Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 3
March 3
[edit]This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Schoolhouse Rock!. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Poorly written stub. Duplication of information. Nothing there that isn't already covered by Schoolhouse Rock!. --Moochocoogle 00:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Schoolhouse Rock!. RickK 00:29, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, duplicate/redundant article. Megan1967 01:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect Tygar 04:34, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect - redundant article, but useful search term. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Schoolhouse Rock!. --Viriditas | Talk 05:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Though I will forevermore have a soft place in my heart for "Conjunction Junction" (for rather obscure reasons), this should just be redirected. If the Schoolhouse Rock article gets too long then we can start thinking about breakout articles for some of the songs, but they'd have to be better than this. -R. fiend 06:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect I imagine this could be searched for... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:29, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, redirect. GRider\talk 22:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect. One of the most memorable segments, but what can be said in a separate article? I was a bit old for "Schoolhouse Rock," but to this day, I can't read the preamble to the Constitution without hearing it set to music. Ah, Saturday mornings... - Lucky 6.9 23:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Schoolhouse Rock!. Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 23:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect - David Gerard 15:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable martial artist. RickK 00:25, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 01:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity memorial, not notable. Wikipedia is not Soke Council Head of Family Sokeship Grandmasters Council (sic). Mention of "Soke G. Durant" (sic) and overuse of words like "Master" and "Grandmaster" are signs that this should be classified as bullshido. jni 09:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- He's not quite in the same league as Harley "SwiftDeer" Reagan. Jni makes a persuasive point. Weak delete. Uncle G 19:55, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
- Comment: Google isn't helping much; there are some references but very little actual information about the guy (and VfD is the second highest hit). I'm asking around on rec.martial-arts to see if anybody's heard of this guy. — Gwalla | Talk 02:17, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Many do not know who this man was especially novices. This does not make his contributions less valuable. He was the victim of chauvinism in the 60's & '70's (and I dare say to this day!) because he was a homosexual, something not tolerated in a testosterone laden genre such as the Martial Arts. Many who learned from him would then disavow him because he was homosexual. Be that as it may, some today are now willing to use his name and system to promote themselves which is a great shame. At any rate...He was a high level instructor in Pai Lum Kung Fu who was a direct student (grandson)of Daniel K. Pai. He taught Pai Lum Kung Fu to those who are now masters in said system, such as Mike Kaylor, David L. Smith, and Robert Schoolnick. He was also promoted to instructor rank under one of the most famous Escrimadors, Angel Cabales. He trained some notable persons including Bruce Juchnik of Kosho Shorei Kempo, Mark Bober of T'ien Lung Tao, Glen Kwan of Genkido Kempo, and many others. He died of a heart attack as a complication of AIDS, as no one can die of AIDS istelf. The Chi Lin System(s) are still being taught in Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, California, and Ontario Canada. While the entry is not a great one it is nontheless an important one and needs some work. Maybe we could work on it to fit Wikipedia better instead of just backhandedly deleting it?! AnDruidh
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable tower at a college campus we don't have an article on. I would have moved the info to the college article and redirected otherwise. RickK 00:32, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Do not redirect. It's hopelessly misspelled and nobody is going to look for it under that title. It's true that we don't have an article on Central Missori State Univerity. But we do have one on Central Missouri State University. Let's put this article out of it's missori. P.S. I've now put everything that I think needs to be said in Central Missouri State University. What I put in the article is not a merge from this article but written new-from-scratch so deleting this one creates no GFDL history issues. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The article doesn't really have anything to do with the University itself. It's about a radio mast that will be constructed there. This seems to be a part of a much larger series of articles linked to from the List of masts. Almost all of the masts have a little stub with the mast's height, geographical coordinates, ownership, and FCC registration. Don't know if all those things are useful—or if they all wouldn't be better off merged into a table in the main article. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Whoever put in the substub-under-the-misspelled article name didn't research very carefully... it seems that the mast has been built—at least, a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the facility in Syracuse occurred in 2003.
- Delete - redundant with new mention in Central Missouri State University and there-linked FCC database which is more likely to be kept up to date. Redirect would be useless. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to List of masts. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, add it to the list when/if it gets built.--nixie 07:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete until it exists. Radiant! 16:06, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- By the way, shouldn't we merge those several hundred of mast stubs back onto the main article? I can see the purpose of the main list, but not of hundred stubs reading "<name> is a guyed mast for TV transmission at <place> at <coordinates>. <name> was built in <year> and is <height> high." Radiant! 16:06, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge the whole lot. All the information in these scores (hundreds?) of articles could be condensed into an equally-informative table in List of masts. If there is any additional worthwhile information about particular radio masts, those select few can have linked articles. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- What? Are the deletionists still conducting this sick campaign against masts? All tall structures are intrinsically notable. This one serves an area of twenty thousand square miles, an area larger than Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, or Rhode Island. In fact, it's larger than New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island combined. And it's hundreds and hundreds of feet tall! It must influence the lives of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people. Surely this is more important than some minor character in Harry Potter. Faethon387 02:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This is not deletionist, it's mergist. Ten and I are suggesting that the stub articles may be more useful if formatted together in one big table. That way, I would be able to find the latitude and longitude of several masts in one centralized location. Radiant! 09:40, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- What? Are the deletionists still conducting this sick campaign against masts? All tall structures are intrinsically notable. This one serves an area of twenty thousand square miles, an area larger than Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, or Rhode Island. In fact, it's larger than New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island combined. And it's hundreds and hundreds of feet tall! It must influence the lives of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people. Surely this is more important than some minor character in Harry Potter. Faethon387 02:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge the whole lot. All the information in these scores (hundreds?) of articles could be condensed into an equally-informative table in List of masts. If there is any additional worthwhile information about particular radio masts, those select few can have linked articles. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- By the way, shouldn't we merge those several hundred of mast stubs back onto the main article? I can see the purpose of the main list, but not of hundred stubs reading "<name> is a guyed mast for TV transmission at <place> at <coordinates>. <name> was built in <year> and is <height> high." Radiant! 16:06, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No need to merge. This is barely even a news item as it stands. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If there's useful information then merge. Delete this hopelessly misspelled title - David Gerard 15:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. A new low for schoolcruft, (i.e., being on the drafting table is enough for an article). Edeans 19:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable stick. Gamaliel 16:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Korath (Talk) 15:34, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Pointless stub--69.11.250.209 00:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note: Completing the VfD process begun incorrectly by the above anon. This posting is not a vote. RickK 00:54, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. The precedent for railroad stations has been set. That said, this article is an embarassment. Meelar (talk) 02:09, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. And expand. Cnwb 06:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, expand, categorise - David Gerard 01:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Note: I've moved the page to the more correct title of Enfield Chase railway station and started a new stub at Enfield Chase on the ancient forest. sjorford →•← 17:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. --Grouse 13:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was send it to RFD. dbenbenn | talk 21:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Page name in Japanese and misspelt in translation, relevant content moved and all referring pages sorted Nashikawa 00:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Megan1967 01:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This belongs on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, where it'll be dealt with a lot more quickly with a lot less effort. —Korath (Talk) 12:07, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- RFD - David Gerard 15:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- see also Audrey St. Joan and Laurel_Jackson - being considered for deletion
- Delete It is a book, but it hasn't been published -User: Loriendeva
- Probable hoax. No Google hits with name of authors. Delete.-Mr Adequate 00:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Hoax. Andrew pmk 01:35, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Tygar 09:41, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Probably self-promotion rather than hoax. -- RHaworth 10:47, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 15:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this hoax and/or promotion. Edeans 19:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No google hits. No hits for "Looking Up Through Saran Wrap" either. Non-notable. Delete.-Mr Adequate 01:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Bizarre, delete nothing encyclopedia worthy here --nixie 07:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, NN Jdcooper 17:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 15:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Promotion and/or hoax. Delete. Edeans 19:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No hits on Google for Ligbana, or "Laurel Jackson" and the other two titles listed. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Possibly a hoax, possibly vanity.
- Delete.-Mr Adequate 00:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete — RJH 17:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 15:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Promotion and/or hoax. Delete. Edeans 19:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This article is one about a low ranked Sumo wrestler, who is unknown generally (assuming he exists). It is possibly self promotion. In my view wrestlers who are top ranked and well known should be listed. There are around 500 wrestlers in Sumo of his ability or above and it would certainly be inappropriate to list them all. Nashikawa 00:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 01:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete--if this was a real article, I might say keep, but the text appears to be either untranslated Japanese or nonsense. Delete unless cleaned and verified. Meelar (talk) 02:08, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme kee^H^H^Hdelete. May I be the first to point out that this actually says Broodtype:B ? —RaD Man (talk) 02:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, apparently non-notable; only Google hit is on the ga.wikipedia (and not ja!) Antandrus 02:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete if no verifiability supplied - David Gerard 15:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. I think I'll redirect it. dbenbenn | talk 21:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The content of this page is covered in the far more comprehensive list on List of British heritage and private railways#Wales. The Template:Great little trains Wales that links to this page is proposed to be replaced with Template:British heritage railways. (Our Phellap 01:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC))
- Delete -- RHaworth 10:52, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of British heritage and private railways#Wales slambo 14:43, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of British heritage and private railways, and bear in mind the categories that I suggested on WP:TFD. Uncle G 18:57, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
- Keep. Not all heritage railways are narrow gauge. This is a useful and encyclopaedic list. 80.255 10:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Borderline keep and reformat properly. Needs work not to be redundant with a category - David Gerard 15:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not notable (no Google hits). Caesura 01:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, i can't find anything either. Foobaz·✐ 01:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not notable. --BenWilson 13:18, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE! The New GLF is on the rise!
- Anonymous user (User talk:66.144.52.102). —Caesura
- Delete, they can come when when they rise to some verifiable degree of fame. Kappa 15:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Let us repeat the mantra, "Wikipedia reports on the notable, it does not establish notability." Organization not founded and completely unattested to outside of this entry in WP. HyperZonktalk 17:27, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Fire Star 17:35, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE, they are notable because they are the refounding of a revolutionary movement. They have more members than the Maoist Internationalist Movement!
