Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 24

May 24

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Greg Sparks

Somebody's campaign worker, I guess. Orphan, only 7 hits on 5 sites for "Greg Sparks" "dick spring", and most can't even confirm the sparse amount of info given, raising verifiability questions. Niteowlneils 00:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. Dick Spring was leader of the Irish Labour Party for many years and Táiniste several times. Sparks is/was a senior Labour Party strategist, acted as agent for many candidates, has been published in Irish newspapers, subject of corruption allegations, etc. http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1999/11/19/ipage_10.htm and http://www.gov.ie/debates-98/27may98/dl270598.pdf - Ben-w 00:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but add to it. Mgstone 00:17, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand explaining significance in Irish politics as identified by Ben-W. Capitalistroadster 01:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep please and expand it too Yuckfoo 18:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fud

Do we really need an article that deals solely with Glaswegian dictdefs? →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 00:03, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

• No. Restore the original redirect to FUD, and place a {{wiktionary}}{{wiktionarypar|fud}} on the latter. Uncle G 01:12, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Redirect to FUD --metta, The Sunborn 03:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to FUD. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:07, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:05, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Sutu & Andrew Morrison

As the article says, these two are only up coming book writers, and their debut book has not been published yet. Thus, not noteworthy yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I also get zero hits on Amazon.com. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and good luck to you two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:47, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I am an up an comming writer but I don't have an article. Not notable. --metta, The Sunborn 03:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - lots of people are writing books, that doesn't mean anything. Article title is useless, as well. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable (yet). Megan1967 06:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wait until they are famous and worthy of a biography. I'd almost suggest that Benjamin Sutu and/or Andrew Morrison had a hand in writing it. Suggest they keep it to their user pages and personal web pages. Internodeuser 13:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and write two seperate pages if these two ever become notable. Jamyskis 13:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wait until you're notable, and don't write it yourself, guys. - Etacar11 16:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN Jayjg ^(talk) 16:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Swat 16:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. ROFLMAOACSOFMM (basically a very big ROFLMAO (roll on the floor laughing my ass off) I know these guys... lol... they are two 13 year old morons who do nothing bu vandalise the net... and they write about themselves?....

16:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I know this sounds a bit weird, but I am Andrew Morrison, and I did not in any way request for, or want for that matter, a Wikipedia page to be written about me. (I'm not trying to "shift the blame", so to speak, but Ben must have been the person who wrote the article.) Although I am trying to write a book, I don't think this qualifies as a Wikipedia entry. In fact, it is quite embarrasing... I sincerely apologise, on his behalf, for any inconvenience caused to fellow Wikipedia users.
• Comment. It's Andrew again. Sorry if this is irritating, but I do find it rather unfair that a previous user, with whom I am personally acquanted, stated that I "vandalise the net." For the record, I have done nothing of the kind. I did write the article on Adeline Yen Mah, but I hardly think this qualifies as "vandalism."
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so they should come back after they have successfully published a book. — JIP | Talk 05:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:05, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hypercircumcision

Looks like an anti-circumcision hoax page. Google doesn't find any results for the hyphenated or unhyphenated forms of the word. From an anatomical standpoint, the described etiology doesn't make sense. Delete this medical nonsense. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Definitely. I was going to recommend it for speedy deletion, actually. M412k 02:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Definitely POV, anti-semitic in fact. Detetion is warranted. Cyferx 02:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hoax. --metta, The Sunborn 03:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as anti-semitic vandalism/hoax. Geogre 03:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:08, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete cut it. Klonimus 05:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Hyperdelete the wub (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable (it is perhaps anti-semitic - but let us assume good faith) --Doc (t) 09:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsensical hoax. Sietse 10:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Fancruft Judvrd 11:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Too funny. Sorry, I laughed when I read this one. Yeah, and Delete it too. Obviously a hoax. Such a medically-sounding fact should be easily able to be backed up, but google has nothing - [1] Internodeuser 13:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, consider moving to WP:BJAODN qitaana 13:30, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to BJAODN with TenOfAllTrades' comment. Physchim62 18:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A certain hoax. Dr. D 23:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Hyperdelete. Hoax. JFW | T@lk 01:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and circumcise those responsible. — Phil Welch 06:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Joke article -Husnock 11:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:06, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

DTF

Just another high school garage band, near as I can tell. Zero hits for "Dark Tall Females"--allmusic.com hasn't heard of 'em either. dtf toronto adler cohen doesn't find anything relelvant either. Niteowlneils 00:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable by WP:MUSIC standards. --metta, The Sunborn 03:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: 100% advertising, complete with gig details and cover charge. Shabby, guys. Geogre 03:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, with emphasis for the quote above me. I suggest getting a life that doesn't involve writing encyclopedia articles about yourself. Harp Heaven 15:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN the above remark :) Radiant_* 07:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Oh, look, it's a band writing an article about themselves. Haven't seen a dozen of those today at all. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because I'm a hater who can't get laid. Gamaliel 04:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - because your sorry insult assumes we all want girls. You can keep 'em. --FCYTravis 04:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity/advertisment Columbia 04:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wastes of spaces...yeah, I be da hater, straight up punk-ass nobody! Repazent! Harro5 06:05, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Jamyskis 13:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not establish that my musical notability criteria are met. Kelly Martin 15:36, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Ahh, kids... - Etacar11 16:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. --Carnildo 19:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Still, clearly the article served a worthwhile purpose, since we're helping some poor, pathetic ingrate get a good laugh at how we're the "biggest losers on the planet". We love to bring pleasure to the lives of those who evidently don't have much of their own. Scimitar 21:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jacob1207 22:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Hfs991hfs 03:17, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Tznkai 16:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Xcali 00:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• "Don't delete"- i like DTF.....
• DeleteThis band is junk, the first song they played didn't even have instruments! - ZJ

---It didn't have instruments because it was a barbershop quartet! They wrote out all 4 parts with no help, tabs, score-sheets or anything - just a pen and paper! You don't even know what you're talking about buddy.

• ---Well nobody wants to see it at a rock show, who likes Phish anyway?!
• "who likes Phish anyway?!" !?!?!? Phish is the hugest band next to Led Zeppelin and DTF, idiot.
• Don't Delete!!! DTF are the next Amon Düül II!!!! (although I do concur Halfway is a superior musical entity in everything but breeding stock)

I jus't thought that I would point out the hypocracy here. All of these wikipedia members are arguing that we should get rid of this DTF page because it is not relevant and simply trying to promote the band. The funny part is that all of these people on the message board have a page written about themselves. THAT seems completely relevant to me. So it is alright for all of you to have a page about yourself, but not alright for a new band to post some RELEVANT and TRUE information about themselves?

...what are you talking about? -- Cyrius|✎ 07:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Dont Delete! This is completely relevant! Some people are researching information on the popularity of unknown teenage bands. The fact that DTF may not be as well known as some other bands does not mean that it does not have potential. DTF is worthy of a spot on the Wikipedia encyclopedia. There are many people interested, as you can see it has had a lot of viewers. I, myself, am a DTF fan. Please do not delete this page! It is gaining popularity to a wider range of people using Wikipedia by drawing attention to the encyclopedia. It is no harm to anybody!

Dont Delete! "What am I talking about?"...well, I am talking about the fact that you (for example Cyrius) would like DTF's page to be deleted because you find it to be irrelevant and for the purpose of self-promotion, yet you happen to have a page on wikipedia for yourself, describing yourself as "just some guy". Why should it be alright for you to post a page about yourself, but not alright for a new band to post a page about themselves? Personally, I do not have a problem with either.

Those are not encyclopedia articles, those are user pages. Anyone who signs up for an account gets a user page. Gamaliel 22:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Alright, sorry for my confusion. I still think that DTF should be allowed to keep this page, because they are a talented band that will make a name for themselves one day. I do not think that we should discriminate against bands because they are not as well-known as others. Every band has to start from somewhere.

This is not "discrimination", this is common sense. An encyclopedia documents famous and notable things, not every single minor thing that ever happened in the world. We have a set of consistent standards we apply to every article: see WP:MUSIC. When DTF becomes successful, you can write an encyclopedia article about them then. Gamaliel 14:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I will restate the fact that DTF has signed a deal with British record label Delerium to promote their EP in the United States, Continental Europe and Israel, and they have taken it upon themselves to deal with domestic distribution. That in itself is indicative of success, no?

I chose my words poorly. Good for them on being signed, and this is a measure of success. However, most editors of Wikipedia do not consider merely being signed as enough to merit an encyclopedia article. Please see the guidelines at WP:MUSIC for what most editors of Wikipedia consider the standards for inclusion here. Gamaliel 22:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they will make it big one day - for that, I wish them luck. However, I'm not convinced that you're being totally honest. A small quote from Delerium Records website: "Delerium records is no longer active and the website is now on-line for information purposes. There will be the occasional Delerium re-issue or limited edition." Over the years I've seen hundreds of bands that their record labels claimed would be huge, only they never did. Wikipedia doesn't really cater for speculation, and to say that they will be huge in the future is just that: speculation. Jamyskis 13:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to say.....DTF rawks the kazbah. My name is Regina Felangi, and i am a very important business woman in the business world. I know when a band is going to make it big. Just this morning, while i was in board room A, I was discussing with my fellow workers, the potential that said band had. Wikipedia is not being harmed by this link, that is my business perspective.

Dont Delete!!!!! DTF is my favorite band! They have the hottest guys ever! Have you ever seen Jacob Fox? His last name is there for a reason. HE certainly is a Fox. A really fine one. I'm sure that if everyone on this forum saw him, they would immeadiately change their mind about deleting this. Did I mention that he is also an AMAZING lead guitarist? He is.Wow.

Dont Delete!!! I love Jacob too! Even more than her!

• Speedy. Otherwise, this spam will just get out of hand. Deleting comments also. Kel-nage 23:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dont Delete! But I must disagree with that other fan. Ben is definitely the hottest band member. Seriously. He is gorgeous. DTF for life!

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki and delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Aeneid/Book I

This belongs in WikiBooks or some other reference. P0per 00:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• The actual text of the translation of the book into English, by an author who has been dead for three centuries now. Public domain primary source material. Wikisource (and Delete). The Wikisource:Author:John Dryden section is ready and waiting. Uncle G 01:25, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Wikisource. Megan1967 06:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Wikisource. Wikibooks is for how to guides. the wub (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

smart alec

This is a dictionary article about an idiom (one that Wiktionary had already had for a month, by the way — see smart aleck), not an encyclopaedia article about smart alecs. (This article was originally created as "smart alec".) It's difficult to see how one can have an (NPOV) encyclopaedia article about smart alecs, moreover; and no sensible place for a redirection to point to springs to mind. (If we had a biography of Alec Hoag, we could redirect there. But we haven't.) Uncle G 01:00, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

• Delete as it is already in wikitionary. --metta, The Sunborn 03:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as duplicate material. Geogre 03:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition, already in wiktionary. Megan1967 06:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Uncle G's opinion that it will not be NPOV rings true. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 19:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete before someone redirects to Alec Guinness or, even worse, Alec Baldwin. — Phil Welch 06:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Rhyanne Wheat

I'm not sure what ought to be done with this article. Submitted to request community review on the notibility of this article. It is possible it is vanity, but then again it does seem to have a least some claim to merit. -SocratesJedi | Talk 01:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Public-access TV hosts and the like. Just 8 Google hits 4 of which were Wikipedia and mirrors, and the other 4 looked irrelevant/coincidental. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:18, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Public access show host. There are gobs and gobs of these. (Besides, isn't it "British subject" and not "British citizen?") Geogre 03:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not a notable show host, no other established notability. Probably vanity or fan-vanity. Ryan Prior 03:31, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity drini ☎ 06:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• For a show that was such a "success", it gets zero Google hits. Delete. Jamyskis 13:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Allow Actually, the show did exist and was widely popular amoungst Richmonders. Rhyanne Elizabeth Wheat is a real person and this was not made out of "fan" vanity. It was made for educational purposes as many of teh show's callers asked who she was. I believe the page should be allowed as it shall provide further information for those interested in the show's history. Spwicy 11:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "...many of teh show's callers asked who she was"... I'm not sure I understand that statement. If I'm reading it right, you're saying that it was a call-in show, and people called in without knowing who the show's host was? Again, I might be misreading it, but that sounds pretty unlikely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind
  • Yes, it was a call in show. It was a live talk-show. If you read the page on the show you can see he info about it. It seriosuly was a legit show, and I dont think the oage was meant to be fan vanity. Spwicy 23:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to The David and Rhyanne Comedy Hour. Hermione1980 18:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Jacob1207 22:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity and non notable. JamesBurns 10:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Myriametre

Rarely used unit with an archaic SI prefix. Georgia guy 01:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to metre or something else, since it is archaic. --metta, The Sunborn 03:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• See an analogous discussion at Talk:Binary prefix#Consolidate_all_the_little_articles. Uncle G 03:38, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
  • Obsolete prefixes aren't really analogous, are they? - Omegatron 18:33, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I was referring to the discussion being analogous. Uncle G 21:19, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Redirect to myria. the wub (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to myria. I think anyone looking up this term is likely to be more interested in the prefix than the unit its prefixing (which is frankly a unit everyone should known). Plugwash 12:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested by User:Uncle G above. Useful to know, and you wouldn't necessarily know myria just because you heard myriametre. Also do redirect from myriameter for American spelling variation Internodeuser 13:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Myria. - Omegatron 13:38, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Myria. The last notable use of the myriametre was in Art. 1 of the French Civil Code, but it has disappeared even from there since 2004. Physchim62 18:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you have a reference for the old text? Uncle G 21:19, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
  • There are many examples of 20th century and 19th century usage (and a few 21st century), especially in the French language but also in English and other languages. Gene Nygaard 12:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Specifically, the myriameter and myriagram are part of current United States law, added by the Act of July 28, 1866 and codified in 15 U.S.C. §205. Gene Nygaard
• Merge and Redirect to Myria, though it should probably also be transwikied to Wiktionary as an archaism that might pop up (I saw it in an early 20th-century home improvement book, but that was about the only place I've ever seen it). Haikupoet 18:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Why should we transwiki it, considering that Wiktionary has a myriametre article that predates this one? ☺ Uncle G 21:19, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Myria, plus a Wiktionary entry. Urhixidur 20:44, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Redirect to Obsolete metric prefixes (formerly Obsolete SI prefixes), which is what myria and myria- and much more importantly myriameter, the other spelling of this very same unit, redirect to. I just renamed that article because these never were "SI prefixes". I probably should have renamed to singular rather than plural also, but didn't think of that. I only found this vote because I was wondering why myriameter redirected there, but myriametre did not, so was checking to see if there was anything at myriametre. Gene Nygaard 12:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:46, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Introductory Physical Science

Notability not established Samw 02:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't see non-notability listed as a VFD criterion. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 02:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• There are quite a few books with this title (or with this phrase as part of the title). This 13-word stub gives no clue as to which book is being discussed, and even if we were to pick one to expand the article around, there's not a whole lot of expansion to be done for a high school science text. Redirect to Physical science. This could probably have been speedied as a short article with little or no context. AиDя01DTALK 03:27, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Utterly useless substub that I would speedy delete under criterion #1 + nonsense. The article says that it's a book that's about what it's about. Nothing specific, just a user test of the "I made an article about my textbook" sort. Ridiculous to even debate it. Geogre 03:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I would have speedy deleted this as well, there's no content here. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, could be speedied for lack of context. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 05:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. As Wikipedia:Patent nonsense would define it, it's "meaningful after a fashion..." sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 09:00, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Physical Science and encourage author to add a bit more substance to articles. Internodeuser 13:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge what, exactly? The article has no content. AиDя01DTALK 14:10, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Looks like a newbie test to me. Absolutely no content whatsoever—the VfD notice is bigger than the article. Hermione1980 18:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- It seems to be a somewhat commonly used textbook. I used it, though I don't know just how widely used it is. (This vote is an average -- it actually amounts to "Keep if widely used, delete if not.") Haikupoet 18:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as content free. I believe CSD article criteria #1 covers this. --Carnildo 19:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Insufficient context to know which of many books with the same title is intended, and says nothing about the book anwyway. Quale 21:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can be heavily added expanded upon. Otherwise, it is not worth it. 23:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

135797531 (number)

• Non-notable number. Georgia guy 02:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Gah. Delete. This one doesn't even provide any fun facts like 11111 did. AиDя01DTALK 03:20, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it does. But it's a fun fact that's already mentioned in Charles Bridge. ☺ Uncle G 03:33, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
    • <homer>Blah blah blah bridge... Bo-ring!</homer> Not what I would consider a fun fact. :-) AиDя01DTALK 03:42, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep very notable number. Klonimus 05:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep numbers if something encyclopedic can be said about them, as in this case. Kappa 05:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Charles Bridge. Not a notable number on its own. the wub (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, agree with the wub. — JIP | Talk 09:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Charles Bridge. Topic isn't substantial enough on its own. A picture of the foundation stone showing the craved number would be great. --NormanEinstein 16:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it seems notable to me Yuckfoo 18:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- number gamescome under "Deep thoughts". Also see Interesting Number Paradox. Haikupoet 18:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 18:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Already mentioned in the Charles Bridge article. No need to have duplicated info, plus no one is ever going to type that number in the search box! Sarg 19:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge entry into 10⁶ section Orders of magnitude (numbers), then delete. (The powers go up by three from 10⁶ onward.) — RJH 19:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's already covered in the Charles Bridge article, and I can't imagine anyone searching for the number by itself. --Carnildo 19:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ashibaka (tock) 19:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Charles Bridge. A visitor to the bridge could conceivably search on that inscription; unlikely, but redirects are cheap. The underlying story is barely encyclopedic for inclusionists at best; the story doesn't need to be two places, and there doesn't seem to be anything here distinct from the parent article. Is this Numbers Week or something? Barno 22:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and incorporate info into Bridge article. Jacob1207 22:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect Charles Bridge. --Unfocused 05:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. Radiant_* 08:42, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Charles Bridge. Sjakkalle 14:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep oh yes. Read the article. No question to keep. Internodeuser 20:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. You have got to be kidding that this in any way, shape, or form encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 13:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Charles Bridge. Oleg Alexandrov 23:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete come on... no need to boost an article count like that. Getting to 11 billion would be too easy. Grue 12:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, merge, etc. - vaguely interesting, yes, but not much more can be said about it than what's already in Charles Bridge. 67.101.113.10 June 01 2005

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Allison Greenwald

Not noteworthy -- Sesame Street Live dancers are numerous -- it would be like listing everyone who has ever played Mickey Mouse. kmccoy (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete same reason as nominator. --metta, The Sunborn 03:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It is a place in show biz, but about like a cameo in a direct to video movie. The person is not notable enough yet. (If you're not speaking, and if you're not in the credits, you're not really noticeable, and don't even mention Boo Radley.) Geogre 03:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the above reasons. Jacob1207 22:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yram Rivera

Not noteworthy -- Sesame Street Live dancers are numerous -- it would be like listing everyone who has ever played Mickey Mouse. kmccoy (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Someone in the chorus. Good! Not really notable enough to be encyclopedic, though. Geogre 03:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the above reasons. Jacob1207 23:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IBMR

Just an acronym expansion, has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. — A.M. 03:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Rendering (computer graphics). --metta, The Sunborn 03:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete or make into a redirect. No use for a sentence fragment masquerading as an article. Geogre 03:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep in some form.

