Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

If you want to nominate an article for deletion, please read this carefully first.

If the latest nominations appear to be missing from this page, please purge the cache.

Articles for Deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians decide what should be done with an article. Items sent here usually wait seven days or so; afterward the following actions can be taken on an article as a result of community consensus:

• Kept
• Deleted per the deletion policy
• Sent to cleanup
• Merged and/or redirected to an existing article
• Transwikied (moved to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, or Wiktionary)

More information.

Things to consider:

• It is important to read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy which states which problems form valid grounds for deletion before adding comments to this page.
• Use the "what links here" link which appears in the sidebar of the actual article page, to get a sense how the page is being used and referenced within Wikipedia.
• Please familiarize yourself with some frequently cited guidelines, in particular WP:BIO, WP:FICT, WP:MUSIC and WP:COI.

AfD etiquette:

• Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before adding a comment.
• Sign any listing or vote you add, by adding this after your comment: ~~~~.
• If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else.
• Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith.
• Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted.

You can add each AFD subpage day to your watchlist by clicking this link: Add today's AFD to watchlist

Current votes: 24^th 23^rd 22^nd 21^st 20^th 19^th

Old votes: 18^th 17^th 16^th 15^th 14^th 13^th 12^th 11^th 10^th 9^th 8^th 7^th

November 19

Bud smiley

Not sufficiently notable to make in on Google, on used in a couple of non-notable websites. RickK 00:37, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Redirect to smiley. silsor 00:52, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Citing use of term on "non-notable websites" clearly shows complete lack of comprehension of where such terminology is utilized. Sole use of Google as source of what is and what isn't 'notable' insufficient in itself. There is more to the world than what is viewable via Google. This entry is one bit of that wisdom. /McK 02:11, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Really? Do tell me about the notability of a certain obscure context of a common smiley face. User has two edits and 'Bud smiley' is both of them. Lord Bob 02:21, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Needs a References section. Transfer verifiable information to smiley (where its visibility will be higher, anyway). — David Remahl 02:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to smiley, as suggested by Silsor. Lord Bob 02:21, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to smiley Rje 02:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Slang from a particular BBS/forum set. Well discussed, and no doubt an interesting observation, but not encyclopedic. No real need for a redirect, since it would be inaccurate and unneeded, except to prevent recreation. With the author here on VfD and being intelligent, I doubt that's necessary, as that's more commonly a troll and kiddie preventative. Geogre 04:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • How would it be misleading? — David Remahl 04:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I was trying not to be too expansive in my explanation, but here it goes. Ok: this article discusses not an emoticon, but a use of emoticons in a psychological setting. It's interesting, and whoever thought it up is quite observant. Now, anyone searching Wikipedia for this title has encountered the websites where the term is used. He or she will not be looking for "what is a smiley," but "what do these people mean when they talk about the Bud smiley?" Therefore, a redirect (without a merge) to emoticon would be misleading. It wouldn't give them what they sought. Inasmuch as anyone looking for just the "smiley" won't put in "Bud smiley," we won't lose any people who are searching for the material under emoticon. That's what I meant, anyway. Geogre 16:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Or redirect to Emoticon, but do not redirect to Smiley. This is a bunch of revisionist bullshit. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 05:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to understand this...These are my beliefs: a: a bud smiley is a smiling smiley used in a sarcastic way, at least in the minds of a small number of people. a: smiley talks about smilies. b: smilies are emoticons. c: emoticons talks about emoticons. Why is it more correct to redirect bud smiley to emoticon than it is to redirect to smiley? — David Remahl 05:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If any redirect, to emoticon, definitely not smiley. Memes that do not have sufficient vigour to leave their homepage have been outevolved. David, I think Radman's point is that redirecting will involve merging and this has no place in Smiley, which is about nice, smiley faces first and emoticons second, while emoticons is about the use of letters to express your "emotions" first, and, after all, your emoticon here, the bud smiley, is not really a happy, smiley thing, is it?Dr Zen 06:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, sorry, I didn't bother to check smiley, I assumed I knew what it was about :-). — David Remahl 06:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Not sure how this is done, but this term IS in use in the BBS community and those who use it are often asked to explain its meaning to newcomers. Thus the desire to have a reference to point to for those who want to know - a Wikipedia entry. Just because a term does not appear on Google or "notable" websites is not sufficient for deletion, per my understanding of the deletion policy. Ubiquity is not the threshold for any entry in Wikipedia. --207.30.172.102 15:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: No, but verifiability, neutrality and maintainability are requirements for all entries. And notability is often a proxy for those requirements. Topics which are too small are unlikely to gain the critical mass of editors necessary to ensure that the article remains safe from subtle vandalism. By the way, you should know that anonymous comments on the VfD page are steeply discounted. Please consider logging in. Rossami (talk) 17:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Improv 16:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 17:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Title is too obscure to be encyclopedic, contents are a loosely related ramble of speculations and POVs. Andrewa 05:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 21:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Untitled

from VfD:

Not notable, or at least notability not established. The whole article reads: "Richard W. Dortch was the Illinois District Superintendent of the Assemblies of God from 1970 - 1983." -- Keep for rewriting based on new info-- see below. Wolfman 01:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• If he presided over a particularly important time period, or perhaps was influential in changing the group in some significant way (major theological changes, etc.), maybe. Right now I'm saying delete. Inky 03:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: If he did as Inky suspects, he's probably well discussed in the church article. Substubs like this kill us. Geogre 04:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete The stub has existed for 5 months. Without being expanded, the article is useless. DCEdwards1966 02:28, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Person with 23,000 google hits. Listed in Who's Who in Religion. Clearly those saying he is not notable have not done the slightest bit of research. anthony 警告 02:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I am unable to replicate your Google results [1]. Would you mind posting a link to your search here? Thanks. Wolfman 06:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, there is a Richard Dortch who is notable as a convicted felon and sidekick to Jim Bakker; not sure if it's the same guy. Wolfman 06:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't it make more sense to figure this out than to just blindly delete? If they turn out to be different people, then we can separate the two articles with a line. Considering Bakker is known for being a preacher for Assemblies of God, that our very own page on him says "His sidekick, Richard Dortch, senior vice-president of PTL, and associate pastor of Heritage Village Church, also ended up in prison", and that "Heritage Village Church was an Assemblies of God Church." [2] I think the connection is nearly certain. anthony 警告 13:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Anthony, I certainly do not blindly delete. I did a Google, and I came up with between 10 and 50 hits depending on how I specified the search. I have no idea how you get 23,000. Now, the article as it stands is absolutely useless, and in my opinion Wikipedia is better off without it. In the process of this vfd, we may have found some useful info to include; I appreciate your role in uncovering it. That's for the good, and that's one reason we this process, so multiple people can check it out. It may be that we get a decent article out of the process. But if the existing article had been deleted instead it still would have been an improvement. That's because the current article is essentially misleading about the man in leaving out the most prominent facts about him -- that he's actually a felon, convicted of fraud, not just some mild-mannered district superintendent of a church. Changing my vote to keep, so this new info can be included to make a decent article.Wolfman 03:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • It seems to me your search was inconclusive. But I do the same search you list above and the top hit (other than this page) says "Most of us know Richard Dortch as host of the national nightly television program You and Me, now viewed in many cities throughout America." "Listed in Who’s Who in Religion, Richard has served as Executive Director and President of P.T.L. Television Network; and Executive Presbyter of the Assemblies of God, the denomination’s highest elected body, 1971-1985. He had oversight of 900 ministers and churches in Illinois when serving as Superintendent of his district, 1970-1983. Prior to that, he was President of Emmanuel Bible Institute of Andrimont, Belgium; and served as Field Fellowship Secretary for the Missionaries of the Assemblies of God in Europe, 1958-1963." "Pastor Dortch has written a new book, Secrets. This follows his other books entitled Integrity, Fatal Conceit, Caring Enough, Losing it All, and Letters to Leaders." It seems to me that the first hit alone establishes notability. As for the search I did, I used "Richard Dortch", because I think we should give the article the benefit of doubt. That's why I mean by "blindly deleting". Just doing a google search on an extremely narrow term and looking at a number in my opinion qualifies. I'm sorry if you took the term to be derogatory, though. I should note that my comment that "those saying he is not notable have not done the slightest bit of research" did not apply to you, because you admitted that he might be notable. anthony 警告 15:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd just like to reiterate my request that people look at "What links here" before listing an article on VFD. anthony 警告 13:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. For reasons stated by other that vote keep. --

Dittaeva 20:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• delete(overall delete votes-5/keep votes-0 i guess that makes me a deletionist) Oh, well.User:Fledgeling02:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

'choo, scratch that- my google serch (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Richard+Dortch&btnG=Google+Search ) also hit 23,300 for Richard Dortch

so i vote Keep.User:Fledgeling02:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • well i agree with keep. but a note on proper google usage: you need to use quotes around "richard dortch" to get any sort of reasonable google count. even with quotes, you'll find lots of richard dortch's other than this guy. Wolfman 03:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Proper google usage is to use google to find articles about someone and then read them, not to blindly look at a number. Putting "richard dortch" in quotes would eliminate pages where his middle name was included. anthony 警告 13:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• more than likely. I ran into that problem when i was doing reserch to write a article on 'Wilson's Magnolia;User:Fledgeling 03:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Tεxτurε 21:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Added references

Added references and verified facts. References have material to expand.--FloNight 02:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC) George Lesnikov was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the article.

George Lesnikov

Obvious vanity page from a young wikipedian with 'good marks' and a penchant for founding new computer companies. Ideally, the user should voluntarily move this information to the user page, however, the user's edit history (exactly 3 edits on 8/25/04) suggests he may no longer be active. Furthermore, PFHLai politely referred this user to Wikipedia:Auto-biography on 8/25 yet the article remains. Also see the vfd entry for WWWAYS, the company founded by this user. Presnell 02:01, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Unfortunately, there is no merge/redirect possible for a lapsed Wikipedian. Geogre 04:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete DCEdwards1966 02:30, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Takalak 09:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was - kept

Feigned madness

I can't see this going anywhere that isn't already covered in something like Insanity defense. I'm leaving a longer note on Talk:Feigned madness. Joyous 01:08, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Weak keep, as its different from insanity defense, but it needs work. —siroχo 03:39, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Weak delete: I agree that this is not really an insanity defense article. The current contents are all but useless, as it is simply a quote from Samuel, but various real and fictional people who pretend to be insane is worth discussing, but not really under this title. Also, I'm not sure that any title can really be useful and consistent to cover Odysseus and Yossarian, both. Perhaps a bit of the article on insanity could cover feigned madness as a literary trope. Geogre 04:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Extremely encyclopedic subject, quite distinctly from insanity defense, that must also reference the landmark Rosenhan experiment. Geogre: Insanity is the article on the legal concept: we want mental illness, which would be overloaded with a hefty new section on this subject. But "feigned madness" is a terrible title. Strong keep, and move... somewhere. Suggestions? Samaritan 06:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Either merge or move to a new title and list on cleanup, but a discussion of this could be encyclopedic. I seem to recall a few Greek myths as well. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 06:46, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Concur. And there is Hamlet, too. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:23, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep interesting, encyclopedic, and a good start. Kappa 10:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Might be profitably merged with factitious disorder, which seems to be the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders name for psychiatric malingering. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't seem to warrant its own article. DCEdwards1966 02:33, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. For reasons stated by others that vote keep. --Dittaeva 20:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - feigned madness may not necessarily be only a legal thing. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• delete- no rerason to keep it just because its encyclopedic, if its already coverd.

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

from VfD:

Small non-notable high school. --LeeHunter 02:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Another non-notable school!!! Delete. NeoJustin 02:46 Nov. 19, 2004 (UTC)

• I'd say merge vitals into its city article, Vergennes, Vermont but where is it located? Delete for now note i'm telling skysmith I changed my vote, I am not sure if he still "seconds" my vote —siroχo 03:37, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Seconded - Skysmith 09:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I typed "Vergennes Union High School" into Google and a quick eyeball scan of the first few dozen hits indicates that it is Vergennes Union High School, 50 Monkton Rd., Vergennes, Vermont 05491. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Changing vote: Since Dpbsmith found out the school's location, now I think it should be merged into the Vergennes, Vermont - Skysmith 13:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Thoroughly anonymous school...somewhere...that puts on, um, plays. Geogre 04:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Plays? Plays? You're talking about some of the most refulgent jewels in the scintillating diadem that is American musical theatre here. Well, except for L'il Abner, of course. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, I meant those...things. <shudder> (Too many enforced viewings of "South Pacific" as a teacher.) Geogre 19:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Ahhh... "When the sky is a bright canary yellow/I forget ev'ry cloud I've ever seen/So they call me a cockeyed optimist/Immature and incurably green...I hear the human race/Is fallin' on its face/And hasn't very far to go/But ev'ry whippoorwill/Is sellin' me a bill/And tellin' me it just—ain't—so." Can you tell me that you can hear that without your heart leaping? Just a little? By the way... when is any sky a "bright canary yellow?" If I had to make a list of colors that I've never seen the sky be, that would be high on the list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for making my post-traumatic stress disorder kick in. I just keep seeing that "Wash that man right out of my hair" scene over and over again, where the false innocence of the 1940's is matched by the false knowingness of high school students for a perfect cacophony of seeming and being. Geogre 02:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Indrian 04:21, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable.Dr Zen 05:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge vital information into a city article, if located by the end of this VfD (I assume it's somewhere in Vermont?), otherwise delete as insufficiently notable and unverified. Average Earthman 10:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into Vergennes, Vermont and delete, unless more convincing notability is established before expiration of VfD. The revision as of 21:08, 18 Nov 2004 is the product of a single author and if the author and time of revision are noted on the Talk page this should meet GFDL requirements. I wonder how amusing it might be to assemble a List of school mission statements? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I suspect that many of these articles about schoools are school computer use class projects. Anthony Appleyard 16:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• wow they do plays! Still no evidence of notability, delete. Dunc|☺ 16:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Another school. Not notable. --Improv 16:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Another school. Notable. Mark Richards 17:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • So, from "Vergennes is a high school/junior high school of about 600 students. It hosts a wide variety of extra curricular activities such as Soccer, Basket Ball, a knitting club and a German club. Many Vergennes students take part in longboat rowing hosted by the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum" you get some notability? You can tell us about its place in the local community, the famous alumni, the history of the place? Can you even tell us, without VfD, where the school is? When you search Wikipedia, you find something like this and think yourself informed on the subject? I'm serious: what makes a thing "notable" for you? Geogre 20:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • "... is a high school"Dr Zen 06:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 21:29, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into Vergennes, Vermont -- Jmabel | Talk 01:24, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This school is not notable. -- WOT 17:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless improved. Cool Hand Luke 03:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Would you mind expanding on your reasoning for this vote? If you think it's improvable, surely it's not in need of deleting? Am I missing something? If I am, I'd appreciate your helping me understand.Dr Zen 06:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes. I believe that every moderately large high school can have an encyclopedia-worthy article. However, wikipedia is a project and as such, I believe awful articles which are manifestly not maintained to minimal standards do us a disservice. When an article is marginally notable and so bad that having it around woulnd't even help future contributors, I believe deletion is sound. Someday someone will write a good article on this school, and when they do this stub will not help them, but more probably turn them off to joining our project. Cool Hand Luke 01:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Schools are inheritantly notable. --Andylkl 08:18, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --*drew 08:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sure that this is not the only place in Vermont with musical theater. Gamaliel 08:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into Vergennes, Vermont or keep The Steve 09:36, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. For reasons stated by others that vote keep. --Dittaeva 20:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't appear to be notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - appears to be notable. Intrigue 17:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Very non notable - Tεxτurε 21:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 05:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - SimonP 05:52, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Anyone paying attention?