- Vote by 24.140.7.220 (talk • contribs) --Plek 22:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No Google which means no notability, blatant self-promotion and a slew of socks equals buh-bye. Now, let us repeat the mantra as so eloquently stated by HyperZonk...while we delete. - Lucky 6.9 23:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable, sock supported. Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - no verifiability - David Gerard 15:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Dammit, kids! Put those socks back in the drawer! Delete. Edeans 19:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No evidence of notability. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 (no action necessary, already redirected). Deathphoenix 03:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge content with Alejandro de Tomaso – this is the version of his name (Spanish forename and small 'd' in 'de') that is most often encountered. James von Mann 01:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You can merge content yourself, or use a {{merge}} tag, you don't need to bring it to VfD. Kappa 03:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 19:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A discussion board that started in February 2005 and is already notable? I think not. Philthecow 02:50, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: 200 members is nothing, there's little factual information, and worst of all, they stuck in a ASCII they got from GameFAQs and got it wrong. Rather sad, really. SpiritGlyph 08:50, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - web forum vanity spam. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. nn. forum. jni 09:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Lawman
- Keep Aytea
--Lawman 22:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Borderline delete, not independently verifiable and verging on advertising - David Gerard 15:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this webforumcruft. Edeans 19:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, this forum is insufficiently notable to be included in wikipedia. -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 14:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 19:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Complete speculation and opinion. Call it original research if you must, the Playstation Portable itself has not been out that long. Please delete. - RedWordSmith 03:41, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought it was suspicious when I edited it briefly for a link correction, as the PSP hasn't even been released in the US yet. I'll need further proof and confirmation before I give it a delete. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Would the fact that it gets only 209 Google hits, very few of which are even remotely related, convince you? - RedWordSmith 03:57, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as speculation/original research unless references are provided. Kappa 05:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The opening sentence ("The Playstation Portable 2 is a handheld gamesystem that is not planned yet, but might start development soon) says it all. Nick04 13:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Based entirely on personal speculation. Tenfour 07:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Acusilaus 07:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)Account with public password, vote stricken. --Michael Snow 16:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)- Delete. Was going to recommend this for deletion a few days ago, but it looks like RedWordSmith beat me to it. --Milkmandan 05:39, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
- Delete. Also, Unnamed portable XBOX, by same user. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 20:23, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
- There is nothing verifiable about this. Delete - David Gerard 16:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Speculation. Rhobite 20:55, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 19:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is either a vanity page or a meaningless leaf. The band "A" has a page, with reasonable amounts of information on the band, including albums, etc. But this page adds nothing, and doesn't even link back to the band's page. I think it should be deleted.--Fredrik Coulter 05:04, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 08:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable, vanity, no external links. Zzyzx11 18:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Borderline redirect, would be no loss to delete - David Gerard 16:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 19:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Advertising. RickK 05:07, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. --Darkwind 05:13, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, advertTygar 09:41, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Just an ad. Zzyzx11 18:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Advertisement. I seem to be in a bad mood today, I usually do not hand out so many delete votes. Sjakkalle 08:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - no verifiability supplied, no reason to be here - David Gerard 16:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete ad. Nashikawa 23:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 19:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Advertising. RickK 06:09, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Yes, advertising. Kappa 12:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Just an ad. Zzyzx11 18:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - ad - David Gerard 16:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 19:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable character from a non-notable short story that gets no Google hits. /sɪzlæk˺/ 06:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Zzyzx11 18:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Uh, what? - David Gerard 16:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 19:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable author, only eight total Google hits, and two are duplicates. RickK 06:47, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Also, googling "Drew Rosas" in conjunction with any of the short story titles listed in the article yields zero results. —Caesura 06:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 08:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, unless someone can demonstrate that these short stories have appeared in a notable, high circulation publication. Average Earthman 11:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No notable evidence. Zzyzx11 18:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of verifiability supplied or found - David Gerard 16:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 19:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable forum, vanity. RickK 06:51, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as promotional material unless rewritten. They do get 250,000 google hits though. Kappa 12:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Marginal entry extensively updated to improve clarity. HeavyMetal 10:00AM, Mar 3, 2005 (EST)
- As a member of the site being featured in this entry, I do have an interest in improving the description to clarify the unique status of my favorite online community. Another site member apparently created the original entry, though the entry did little to describe the site in question. I have extensively updated the entry to better explain the background history of the site. I hope this weighs heavily when considering the potential deletion of this entry. Also posted by HeavyMetal, recovered from history
- Delete. To make it over my notability bar, a tech advice message board will have to do better than ranking 35,000 on Alexa; this is a very personal bar that changes based on subject matter, but popular web sites of this particular variety tend to be in the top 10,000 (and I would set the bar somewhat higher, personally). Also, despite all of the mentions of techimo.com on Google, only one site actually includes a link; I find that a bit odd for an allegedly popular site. HyperZonktalk 17:39, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not enough notablility. Zzyzx11 18:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Borderline delete - would like independent verifiability - currently looks like ad/vanity, even after revision - David Gerard 16:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 19:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Website vanity for femalehiphop.net. Delete --Teknic 06:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 08:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -Lethe | Talk 09:02, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - advert Tygar 09:44, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Reads like an ad. Zzyzx11 18:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Thank you for your website ad. Spatch 20:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete advertisement. ComCat 02:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete advertisement. Jdcooper 18:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - too close to ad, nothing independent cited - David Gerard 16:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, pretty obvious promotion (with first person and everything). Deltabeignet 23:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 19:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Slang term. At best it would belong in Wiktionary, but I don't think I'd go that far. RickK 07:11, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, redirect to data logging if absolutely necessary--nixie 07:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism. jni 07:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Data logging. Megan1967 08:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't see anything appropriate to merge. I also can find no evidence that this "slang term" is in any significant usage. Redirects are cheap but neologisms are deletable. Rossami (talk) 23:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, no redirect - David Gerard 16:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 after transwiki. jni 19:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Was put up from tranfer to Wiktionary, I have transwikied it to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Ahata Recomend deletion as per Transwiki policy. --Haggis 09:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Received at Wiktionary end. May now be deleted here. 62.252.64.18 17:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, non-English dictionary definition. Megan1967 22:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:24, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Article does not establish notability. jni 11:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No claim whatsoever for any achievement at all. IP's only edit is to create the article, probably about themselves. Would call it vanity if it wasn't so utterly boring. Average Earthman 12:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, possibly a newbie test. Kappa 12:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing notable there. Zzyzx11 18:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 22:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity - David Gerard 16:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Advertisement. Group is non-notable. The article stub even mentions their only notable track is a tribute, but cites no significant fame. --BenWilson 13:16, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. This band has released two albums on the Classic label. The song Lotion made the Triple J Hottest 100, 2004. A BBC Review of their sophomore album from September 2004 mentioned that the group would be embarking on a world tour shortly so presumably they have played some dates on that. Appears to meet Wikiproject music guidelines1 Capitalistroadster 17:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Triple J is a radio-station-based chart, which is interesting. However, if this is the only chart they've topped, I question the notability. Cutting two albums is likewise not notable. What is the link for Wikiproject music guidelines. --BenWilson 19:27, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, band promo. There is a difference between having toured and planning to tour. In terms of overall marketshare, TripleJ only has a fraction of listeners compared to the commercial networks. TripleJ in Melbourne for instance only has 4.1% marketshare. Megan1967 22:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, two albums is enough to meet the notability guidelines. Kappa 00:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, per reasons discussed by Capitalistroadster. ElBenevolente 00:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. All Music Guide shows the band having recorded two albums Present the Ziggy Franklen Radio Show in 2003 and Pleetch in 2004. [1] The BBC Review I posted confirms this. About.com confirms that the band has started its tour referred to in the BBC review including visits to the Winter Music Festival in Miami and the South by Southwest Festival both this month. [2]. As stared early, this band meets the WikiMusic Project guidelines which indicates it should be kept. Capitalistroadster 01:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Please cite these guidelines. --BenWilson 19:51, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm unsure whether they just scrape in or absolutely romp in, but it's keep either way. Just BTW, I've just added the vfd notice to the article, didn't anyone else notice it was missing? Andrewa 03:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Many appologies. I thought I'd done that. Maybe I didn't save. --BenWilson 19:51, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- If they've had two albums released (other than by themselves :) ) that's notable enough. Keep. Radiant! 09:39, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, and keep - David Gerard 01:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- keep, since they are notable in UK, due to their connection with John Peel (as noted in text i just added) Jdcooper 15:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:23, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Complete nonsense. — JIP | Talk 13:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Nonsense fiction. jni 13:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Utter rubbish. Nick04 13:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and BJAODN. That was actually funny to read. "Killer tomatoes", lol. - Lucky13pjn 16:48, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Nonsense. Zzyzx11 18:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence the topic is encyclopedic, no useful content. I guess it's a joke at someone's expense, and it's by an IP with no other contributions. But I did find it interesting, I didn't know the killer tomatoes had a cartoon spinoff, nor does our article on the film do it any justice IMO. Andrewa 18:40, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Only mildly amusing. Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, patent nonsense. Megan1967 22:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, fantasy text Tygar 23:28, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nonsense, not good enough for BJAODN - David Gerard 16:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I've seen a number of funny nonsense articles on WP. This is not one of them. Delete. Edeans 19:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:23, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
An article about an IRC channel that does nothing to explain notability. Probably vanity. — JIP | Talk 14:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. nn. jni 14:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, substub with no evidence of notability or useful content, by an IP with no other contributions. Andrewa 18:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing notable. Zzyzx11 18:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete IRCcruft, and only 4 displayed Google hits, pathetic for an internet topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:52, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, IRCcruft. Megan1967 22:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, IRC channels are not normally notable--nixie 01:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, IRC channel with no independent verifiability - David Gerard 16:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Morning Musume. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Looks like a vanity article. — JIP | Talk 14:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect with Morning Musume, or keep. She was apparently part of the first generation of this band. Allen3 14:21, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- I did not realise that. Now that I look at the Morning Musume article, I see that the band has included over twenty members, most of which have stub articles of their own. Although the band is notable, I don't think individual members are. But making a VfD for each of them would be ridiculous. But then, so would be singling out Asuka Fukuda. What do we do now? — JIP | Talk 14:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Merging these with redirects doesn't need VfD listings, as it doesn't need admin activity, anyone can do it. I'd recommend a link to this discussion in the talk page of each, to minimise the chance of reversion. No change of vote (below). Andrewa 18:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. You might try wikifying things before you conclude they are vanity. Kappa 15:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I was probably too hasty in marking this for VfD. I'll try to read articles a little more thoroughly before deciding if they are vanity.