I count 1 "delete" vote, 6 "keep as redirect" to the band, 8 "keep as is" (one probable troll vote discounted) and 3 "keep as disambiguation page". The decision about what form to keep this article should now be moved to the article's Talk page.

I will, however, add my own vote. Reviewing the revised content, I consider this to still be a dictionary definition - that is, a discussion of the meaning, origins and usage of a word or phrase. If this is not substantially expanded in a reasonable period of time, it may be reappropriate to renominate the page for deletion after updating the transwiki to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 22:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Megadeath

The Megadeath page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. Should this remaining page be deleted? Ryan Prior 03:26, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Once upon a time, it was a redirect to Megadeth, and so it shall be again. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Megadeath, or dab with links to Megadeath and Megadeath. Nateji77 07:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

sorry. to Megadeth and Megadeath. Nateji77 07:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

change vote to Keep following changes. Nateji77 14:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Megadeth. Geogre 11:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Megadeth and rock on! the wub (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - is an entirely different term to Megadeth. This is the word, as opposed to the band, and they have different spellings. Needs expansion though. Internodeuser 12:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Martg76 13:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment was this term ever really used by the military? I never heard it until the band Megadeth came out. Can someone provide a reference? - Etacar11 16:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as Cyrius. The band's article already mentions this (though it could be moved to an earlier part of the article if deemed significant enough). Etacar11 may have a point as well. -R. fiend 18:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to keep now that it's been expanded beyond a dicdef. More expansion (if possible) would be good still. -R. fiend 00:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it is interesting Yuckfoo 18:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• redirect again unless proof can be shown. --InShaneee 19:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Megadeth. --Carnildo 19:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge content with Cold war, keep as a disambiguation page (with a minimal expanation) between that and Megadeth. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as is, or merge and redirect to any one of a number of articles on nuclear weapons. I am certain I recall it, because I thought "Oh, how unclever" when the band "Megadeth" came out. I also recall learning about and reviewing the fatality charts from the Cold War era in school. "Duck and Cover" era stuff. Here is a reference. More can be found by searching nuclear+weapon+megadeath. May also be used in relation to nuclear power disasters. Do NOT simply redirect to the hard metal band Megadeth. --Unfocused 05:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Change vote to Keep as Disambig per Vashti, below. Unfocused 04:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Megadeth. Plausible misspellgni. Radiant_* 08:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Regarding the term's prior use, it was quoted in Raymond Briggs's graphic novel When the Wind Blows, published in 1982. "It's called Megadeath, I think.... so many millions of people dead per bang. Any ketchup, dear?" According to the band's page, they were formed in 1983. So it seems like it was current before them. Oh yeah, disambiguate between nuclear weapons and Megadeth, since it's a dictdef. Vashti 08:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

  Changing vote to keep now that the page has been expanded. Could possibly use a pointer to the rock band at the top of the page, though. Vashti 07:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm certain I heard it before 1982. I think it might have been in Dr. Strangelove or some similar work. JamesMLane 07:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

  Aye, I'm pretty sure I remember it from all the old CND material I sifted through in the early 90s/late 80s, but that's the only source I have to hand. Vashti 08:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Gen. Turgidson holds a binder titled "World Targets in Megadeaths" in front of him in the War Room in Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964). The word was coined by Herman Kahn in his 1961 book "On Thermonuclear War." which was a major influence on the film, as well as on the conduct of the Cold War. Megadeath should not merely redirect to the band. I believe it has importance not only as a definition, but also as a neologism characteristic of a particular time and way of thinking. I vote to keep (and expand) as a definition and disambiguation page. Dystopos 23:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I've made a start at expanding the article. More could still be done. Dystopos 23:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Disambiguate per Vashti Christopher Parham (talk) 04:38, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
• KEEP encyclopedic content. Grue 12:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep interesting, verifiable. Dan100 22:56, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete per below. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 22:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Marc Ford

Current Revision Empty. Previous revision appears to be a vanity page with no notable substance. P0per 03:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted as newbie test/author request. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep.

I count 7 "delete" to 9 "keep" and note that several people changed their votes following the expansion of the article. Rossami (talk) 22:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Muslim jew

Delete - idle speculation, dicdef at best. FreplySpang (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not encyclopedic. -- Barfooz (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC).
• Delete, not notable dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete speculation. could be worth keeping if the article referenced the existence of actual muslim jews, but it doesnn't. Nateji77 07:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

change vote to Keep following cleanup. Nateji77 05:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - lacks any useful information. Cedars 12:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - but the information needs to be expanded greatly. There are terms such as Christian Witch in regular circulation so why not have Muslim jew?Internodeuser 12:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, in severe need of cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, contradiction in terms. Radiant_* 13:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

i think in this case "muslim" is the individual's religion and "jew" refers to his/her ethnicity, rather than religion. Nateji77 06:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or rewrite including a link or redirect to Donmeh -- there really are Muslim Jews, but they're rare. Haikupoet 19:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Change vote to keep per Mustafaa. Vastly improved. Haikupoet 03:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for the above reasons. Also, it's an orphaned article. Jacob1207 23:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep POV as it stands - but could make an interesting article --Doc (t) 01:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The phenomenon certainly exists, and is certainly article-worthy, but I'm not sure this is the correct name. I've added a bit. - Mustafaa 03:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable contradictory term. JamesBurns 10:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but fix capitalization by moving to Muslim Jew. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Surprised that there is a VfD on this. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:25, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable phenomena.Yuber^(talk) 22:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Craptacular

Slang dicdef, already transwikied to Wiktionary. Cyrius|✎ 04:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Dictdef of a term used by Bart Simpson. Geogre 11:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 19:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or redirect to Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Jacob1207 23:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete slang, as well as the fact that it's more of a dictionary definition than an encyclopedic article Jtkiefer 06:56, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Dunky

Slang dicdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Definition also does not appear on urbandictionary.com, where one would expect such a word to reside. Cyrius|✎ 04:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Attempted cutsie ideolect article. Attempted insult. "Many black males have large butts." Yes, well, that's quite unique to African Americans. (sigh) Kiddie wiki, bye bye. Geogre 11:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the above reasons. Jacob1207 23:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Clan Doggus

Minor gaming clan vanity, with no evidence that it's not a vanity article provided. Cyrius|✎ 04:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Vanity, non-remarkable, unencyclopedic. --Durin 04:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - minor gaming clan. Megan1967 06:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Sorry I didn't catch the rules about Vanity but it was fun to write :) Hopefully this is how I vote. Found another clan page (clan-10) not sure how to mark it as a candidate for vfd Hoseroo its 12:43 pacific, 24 May 2005
• Delete: Clan stuff. Thanks for pointing out the clan-10 article. That should at least be listed on VfD for voting. Geogre 11:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unreferenced, looks like vanity. Internodeuser 13:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and I know some of these guys. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:29, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied. Author consented to deletion, see above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:30, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. (One probable troll vote discounted) Rossami (talk) 22:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Beer Hall of Fame

Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This place does not yet exist, and as such is inherently unencyclopedic. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball --Durin 04:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable (yet). Megan1967 06:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's encyclopedic in that "planning or preparation for the event is already in progress" [2]. Meanwhile I'm working hard to be included. Eixo 08:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable until it exists, and no article can be written until there is something to actually describe and discuss. Until then, all that exists is an announcement, and Wikipedia is not a noticeboard. Geogre 11:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as stub. Needs photos, references, and a bit of an article. It is encyclopaedic and will be built. Perhaps reword as planned Beer Hall of Fame? Internodeuser 13:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Photos? Photos of what? It doesn't exist yet. There's nothing to photograph. It is not slated to open until September, 2006. Please see above link regarding Wikipedia not being a crystal ball. I agree this seems like a good article to have, but the reality is it does not yet exist and as such is not encyclopedic. --Durin 19:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• keep' this please Yuckfoo 18:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sarg 18:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 19:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for now BrokenSegue 20:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Send planning committee to my house, then delete or userfy until article's subject has actual existence. Barno 22:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it actually existed it would probably be encyclopedic. However, the mere fact that someone is planning a "Beer Hall of Fame" is not encyclopedic (even if it will include a "micrbrewery") Jacob1207 23:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I say keep. Looks like something in the works. There are plans for the new world trade center - even links for people to be influenced and educated. the topic may seem trivial, but if its really underway, it merits an entry. Barrettmagic

• Keep, per Internodeuse, appears to be verifiable and notable. Kappa 06:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per crystal ball. Radiant_* 08:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a crystal ball, uninformative stub, yadada. --Calton | Talk 13:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete crystal ball. JamesBurns 10:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep you don't need a crystal ball to verify this information. Grue 12:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:33, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

David Snyder, Ph.D.

Seems to be the author of one self-published book, probable vanity. The foundation he links to appears to exist only to publish the book. Very few hits on google: it's not clear whether or not this guy is even the internet's most popular "David Snyder, Ph.D." or "David N. Snyder". - Nat Krause 04:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, self-promotion. Megan1967 06:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising. Nowiki'd the link. Geogre 11:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Etacar11 16:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, not notable. Jacob1207 23:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:36, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Secret order of khaxor

Reads like it's entirely made up or may be from some fictional universe. DJ Clayworth 04:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, zero Google hits. Not even any hits for Khaxor. RickK 04:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's because his name is Xenu. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Completely unverifiable. --Durin 04:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - hoax/vanity/something, whatever it is, that doesn't belong on WP --FCYTravis 04:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - yes, yes, we know that the story of Xenu is silly, but this doesn't belong here. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 06:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if can be verified. Looks interesting and useful. Ask author for links. Internodeuser 13:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Please explain how to verify something that gets zero search engine hits. RickK 20:20, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. --InShaneee 19:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What FCYTravis said. --Whimemsz 19:54, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Why can't this be speedied?Leithp 20:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• From the article: "After Khaxor is freed, he will destroy the Earth, taking all the OT3 to another planet, creating another civilization." Gee, I guess we'd better delete this fictional article with no cultural significance before all that can happen. No redirect to anywhere, otherwise he might destroy there instead. Barno 22:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons stated by Barno. Jacob1207 23:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No Consensus -> Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Berkeley High Jacket

Student newspaper for a school we don't have an article on. RickK 04:32, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand - Notable student newspaper in large California city. Alternately, merge into Berkeley High School (California) and redirect. --FCYTravis 04:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Until someone actually writes the school's article...delete. Harro5 04:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into an article about the high school, seems to have a claim to notability based on the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:22, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• keep this please a merge is ok too Yuckfoo 17:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect per FCYTravis. — RJH 19:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• I'm sure that the people who go to that high school are well served by this student newspaper. But it's a student newspaper. Delete. Jacob1207 23:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is a student newspaper inherently less notable than a professional newspaper? Is a weekly rag published to serve a county of 1,000 people worthy of an article because it's professional and a student newspaper serving a college of 100,000 not because it's "student"? I work for a student newspaper and while I'd certainly never start an article on it for ethical reasons, if someone did, our paper is clearly deserving of an article. --FCYTravis 07:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I could start an article about the way my friend's blog. That doesn't mean the blog is deserving of an article. Xcali 23:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Your friend's blog hasn't won 9 National Newspaper Pacemaker Awards in the last 11 years. (The Pacemaker is the Pulitzer Prize of college journalism.) --FCYTravis 00:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
        • You missed my point. Your argument was essentially, "This is deserving of an article because someone wrote an article." That circular reasoning doesn't fly around here. Regarding the awards, that might be notable, but how would I know that from reading this article? Xcali 15:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
          • No, you missed my point. I was arguing that student newspapers aren't inherently less notable because they're "student"-operated as opposed to professional papers. They *might* be less notable, but that's not clear simply from being student-run, as Jacob was arguing. --FCYTravis 16:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article makes a clear case for the uniqueness of the school paper and its notability. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge no reason to loose the text, but no reason for it's own article at this point. Vegaswikian 05:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, extremely NN. Radiant_* 08:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Most schools have a newspaper. I don't see how this one is notable. Xcali 23:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge when Berkeley High School article is created. This paper has attained widespread recognition. --Andy M. 20:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Karol 20:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep FCYTravis has a good point, which is rare for those who carry the argument deep into the indents. --Unfocused 04:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • For those who have said this article is non-notable, I encourage you to re-read it, specifically this passage: "In the late 1990s, the paper gained widespread prominence after breaking a story in Berkeley that resulted in criminal prosecution." I agree that we should perhaps consider merging this article once an article on Berkeley High School is written, but until then, it stands on its own as a legitimate article and the content should not be lost. --Andy M. 05:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• I never thought I'd vote keep on a high school VfD (much less a HS newspaper VfD), but given its apparent role in the Reddy case, this merits inclusion. (This was left by User:JosephBarillari)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:36, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ogbonnaya Agom-Eze

• • Keep I nominate that this article be kept on Wikipedia. The article can be verified via Ogbonnaya Agom-Eze's Book Publishers Website at [3]. The poster is not making things up about himself. He is who he says he is and also the Author of the book Acorns of the Soul.
  • A vanity press is not a reliable source. --Etacar11 20:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. He may be a prince, but he only has two Google hits, one to a guestbook and one a "website dedicated to reuniting Nigerian ex-schoolmates". Nothing to verify that he is a prince, and otherwise non-notable. RickK 04:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Some dude, unverifiable claims. Geogre 11:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Etacar11 16:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because (1) subject is not notable and (2) article is not verifiable. Jacob1207 23:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was move to a Wikiproject, then delete the subsequent redirect. This page will therefore be at a new location: Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Ocean Animals. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ocean Animals

This article apparently started as a school project for the kids to learn how to write and cite sources (see teachers explanation) Duk 04:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I'd move it to a project page and then redirect Ocean Animals so the kiddies don't get lost. Harro5 04:54, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Move: As Harro5 said, move to project page. But, I would not use the redirect. That leaves a vestigial trace that is not appropriate. --Durin 05:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Move as per Harro5, do not redirect. -- Lochaber 10:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Wrong namespace. Do what we did with Method Engineering Encyclopedia: WikiProjectify (either there or at Wikipedia:School and university projects) and mercilessly edit. Uncle G 11:29, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Keep. The term "Ocean Animals" has encyclopaedic value (it's not just fish, as many are mammals, etc). Needs to be expanded a lot, however. Add a stub tag to it, and wikifi. Internodeuser 13:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The content of this article is already covered elsewhere. Expanding it would be redundant. --Durin 13:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • So if I was looking for information on ocean animals, how would I find it? Kappa 16:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
    • One direct method would be to jump off the deck rail of a Cunard liner. Barno 23:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
      • (K, that's not really intended as a childish insult, but a straightforward if overliteral answer to your question.) However, I see there's not as much in Ocean#Ecology as I expected, and nothing in Animal that breaks out ocean-living animals. We might have need for an article describing the range of oceangoing life forms by family, with perhaps a section based on geography. But we don't need an article that simply lists and describes four species (out of hundreds of thousands) which happen to live in oceans, with no context or classification. So I vote to WikiProjectify or delete this article, which isn't a good starting point, and list on requested articles. Barno 23:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Try Anglerfish, Brain coral, Clownfish, and Humpback Whale. Are you suggesting we replicate information from other pages into a grand page that covers all species of ocean animals? That would GREATLY exceed the preferred maximum size for Wikipedia articles. --Durin 22:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• If I already knew about Anglerfish I could go straight there. I think I am suggesting something like what Barno describes. Kappa 23:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• I'm guessing Kappa means the sealife-by-classification-and-geography proposal, not the first thing I described in this thread. (grinning) Barno 00:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• The suggestion for a new article describing the range of oceangoing life forms has already been done. See Category:Aquatic organisms. This article, were we to follow suggestions as above, would merely be a replicate of the category article I referenced here. At best, if we keep this article, it should be a redirect to that category page. --Durin 03:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Move to project page.--Duk 16:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but add a stub tag.
• Move to a project page and encourage class to merge to real articles where and when applicable. I applaud the teacher for being bold and starting this project. We can always use future, good contributors who know how to cite sources for verifiability. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:38, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Lauren Ashley Wolfe

Delete: Apparent vanity. --Durin 04:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If there were a level below non-notable, this would be a level below that. Harro5 04:50, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Norvy 04:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Sjakkalle 10:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Almost no one (myself included) born after 1970 is notable (yet). - Etacar11 16:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, v, "Among Lauren's many interests are cake baking, reading Us Weekly, and watching The O.C.." She's 22 and writes (or tells a friend who writes) in WP that, as the most notable thing in your life between being born into a rich family and the things she plans to do in the future? I don't care how rich the Hallmark dynasty is, I won't date her. Nor her friend Mareth Collins-Wooley, who "considers herself a long lost member of the Kennedy family, Ted Kennedy more specifically", and is also listed for deletion. Barno 23:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If being an intern on Capitol Hill makes one notable I want to know where my article is. Jacob1207 23:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:39, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Mareth Collins-Wooley

