9 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. dbenbenn | talk 17:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rauding

The term is a neologism invented by Ronald P. Carver, a professor of educational psychology who died a year ago, to denote normal reading as opposed to skimming or scanning. Carver was an important figure in his field, but this term does not enjoy wider usage. It could be defined briefly at Reading (activity) but this page should be deleted. --Angr 16:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete agreed. Neologisms from relatively notable people are still neologisms until they become widespread. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:04, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Rauding scores around 400 hits on Google. The term appears in a number of medical and language journals. I am inclined to vote keep on this one. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 01:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to reading (activity). This neologism seems to have been adopted by the scientific community. But it seems there is more to the theory than the article tells. See this for instance, which makes reference to the "rauding diagnostic" for reading disabilities. But I still think we should improve an article on the general topic first and then make more specific articles. JoaoRicardo 03:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've across this article a while ago, and I agree with JoaoRicardo, redirect and merge. Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this term is not widely accepted enough for a dedicated article. Wyss 23:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge & redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:29, 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 KEEP. jni 12:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Scott Carson

A puff piece for a football player who, the article admits, hasn't become notable yet. Uncle G 17:27, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Strong Keep. He plays for Liverpool, more than notable enough. Xezbeth 17:33, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Extreme keep. Agree with Xezbeth. —RaD Man (talk) 19:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep He's in the first team squad at Liverpool. Millions of people have heard of him.Philip 20:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Weak~~ keep I can see why this was nominated, though. It read like a puff piece, and he has only 3 league appearances. However, he has 8 England Under 21 appearances, so while I'd normally say that I'd want more time in a professional league to list a player (and have done so in the past), the international Under 21 caps and his transfer value (the BBC say 1 million pounds, not 250,000) give a strong indication that he is highly likely to have a significant career ahead of him, and certainly viewed as such by Liverpool FC. (Note - I've rewritten it myself in the hope of giving the article a fairer run, but I don't support any team involved) Average Earthman 20:24, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It should also be noted that he was out of contract in the Summer so the fee would otherwise have been significantly more Philip 20:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But equally the teams may have been aware of UEFA plans to insist on a minimum number of 'homegrown' players for future matches in the Champions League and UEFA Cup, which would make a promising English player even more attractive to English teams. On the other hand, this only suggests he would be more likely to feature in a team for a match against European opposition, thus making him more notable... Average Earthman 09:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Bogus VFD. --Centauri 21:15, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Not a bogus VfD, the original read very much like a puff piece and didn't mention England Under 21 internationals (will have 9 caps next Tuesday). He also hasn't actually played for Liverpool's first team yet, only the reserves (including last night). Average Earthman 09:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Thanks Average Earthman! Samaritan 04:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep - it's one thing for first team players for a major club to be notable, it's another thing for reserve players since a lot of English football players don't make it. On the other hand, England U21 players are notable, in my view.17:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That's from me. Signed incorrectly. JuntungWu 17:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Very weak keep for reasons stated by JuntungWu. --Lawlore 20:33, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
keep'. Yuckfoo 01:08, 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 01:06, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

James Patrick Hogg

Content before blanking:

James Patrick Hogg, who lives in Sutton, York Road to be exact is really just the best! He goes to Overton Grange school and is the best student there. He has been given many awards, including 'Best Person Of The Year Award' and 'Most likely To Become World Ruler Award'. If you ever meet this amazing boy, be sure to give him money and lots of nice things as one day he will repay you. When he is the richest man alive.

He is the best.

Unbelievably stupid vanity. Delete. jni 17:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Mikkalai 20:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC).
Delete. Utterly pathetic drivel. It is so bad I strongly suspect this was written by someone else with the intention of embarrasing Mr Hogg at the thought that anyone would think he might have written this himself. Average Earthman 20:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is moving the content to the VfD page the new procedure for crap like this? I like it. But you know what would be even better? A speedy delete. -R. fiend 23:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity or prank. Megan1967 01:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity, no claim to notability. JoaoRicardo 02:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as vandalism or libel. Wyss 23:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as obvious prank. GRider\^talk 22:29, 7 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 01:17, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Rex '84