I vote merge with Morning Musume for this. — JIP | Talk 16:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) - Merge and redirect to Morning Musume. Yes, always try wikifying unwikified articles, and also check what links to them. When wikifying I recommend trying any term you don't understand as well as the obvious ones using show preview, and then saving the page with only the helpful wikilinks (including broken ones sometimes), to save others the need to repeat your work. It's all about collaboration, and anything we do that saves other editors' time is of direct benefit to the project. Andrewa 18:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I was probably too hasty in marking this for VfD. I'll try to read articles a little more thoroughly before deciding if they are vanity.
- Merge to Morning Musume or delete. Article at the moment looks like nothing more than a factsheet list. Megan1967 22:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect this stub to the band article. — Gwalla | Talk 02:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge. Some members/former members of Morning Musume may be notable, Asuka is not. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The set of articles about Morning Musume members are a complete mess, some are developed into full articles, some are redirected back to Morning Musume, some are factlists like this, some don't have pages at all, while the Morning Musume article consists primarily of an awful lot of statistics, as well as a garbled second-language History of the band. I vote to redirect this to Morning Musume, along with all the other entries for members of Morning Musume (unless there are any particularly notable ex-members), followed by a Clean-Up of Morning Musume. Jdcooper 15:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to band article - David Gerard 16:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:16, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
The title of the article is grossly overlong, contains a typing error, and seems to be more descriptive than titular. The content of the article is barely understandable, and there's no sign that the creator User:Tahqiq Halid as Sab al Alami intends to do more (his sole contributions appear to be vandalism, including other page-creation examples). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Vintermann 16:55, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Again, indecipherable to me and not sure that the subject would be notable if we could figure out what it was. I'm sorry, as I personally think we could probably use more articles on the Middle East, Arab culture, and Islam. Can someone decode this? HyperZonktalk 17:14, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, although everyone should know that this vote in no way implies disrespect for Islam. Fire Star 17:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete but gently. This contributor claims to have been active in the Arabic Wikipedia, his English is poor and he's only been here three days. It's a bit harsh to judge his intentions IMO, nor should we overlook his potential to contribute. We're a collaboration. Andrewa 17:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, but have you checked his contributions here so far? They're not really indicative of someone who genuinely wants to contribute. I agree with HyperZonk that we need more articles on Middle-Eastern culture, and I'm gearing up to start adding some articles in my own areas of interest (philosophy). To be honest, though, even if this user's interest was genuine, I think that the standard of his English would preclude him from contributing usefully (that's unrelated to my reason for starting the VfD. though). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I did check his contributions, and user pages obviously, but perhaps not as thoroughly as I should have, and this vandalism has occurred since. Not promising I agree. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Concur with Andrewa, this user may not be able to generate final versions of article, but perhaps with some guidance s/he will be able to help those of us who know too little about that culture develop new articles. However, that guidance will certainly have to include ensuring that some context is included so we have a place to work from. HyperZonktalk 18:42, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, but have you checked his contributions here so far? They're not really indicative of someone who genuinely wants to contribute. I agree with HyperZonk that we need more articles on Middle-Eastern culture, and I'm gearing up to start adding some articles in my own areas of interest (philosophy). To be honest, though, even if this user's interest was genuine, I think that the standard of his English would preclude him from contributing usefully (that's unrelated to my reason for starting the VfD. though). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Necrothesp 18:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I could not establish which mosque this is after quite a bit of searching, and I suspect that it is not notable at all. It might be a very small mosque in a small village. Note that he has created a article on such a village. Like Mel, I don't think we need to be especially solicitous towards this new user. His contributions to date consist of outright vandalism of several articles: replacing entire sections of articles with the word "ALLAH", replacing random words in several articles unrelated to Islam with the word "muslim", etc. He also created three articles, all incoherent: this one, an article about a very small village in Saudi Arabia, and an article entitled Laughter of Allah. The first two are now on VfD, and the third was redirected to Allah. It may be that the grafitti and vandalism were sandbox activity and that it was cluelessness rather than malice; but one has to bend over backwards to be that charitable, especially since he claims to have experience on the Arabic Wikipedia. --BM 19:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete in a nice way. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, POV, not notable, not a very practical article name. Megan1967 22:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn. ComCat 02:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not notable. Jonathunder 02:53, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
- Delete. It would be great if this guy could contribute some proper articles about parts of the world likely to be overlooked by the English Wikipedia's disproportionately Western editors, but either his English skills and understanding of Wikipedia aren't good enough, or (as that piece of vandalism would indicate) he's some kind of troll and isn't editing in good faith. — Trilobite (Talk) 00:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Patent nonsense (a mosque where God is described as "our father"?) - and, incidentally, it's not clear that the creator even speaks Arabic. The Arabic on his user page is an irrelevant copy-paste - stopping in mid-sentence - from a news item about recent events in Lebanon. My guess is that this is a troll trying to get tiptoed around by pretending to be a poor speaker of English editing in good faith. - Mustafaa 06:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 16:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Not an ancyclopedia article - no content. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Korath (Talk) 15:39, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. This term was invented and used exclusively by the contercult movement as part of the hypothesis of mind control. Undeserving as a main article. Merge onto mind control ≈ jossi ≈ 14:45, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Untrue. The term "love bombing" originated with the Unification Church, the Moonies. It's their term.
- Keep separate, it gets 8,930 hits http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22love+bombing%22+-wikipedia Kappa 15:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly....Check these entries: all from anti-cult websites. It is undeserving of its own article. The google test is not the only metric. Adding a mention to the mind control article will do. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:18, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Most of the entries are from anti-cult websites, because most people who discuss love bombing are against it. But the term was invented by the Unification Church, who is hardly an anti-cult group, they are a cult.
- Exactly....Check these entries: all from anti-cult websites. It is undeserving of its own article. The google test is not the only metric. Adding a mention to the mind control article will do. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:18, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, who cares who uses the term, its widely used, w a unique definition, and therefore woirthy of an article. Check out Flirty fishing. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It's fine as it is, especially if used, say, in comparison to unconditional love, or in the context of how legitimate institutions should not behave. &c. — RJH 16:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. A technique with broad application in cults, mind control, marketing, and other dubious disciplines. HyperZonktalk 17:07, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and maybe cleanup, it just needs a little attention which it might even get just by being on VfD for a week. Good topic, good start to an article. Andrewa 17:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep; well-known term and technique; deserves a decent article. Antandrus 17:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Cleanup. If all these reputable contributors think it's valid, I'll trust them, but the current article is rather confusing, implying that there is something sinister about a practice that, as described, sounds like it consists entirely of people being nice. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Now thats a good point. As hard as the author(s) tried (and I can tell they tried pretty hard), the article isn't NPOV on the subject. It presents it as a cult's method of indoctrination. I doubt anyone disagrees that it has been used that way, but there are plenty of other reasons for, and interpretations of, being intimate. Myself, I tend to judge others by their fruits, and if they are nice to be around, thats a pretty good sign of their character, certainly a better sign than their religious denomination. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, in the Asch conformity experiments, the test subjects were influenced to give an incorrect answer to an easy question by the presence of confederates posing as fellow test subjects. Some of the test subjects said that they had gone along with the group's answers because they thought their own vision must be flawed; others because they did not want to face the disapproval of the group. Imagine how much pressure on your perception could be exerted by a group that was consciously and deliberately controlling its expressions of approval towards you based on your conformity. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- All groups do that ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- mmmmmm, no, I'd have to disagree. Do all groups tend to do that? Yes. But consciously and deliberately? That's another thing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- All groups do that ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. While there are disagreements about the efficacy of "love bombing", it's been a prominent concept in the literature for over 20 years. To say it should not even be discussed as a concept because one side has been claiming for the 20 years that it's been in wide use that it doesn't exist just doesn't hold up. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Common enough term for a controversial practice. Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Well-known term. Reasonable start for an article. I thought it was the Children of God, not the Moonies, who used the term themselves and catapulted it into the popular consciousness. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) Well, our Children of God article doesn't mention it. Apparently they did use "flirty fishing" which isn't quite the same thing (!). Might be called "love-bombing: thermonuclear option." Googling associates the phrase with "cults" generally, including but not limited to the Moonies. It's been applied to Opus Dei, too. None of which answers the question "who originated the phrase, and when." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I've refined the opening definition to make it clear that the term love bombing is meant to refer to an insincere (or at least deliberately exaggerated) show of affection, and that it commonly applies to a group of people acting in concert. I can't tell whether Dr. Margaret Singer actually originated the term, but she appears to at any rate have been an early user and popularize of the term, so I added something about that. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Legit topic, especially on cult-related ones. --Andylkl 10:43, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. -- Uncle Ed (talk)
- Merge. -- Uncle Ed (talk) I get two votes, because I'm a Moonie (just kidding ;-). Seriously, though, I have no problem with either the existence or title of the article. Unlike the term Moonie (at which we often take offense, God only knows why) - the term love bombing never seems to raise hackles among us. I just used it myself at talk:love bombing today, to describe an incident in which I participated. Let's all meet in talk and figure out how to clean up the text, now that we've all agreed not to delete it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:25, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Ed, maybe you should get all your Moonie friends to come and demonstrate an intense interest and affection for Wikipedia until the vote is over? (Also just kidding of course). DJ Clayworth 17:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Come to think of it... what is all this Wikipedia:Wikilove stuff? Do Wikipedians engage in Wikilove wikibombing? Dpbsmith (talk)