Delete: Apparent vanity. --Durin 04:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. Norvy 05:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Prank, buddy page (n.b. the reference to the future president, another buddy page). Ugly waste of our time and resources. Geogre 11:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, just like her friend. - Etacar11 16:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Lauren. Barno 23:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Jacob1207 23:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

Simon F Baarbé

The result was 'Delete'. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 12:53, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Suzanne Rowntree

Not notable. DJ Clayworth 05:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nateji77 06:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. the wub (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Today I learned something new: Suzanne Rowntree has 4 brothers and sisters. We're not a genealogy wiki, so delete. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:57, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 04:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 12:53, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Matthew_Heroux

Delete Although it's a nice tribute, I don't see why this is notable enough to include. Xcali 05:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 06:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Eixo 08:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 04:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep as merge. Rossami (talk) 22:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A-Wing Slash

Plenty of things in the Star Wars universe are notable, but a battle maneuver? Firebug 05:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• There aren't that many real battle maneuvers that deserve an encyclopedia article, and they're even less notable in fiction. Delete as microtrivial fancruft. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:52, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I would think even most obsessive Star Wars fans would find this too trivial. Average Earthman 09:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to A-Wing to discourage re-creation, no need to merge as info is already in that article. -- Lochaber 10:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with A-Wing. Sjakkalle 11:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with A-Wing. Internodeuser 13:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with A-Wing. Why not delete? This particular maneuver is important to the plot of several books, first to establish competence of one character, and it is then used to identify that same character in another book. That said, it really isn't worth its own article -- Scimitar
  • Comment I've expanded it. I still don't think it's notable enough for its own article. Scimitar
• Delete -- trivial fancruft. - Longhair | Talk 16:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with A-Wing -- it's a slightly significant plot point, but only in the scene it's used in. It's kind of an interesting maneuver, but I agree with those who call it trivial fancruft, thus the merge vote as opposed to delete. Haikupoet 19:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (some of) the expanded bit into A-Wing per WP:FICT, significance (within the fictional milieu) better established. Still fiction trivia, but canon, and not completely irrelevant. Barno 23:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jacob1207 23:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with A-Wing -- I actually thought this would be another topic all together. -Acjelen 23:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with A-Wing. I can do it right now if everybody wants me to?--Kross 01:49, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with A-Wing. JamesBurns 10:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I've already added the info about the A-Wing Slash to the article about the A-Wing. It seems like Merge was going to be the end result anyways. Figured I should just take care of one part and wait to do the other. --Kross 10:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 7 clear "delete" votes, 1 "keep" vote (one very new user discounted) and 4 "keep as merge" votes (one probable troll discounted). Reviewing the article, I conclude that the content was in fact a fork from Islamophobia and find nothing that is appropriate to merge back. I also note that the article is an orphan.

On the principle that we should discourage the creation of forked articles that have the intent of pushing a particular point of view, I am going to exercise my discretion on this one and call it as a delete. Rossami (talk) 22:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Islamophobia and Islamism

POV fork. Firebug 05:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or else merge back into criticisms section of Islamophobia,Islamofascism,Islamism. I think this article is good starting point for documenting how charges of "Islamophobia" get bandied about by Islamists, similar to charges of antisemetism by some Zionists. Klonimus 05:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. User has created an awkward title just to push his POV. The issue - both sides of it - is covered well by Islamophobia. Eixo 08:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The article makes a good case for the right of free speech versus the effort to suppress it by association with racism.--Artoner 12:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • This is Artoner's first edit. Anyway, it's not the function of articles to "make a good case" for political propositions; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Firebug 13:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Islamophobia. Why do we need 2? Internodeuser 13:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• merge seems ok to me Yuckfoo 17:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Internodeuser. — RJH 19:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No need to merge any of this content. The issue is already covered in a reasonably NPOV fashion in Islamophobia. Leithp 20:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Internodeuser. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not another one. - Mustafaa 03:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Leithp carmeld1 01:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete duplicate content. JamesBurns 10:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Islamophobia --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:58, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge --Aesed 02:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was remove content and redirect to Western world. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Western civilzation

Procedural nomination. This article had been listed for VfD earlier, when I speedied it as nonsense. The deletion was disputed. I have agreed to undelete and allow it a chance on VfD. SWAdair | Talk 02:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The correctly spelled versions of this title redirect to Western world. This article is nonsense. SWAdair | Talk 05:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, patent nonsense and/or original research. (Yes, something can be both!) --Angr/_comhrá 06:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or misspelling redirect. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Megan1967 06:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No reason not to speedy. Eixo 07:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with the earlier decision to speedy as nonsense.-gadfium 08:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, OR, should be speedy. Borb 10:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and fully support speedy as nonsense and vandalism... it was created by a user who added many nonsense articles last week under several different usernames. I'm pretty sure I speedied another version of this article then, too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:34, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• I'll second that speedy - patent nonsense by vandal--Doc (t) 12:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite Article itself is all over the place, but the phrase "Western Civilization" is well used, often to describe the alternative to "3rd world countries". It should be written in that context. Is it worth editing it to make it worth looking at? Internodeuser 13:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • fine but look again at the title --Doc (t) 13:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Say what? I looked at the article and it looks like utter patent nonsense. Speedy delete. Hermione1980 18:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — apparently a big load of dingo's kidneys — RJH 19:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speedy Delete was the proper action. Recreate as a redirect to Western world. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:34, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under general criterion #1: patent nonsense. --Carnildo 19:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect at this misspelling. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite or Redirect to Western World. Falphin 22:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 00:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Patent nonsense. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. Possibly recreate as a redirect to Western world. - Mike Rosoft 11:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It sounds like something Douglas Adams would write. 69.205.224.242 12:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gregory Kleciak

Vanity. "Gregory Kleciak" only gets one Google hit -- us. "Greg Kleciak" gets two hits -- non-notable ones (and his home page at http://wholenote.com/member/profile/profile.asp?i=25255 is empty). "Lame Ass Productions" gets 7 hits. No entry at imdb under Gregory or Greg. RickK 06:12, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Extremely likely hoax/joke/prank. Not notable, one could say. Geogre 11:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - DS1953 00:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 04:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. User: OBloom4378 I saw this guy in Guys and Dolls and he was great; keep him!
• Do Not Delete. User:RRichards5678 Keep him, this guys sweet. They're indie films so they don't appear on imdb.
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Xcali 01:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Phantori

Vanity Wolf530 06:16, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: DJ Vanity and advertising. A more straightforward press kit release than most of these things, so the deletion grounds is more advertising than anything. Geogre 11:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Etacar11 16:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 04:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Redirect to crucifixion since the content is already in that article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Patibulum

Has been moved to Wiktionary already. Wolf530 06:23, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, dictionary definition, already in wiktionary. Megan1967 06:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to crucifix or keep. Kappa 08:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Simple Redirect to crucifixion, where this information is already present. Uncle G 11:34, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Redirect - agree, no independent article required here --Doc (t) 12:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's already in wiktionary. JamesBurns 10:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:46, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Sea train

Falls closest into the category of original research. But also unverifiable and not noteworthy, considering it's still an "idea" that clearly doesn't have any actual backing, plans, or really any information on what it actually is. Wolf530 06:23, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless an external source can be presented. There seems to be a band [4] by that name. Eixo 07:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Until it exists, this can only be "it's an idea." Ideas are fine, but until they have an effect on other ideas or the world, they're not encyclopedic. No one writes an article on X-ray lasers for their own sake, but because they're existing and the subject of great debate. Also, the article contains very little information. Geogre 11:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jacob1207 23:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 21:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Azzelarabe Taleb-Bendiab

Vanity. Wolf530 06:23, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No proof of notability. Eixo 07:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• No vote I think University Professors are inherently notable, but I understand that isn't the consensus view. Scimitar
  • Nope, sorry. WP:BIO is the relevant consensual guideline. Delete as such. Radiant_* 08:49, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not appear to pass the "Average Professor Test" --Carnildo 19:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. He is in no way notable. Jacob1207 23:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No proof of notability. carmeld1 01:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle 13:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

People Like Us (musician)

Feel free to prove me wrong, but this seems like a vanity page. Are they notable? Wolf530 06:22, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. She has a listing at allmusic.com. People Like Us has released three albums. Seems notable to me. Megan1967 07:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable musician see [5]. I will have a go at cleaning this up myself. Capitalistroadster 23:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleaned up article although still needs a bit more work. Notable musician and/or modern artist. Capitalistroadster 10:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Capitalistroadster scores another VfD cleanup and save. Soundguy99 15:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 21:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DMRevolution

Advertising, non-notable multi-level marketing company. Article creator Mrcolj (talk · contribs) has linked to his "profile" page instead of the main page not only on this page, but also on Multi-level marketing and List of network marketing companies. Google shows that this person is supposedly the VP of the company. The company name itself returns 128 pages. Claims to be a matrix scheme, not a pyramid scheme. —Markaci 2005-05-24 T 06:35 Z

• Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 07:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising and misuse of our services (and we'd have to know what the postmaster general says about it to verify that it's not a pyramid scheme). Geogre 11:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unimpressive Alexa rank of 349,835 Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I should point out that, simply because this organization is obscure, un-noteworthy, etc, should NOT be grounds for deletion. The Wikipedia is a lifesaver for finding information on such topics. However, the content of the article, IMHO, reeks of self-promotion. Were this an article on a general subject, I would say the neutrality is in dispute. However, since it is a commercial organization, and the article is self-serving, I would recommend deletion.Markarian

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 to List of minor Star Wars characters CDC (talk) 21:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keyan Farlander

5-word substub (one misspelled) for Star Warscruft minor character. RickK 07:14, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Star Wars things will pop up everywhere as the movie is shown. Harro5 08:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. Fancruft to be sure, but there are many millions of Star Wars fans who might be interested in this article, even if it is about a minor character. I would have voted a flat out merge if I could find an article to merge this with. If someone cares to merge all the minor characters together to List of minor Star Wars characters I would be all for it. Sjakkalle 08:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow, we apparently do have that article... a straight merge from me then! Sjakkalle 08:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge / redirect to List of minor Star Wars characters as per WP:FICT. -- Lochaber 10:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as above. Nickptar 15:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• merge and redirect please Yuckfoo 17:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since/if not in movie(s). Merge/redir second choice. Niteowlneils 23:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think being in the movies makes a character more notable than a non-movie character. By that logic, R3-A2 would be included, but Mara Jade would stay out.-LtNOWIS 20:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with merge and redirect per WP:FICT. Barno 23:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• thefourdotelipsis Sorry, expanded. Is quite a major Star Wars EU charachter. more history than some charachters found in the films. but merge it with the minor charachters list if you must

• Merge Changed my mind, there are people on the List of minor Star Wars characters with a lot more background than Farlander. Farlander does have a larger role in in the Star Wars Expanded Universe (as well as possibly appearing in the original trilogy Battle of Yavin). I could see this article being expanded with more info from his role in the Star Wars books etc...--Fxer 16:41, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Where to merge Keyan seems to be a bit confusing, he is a rebel (List of minor Rebel characters in Star Wars), but also eventually a Jedi (List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters) or perhaps he just goes with the other characters that can't be categorized (List of minor Star Wars characters)--Fxer 17:28, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • He could be in one and the other could contain a link to his entry. Or one could talk about his role as a Rebel and the other about him as a Jedi. Nickptar 20:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Nickptar. Merge into the minor Jedi characters list and put a link in the other to it. --M412k 02:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of minor Star Wars characters. JamesBurns 10:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, reasons stated. Just FYI, I got 751 Google hits. The first 2 were from Wikipedia, but most of the next 20 are definitely valid.-LtNOWIS 20:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. 161.55.168.90 21:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: Because this discussion was closed by anon, the deletion log says that this article was in fact deleted at 21:23, 9 Jun 2005 by Cdc (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Monssfisch). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Monssfisch

Is it a joke or not? Is it notable or not? I don't know, but it sure looks shady. Eixo 07:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 08:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Joke band vanity. Geogre 11:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 21:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grote-Trek

I'm sorry Swedish Chef, but there's already an article on this; it's South Africa's Great Trek. Eixo 07:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Well that would make this a redirect then (rather than the current few words not in English). Average Earthman 09:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't know about a redirect, as only .se users would need it (or is this Swedish?). I can't see this being a popular misspelling in en. Geogre 11:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought 'grote' was a Dutch word as well - sticking 'grote' in Google produces a lot of .nl websites. Not being able to speak Dutch, I wouldn't know if this means something completely different to 'Great' of course... Average Earthman 16:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
    • ... or indeed whether Afrikaans would use a different spelling. Average Earthman 16:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Yep, "Groot" (and derivations "grote" etc) simply means "big". "Trek", interestingly enough, means either "pull" or "hunger", making this a rather silly bilingual contamination. Delete. Radiant_* 08:50, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Are English speakers likely to run across this name in advertising or newspaper articles? I lack this information, so if so, then redirect, otherwise delete. Barno 23:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• How about speedy delete? No context, no content. Quale 07:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. CDC (talk) 21:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Belongingness

If anyone can make sense of this article, please explain it to the rest of us. -- Beland 07:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but rewrite. It's part of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Eixo 07:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Based on Eixo's post, keep. Might I add, the fact that he has a theory on "belongingness" says very little of Maslow. Harro5 08:27, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Maslow's theory is based on a pyramid-shape hierarchy of human emotions - belongingness is on the third level and exists only when physiological and safety needs are met. Megan1967 08:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Belonging and expand both. AFAIK "Belongingness" isn't a word. Internodeuser 13:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur, mergingness. Radiant_* 08:51, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with belonging. Capitalistroadster 23:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Parent article cited by Eixo uses the term "Love/belonging needs" here, not "Belongingness". This article reads like it was generated by the research-paper-writing bot that was described on Slashdot. Author was anon 129.11.76.215 . Delete, no need to redirect this non-word. Barno's Theory is that any sound or unsound idea can be portrayed as a pyramid shape. Barno 23:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• It might not be in the Wikipedia article, but Maslow used it plenty: [6]. It's not our task here to decide on the soundness of Maslow's ideas, only their notability. Eixo 06:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete but without prejudice if someone wants to move the content to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 03:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of East African given names

I don't understand what the consensus supposedly is on names, since I see no consensus on the discussion of it, but it's been closed as having reached consensus. But this is not an encyclopedia article. RickK 07:45, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• That has been explained on its talk page. Bear in mind that it is a discussion, not a vote, and that virtually all people in the discussion agree. Radiant_* 13:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is NOWHERE near long enough or useful enough to stay. Harro5 08:25, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 08:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Look at all of those list redlinks at List of given names by language! And note the contradiction between the article title and the category name. Here's how to contribute to Wiktionary's list of given names:
  • Add a redlink to the appropriate index page of Wiktionary:Wiktionary Appendix:First names.
  • If you can supply the (attested) meaning, etymology, or pronunciation, create the article. Aim to be on a par with Wiktionary:James. Otherwise just leave the redlink red.
• Uncle G 12:09, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Uncle G's reasoning. Radiant_* 13:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - sorry. Changed my mind. Look at List of Slavic given names and List of Vietnamese given names. Quite useful. If they are prepared to do all of that, then it's encyclopaedic and worthy. Internodeuser 13:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, the old "If someone wrote a lot of text, it's encyclopaedic." contention. You might care to take a look at Talk:List of Vietnamese given names before getting too enthusiastic. Uncle G 14:11, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Delete, nonencyclopedic list. At least Vietnamese and Slavic are linguistic entities; there are four different language families in East Africa (five if you count Madagascar as part of East Africa). --Angr/_comhrá 06:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non encyclopaedic. JamesBurns 10:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, at least as disambiguation page for different languages. Grue 12:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, because of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Japanese given names... this just is a poor attempt to recreate something useful like that... if that verdict is changed then I may decide to change my vote, but I see no reason to specifically pick on this article just because it's the wilted brother of the Japanese page. gren 04:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 13:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Gray and Erin Grooms

User:Harro5 nominated the Gray article for speedy deletion. I disagree, even though the article is woefully stubby, Gossamer is a notable band with a large article. I think keep, merge or redirect but not delete. Sjakkalle 08:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Having seen the band page, merge. Same goes for Erin Grooms, and so I have added his page to this VfD. Harro5 08:23, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and unlink the names. This is what we get when band articles have every member of the band wikilinked. We end up with valid speedy delete articles that say "X plays Y for band Q." Nothing is learned at all from such a link, and the person does not need an article, as he or she is known only for being in the band. If one of these persons has a solo career or does stuff outside of the band that is notable, then she or he should be discussed in an article. Otherwise, mention in the band article is sufficient. Geogre 11:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep with a stub tag. If the band page is that long, then there must be a decent amount to say about each member too. Internodeuser 12:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (or Merge/redir the tiny bit that's therer). Band article has plenty of room for personnel info. Niteowlneils 21:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Either delete outright or merge/redirect (if there's anything useful that isn't already in the band's article). Joyous 23:35, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Xltronic

Advertising. Website 942,551 on Alexa. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 09:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 09:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. I didn't nowiki the article, but that would be procedure for articles on VfD. Geogre 11:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Referencing as your sole reference a web page that is "under construction" indicates that we are not yet ready for a wiki article. Wait until the web page gets finished, or until there's actually something worth saying. Internodeuser 12:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete. notable musical contribution and extensive database of release information in forum section

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. The community was ultimately unable to verify the alleged content. Rossami (talk) 03:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pathological Schizophrenia

• Unverifiable, original research, idiosyncratic, and unhelpful. Delete with extreme prejudice. -- The Anome 10:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • The author has now given a cite two cites. Unfortunately, it does they do not say what they think it means they mean. Yes, you can couple the words "pathological" and "schizophrenia" together. No, it does not imply "fake schizophrenia", as this article implies. -- The Anome 10:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

It is a condition well known to Psychologists. I noticed that you did't have an entry for it so I added one. Please feel free to edit it. Perhaps you'd prefer the term psychological schizophrenia? They mean the same thing. 203.26.206.129 10:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's break it down into short statements. Schizophrenia is a pathology. So the statement "pathological schizophrenia" is meaningful. Water is wet. So the statement "wet water" is meaningful. However, both statements are redundant, and the word "pathological" is being used merely as an intensifier. That's why you only find 23 mentions of "pathological schizophrenia" on Google, compared to 7,320,000 for "schizophrenia".