Primary source; POV; possible copyvio. -- Curps 19:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --Tothebarricades.tk 21:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if anything could be salvaged for purposes of Wikisource, but it certainly looks like just a grab bag of copyvios. Delete. --Idont Havaname 00:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've located one potential source, out of several, and slapped a Copyvio notice over it. Uncle G 01:19, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
Delete, having gone back and read the article before copyvio, I'm not sure even a rewrite could save it. Conspiracy theory. Megan1967 05:23, 7 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 01:05, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Falling 2 Fast

It's always suspect when the article tells one where the band members go to school but somehow utterly fails to include even the tiniest smidgeon of a discography section. Uncle G

Delete. No evidence of notability presented except the supposed reviews from Rolling Stone and Spin. If they don't have any discography then what did those magazines review and why are there no references to the band on the net? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, hoax. Shimeru 21:04, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable - fails Google Test (2 hits of which 1 unrelated), possible band vanity. Megan1967 01:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No entry in AMG, 2 Google hits. JoaoRicardo 02:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually, even that 1 potentially-related-looking google hit is not related. Delete. Samaritan 04:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, obvious hoax. Wyss 23:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, does not meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion since I'm quite sure the bit about Rolling Stone and Spin are not true. Tuf-Kat 16:51, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 01:05, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Mashayekh

Get ready to say it in unison. "All is but ..." Uncle G 19:39, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, genealogy, family vanity. Megan1967 02:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity, no claim to notability. JoaoRicardo 02:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Megan1967, Wyss 23:54, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 01:02, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Slobodni tjednik

moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English

Russian. Probably a copy-paste from somewhere, but cannot locate where. jni 16:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this is Russian. It looks more like Croatian to me... Sietse 19:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Xrce says it is Croatian. Bart133 20:09, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This has had it's 2 weeks. No work. Possible copyvio. I say VfD, unless someone says otherwise in the next 24 hours. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:26, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

untranslated Croatian, possible copyvio ==> Delete -- Jmabel | Talk 21:05, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete only because it hasn't been translated. Google shows this was a weekly newspaper in Croatia in the early 1990s, and it would probably meet minimal notability standards if it was a proper English-language stub. So deletion here by VfD for lack of translation shouldn't set any precedent if someone recreates it properly in the future. -- Curps 23:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I would welcome a decent article on the subject, but an untranslated probable copyvio isn't very useful. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:32, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 02:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Since no one has translated it. But I do agree with Curps. JoaoRicardo 02:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, yep, the issue here is the lack of translation, not the topic. Wyss 23:52, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 01:01, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sejarah olahraga

Moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Indonesian? Sietse 19:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Indonesian. Bart133 20:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No activity after nearly 3 weeks, and it looks to me like it could easily be a copyvio: if someone thinks it's worth transwiki'ing to the Indonesian Wikipedia, fine by me, but as far as English goes, delete -- Jmabel | Talk 21:10, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 02:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Since no one has bothered to translate it. JoaoRicardo 02:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as, uhm, unencyclopedic. Wyss 23:51, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyvio. Joyous 01:01, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Guy buffet

Copied and pasted from http://www.guybuffet.com/about0.html. --Tothebarricades.tk 21:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I believe it should be listed in Wikipedia:Copyright problems instead of here. JoaoRicardo 02:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, either way it's an ad. Wyss 23:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:26, 7 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 01:00, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Arsenal Group

Group (actually called "Chicago Surrealist Group") is seldom verging on never called by this name. Article was created for the purpose of advancing POV on group, contains numerous POV statements and is, at any rate, quite incomplete. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep Referenced as such here and known by that name. If he wants to argue they are non-notable... Stirling Newberry 00:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- The context is just a characterisation by Shattuck, a nickname, if you will, in that one particular reply. At the very most, should be a redirect to Chicago Surrealist Group or The Surrealist Movement in the United States, with information included in the article about Shattuck's description. But I'd argue this would really be pushing a point. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable - less than 2 Google hits using "Arsenal Group" + "surrealism/surrealist" (That NY Books review mentions "Arsenal Group" only once in the form of a reply to the book review, not the review itself). POV. Megan1967 02:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The Rosemonts themselves are barely notable enough, we don't need articles on details of their careers. JoaoRicardo 02:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I do believe there's some arguement on the Surrealism page with this user's edits concerning modern surrealism, including this group. Might be a spillover from that, but even if it wasn't, I'd still be voting delete. humblefool ® 04:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as self promotion. Wyss 23:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I've never met such complete nonsense. Members would never call it the "Arsenal Group," and Stirling Newberry is ver far from being a member. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'll accept Daniel C. Boyer's argument that this is some sort of agenda promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons already stated above. GRider\^talk 22:30, 7 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 00:58, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Josane peer