- I thought of that, but how do you fake sincere interest over a text-only interface? (Actually, my efforts to interest Unificationists in Wikipedia have all fallen flat; a few people look up stuff, but writing takes real guts, you know.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:05, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- As a critic of Scientology (whose page is actually a reference on the article in question), I have found remarkable difficulty in persuading Scientologist editors to come on board and bring their point of view to the party. I think we have one and he edits only very occasionally. Possibly they don't trust me ... - David Gerard 01:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- (Are we off-topic yet?) 1) I would have thought it would be easier to fake sincere interest via text than in person. In fact, Joseph Weizenbaum's Eliza did a reasonable job of faking sincere interest. 2) I'm always surprised at peoples' lack of interest in Wikipedia. Several times I've emailed press or PR contacts with questions, and have usually gotten answers. Each time I've given them the URL of the article in question and pointed out (with some misgiving!) that they can edit it themselves. I've been surprised that so far not one of them has tried to edit an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- As a critic of Scientology (whose page is actually a reference on the article in question), I have found remarkable difficulty in persuading Scientologist editors to come on board and bring their point of view to the party. I think we have one and he edits only very occasionally. Possibly they don't trust me ... - David Gerard 01:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I thought of that, but how do you fake sincere interest over a text-only interface? (Actually, my efforts to interest Unificationists in Wikipedia have all fallen flat; a few people look up stuff, but writing takes real guts, you know.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:05, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Come to think of it... what is all this Wikipedia:Wikilove stuff? Do Wikipedians engage in Wikilove wikibombing? Dpbsmith (talk)
- Ed, maybe you should get all your Moonie friends to come and demonstrate an intense interest and affection for Wikipedia until the vote is over? (Also just kidding of course). DJ Clayworth 17:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, of course. Firstly there should absolutely be an article with this name, and secondly there is no more need to merge this into Mind Control than there is to merge every single battle into the World War II article. DJ Clayworth 17:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - real sociological term - David Gerard 01:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - I've seen it in sociological literature long before WP hit the scene. jdb ❋ (talk) 05:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, it is even used untranslated in other languages. --Pgreenfinch 16:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:15, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
I can find no mention of Hahid Faras, and the article (in so far as it's understandable) gives no useful information. The creator, User:Tahqiq Halid as Sab al Alami seems neither to intend nor to be capable of doing more (his sole contributions appear to be vandalism, including other page-creation examples). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I tried to find a mention of this town anywhere and have had no luck. Without context to determine what we are talking about, the article cannot be expanded to make sense, if indeed the subject matter is notable to begin with. HyperZonktalk 17:06, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The precedent has already been established with the Rambot-generated articles that place names in the United States are encyclopedic no matter how small the places, and we have tens of thousands of automatically-generated stubs for them. Unless we are prepared to accept a systematic bias in favor of American towns, consistency demands that we admit places anywhere in the world. (As a question of policy, I think the Rambot-generated articles might be questioned, however). But, like HyperZonk, I can't verify the existence of this place, and given the edit history of the author, I am not willing to extend him the benefit of the doubt. Delete unless existence of this village is verified. --BM 20:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 22:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hala Jahaj Eid Mosque Praying Ground for the Worship of Allha, our father, the beloved. Looking carefully at his contributions I think this guy is actually a hoaxer. — Trilobite (Talk) 00:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I was about to delete it as patent nonsense, along with all his other contributions. - Mustafaa 06:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 16:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:14, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Article does not establish notability. Contents would be more appropriate for user page, if the author has one. jni 16:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of notability; article is an orphan other than vfd discussion. -- Infrogmation 18:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. "Went to college" does not make one particularly significant. 95% chance of vanity. -- SpiritGlyph 19:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, looks like vanity - David Gerard 16:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. sjorford →•← 14:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. We don't really need a page for every WWII soldier, and even if this one did go to Harvard, the article doesn't give any acomplishments in life. Withdrawn due to later contributions by another user Nick04 16:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If you'd given them a chance, maybe they would have mentioned he was in Band of Brothers. Keep or merge with that. Kappa 17:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Give them a chance? They should have mentioned that straight away. His memoirs have also been published - Parachute Infantry: An American Paratrooper's Memoir of D-Day and the Fall of the Third Reich. And his full name was David Kenyon Webster. All should have been mentioned straight away. Move to David Webster. Average Earthman 17:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Newbies don't assume people are watching their every move. Kappa 17:40, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Give them a chance? They should have mentioned that straight away. His memoirs have also been published - Parachute Infantry: An American Paratrooper's Memoir of D-Day and the Fall of the Third Reich. And his full name was David Kenyon Webster. All should have been mentioned straight away. Move to David Webster. Average Earthman 17:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons given above, but retitle to proper capitalization. 23skidoo 18:40, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Are we going to have articles for all the soldiers who were portrayed in Band of Brothers? The only thing that seprates most of them from most other soldiers in WWII is that they were chosen to be the subject of a book, when the author could have chosen many other companies from many divisions. In general I think if that is going to happen they should be mentioned in the Band of Brothers page. I guess I'll go with keeping this one though, mostly since his memoirs were published. Maybe it could be merged. (Oh, and was this the guy who was portrayed by that guy who plays an entern on ER?) -R. fiend 18:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep if his memoirs were published. I don't think any war needs an article for every soldier, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:37, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - writers are often encyclopedic, and this one seems to be. Charles Matthews 21:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, though move, obviously. James F. (talk) 17:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, I did the move - David Gerard 16:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Korath (Talk) 15:41, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
A short-lived British pop duo. In 1978 they released a single which got to number 3, and then they released a single which got to number 39, and then they released an album which did not chart. As with Susan Fassbender, Kissing the Pink or Finitribe they influenced nobody, were not innovative, changed nothing, and their most popular single came and went in a flash. Personnel consisted of Julian Marshall, who went on to play session piano for David Cunningham's The Flying Lizards, and Kit Hain, who did not. Hain has written a short history of the band here [3] which actually reinforces my satanic desire to wipe her life's work from Wikipedia. Three and a half thousand hits on Google but these seem to consist almost entirely of (a) automated lyrics and discography sites and (b) inventories of 'rare records' websites. Of the first hundred of Google's search results, apart from the aforementioned link not a single page is actually about the band; there are a few which mention one or other band-member as being 'once part of Marshall Hain', but nothing about Marshall Hain itself. The reason for this is that there is nothing to know. Apart from the nitty-gritty of song titles and track times I have encapsulated the entirety of their being in the first sentence of this writeup. The information might belong in individal pages for either Marshall or Hain, but they haven't done much of note either; and the article for The Flying Lizards is sadly a mess. -Ashley Pomeroy 17:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Fascinating topic, good stub. Two top 100 singles is fine, IMO any duo that charts a single at number three scrapes in as being encyclopedic for us although perhaps not for a paper encyclopedia, but a follow-up at number 39 clinches it. Short-lived? Two years doen't set any records for longevity sure, but it's still a long time in the music industry. Andrewa 17:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. "Has had a Top 100 hit on any national music chart, in a large or medium-sized country", so passes the Notability and Music Guidelines. Kappa 18:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems at least as notable as many one hit wonders, and we have plenty of articles on them. -R. fiend 18:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. They have an allmusic.com entry which notes a single at 43 on the pop singles charts. Gamaliel 18:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I used to work in a vocal sample from Hain's cover version of Captain Sensible's "The Toys Take Over" during my sets. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:33, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Kit Hain's cover version of Captain Sensible's "The Toys Take Over"; Marshall Hain don't appear to have recorded this song. -Ashley Pomeroy 00:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That is true, even the Captain's version of "The Toys Take Over" was post 1980. But since both members went on to solo careers, this is a further argument for notability even beyond the duo's own merits. By the way, did you ever notice how thematically similar "The Toys Take Over" is to "Toys" by XTC? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:13, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Kit Hain's cover version of Captain Sensible's "The Toys Take Over"; Marshall Hain don't appear to have recorded this song. -Ashley Pomeroy 00:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, per Notability and Music Guidelines. ElBenevolente 00:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Their song Dancing in the City was a big hit in Australia in 1978. Together with the other chart info, this is enough to confirm that they meet the WikiMusic Project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 01:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Obvious keep and ridiculous nomination. UK number 3, and you want to delete? Eegh. - David Gerard 01:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme keep, agree with David Gerard completely. VfD is the cancer of Wikipedia. —RaD Man (talk) 07:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Worst. Analogy. Ever. </comic book guy> Gamaliel 15:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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, and this isn't RFD. dbenbenn | talk 21:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page has no information about Mary Ann Smith other than alderman, is not necessary and even if embleished, does not improve Wikipedia. (VfD comment left unsigned by User:24.17.255.164 at 09:58, 28 Feb 2005)
There is now a very clear concensus that Chicago alderman are not inherently noteworthy. In that case then, are they notable enough that they warrant their own redirects? In this specific example, a Google search for "Mary Ann Smith" -Chicago results in over 14-thousand hits. [4] Given the ambiguity here, should this particular redirect be kept or deleted? GRider\talk 18:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'm pretty indifferent. If a notable Mary Ann Smith appears we can change the redirect into an article on her. As it is nothing links here, and I really doubt people will be searching for this alderwoman (anyone typing in the name will probably just as likely be looking for another person with the same name), so the redirect is pretty useless, but pretty harmless. Very marginal keep. -R. fiend 19:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- In my opinion, very common names should never be redirects. Instead, a disambig page should be formed. There must be tens of thousands if not millions of Mary Smiths, Mary Ann Smiths, Mary Anne Smiths, Marianne Smiths, etc etc etc. A quick Googling reveals an actress, an artist, a Scottish musician, an Eastenders character, a children's book character, and a 1932 movie called Alias Mary Smith. This is ripe disambig material here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:13, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and add disambiguation. Concur with Starblind. Megan1967 23:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Before we start making disambiguation pages for names for which we don't have articles, we should ask ourselves how many of these other Mary Ann Smiths are in any way encyclpedic. Basically any name is going to had by more than one person, and we don't go making disambiguation pages for everyone. And since this page is titled "Mary Ann Smith" we don't want to mention every Mary Smith who doesn't have an "Ann" in her name. I checked the "Mary Ann Smith" actress, and she's credited with 4 roles, none major (some without names), in minor films. Not exactly encyclopedia material. Looking at a few others on google makes me less than convinced that we're missing articles here, What would a disambiguation page say? "Mary Ann Smith is the name of a whole bunch of people. Wow. Look at this. We have an alderwoman, an actress, some PhD, looks like a secretery or two, teacher, some sort of business executive or something... Man, alot of Smiths named their kid Mary Ann..." Because I'm not sure how much more you can say without other articles to link to. And I really don't see articles being made for most of these people. When another Mary Ann Smith turns up on wikipedia we can make a disambiguation page. There must be thousands of Sam Thompsons in the world, and we don't have a disambiguation page there. -R. fiend 23:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Please point me to ths "consensus" that Chicago aldermen are not notable. keep if someone adds detail; otherwise merge. Meelar (talk) 05:31, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- That would be on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus.