And over 10,000 for "psychological schizophrenia"... It seems like that usage is more common than pathological. 203.26.206.129 11:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

No, that's 821 when you look for the phrase, rather than the words: try using quotes. -- The Anome 12:31, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

And 10,000 if you try "pathological" AND "schizophrenia" and then look for relevant articles about pathological schizophrenia. I linked a few of them on the page. Internodeuser 13:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the psychological-only explanation of schizophrenia is also a busted flush: try Googling for it, and you find mainly accidental conjunctions of words, and articles explaining that it is a dead theory, like the miasma theory of disease. -- The Anome 10:55, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Pathological also means psychological. Pathological doesn't just mean science. I will see if I can find more references for you, since you're so upset about it. 203.26.206.129 11:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete never heard of the term. Fake schizophrenia would be an alternative though I have very strong doubts about verifiability and encyclopedic value of the alternative. psychological schizofrenia would be another alternative but I think that user:Anome is right that this is an obsolete/dead/abandoned theory and this should be stated clearly in the article. Or may be Hypochondric schizophrenia? I do not oppose to the latter if this is notable and verifiable. 11:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between it and "fake schizophrenia". Fake schizophrenia is when you don't have it. Pathological schizophrenia is when you have all of the symptoms and for all intensive purposes are schizophrenic - but with no medical symptoms. There's a difference. 203.26.206.129 11:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Such as? How do you diagnose "pathological schizophrenia", then, if its symptoms are identical to those of 'real' schizophrenia? Your cites so far have not been enlightening on this point. The actual literature on malingering and schizophrenia [7] seems to show that instruments such as the MMPI are pretty good at weeding out malingerers. -- The Anome 11:29, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • How do you diagnose it? Well, you may not be aware of this, but there is a medical way to diagnose schizophrenia, which is through analysis of spinal fluid. This is the only certain way of diagnosing schizophrenia. Pathological schizophrenia fails this test. Pretty simple really. Its pretty rare that pathological schizophrenia can't be cured through therapy, and the only examples when it can't is when it is attached to a mental illness with chemical roots, such as depression. Hope that that explains it. 203.26.206.129 11:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Fascinating. I must have missed the bit about needing to take a spinal tap in the DSM-IV. Do you mind giving me a cite? Please, don't dig yourself in any deeper. -- The Anome 11:40, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well I had to get one when they tested me for schizophrenia. I failed that, so they said I wasn't. Was pretty simple. Would take too long to look it up though. I'll leave it for someone else to do. I'm not quite sure of the correct methods that they do.
      • Comment. A lumbar puncture isn't used to diagnose schizophrenia. It is used to rule out certain other disorders (particularly infections like neurosyphilis) which may generate similar symptoms. Though there is some evidence to suggest certain neurotransmitter metabolites may be measured in cerebrospinal fluid drawn by lumbar puncture, such measurements are unreliable and not used in clinical diagnosis. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 21:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • Oh and you should look up Lumbar_puncture rather than spinal tap. They mean the same thing. I will change my wording in this page to match that of Wikipedia. 203.26.206.129 11:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
        • The formal medical term is indeed "lumbar puncture", and that's what we should use in articles. Spinal tap is medical slang; for example, a "champagne tap" is one so expertly perfomed that the junior doctor gets bought a bottle of champagne by their consultant. -- The Anome 12:18, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Look, in the spirit of nicey-nicey week, here's a ref to Factitious disorder with psychological schizophrenia symptoms. [8] Unfortunately, the only reference to it on the entire Web is a single page referring to the Morrison, Doe and Decker case. -- The Anome 12:35, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I've already read that page, so don't worry. lol. There's a lot of personal reasons why I know that this is a real condition. A real lot. Internodeuser 12:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 13:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article appears to be almost entirely bogus. The listed cites don't use the term "pathalogical schizophrenia". Quale 18:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — (Quale: It's "pathological", not "pathalogical".) There appears to be some legitimate work on this supposed disorder, so I think the page needs facts-checking, not deletion. Possibly also needs some clarification to distinguish it from certain pathological symptoms of schizophrenia. — RJH 18:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm blushing about the typo. First cite has a single mention of pathological schizophrenia but with no apparent connection with this article. The other cites don't mention it at all. Where is the legitimate work you are talking about? This article most definitely needs deletion. Quale 20:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The author says that it is a condition well known to Psychologists, but the term is certainly not general knowledge in abnormal psychology. Also, as Quale noted, the text is not really based on the referenced material. This looks like original research (at best) to me. Sietse 19:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be original research. --Carnildo 19:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; original research. The references in the article don't actually refer to pathological schizophrenia, except for the single self-identified personal account. At best, this article would seem to describe misdiagnosis with schizophrenia—psychologists, like other doctors, do make mistakes. Misdiagnosis and controversies about the nature and cause of schizophrenia are already covered in that article.--TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 21:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)]
  • Actually, they do all reference it. Try a google search if you dispute it. Its legitimate. 203.26.206.129 08:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I must disagree. The phrases "pathological schizophrenia" or "pathologic schizophrenia" do not appear in the last six of eight links. The first link uses "pathological schizophrenia" to refer to schizophrenia, full stop. The second link is a web page by someone who has self-identified with the disorder, but doesn't carry a clinical diagnosis of the purported syndrome. A Google search for "pathological schizophrenia" returns only 23 hits, many of which are referring to classic schizophrenia or to entirely unrelated topics. PubMed doesn't return any results for "pathological schizophrenia". I'm afraid this article still looks to be unsubstantiated original research. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 12:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I also checked a few additional sources: the term is not mentioned in two general textbooks on abnormal psychology and produces no relevant hits in a full text database which includes issues of most major journals in the social sciences for the past ten years. Sietse 12:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOR. Radiant_* 08:52, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I have never seen this condition listed in any psychological or psychiatric diagnostic system, and some of it is plainly false or incoherent - i.e. "Pathological schizophrenia can be described as the result when a person is diagnosed with schizophrenia through means such as the MMDI personality tests, but when medical tests such as lumbar_puncture finds that a person does not have schizophrenia" - schizophrenia is never diagnosed by either of these two methods. - Vaughan 13:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteI don't think this is in the DSM. At best, it should probably merge into schizophrenia. Xcali 23:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Unless someone can give me a good reason not to, I will be moving the personal attacks and discussion to the talk page for this VfD. I have no vote at this time while I research this topic.--Tznkai 13:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I will wait until 15:00 UTC for an objection before wiping the personal attacks and replies to talk page.--Tznkai 14:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Done--Tznkai 16:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• REDIRECT to Disassociative identity disorder. I think that that talks about the same thing. 203.26.206.129 14:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep US Socail Secuirty Document This term is used in atleast one offical document, even if described as Factitious. Reflag as ActiveDiscuss or other dispute tag--Tznkai 14:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The link above has an extra http:// in it; I believe the corrected link is here. It describes, as a potential mental disability, "Factitious disorder with psychological Schizophrenia symptoms". This is just a catch-all term for disorders with symptoms similar to schizophrenia. This isn't a false diagnosis of schizophrenia (the topic of the article we're discussing here) this is a correct diagnosis (or rather a description) of something that looks like schizophrenia but isn't. It covers patients with mental disorders or infectious diseases (like neurosyphilis) having schizophrenia-like symptoms. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 15:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • My vote stands, again I believe this should be tagged as disputed, not for deletion. The term has been used, and much of the conention here is on the CONTENT of the article as POV or unsupported. This is a dispute, not a deletion issue. I'd flag and contest it myself, but deletion should not be used as a tool to get rid of things that people might want to learn about.--Tznkai 16:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with all those above who have posted references to medical databases. I would like to add that currently the article redirects to Dissociative identity disorder, which states quite clearly at the top that DID is not schizophrenia. --bainer (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Eep. I'm getting slopy already. Page restored. However, I do note that all edits other than the addition of a VFD and my revert were made 203.26.206.129, presumably the author. If the author wishes to remove the article, he or she should speak up and save us all some trouble.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 01:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Howard Lieberman

Does not appear to be notable, judging from the article, his website, and a Google search. Sietse 10:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Personal biography, looks like a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. Average Earthman 11:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, they already have their own web page, that's where it belongs. Probably written by Howard Lieberman themselves. Internodeuser 13:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think the article is actually written by his son (see initials 'SL'), but if notability can be shown (accomplishments, not family tree), I will change my vote. -- Scimitar
• Delete unless notability can be established. --NormanEinstein 16:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. - Etacar11 16:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Belongs to a geneology site, not WP. Xcali 23:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is STevan Lieberman and yes I started this page about my dad. But I think he's phenomenal. I guess I'm prejudiced, but what makes some one noteable? He worked hard, rose to the top of his field as a neurosurgeon, has writtne thousands of poems, a number of plays and is learning to make pottery and has been a good human being along the way. I will of course abide by all of your decisions, but please do me a favor and read a couple of his poems before voting. THanks for your consideration. Stevan Lieberman

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was was keep. Reasoning: There is no consensus to delete. The question is whether to keep or merge. Since the article now actually consists of two sections one about Discworld another about Maskerade, unrelated to each other, I am calling this an outright keep for the moment. This does not mean that it cannot be merged later if somebody wants to do some rework, splitting this article into two pieces and merging both of them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

La Triviata

AFAIK this is some sort of TV show that will be published in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so delete. — JIP | Talk 12:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

FYI, it's also the name of a fictional opera in a Discworld novel. The name is a tweak of La Traviata. --Papeschr 13:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I've just edited the article. Added a note about the Discworld novel, and minimised the crystal-ball-ness. It's now a slightly informative stub, so KEEP. --Papeschr 13:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and link to Discworld, add stub tag and expand. Internodeuser 13:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Maskerade, the aforementioned Discworld novel. A TV show that hasn't yet been aired doesn't need an article. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 21:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Vegaswikian 05:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Maskerade. Vashti 08:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• It's a TV show in production by the guys behind Spaced and Shaun of the dead, due to be broadcast late this summer. Absolutely nothing to do with Maskerade or any other Pratchett books. For more info see [9]. Strong keep. Proto 12:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. At best, it should be dabbed to both pages. Vashti 12:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The crystal ball argument is to prevent pages being created about events that may or could happen in years to come, not pages about events that will happen (production is already underway, and the pilot is finished) ... by that argument the article on Star Wars Episode III shouldn't have been there until May 19th. Proto 13:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment, indeed, there shouldn't have been an article on the film until this month. An article on the rumors is one thing, but encyclopedias must be conservative in their coverage, and things must be verified. At this point, you could say one or another thing about a plan or about a production of a show, but there is no show until it is shown. When talking about plans and productions, we cross to making cultural announcements, and Wikipedia is not an advertising or announcement site. Geogre 15:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Maskerade. JamesBurns 10:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep you don't need a crystal ball to verify that information. (should I make it a template?) Grue 12:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gamaliel 13:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Sjakkalle 11:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Cannibal_Women_in_the_Avocado_Jungle_of_Death

Nonsense article. No relevance except to a tiny group having fun griff 12:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Reference [10], [11], [12]. Add a stub flag and wikifi. Internodeuser 13:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a real movie. 23skidoo 13:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• I've completely rewritten--the text here before was completely incomprehensible. Keep--very notable cult classic movie. Meelar (talk) 13:49, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep. While I can't quite expect everyone to have heard of it, it's definitely notable. It starred Bill Maher and Adrienne Barbeau, and was written (and directed) by the same writer as the blockbuster hit Pretty Woman. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable film. - Longhair | Talk 16:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep never seen it, but heard of it for years. - Etacar11 16:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• The writing in the original article [13] appears to be some trite written by a small group about themselves. Though I admit I'd never heard of the real film and I should have checked this. But the title did sound a bit out-there. - griff 20:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, real movie. RickK 19:46, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as real movie with cult status. Capitalistroadster 23:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Adrienne Barbeau. Rewrite is good for this cult classic movie. Barno 23:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, thanks for the re-write Meelar! -- Lochaber 11:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was: speedily deleted. sjorford →•← 22:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bradley field

nonsense entry. Delete. P0ppe 12:47, 2005 May 24 (according to history Uncle G 14:47, 2005 May 24 (UTC))

• First person purported autobigraphy that is an attack page. Speedy delete. Uncle G 14:47, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as attack page. --Carnildo 20:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Geogre's Rule applies, also speedy delete as attack page. Author was anon 212.219.90.99 . Barno 23:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• I have speedy deleted this personal attack. Denni☯ 00:29, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• An article on a nonnotable person named "Bradley Field" was deleted a few months ago, so I assume the article that's been speedied was similar. I've created Bradley Field (correctly capitalized) as a redirect to Bradley International Airport. The term "Bradley Field" is used in New England for this airport, plus we can hope that having something in place at this title will discourage Mr. Field from trying yet again. JamesMLane 07:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mads Dalgaard

Vanity. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 12:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Funny, how many of these vanity page writers allegedly hate publicity, isn't it?-- Scimitar
• Delete vanity. "never been convinced"? :) - Etacar11 16:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 04:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Brian Fechter

Complete and utter vanity. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for obvious reasons. Martg76 13:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity Xcali 14:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 04:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 03:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Motor Intent Neuron

Another contribution from User:Serapion/Mythrandia (?) who gave us Western civilzation (above). Given the creator's history, their note that 'This is of course purely hypothetical, and wrong in some ways, but hey--when it comes to biology--what isn't?' (see edit history), and that the concept draws a google-blank, I think we have reason to suspect this article's legitimacy --Doc (t) 13:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• • PS. would someone with a scientific bent please review the other contributions of this user
• Delete, or alternately burn with fire.-- Scimitar
• Delete and burn with acid as an offense to modern biology. Sarg 18:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I've coughed up better stuff than this. Xcali 23:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep CDC (talk) 01:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cocaethylene

Nonsense, for the reasons described on the talk page. Physchim62 13:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Reference [14], [15], [16]. And remove the "dispute facts" tag, as it is actually quite correct. Internodeuser 13:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The references look pretty legitimate to me. -- Scimitar

Suggestion withdrawn. Internodeuser's references have been included in the article. Physchim62 17:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Well done, Internodeuser and Psychim62.Capitalistroadster 23:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable and notable. Megan1967 06:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Computing Knowledgebase

Even if they are related, Wikipedia is not an advert for wikicities. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- not notable - Longhair | Talk 13:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - no article, no point to it. Internodeuser 13:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - IMO, this should have been marked {{delete}} for speedy. --M412k 02:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.

Most of the "delete" voters clearly expressed an opinion that a new entity can not generally be encyclopedia-worthy the day of its launch (or worse, the day prior) and that more time should be allowed before the decision is made to include it. The "keep" voters were less consistent in their reasoning. By strict vote-count, I count 20 "deletes", 20 "keep as is" (though ten of them had to be discounted as either anonymous or so new that they were indistinguishable from sockpuppets) and 6 "merge". Since the "merge" votes count as a variant of "keep", the decision to delete fails to meet the necessary concensus even though there is a clear majority (20 to 16) in favor of deletion. There is, however, an overwhelming concensus (26 to 10) that this should not remain as an independent article. Accordingly, I am going to call this one as a "merge and redirect". Relevant content has been merged with Kevin Rose per the recommendations below. (If anyone thinks I missed an important detail, you can view it in the page history and can merge it yourself.)