Anybody care about this article? I got here by random, it had been vandalised for a while now. I fixed that and deleted a list of musicals; I see no reason we need to list every musical that every school has put on. Next we'll be putting the football scores in there too. Friday 04:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

No on the football scores. Vergennes doesn't have a football team, and is known throughout Vermont for it's drama department. I should know, I'm a Vergennes alumni. Kjhstuph 04:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

Assessing as Start / Mid. A good article now with plenty of references, multiple sections, and an info-box. Giving Mid importance for the court case, some pictures would be good. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Vergennes Union High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080704165745/http://www.vpaonline.org/champs_xc.asp to http://www.vpaonline.org/champs_xc.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071105224900/http://www.vpaonline.org:80/champs_soccer.asp to http://www.vpaonline.org/champs_soccer.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071221071118/http://www.vpaonline.org:80/champs_basketball.asp to http://www.vpaonline.org/champs_basketball.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080704164657/http://www.vpaonline.org/champs_cheer.asp to http://www.vpaonline.org/champs_cheer.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080807173928/http://www.vpaonline.org/champs_wrestling.asp to http://www.vpaonline.org/champs_wrestling.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080513213404/http://www.vpaonline.org/champs_baseball.asp to http://www.vpaonline.org/champs_baseball.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080513213642/http://www.vpaonline.org/champs_softball.asp to http://www.vpaonline.org/champs_softball.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/How to Good-Bye Depression Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of three-letter English words Ryan Siu was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Ryan Siu

• Ryan Siu is not a real ice hockey player. He wasn't drafted by Colorado, and he didn't win the Calder Cup. This is pure fiction. The person who made the page even had the gall to add a link at List of current NHL players (which is how I found the page. Delete it please. Kevin Rector 03:08, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Additionally 2003+4=2007, which hasn't rolled around quite yet. And Hong Kong didn't participate in the 2002 Olympic ice hockey competition. --DMG413 03:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Stupid vanity. His idol is ... gee... the author of the article. Gee, kids, do put some effort into the "clever" vandalism. I assume that Kevin Rector unhooked him from the NHL article? Geogre 04:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yep, it's now an orphan. Andrewa 05:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I found only one amateur ice hockey player from London by that name on http://www.hkaha.com/tournament/2003/team.htm using google. Confirming this person is non-notable. Delete. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 12:32, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete DCEdwards1966 02:54, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. --*drew 08:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Just delete it. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 22:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Ta bu shi da yu 02:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note: this was already deleted previously, the content was added by the same author and is as follows:

Margaret "Maggie" Simpson is a fictional character featured in the animated cartoon television series The Simpsons. She is the youngest daughter of their household, eternally a baby.

Her claim to fame is sucking on her pacifier, reputedly voiced by Matt Groening, and falling down frequently as she struggles to walk.

Maggie is also a crack shot. She shot Charles Montgomery Burns in the "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" cliffhanger and gunned down the mobsters who had the intention of whacking Homer Simpson.

Maggie talking With a few exceptions, Maggie doesn't speak. However, she is keenly aware of events around her and emotes with subtle gestures and facial expressions. Unfortunately, these are the easiest parts to clip out of an episode for syndication, so they may be missed by most people.

Maggie's first word ever spoken in the normal continuity of the series was "Daddy" (voiced by Elizabeth Taylor). However, it was not heard by the Simpson family:

I restored it, it should appear in the edit history soon. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From the article's talk page

While Ryan Siu does seem to be a real hockey player in Cardiff, most of the rest of the information here is false. He wasn't drafted by the Avalanche, Hong Kong didn't play ice hockey in 2002 (or ever, I imagine), or in the 2004 World Cup of Hockey. Also, the 2004 Calder Trophy winner was Andrew Raycroft. I'm not sure how much of this isn't false. TOO 16:08, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Drew Milsom was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Drew Milsom

College professor (56 google hits); likely added only because Drew Milsom Shuffle and Drew Milsom Players were added. Google fails on both of those. IP that made articles has a mild history of vandalism. --Golbez 06:39, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete Equations like that are a dime a dozen, and can be bought on t-shirts around the world. Apparently not notable...doesn't even pass the "professor test" for biographical inclusion. --ExplorerCDT 06:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Only potentially useful information is reference to sitcom Still Standing - Google fails to turn up information regarding this reference. Aerion 07:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Agree with Aerion that the brief feature in the sitcom would be something, but it wouldn't be sufficient by itself. (My favorite was a mighty famous biomed eng. prof at Duke who said that the IQ of the planet is a constant, but the population isn't.) Geogre 16:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete with other two. Not notable. Maybe someday. --Improv 16:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 07:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - funny, but not notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• DeleteMelaen 14:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Drew Milsom Shuffle was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Drew Milsom Shuffle

Non-notable dance move. See Drew Milsom, Drew Milsom Players. 0 Google hits. --Golbez 06:39, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Agreed. Just another useless, non-notable, eccentric contribution from an eccentric prof who can't even pass the Wiki professor test. Perhaps we could put this as a bullet-pointed mention in a trivia section at the UArizona article...but as for this...out with the trash.--ExplorerCDT 06:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Ta bu shi da yu 02:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 21:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Drew Milsom Players was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Drew Milsom Players

Non-notable dance troupe. See Drew Milsom, Drew Milsom Shuffle. 0 Google hits. --Golbez 06:40, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Agreed. Just another useless, non-notable, eccentric contribution from an eccentric prof who can't even pass the Wiki professor test. Perhaps at best we could bullet point this as trivia at the UArizona page (since it is a local feature)? But otherwise, get rid of this. --ExplorerCDT 06:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I doubt the prof is behind this. I think we're looking at a U. Ariz. student doing the "write about what you know" thing and misunderstanding it. Let's assume good faith. Just a joke, though, and not nationally notable. Geogre 16:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Ta bu shi da yu 02:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 21:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Would you believe there is no such thing? Well, perhaps in a single Animaniacs episode. This one's right up there with Bort and other one-time gags from cartoons. Encyclopaediac? Hardly. -R. fiend 08:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Fancruft, of no relevance separate from the gag in the cartoon. Average Earthman 11:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. Don't see any better place to put it. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 12:22, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft. Gazpacho 14:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Subtrivial joke. Geogre 16:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Doesn't it occur to anyone that fans are people too, and that so-called fancruft is exactly what they want to find in an encyclopedia? This article is not a lot more interest to me than rimming (it is a little!), but both should stay. At worst merge and redirect to the cartoon series in which it features. Andrewa 17:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Doesn't it occur to you that no one ever said fans weren't people? Doesn't it occur to you that even when people are people (what a shocking idea!) it doesn't meant that everything they want to find in an encyclopedia is everything that belongs in an encyclopedia? Again, this is an example of the "if you talk about fancruft you are an anti-fan bigot" fallacy, which I consider just short of a personal attack. For cripes' sake, if Wikipedia was a place for every sort of thing that fans were interested in, I'd want a full episode guide for Mr. Rose and Take Three Girls and Quick Before They Catch Us and The Sentimental Agent and Lucan and The Corner Bar and craploads of other obscure TV series. Don't you go telling me that I'm crushing the dreams of those poor innocent fans who want their particular TV show/movie series/video game covered in infinite detail. I am a fan and I love that kind of detail but I don't delude myself that Wikipedia is the place for it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Thank you for illustrating the very point I was wanting to make. IMO terms such as fancruft indicate dangerous thinking, and remind me of the story of the preacher who noted on the side of his preaching notes logic weak on this point, speak loudly. It's obvious some people are irritated by the details some fans want included in Wikipedia, and I fear we are reducing the usefulness of Wikipedia to such people as a result, and rejecting their interest with their interests. Perhaps this one is over the top as an article, it's an extreme case, but it's also a useful, catchy term on which someone who had just seen the cartoon and remembered little else might well search, looking for encyclopedic information. Food for thought? Andrewa 20:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Not really. These are just more personal attacks from you. You haven't explained why you think my logic is weak; you haven't explained what the very point you wanted to make was, let alone how you think your point was made for you; you haven't explained why typing "fancruft" instead of "a level of granularity inappropriate for a general-purpose encyclopedia" every time represents "dangerous thinking". All you've done is throw insults; pat yourself on the back that you can cite smarmy insults about how foolish the people disagreeing with you are instead of, y'know, raising an adequate defense of why a joke that appeared in exactly one episode of one TV series should have its own article or why we should encourage people to think so. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry you find nothing but insults in my comments, and that you don't see why it's dangerous. Let me try again. Fancruft is an emotive term that expresses the user's disgust at the material. It's not respectful of other views, in particular the contributors', and it avoids the issue of what level of detail is appropriate. Again, I'm truly sorry that you feel I don't respect your views. I do. I just don't agree with them. I'm sorry I have evidently expressed it badly. And I am certainly giving myself no pats on the back. Andrewa 10:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect with or without merge, from an Animaniacs fan. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Micro-fiction--decidedly NOT the sort of thing I would search an encyclopedia for. Niteowlneils 18:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Houshuang 13:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. A fictional dicadef. Really, all this information in this article is in the title. I have nothing against fancruft, but this has no potential for even usefulness to a fan. (Although, if you move away from the fancruft angle, the anvil is a classic icon in the physical comedy of cartoons. One could write an article on the use of the anvil in art. Makes me wonder what started that gag, and why it became so popular, and what makes the anvil more popular than the less commonly used heavy weight or safe... And anvil mentions nothing about this use of the anvil, which is surprising. Hmmm... I'll have to do some research...) --L33tminion | (talk) 19:11, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • By all means, include the iconic use of anvils in cartoons (particularly Warner Brothers cartoons) in the anvil article; I'm surprised it's not there already. A short paragraph at the bottom of that page is a great place for such information. But we don't need breakout articles on such things, nor do we need mention of their cartoon use to overwhelm their legitimate use. I am still be against keeping this as a redirect, as I have no idea where to redirect it to. It seems way too minor to have it redirect to Animaniacs; I think it would only confuse people, as the two are not synonymous. Redirect to anvil would be worse, as it would imply this word has legitimacy. -R. fiend 19:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Redirect could be to either, but makes more sense to Animaniacs IMO, or better still to Anvilania (perhaps only until that is also deleted). Redirects do not need to be synonyms, but should obey the principle of least astonishment. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • My point basically was that a redirect from anvilology to Animaniacs would violate the principle of least astonishment. If anvilology is going to be mentioned at all on that page I don't think its important enough to be mentioned in any capacity until very far down in the article. So the reader will be linked to a page that seems to have little to do with anvils, and wonder why he is there. While redirects do not need to be synonyms, they should have a strong and readily apparent connection, in my view. The anvilology/Animaniacs connection doesn't do it for me; anvilology is too small an aspect of Animaniacs. -R. fiend 23:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I think the principle could be quite well respected by such a redirect. We need to ask, why would a person search for or link to anvilology?, and notice it's a principle of least astonishment, not none under any circumstance. In any case it's up to those who create a redirect to make it work, and if it doesn't work then the redirect can and should be nominated for deletion. Andrewa 10:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirects are cheap, and I have no problem, for the record, of a redirect to anvil and the iconic use of anvils as the omnipresent falling object in cartoons is an excellent idea. The anvil is a great object for falling in a cartoon. People who grew up with smithies and farriers still in existence (e.g. the people who watched the early cartoons in the 1930's and 1940's) would think of the anvil as something immovable and the non plus ultra of hard. It's a great object. It's just that an entry on a one-off joke in any pop culture ephemera turns us into a "Hey, 'member when they did this? that was awesome" (the Chris Farley skits on SNL): discussion, placement in context, historical impact, significance are things I expect of articles. Just "It happened here" is a registry. Geogre 22:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Not the place for this Jackliddle 00:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merged and redirected to Tiny Toon Adventures, which is what this was originally drawn from. -Sean Curtin 02:23, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete DCEdwards1966 02:57, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Anvilogy shouldn't have any own article since as far as I know it's not often used in cartoons (or even in Animaniacs). Jeltz 13:06, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

• Delete. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete (yes, even the redirect) - neologism. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: subtrivial fancruft. Another one for the fan sites. A waste of the miniscule resources it would take to store it. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

SMSAH

OK, so I'm a day short of the 14 days it's supposed to get on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, but it's in Malayan and no one has touched it. Comments from there, for what they are worth:
<start moved comments>
Seems to be Malayian. andy 21:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• (correct spelling is Malay or Malayan) -- Jmabel | Talk 07:21, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Yeah, it's confirmed Malay. Pity is I'm not fluent at all to translate it. -- Fiveless 15:19, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

<end moved comments>

• Delete. No one is doing anything with it and I don't have a Malayan-language translator to call on. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:11, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: it is another article about a school. I don't speak Malay but SMSAH stands for Sekolah Menengah Sultan Abdul Halim and "sekolar" is cognate with "scholar". --Henrygb 18:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki! (Is there a Malay Wikipedia?) --L33tminion | (talk) 19:05, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes of course there is: ms, but why give them an article about a school when the writer could have done that themselves? --Henrygb 22:29, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • If that's what it is, and they lack such an article, and it doesn't look like a copyvio, then it should, indeed be transwikied. This kind of thing happens all the time with Spanish, German, and other European languages. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:24, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• It's a secondary school. Probably non-notable. --*drew 07:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Ta bu shi da yu 02:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki - it would be churlish simply to dump the article since the Malay wikipedia might well have different thresholds for notability than we do here. --Phil | Talk 12:07, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was - kept

Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar

Non-notable, 18 Google hits, many from this WP article: a Palestinian girl tragically killed by a stray bullet. Even though the Israel Defense Forces#The Code of Conduct explicitly prohibits targeting non-combatants, the article is written specifically to demonize Israel (conveniently providing links such as State Terrorism) and incite hatred. Instead of fighting the intentional killing of civilians, articles like this work against peaceful future for both Palestinian and Israeli children. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revoking the non-notability reason. Regarding the stray bullet, I am curious, are we now going to have an article for every stray bullet victim? What a shame. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Humus, you know no one is saying that. The soldiers fired on the school. The "stray bullet" was aimed at the school. That is why this girl has, tragically, achieved a measure of notability. By all means, incorporate your POV in the article. Wikipedia shouldn't take a standpoint, you're right, and you have every right to express that. Quote official sources that say it was an accident with a stray bullet, if they exist. Put in the facts. I would help you defend your point even though I don't share your POV. But don't try to scrub it out to make your point.Dr Zen 10:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The rest of this discussion is at User_talk:Humus_sapiens#Disagreement.3F ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Can't see why anyone would want this removed. - Xed 09:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I can. A merge with a more complete article would also be acceptable, since there's little to say here. —No-One Jones ^(m) 09:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • A search on just one alternate Latinization turns up ~ 200 results. There may be more. —No-One Jones ^(m) 09:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Omitting the middle name turns up 46 more. —No-One Jones ^(m) 09:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • 71 for "Ghadeer Jaber Mukhaimer"
    • 10 more without the middle name. Shall I continue? —No-One Jones ^(m) 09:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • 25 more. —No-One Jones ^(m) 09:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Searches in Arabic and Hebrew would likely turn up many more, but I don't know either language. —No-One Jones ^(m) 09:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Having been convinced by those who argued in favour of articles for victims of 9/11, I vote to keep this one. A notable victim of terrorism.Dr Zen 09:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Victims are not notable. Incidents are. Write about the incidents, not the victims. --Improv 16:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  Does that mean you support putting all these incidents into an article like Israeli violence against Palestinian children?--Alberuni 21:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  No, but I would support putting all the separate incidents, if notable, into their own articles. Perhaps they could be tied together with a category, appropriately named. The mentioning of children, which as far as I understand is not a particular focus among even the most extreme hawks in Israel, is inflammatory and not called for. Of course, the same for all of this should go for Palestinian violence against Israelis. --Improv 19:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I agree with Improv on this one. The article should discuss the incident, not focus on the individual victim. Perhaps that could be accomplished by a simple page-move to a different title about the incident? By the way, we ultimately decided not to keep articles for each victim of 9/11. They have generally been moved over to Wikimemorial. Rossami (talk) 17:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• What next; will someone go to this [3] site and create over 1,000 new articles, each listing the name of a victim, and a paltry few details about their lives and deaths (if any), and accompanied by provocative "See also" sections designed to create a POV? People should stop using Wikipedia as a tool for their propaganda wars. By the way, I'm deliberately not voting in my comment here, but rather expressing my disgust with the blatant attempts to create Wikipedia articles purely for the purposes of propaganda. Jayjg 17:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Clearly we cannot have an article on every terror victim, but this person may meet standards for notability. On this vote I abstain. --L33tminion | (talk) 19:03, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect: I do think this victim stands out, but we have clear precedent set that victims, even those who are rallying points for popular movements, are better discussed in the context of the effect on the world had. I.e. the incident or the general topic should be discussed, but not every victim. The reasons are multiple for this. I agree that there are exceptions, like Amadou Dialu (not sure of the spelling) or Rodney King, so I'm not very firm in deletion in this case, but part of what makes those two cases worthy is that they are isolated. There is no general "brutality of the NYC/LA cops" article in which to discuss them. Unfortunately, the killing of civilians in Israel has been happening. The biggest problem is the merge and redirect location. All of the articles are riven with POV and edit warring. Geogre 19:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable individual. Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, not a memorial site to "victims" of "terrorism". Those who wish to create articles for every "victim" of every "terrorist act" are welcome to register victimpedia.org and place the content there. Deletionist 21:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. The fact that the VfD nominator for this article is attempting to promote Zionist revisionist propaganda that Ghadeer Mkheemer was killed by a "stray bullet" indicates why there is a need for objective information about Israeli atrocities. --Alberuni 21:30, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Normally, I would say "Keep" to this kind of article. But, after doing a google search to verify the claims of HS, I found that only 4 of those google hits were NOT from wikipedia (or a site that copies from it)--Josiah 23:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I changed my choice to Keep after seeing that alternate spellings did return google results, so Wikipedia is not the originating article for this.--Josiah 04:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep it. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 23:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. HS has retracted the charge of non-notability, which as far as I can see leaves only the fact that the incident reflects badly on Israel, and the unproven claim that it was a stray bullet, as "reasons" for deletion. - Mustafaa 01:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep DCEdwards1966 03:00, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. — A.M. 03:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. I agree with Improv. -- WOT 17:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Tragic but non-notable. Gamaliel 18:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• KEEP. Victim lists are questionable, but this appears to be a notable victim because it relates to a notable, widely reported event. HistoryBuffEr 02:48, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. --Viriditas 03:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep it's the incident, not the person that is notable. a merge of articles on such incidents would be ok.Wolfman 04:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This particular article appears noteworthy. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. For reasons stated by others that vote keep. --Dittaeva 20:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Should be renamed to UNRWA Co-Ed Elementary D School Incident or something similar. -- Key45 01:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Otherwise we should have thousands of articles dedicated to all victims in the conflict. This particular victim is not more notable than others. Most of them have been in one way or another mentioned in the media. Takalak 09:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 21:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Voting Tally

Total 24 votes as of: 01:07, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC). (This VfD is past 5 days).

• Keep:

1. Xed 09:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. No-One Jones 09:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Dr Zen 09:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4. Alberuni 21:30, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
5. Josiah 04:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
6. RaD Man 23:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. Mustafaa 01:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
8. DCEdwards1966 03:00, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
9. HistoryBuffEr 02:48, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
10. Wolfman 04:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
11. GRider 18:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
12. Dittaeva 20:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
13. Key45 01:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
14. Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete:

1. Improv 16:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Rossami 17:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Deletionist 21:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4. Improv 17:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
5. Gamaliel 18:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
6. Takalak 09:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. Texture 21:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect:

1. Geogre 19:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. A.M. 03:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Viriditas 03:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Unclear vote:

1. Humus sapiens 10:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC); Delete or Redirect?

• Abstain:

1. Jayjg 17:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. L33tminion 19:03, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Unless I have counted the votes incorrectly, the majority vote is to keep this page. Thus, I suggest this VfD be ended and archived.--Josiah 04:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• What's the rush? Proper procedure would have us wait until the listing has run its normal time on VfD, and *then* judgement is made. --Improv 21:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • No rush. Someone will get around to this. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

from VfD:

Non-notable. --fvw* 11:11, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

• There is nothing to this article at all. Delete. Average Earthman 15:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It's generous to even say that there's nothing here. (Now watch for the "stop deletionist trolls" and "you people" and the "deletionist faction" and all the rest, where no one lifts a finger to improve the article, offers any reference to the article, and offers no reasoning. Fork 'em.) The article doesn't even get to the "has four walls, ceiling and floor" standard. Geogre 16:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Let's try to keep it civil though. --Improv 16:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Mark Richards 17:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• All stubs say very little. That's no reason to delete. Keep. --L33tminion | (talk) 18:32, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Let's quote this article so people have to face it. This is what Mark Richards reflexively wants kept.

"Waiakea High School is a public high school in the city of Hilo, Hawaii. It is adjacent to the University of Hawaii at Hilo."

• • I want to keep it because it is factual, neutral and verifiable. The fact that it is short is not the point. Mark Richards 03:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into Hilo, Hawaii —siroχo 22:37, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Gee...two whole sentences. Whee. Delete. This isn't even a suitable substub. - Lucky 6.9 23:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --Idont Havaname 02:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Aloha. Delete. Gamaliel 09:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not notable. -- WOT 17:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• List in the Hilo, Hawaii article, then delete. Since every alum was also a resident of Hilo, but many residents of Hilo are not Waiakea alums, material in the Hilo article is likely to get more attention and have a greaterly likelihood of expansion. When and if it grows too big for the Hilo it can be broken out. Editors of the Hilo, Hawaii article are likely to be a better judge of how important this school is than I am. BEEFSTEW score of this article in its current state is precisely zero, it is not a useful start on an article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with Dpbsmith about current state of article. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless significantly improved. Cool Hand Luke 04:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 07:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Schools are inherently notable. Being short isn't a reason for deletion. --Andylkl 08:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually, "very short articles with little or no context" makes an article a valid candidate for speedy deletion. This article is borderline, and might well have been speedied had it been on a different topic. I think the article in its present state is very comparable to the recently deleted article Automatic door whose content was "An Automatic door is a door, that opens and closes automaticly!" That's perfectly factual and absolutely true. Should it have been preserved? The proper rationale for preserving short articles is that they are expected to grow. They do not grow by themselves; they grow only if there is a community with a serious interest in that subject matter and willing to research it. No such community exists for automatic doors, so its deletion is proper. The criterion for retention should be likelihood of growth, which in turn depends on the "existence of committed editors with subject expertise." I have not yet seen evidence that there are many people who enjoy doing the work of researching facts about non-notable schools other than the ones they've personally attended. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I think your 'automatic door' example should have been expanded, not deleted. If someone had writen an article (in the absense of the one we have now) on G.W.Bush that said 'The President of America', would you delete it? Surely you would add to it?! Mark Richards 17:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Not all substubs are the same. Not all substubs should be treated the same. Articles are valuable. Substubs are not valuable in themselves. They are only valuable if are likely to lead to articles. Substubs on Presidents of the United States are very likely to grow. If I saw a substub on G. W. Bush I'd be very likely to add to it because it's a topic of interest to me, which I consider to be important to an encyclopedia, on which I know something, which is easily researched into a four or five paragraph article. Except that there are probably hundreds of not thousands of Wikipedians who would probably beat me to it. That's a substub that should be kept, because it would almost certainly grow, and grow quickly. If you actually are interested in researching automatic doors, there is nothing stopping you from writing the article, as long as its reasonably different from the substub that was deleted. I can't believe that "An Automatic door is a door, that opens and closes automaticly!" helps anyone write such article. I think making "automatic door" a requested article is far more likely to get us a article than letting a substub like that stick around. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • The revealing phrase "it's a topic of interest to me, which I consider to be important to an encyclopedia" tells you everything you need to know about the deletionist agenda. Things should be kept because they are important to the deletionist, or deleted because they are not of interest. I reject this as rationale for deletion. Mark Richards 03:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, obviously all us deletionists are a bunch of self-centered jerks who can't see the value of things to others. Please stop your insults towards those of us who set our personal standard for inclusion higher than yours. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • No, [[User:Mark Richards|Mark Richards], I am in favor of retaining stubs on topics that are of interest to enough editors, including people likely to drop in within the next year, that they will be expanded into decent articles. I have voted to keep many articles on topics of absolutely no interest whatsoever to myself; most recently Jean-Luc Picard. Are you actually interested in writing articles about schools yourself? Do you plan to expand this one? Do you know someone who plans to expand this one? Or do you just think that substubs grow organically by themselves without knowledgeable human input? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • Again, the key phrase our personal standard for inclusion. This is not about your personal opinion about what is interesting. No, I am not that interested in writing about schools, but the difference is that does not lead me to think that no-one else should be allowed to. Whether or not I will, or someone I know will is totally irrelevant. I do think that it is obvious that since someone cared enough to create a factual, neutral and verifiable stub, someone else may add to it. Whether I am interested in it is not the point. For the record, I don't recall acusing anyone of being a jerk. Mark Richards 12:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • People are "allowed to" write about schools. Nobody is stopping anyone from writing about schools. Go right ahead. Write a couple of good paragraphs about Waiakea High School. If you don't like the idea of working on a topic that is already on VfD, then write one about Kalaheo High School. Or Pearl City High School. Look, I'll even give you a valuable head start: Pearl City High School is located in Pearl City, Hawaii. It serves grades 9-12. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• No, you don't get it. I am not interested in writing or reading about schools. I am also not interested in forcing my opinion on people who are by deleting them. Mark Richards 16:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete Ashibaka tlk 23:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Mention in the Hilo, Hawaii, then delete - Skysmith 10:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 03:04, Nov. 23 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Gtabary 12:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. For reasons stated by others that vote keep. --Dittaeva 20:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep - While not particularly interesting to me personally, it does have encyclopedic value.--AnywhereAT 00:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Ta bu shi da yu 03:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Intrigue 17:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Trollminator 21:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 21:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Del. No evidence of notability, and some that suggests the opposite: the author assigned it to the non-existent Cat Category:Schools on Hawaii (island) and obviously thinks there are enough meeting their standard to justify a cat. --Jerzy(t) 23:08, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• 'keep Yuckfoo 05:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: no evidence of notability, not an article. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - SimonP 06:02, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Saimaroimaru (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was - Delete

Dawg

• Delete: It's slang, and slang doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
  • Was nominated by someone without an account, so their vote doesn't count. --Improv 17:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Slang dicdef. --Improv 17:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Slang, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Metro3947
• Delete: Slang dictdef, and it should be referring to the University of Georgia football team, anyway. Geogre 19:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Maybe merge with a page on urban slang, but delete this; it does not deserve its own page... and it is a dictdef. --Idont Havaname 02:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete DCEdwards1966 03:01, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 07:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Extremely delete. Andre (talk) 23:51, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete redirect to dog. Very short merge may be appropriate. We should at least mention "dawg" on dog. anthony 警告 02:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain Simply being slang is not enough reason to delete. Homie and Dude, along with the articles under Category:Slang have been kept. — J3ff 04:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • True, but the thing is this isn't really slang so much as an alternate spelling/pronounciation of the same word. In this sense I suppose a redirect would be appropriate, but I don't think we should have a full article on it. Of course we have an article on nucular, but I think that one should be transwikied, merged (whatever is encyclopedic which is little), and redirected as well. In fact, I'm going to mention this on Talk:Nucular right now. anthony 警告 13:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I've added some new information to the article. Before the additions my opinion would have been a definate delete, and even with my additions my opinion wavers between a very weak keep to a very weak delete. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 15:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect. --Dittaeva 20:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Dewete' - Ta bu shi da yu 03:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect. --Rieg 21:56, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete slang dicdef and hardly notable ike9898 21:42, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

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

Dan Saul

Vanity listed for speedy. Dunc|☺ 16:30, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pokémon cloning Acme Looniversity was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to merge and redirect the article to Tiny Toon Adventures.