- I presume you mean Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Local politicians, where I count a vote of 8 to 5. Please don't use a slight majority in an underattended discussion to claim "consensus". Meelar (talk) 18:38, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Um, did you read the article? It's a redirect. I don't see how one can merge a redirect. Right now the question is should the name redirect to the aldermen page, or should it be deleted. It probably should be listed under redirects for deletion. -R. fiend 21:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That would be on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus.
- Delete this redirect on the grounds that this name is far too common and the redirect is for a non-notable Mary Ann Smith. As cheap as redirects are, no further action beyond deletion of this redirect would be required — the relevant one-liner^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H two words of text have already been merged. —RaD Man (talk) 11:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep redirect as is until we get another Mary Ann Smith - David Gerard 16:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.
- 16:09, 8 Mar 2005 David Gerard deleted Real activist (speedy as personal attack page)
Deathphoenix 03:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not notable (website founded isn't listen on Wikipedia), and I'm not quite sure if it's vanity or a personal attack...deleteNick04 20:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Almost certainly personal attack. Speedy as such. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, preferably speedily. Most likely a personal attack, or Mr. Diaper's work. jni 20:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- "Almost"? Speedy as vandalism. —Korath (Talk) 20:28, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy as vandalism. —Caesura 21:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy vandalism of the alt.tasteless sort Jok2000 22:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I deleted this as personal attack speedy - David Gerard 16:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 21:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not notable - we don't need an article for a verse from King Lear - and although I recall this verse being the subject of The Dark Tower (series) of books, it still doesn't need its own article...especially seeing as of now, the only content is the verse in question. Delete Nick04 20:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete (or possibly redirect to King Lear?) Otherwise we are going to get everyone's favourite verse. It should already be in wikisource anyway. The JPS 20:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Note from article creator:
Wow, that's some fast turn around time. Anyway, I made the article because there was an empty link to it on the Widdershins page. I was considering posting Brown's poem "Childe Rowland To the Dark Tower Came", but was unsure if posting the entire content of a poem, albeit one in the public domain, was appropriate. To wit, if you think the article should go, I recommend removing the link on the Widdershins page.
- Redirect to King Lear; could also redirect to the Browning poem Childe Rowland to the Dark Tower Came; it could also be made into an article about the English fairy tale from which the Shakespeare lines come (in ballad form; the editor of my Riverside edition believes these lines are from a lost ballad). Here is a source on the fairy tale: [5] Childe Rowland gets a respectable number of Google hits. Antandrus 00:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this, but if the Widdershins article is anything to go by, then there's potential for a good article under this title. For that reason I do not think it should be a redirect. Maybe put it on requested artciles (because we all know how effective that is). And to the anon above, welcome to wikipedia. Posting the entire content of a poem is not encouraged in wikipedia. If the poem is copyrighted then it's very bad, but even if it isn't (as in this case) it belongs in another project, Wikisource. I don't know much about wikisource, my wiki involvedment is limited to pedia, but I'm sure someone can help you out if you're interested. We would welcome an article on said poem here, with a few excerpts, but not the whole thing. There are plenty of articles on poems you can look at to see what we're looking for. -R. fiend 21:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This is sounding like some sort of disambig, mentioning Lear, the Browning poem, etc.. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:48, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Turn into a requested article if no-one expands it. With Shakespeare and Browning touching on the subject, there is definitely potential for an interesting article. Capitalistroadster 10:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Either redirect or expand, but keep the title active - David Gerard 16:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 article contains a block compress error, and is pending deletion. Joyous 02:12, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a hoax. The only Google hits for this are copies of the Wikipedia page. --Angr 20:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable - only wiki mirrors returned, possible hoax. Megan1967 23:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not a hoax, just not well known. That's why I created an article. Try http://www.azh.co.uk , God knows why Google doesn't read it.
- The above comment, made by an anonymous user at IP address 80.4.224.6 at 02:54, 5 Mar 2005, is probably also a hoax. The website given above redirects to http://faq.co.uk, a list of FAQs about various topics, but nothing about "Azhradh" is there. Even typing "Azhradh" into the search box provided on the page returns no entries. --Angr 13:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I see I haven't technically voted yet. Delete (in case my position wasn't clear). --Angr 06:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, no verifiability - David Gerard 16:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:12, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Basically a dicdef. Doesn't seem to be notable or in wide use, as it has no google hits. Should be deleted. Thue | talk 21:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Obscure trivia. jni 21:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, if necessary redirect to Jump Man Jeff --nixie 22:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, dictionary definition. Megan1967 23:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems to me to be made up dicdef -- do not transwiki Tygar 23:30, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- ... because the original author already did. Wiktionary is busy puzzling over the identical Wiktionary:JeffDedeJeff. There as here: Delete. Uncle G 18:20, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
- Delete absolutely zero Google hits, not even on Groups! So it's unverifiable for a start. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:45, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, unverifiable - David Gerard 16:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Note that this page was vandalized at this point. Some votes below may reflect comments the vandal forged. Next two votes were copied by me: jni 08:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*Keep per above. Kappa 07:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Search for "Jump Man Jeff" returns zip. If this term really exists, its video game cruft. DaveTheRed 07:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I can vouch that my vote is authentic. DaveTheRed 22:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
An help website for a commercial service. Doesn't seem to be notable. Should be deleted. Thue | talk 21:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Author removed delete tag from it. jni 21:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete- adverstising --nixie 22:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Borderline - would keep if it had a link to the damn thing, but it doesn't even have that - David Gerard 16:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity, not notable, no Alexa ranking. Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, wikipedia is not a web directory--nixie 01:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete without independent verifiability - David Gerard 16:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This page cannot be deleted because of block-compress errors. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Basically a vanity page. This is a student who is claimed to be a minor party candidate for US Senate. Info is out of date, too, but more to the point, not notable. BTfromLA 21:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I need proof before I vote. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Google search brought up about 80 unique hits, half the pages were in Spanish. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable --Neigel von Teighen 22:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 23:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete agree with Megan. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:52, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep, I'm inclined to keep significant members of minor nationwide parties, who else is going to write from NPOV about such people if not us? Seems reasonably active in Puerto Rican independentista politics, etc., an unpopular stance (to say the least) in Florida. I would expect that there is potential for a worthwhile article here. "Claimed to be" (above) is wrong, there is ample documentation on line. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:56, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm still trying to understand what the criteria are for inclusion as an article--does anyone who gets on a ballot anywhere merit an article? What about write-in candidates? "Big" offices only, or local administrators? My thought is that the individual needs to have done something distinguished to merit an article about them personally, rather than a larger organization in which they operate. If the point is to document minor parties and small political movements (and I wholeheartedly agree that is a good use of Wikipedia), isn't her involvement be better covered on the Socialist Workers Party article, or in articles on other movements in which she's active? By the way, didn't mean to imply that the claim of her Senate Candidacy was false, only that I hadn't confirmed it, since that wasn't the crux of my objection to the entry. BTfromLA 18:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Borderline keep - merge and redirect article on the race in question? - David Gerard 16:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:09, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
vanity, not notable, project only started two days ago, Google has nothing on the project (suggests for India), project has only 8 articles. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, but I encourage Zoohouse to help improve the Linux-related articles around here. Rhobite 22:19, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, and this project started Tuesday. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not yet notable. Thue | talk 22:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. It does not reflect well on Wikipedia that upon being made aware of this article, some Wikipedians took it upon themselves to vandalize Zoohouse's wiki. WikiLove, please, especially when you're more-or-less representing Wikipedia. JRM 22:29, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
- Why beat around the bush? It was User:SPUI. The decent thing to do would be to apologize, but that wouldn't impress his GNAA buds. Rhobite 22:50, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Mea culpa. I should have made clear the point was to pre-emptively explain any resentment Zoohouse might feel about the whole thing, not to nail people to the wall. For the record: at least two IP addresses were involved (whether these all belonged to one person, I cannot tell) and not a small bit of schadenfreude was expressed by people who should know better. JRM 23:03, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
- A few points, and probably the only thing I'll say about this, since drama is the last thing we want.
- Except for my GNAA membership, the GNAA was not involved. I have no idea who the other vandal was. If the GNAA was involved, there would have been a lot more.
- I apologize, especially for anything that required more than a simple rollback. My idea was to have a bit of fun without causing much work for the owner.
- Why beat around the bush? It was User:SPUI. The decent thing to do would be to apologize, but that wouldn't impress his GNAA buds. Rhobite 22:50, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Lirpedia or delete. --SPUI (talk) 00:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, Firstly, I am not advertising Linpedia.org at all. The articles was written in a Neutral Point Of View for encyclopedic values. No where does the article intensify or stress, the project, if anything it gives credit to Wikipedia, “The project reflects the ideals of Wikipedia”. If this type of article is advertisement, then lets have a vote to delete the following articles: Microsoft, Google, Apple, Mac, Linux, BSD, Apache, Gaim, Atari, and so on. If this page is removed, it will be because currently it might be unimportant to readers. But isn't that a NPOV problem? In truth, it can be very important to new Linux users or some one who might want to contribute to a free project to better and pass knowledge on a topic.