This decision should be considered binding until there is clear and convincing evidence that Systm is independently encyclopedia-worthy. That is usually taken to mean that the entity has been around long enough and has had enough general impact on society that a verifiable article of greater than stub length can be written and that the topic is widely enough known that we can expect the necessary critical mass of knowledgable reader/editors to keep the article neutral. Rossami (talk) 02:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Systm

A web videozine released tomorrow. Not encyclopedic. -- Longhair | Talk 11:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- Just keep it for the release and then decide from there. The site is slashdotted and I came here to find out about it. If it flops then this page can go, if it accounts for 90% of the world's bandwidth consumption tonight :D, then probably keep it.
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 11:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: A thing hasn't achieved notability if it hasn't even come into existence yet. Advertising. Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 12:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable (yet). Megan1967 05:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete-- It will be recreated anyway! I think some people like to edit an article, rather then create it from scratch. --204.210.111.63 13:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: If you recreate it, I again edit it with another VfD nomination. Come back when you're in fact encyclopedic, not 3 days old. -- Longhair | Talk 13:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Don't Delete The Systm... -- In the mid to late 90's The Screensavers on ZDTV/TechTV became a phenomenon that has spun-off MANY web-based shows with The Systm being one. If you remove The Systm you must also remove TWiT and The Broken. Don't remove any of these !!
• Keep -- A videozine released tomorrow... so just wait for tomorrow. Surely you can wait ::calculates time:: 7 hours to see if it's worth keeping. --TexasDex 20:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Mrmiscellanious 22:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- No point deleting it, it is released in a few hours. Why delete it when The Broken and This Week in Tech are allowed? It is already famous and many people know about it. 202.173.180.85 23:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The anons (socks?) want to keep it. That's a good reason for deleting it. — P Ingerson (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I am not involved with the creation of Systm, I am a regular Wikipedia user but can't get into my account (Peter McGinley) because the retrieve password feature is not e-mailing me a new password. If I did have access to my account, I would be logged in on it. 202.173.180.85 00:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - this show is looking to be quite popular. We have an article for Friends, don't we? Popular TV shows are worthy of an article. If this thing flops, we can consider removing it, but espically in 4 hours, there'll be a lot to say about systm. --Oreckel 00:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Friends was a popular sitcom syndicated over the world, seen by roughly a third of a billion people. Systm will be lucky to see 10,000 viewers. This should be regarded as nothing more than an amateur podcast that gets its article deleted every day from this encyclopedia. Nothing differs from the two. And, if you want to combat it, please - shed some intelligence. --Mrmiscellanious 00:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't The Broken and This Week in Tech be deleted too, if they are amateur videozine/podcasts according to you? All three of these are very popular. 202.173.180.85

Definitely. If someone would put up a VfD, I'd sign it. --Mrmiscellanious 02:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, what number of viewers would constitute this as encyclopedia-worthy? --Oreckel 05:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Systm is not an average radio podcast. It is a professionally-produced series of videos, from some very well-known TV hosts. --taestell 22:47, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - this is huge. If you delete this, might as well delete "television", "electricity" and "internet" while you're at it. --JimXugle 11:14PM EST, May 23rd 2005

Exactly. How about entries on under-performing in ratings TV shows be deleted too? 202.173.180.85 03:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete ad/spam. CryptoDerk 04:31, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a large videozine and deserves a page here on Wikipedia Salvag 05:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, sockpuppet parade. Firebug 05:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a videozine with a notable cast, and it seems like the demand for the first episode was fairly high.--Matteh (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, This "show" so far hasn't impressed me, and contains some less then truthful content, but such is the power of the internet, and it's no reason to get rid of the wiki page. 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • This vote by 24.226.90.228 (talk · contributions) Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 09:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I just watched it, and its kinda dissapointing, but the next ones should be more promising. In anycase, Wikipedia should be based on the diversoty of content. This is a real topic, and therefore, it should be allowed to exist!--Buickid 11:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC) — (Buickid's 2nd edit.)
• Delete vanity. It doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article simply because it exists, we need evidence of notability, particularly as it has only existed for one day. sjorford →•← 14:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising, sockpuppet invasion. AиDя01DTALK 14:36, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is NOT a web guide, also sockpuppet-supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Kevin Rose, unless people want that one deleted too. Average Earthman 16:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. With all due respect, Wikipedia chronicles notable things, it does NOT exist to help things become notable. As for this: "If you delete this, might as well delete "television", "electricity" and "internet" while you're at it. --JimXugle", please attempt to factually show that this webcast will have a similar effect on society as say, television. If you can't do it, don't make ridiculous claims.

-- Scimitar

• Keep -- As stated above there are already similar entries that are already accepted. More importantly than that, given Kevin Rose's existing fan base and the quality of the show, Systm may very well define how the online TV format should be done. I think it has huge potential of being a very significant topic. In my opinion people come to Wikipedia for information on non-mainstream topics like this if they wanted a standard encyclopedia they have many other choices. -Ferg
  • Saying something has been "already accepted" is a fallacy; everything contributed to Wikipedia is accepted. Regarding "may very well define," "huge potential," etc.: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If and when this webcast becomes notable, it might deserve an article. AиDя01DTALK 17:36, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all in Videozine. Attack of the 50 feet sockpuppets. Oh, and I don't think this is notable enough to deserve its own article, but it might be a good idea to merge all the articles about videozines in a Videozine article. Sarg 18:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Kevin Rose, a popular TV personality, just left the G4 television network to work full time on this program and The Broken. --taestell 19:09, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Kevin Rose until it gains the notability to stand on its own. --InShaneee 19:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until it achieves notability. RickK 19:58, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, and supported by a surplus of sockpuppets. --Carnildo 20:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No credible third party references to support notability. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Kevin Rose. The reason the show is important is because of Kevin Rose. Until the show gets popular enough to warrant its own article. Best merge it to Kevin's article. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 00:41, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN. And kill the socks. Radiant_* 08:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If it becomes a cultural phenomenon, then we'll talk about including it. Xcali 23:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Has some notability. JamesBurns 10:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Why Delete? If you think this article is unimportant, go look at Hide and Q. I am sure I just offended some of the Star Trek: The Next Generation fans. It is a piece of TV, and a piece of Star Trek. The Systm is part of the internet, and one of the greatest forms of media. if I deleted Hide and Q, surely some Star Trek fans would get mad, but it is just a fraction of the star trek NG episodes. "but it might be a good idea to merge all the articles about videozines in a Videozine article" Why dont I just merge Hide and Q to the Star Trek: The Next Generation article? " Wikipedia's credo is "the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Shouldn't an encyclopedia contain everything? --Neo123195 10:08 (UTC), 27 May 2005
  • No. sjorford →•← 21:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Kevin Rose, he seems to be the main reason for it's importance at the moment. Falcorian 22:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Kevin Rose (for now). As Falcorian stated, Mr. Rose is the main basis for its popularity. Until it becomes notable on its own, merge it. iKato 05:47, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Markaci 2005-06-1 T 02:09 Z
• Delete One episode and hardly any information available on its distribution/popularity. It doesn't deserve an article just because it is a side project of some D-list celebrity, and it doesn't have enough of a cult following (or content for that matter) to write about. Definitely watch for new developments, should this change. -- uberpenguin 02:50, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Merge with Kevin Rose. On second thought, this would be better since it will add more content to that article but still keep the mention of it around so a new article isn't formed until there is enough information available to merit one. -- uberpenguin 02:52, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

• Delete, insignificant. -- Hoary 05:53, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Keep -- This is big from Kevin Rose and I think videozines are something that will change media distribution, now that we know the Internet is able to help people get their message across faster. It'll be recreated at some point in the future, so what's the point in deleting this article? This isn't pointless "newb" stuff! People will want to know what Systm is and what the background of it is. Just keep it. ..... added at 01:26, 2005 Jun by 69.230.167.162
• Delete drini ☎ 01:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a review of the article and the referenced websites reveal them to be a combination of advertising and vanity posting. It's not notable. Tobycat 04:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as notable as The Broken. siafu 20:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep definitely worthy of Wikipedia AyrtonSenna
• Keep. I came to Wikipedia a moment ago specifically to look up Systm, and that's how I saw the VfD. I think that alone — the fact that I expected WP to have something to say about Systm — is reason to keep. For now. --TreyHarris 21:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Daniel L. Lurker

Fails the Wikipedia:Google test. Waxtal 02:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Item: as it stands, this article appears highly defamatory and possibly constitutes allegations of criminal behaviour. In such circumstances I feel that most encyclopaedias would decline to publish in this form. --Simon Cursitor 14:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - Defamatory, what are you talking about? He's trying to seek justice and doing it in a perfectly legal manner. This country's unrelenting tyranny against people who smoke is outrageous and disgusting. George Mason University, located just outside the basin of hell, is notorious for disregarding the facts and doing things their way. Actually, our government likes to take the same approach. Tparker393 16:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - This appears to be someone's personal advertisement. Should be removed from George Mason University as well. Wikipedia:Vanity page Hiberniantears
• Delete: Personal tribute page to someone who's just a college activist. Not encyclopedic. Geogre 01:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• I'm a little confused. He's in college for at least a year but under 18? Delete pending some stunning verifiblity. humblefool® 03:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Possible. It doesn't happen often, but some people either graduate high school early or leave high school altogether and start college around age 16. I'd agree that it's unlikely. Xcali 00:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - the information here is valid and he isn't advertising. This person is notable given that the first sentence distinguishes him from millions of other college graduates. Where do you people get off on this vanity racket? I've got news for you, most people don't care about getting their name in Wikipedia. Wow, imgaine that- someone who doesn't devote every waking second of his life to this pursuit. I know it's hard for most of you wikipedians to fathom that. I was reading the article that lists wikipedians who have articles about them. Why not call all of them vain too? Currently only one of those is up for deletion and that's due to controversy. Tparker393 16:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Most people may not care, but a whole lot of people who find their way to the Wikipedia seem to care. Why else are so many articles created that consist of little more than some variation on "He's a cool d00d!"? Xcali 00:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Xcali 00:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. This (poorly-organized) article memorializes a minor incident in college politics in the guise of documenting the brief career of a completely unremarkable student activist. Seriously: Friendly's coupons? --Tysto 19:49, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Delete, probably a hoax, at best non-notable. RickK 04:05, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no notability, article is a mess, really. --Kiand 23:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a forum for recording the minutae of student politics. Gamaliel 23:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, delete the content and make it a stub. Falphin 01:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Accurate (I know this individual) but non-notable.

• Delete. This guy might do something notable in the future that would get him worthy of inclusion, but as of now, he's just a smart guy who's just graduated college at an early age, not an encyclopedia subject. *Dan* 04:01, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Graduating from college at 19, while somewhat rare, is not notable. I graduated one month after turning 20, and look at me now! --Golbez 04:12, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Simply graduating at age 19 doesn't make him notable. — J3ff 17:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless substub. Why was this not speedied? 24.54.208.177 02:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wibley

Neologism. At best should be moved to Wiktionary, but probably not. Kelly Martin 15:42, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with Kelly Martin. Xcali 15:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - DavidWBrooks 16:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• The "source" isn't actually a source, and is unverifiable. I cannot find any evidence that supports this word having this particular meaning, so it's not worth transwikiing this article. "Wibley" is a surname, but there's no need for a name disambiguation because there's no-one with that surname who has an article. I've put a redlink in Wiktionary:Wiktionary Appendix:Surnames wia-wiz. There's exactly 1 piece of evidence that I've found, a Usenet posting, that indicates that there's a thing called a Wibley. It says that it's a type of tripod head used in photography. But since it doesn't come up in the advertisements for "we'll sell you all sorts of expensive camera stuff" shops, I'm inclined to doubt this. The Usenet poster possibly meant Wimberley. Delete. Uncle G 20:07, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was article was Speedy deleted at 13:30, 25 May 2005 by Charles Matthews (nonsense). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Surya balakrishnan

More odd, incoherent stuff by author of Sean ng (VfD). Delete unless verified and completely rewritten. jni 15:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Much as I'd love to see the verification, particularly the bit about escaping by "parting the Red Sea, simulatneously ruining Malaysia's fishing industry", this is speedy delete material. Physchim62 17:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 06:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete, i've changed my mind Megan1967 08:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC) this false vote by User:219.78.192.178
• Delete, nonsense. Radiant_* 08:55, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strife Sauvage

Non-notable, prank/bs, neologism, original research, autobiography, whatever. Zero hits. Niteowlneils 16:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Fiction/prank/joke or insignificant fantasy. Geogre 01:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. Quale 04:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Helen_Roberts

Appears to be a vanity page Xcali 16:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Delete. -SocratesJedi | Talk 16:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• I would advise the author to focus on her academic achievements, rather than plans and Wikipedia accomplishments. Until that happens, delete- Scimitar
• Delete vanity. This is the sort of thing for a user page. (if the author wasn't anon) - Etacar11 17:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep. The article has since been re-written. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Allah Lanjutkan Usia Sultan

This page has been sitting on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English since May 14. As with similar articles, there seems little point in giving it the full fourteen days on PNTE. Physchim62 17:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Anglicized Arabic? SWAdair | Talk 06:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

No, Malay or Indonesian according to language recognition sites; I'd go for Malay. Until we create a [[Category:Islam articles in foreign languages]] ;-), this one can probably be deleted. Physchim62 09:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, article as it stands is unencyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

*Delete, if it's been sitting that long, chances are no one's going to touch it. Looks like someone translated it. Can we resolve this issue now?--Mitsukai 16:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep - I have added text to explain the topic, so it is now much more than just the song lyrics. And thus now encyclopedic for sure. andy 11:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rahandishan

Another page from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English which looks unsavable. Physchim62 17:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Arabic? Terrace4 12:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Arabic-type script, although Languid returns "Gibberish"... Physchim62 12:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: after several test runs with authentic Arabic, Langiud still returns Gibberish. Ho-hum. Physchim62 21:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Google returns only two results, in which Rahandishan is a personal name. I suggest VfD. --Fenice 06:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The first half without the underscores is identified as farsi by the language guesser-site, the last third turns out to be urdu.--Fenice 06:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, article as it stands is unencyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, adds nothing without a translation; if someone wants to start it again later, go nuts --handisnak 08:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of Pan-Turkists

Is a list of names, with no explanation or context (even to say what a pan-Turkist is)Simon Cursitor 17:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. No real content, just random names of people who don;t sppear to have artciles. -R. fiend 17:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. No content, no context. Doesn't even bother to denote where one name ends and the next begins. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Agree with above users. Sarg 18:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• A Pan-Turkist is one who espouses Pan-Turkism, and the reason that the article didn't separate the names is probably that the original author was unfamiliar with wiki-markup. In the actual wikitext, there are line breaks between the names. (I've remedied that problem.) As a raw list of names without any explanation whatever, this is speedy deletion criterion A1 territory, though. There's no context to link this article to Pan-Turkism or explain what this list signifies, and no inclusion/exclusion criteria explaining what qualifies someone to be on this list. Given how short both it and Pan-Turkism are, there's scant justification for a stand-alone list, too. If these people are notable within the field of Pan-Turkism, why aren't any of them even mentioned in Pan-Turkism? It has plenty of room to spare for a list of six names. Uncle G 20:23, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Delete. Jacob1207 23:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no encyclopaedic content. Megan1967 06:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge without redirect at Pan-Turkism, in hope that someone might supply further information about these folks' rôles in the movement.-- Smerdis of Tlön 14:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I would be against including these names in the Pan-Turkism article unless someone can dig up some information on them and explain why they belong there. I haven't checked yet, but is there evidence that these are even legit entries? -R. fiend 00:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete - by my count, all but one keep vote is by a pretty obvious sockpuppet. CDC (talk) 19:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Victor Beck

Vanity article on an opera singer that I can't seem to find any recordings by. Allmusic hasn't heard of him. Likewise google cannot confirm any of the claims made in this article, including the song he wrote or his connection to "Ask the Rabbi". If reliable sources can be found for all this infromation I could change my vote here. -R. fiend 17:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — [17] [18] [19] ... Cantor Victor Beck seems well documented. Possibly parts of the page need confirmation? — RJH 18:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • All those pages confirm is that he exists and he was one of 141 people to meet the Pope one day earlier this year. Neither of those make him encyclopedic. One of those is also his own website, which is hardly a reliable source. I could start my own site and make all sorts of claims about myself too. -R. fiend 19:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- unless notability is verified. - Longhair | Talk 19:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Also needs to watch his weight. JFW | T@lk 19:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • If you post photos of yourself on the internet, you have to be able to tolerate this kind of remarks. Similarly, posting your biography on Wikipedia may lead to hurt feelings when you land on VFD. Do not criticise my character where it's your thirst for Wiki-fame (or that of your socks or pals) that has been driving this all along. JFW | T@lk 00:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more Cantorcruft like the Eliezer article. RickK 20:01, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

  For people who are wondering what Rick is referring to, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs. By the way, we should soon expect the appearence of at least a half dozen sockpuppets voting "Keep" here, if not more. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

  You called that one, Jayjg (see below). -R. fiend 20:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

  There is also a WP:VFU for the third recreation of the Eliezer article. RickK 22:53, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Victor I. Beck is quite notable. He had a radio show for G-d's sake, and has performed all over the world. There are alot more important things out there than Pokemon and Sock puppet and Googly eyes, which you have articles about. It seems to me that this is now turning into a discrimination case. Reinstate Cantor Victor Beck, and Cantor Eliezer Kepecs. --Professor Kaufman 20:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Note: Professor Kaufman (talk · contribs)'s 10th edit, all to related articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I wrote this article. It was not your article, it was mine. I don't go around erasing your work. Everytime I write something, you turn around and erase it. I'm getting sick of this.--Vvictor 20:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Note: Vvictor (talk · contribs)'s 15th edit, all to related articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is deja vu all over again. There was a VfD just the other day on another cantor who met the pope. Quale 21:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

  I suspect the creator of this and related articles plans to create articles on all 141 Jews who visited the Pope that day. He's up to 6 articles already, one on the event, one on the room it was held in, and 4 on participants. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• No, the creators of the articles had in mind 2 or 3 people. Thats it!!! Keep--Merlinzor 21:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Note: Merlinzor (talk · contribs)'s edits are all to related articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• It's funny how you would know what the creators of the articles had in mind. In any event, since you have already created articles on 4 people, your statement is obviously false. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, I distinctly recall the socketteer saying that the ultimate goal was to create articles for all 141. If I have time today, I'll try to dig it up... Tomer ^TALK 19:37, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Deja-vu indeed. 21:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC) Forgot to sign this (cheers Jayjg) Leithp 15:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep --Kookoo 21:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Note: Kookoo (talk · contribs)'s 5th edit, most to related articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• No vote. I was going to vote keep, but I think not, now. As for the weight comments, they really aren't fair, but then, nobody's character is perfect. Scimitar 21:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, and stop with the sockpuppets, please.--Mrfixter 22:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Jacob1207 23:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see how keeping it will hurt anything. Dr. D 00:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Note: Dr. D (talk · contribs)'s 9th edit; user began on 5/24; all edits to VfD's and user page.

• Delete. Possibly even less notable than Képecs. In any case, the article as it currently stands is a vanity piece. If there's ever a WikiChazan, I'm hoping the way it's presently written wouldn't even pass muster there. Tomer ^TALK 00:18, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--Senator 14:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, soon, before they spread. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 00:59, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

--Cantor Victor Beck 02:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)===Discussion=== Let's set the record straight shall we? 1) This is not a vanity article. I didn't even know that it existed till someone sent me the url to see it. 2) I've just opened an account here for the first time a few minutes ago. 3) If you really intend to do research, then you need to expand your horizons beyond the confines of Google. For example, you might try checking with the U.S. Library of Congress. There you would find copies of all the original music that I have written, plus all of my recordings. You would also find Airchecks (recordings) of all the "ASK THE RABBI" radio shows. All of this material was submitted to the Library of Congress for Copywrite protection. The Library of Congress accepted, and Copywrites were issued for all of the materials I submitted. You could also check the archives of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum for my song "NEVER FORGET ME". You will find not only the music, but my recording done with a 40 piece orchestra, as well as the story of how the song came to be written. I am afraid that if you validate the world around you only by what you can find on Google, then you are doing yourself a great dis-service.