Comment moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Portuguese, parts copied from [6] . I don't know if the license is compatible with GFDL. Sietse 11:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Normally we give these things 2 weeks to get translated, but I don't want to waste someone's time doing it. Looks like it's all cut-and-paste, possibly copyright issues; at best a marginally notable Brazilian "post-punk" act; little of what is written here is encyclopedic; mistitled at that. Subject might be worth an article, but this is not a useful start. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:52, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Has someone read what it says? it's spam! 'Viva a pirataria e as formas alternativas de fazer e divulgar arte!' means 'Live the piracy an the alternative forms of making and divulgating art!', promoting a copyright violating ideology. (I'm a Spanish speaker, that's why I can understand Portuguese fairly good). --Neigel von Teighen 21:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, on the basis of the above opinion by a recent but consistent contributor. Thanks for your input! Andrewa 08:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This native Portuguese speaker assures you there's nothing there worth keeping. It's a personal article about how the big recording companies are destroying the "alternative music" in Brazil. JoaoRicardo 02:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic, possible advertisement. Megan1967 02:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it's a rant. Wyss 23:47, 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.

Hao Hai Ren

Vanity, delete, jguk 22:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unquestionably. Delete. Postdlf 22:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The above people are Zealots, the article is not finished, keep, J-Rodd 203.167.202.230 23:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am Willing to shave off my barnet to keep this page, Michael Cheesepuff Sutorious

Puerile vanity. Delete. -R. fiend 23:17, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't DELETE... This page is part of world history!!

A pox on you deletionist hippie creeps. I have created a user page in Hao Hai's name : User:Hao_Hai_Ren, but I suppose you will delete that too. It is because of people like yourselves that Wikipedia has become a joke in the community. For shame.