Acme Looniversity

More fancruft, and again, stated as fact (albeit pretty transparently). -R. fiend 17:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Well-known enough to redirect but not independently notable enough to have its own article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect: I agree with Antaeus Feldspar here. Geogre 19:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable ike9898 21:16, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep potentially interesting to non-fans Kappa 22:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or merge/redirect. —siroχo 22:35, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Yet another insignificant TV show details page Jackliddle 00:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or merge/redirect. Looney Tunes is notable. --172.163.253.24 01:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that was my vote again. --Idont Havaname 01:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's Tiny Toon Adventures. I liked the show as a youngster, but fancruft is fancruft... —tregoweth 02:25, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Merged and redirected. -Sean Curtin 02:21, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Tiny Toons --Improv 04:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep the redir. Andrewa 15:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect is OK I suppose. Nothing else is ever going to use this name. Average Earthman 20:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect. --Dittaeva 20:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Ta bu shi da yu 03:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Intrigue 17:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Redirect to Tiny Toons at very least Jackliddle 00:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was - kept

Jason Scott Sadofsky

Vanity. System admins and creators of unreleased independent films are not notable. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 18:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

• Delete (agree with RaD Man) --jpgordon{gab} 19:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeek. Blush. Not paying sufficient attention. Keep. --jpgordon{gab} 20:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons clear in the text of the article. For people just tuning in, RaD Man is trying to be funny by listing this article. That is, he knows Jason Scott is notable, and he also has indicated that he doesn't think notability is a fair criteria for keeping or deleting articles, but he has listed it anyway (to spite the VfD process?). RaD Man, please, save everybody some time, and remove this bad-faith VfD listing. ~leif ☺ _HELO 19:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow. It says a lot for what obviously keepable stuff is nominated on VFD that I didn't even notice this. Interesting that Jpgordon actually voted to delete without even reading the article. anthony 警告 15:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Thank you for saying that, Leif. That said, the user jscott sure hasn't made a good impression. Real life and Wikipedia are different, though, and we really ought to not fight our battles from the real world on Wikipedia ("Oh my gosh! How can you think my favorite product isn't notable?!" or "Oh my gosh! I hate those people, so I want that awful article gone!"). Geogre 22:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Clean up, and remove his attitude towards wikipedia. People's personal feelings on websites are not encyclopedic unless they actually take legal action because of them. And Rad Man is sort of right, actually, being a system admin or creating an unreleased independent film doesn't make one notable in itself. -R. fiend 00:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I very much agree that the wikipedia paragraph should go. I removed it shortly after it was added, but was reverted. My attempt at discussion on the talk page appears to be unanswered. Removed it again. — David Remahl 00:18, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• 'Extremely delete. The website is notable. The guy who made it isn't. Stirring up the locals might give you a certain notoriety but it doesn't make you "notable", otherwise we'd have a page on User:Wik and another on Anthony. The president of the digital-age Louvre was notable; the trash collector of nerds' chatter clubs is not. Dr Zen 00:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Joke or not, I don't see that he is notable. If it is for textfiles.com, we already have an article on that. His documentary hasn't come out yet, and other than that, he has been a speaker at conferences alongside some big names. He did, however, write The 3D Lemmings Companion. -- WOT 17:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Borderline notable (1450 Google hits on "Jason Scott" textfiles) but notable enough. Regardless of what we may think of Jason Scott Sadofsky. After all, we have articles about (how can I avoid Godwin's Law) Saddam Hussein. Since the nominator, [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] not only voted "strong keep" on textfiles.com— see discussion—but berated the person who listed it, I have to believe that he is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. ExplorerCDT 05:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I suppose I should vote keep on the article I created. "Notable", based on evidence in the article. — David Remahl 06:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not establish notability by itself; figure has little cultural/historical relevance from what I can tell (started a website, made an unreleased film, got sued?). --Fastfission 13:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. For reasons stated by others that vote keep. --Dittaeva 20:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Extremely keep - notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Mostly delete - Tεxτurε 21:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This figure is notable. Yuckfoo 23:58, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• weak keep, from the above discussion, I detect some notability. You don't have to be Saddam Hussein to deservae a WP article :) dab 21:04, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Appears to be marginally notable, and when in doubt, it's a bad idea to delete. --Goobergunch|? 06:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It astounds me you're even debating this; I co-founded Wikipedia! --Jscott 22:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Mostly keep. --[[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 22:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Certainly more notable so than some teen pop 'celebrities'. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|George\^talk ]] 22:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:41, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• To clear up any ambiguities (if there were any to begin with), my vote is to delete as well. Jason Scott cannot be saved. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 08:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Sysadmin, filmmaker, DEF CON speaker, called a martyr by the Boston Globe. anthony 警告 15:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with textfiles.com.
  • Above comment left unsigned at 22:31, 1 Dec 2004 by Remes. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 05:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry about that--just a bit sloppy. Remes 14:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. --Tmh 23:07, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Koenma

Non-notable "minor character in the anime/manga YuYu Hakusho" posted by vandal IP 208.183.105.11 violet/riga (t) 19:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Kaldari 19:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. F*ncr*ft. --jpgordon{gab} 19:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Specialist interest inaccessible to and of little influence on the rest of the world. (How's that for explaining "f*ncr*ft?") Geogre 22:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Jackliddle 00:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete DCEdwards1966 03:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Eh? Minor character? From the little I've seen of the show, he qualifies at least as a major supporting character. No vote. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 07:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• DELETE ExplorerCDT 05:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Ta bu shi da yu 03:19, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge Don't understand whats wrong about this one. Masterhomer 05:27, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was - merged and redirected

Y Valentine Tragedy

Got a feeling this might be fictional? Deb 19:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• That should be made more clear, so I did. Information about fiction is valid, but I don't know if this is even minimally notable. Perhaps merging to Gundam Seed (if the information is not already there) would be best. --L33tminion | (talk) 19:47, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• I merged Y Valentine Tragedy into Gundam Seed as requested here. Anthony Appleyard 22:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• This page had been deleted after the merge, which is a violation of the GFDL (since authors were not credited), I changed it to a redirect after undeleting it, and propose keeping it as such. —siroχo 06:50, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • I think that's a good plan. Keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Merge history to retain credit. No violation of GFDL. Done all the time. - Tεxτurε 21:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Joshua David Cantara

Vanity page, plain and simple. Charles Matthews 20:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Good heavens! He's 24, or he still counts that as a highlight of his life? (Vanity.) Geogre 22:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I removed the links to his family, lest they tempt anyone. Anyway :Delete. Poor virgin... -R. fiend 23:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --172.163.253.24 01:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete DCEdwards1966 03:04, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• "Highlights from his life include making out with a Russian exch--" DELETE. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 19:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:08, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete. Who hasn't made out with a Russian exchange student? Gamaliel 06:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, does my mail-order bride count? -R. fiend 08:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Lol. --*drew 07:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• DELETE Sure his mother smoked during pregnancy, but from the content of the article, she should have aborted this vain article. ExplorerCDT 05:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Ta bu shi da yu 03:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No personal attacks!!!!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete vanity does not belong here on wikipedia --Saigon76nyc 23:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)--Saigon76nyc 23:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Acid rap was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to KEEP the article.

---

Acid rap

This is either vanity or non-notable ike9898 23:05, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

You are wrong on both counts. I've expanded the stub. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 09:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. This does not meet the criteria as a vanity page and it is perfectly notable. If people bother writing books about a thing, can we not take the hint? Dr Zen 00:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Fine, tell us what the books are, and that'll give us more information than the single sentence 207.78.119.226 gave us did about the notability of acid rap. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • My apologies. Wrong about the book. I withdraw the comment. Still, it's notable. You can do your own research and make your own judgments. Weigh it in the scales if you like: on one side episode seven of the third series of the Simpsons or a joke Freeman Dyson once made and on the other acid rap. Esham, it turns out, has not made Wikipedia's notice, but he has had more than a dozen LPs. Now, he's not the best-selling artist in the world (his best score that I could find in a quick search on Amazon was about 18000th) but clearly he's made enough of a splash to make it worth his while to release records. We included Freeman Dyson's spaceship joke because it was mentioned on a couple of "scientific" websites. I don't suppose those guys are into acid rap. Dr Zen 03:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Expand or Delete. Esham the Unholy has no entry; who is he? Perhaps merge and redirect to Rap, but I'm saying delete for now. --172.163.253.24 01:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Are you like the Hooded Claw of deletionists? All four of your edits are votes to delete!Dr Zen 02:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Hello, anonymous user 172.163.253.24, please log in next time so that your vote may be counted. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 09:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Needs to be expanded, but definitely Wiki worthy. DCEdwards1966 03:07, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• 930 google hits. No vote. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 03:09, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: 930 hits is pretty low, IMO, for a rap anything. The article here is a superstub. Bob made X isn't much of an article. It's like saying, "Wittgenstein made analytics." With no explanation of what that means, it's a bit worse than a bad article. If it is expanded and fleshed out, and if "acid rap" is explained, then I'll happily change my vote. Note also that "acid rap" could hit Google a thousand ways without being about this. E.g. De La Soul have been described as being acid rap and psychedelic rap. Without Dr.Zen or others filling in the details (and I suppose he knows of books on the subject), then there's nothing to vote on. Geogre 03:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Has been sufficiently improved and provides information. Now it's a stub. Keep. Geogre 15:47, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Geogre, you were late to Google-school today, please return to class. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 10:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • You really should spare the sarcasm. Such ill-will breeds ill-will. Geogre 15:47, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Being a stub is specifically not a criterion for deletion. VfD is not intended to be peer review. If a stub is expandable, which you seem to think it is, it passes the test. I urge you to change your vote on this basis.Dr Zen 03:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Being a substub, on the other hand, is a reason for deletion. I do not view this as a stub. A stub is something which begins a discussion and sets the agenda. A substub is a fragment that is so far beneath the full discussion as to leave nothing but a spot in the name registry. My vote specifically is not because this is a substub, but because it is a substub that has zero content. Further, as I indicate, another reason for my vote is that I regard it as not unverified, which would be enough to delete, but unverifiable, because "acid rap" is a nebulous term. It's so nebulous that we would need the article to give us something to search with. Therefore, if an expert, such as yourself, can fill in details enough to bring it up to stub level, I'll change my vote. I am not an expert on rap past 1985. Geogre 04:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • How can you say that it has zero content? Just from the first 14 words this article says something. "Acid Rap is a genre of rap pioneered by Detroit rapper Esham Attica Smith". And the article goes on beyond even that. You seem to be exaggerating here, Geogre. anthony 警告 16:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • You were looking at the revision, for which I changed my vote. Note that none of the people who post serial "keep notable" votes did the improvement. Instead, it was someone new to the battles. Instead of making the article better, all we got from the "keep notable" folks was taunting. With a revision and verifiable material, I was happy to change my vote, as I always am. The nominated version just said "Acid rRap is a genre of rap pioneered by Unholy Esham." That wasn't enough for verification or for illustrating the topic. Now, it is suitable. Geogre 20:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Obviously there was enough for verification and illustrating the topic, because that's exactly what was done. And at the time you made the original comment the content was "Acid Rap was a style of Rap created by Detroit rapper, Esham the Unholy." [4] anthony 警告 17:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I also challenge your assertion that substubs don't belong in an encyclopedia. I've got an encyclopedia in front of me, and here's one entry: "Jurassic, the middle period of the Mesozoic era, lasting from about 195 to 140 million years ago." anthony 警告 16:31, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Let me know which one that is, so that I can never order it for a school I work at. It sounds dreadful. I would assume that it said, immediately afterward, "See Ages of Life" or something and does not pretend that that sentence is all that there is. Geogre 20:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • No, there was no "see also". It was just a stub. Real encyclopedias have stubs too. Some information is better than none. anthony 警告 17:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable underground style. I'm not that into hip-hop, and I've heard of it. Mark as substub. — Gwalla | Talk 04:46, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, a reasonable encyclopedic article could be written here. —siroχo 06:46, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Extremely notable. Was any effort to research made before nominating this article for VfD, and are you by chance related to Wyllium? Lets just say this is most certainly noteworthy, shouldn't have been VfD'd and leave it at that. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 09:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Could you try, possibly try, to concentrate on the merits of the article and not on the prejudices you have about other editors? I mean, just possibly? I know it's so much more convenient to make personal attacks than to actually answer concerns that have been brought up, but it's also uncivil. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps he feels the concerns are entirely spurious but isn't very good at expressing himself? Stubs are a valuable part of Wikipedia, and its expandability is evident in its having been expanded! Saying "if you don't expand it yourself you can't say it's expandable" is not a million miles short of trolling. I agree that Radman could work harder not to take the bait, but I'd like to see you work to cool down both sides.Dr Zen 06:42, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• KeepI have looked up All Music Guide which doesn't have "acid rap" listed as a genre. However, on its article on Esham, it notes his role as founder of the genre and cites his influence on other Detroit area acts such as the Insane Clown Posse and Kid Rock. 1 About.com's rap and hip hop pages lists acid rap as a sub-genre with Esham (the unholy) listed as the originator and with the Insane Clown Posse and D12 listed as practitioners.2 As they are notable artists, I would support keeping this article and amending the article in the next 24 hours. Capitalistroadster 10:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was on the fence until reading this information by Capitalistroadster. Thanks for doing the research so I don't have to. anthony 警告 13:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete or merge/redir to Esham, who coined the neologism for his music, but I couldn't find any reference to any other artist claiming to produce "acid rap", or merge/redir to Horrorcore, as that seems to be what everyone but Esham calls it. Niteowlneils 22:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I abstained previously. I am changing that abstention to Keep, because the article has been improved from the single-sentence substub it was (and yes, there's a reason those invite VfDs) and because my Google search indicates that it's a term prominent enough for Eminem to rap against it. There seems to be some dispute about what the boundaries of the genre are, and I'd like to see more discussion of that in the article, but it doesn't seem to be a single-artist genre, like "Juggalo rap". -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, merge into Esham or Horrorcore. 'Acid Rap' doesn't seem to be a common term. --fvw* 05:58, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Keep. No way it would be VfD'ed in present form. Could use more explanation of Eminem's relationship with acid rap. Samaritan 09:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I nominated this article but I'm now convinced it's a valid subject. When I nominated, it seemed to me that Acid Rap was just a name this guy made up for his personal style. One artist does not make a genre. Obviously, I was mistaken. Keep ike9898 15:55, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, reasonably notable. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 17:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Mark Richards 17:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Term seems reasonably well established, even if not widespread, likely to be of interest to anyone for whom this general sort of thing is of interest. No longer a substub by any means. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:19, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. For reasons stated by others that vote keep. --Dittaeva 20:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable. Potentially good article. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Entrepreneurial culture

(Also Entrepreneurial education, Junior enterpreneurship) This is some junk I found on Orphaned pages. Deus Ex 23:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete DCEdwards1966 03:08, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: One article refers to the other, and the other refers back to the first. It's a zero sum. An article by this title could exist, but there is no reason to have this in the history. Geogre 04:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:09, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 07:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Ta bu shi da yu 03:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

E-rhetoric

Not in common usage, 501 google hits Deus Ex 23:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism and/or original research. Deletionist 02:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete DCEdwards1966 03:08, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It looks like original research. I had thought that by now there would be university courses on this subject and therefore books on it, but I'm not aware of any settled subject yet. Instead, academe seems to have gone at it rather scattershot, so I don't think there is potential for this title and subject yet. Geogre 04:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:09, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 07:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with User:Deletionist. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Sundar rao was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Sundar rao

Student posting their CV. —tregoweth 00:00, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable, not the place for this at all Jackliddle 00:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable and POV. --172.163.253.24 01:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Belongs on his user page. DCEdwards1966 03:10, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete; the "imperfect democracy" that is VfD is certainly right here. Samaritan 04:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:09, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete it please. --*drew 07:20, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Ta bu shi da yu 03:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Les Jennings

Article about a jazz trumpeter with a "cult following"; looks like it might be fictional:

• Google turns up nothing, which is surprising for "one of the first people to couple pyrotechnics with live music"
• The author appears to be a member of a certain troll organization that will not be named.