Please Note that I will not presume to enter a vote.

--Cantor Victor Beck 20:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Cantor Victor I. Beck

Wow, you seem awfully similar to the Cantor Victor I. Beck who made these edits 162.83.159.221 (talk · contribs). And the IP number is awfully close to these other anonymous editors 162.84.137.253 (talk · contribs) 162.83.130.189 (talk · contribs) 162.83.168.194 (talk · contribs) who've been editing these articles (including the now deleted Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs one), perhaps because they're all Verizon New York City dialup IPs. Maybe that's all a big coincidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

As you say, it is quite a coincidence, especially since I do not live in N.Y.C. nor do I have a dial up service. I do however have Verizon. That is where it ends. And as far as the good doctor is concerned, 1) my weight is non of his concern, and shall we assume by his snide remark that he is physically PERFECT? We know that his character is not.--Cantor Victor Beck 21:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Sockpuppets, you do not help your master's cause. Be quiet. Dunc|☺ 21:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

As I recall, Reverend Cantor Victor I. Beck voted "Keep" in the same hysterical manner as all the other sockpuppets in the Very Reverend Cantor Lawrence Eliezer Képecs VfD. Was that a different Reverend Cantor? Was he lying when he signed as you, O Most Highly Notable Very Good Singer Reverend Cantor Victor I. Beck? Or are you lying now when you say that you "just opened an account here for the first time a few minutes ago"? As I recall, I went to the Very Reverend Cantor Beck's website and got his email address and phone number, which I posted in the VfD discussion there. It should be a very small matter to go get that information once again, and this time to actually call the Most Highly Reverend Cantor and see what he has to say about this whole thing in person. I'm disgusted and appalled at the level of chutzpa you exhibit, O Dear High and Mighty Sockpuppet Maestro, and I suspect he would be as well. Tomer ^TALK 00:16, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Let's again set the record straight and this is the final time that I will demean myself to stoop to your level. 1) I DO NOT LIE. NOT FOR YOU OR FOR ANYONE ELSE, AND CONSIDERING THAT YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT ME YOU HAVE INCREADABLE GAUL TO MAKE SUCH AN ACCUSATION 2) You demonstrate the level of your ability and the value of your judgement regarding being an editor by the way that you attack and threaten me with your personal attacks on my privacy. You dare to blackmail me by threatening to publish my home contact information? If this is the kind of action that is condoned on Wikipedia then I think the world should be so informed of the lack of integrity in this online publication and it's editors. You are a disgrace to the publication and any honest people who may be involved. I can also assure you that I do not take kindly to threats and any actions will be dealt with in a definitive, strong, and forthright manner. Now would be the appropriate time for you to try and prove that you are not a sniveling coward hiding behind your screen image and offer a proper apology. --Cantor Victor Beck 02:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, Dear Reverend Cantor, you fail to realize that if the VfU on Lawrence Eliezer Képecs is successful, this PUBLIC DOMAIN INFORMATION, which you erroneously believe to be "private", will also once again become public. If you'd read more carefully, you'd notice, I've ALREADY published this information, which I got DIRECTLY off the REAL Cantor Beck's (horribly designed) website, as I explicitly stated when I posted it the first time (along with citations). Your flailing attempts to impugn my character do nothing to establish your credibility, nor that of your master, Merlin. Tomer ^TALK 08:34, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Oh...and I think you're looking for "incredible gall", not "increadible gaul" (ink-readible french perhaps?). (Why you wouldn't just use a perfectly good word like "chutzpa" is beyond me, unless as some have surmised previously, you're not even Jewish...) "It's" is a contraction for "it is" or "it has", the possessive form of "it" is simply "its". Demeaning yourself and stooping to my level, even if it were somehow possible to "stoop" up to my elevated level, are the same thing. Nothing is served by repetitive tautological redundancy. Publishing public-domain information in public hardly qualifies as "blackmail", look it up here. Wikipedia is not a publication as such, and even if it were, you, as a purported editor do far more to lower its standards than I have ever done, even at my drunken worst. I have not threatened you, nor am I interested in leveling threats against you. As a sockpuppet, you don't have a leg to stand on, and so you're clearly at a disadvantage, since I have two. Not to mention two hands and a functioning washing-machine. (AND SOAP!) As I have no screen image, I don't see how I can be charged with hiding behind it, but I sincerely think perhaps you should consider the wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks before you call me a "sniveling coward". Until such time as I do something requiring an apology, however, I recommend you not hold your breath, as none will be forthcoming. As for your apparent illiteracy, as I recommended in the Képecs VfD discussion, you might do well to get a different box of crackerjacks. Tomer ^TALK 08:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

P.S....apologies to everyone else, but fanning the flames on this one was too much fun to pass up... -t Tomer ^TALK

Incidentally, in case anyone is interested in following up on this with the real Cantor Beck, his email address, freely available at [20], is cantorbeck@cantorbeck.com. I took the time to check out whitepages.com and see what they had in Tucson, Arizona for a V. Beck, and lo and behold, guess what I found [21]! That's right!

V. Beck

Tucson, AZ 85749-7142

(520) 760-3821

So, who wants to call him? Tomer ^TALK 09:08, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...Am I drunk, or is it just incredibly strange that Cantor Beck, a resident of Tucson, Arizona, has dialup Verizon service in New York??? Tomer ^TALK 09:10, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• I would like to request that the supporters of this article edit this article to more clearly establish that Cantor Beck is notable. Hosting a nationally syndicated radio show might qualify, but more information about that should be provided. No vote yet. --Metropolitan90 03:44, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Just in case you really are interested the radio show "Ask The Rabbi" was heard in 17 broadcast markets around the country every Sunday morning by approximately 3/4 of a million listeners. Among those markets was New York, Baltimore, Chicago, Boston, Orlando, Phoenix, Los Angeles and Seattle. We were also heard by approximately 28,000 listeners on the internet. At that time internet broadcasting was a brand new technology. I do not need to validate my life to anyone. I am quite comfortable knowing the work that I have accomplished, and that I have been priviledged to have had the opportunity to have a profoundly positive effect on the lives of a great many people. If I were to accomplish nothing else of note the rest of my life I can be content with what I have done.--Cantor Victor Beck 04:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• That's a good attitude. Keep in mind, this is just Wikipedia, your real life is far more important. Put this behind you and move on. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nonnotable. But Scimitar, since when is being overweight a sign of poor character? I don't trust men with a lean and hungry look... --Angr/_comhrá 06:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • <chuckle> Uncle G 13:36, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I am a singer myself who helped contribute to this article, though I admit my voice is not as good as these three cantors. What does it hurt you so much to keep it? I liked Kepecs' article and Krupp's equally as much. It shows what professional cantors are really involved with, besides being "prayer leaders". They are typically involved with community events, charitable causes, helping others, teachers, and trying to help the world reach a higher spiritual level at the same time. The whole purpose of the trip to Rome was to build bridges between many fighting factions. The orthodox condemn the conservatives and reform in Judaism, and vice versa, and in the past there was not such a good relationship with the Vatican, as there is now. This trip brought everyone together for a common cause. It was so powerful an event. Cantor Beck, Cantor Kepecs, Gary Krupp, and Cantor Barnoy were essential figures in trying to bring about world peace. Do you know what that is?? It's a noble cause, and should not be condemned, but rewarded. I wish we had more people in this world like these three superior cantors and the Commandatore who "make good things happen" in the world we live in. And I am not a sockpuppet. You apparently have an article about him so I guess he is more notable in your book than any of the aforementioned cantors. Ask yourselves, do you want the world to be a better place, or a worse place. --Rigoletto1 12:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Rigoletto1 (talk · contribs)'s 13th edit, all to related articles/VfDs. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • You apparently fail to grasp what is going on here. Wikipedia is not a biographical catalog of everyone who has ever tried to do anything any- and everywhere. Nobody is either condemning nor demeaning these men's trip to the Vatican, nor is anyone saying that they shouldn't be rewarded. A vanity article in WP, however, is not a reward, it's a violation of Wikipedia's biographical articles policy. As for the orthodox condemning the conservative and reform and vice versa, not only is this a caricature, but utterly irrelevant to either this discussion or to the article. BTW...I don't think the world is going to be "a worse place" if this article is deleted, and I think if you think about it for a split second, neither do you. Tomer ^TALK 14:55, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP I think its good.--Cantors 14:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Cantors (talk · contribs)'s 6th edit, all on related VfDs. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Found biography here. NN JiFish 01:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP I am a student at the seminary where Cantor Beck and Cantor Kepecs are teachers and on the Board of Directors. The seminary is in New York - and yes, it is the same Cantor Beck who has a place of residence in Arizona - and yes, is possible for someone to have 2 residences. I am not sure why there is any confusion as to if it is the same Cantor Victor Beck. I am a bit confused as to why anyone would mention that the article on him violates any rules of this site as when I went to examine the rules of biographies it clearly states that biographies can be included if they meet the criteria of: "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" Wikipedia's biographical articles policy Cantor Beck is a person who achieved renown and notoriety for his involvement in the seminary, his trip to Rome, MOST OF ALL - his outstanding and remarkable career. He is also recognized as an exceptional Cantor who will most certainly become a part of the enduring history of his field. The same can be said of Cantor Kepecs whose artwork is respected and appreciated. As far as the trip to Rome, I don't understand why the urge to delete this "newsworthy" event. It was reported on CNN, NBC, CBS, Newsday, The New York Times, and the official Vatican Website - just to name a few. I don't think that any of these media sources would carry anything un-newsworthy. On another note - the IP addresses can be similar if they are set up to the same modem. As this is a school, we are all connected to the same network.--Rabbi2b 15:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: This user has made No contributions. Possible Sock Puppet? --JiFish 16:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Newsworthy is not synonymous with noteworthy. And Most Highly Reverend Cantor Victor I. Beck, what ever are you doing at this "school"?! If you're so great, surely you're too busy to be spending your time at school with the rabbi in apartment 2B. Hard times? Tomer ^TALK 21:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

All of you negative people who claim to be editors, are just too damn full of yourselves. What gives you the right to talk about somebody like this? You should be ashamed of yourselves. Did you ever hear of the adage, if you have nothing nice to say don't say it at all? From what it looks like, I'll guess not. Please note that I'm not voting. (unsigned comment by 64.12.116.134)

• • That's Okay, anonymous votes don't count anyway. --JiFish 19:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Seems non-notable to me. I couldn't find anything, and just to be sure we're clear... I made an effort to search the Library of Congress as was suggested above. Too bad it's not Victor Emanuel Beck from the 1890s... then it might be notable. SirGeneral 21:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: SirGeneral (talk · contribs) has made only 18 edits to date, though to a variety of articles. 22:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete along with Ofer Barnoy and User:Cantors userpage, which is a clear misuse of Wikipedia. Vanity articles are not allowed. Period. Also, I highly recommend a new rule that would require people with at least a minimal number of edits to vote on this page, so as to avoid all these ridiculous sock puppets. Danny 15:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Obvious attempt to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. That's what GeoCities is for. Googie Man 17:06, 30 May, 2005. (UTC).

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jedi Master Obius

Delete. The only Google hit this gets is a website that uses the text of this article and nothing else to describe this "character". The farfetched "Obius the Awesome" nickname, coupled with the fact that there is no official mention of Yoda ever having a Master that anyone knows of, is proof enough that the creator of this article made this up himself. Nufy8 17:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Because this article uses the entire text of an outside source, it is a copyright violation and can be reported at that page. I've moved this there. Copyvio. Meelar (talk) 17:56, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • According to the outside source, the text they use is from this article, not the other way around. Nufy8 18:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• delete this please Yuckfoo 17:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. But it isn't a copyvio for the reason Nufy8 stated, so I removed the copyvio tag. Sarg 18:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Well it says so on the Yoda page, so it must be true. :-) Delete — RJH 18:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Unverifiable, you are. Wikipedia article have, you will not. Uncle G 20:27, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Delete. I sense a grave disturbance in the force... It seems that this article is a hoax. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Jacob1207 23:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted be you will. Fanfic this is, canon not this is, of significance has this zero. WP:FICT. Barno 23:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This sounds like the kind of crap supershadow comes up with. Of course, he claims a different name(Bontu Sitmus), but both are complete bantha poodoo. 'The Awesome' title gives it away Lord Patrick 10:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Spawn of the Delete Side, this is, list this myself I did plan. As an aside it's already been added into the Yoda article as if to make it seem more official. Weirded. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without verification-LtNOWIS 19:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and freeze those responsible in carbonite. — Phil Welch 06:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not going to make a snappy joke or witty remark. This article needs to be deleted. Period.
• Definitely delete.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guyrules

Author vanity about a non-notable book. Who said "this book fills a much needed gap" ? The article comes with a portrait/bio as a companion: Image:Gar in blue.jpg Rl 18:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Book seems real. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The book has an entry in Amazon [22]. But this article, as it stands, is POV and needs some cleanup and wikifying. Sarg 18:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Much of the article is copied directly from the poorly written amazon description, making it a copyvio. If someone wants to write a real article on the book Guy Rules : The Unspoken - and Previously Unrecorded - Rules That Govern Men's Social Being they can, but this isn't it, and it's the incorrect title as well. -R. fiend 20:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable and has copyvio issues. Jacob1207 23:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable. Once upon a time, we didn't just accept that the book exists to determine that it was encyclopedic, because the set of existing books is pretty darned large. Not paper, and all that, but not Everything2.com as well. I see no notability for this book, and this is (copyvio) advertising. Geogre 01:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN. Radiant_* 08:56, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, but there is a consensus to discard the content. Therefore redirect to Scholar's Mate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg (chess strategy)

The entire article text is: "Blitzkrieg (German for "lightning war") is a chess strategy in which a player can win the game in four moves." The article is completely bogus. There are 4-move checkmates, but they aren't strategies, just blunders by the losing side. Blitzkrieg is a German word with the meaning given, but it isn't the name of any chess strategy. There is no useful content that can be put at Blitzkrieg (chess strategy) because that term does not exist and it names no concept in chess. Quale 18:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Actually this looks as if it could be a garbled account of a very fast form of the game played under extreme time constraints, called Blitz chess, also known speed chess. I'll leave a message on the user talk page of User:Xiong Chiamiov to see if he can help us make sense of it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Noting that nothing links to it, I will vote delete for now. I think it's mean to describe Blitz chess. Ashibaka (tock) 19:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and I would also vote to delete if it were "real". We don't need articles on every possible way to win Chess, any more than we'd need similar articles about Candyland or Pac-Man. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • However, a consensus seems to exist that WP needs such articles about Pok-accented-e-mon. Barno 00:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well we do have an article about every way to win at chess. It is the checkmate article. More seriously, some of the opening traps are named, mentioned in many books, and are notable. Take a look at Category:Chess traps for some of them. In fact the bar for notability for chess opening articles was set very low after a near unanimous keep vote on the Hippopotamus Defense. But I have voted delete anyway, since Blitzkrieg isn't a chess term. Sjakkalle 06:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. See Scholar's mate. Nestea 21:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• It is Scholar's mate, but I have never known it called as such. In the book I learned chess from, The Kid's Book of Chess, by Harvey Kidder, it is described as "Blitzkrieg: The Quick Game". I will let you decide what to do, since it is apparently not very commonly known by this name. Xiong Chiamiov 22:31, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the explanation. I don't think this terminology is common. Perhaps it's even unique to Harvey Kidder? Other wikipedians will let us know if they're familiar with it. Quale 02:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jacob1207 23:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Scholar's mate. I've heard that game referred to as the blitzkrieg game (might very well have been from the Kidder book mentioned above). -- Jonel 03:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is not a chess term and there is no chess content in the article. I remember nominating an article like this some time ago, it was the Napoleon Gambit which would have been deleted had it not been for the fact that there was a rather obscure gambit in the Scotch Game with that exact name. As for being mentioned in a book, that is not good enough. Heffalump (chess term) is not valid for an encyclopedia article, even though Simon Webb in his Chess for Tigers book has a chapter entitled How to trap Heffalumps. Sjakkalle 06:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Redirect to Scholar's mate. I would lead towards keep though, as it is generally newbies who try to use this move in chess, and it is newbies who would use a term like "blitzkrieg". Should be expanded though. Internodeuser 08:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Scholar's mate 02:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain (Was redirect to Scholar's mate, but I changed it --Bubba73 02:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)). I've also heard young players speak of "Blitz" and this is probably what they mean, so there should probably be a Blitz (chess) redirecting to it also.--Bubba73 04:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Blitz Chess is completely different from Scholar's Mate. Scholar's mate is a four move checkmate often seen in tournaments with schoolchildren, perhaps that is where the name comes from. Blitz chess is simply regular chess with a time limit of five minutes per side. Sjakkalle 06:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I know that Blitz is fast chess, but I help out with my daughter's scholastic chess club and local tournaments, and I've heard some players speaking of "blitz" in the context of a tactic. I gather from the context that they are referring to some sort of rapid attack on the king, likely a scholar's mate, but I'm not sure if that's what they mean.--Bubba73 18:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I've heard that form referred to as "speed chess" or "five-minute", with the term "blitz chess" meaning an even faster game, in which all moves must be made immediately, with no pause for thought at all. JamesMLane 07:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
      • There are even more terms for it, "lightning chess" for instance. One minute per side is often referred to as "bullet chess". Exactly ten seconds per move, is called "rapid transit chess" (I have heard people refer to that as "gong chess" as well). But the question here is if "Blitzkrieg" is a valid term for a chess strategy. Sjakkalle 10:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Bubba73, I think Sjakkalle's point is that it would be a mistake to create Blitz (chess) as a redirect to Scholar's Mate, because Blitz chess has an entirely unrelated meaning and already has an article that correctly describes what it means in the chess world. Personally I think conflating "blitzkrieg" with Scholar's Mate with a redirect is an error that will only cause confusion because blitz has a long established meaning in chess that has nothing to do with 4-move mates. Of course WP does not only document correct usage of terms but also common misusages, but it's a shame to use WP to promote uncommon incorrect usages. And no, I really don't want to add anything to the Scholar's Mate page to say that it is sometimes called blitzkrieg. I've played chess for about 35 years and have over 100 books in my chess library and I've never seen or heard that usage. Quale 21:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Your point is well taken, so skip the idea of "Blitz (chess)". I've been playing longer than that, but I don't have as many books (50 or so). I never heard Blitz used in context as a tactic until about a year ago when I heard it used by scholastic players, and since then I've heard it 2 or 3 times. "These young people today..." --Bubba73 22:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to abstain. --Bubba73 02:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Interesting. I'm not around any young chess players these days, so it's very possible that this is a usage that I simply haven't encountered. I couldn't find any support for it on google, which is a little odd because there are quite a few scholastic chess resources on the web and it seems likely that something would turn up. "The Oxford Companion to Chess" says that blitzkrieg is another name for the chess variant progressive chess. That would make it a suitable redirect target for blitzkrieg (chess), but naturally not blitzkrieg (chess strategy). Thanks for the info. Quale 07:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
          • It might be a colloquialism. In the school club they play without clocks and in the tournaments they mostly play without clocks, but play game/30, so they can't be referring to a 5-minute game. A quote "I won with a blitz". It might mean a rapid attack on the king, similar to scholar's mate. There must be victims of scholor's mate at the tournaments because some games finish in under 2 minutes, sometimes under 1 minute. --Bubba73 14:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Also forgot to add: thanks for your recent work on Chess terminology. Quale 07:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Scholar's mate. JamesMLane 07:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Scholar's mate.--Nabla 00:40, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clan-10