I understand some one having a little fun. But I do not understand some one had to use profanity and disturb work meant to help others.--Joel M. 03:21, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- It may be written in an NPOV style, but its mere existence is an advert, given that the site only came into being earlier this week. It may be a worthwhile project that "reflects the ideals of Wikipedia", but Wikipedia exists to describe general knowledge, not to push ideals (and certainly not to allow others to do so). Delete until the site has established its importance in its own right. sjorford →•← 09:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable yet. utcursch | talk 12:47, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not yet notable. But I second the invitation to Zoohouse/Joel M to help edit the Linux-related articles on topics of established notability. Linux's significance will be increasing substantially in the next couple of years, and perhaps Linpedia's will also. Barno 18:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Advertising. — Gwalla | Talk 02:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, only an ad as yet - David Gerard 16:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Block compress error: pending deletion. Joyous 02:09, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Apparently, this female boxer has never won a match and lost twice; once to Holly Dunaway and once to (figure skater) Tonya Harding. With 53 google hits [6], is this a noteworthy sportsperson? Please explain your vote during the discussion. GRider\talk 22:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, You must have Googled incorrectly - I get 90 hits with "boxer" and 235 hits with "boxing". Article needs expansion. Megan1967 23:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete A boxer who's fought 2 matches isn't notable. Hell, I've boxed more than that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:55, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable boxer. ComCat 02:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Concur with Starblind, Delete. Radiant! 09:45, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not notable. I've been in more matches than her, too. I'm not that good, but I've never lost to a figure skater (I hope). --Deathphoenix 06:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Marine 69-71
- History is full of great boxers who lost their first few bouts, only to go on and become great boxers. I can name Alexis Arguello, Henry Armstrong, Ricardo Mayorga, Wilfredo Vazquez, Luvi Callejas and the list goes on and on. I can be here one hour listing those who lost their first one or two bouts to become all time greats later on. Based on that, I'd say a half-hearted keep, and lets see what happens with her in the future. Later on, we should delete if she doesnt do anything good in the sport of women's boxing. "Antonio KO Girl Martin"
- I think we should approach this in a similar way to how we approach bands. Non-notable startup bands are usually deleted. I think this boxer is a similar startup boxer. If she establishes herself, I'd be one of the first to say she warrants an article. However, in this case, she doesn't. --Deathphoenix 15:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it's approaching 2 years now since the last of her two lost matches, during which she doesn't seem to have done anything. I'm sure stranger things have happened, but it doesn't seem like she's likely to bounce back into the ring anytime soon. In any case, I object to keeping anything on the basis of potential future achievements, unlikely or otherwise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:25, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Then it can be recreated then - David Gerard 16:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 16:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 20:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not enough context to establish notability, not even a first name. Somebody's teacher. -- Curps 22:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Reads like an entry in a school yearbook. BTfromLA 22:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Mr. Clark was my hero! The best teacher I had in high school! I still remember some of his demonstrations... he had a collection of war surplus junk, including a very large, strong magnet. He would stretch a piece of flexible wire about a meter long so that it ran between the poles, hang a little tag of paper on it, and connect a car battery to the ends. Sproing! the wire would deflect a couple of centimeters. Simple and picture-perfect as a textbook diagram. How can we even think of del-- Oh, wait. That was Mr. John Clark. This is someone else. Never mind. Delete. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- LOL.
- Delete. Whaddya talkin about? He was a jerk. He was my driver training instructor and he yelled at me for blasting through a stop sign. Anyway, I think his first name was Jim. Antandrus 01:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- unless you want to make note of the fact that Mr. Clark was also the name of a fairly major character in Tom Clancy's later books. Not quite sure if that's encyclopedic, mind you, but definitely a better choice for this entry than a teacher whose first name isn't mentioned. Haikupoet 04:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No, Joe! Say it ain't so! Oh, and delete. Wrap this enigma back in its cloak of obscurity. Bearcat 05:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, and delete - David Gerard 16:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Neologism, not widely used or notable as far as I'm aware. -- Curps 22:40, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete vanity... Tygar 23:31, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Rewrite about the city in Volga Bulgaria. The acronym is "SUAR", not "Suar", and Wiktionary has SUAR. Uncle G 18:11, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
- This has been rewritten to be about the city, keep now - David Gerard 16:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Deathphoenix 19:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Only a bunch of links. Notable? Unknown. Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless this can be expanded to something more than a linklist. Tygar 23:31, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or link to Kurdistan Workers Party. Its their new title and thats what they are. Not worth a discussion. Officialy they are the same thing. --Cool Cat| My Talk 07:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If KWP's renaming to CFDK can be verified, then redirect to Kurdistan Workers Party. Possibly that article's material should be moved to the new title instead, with the previous title changed to a redirect to the new one, and a note added regarding the name change. Barno 18:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete under WP:CSD—Articles #3 (article consists only of external links). --Deathphoenix 06:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ooh, it is a speedy, isn't it. Speedied - David Gerard 16:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:08, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
A hoax. Exactly zero Google hits. --Angr 22:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 23:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete hoax, yahoo returns only one hit, on some noteless trivia. Tygar 23:34, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 17:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Delete. Edeans 19:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete No such word exists in Latin; it sounds like some sort of laxative, anyway and it's nonsense. Bratsche (talk) 23:43, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was userfy at the author's request, since the consensus is to delete. Deathphoenix 21:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Page is now at User:Kim Bruning/Compiler metaprogramming example.
Uninformative, mostly a useless assembly listing, and not generally considered metaprogramming -- it would only be metaprogramming in the loosest possible sense of the word. The way a compiler works is described elsewhere, making this article entirely redundant. This might be useful if it actually described how this is metaprogramming (which it isn't), which it doesn't. Delete. - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- What's there is just a run-of-the-mill program. Unless someone replaces it with a real example of compiler metaprogramming, delete. Josh Cherry 00:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That's not even a large amount of assembly code. Delete. Radiant! 09:48, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This article references itself as an example for metaprogramming, but I think the small example given in that article is good enough. There's no need for this one. --Deathphoenix 06:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Possible redirect to discourage recreation - David Gerard 17:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, and take discussion to Talk:Compiler_metaprogramming_example. Heh, this is the canonical example of a page being deleted while the author is on wikivacation ;-). Furrykef rightly challenged this page on talk, but I wasn't around to contradict his particular pov, which I naturally disagree with 100%. Sorry about that, hopefully it's not too late to hold that discussion now. Kim Bruning 20:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Whether or not you were on wikivacation is irrelevant. ;) After all, pages on Wikipedia, or any "true" wiki, don't really have "authors" as such. My original comment had been on that talk page for a long time (the timestamp says 16 Aug 2004), and had been unanswered until now. Anyway, I think discussion belongs here rather than on the talk page for now, so that it's all in one place. After all, if the page is retained, the talk page will still have a link to this one. - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- An article doesn't have an "owner" that's true, but articles officially do have authors (if only because that's defined by copyright law and also by the GFDL). By author here I just mean someone who's keeping an eye on the article and willing to work on it if something needs doing.
- As to not taking this to talk: are you saying you want to run a (possibly lengthy) technical discussion on vfd? Ok, we can do that, but wouldn't that make the job of the VFD maintainers really hard? Kim Bruning 12:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I've reverted metaprogramming (programming) to the version before furrykef's edits, to avoid distortion of this discussion.