Can anyone with more knowledge about jazz enlighten us? —tregoweth 00:00, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Actually, Google shows 3 or 4 hits. Article needs to be expanded/cleaned up. DCEdwards1966 03:15, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Where? I couldn't find a single relevant hit for "Les Jennings" and jazz, trumpet, or pyrotechnics. Of course, I might not have been using a suitable search; please advise. --jpgordon{gab} 03:53, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Hang on! This is part of that large hoax we had a while ago. Anyone remember the exact name of the fictional group? It was an elaborate one, where a prankster had invented a whole group of unlikely musicians and succeeded in getting it picked up by multiple websites and even online music histories. We ended up having about 8 articles that had been spun out of that. No record of him in All Music, which wouldn't miss an American jazz legend. It does have a Les Jenkins, but absolutely no information on him (not dates, not biography, not anything). Delete as a prank/hoax. Geogre 04:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • You're thinking of Toejam Jawallaby. Les Jennings doesn't appear to be part of that (to judge by authorship and lack of cross-links to the TJ universe). Wile E. Heresiarch 04:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks. That was the one I was thinking of. I thought he was part of their band, but I guess not. This is just an unverifiable likely hoax, rather than part of a highly successful hoax. Geogre 05:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, research on google shows wikipedia mirrors and different people. —siroχo 06:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete this. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 09:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly speedy. Not listed in Harvard Biographical Dictionary of Music either (though one Terry Jennings was a notable avant-garde jazzman). Samaritan 11:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Likely prank from known vandal. No relevant non-WP hits for "Les Jennings" 1904. Niteowlneils 22:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: apparent hoax. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. --fvw* 06:10, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 07:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Original author is Lysol, userpage says "You can find me in #GNAA in irc.gnaa.us." 'nuff said. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 20

PARTICLE-BOUND

Just a title and abstract from some journal article. Falls under origiinal research I believe. Jackliddle 00:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete DCEdwards1966 02:16, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Anvilania

Yet another piece of Animaniacs fancruft. Non-notable Delete Jackliddle 00:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete DCEdwards1966 02:16, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Came from the Animaniacs or Tiny Toons Adventures. Not a practical entry or search term. Geogre 04:46, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect Animaniacs. Useful search term. Andrewa 16:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft --Improv 05:18, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, merge if you must. --fvw* 06:10, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 07:18, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 03:03, Nov. 23 2004 (UTC)

Unhinged was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep. Cool Hand Luke 09:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know (and someone should correct me if I'm wrong), no Magic: The Gathering set has ever been made into an article until now, with this one, which I now list as on WP:VFD so that we can determine if MTG sets are encyclopedic.

I am going to argue here that they are not: that making them encyclopedic would then require an article to be made for every single set that comes out; and that they are not notable in themselves (there is no information about them that could not go into the Magic: The Gathering or Magic: The Gathering sets articles).

—Lowellian (talk)[[]] 01:01, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 01:01, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete DCEdwards1966 02:17, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep--there's plenty of information for each M:TG set to have its own page, and I believe them to be encyclopedic. There's certainly a lot of information available; in addition, the article can discuss both in-game features (plot, revelations about the setting, etc) and out-of-game info (release date, changes made to the rules, so on). Clearly encyclopedic. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 02:53, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. A phenomenon. Dr Zen 04:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Magic sets should have their own sections.
• Keep. We should have articles for all the other magic sets but no one has gone out and written them yet. Plus, the Unhinged is the second ever joke set ever released by wizards, which makes it somewhat special. Ambush Commander 04:50, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: An epiphenomenon. We should not become a site that does features on individual merchandise. The next logical step after a Magic series is a ruling that every single US baseball card get a separate article, with sale values, resale values, rookie, 1st year, 2nd year, etc. for every single baseball player ever. If the sets are singular, then they should be discussed in the general Magic article. If that article is so long as to be impossible to read anymore, then the prose and detail needs to be adjusted. Simply put, breaking out every single set of cards takes us a long way off from an encyclopedia and a great deal closer to a fansite or collector's site. Geogre 04:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I follow you in "if the sets are singular, they should be discussed in the general article". But you lose me at "If that article is so long as to be impossible to read anymore, then the prose and detail needs to be adjusted." How does this information do anything but help Wikipedia? I fail to see why, if a subject merits a mention, we shouldn't have a detailed and well-documented discussion of it--and if that means a separate article, so be it? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:55, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • My point was that I don't think that an article per set is warranted. A Sets of article would be ok. If there are so many sets that the Sets of article is too long (and I regard "too long" as an issue of organization and not 32 kb), then I would rather see less detail on the individual sets than moving from a single Sets of article to an article per set. However, if there is simply no way around it, if minimally acceptable detail makes for an impossible article, then there ought to be another solution than an article per set: from kingdom, we go to phylum, and not to races. I'm not a Magic fan, so I don't know what the organization principle would be that's analogous to the phylum. However, a general "sets of" is already present in the master Magic article, so this may be moot in any case. Geogre 03:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I get what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure I understand your reason. I don't understand why "If there are so many sets that the Sets of article is too long..., then I would rather see less detail on the individual sets than moving from a single Sets of article to an article per set." Why shouln't we have a good level of detail, even if it requires splitting off individual sets into their own articles? Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:16, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • The Unhinged Article is not about a card (although some cards may merit encyclopedia articles). Therefore, the analogy is moot. In addition, I believe there is enough information to create an article on each set, or at least each expansion block. There is no reason why we should not have an article like this. On one point, however, the list of known cards should be reduced down a little bit, it's gotten a bit unwieldly. Ambush Commander 04:53, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • The analogy was stated as "the next step will be." Indeed, an analogy to this would be Fleer baseball cards of 2003 or something like that. If a person wanted a single Sets of Magic: The Gathering cards, I would regard it as of fan interest but generally unobjectionable. The issue for me is This set That set This set with special Korean release etc. Geogre 15:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Be aware that there already exists a Magic: The Gathering sets article. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:30, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge. Not independantly notable. --Improv 05:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, most m:tg sets can yeild encyclopedic articles, this article does need NPOV. —siroχo 06:38, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I'm working on a project on making article on every MTG set. See User:Grue/MTGSets. If you could have an article on each specific Pokemon, why you can't have an article on a whole expansion set. Grue 09:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I think that Unhinged is notable enough to deserve an article, and while the current article could use some improvement, it should not be deleted. Also, while Unhinged is more notable (in my opinion) than the average Magic set, I lean towards thinking that individual Magic sets (or at least Magic blocks) do deserve a page. Modargo 09:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep it, or face the wrath of EXTREME DELETION. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 09:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, and keep any M:TG expansion set articles. However, it's a fallacy to believe we must keep every card just because we keep sets. Few individual cards are as notable as a set, and by making set articles, we actually decrease the need for card articles (see: Black Lotus). Should one want to write on the (notable) card "Tolarian Academy," it would be merged into the Urza's Saga set. This precedent actually solves problems instead of making them. Cool Hand Luke 11:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep It is notable. I'ven't played Magic since Unglued, I don't really know the rules anymore, but I found this article enjoyable. McKay 12:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 15:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep -Sean Curtin 01:54, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Like it or not, this is WoTC's core business, and each set is the same as a publisher printing a book or a record label releasing an album - let me correct that - with probably $100 million in card sales last year, a best-selling book or album. Details of each set will be keepers. The Steve 10:24, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• merge? I see no point, we dont need a article on every single thing out there, ecpecilly not on a magic set of cards for something. The bandwith- think about it if we had a article for everything like this, this site would be twice as big, and would cost twice as much to keep online for the owners. User:Fledgeling 18:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.S. we dont need a article for every single pokemon either

P.S.s. Or company

We don't need articles about all these magnolias either. Think of it. Grue 19:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While you bring up a good point (howd ya know ;) ), i do realize that different people hold different things as important and things that are needing to be adressed differ amoung people. This being said, however (i am used to informal forum style, this still feel stiff for me) i feel that species are a bit more noteable than card packs. All the 100 species of magnolia are not listed - (nor will they be, at leat by me),- only the 20 most noteable. If you look at the pine secion, every single species has a link and has been listed, and i feel that the magnolia section is incomplete without the major species being listed and a section completed for each species link (only about half of the scientific named species have links, if u noticed) Fledgeling

P.s. ok, a bit more than half (70%)

I'd just like to point out that use of bandwidth is or shouldn't be a major consideration; if an article draws enough traffic to have a non-negligible effect on bandwidth consumption, this implies the article is useful and the subject of the article is most likely notable enough to warrant its own article. With that said, I believe this article stands up well enough on its own merits. αγδεε(τ) 09:41, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

• Keep. αγδεε(τ) 09:41, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
• Delete, this is utterly pointless. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 17:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep I find this article informative and useful. I don't see any good reason to delete it.Flow 21:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep One article each for an entire set is reasonable. --ShaunMacPherson 21:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• DELETE ExplorerCDT 05:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Five days have passed, vote count:

• Keep = 15
• Delete = 7
• Merge = 1?

What do we do? Ambush Commander 20:39, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to delete the page, but with the vote going as it has, we keep. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:15, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

So does that mean we should untag Unhinged? Ambush Commander 04:43, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Yep. Let me resolve this for you. Cool Hand Luke 09:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Zug Zug

something the orc's say in a video game. pointless fancruft. not notable. not encyclopedic. Wolfman 01:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete DCEdwards1966 02:18, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Nearly a speedy as a test page. It can't be meant to be an article. Geogre 04:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Speedy? Not even remotely plausable as an article. --Improv 05:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete since I can't really see how this could become encyclopediac. Even if you (I don't and I have played a lot of Warcraft) consider it noteable enough I can't see it becoming more than dictdef. Jeltz 13:02, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
• Delete: subtrivial fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:40, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 04:48, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, though seeing the 'term' in the index did bring a smile to my face. --fvw* 06:11, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Not mine. Delete. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 01:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete The most mention this should get is maybe a sentence in the article about the game. - Frank 00:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alexander Hislop

essentially a link to an external site. full text reads "All I will begin this page with is a link to Alexander Hislop's Book called The Two Babylons. [5]" Wolfman 01:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete not even a stub. DCEdwards1966 02:19, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as spam. Contents are shown above. Geogre 04:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

fear.net

Non-notable forum. Ranks 2,750,142 on Alexa. [6] According to Alexa, only 3 sites on the internet link to it - two forums and a page of IRC stats. [7] States in the article that the game the forum is dedicated to isn't popular anymore. The game doesn't have an article, why should there be an article about a forum about the game? [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 01:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete DCEdwards1966 02:19, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide, and even Bizarro Wikipedia wouldn't be a forum guide. Geogre 04:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I agree with the others -Cookiemobsta
• Delete: Not ready to define all the forums yet. Bensaccount 05:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, no possibilty of an encyclopedic article here (: —siroχo 06:35, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Don't Delete, you obviously don't know the history behind the forum.*-Bleh

Above vote by 67.136.102.16 --*drew 07:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete --fvw* 06:13, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 07:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 09:06, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Pseudosocrates 21:55, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Billy-Corgan.com was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete. Cool Hand Luke 09:50, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A non-notable fan site. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 01:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Deletionist 01:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete There is a link to this site in the external links for Billy Corgan. That is more than sufficient. DCEdwards1966 02:21, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. —tregoweth 02:23, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like feeble spamvertising to me. Anyway, it's vacuous. Hoary 02:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete; the info might warrant a mention somewhere, but it doesn't need its own article. Everyking 04:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: We are not a web guide, and it already got its mention elsewhere. Geogre 04:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Not ready to define all the websites out there yet. Bensaccount 05:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:14, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not warrant its own article. --*drew 07:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Extreme delete. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 21:42, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete--Blade Hirato 20:59, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Just mention it on "Billy Corgan". It's only a stubstub anyway. - Frank 02:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 09:06, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was - no consensus

Overlinking

This page needs to be either deleted or moved to Wikipedia talk:Make only links relevant to the context. It non-encylopedic, it's about the Wikipedia. The author blanked the talk page where there was criticism of the article. I say delete it or move it. Kevin Rector 01:51, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete Non-encyclopedic: Belongs in a style manual or a how-to. DCEdwards1966 02:25, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The main namespace is not the place to rant about poor editing style. —No-One Jones ^(m) 03:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm the author, and I'd finished two sentences of the article before Kevin Rector marked it for speedy deletion as 'patent nonsense.' I haven't checked the time elapsed, but it was a matter of minutes.

I blanked the talk page because there was no article posted yet. I had previously posted on Kevin Rector's talk page asking him to please leave the piece alone and judge it when it was finshed. He deleted that message from his page. He restored the article talk page, except for my comment saying that the article wan't finished.

The article frankly isn't of any importance. I have no objection to the current text being deleted, and I have no interest in finishing or editing it.

HOWEVER, there are contributors with good intentions who tend to spend too much time watching for things to delete. Wikipedia isn't a game of 'gotcha,' and it's dispiriting to begin an article (I've written several dozen, one example being Telecaster), only to have someone appear and take an immediate interest in un-doing it.

I don't understand that, and don't think it's in accordance with the principles here.

Auto movil 03:33, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Good for meta perhaps, but not here. Deletionist 04:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I said, about the people with good intentions who spend too much time looking for things to delete. Someone named Deletionist turns up. If you want to go trolling for unfinished articles and knock them down, g'wan ahead. Auto movil 04:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• You have a good article here. However, on technical grounds, it does not belong on this namespace. Deletionist 06:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• It would be a fine thing for meta or for the Wikipedia name space. It would even be good on Village Pump. The problem isn't "gotcha." The problem is that it's a style guide article, and it seems like a wise one. It should be said, but article space is not supposed to have meta-wikipedian material. It certainly isn't nonsense, but it should be deleted from article space or transwikid to meta (except that I don't think we can). Geogre 04:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I understand. As I said, I honestly don't mind if the article is moved or nixed. The issue here is with the process. I tend to work articles up slowly with lots of self-corrections. When someone immediately pops in and starts taking things apart, the chance that a good, usable article will result drops to near-zero. Any of a couple dozen of my pieces could have been squelched that way, but instead they've been enduring contributions. We're no longer talking about the article as 'patent nonsense.' With another work-up, we might not be considering it for deletion. But once someone tags an article, this process is hard to stop. It began literally when there was almost nothing on the page. It was beyond half-cocked. Auto movil 05:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Doesn't belong in main namespace. Bensaccount 05:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is the point at which my paying attention becomes 'taking things too seriously.'