A group of people having fun. Good for them! But not a notable enough group to deserve a full article Sarg 18:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable, vanity. --InShaneee 19:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Same logic as above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:31, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Video gaming clan. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:38, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clancruft. Nestea 20:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jacob1207 23:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Snore. Agentsoo 03:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 08:37, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

GameTalk

Non-notable, inflammitory, vanity.InShaneee 19:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete pointless and inflammatory vanity. - Etacar11 19:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No value whatsoever (sigfixed) --Tznkai 01:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, forumcruft, odd combo of an advert and attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:06, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity Barneyboo 21:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, vanity. RickK 21:37, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity CryptoDerk 03:23, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It looks like vanity to me. I was just usin' it for practice lol... Chances are, no-one will benefit from this article. --A.J. 18:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Port Arthur massacre theories

*Originally submitted by User:Internodeuser -- Longhair | Talk 19:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that this page should be deleted, as it gives a balanced view to respond to severe inaccuracies in the Port Arthur Massacre and Martin Bryant pages. Unfortunately, the spam filter has removed the ability to use the references that were originally used. Look at the last history section before Tannin's edit, and you will see them all there. [23] Repeated requests for these references to be removed from the spam filter have fallen on deaf ears. This is the final response to attempts to hijack and sabotage pages, and deleting it would mean that personal attacks, vandalism and destruction of the integrity of Wikipedia would be seen as a good idea. Internodeuser 15:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I think that putting in 100 hours of research with unbiased facts and 49 references should be deleted. Especially since it encouraged someone to hurl abuse and to go around destroying the page. Absolutely, definitely delete. Otherwise we'd turn this thing in to an encyclopaedia, and we don't want that now, do we? Internodeuser 15:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: WP:POINT. I'm not going to vote here, but I feel this user using this VfD nomination to make a point to further his own arguments. Submitter goes on to say in their VfD nomination "I don't think that this page should be deleted" then votes to delete it anyway? -- Longhair | Talk 19:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • It's called sarcasm, or perhaps irony. Obviously, you shouldn't even consider deleting this page. Internodeuser 08:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment:I'm not voting, but that aside, VfD is not the place to nominate articles you want kept. If this article is deleted, you basically deleted it yourself by nominating it. Again, WP:POINT -- Longhair | Talk 08:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • (Insert dpbsmith's little-pink-"IRONY"-box template here.) Barno 00:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. --Carnildo 20:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Internodeuser. RickK 20:40, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Inappropriate message in a Vfd box. 203.26.206.129 08:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Patent nonsense. Tannin 20:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The term "patent nonsense" fulfils the requirement of a personal attack, for which you have repeatedly been warned to stop. 203.26.206.129 08:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: This is a vote regarding the contents of article. Nothing more, nothing less. -- Longhair | Talk 08:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Then such words should not be used, as they attack a person's character, and suggest that a page as detailed and verified as this would be entirely made up. Internodeuser 08:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• No vote. It isn't patent nonsense, but it sure as hell isn't NPOV, either. I don't feel like cleaning it up, but I don't want to send it to the scrap heap, either. Scimitar 22:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Why isn't it NPOV? It provides both sides to the argument, as is required to fulfill the requirement of NPOV. 203.26.206.129 08:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete conspiracycruft. Ben-w 22:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. I basically agree with Scimitar, the article as it stands is highly POV, boardering on original research, but something must be salvageable from it... Physchim62 00:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Response. This is not original research. Unfortunately Wikipedia's spam filter removed some of the references, and temporarily they had to be removed. They can be reinstated if the spam filter is fixed, or if the vandalism of the page by Tannin can stop for long enough for a sensible edit to be able to be made. 203.26.206.129 08:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Nope. All useful content already resides at Port Arthur Massacre. Tannin

• • • Which is false, as the content of Port Arthur Massacre is in the main patent nonsense, and all attempts to include relevant issues, as discussed here, have been vandalised and maliciously removed. 203.26.206.129 08:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork bordering on tinfoil hat stuff. It will reduce the credibility of Wikipedia if we keep stuff like this. Capitalistroadster 00:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Rather, I would suggest that keeping Martin Bryant and Port Arthur Massacre in their current, widely inaccurate, proven false, and unverified form reduces the credibility of Wikipedia. Having something like this, with verified facts, greatly improves it. (ref: Talk:Martin_Bryant Internodeuser 08:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POv fork. Megan1967 06:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although hestitantly.--Cyberjunkie 05:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per capitalistroaster. as in "media are permanently forbidden from ever speaking with him, with a worldwide ban on any books or movies being made to explore the case." that's just nutty carmeld1 02:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's just a rehash of the stuff on http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snportarthur.html. The link on Port Arthur Massacre lets you find all this info -- Jgritz 20:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork --nixie 05:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 11 "deletes", 6 "keeps" (2 very new users discounted), 2 commenters who did not express a clear opinion and one "merge". The merge recommendation was generally rejected as an inappropriate target. No alternate target was suggested.

Right around the start of the dicussion, the content and title were changed significantly. However, votes against the article continued after the revisions and none of the early "delete" voters returned to change their votes leading me to conclude that they were unconvinced by the changes.

Looking carefully at the current content, I see an orphaned article which appears to me to be expressing opinions about topics already well covered (and better sourced) in other articles. The content is internally inconsistent. Since the VfD discussion, the article has been neglected. I am going to add my own opinion to the decision and call this (barely) a "delete" decision but without prejudice against the re-creation of the article in a more coherent format. Rossami (talk) 03:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Christian groups converting Jews

Inherently POV, un-encyclopedic, original research Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see how this is at all encyclopedic or how it can ever really be turned into a worthwhile article. Whimemsz 19:49, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• I am unable to decide how to vote at this time. This article as it is when it was listed on vfd seems to be entirely changed from its state yesterday. Even the title is different. What happened. I saw revert to original title and content and then relist on vfd. Sirkumsize 21:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This article seems to be pushing a pretty clear point of view, although it's a lot more subtle than I would have expected. I'm not sure that this collection is useful, however. Kelly Martin 21:18, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The title before the move was alternative claims of Jew, Judaism and Israelite. Even less encyclopedic than the current one. Peter ^Isotalo 21:22, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep While the article as it stands at the time of this writing is poorly written iin places, and questionably sourced, this article should be fixed, not scrapped. The tension between Judaism and Chrisinaity is an important peice of knowledge, and the attempted and actual conversion of "Jews" to Christians is large part of that. We definatly shouldn't back away just because it is contraversial. I think we should edit, rather than scrap it. --Tznkai 21:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Note: Tznkai (talk · contribs)'s second edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• I will vouch for Tznkai (talk · contribs)'s nonsockness. Kelly Martin 21:38, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This article started as a disturbance to make a point, and has now been turned into a pointless article. Tznkai, this same subject is dealt with in many other locations, including Comparing and contrasting Judaism and Christianity, Christianity and anti-Semitism, and Jewish view of Jesus --Goodoldpolonius2 21:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

-Goodoldpolonius2: I don't know about that, and if it has no new information, fine, but we shouldn't be deleting it into "unencyclopedic" or POV, that would be inconsistent with the deletion policy--Tznkai 21:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

-Comment:Jayjg I both missed your point, and was editing under tnzkai for a while. Please explain on my talk page.--Tznkai 21:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The possibility that this is duplicate material is a valid reason for a merge and redirect, but I don't feel that the articles Goodoldpolonius2 cited are more natural fits, either. Also, from an unrelated conversation with User:tznkai on IRC, I can agree that, while he's a relatively new user, he's not a nonce voter on this article. Geogre 02:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Inherently POV. JFW | T@lk 23:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep- if its POV clean it up! An article on Christian groups that seek to convert Jews to Christianity is a legitimate subject for an NPOV article, unless they are specifically covered elsewhere. This article maybe POV (although I personally can't see where as it stands) - but there is nothing inherently POV about the subject. --Doc (t) 23:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Qualified Keep - The article requires a better title, first of all. Many Christians and Christian groups "convert" Jews and other nonChristians regularly around the world. The groups listed in the article are special because they purposefully convert Jews in particular (or are composed of ethnic Jews who have converted to Christianity) as their primary function. Secondly, the article's text takes what seems to be offense at the idea of Christians converting others, which many Christians feel is an essential component of their faith. -Acjelen 23:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In serious need of cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep: I have a number of problems with this article. Its writing is anemic, as noted, but the title is illogical. Is this how the material will be sought? Is this an apt description of the contents? The article is fairly NPOV, but it's also fairly inaccurate. It glosses over the fact that most Jewish religious groups are not messianic. It's simply not a majority position to look for a messiah, these days. Also, while the groups listed as proselytizers of Jews are proselytizers of Jews, there is a real nightmare of potential POV addition (and that happens with a wiki), as well as defamation. I'm not at all comfortable with the article, but it's not a deletion policy violation, so far as I can see. Geogre 02:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Klonimus 05:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, but provide external references. Very relevant and very encyclopaedic, and I don't believe it is NPOV. Internodeuser 08:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-topic. Radiant_* 08:57, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain why it is a 'non-topic'? --Doc (?) 09:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment. I'd like an explanation too. I can only assume that this subject has some history I wasn't aware of. In my opinion there's no question: the various fundy "Jews for Jesus" groups do exist and do attempt to recruit Jewish people. Here Ariel Sharon meets a member, Jay Sekulow (Jerusalem Post). If the article has POV problems in the content, that should be fixed by editing. The name is not POV. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect with religious conversion, which already covers such material. :-) — RJH 15:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This stuff is covered in plenty of places elsewhere. DJ Clayworth 15:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Where else? religious conversion doesn't really cover it - in fact, it has little on conversion to Christianity - and nothing on conversion 'from' Judaism. However, conversion 'to' Judaism has a sub-article. There seem to be a lot of votes here, which make assertions but offer no specifics. --Doc (?) 15:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete One could probably find a group of religion X trying to convert religion Y for just about every combination of X and Y. Doesn't mean that it's worth of including in an encyclopedia. Xcali 02:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I am really uncomfortable with the idea of moving this article to a new title, completely reworking it so its silly, and then listing it on vfd. If this strategy works however I may try it myself to get rid of wikipedia articles that don't meet my taste! Sirkumsize 07:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The previous version was just as silly, if not sillier. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non encyclopaedic. JamesBurns 10:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Factual, accurate. When has religion not been inherently POV? The fact of the matter is this deals with a subject that is controversial, this hardly makes something incorrect. Evangelism has always been controversial, but it is an issue that is valid and necessary. Keep. M0RHI 21:06 08 June 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 12:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Rossami (talk) 03:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Index of Saturday Evening Post Issues and Contents

I almost speedied this, but since there was some controversy concerning this article I brought it here. It has no text and is just a bunch of red links which will never be written. BrokenSegue 20:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• speedy delete. Nothing here. Bad idea for an article anyway. -R. fiend 20:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete though I disagree with the above. Indexing notable periodicals would be a great thing for an encyclopedia to do. I'd love to be able to ditch several shelves worth of Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature volumes someday. This is a good idea, but seems to have been abandoned by its author before it even took shape. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:03, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. RickK 22:50, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'd recommend anyone voting on this read the related discussion at wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#"Speedy Deletion" Overkill and, perhaps, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. -- Rick Block 23:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Jacob1207 23:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I believe the author was intending to complete this, at least before the experiences discussed at wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#"Speedy Deletion" Overkill which Rick Block mentions. If the current non-article is deleted, it should be non-prejudicial to a real article on this topic. Kappa 00:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a news archive. Megan1967 06:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• 'deletee bye bye. Dunc|☺ 16:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Carried out at 20:53, 15 Jun 2005 by user:Danny who didn't close the discussion. Rossami (talk) 03:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ofer Barnoy

Another cantor vanity article, much like Victor Beck and the deleted Eliezer Kepecs. No real accomplishments except a few mentions in a couple minor publications. 17 googles, none of which establish notability. -R. fiend 20:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Reverend Cantor Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Can someone start a CantorWiki for these people? JFW | T@lk 22:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It might be nice, and possibly even make for interesting reading, if the sockpuppetteer would get a real account and use his userspace to write these articles and thereafter approach the community with a proposal to create a wiki for these people, instead of wasting everyone's time writing these puff pieces. Tomer ^TALK
    • Fine. Set it up for me, as I do not know how to do it myself, and I will do what I can to salvage the material, and try to add more. Some of these cantors are really special people and do deserve this. Much appreciated. incidentally I vote Keep --Rigoletto1 12:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Read here: Create an account. Once you've done that, let me know at User talk:TShilo12. Tomer ^TALK
      • Note: Rigoletto1 (talk · contribs) has made 14 edits, all to related articles/VfDs. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. --Mrfixter 22:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. RickK 23:02, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable vanity. - Etacar11 23:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Here we again. Tomer ^TALK 00:45, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Thanks Jayjg, you made me laugh. That's usually the best you can hope for on VfD. Quale 02:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Merlinzor 17:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • All of Merlinzor (talk · contribs)'s edits have been to this and the other related Cantorcruft articles. RickK 18:44, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with JFW -- locate a piece of cyber-space, erect a CantorWiki, move this and the other two to it, and allow the theme to develope. In the meantime, allow cross-linking from these article to CantorWiki. Thankfully now someone with far more knowledge than I will explain why this isn't possible, and then I will change this to NoVote. --Simon Cursitor 07:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Kookoo 13:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Kookoo (talk · contribs) has made 6 edits, most on VfDs of articles related to this. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep I'm getting tired of this nonsense. --Rabbis 17:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • All of Rabbis (talk · contribs)'s 18 edits have been to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs, this page, and the Ofer Barnoy page itself. RickK 18:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • What chutzpah. You think the rest of us aren't getting tired of your nonsense as well? Knock it off, and we'll all be a lot happier. (We'll also be able to do something useful besides tracking you around.) Tomer ^TALK 22:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn ----JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this vanity. IZAK 23:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was article was speedy deleted at 20:53, 24 May 2005 by Rich Farmbrough. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zeldalounge

Delete. Appears to be a vanity article. In any case, not notible. -SocratesJedi | Talk 20:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently someone speedily deleted this article. Withdrawn in that case. -SocratesJedi | Talk 21:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus -> Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Caiman (Star Fox)

Caiman is a very, very minor character in Star Fox 64 and doesn't need a whole article on him. Thunderbrand 20:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

---

TALLY OF EXISTING VOTES by Marblespire

(please do not edit this section)

• Keep: Everyking, A.J., Kappa, Dr. D, Badlydrawnjeff, Almafeta, SocratesJedi, Vanban, Falcolombardi87
• Invalid anon votes - 69.205.231.249 (three times), 69.205.228.93 (five times), 169.244.70.148
• Merge: Scimitar, Kappa, W, Andre
• Delete: Martg76, Jacob1207, Megan1967, Marblespire, W, Firebug, Thunderbrand, JamesBurns, Drini, Natalinasmpf, Texture

---

• Delete as fancruft. Martg76 20:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Do NOT delete the article! Wikipedia's Star Fox section is already poor enough. I am on a campaign to add to all of the Star Fox Articles and make it complete. Although Caiman is a minor character he deserves a place on Wikipedia. 69.205.228.93 20:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Unnamed StarFox Fan