- I disagree that it's distortion, though perhaps you're right that I should have held off until the page was deleted (sorry to say it, but I'm pretty confident it will be). I still think most programmers will disagree with the statement that the compiler is a metaprogramming tool, which is a strong argument both for the deletion of this page and for rewording the metaprogramming page. I can understand where you're coming from, and I agree that a compiler is a metaprogramming tool in a loose sense. But your POV and my POV don't really matter for something like this. (And forget about NPOV... it'd be useless for the articles to be riddled with "Some people think this and other people think that and some people think this article shouldn't exist at all anyway.") - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I basically second that. A C++ compiler can be used to do template metaprogramming, but that's not what this "example" is. Josh Cherry 05:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I can understand your sentiment, but do recall that NPOV itself is a non-negotiable policy. As far as I can tell, this is definately metaprogramming from the point of view of an assembly programmer. However I'd be willing to change my mind, if it turns out that the definition given by metaprogramming_(programming) is wrong or lacking. In any case, IMHO this is not a job for VFD, but rather for cleanup. (which I admit might be needed) Kim Bruning 09:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- OK, the whole POV issue aside, which upon reflection probably indeed does not belong here in VfD, the only use of this page, which is admitted within the page itself, is to isolate a really long assembly listing. I would think that including only a few sample lines and noting that the entire file is over 200 lines long is sufficient, which, if this can be agreed upon, removes any argument for the isolation of that content, and therefore removes any argument for the existence of this page, which is why it's listed on VfD rather than being discussed through talk pages. (Sorry for not being entirely clear on that.) - furrykef (Talk at me) 17:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Originally I'd wanted to make the example an exact parrallel of the bash code on Metaprogramming (programming), which would have gone a long way towards what you might have preferred to see. Unfortunately, my version of gcc was ignoring the "optimisation" flags I'd set to get somewhere near to that result. I talked it through with one of the gcc crew and it turns out that this is in fact deliberate, and is actually normally a useful feature. (Except for me that is, Hmph! )
- If we could find a better way to generate a (shorter!) example, then I'd have no trouble at all with merging that with the main article. :-)
- Kim Bruning 18:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- OK, the whole POV issue aside, which upon reflection probably indeed does not belong here in VfD, the only use of this page, which is admitted within the page itself, is to isolate a really long assembly listing. I would think that including only a few sample lines and noting that the entire file is over 200 lines long is sufficient, which, if this can be agreed upon, removes any argument for the isolation of that content, and therefore removes any argument for the existence of this page, which is why it's listed on VfD rather than being discussed through talk pages. (Sorry for not being entirely clear on that.) - furrykef (Talk at me) 17:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I can understand your sentiment, but do recall that NPOV itself is a non-negotiable policy. As far as I can tell, this is definately metaprogramming from the point of view of an assembly programmer. However I'd be willing to change my mind, if it turns out that the definition given by metaprogramming_(programming) is wrong or lacking. In any case, IMHO this is not a job for VFD, but rather for cleanup. (which I admit might be needed) Kim Bruning 09:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Pointless. Merely mention of a disassembly flag on a compiler should be enough. Dysprosia 05:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, could have done that, but when I read about things I'm always insanely curious as to what an example might look like. So I was shamelessly catering to "people like me" ;-). If you could somehow provide a shorter example, perhaps we could merge that into the metaprogramming article, if that's your preference. Kim Bruning 09:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- But what the page describes isn't really metaprogramming. Metaprogramming is really writing a program that writes code, not using the compiler to generate code. Dysprosia 21:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Consider for a moment, what's a compiler? Right, it's a program. So what you're saying ("metaprogramming is really writing a program that writes/generates code, not writing a program that writes/generates code") doesn't make sense at all. Did you mean something else but make a thinko while typing? Kim Bruning
- No, I don't believe I did make a typo, and you did not copy what I had wrote verbatim. I shall clarify. Metaprogramming, as far as I can see, is writing a program whose intended output is code, not using a compiler that generates code. A program that prints "hello" and is compiled is not metaprogramming, but a program that prints "int main(void) {printf("hello") return 0;}" is. Dysprosia 05:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, gotcha, not a thinko. Did you realize that a 4GL compiler is defined as a program that does exactly that? Kim Bruning 08:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You're still missing the point. You don't write the compiler, you merely execute it. Executing programs is not programming. Writing programs is. Dysprosia 08:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- For starters, you're only assuming I didn't write the compiler. Kim Bruning 15:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, and generally the person who uses a compiler is somebody other than the one who wrote it. :) Isn't the bullet nesting level here enough, by the way? - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I recall having seen examples of code where yacc (/bison) is used, and the resulting compiler is immediately applied by the same program/package. So I'll grant it's uncommon, but it's certainly not unheard of. (ps. You can't say I didn't warn you about this page getting messy! ;) ) Kim Bruning 21:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps then that isn't really metaprogramming then. To class what is and what isn't metaprogramming we need a firm definition: see my comment below. Dysprosia 22:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I recall having seen examples of code where yacc (/bison) is used, and the resulting compiler is immediately applied by the same program/package. So I'll grant it's uncommon, but it's certainly not unheard of. (ps. You can't say I didn't warn you about this page getting messy! ;) ) Kim Bruning 21:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, and generally the person who uses a compiler is somebody other than the one who wrote it. :) Isn't the bullet nesting level here enough, by the way? - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- For starters, you're only assuming I didn't write the compiler. Kim Bruning 15:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You're still missing the point. You don't write the compiler, you merely execute it. Executing programs is not programming. Writing programs is. Dysprosia 08:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, gotcha, not a thinko. Did you realize that a 4GL compiler is defined as a program that does exactly that? Kim Bruning 08:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe I did make a typo, and you did not copy what I had wrote verbatim. I shall clarify. Metaprogramming, as far as I can see, is writing a program whose intended output is code, not using a compiler that generates code. A program that prints "hello" and is compiled is not metaprogramming, but a program that prints "int main(void) {printf("hello") return 0;}" is. Dysprosia 05:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Consider for a moment, what's a compiler? Right, it's a program. So what you're saying ("metaprogramming is really writing a program that writes/generates code, not writing a program that writes/generates code") doesn't make sense at all. Did you mean something else but make a thinko while typing? Kim Bruning
- But what the page describes isn't really metaprogramming. Metaprogramming is really writing a program that writes code, not using the compiler to generate code. Dysprosia 21:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I think Kim and I have established that the definition of metaprogramming doesn't really belong in a VfD debate. I think even if this is metaprogramming, this page isn't useful at all and cannot really hope to be improved. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I think that the outcome here will depend on the definition of Metaprogramming (programming), because the 2 pages are related. I'd be convinced one way or the other, depending on whether there is evidence showing that the definition is flawed. Kim Bruning 21:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This is really a pick-one-definition-and-stick-to-it sort of discussion. The problem is we should use whatever preexisting definition out there, when there may in fact be none. The issue with using a definition that includes compilation to machine code as metaprogramming means that all programming is essentially metaprogramming, and that essentially sullies the word because then it has no real meaning. Dysprosia 22:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's better to say that much modern day programming depends on metaprogramming at some point or other. You're not nescesarily doing it yourself. Kim Bruning 23:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- With the definition of metaprogramming extending to compilers, all programming is metaprogramming. The term "metaprogramming" then becomes meaningless. Dysprosia 04:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I think we're likely in violent agreement. Would you agree that the compiler writers themselves are actually doing metaprogramming? Kim Bruning 08:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I don't necessarily agree that "all programming is metaprogramming", if that's what you mean ;) I wouldn't agree that compiler writers are doing metaprogramming, for a few reasons, unless they are using the compiler to write compiler code. I think I've seen enough however to propose a definition, I shall do so on Talk:Metaprogramming (programming). Dysprosia 09:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I think we're likely in violent agreement. Would you agree that the compiler writers themselves are actually doing metaprogramming? Kim Bruning 08:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- With the definition of metaprogramming extending to compilers, all programming is metaprogramming. The term "metaprogramming" then becomes meaningless. Dysprosia 04:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's better to say that much modern day programming depends on metaprogramming at some point or other. You're not nescesarily doing it yourself. Kim Bruning 23:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This is really a pick-one-definition-and-stick-to-it sort of discussion. The problem is we should use whatever preexisting definition out there, when there may in fact be none. The issue with using a definition that includes compilation to machine code as metaprogramming means that all programming is essentially metaprogramming, and that essentially sullies the word because then it has no real meaning. Dysprosia 22:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I think that the outcome here will depend on the definition of Metaprogramming (programming), because the 2 pages are related. I'd be convinced one way or the other, depending on whether there is evidence showing that the definition is flawed. Kim Bruning 21:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, could have done that, but when I read about things I'm always insanely curious as to what an example might look like. So I was shamelessly catering to "people like me" ;-). If you could somehow provide a shorter example, perhaps we could merge that into the metaprogramming article, if that's your preference. Kim Bruning 09:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I fully agree with Furrykef. (Anonymous Wikipedia browser.)- If I'm not mistaken, anonymous votes don't count, even when they agree with my POV. ;) - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
conclusion
[edit]Given that all participants in this vote have now indeed moved to talk:Metaprogramming, and that the likely outcome is going to be fix, merge and redirect (I'm speaking slightly out of place here, I think people will agree to doing that on the long run?), which doesn't require admin intervention, could we agree to declare this vfd closed, with consensus being to do a (somewhat) complex merge, which will be done by the people here? (By which I take it to mean probably me in particular, I did it, so I'd best help out and fix it *sigh*.) Kim Bruning 17:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That's not how I see it. I see six votes to delete and one to keep, and none of the discussion suggests that any of those votes would change. Josh Cherry 18:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You'll notice that the discussion here is on POV issues. VFD was not and is not intended to allow POV in through the back door (m:Foundation Issues > all other concerns). Suggest we first sort out what the NPOV is in this case. We can always come back to VFD at a later date. Kim Bruning 22:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You'll notice that my vote stands all POV issues aside, and I suspect that will be the case with the other votes. - furrykef (Talk at me) 22:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oh bother, I was seeking consensus, and apparently I haven't done it properly enough. Could you (re)clarify your current motivation to want to do a straight delete? Kim Bruning
- Seeking consensus is good. I wouldn't say you didn't do it properly. I think you just misjudged what the consensus was, or was likely to be. Josh Cherry 00:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oh bother, I was seeking consensus, and apparently I haven't done it properly enough. Could you (re)clarify your current motivation to want to do a straight delete? Kim Bruning
- You'll notice that my vote stands all POV issues aside, and I suspect that will be the case with the other votes. - furrykef (Talk at me) 22:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You'll notice that the discussion here is on POV issues. VFD was not and is not intended to allow POV in through the back door (m:Foundation Issues > all other concerns). Suggest we first sort out what the NPOV is in this case. We can always come back to VFD at a later date. Kim Bruning 22:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If consensus remains to delete, please Userfy (move to my user: namespace), since there's still some useful data on that page and on the talk page, which I might be able to (re)use at some point. Thanks! :-) Kim Bruning 16:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Korath (Talk) 15:46, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