Delete. User:203.167.202.230 has certainly been busy editing this VfD page. It's fine at User:Hao Hai Ren, it just doesn't belong in the article space. -- Curps 23:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete the article and move the info to a new user page. Sockpuppets, please take note. - Lucky 6.9 00:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity, thy name is Hao Hai Ren. Didyaevernotice how the less likely a page is worth keeping, the more sockpuppets come out of the woodwork? Rick K 00:34, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Keep I am disgusted by the blatent rascism of all those intending to delete this entry. DO NOT DELETE. Hao Hai Ren is a Kiwi/Asian hero!
Keep Ian - he is great. Why is everyone getting so worked up about this? Just don't look at the page if you don't like it... ooo what a suggestion...
Keep I am very troubled that the powers that be would want to delete this corner-stone of wellington history. How can this information be passed down from generation to generation if you hippes keep deleting these entries. have a heart ... keep the page! scobes (fight the good fight)
Delete and ban the sockpuppets. Gamaliel 01:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Regarding accusations of sockpuppetry, there are several of us (distinct people I assure you) that connect through the game gateway (203.167.202.230) - the creator of the page sent this around his colleages, and we expressed our outrage accordingly.
- There's no way for us to verify that. We can only count votes which we know to belong to distinct people. Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
VfD policy says that anonymous voters and user voters created after the nomination are typically considered null and void. Nothing personal. Having said that, I vote delete. Segekihei 01:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity, no claim to notability. JoaoRicardo 02:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity, fraud target. Gazpacho 02:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Look folks, I'm sure he's a great guy, but is he important/famous enough that encyclopedia users will want to look him up? Wikipedia pages can't just be ignored, they need to be updated and organised... look at Category:New_Zealand_people, does he really belong with those other people? Kappa 04:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, he'd be listed there were there not confusion as to which letter of the alphabet his name should come under. ^_^
Delete. Though maybe it ought to be saved somewhere as a canonical vanity page. --Calton 07:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. An undisguised joke. But my understanding is that sock puppets' and anons' and new users' votes do count. They just don't count very much. For example, if four or five people with strong contribution histories were unanimous on a course of action, no amount of argument from any number of newbies or anons would persuade me as an admin that consensus had not been reached - on the course of action decided by the contributors. I don't see how it can work any other way, and this way seems to work well. Andrewa 08:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons already listed. ping 09:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, already listed at appropriate user page. Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
One of the best vanity pages I've seen, but vanity nevertheless. Delete. --Angr 16:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Your compliment is much appreciated.
Delete. Going to university in New Zealand at 16 is not very notable because of them starting primary school at 5. JuntungWu 16:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- keep You cretin, we start school at 5, then we have 6 years of primary school, 2 at intermediate, 5 years of high school, so most people don't get to university until they are 18 or thereabouts. Hao Hai's story is touching and inspirational. Retardedness, thy name is Juntung. 202.0.52.252 00:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, vanity, sock-puppet supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hasn't it gone yet? --Marcus22 20:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Philip 02:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is only a stub, it could grow into something quite magnificent. Just because someone isn't indexed by Google doesn't mean they're not notable. There's a world outside the Internet, people. dojun 18:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It would seem that the majority of these fanatics beg to differ.
Delete. Sign up for an account and put it on your own Userpage instead, alright? ;) - Mailer Diablo 12:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete the vanity, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wyss 23:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Rubbish. -- Necrothesp 03:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. For everyone's information I recently did a university paper on immigration and used a case study on Ian and his family. I searched wikipedia and came up with his info. It is useful to some people and is not just a vanity page. Keep your ignorant opinions to yourself please. (Scarlet)
Keep. This page is the highlight of this little chinese-kiwi boy's life. Enough said. (PMW)
Delete, obviously. GRider\^talk 18:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Blatant vanity, though he does apparently have a number of (real or imaginary) friends to vote for him. LizardWizard 01:34, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Made me laugh. Love the pic. But until there is a Wikicomedia, I guess I'll have to vote to delete. Shame though. HowardB 08:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The only claims to notability are unverifiable, and even if true, don't make this young person notable enough. --BM 23:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:57, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Kristian Dalen

Probably not notable. I could find no relevant google hits. Thue | talk 22:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nn. Google searches for "Vi skal vise deg" "Kristian Dalen", "Vi skal vise deg" vandalen, and "Dalen State of Mind pt. VIII " got no results. --Idont Havaname 00:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No reference in Wikipedia nor AMG, 61 Google hits, no claim to notability, no article on the Norwegian Wikipedia. JoaoRicardo 02:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable - fails Google test (60 hits with a few unrelated). Megan1967 02:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not quite encyclopedic for a band, but close. Wyss 23:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
delete. Yuckfoo 01:09, 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 KEEP. jni 12:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Humble Guys

Piracy group. Big deal. Google search for "The Humble Guys" +piracy brings up 164 hits. —RaD Man (talk) 22:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep nice sarcastic VfD there batman... Come on do I need to use a cluestick? Wiki is not a soapbox Don't disrupt to prove a point ALKIVAR™ 23:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Lestat Keep Lestat Keeps are normally not allowed under Wikipedia rules but this seems a special case. --Jscott 23:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. *ahem* I am showing off a bit more of my gams than I normally like to do, but let's just say I was familiar with the pirating community when these guys were around and they had one of the biggest operations in their time. They were on top for several years, until their ring was busted by the Secret Service when a couple of their head honchos stupidly used stolen credit card numbers to buy some musical equipment (Phrack published one of her statements in this issue). IMHO, they deserve an entry. Katefan0 23:37, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Just looked at your userpage. If you were in ACiD, you oughta know this stuff yourself. Now Alkivar's comments are making sense. ACiD and iCE, this little walk down memory lane is making me want to bust out the ANSI ads for my old board. Katefan0 23:46, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, are you being serious radman? Rhobite 01:03, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but with reservations. Article needs a cleanup. Megan1967 06:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep (?) Seems notable. JuntungWu 17:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article does not establish why this guys are notable although it is well-written.Capitalistroadster 06:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I think RadMan's just blowin' off a bit of steam. Wyss 23:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
keep. Yuckfoo 01:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. ElBenevolente 00:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\^talk 17:28, 8 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 00:56, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Achilles' tendon - Africans