• Keep 69.205.228.93 21:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the info, but suggest a merge into a list of minor characters or something to that effect. Everyking 21:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that there is not enough secondary characters in StarFox to have a "secondary characters" page. PLEASE don't delete it!69.205.228.93 21:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep69.205.231.249 21:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Caiman is a pretty cool guy... kind of. I agree that it should be put in a minor Star Fox Characters article, but there just isn't many minor characters in Star Fox 64, so I think it should be kept.69.205.231.249 21:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC) -Wandering Cleric of sorts69.205.231.249 21:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Star Fox series. There's already a list of characters there, ready for expansion. Alternately, cut out all the non-main characters from there and put it on a Star Fox characters list. Scimitar 21:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• The "Star Fox series" page's list of characters is just a list of links to pages about the characters. I don't see what the huge fuss about letting Caiman have his own page is all about. So what if he is not a huge major character, its okay to let secondary characters have their own pages. All of the StarFox characters should have more added to their pages, which will make Wikipedia more complete. Deleting Caiman is just a way of slapping StarFox in the face and degrading Wikipedia's wonderful amount of content.69.205.228.93 21:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Faye has her own page and her character did not even show up in any game! There's nothing wrong with this, I'm just saying that there are other occasions where secondary characters have their own pages. This, In the words of Peppy Hare, is "A-OK."69.205.228.93 21:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with letting it stay, and it would not hurt any of us in any way if it is not deleted. Think before you delete... someone worked hard to write it. --A.J. 02:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• It is true. Why delete pure information for the sake of deleting it? This article in no way makes Wikipedia less organized. By deleting it we would be senselessly deleting information from the collected knowledge of the world. Although it is a minor thing about some video game character, is it any different than book-burning ceremonmies. Please, think about it before you delete it.Dr. D 23:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This minor video game character is not notable. Jacob1207 23:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! This article expands on Wikipedia's little-explored StarFox universe. It in no way hurts anything and is completely factional. The only reason I could see for anyone to delete this page is either because they think that "Minor StarFox Characters" should be a page with Caiman on it (which wouldn't work due to StarFox's lack of many minor characters) or for spite. None of those reasons are valid to me. Please, we must keep it! Dr. D 00:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge somewhere per Scimitar, verifiable, encyclopedic coverage of a fictional universe. Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 00:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• So what if StarFox is a fictional Universe? Wiki covers Star Wars and Star Trek, two of the largest fictional universes known to mankins. THEY both are allowed to have articles about secondary characters, so why shouldn't StarFox's Universe be able to? Just because its smaller doesn't mean that it should be pushed to the side. PLEASE KEEP IT! Dr. D 01:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, fan cruft. Megan1967 06:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing to merge. "Venom" is the home planet of the final boss; as you fight through their airspace and attempt to make landfall, the game occasionally interjects commentary from enemy commanders for a bit of color. This is one of those enemies. You don't even FIGHT him. Trivial in context, nn out of context, and I could make some choice comments about sock puppets. Send this the way of the Aparoids. Marblespire 10:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep169.244.70.148 11:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC) There is no good reason for this article's deletion.
• Delete, merge if there's an article that needs the info. --W(t) 11:59, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• Keep --Badlydrawnjeff 15:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Fake edit by anon user removed (pretended to be Badlydrawnjeff voting delete) - Tεxτurε 19:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested. If there aren't enough characters to merit a "secondary characters" page, why should this secondary character deserve its own page? Xcali 02:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE and ignore ALL of the sockpuppet and anonymous votes. Firebug 05:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I noticed my name wasn't in the tally. Thunderbrand 15:52, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Because you hadn't explicitly stated your opinion yet. Didn't want to misrepresent. =) ~Mbsp
• Keep 69.205.232.11 3:15 May 25, 2005 (EST)
• I have NOT voted 4 times! All I have done is commented! Is that a crime? 69.205.224.242 19:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Apologies: you have only voted three times as of this writing. As they say out here on the Left Coast: "My bad." ~Mbsp 08:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, no redirect, to some Star Fox-related page. Andre (talk) 00:37, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. -SocratesJedi | Talk 06:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Almafeta 07:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Vanban 21:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. drini ☎ 21:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails to establish notability. I'm normally an inclusionist, by the way, and even this page is too much. -- Natalinasmpf 14:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Falcolombardi87 22:23, 2 June 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Char does not require own article - Tεxτurε 20:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:01, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Emily Bradford

• Delete, not notable, probable vanity.-Mr Adequate 21:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 21:13, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Vanity. Xcali 21:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Scimitar 21:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- definite candidate for a speedy. -- — I. Neschek | talk 21:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete -- Either a vanity or a libelous post; deserves speedy deletion in either case. 70.35.176.29 22:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/attack - Etacar11 23:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete apparant vanity article
• Delete as above. "Vanity" is not a reason for a speedy delete, per WP:CSD. Barno 00:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

No, but test pages are, and, at least unofficially, slander/libel pages are. Geogre 02:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was I guess this was merged and then speedied, though I'm closing this discussion anyway. —Xezbeth 14:02, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GRAMM LEACH BLILEY (GLBA)

Inappropriate use of the Wikipedia name space. And what's up with that categorization at the top of the page? RickK 21:40, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• This feels like a cut and past from a website - but I can't find it. Check out also Information Technology Audit - Regulation by the same author, again weird. I wait for someone who knows something about US financial law to enlighten us. --Doc (t) 22:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• This is a very important act and deserves an article. However, it doesn't deserve TWO. There is already an article Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This article does have information not contained in the current article. The person who posted this article appears to have done a lot of work and he should be invited to merge the two articles.

DS1953 23:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Merge as above if its not a copyvio. Martg76 16:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Xcali 02:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Definitely. -CunningLinguist 03:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• This is NOT a copy/paste from a website, I assure you. It is an article posted as part of a class project linked to the Information Technology Audit page. I am new to Wiki...thanks for the "Merge" suggestion. I will check on the other GLBA article and see what I can do to fix this redundancy in areas. Again, sorry for any problems, and I will work to remedy this asap! Juliette --67.183.13.232 01:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Claire crowley

Zero relevant displayed hits. Unverifiable unless someone can dig something up. Niteowlneils 21:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax Scimitar 22:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete reclusive and not well-known = not notable (if it's not a hoax already). - Etacar11 23:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete My guess is that this is some sort of attack page, but even if not it's unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Megan1967 06:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hagerk

<sarcasm>Human creativity warms my little heart. I mean imagine someone making up a word, then taking the time to define it and put it on the Wikipedia. And then they take the time to write a pronunciation guide, and use it in a sentence. I don't know why anyone would want to delete it.</sarcasm> Oh wait, yes I do: It's a hoax and vandalism and it's a good thing I read it before transwikiing it (as it had been tagged by two separate editors). Delete it quickly and ruthlessly. --Dmcdevit 21:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. That's the sneakiest hoax I've seen yet, though. Scimitar 22:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Personally I would assume good faith and call it a protologism rather than vandalism, and tell them to put it on wiktionary's wikt:List of protologisms. Kappa 00:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Sure seems like a prank to me. Or should I say that the "user fabstuntittied the article" and have that go into a list somewhere too? Geogre 02:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• If you want fabstuntitty to be a word, feel free to list it there. Kappa 02:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It's an interesting point I hadn't considered, but we should never transwiki a protologism. Once it goes to the transwiki namespace, a careless Wiktionarian might put it into a real article. That list is is for interested users, and there's no use preserving an article for it. --Dmcdevit 06:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not suggesting we transwiki it, but wiktionary has a place for protologisms if the user wants to add it themselves. Kappa 06:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 06:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anthony James Cartwright

Article does not indicate notability. Thue | talk 21:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable.Scimitar 22:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, vanity. - Etacar11 23:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Thue, Scimitar, and Etacar11. Quale 04:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:03, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sahand Soufivand

Not notable. Thue | talk 21:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Author created a copyvio article on ontario univ, and then proceede to add several entries about ¿perhaps? himself and other ontario univ students. This was one of his additions. drini ☎ 21:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Etacar11 23:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Thue, drini, and Etacar11. Quale 04:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I can see this being useful... NOT!!! MyNameIsNotBob 08:09, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. sjorford →•← 08:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Siege the Tower

Vanity, original research. Delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:16, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

• speedy, vanity, non-notable - Algebraist 22:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Personal passtime, unknown and not notable. Geogre 02:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Taken care of. I had deleted this before, and I deleted it again just now and put protection on it so it won't be recreated. CryptoDerk 02:13, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polkamooma

Unreleased game. Probably not notable yet as it only gets one google hit. Thue | talk 22:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, reeks of advertising. --Dmcdevit 22:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I've had people ask me about this before since I have links to it in my forum signature. With a wiki page, I can simply tell them to look it up on Wikipedia. --Blinkstale 22:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe so, but do you really think it meets notability requirements for an encyclopedia article? Scimitar 22:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you could link to wikipedia's notability requirements to help us assess this. Kappa 00:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I can tell you, and I know you know it, so this is for Blinkstale too, Wikipedia is not a soapbox (i.e.: self-promotion or advertising) nor is it a crystal ball (this has not been released yet). --Dmcdevit 02:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Ah, ok. I saw the soapbox one, and I thought that wouldn't apply if this turned out to be as big a game as I think it will. I didn't see the one about "not a crystal ball" and that's probably the one that I should have noticed. Sorry, I thought this would be okay since there's already Wikis about upcoming video game consoles and whatnot.--Blinkstale 25:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete at least until release. I hope this does get released though, it looks awesome! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:15, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert for unreleased game. Quale 04:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established, advertisement. Megan1967 06:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert for an unnotable game. Nestea 11:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 10:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:40, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Steam Steam LOL

Forumcruft. 16 unique Google hits. RickK 22:38, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism that missed the boat. :/ Niteowlneils 23:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:04, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Delete LOL. Nestea 11:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Niteowlneils (LOL). — mark ✎ 14:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable and possibly Advertising. --RadioActive 16:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NSR 20:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep. Information Technology Audit - Regulation has been merged to Information Technology Audit. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Information Technology Audit - Regulation and Information Technology Audit

"THIS PAGE WILL BE ACTIVE BY JUNE 6, 2005". Well, maybe. In the meantime, odd categorization. The User seems to be trying to use Wikipedia for their own purposes. Information Technology Audit is mainly nothing but a collection of red links which the Uer is planning on expanding, apparently. RickK 22:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Remove it. Please review "Audit explosion" by Michael Power. It is freely available at:

www.demos.com.uk. It is the best view of the audit problem.

• KEEP: RickK, a number of months ago I noticed an absence of information on Wikipedia regarding Information Technology Audit. I teach a Seattle University class on IT Audit and asked my students to post content for their final project. This page is not intended to suit an inappropriate purpose. It was merely intended to provide additional content to the community. My students are more than happy to modify the content, present it in an alternative manner, or make other changes to better reflect the editorial style that the Wikipedia editors would like to see. Please feel free to provide any guidance you think might help. I would ask all that visit this page to vote to KEEP the page. I would also like to understand what criteria might have triggered the request for deletion. We should encourage new users with guidance, as opposed to quickly shutting down a new initiative. Thanks in advance for your help. --Asparks1805 03:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• I would keep the article on Information Technology Audit since that is a valid topic and what is there now is a legitimate stub. If someone uses the space for his own purposes, rest assured that editors will cut out the offending material. As to the article on Information Technology Audit - Regulation, my initial reaction is that it is a narrow branch of the main topic and doesn't need its own page. I would rather wait a week and see what develops and perhaps, in the meantime, help move the editor in a proper direction so he doesn't waste his energy. - DS1953 00:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Pause, keep for now I suggest that we contact the user and ask them politely about their plans for these articles. As far as I can see, both of them could be made into good encyclopedia articles, and without any evidence to the contrary, I'll assume that the user is planning on turning them into good encyclopedia articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:09, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy since it's all under construction, and let's find out what the editor has planned for these. It looks like it's going to be a miniature website within Wikipedia if it all gets fleshed out as-is – a bit odd. AиDя01DTALK 02:13, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Let us just keep both these articles for the time being as they are both good topics and it doesn't seem that the user is trying to write for his/her own purposes. Let us see what changes the user makes by the 6th of June. I feel that it is not going to become a miniature website on its own within wikipedia. There are millions in this world involved with Information Technology Audit and it is a topic that is related to many aspects of IT, so it should not be isolated. I hope the user is going to have some really useful information on IT Audit in this article. - Cassim 03:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Information Technology Audit for reasons above. Keep for now: Information Technology Audit - Regulation—if it turns out to be only a page of links, it can easily be integrated into Information Technology Audit under the Regulation sub-topic. DialUp 16:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• PLEASE KEEP - This IT Audit page is intended to be a miniature website posted by a graduate IT Audit class in Seattle, Washington, USA as a final project. The professor saw an absence of IT Audit information on Wikipedia and proposed it as a place to post the student's final articles. He hoped to better populate Wiki with IT Audit information and get the students involved in IT community communications. We (students)are learning Wiki-markup and trying our best to get all the articles posted and organized in a professional manner for our final due date of June 6, 2005. Please have patience and understand that we have no intention of using this site for any reason beyond what Wiki stands for. Thank you all for taking the time to watch for misuse of Wikipedia. Juliette--67.183.13.232 01:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see my comment at the related discussion, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Backup Systems and Recovery. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:31, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gary Krupp

More non-notability by the same editor who brought us Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs, Ofer Barnoy and Victor Beck. RickK 23:01, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable, vanity. - Etacar11 23:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. JFW | T@lk 01:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as with the other three. Quale 02:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Not a Cantor, so not eligible for CantorWiki. --Simon Cursitor 07:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as User:Jayjg said either in the VfD for Képecs or on the Képecs talk page, this guy (Krupp) is more notable than Képecs. That said, my 9th grade English teacher wrote a couple of children's books and is arguably more notable than my 12th grade English teacher who was accused of having molested a couple of girls (he was acquitted tho eventually). Neither of them, more or less notable, however, is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant a WP article. The same thing applies here (without meaning to impugn the abilities, accomplishments or character of either Képecs or Krupp). Tomer ^TALK 09:33, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep What you are doing is a terrible thing. I am a singer myself, though I admit not as good as these three cantors. What does it hurt you so much to keep it? I liked Krupp's article and Kepecs' equally as much. It shows what professional cantors are really involved with, besides being "prayer leaders". They are typically involved with community events, charitable causes, helping others, teachers, and trying to help the world reach a higher spiritual level at the same time. The whole purpose of the trip to Rome was to build bridges between many fighting factions. The orthodox condemn the conservatives and reform in Judaism, and vice versa, and in the past there was not such a good relationship with the Vatican, as there is now. This trip brought everyone together for a common cause. It was so powerful an event. Cantor Beck, Cantor Kepecs, Gary Krupp, and Cantor Barnoy were essential figures in trying to bring about world peace. Do you know what that is?? It's a noble cause, and should not be condemned, but rewarded. I wish we had more people in this world like these three superior cantors and the Commandatore who "make good things happen" in the world we live in. And I am not a sockpuppet. You apparently have an article about him so I guess he is more notable in your book than any of the aforementioned cantors. Ask yourselves, do you want the world to be a better place, or a worse place. --Rigoletto1 12:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Rigoletto1 (talk · contribs)'s 8th edit, all to related articles/VfDs. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • You apparently fail to understand what is going on here. Wikipedia is not a biographical catalog of everyone who has ever tried to do anything any- and everywhere. Nobody is condemning nor demeaning these men's trip to the Vatican, nor is anyone saying that they shouldn't be rewarded. A vanity article in WP, however, is not a reward, it's a violation of Wikipedia's biographical articles policy. As for the orthodox condemning the conservative and reform and vice versa, not only is this a caricature, but utterly irrelevant to either this discussion or to the article. Tomer ^TALK 14:52, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP He is an important figure in Judeo-Christian relations, as are the cantors you wish to delete as well.--Cantors 14:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Cantors (talk · contribs)'s 7th edit, all on related VfDs. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While this guy is more notable than Kepecs, it still doesn't make him worthy of an encyclopedia article, and this nonsense of sockpuppets who have spent two months now trying to insert the boilerplate "141 Jewish leaders met the Pope, the most significant event in history" text into at least a dozen articles, even to the extent of creating several articles solely for that purpose, must stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not noteworthy enough to include. Lots of people meet with the pope. Xcali 02:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all of them --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Green Hummer

Advertising or advocacy, or both. Article does not establish notability. RickK 23:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Advocacy. (Although I did brace myself for yet another schoolboy attempt at vulgarity.) Geogre 02:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Nothing against the project but it's not notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. Cedars 10:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I like the idea of noting pop culture reaction to the Hummer, but this article does nothing, has no photo, and advertises a link to the activist project. Worse, it's not the only "Green Hummer" out there. There are different (non-activist) "Green Hummers" at greenhummer.com and greenhummer.info. And MSNBC did a story on a "green Hummer" (note the lowercase) in which a citizen suggested converting Schwarzenegger's Hummer to hydrogen. --Tysto 16:41, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedied. —Xezbeth 07:44, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Blue anarchism

Political vanity. Four google hits, none of which seem to be about this group. Unverifiable. --EvilZak 23:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity + nonsense. - Etacar11 01:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as a user test page. Any time you see that Media.ogg thing up there, it's almost surely a sandbox escapee. Geogre 02:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep, move to Samuel Slocum. CDC (talk) 20:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sam Slocum

Does not seem notable - 35 google hits for ["Sam Slocum" paper], a lot of which are from Wikipedia forks. – ugen64 23:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: What the heck is it even trying to say? Paper fastening device? Umm, staple, paper clip, tape, uhhh, binder ring? We shouldn't be playing Ten Thousand Dollar Pyramid to figure the article out. Add to that the fact that Google doesn't know the guy, and you've got nonsense, substub, and not notable. Geogre 02:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Fantastic save by User:Sjakkalle. No terrible need to make a page move, if a redirect is lodged at Samuel Slocum, but it would be better to move this article and redirect from "Sam" to "Samuel." Excellent work. Geogre 11:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only one sentence and no references, so very difficult to tell if it's a hoax. Quale 04:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Super work by Sjakkalle. Quale 16:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Samuel Slocum and keep. The 1841 patent was for the stapler. That is notable enough even though the article is a substub. Sjakkalle 06:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah I was wrong, it was not the stapler but a device for packaging pins. Still I think this inventor might be notable enough. Sjakkalle 06:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I have tried scraping together enough information to make some expansions to the article. Sjakkalle 07:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: article is a lot better, but I think it should be moved to Samuel Slocum. – ugen64 22:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If he invented something, he's notable, especially because it got a patent. Superm401 | Talk 00:16, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

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