How is this subject even remotely encyclopedic? GRider\talk 23:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, promotion, possible vanity. Megan1967 23:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete was a minor meme in the olden days. I'd say the 15 minutes are about up, and it wasn't exactly all your base even at its height. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:48, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I never heard of this guy until now, and I have no idea of just how much of an internet phenomenon he was, but there is clearly a precedent for the inclusion of major internet phenomonena in wikipedia. Reading this page and looking at the photo it struck me that this guy really reminds me of Borat. Is there any evidence that he was the inspiration for that character? If so then maybe merge and redirect there? No vote as of now, but I'm curious about this. Anyone have any information on this? Am I off my rocker? -R. fiend 04:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose only Borat's creators know for sure, but my guess is no. Their countries of origin are different, for a start, and Borat's most prevelant characteristic (anti-semitism) isn't something associated with Mahir. They do have some similar physical characteristics, but I think Borat is more of a reference to a stereotyped foreign guy (like a less-cute Andy Kauffman's "foreign man") than a reference to any specific person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call anti-semitism Borat's most prevelant characteristic, at least not in the beginning. I think it sort of grew as Cohen realized how useful it was in what he was doing. Anyway, it wasn't just his appearance that got we wondering, but the "I like sex" thing as well. Their countries are different, but I know Cohen chose Kazakstan because he was pretty sure he wouldn't have to worry about running into someone who was particularly familiar with that country. A google search leads me to believe that I'm not the first to make the connection, but there is no evidence that Borat was directly inspired by Cagri, so maybe merge a few sentences into the Internet phenomena article and redirect. He's already mentioned there. That would mean losing the great photo, but we can live with that. -R. fiend 15:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose only Borat's creators know for sure, but my guess is no. Their countries of origin are different, for a start, and Borat's most prevelant characteristic (anti-semitism) isn't something associated with Mahir. They do have some similar physical characteristics, but I think Borat is more of a reference to a stereotyped foreign guy (like a less-cute Andy Kauffman's "foreign man") than a reference to any specific person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Major internet phenomena do get included in Wikipedia. This one, however, gets 837 googles, which does not even remotely qualify as such. Delete. Radiant! 09:45, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a major Internet phenomenon. This guy spawned the "I KISS YOU!!!" thing; Googling that yields over 100,000 hits. Don't delete Mahir, who wants come to Turkey, he can invitate! Android79 13:57, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Come on, now... do you really think every time the 3 common words "i kiss you" appear next to each other on Google, it's a reference to Mahir? I think not. If I run the same exact-phrase search, more than half of the result on the first two pages are obsviously not Mahir references, many are merely part of "can I kiss you" or "may I kiss you", etc. If I add "mahir" to the search query, the number of results drops more than 90%. Besides, even if he coined a minor internet catchprase, does that necessarily make him encyclopedia-worthy? "Have A Nice Day" is a far bigger catchprase, and I doubt that whoever made it up has an entry (and rightly so). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, no, but the name of whoever created "Have A Nice Day" was not linked to the catchphrase itself, whereas the name of "Mahir" spread along with "I KISS YOU!!!" If we had a List of Internet memes, I'd say it could be merged there. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I think that's a really good idea. Internet memes are a bit like local politicians and others who tap-dance around the notability line: a fairly large number of people don't think they belong in an encylopedia, but enough people care about them that they can't be entirely ignored, either. A list would satisfy both groups. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- D'oh! Chalk that one up to lack of caffeine. I must have been thinking that "I kiss you" is ungrammatical/uncommon enough to only catch what I was looking for... anyway, where do you get a 90% dropoff? Google for "i kiss you" mahir returns 32,000 hits. I stand by my claim that this is a well-known enough meme to have its own article. If not, well, it's time to put up stuff like Badger Badger Badger for VfD as well. Android79 15:55, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, now that's really strange. I get 10,900 for "i kiss you" mahir and even if I remove the quotes it only goes up to 13,800. It idn't Safe Search, either, because that's turned off. I dunno. I probably would support a VfD for Badger3, even though I personally find it amusing. Overall though I like Antaeus' list idea for topics like these. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:03, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- As his heydey was apparently 6 years ago, a google search now would not reflect how popular he was in his prime. The guy who popularized Mahir's page claimed he got 500,000 hits in two weeks, which is quite a lot. Also Mahir's page counter which has only been active since 2002 (still 3 years after his initial popularity) has a comparable number of hits, which is still a lot for a personal web page. I'm not a good judge of exactly when an internet phenomena is really widespread enough to warrant inclusion, so I'm still wavering on this one, but I think we do have to look to what other such things are included in wikipedia, and compare. -R. fiend 16:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, now that's really strange. I get 10,900 for "i kiss you" mahir and even if I remove the quotes it only goes up to 13,800. It idn't Safe Search, either, because that's turned off. I dunno. I probably would support a VfD for Badger3, even though I personally find it amusing. Overall though I like Antaeus' list idea for topics like these. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:03, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, no, but the name of whoever created "Have A Nice Day" was not linked to the catchphrase itself, whereas the name of "Mahir" spread along with "I KISS YOU!!!" If we had a List of Internet memes, I'd say it could be merged there. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Come on, now... do you really think every time the 3 common words "i kiss you" appear next to each other on Google, it's a reference to Mahir? I think not. If I run the same exact-phrase search, more than half of the result on the first two pages are obsviously not Mahir references, many are merely part of "can I kiss you" or "may I kiss you", etc. If I add "mahir" to the search query, the number of results drops more than 90%. Besides, even if he coined a minor internet catchprase, does that necessarily make him encyclopedia-worthy? "Have A Nice Day" is a far bigger catchprase, and I doubt that whoever made it up has an entry (and rightly so). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Major internet phenomena. So what if it was a few years ago? It's still notable. Keep. Bubb Rubb may not be math theorems or plant categorizations, but it's still notable as an internet meme. Mike H 17:52, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Despite some people's assumptions, this was a major Internet phenomenon. The guy made Wired! Radiant I don't know what you searched for, but '"i kiss you" mahir' returns about 10,000 Google hits. Rhobite 17:57, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Is this a joke? Extremely strong keep. Famous internet meme with significant media coverage. Gamaliel 18:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Was famous, got piles of verifiable coverage - David Gerard 01:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I KISS YOU!!! - Keep - as notable (if not more so) than any other silly internet meme. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:38, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This guy is arguably one of the first internet celebrities. He was on various TV shows, news shows, and he was invited to talk at conferences (IIRC). Maybe not on par with AYBABTU, but definitely more notable than Bubb Rubb (woo woo!). CryptoDerk 05:41, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep for the time being. This was a fairly big Internet phenomenon at the time and is still remembered by many. If absolutely nobody remembers him in 10 years, then we can be sure he was just a fad and can delete the article. Psychonaut 03:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP DUDE IT's F'in MAHIR, MAHIR RULES!
- Keep - agreed with two comments ago: we'll revisit this in 5, 10 years and see whether it has stood the test of time. - DavidWBrooks 13:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This was nominated for deletion months ago and, I thought, deleted. I can find no record of the prior discussion, though. I think it pre-dated our archiving procedure. That said, I believe that this has already failed the test of time. Delete. Rossami (talk) 23:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This wasn't nominated for deletion before. There are only a handful of edits to the article and so it's rather quick to check all the diffs and verify this. CryptoDerk 23:42, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Human memory is of course fallible, but I am sure beyond any shadow of doubt that this topic has been previously nominated. (I am not as sure of the decision.) The fact that there is no evidence in the article history is, unfortunately, not proof that a nomination never took place. 1) I can not say for sure that this topic was previously created at this exact title. It might have been a slightly different transliteration of his name. 2) It was long enough that it might have been prior to one of the database failures that took out some history files. Regardless, I still can't find a copy of the prior discussion. Unless someone else can, it's probably moot. My own vote is not based on the prior discussion but on my assessment of the current relevance of his impact. Clearly I am in the minority on this one but no change of vote. Rossami (talk) 14:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This wasn't nominated for deletion before. There are only a handful of edits to the article and so it's rather quick to check all the diffs and verify this. CryptoDerk 23:42, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- I KEEP YOU!!!. —RaD Man (talk) 07:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep he can stay my wikipedia! ALKIVAR™
08:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) - Keep or merge somewhere. Kappa 10:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- he became an online household name there for a moment. Certainly notable. - Longhair | Talk 15:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, of course. —Xezbeth 15:55, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Urgh, the long years haven't softened the horrific memory of Mahir in his trunks. Shudder. -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 03:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This must be a joke! Of course Keep!! Go Yahoo! netrospective and see 10 years, 100 moments of the Web. Mahir is on the third place of the list! Sulakalan 04:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This was one of the very first Internet phenomena, one of the first Internet celebrities. It showed for the first time how the Internet could very rapidly spread memes and spawn fads much faster than ever before, a new social phenomenon. In the future, historians will study the early history of the Internet... it's as important as the early history of television. Someday somebody will do a PhD thesis on the Mahir/I-Kiss-You meme, if it hasn't happened already. I'm dead serious. -- Curps 07:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Guinness book of World Records for the most-viewed homepage: [7] 'Nuff said. --TexasDex 04:45, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Korath (Talk) 15:48, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
non-notable wiki spam. Incorrectly listed on the 2nd by user:81.77.109.130, adding to the list today for comment--nixie 23:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Somewhat notable. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, definitely notable - over 1,050,000 hits on Google, [8] . Megan1967 23:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, lots of google hits, and its the largest on-going celebrity poling site on the internet, according to the article at least. DaveTheRed 02:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable website, although the article should probably be renamed Am I Annoying.com or a redirect created if not one already. 23skidoo 14:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. A very notable website. Binadot 16:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Abstain, thanks for backing me up, as I thought the site was notable enough to be on wikipedia. I added a redirect so Am I Annoying.com directs to here. --Tubutler 19:24, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. At 37,980, I think this is the highest Alexa rank for a VfD article I've ever voted on. --Deathphoenix 06:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Borderline keep. Could do with third-party evidence of anyone caring - David Gerard 17:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Added third-party evidence of anyone caring :). Let me know if there's anything else I should add or delete. --Tubutler 18:56, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:07, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
High school student that won the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair, not yet notable --nixie 23:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable yet. Megan1967 23:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Science fair winners, losers, participants, and judges are not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:46, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. not notable. Congratulations to Annesh though. DaveTheRed 01:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not (yet) notable. Jonathunder 02:50, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
- Borderline delete. Would be borderline keep if it was more than two sentences and included any verifiability - David Gerard 17:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I invoke the Lower Case Surname Rule. Delete. Edeans 20:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 20:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This seems to be a very silly theory and not a serious article. Martijn Faassen 23:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Silly? How can the below be silly? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No notable references, and "A recent theory submitted by scientifically advanced internet user" makes it not credible. Zzyzx11 02:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- BJAODN Extraordinaire! the text is only moderately funny, but the picture had me laughing out loud. Really. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:30, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- As per Andrew Lenahan. Uncle G 17:51, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
- Prime BJAODN material. Oh lordy, how I laughed. — Gwalla | Talk 02:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Heh :). Thue | talk 22:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If it's so funny, shouldn't it go to GJAODN instead? — JIP | Talk 08:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- BJAODN, definitely! (whoops,already been moved) Martinultima
- very greatBJAODN; but he did not take into account the different rotation speeds of Earth depending on your respective latitude Lectonar 14:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Haha ... make sure the picture gets copied to BJAODN as well. linas 14:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- BJAODN - David Gerard 17:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oh. My. Gosh. If only we didn't have an no original research policy! I'd be voting keep for sure, if only for the image. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 19:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How did the new article patrol miss this nugget of non-notability --nixie 23:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 23:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Tagged for speedy. There's no way this is going to survive, so a speedy deletion would save us all some time. Hopefully there's an admin out there who's willing to stretch the rules slightly. This is obviously a delete vote, anyway. -R. fiend 00:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Extreme vanity. Zzyzx11 02:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That was definitely a speedy. Did the deed. Surprised there was even a question about it. Bearcat 05:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.