I've been very clear that there is no article. A user named Kevin Rector was monitoring recent changes, and flagged two in-process sentences as 'patent nonsense.' Then flagged it again when it was six sentences, etc. Thus you're voting on something that might have cooked up into a useful article, but now certainly won't be.

I'm going to nicely ask that parties including Kevin Rector, who doesn't seem to actually write anything around here, take a look at this process and ask whether they've added value to Wikipedia today. Auto movil 05:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Im not sure that I got the whole story, but two sentences seems like enough, since this article obviously belongs in the wikipedia:project namespace. See the link there. Bensaccount 06:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The term, 'overlinking,' has 300+ Google hits, and is a real term. What you're judging is an in-progress piece of writing that was not intended to be a self-referential Wikipedia manual page, but that was repeatedly flagged as it was being written, first for one reason, then for another.

Instead of writing the article, I had to spend paragraphs asking people to please leave it alone, first because it was labeled 'patent nonsense,' then because it belonged in 'bad jokes,' and later because it looked like a manual page. If I were to draft another paragraph of the article, somebody could absolutely find another category for deletion based on what that one looked like, and so on. That's not what this process is intended for.

This is not an article. It is an unfinished scrap of writing. It is on a legitimate topic, but has not been written yet.

The portion on Wikipedia is one piece of a greater thesis.

I don't know how to say this any more politely or clearly: A contributor, Kevin Rector, flagged this page in error, and was asked nicely to please hold off judgement. Instead, he refused to communicate, deleted my comment from his talk page, and flagged the page again.

This happened while I was typing. I've spent perhaps 1500 words trying to make Kevin Rector go away until there was an article to judge. I don't know him, and he seems like a decent enough person, but I've written numerous articles here, while his contributions seem mostly to be deleting things and making minor edits -- policing content. There are times in which that's extremely valuable, but also times in which it's a giant pain in the ass to someone who's trying to get work done.

I want it to be clear that I don't care about the page. The issue here is the misuse of the process. I've asked this person to please come back when there's something to read, yet he won't go away or communicate. So I'm not going to finish the article, and you should delete it.

Auto movil 13:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Move to Wikipedia:overlinking, without a redirect. It's already a good start. The contributor should be encouraged to complete it. But it doesn't belong in the article namespace. Agree that the process has not been perfect, but neither are the rules. The main problem here that I see is a lack of wikilove, which seems to be going out of fashion, to our cost I fear. Andrewa 16:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. It's not supposed to be an article specifically on Wikipedia practices, though. It was supposed to be a quite minor, three-or-four paragraph thing encompassing the term, or phenomenon, of 'overlinking,' that got caught up in a storm of delete notices because a user fixed on it, and wouldn't let go. Everyone has an opinion on what it is -- those opinions are based on a few sentences I posted while trying to call the dogs off. It became not worth writing.

I am unable to say this any more politely or clearly: What you are voting on is an unfinished scrap of text that somebody repeatedly flagged, which does not represent what a final article would have looked like.

If users are going to scan the recent changes list, or have bots patrolling the list, looking for things to delete, there's a certain responsibility in that. I've discussed this with you because Kevin Rector, for whatever reason, will post deletion notices, but won't enter a discussion. I think this has been a giant waste of time, and I'm sorry for my part in it. Auto movil 17:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I put a {{Nonsense}} tag on an article that was nonsense. It was one sentence about overlinking. User:Auto movil removed the template instead of debating it. The Nonsense template clearly states, "If you disagree with its speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page or at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. Please do not remove this notice." Since the notice should have been debated rather than removed, I added it back in.

As I am not an administrator I didn't delete the page myself but left it for someone who is an administrator to deal with (which is what I do will all the speedy delete candidates I come across on Special:Newpages. I'm pretty sure it was speedy deleted because when I came back the next day article was back up with a different history.

Auto movil made substantial additions to the page, so it no longer qualified for speedy delete, so I added this VFD notice so that the community should decide what to do with the artice. I do not have a problem with the content of the article, I just thought it should be in a different namespace (which is why I suggested it be deleted OR moved).

As far as Auto movil's assertion that, "...I've written numerous articles here, while his contributions seem mostly to be deleting things and making minor edits..." or that I, "apparently don't write anything around here..." it's simply not true. I have over 3700 edits. A bot that I wrote has over 29,000 edits. I work mostly on ice hockey articles which don't get a lot of attention (or generate much controversy). I started the ice hockey wikipedia project. I've never delete a single article because I am not an administrator.

This whole situation has been unfortunate and I'm sorry that it's become what it's become. I hold no ill will towards Auto movil and will not be "policing" his contributions, however I am concerned that he removed a template that should have been discussed and blanked a talk page that should not have been blanked. I never intended to be "mean" or "uncaring". Kevin Rector 18:23, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Move to Wikipedia:overlinking, as Andrewa says. It seems much of this could have been avoided if the original author didn't save the page until it was in a somewhat complete state. Writing one sentence before saving seems pointless to me, and gives the impression that the article is considered "complete" by its author. -R. fiend 18:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kevin, it's not personal; it's procedural. My impression was that you assumed I was a troll, and hit the full anti-troll defenses. I understand that. But I asked you nicely not to tag the article for deletion, and had no response but more deletion tags. No hard feelings, but it was inappropriate this time.

If you check my contributions, that's only a small number of the pieces I've written. I wrote anonymously for months before finally signing up for a username. It's a lot of hard work sometimes, and as with all work on Wikipedia, it's often pretty thankless. I don't think we should have to go after each other like this -- we're both on the same side. Auto movil 18:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: See talk:overlinking. No change of vote. Andrewa 19:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It is relevant not only to wikipedia. Mikkalai 23:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, as this is a POV comment on Wikipedian editing practices. I would also like to point out to Auto movil that if he does not want to subject an article-in-progress to premature scrutiny, he can begin it as a subpage of his user page and then move it to the main namespace when he feels it is ready. Additionally, adding headers to VfD vote subpages causes problems on VfD. — Gwalla | Talk 23:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Redux 

I'd hoped to be off this by now, but:

1) I left a speedy delete tag in place, for goodness sake.

2) I left a subsequent delete tag in place, or else we wouldn't be here.

3)The user with whom I've been unfortunately at odds said (above), "I hold no ill will towards Auto movil and will not be "policing" his contributions." He then found an article on my contributions list to edit.

The edit added links, which was useful, and spelling and factual errors, which I'm quite good-humored about. However, this work was accompanied by a long, unfriendly comment on my talk page, saying that that article, and my contributions in general, are of a low quality.

This would be hard to determine, since most were not written under this username. Here's one that's primarily my writing: stratocaster. Here's another: great white shark.

His own articles seem mostly to be lists of things and single paragraphs. I would normally regard that as his business, and none of mine.

Addendum: Apres Mikkalai, I fixed text in the article. It's now a coherent stub, and does not mention Wikipedia.

Auto movil 22:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Move relevant sections to Wikipedia talk:Make only links relevant to the context. this addresses a genuine issue at Wikipedia, though it does not belong in the main sequence. --Wetman 23:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: I have no opinion on whether this article should be kept and generalized, moved somewhere else, or deleted. All I have is a suggestion for Auto movil. Auto, perhaps you should write articles in progress in your own namespace. User:Auto movil/Overlinking would do just fine, and once you're finished, you can move the completed article to Overlinking. This way, people won't bother you with an unfinished article, and you can get it done before it is judged. I know that this doesn't solve your issues with the Wikipedia procedure, but it will at least help you to work around it. I hope this is helpful. - Vague | Rant 01:43, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: This suggestion repeatedly comes up, and it no doubt solves the problem, but it also defeats much of the convenience of a wiki. Personally I think that an article shouldn't be listed for deletion (speedy or otherwise) purely on the grounds that it still needs work until at least 30 minutes (better four hours) of inactivity, and that if the time is as short as 30 minutes we should publicise this figure as save your work every 30 minutes, incomplete work may be deleted after 30 minutes inactivity or a similar warning. Many newbies make the mistake of saving incomplete work (I certainly did, see the history of Henry Felsen) and this causes unnecessary friction of which this is just the latest example. Andrewa 20:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thanks. I'll do that and be more careful in the future. It's not the procedures per se that I have any issue with, though. It's that once this deletion process started, there was nothing to do to stop it. I was waving my arms like, 'Wait, hold on here a minute,' but there's no such vote as, 'Maybe this shouldn't be here; leave it alone and let the guy work on it for awhile.' It's either 'delete,' 'move,' or 'keep.' And I understand that, but this was an extremely fast snatch: when I saw the 'nonsense' tag in the text window, I couldn't imagine someone had actually gotten into the edit process so quickly -- I thought it was a piece of random text from somewhere. But anyway, thanks again. All problems solved, as far as I'm concerned. Auto movil 02:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep but move to Wikipedia: namespace or Meta. This is not main-namespace material. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 04:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why? Mikkalai 04:22, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Copy to Wikipedia talk:Make only links relevant to the context (User:Auto movil, that's your job) and delete. Term "overlinking" doesn't mean anything more than "too many links", plus it has little currency, so there's no need for an article about it. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey man, I've suffered enough. If you're reiterating the same-old about how there's no need for an article like this one seems like it was aiming towards, you delete the damn thing. I'm going to sit here and eat this sandwich. Copy it someplace and then delete it? No, my job is to avoid getting bits of articles tractor-beamed into here in the future, by not letting people look at them until they're articles. YOUR job is to expedite deletions. Auto movil 05:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete or move. Shouldn't be in the main namespace anyway. --fvw* 06:15, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Keep Overlinking deserves an article because it is a common phenomenon on the web, especially in wikis. The current article does a good job of explaining it. The guidelines seem a little too "first hand" for an encylopedia article, but that's minor thing. Kappa 10:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and balance it with a chapter on underlinking --Pgreenfinch 21:52, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect with hyperlink. Remove the section on Wikipedia - Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. JFW | T@lk 17:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I believe that there could be an encyclopedia article on this topic, but this isn't it. The references to Wikipedia are egregious. The claims on what is good practice are POV and lack citations, although I suspect that good authorities could be found making similar claims. Either delete or rewrite mercilessly. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:23, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It can easily become a valuable non-Wikipedia-related article with just a little rewriting and adding. Stellertony 09:58, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

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

Sally Gates was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete. Cool Hand Luke 09:51, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article states that "Sally William Gates" is Bill Gates' daughter born Nov. 20, 2004. I suspect this person isn't real. Several Google News searches turn up nothing, and a regular Google search for "bill gates" "sally gates" returns nothing relevant (mostly links to a joke where "Sally" is Bill's mother). I've heard nothing in the news about Melinda Gates being pregnant. If this is real, perhaps someone can expand the article with an explanation of why the Gateses decided to give birth to their daughter overseas (as implied by the birth date) and give her a masculine middle name. Dave6 03:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete hoax, can't turn up anything consistent with a pregancy or birth. Wolfman 04:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: agree with above. Bensaccount 05:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 14:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. --Idont Havaname 17:31, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Putting this on speedy delete... ~leif ☺ _HELO 23:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. If we're wrong, we can always undelete it. Doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria, I'm afraid. Oh, wait, it does: Wikipedia:Vandalism, specifically silly and/or sneaky vandalism. Poof. If the author chooses provide adequate evidence that this article is true, I will undelete it and apologize. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I wasn't aware that Microsoft was a monarchy; as long as it isn't, a zero-year-old Gates is not notable, even if she exists. Hoary 08:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

List of lists of Grateful Dead Concerts

The actual "List of Lists" is my creation to make this VfD entry more organized. All "List of Grateful Dead Concerts (x year)" should be deleted (they're all linked from the List of Lists). They're just collections of orphaned red links. Even if they were to be filled in, do we really need lists of concerts? Whole articles for single concerts? Let's nip this bandcruft in the bud before it really gets started. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 04:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete all, no real content. - RedWordSmith 04:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Agree with the nomination. For me a Dead Concert is no different from a single comic book. Geogre 04:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough. --Improv 05:18, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: All lists should be put into categories. Bensaccount 05:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • No, these are the kinds of lists that don't even deserve categories. There's over a dozen of them, all chock full of redlinks. I'm asking to delete all the lists, not the article itself. I just made the List of Lists so I could avoid listing over a dozen articles for one VfD entry. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 06:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Absurd, of course delete them. Everyking 07:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Grateful Dead concerts, in general, are not encyclopedic. Deletionist 09:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and delete all its subpages. - SimonP 17:29, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete lists and list of lists. There were doubtless some notable concerts by the Dead. However not all of them were, so a comprehensive list of concerts is just fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:16, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete recursively. Agree with SimonP. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Seems to me that a list of GD concerts is mildly encyclopedic, since (unlike most bands) every show was recorded and recordings circulate. However, I'm sure this information is well-maintained somewhere outside of Wikipedia and the Grateful Dead article could just link to it. Assuming that is true, delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:26, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • The real issue at hand is that none of these recursive links even work. Its nothing but a sea of red. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 20:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 09:06, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Axetion was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete. Cool Hand Luke 09:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not-notable band. Even the article says they played locally. Google for "Shane Osterholt" Axetion gives no results, and likewise the link at the end of the article has an Alexa ranking of "No Data". Delete. - Vague | Rant 04:29, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Local lore of a local band, never signed, never distributed. Geogre 05:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Agree with above. Bensaccount 05:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: promo, no evidence of notability, probable vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:17, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 09:06, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

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

Spelling the Vacuum

I admit, I voted to keep it before, back in March, but I've changed my mind. Seems very non-notable. Everyking 07:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete if not expanded: At present, it's "Is a web comic about Spelling the Vacuum. URL." Forget whether the comic is the best or worst in the world: one line (especially one like that) and then the link is spam. If not expanded, delete for advertising/page rank boosting. Geogre 15:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand instead of trying to delete. Mark Richards 16:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Go to it! Please. Expand it. Save it from being spam at least. Don't tell everyone else to expand it, if you won't expand it yourself. Geogre 20:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Mikkalai 23:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. has had time to grow. not encyclopedic now, unlikely to become so. Wolfman 04:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:16, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete - has had since March to be improved. Comic still does not meet proposed guidelines and Wikipedia is not a web guide. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Gamaliel 22:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Webcomic. anthony 警告 02:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Mark Richards 17:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • You can't vote twice, man. Everyking 18:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • This vote was struck out by Improv. anthony 警告 22:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable webcomic--less than 2000 hits, and an Alexa rank of 1,640,925--not even close. Niteowlneils 20:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Some people around here may know it. But it's fame does not even crosses the country border. Fabio Burch 17:12, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Improv 21:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 09:07, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable. Pseudosocrates 22:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Side Tracked Association of Role Players

A coven of 12 gamers in Australia? Seems less than notable to me. "I can write all this because I know someone will delete it before too long." You got that right, Buddy. -R. fiend 07:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete for the reasons stated. Shane King 07:32, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: An additional article linking to this was just created (see Reaches). 68.81.231.127 07:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This and reaches both appear to be vandalism (see quote above), by an IP with no other contributions. Andrewa 10:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete both: The last line suggests that it's even a user test and therefore a speedy, or at the very least vandalism. N.b. that the origin story for this group is also in vandalism: they pretended to exist just to get a Yahoo group, and now a Wikipedia article. Geogre 16:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:16, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of notability. I could get together a bunch of friends and make something as notable. --Improv 21:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete both. Jackliddle 00:29, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Debate

I wouldn't say that ignosticism is close to atheism. Atheism generally involves assertions regarding the existence (in this case, non-existence) of supernatural deities. Ignosticism, however, seems to disapprove of any assertions regarding such manners, hailing them as incoherent. I would say it is closer to agnosticism, because it does, in a sense, claim that knowledge regarding the existence of supernatural deities is unknowable, in the sense that any assertions, or knowledge, regarding such matters would be incoherent. As it is, I think the term "ignosticism" is a bit shaky, and think it should revert back to a form of agnosticism (i.e. "logical agnosticism", or otherwise...) Kevin L. 19:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I thought it was just a subset of atheism called "analytic" or "inguistic" atheism. The analytic atheist says the question is meaningless since it can have no bearing on observed reality. That sounds like what the ignostic here is defined as. Technically, the atheist you are refering to is, I believe, the "positive atheist" - that is, the person who asserts that god is falsifiable and has, in fact, falsified it conclusively. 74.93.87.210 23:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Still different, since this assertion "the question is meaningless since ..." assumes that we have agreed on what that question is.