Original research, actually more like original speculation. --Lee Hunter 23:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. No links into the page. Maybe he can put results of his research in the Achilles' tendon article if he can keep it NPOV. --Idont Havaname 23:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Query linked to speculation, by an IP with no previous edits. Unsure whether to move the text to Wikipedia:reference desk, or is there a better place? Andrewa 00:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Place the query in Talk:Achilles' tendon. This guy, probably a newbbie, probably did not know where to place it... --Zappaz 00:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. User picked the wrong place to post his/her question. JoaoRicardo 01:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and move to a talk page. Bart133 (t) 01:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, how do we count the ways? Wyss 23:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
delete. Yuckfoo 01:10, 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 KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 00:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

William Henry Farquhar

Seems like a very, very minor historical figure. Served on the school board, acted as census taker, made a bid for the senate, raised a family. Nothing that really stands out. --Lee Hunter 23:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bogus VFD. Perfectly notable minor historical figure. Keep. --Centauri 01:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Being notable in a single county in the USA is sufficient to be in Wikipedia? Shouldn't we try to be more global here? Just imagine every county or municipality in the world putting up an article for their notable figures. JoaoRicardo 01:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, just imagine it; there's finally an encyclopedia that can actually make it a reality. --Centauri 06:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And Wikimedia will spend money archiving information no one will ever want to read. JoaoRicardo 23:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Hard disks are cheap. I agree with this one completely. --w:Jimbo Wales." Keep. (At the same time, I can appreciate some case for deletion. But keep.) Samaritan 03:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. But I must say I find the appeal to authority unnecessary. The argument you cited is valid per se, it doesn't need to be endorsed by someone. JoaoRicardo 18:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable - Google hits less than 150. Megan1967 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Unsure. It's IMO unsafe to vote to delete on the basis of Google, many things are under-represented on the WWW. No vote as yet. Andrewa 02:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Perfectly legitimate article. Just becuase you've never heard of him doesn't mean he doesn't merit an article. --L. Pistachio 02:42, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Legitimate article. --L33tminion | (talk) 02:53, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Sounds like a good guy to name a middle school after, but an article about him is outside of the scope of the Wikipedia. --b. Touch 03:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. It is hard to say why someone thought this person was interesting enough to write an article about. I'm guessing that it was someone connected with the Middle School that is named after him. It might be a young person who wrote it, and perhaps he or she didn't quite capture what Farquhar achieved on the School Board that made them think to name a Middle School after him one hundred years later. The article was only written today and is the first contribution of this user. I'm going to wait and see if there is any more information forthcoming. Right now, my first instinct is "Don't bite the newbies." --BM 03:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. It has the earmarks of family history research. My take is that the anonymous author is a relative. But the subject did have a school named after him, and threw good parties. -R. S. Shaw 03:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, more significant than some of the randoms that the great 1911EB thought were encyclopedia-worthy. Stan 05:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and I look forward to the day we have representatives of "every county or municipality in the world putting up an article for their notable figures" - SimonP 05:34, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. James F. (talk) 12:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. jni 13:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article does not establish noteworthiness persisting into the present day. --Angr 16:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Detailed, reasonably well written, significant enough to have a school named after him. Good effort by a newbie. A comprehensive encyclopedia needs to be ... well ... comprehensive. 80N 23:54, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep as "harmless". However, I'd really like to see references cited on such an obscure individual. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:00, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and I concur with Jmabel: I want to see a reference. Antandrus 22:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it's helpful. Wyss 23:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
keep. Yuckfoo 01:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. -- Necrothesp 03:56, 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 00:56, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Exit to Eternal Slacking

No Google hits. -- Curps 23:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity. No claim to notability, no entry in AMG, 1 Google hit to their name (which seems unrelated). JoaoRicardo 01:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Bart133 (t) 01:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable - 1 Google hit unrelated, band vanity. Megan1967 02:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, vanity. jni 13:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable vanity... but I notice there is a "T. Holopainen" in this band, just like there is in Nightwish. The Nightwish website doesn't indicate anything about this project, though. --Idont Havaname 00:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article provides no evidence of encyclopedic content. Wyss 23:39, 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.