More specifically, Ignosticism - as originally stated - explicitly allows that some people's concepts of God might be valid and have bearing on observed reality. However, the word itself does not encode enough information and too many people have expressed views about concepts of God which conflict with observed reality. (This includes, of course, atheists - we are pretty much guaranteed that atheists' concepts of God has little or nothing to do with observed reality - otherwise, why would they be atheists?) --108.28.151.178 (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

from VfD

This is article is nothing more than a definition of a neologism. If we can't use them in our editing then we certainly shouldn't have an entire article on one. Delete --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 07:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • It was not just a dict def when nominated, tho it is a stub & now so tagged. --Jerzy(t) 04:47, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
• Keep: It seems to have a fair amount of currency in non-Wikipedia mirrors. The specific reference to its originator and his organization allows it to be verifiable as well. Geogre 16:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge to Agnosticism and redirect. Mikkalai 22:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge+Redirect or Delete. I have no strong feelings on which of the two --fvw* 06:18, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Keep. Andre (talk) 23:49, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:27, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete the neologism. --Improv 21:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • How long does a word stay a neologism? I learned the adjective over 35 years ago when one of two principal newspapers of a major metropolitan area quoted a clergyman's definition that is in practice equivalent to this one. (Don't know if it quoted the same person the article mentions or not.) --Jerzy(t) 04:47, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
• Keep, even if in due time it ends up merged and redirected. This is no more obscure and subtle than the EPR paradox, and both of them just seem so relative to the amount of blood that has been spilled by people who didn't find the filioque clause obscure or subtle. To the extent those qualities are real, they are the lifeblood of relgion and philsophy. --Jerzy(t) 04:47, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
• Keep, sdmb, I reference people to this definition on a weekly basis.
• Keep, Rovenhot 20:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC). This describes me perfectly and is different from all other forms of agnosticism. Traditional agnosticism claims that whether any god exists is unknowable. Ignosticism claims not only that but also that what "god" means is indeterminate. Neologism though it may be, it is a legitimately unique belief with no better name.
• Merge with Nontheism.
• Keep, Like sdmb, I also reference people to this page frequently. Buss 01:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Why agnostic?

Why does the article imply that ignosticism is an agnostic position ? From what the page says, ignostics do not claim "not to know" but simply reject the issue as valid. It seems to me to be very close to theological noncognitivism, which is an atheistic argument. Franc28 20:56, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Theological noncognitivism says that god doesn't make sense, whereas ignosticism is the belief that god is irrelevant to life. They are different enough to be in seperate articles. Also, it is an agnostic stance, because in refusing to address the issue of theism, an ignostic must not know what a god is or if it exists. --Rovenhot 20:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"Theological noncognitivism says that god doesn't make sense, whereas ignosticism is the belief that god is irrelevant to life."

That's precisely the problem, there is no difference. But I think you mistake my post for a demand to merge. I did not have this in mind at all. Just pointing out that the article is wrong when it states that ignosticism is a form of agnosticism. I am an ignostic AND an atheist. Franc28 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there's a world of difference between "god doesn't make sense" and "god is irrelevant". The two may go side-by-side in some cases, but they're certainly not synonyms! The problem is, "ignosticism" doesn't mean that "the existence of God is irrelevant", it means that "the existence of God is meaningless and it's a waste of time to debate it"; the former definition, "god is irrelevant", is actually a type of apatheism. It's likely that most ignostics are apatheists, but it's not the case that most apatheists are ignostics, and there are at least a few ignostics who aren't apatheists (i.e. "I don't believe that the existence of some type of God-being is totally irrelevant, just that 'God' terminology is meaningless").

I would say that ignosticism is probably not a form of agnosticism, because agnosticism is a state of indecision regarding whether God exists, and most ignostics would reject the notion that one can be indecisive about a nonsense term, anymore than they're "agnostic" about whether the color blue licks watermelon babies (and if they are agnostic about that, the term "agnosticism" becomes so broad that it loses almost all meaning). Instead, ignostics would probably be classified as falling under the broad definition of "atheism" (i.e. "lack of theism"), a.k.a. "nontheism". Of course, most ignostics would reject this label too, since many view "atheism" as a meaningless distinction and; but that doesn't make them any less "lacking in theistic belief", and therefore they still fall under the general umbrella of atheism/nontheism. Specifically, most of them would probably be classed as falling under "explicit weak atheism", though probably not all.

If I had to explain the relationship between ignosticism and theological noncognitivism, it would be that "theological noncognitivism" is the argument that religious language in general is meaningless (according to its Wikipedia article), whereas Ignosticism applies exclusively to the word "God" (and synonyms). As a side-note, it appears that both terms are barely mentioned often enough to merit articles: "ignosticism" gets 636 hits on Google, and "theological noncognitivism" gets only 148 hits. (Though note that just "noncognitivism" gets 10,100 hits. Yet we don't have a "noncognitivism" article. Do we need to do some moving to get things where they should be?) -Silence 01:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

"Actually, there's a world of difference between "god doesn't make sense" and "god is irrelevant". "

You can keep repeating it, but it's still not true. That which is not falsifiable is meaningless. That which is meaningless is unfalsifiable. Both cover the same set of semantics. That's all we need to prove for the proposition "ignosticism is compatible with theological noncognitivism" to be true. The harder part is to correlate theological noncognitivism with atheism - some philosophers disagree on this issue. Personally, I am an atheist and an ignostic, so I find the assertion that ignosticism is agnostic to be trivially silly.

"You can keep repeating it, but it's still not true." - Sure it is, but do make sure to respond to statements like that in the context of the argument they're included in, if you aren't already; I then explained that by "world of difference" I didn't mean that the two are unrelated, just that the two are absolutely, without question not identical.

"That which is not falsifiable is meaningless." - Wrong. The converse, which you state immediately afterwards, is correct, though: that which is meaningless is not falsifiable—because how can you falsify patent nonsense? But that which is falsifiable is certainly not necessary "meaningless", though it may be logically unsound. Even that which is irrelevant or fallacious is not necessarily without any meaning.

"Both cover the same set of semantics." - Again, like I said: all ignostics may be apatheists, but it's indisputable that not all apatheists are ignostics, as many apatheists don't consider "God" terminology or arguments meaningless, they just don't think they're important or relevant to day-to-day life and so choose not to care (or find themselves unable to care). Therefore, while you could make an argument that all people who consider the "God" concept meaningless don't care whether God exists (though I'm still not sure that's entirely true), you'd have a very hard time showing that all people who don't care whether God exists consider the "God" concept meaningless. Don't confuse association with synonymity.

"That's all we need to prove for the proposition "ignosticism is compatible with theological noncognitivism" to be true." When did we start comparing ignosticism and theological noncognitivism in this line of conversation? Seems like you just made a huge leap, from discussing the relationship between "god doesn't make sense" (ignosticism, apparently a type of theological noncognitivism) and "god is irrelevant" (apatheism) to discussing the proposition that ignosticism and theological noncognitivism are compatible. Haudquaquam sequitur.

"Personally, I am an atheist and an ignostic, so I find the assertion that ignosticism is agnostic to be trivially silly." - Good for you. No offense meant to anyone, but I've always found the whole "agnostic" position to be a tad silly; either agnosticism is so broadly defined ("agnosticism is not being completely, 100%, absolutely certain that God does or doesn't exist") that it applies to any sane human being, or it's defined more narrowly and usefully ("agnosticism is being very undecided over whether God does or doesn't exist") and just comes across as atheism without the clear-headed, unbiased rationalism or understanding of scientific method (i.e. theism could theoretically find all sorts of evidence to support its claims, but how could atheism ever learn more about the universe that would make God's existence less likely? no one's going to find a "not-God"...). But that's just me, and I'm digressing. -Silence 05:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I counter that ignosticism is most definitely a form of agnosticism because agnosticism in actual usage takes at least three known forms: "I don't know if God exists," "God's existence is unknowable," and "I don't know what you mean by the term God." Ignosticism is the latter of these three "I don't know" positions and is therefore properly included in the Wikipedia article Agnosticism. Nonetheless, I'm also aware that many atheists include the "theism is incoherent" position of ignosticism among the valid definitions of atheism. So, oddly enough, ignosticism is in practice a form of both agnosticism and atheism--as discussion and debate here further attest. Fredwords 16:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"...it appears that both terms are barely mentioned often enough to merit articles: "ignosticism" gets 636 hits on Google" Please don't ever use the number of hits a term 'gets on google' to determine the merit of an article's existance! Homtail 03:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

To argue for ignosticism, and that god is irrelevant

On a topic apart from whether to delete the article, I wish to give my opinion on it, although this may also further prove ignosticism's uniqueness. I only recently discovered the name of my belief, but these thoughts have developed in my mind long before.

I agree with the argument that a childish, passive definition of god is too vague to have any real meaning, and so I will ignore it. As for the "theologian's" definition, I also agree that it is self-contradictory, or at least irrelevant. Now I give my reasons. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, I see no definition of God that fits other than that God embodies the entire universe (or, if M-theory is correct, multiverse). If this is so, than God can hardly be omnibenevolent, because that would mean that everyone is happy, and the universe is Heaven. That is certainly not the case, as shown by so many recent earthquakes and hurricanes (what benevolent god lets millions die and suffer?) and so I reject the omnibenevolent Christian depiction of God as being self-contradictory. (Also, I am agnostic, because I do not believe that "benevolence," or any moral, is determinate, since "good" and "bad" are relative.) Even if God were omnipresent, God becomes irrelevant, because we live within the universe, or we all become Buddhists, worshiping the universe as a whole. Since I have a sort of a "come what may" stance on life, I don't see a point in doing so, and thus I remain ignostic. --Rovenhot 03:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. First, please keep in mind that most conceptions of deities do not state that the deity in question is "omnibenevolent", "omnipotent", or "omniscient". So remember that, even if you are correct, your argument is only the refutation of a few specific gods, not of all of theism in general.

Please explain why you believe that omnipotence and omniscience necessitate omnipresence (or pantheism), because I don't see how that follows at all; if an omnipotent and omniscient God didn't want to be omnipresent, wouldn't that God be able to make himself non-omnipresent? If not, "omnipotent" is a poor term, and you should use the more popular Biblical term ("most powerful", not "all-powerful") instead.

"If this is so, than God can hardly be omnibenevolent, because that would mean that everyone is happy, and the universe is Heaven." - Non sequitur. On what do you base the assumption that because God is "all-good", everyone must be happy? Maybe it's not good for everyone to be happy? Maybe it would be evil to put everyone in Heaven because Heaven's only pleasant for certain people, or maybe Heaven isn't such a great place at all—maybe Heaven doesn't exist because the concept of Heaven is flawed, and the earth is actually the best possible world? This may not seem to be the case because of suffering, unhappiness, etc., but maybe a world without suffering and unhappiness is less "good" than one with it? How can you prove anything either way? How do you define what is "good" or not? Before you can even begin to argue against God coherently, you must (1) define exactly what you mean by "God", and (2) define exactly what you mean by "good".

(what benevolent god lets millions die and suffer?) - One that believes that death and suffering are "perfectly good"? On whose standard of "good" are you basing your definition of "omnibenevolence"? Good is not an inherent quality; something can only be good for someone, it can't just be "good" objectively. It seems like you're trying to define good as "what's good for humans" (which is by far the most meaningful, useful, and sane definition of it), but why should a nonhuman care about human morality? Wouldn't a perfectly good God by God's standards only about what benefits God most, not about what benefits some random trivial creation of God's? -Silence 02:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If your idea of "benevolence" is compatible with permitting others to suffer, you have a very strange definition of benevolence indeed. Remember that the subject is the Abrahamic God, who loves humans most out of all his creation. If this god exists, then, since his most prized creations do suffer a great deal, he clearly cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent all at the same time, though he may be any two of the three without contradiction.

It's important to distinguish between the typical definition of "benevolence" and the notion of "doing what is good". The 1913 Webster's has this to say about benevolence:

Etymologically considered, benevolent implies wishing well to others, and beneficent, doing well.

Note "to others". ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 16:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if God were omnipresent, God becomes irrelevant, because we live within the universe, - Why would that make God irrelevant? Might it not be an important, interesting thing to know that the universe is sentient, purposeful, and aware? Furthermore, there are many who believe that God is everywhere in the universe, but not that the universe is synonymous with God—compare your refutation of pantheism to panentheism.

or we all become Buddhists, worshiping the universe as a whole. - Buddhists "worship" the universe? -Silence 02:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

"Buddhists "worship" the universe?" As far as I understand. I'm not sure about that. --Rovenhot 03:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this statement is incorrect. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 16:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I am arguing against a specific religious meme, as I said above: the Christian depiction of God. Omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence imply each other. If "God" had all power and knowledge in the universe, no part of the universe could exist outside of him, because matter is energy. That would be self-contradictory, since although he contained all power, he could not remove any part of himself from himself. If he did, he would cease to be omnipotent. Thus, "most powerful" may be a better description, but the Bible's description from this angle is too vague to be useful to me. Too much of the religion seems to be based on the idea that God can do anything, which cannot be possible and relevant simultaneously. --Rovenhot 03:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about God

I (129.33.49.251) created this article from its redirection to agnosticism last October (2004), argued against its deletion, and made a few more additions later that year. This gives me no special influence, etc, but the content of this article beginning with "I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about God." is not ignosticism. The statements becomes "I ignore what you're talking about when you talk about God, because there are no verifiable consequences".

This underlies the form of the word: ignosticism, indicating an ignorance of what is meant by a claim of God's existence.

Not the case. Ignosticism is not ignorance of what is meant by a claim of God's existence, but instead an ignorance of the consequences of believing or not believing in God.

The consistent ignostic, therefore, awaits a coherent definition of God (or of any other metaphysical concept to be discussed) before engaging in arguments for or against.

Not the case. The consistent ignostic awaits verifiable consequences for believing or not believing in God.

The majority of these insertions comes from the user from 67.94.0.46 and began in August of this year. Perhaps I am wrong (I have been before and I will likely be again) but I don't like the current state of the article at all.

Perhaps now the damage has already been done enough that since Wikipedia has defined it so, those who have read it since hold ignosticism to be what the article currently says it is. In which case, ah well.

Lastly, this user's insertions also deleted something meaningful from an earlier version of the article (from user 24.170.23.26):

The defining question for an ignostic (apathetic agnostic) is: How would you behave if it were proved beyond a doubt that there is - or is not - a God? The answer would be, "I would have no reason to act any differently."

This is more the essence of ignosticism as I understand it and why I created the article. Simply proving that god exists or doesn't exist is not important, neither is arguing simply that god exists or doesn't exist. Neither is this nebulous (and non-ignostic notion) of begging the question of "I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about God.". Only debate around the idea of verifiable consequences of such belief are important. Restrust 13:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ignosticism may be a neologism, but it is a very interesting concept which is very appealing to me. There is however IMO a certain contradiction in it. 'Ignorance' implies not-caring about something, however the definition of Ignosticism seems to apply to people who do have a very strong opinion about the existence of deities and the consequences thereof. They just don't want to talk about it until there is irrefutable (scientific) proof of the existence of a deity. It seems to apply to people who feel resentful towards deities and religion and towards what has been done or said in its name. [Is it?]

Personally, I feel that scientifically discussing the existence of any deity is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with science. Trying to interpret the bible (or other 'holy' books) and other cultural/historical sources to find scientific proof or falsification of the existence of a deity is just as irrelevant and people that do it come very close to the danger area where these books are taken literally and used as a 'handbook for life'.

Whether or not a deity exist, fact is, that throughout history (distant and not so distant) religion has been very important for the majority of people. Atrocious things have been done in the name of it and at the same time many very good things. It seems that in present time people (at least those that can afford to do this) start to ask themselves “what good is a deity or religion to me?”. And so do I. [Is this really something from the 'present time' like I claim?] Ignosticism seems to apply to people that would answer this question with: “nothing, at least not measurable, so I don't care”. This seems to be a very self-centered position towards religion.

Maybe this is not the right place to discuss this but I'd like to see if some of the opinions I have regarding this resonate with others.

————

It would appear that I am user 67.94.0.46, since the criticized statements look like my writing and are consistant with my personal knowledge of the subject. But perhaps better documentation from printed or other sources would help settle this matter. I'm personally communicating with Paul Kurtz on this question since there seems to be some historic issue over who actually coined the term. In a recent speech (August 18, 2007) Kurtz acknowledged that Sherwin Wine invented it. But then Kurtz added that Wine himself claimed to have gotten it from Kurtz!

In any case, in my more than thirty years of familiarity with and use of this term, I've NEVER encountered the view, except here, that ignosticism must necessarily or exclusively be tied to the specific statement: "I ignore what you're talking about when you talk about God, because there are no verifiable consequences." Although the issue of verifiability has always been associated with ignosticism, that association hasn't been limited just to consequences. Philosophic discussions of verifiability have also been related to questions of meaning and hence to discussions of coherency. In this regard, the "ig" in ignosticism is rooted not only in "ignore" but also in "ignorance" (in the sense of "not knowing"). And this isn't just ignorance of consequences of the God claim but also ignorance of the meaning.

Remember, A.J. Ayer's Language, Truth, and Logic provided the rationale for a new word once he threw out both atheist and agnostic. He had no replacement term to suggest, however, so ignostic was offered to fill the void. And since Ayer was talking about both consequences and meaning, then it's only reasonable, historically, to view ignostic as addressing both. This is why the statement: "I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about God" is indeed a legitimate expression of ignosticism. Fredwords 17:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's Brilliant

This concept is extremely well written and I would love to contact the author. I have incorporated Ignosticism into the docrtine of the Church of Reality. I invite that author to contact me about anything else you've written. --Marcperkel 16:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is an excellent article. I think that many, many atheists and agnostics would actually be ignostics, if only they knew the term. Many people only use atheism/agnosticism because they do not know of a better word for their position. Saying "I am an ignostic" is certainly much easier than saying "I'm a believer in Theological noncognitivism" (11 syllables! Argh!). I certainly hope that this word stays on Wikipedia, and will do my best to spread its usage here and outside. Esn 00:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. I used to consider myself ignostic, though now im an Apathiest, which is fairly similar. DemonWeb 01:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ignosticism, when used reasonably, is always situational, not inherent: because there are so many different definitions of "God" and "god" different people use, as has correctly been noted, only certain ones are meaningless or unverifiable or irrelevant—and others are not. It would be unreasonable (in the sense of being logically inconsistent), for example, to be an ignostic with respect to God, but not an ignostic with respect to Santa Claus. (The same for being an agnostic, atheist, apatheist, etc.) In the end, as noted above, the usage of terms like this probably has more to do with the way people prefer to self-identify and express their world-views, and has relatively little to do with meaningful differences of opinion between people. Likewise, whether or not believing in God's existence is important or practical obviously depends on the context, circumstances, and situation one is in. Regardless, though, from a practical standpoint, dismissing any belief or argument on the grounds that it's always meaningless or irrelevant will come across as pretty weak reasoning, to believers and non-believers alike. Such argument tactics were popular in the early 20th century, but people have now come around to the fact that something being inconsistently defined by people in general isn't necessarily defined inconsistently by one specific individual or another; it's possible to have perfectly reasonable and meaningful discussions about deities as long as a coherent definition is adapted at the onset of a discussion. For example, dictionary.com has some very good definitions of God and god to work from. So, it's usually better to address the specific points raised than to dismiss them all as irrelevant or nonsensical just because the person used the word "God"; you'll get more points across in a discussion that way. Though a true ignostic presumably wouldn't ever be interested in such a discussion anyway, as not only the question of God, but also how one views the question of God, is meaningless to an ignostic, and therefore ignosticism itself is a completely irrelevant idea and not worth wasting time trying to tell others about. :) People who consider discussions about God meaningful or significant, at least on some level, are, after all, the only ones who bother to use words like "ignostic". :) Have you ever described yourself as an ignostic with respect to leprechauns? -Silence 02:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ignosticism and its rational relevance

Well, as to the points addressed above it pertains, I believe that it is irrational to attack the validity of the claims of Ignosticism just because the article stresses the importance of the term. Remember that atheists, agnostics define themselves as such when faced with the mayority of people that are theists. If there wasn't a debate about God and infidels, there would be no need for people to write articles about it, don't you think? The same goes for theists - Why use organised religion, if you can go around life with apathic theism (if you believe in God, and everyone else knows he/it's there, why use churches, rituals and the bible?) This argument can be countered by taking it ad absurdum. There is a need to define the different forms of disbelief, and the very concept of its importance isn't debatable I believe. Besides, what do you expect us to do? To write counter-arguments against everyone else's particular definition of God? When theists reach an agreement as to what God is, then call the atheists to counter that argument. The question of Ignosticism remains relevant because there are so many definitions of God (both epistemological, philosophical, religious and so on) that some people (like me and many others) find the question of God plain irrelevant, useless and daft. --Rodrigo Cornejo 21:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Very nice start article!

Just wandered onto this article and wanted to leave a kudos for those that have done work on it. I hope to be able to contribute to this article in the future! Nemilar 13:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Original research

I've removed some text that appeared to be original research, and I removed the {{verify}} tag as well. Please feel free to request additional citations for the article's current content or to add additional material with appropriate sources. — Elembis (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the general direction of your edits, but I would like to ask why you removed the explanatory paragraphs about the child's/theologian's definition of God. They seemed to do a good job of explaining the reasoning to the reader. Also, the article in its current state does not say where the word "ignosticism" came from; only "igtheism" is cited. Esn 19:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the anonymous edit because it had removed sources and conflated ignosticism with apatheism, but in doing so I also removed the useful material you mentioned. I think it's back in the article now (sans the historical tidbits, which are in Apatheism where they belong). Thanks for mentioning it, and feel free to fix the page if I've still missed something. =) — Elembis (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

References section

The references section is now woefully incomplete and oversimplified after a few days of somewhat careless edits by too many cooks - one person removing the full citation templates because of a section at the bottom, and another person removing the section at the bottom because of the existence of the (now incomplete) citation templates. I would really recommend that this be cleaned up if possible. Esn 09:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. My edits were geared toward the style outlined at WP:CITE#Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes", which the article once again follows. — Elembis (talk · contribs) 09:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

24 May 2007 edit

I just restructured the article with some content changes that probably deserve mention outside of my edit summary. Among them are that:

• The introduction has been rewritten again. I was not comfortable with the description that, to ignostics, "theism is seen as incoherent because of the scientific untestability of a transcendent god or gods" — it seems to me that one could offer a definition of "God" which is comprehensible but which still leaves God's existence as something which is not scientifically testable. (If nothing else, describing God as some kind of physical being in the unobserved universe would be understandable yet beyond the reach of the scientific method.) I hope the new introduction, which is shorter, does not look as much like word soup as previous versions did. =)
• A paper in a journal has replaced ignosticism.zdnet.co.za as a reference for the claim that ignosticism and theological noncognitivism are essentially synonymous. The latter's Ignosticism article is a mirror of our own, so it's no good as a reference.
• Ignosticism and apatheism are distinguished, with the latter described (according to an article in The Atlantic) as a position which is not incompatible with theism. As an aside, our article on apatheism article currently says that apatheism is a form of nontheism (see [8]), while the article in The Atlantic says it is compatible with theism; the former should be changed or sourced.
• Drange's article is given slightly more space for his distinctions between atheism, agnosticism and ignosticism and his emphasis that any of those positions depends on the particular God concept being discussed.

If any of these changes need discussion, this is the place. =) — Elembis (talk · contribs) 05:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In the lead sentence, it needs to say why it is unintelligible, etc. Also, note that the ignosticism.zdnet.co.za website was not a citation for the statement you said it was, if you look at the former version to your edits. hmwithtalk 15:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed a huge error in the introduction ("Ignosticism or igtheism is a form of agnosticism") as this is refuted in the very body of the article. Also, I wonder if there might be room for the sentence "An atheist would say "I don't believe God exists", an agnostic would say "I don't know if God exists or not", and an ignostic would say "I don't know what you mean when you say 'God exists'." It explains the differences rather simply and elegantly. Esn 19:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Hmwith, I confused two sentences. (But the site is still not a valid source for the reasons already given — if we use it, we're making this article cite itself as an authority.) Also, the "An atheist would say..." sentence is back. Thanks to both of you. — Elembis (talk · contribs) 04:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, an ignostic says "I don't know if God exists or not, because I don't know what you mean when you say 'God exists'."

Plus, websites all seem to categorize it as such. hmwithtalk 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if ignosticism is a form of agnosticism (or is usually seen as such), we must have reliable sources to make that sort of statement. We currently have three sources (Ayer, Drange, and the Guide to Humanistic Judaism) who see it as distinct and one (Kurtz) who sees it as compatible, so we can't say fairly that it is a form of agnosticism (or that it isn't) without attributing or qualifying the statement. — Elembis (talk · contribs) 04:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Are ignosticism and igtheism really the same thing?

Ignosticism according to Rabbi Sherwin Wine: "finding the question of God's existence meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences."

Current introduction, cited to Kurtz: "a form of nontheism that believes no conclusion can be reached about the existence of God because the statement "God exists" is incomprehensible since theism lacks a coherent definition of what god is."

Are those two really the same thing, or are we mixing up two different beliefs here? The first version says that it is meaningless, while the second just says that it is unknowable. The first version gives the reason as the lack of verifiable consequences. The second gives the reason as the lack of a coherent definition of God.

Now, the last point does overlap to an extent; if there's no coherent definition, there can't be verifiable consequences. However, the link between "meaningless" and "unknowable" requires a bit more work.

(Also, the zdnet page shouldn't be used as a source. It's nothing more than a copy of an earlier version of this article.) Esn 19:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned this, because the views of Kurtz and Wine do seem at least a little different in terms of their justifications for their views. Their common ground is that they both see "God exists" as a meaningless statement, so that's probably what the introduction should focus on. The problem is that the Guide to Humanistic Judaism (GHJ) definition seems to require that ignostics see "God exists" as meaningless and that they think this because God's existence is unverifiable. Kurtz's description of igtheism is looser and does not require any particular justification.

I think we should treat the "because it has no verifiable consequences" clause as a description of the justification of some ignostics but not a justification that is required. For example, someone might define theism as "belief in God because of personal revelation", but the fact remains that some people are theists for other reasons. Political and religious labels (like conservative, communist, Confucianism and Christian) are used based on the views people have, not their justifications for those views. The GHJ definition is quite unusual in this respect, and until we can track down something that Wine actually said (since I don't know who wrote the Guide to Humanistic Judaism), I don't think we should take the "because it has no verifiable consequences" bit as gospel. Incidentally, the only other mention of ignosticism in the GHJ article doesn't mention a justification: "Humanistic Judaism is compatible with ignosticism. Many Humanistic Jews find the question of God's existence meaningless and therefore avoid God-language."

A second option is to treat ignosticism and igtheism as distinct views, perhaps merging this entire article into Theological noncognitivism. (I don't think "igtheism" is notable enough as a word to deserve a separate article.) In any case, whether "God exists" is seen as meaningless because it's unverifiable or because it's simply incoherent, the differences in justification should surely be discussed (in the "Coining of terms" section or perhaps a new "Justifications" section).

Nice catch! — Elembis (talk · contribs) 04:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My analysis is hampered because I do not have access to either one of the works in question. However, the introduction, which is attributed to Kurtz, does not state that it is meaningless, merely unknowable. Yes, there are philosophical arguments which state that "if something is by nature unknowable, we should act as if it is meaningless", but these arguments (I'm sure there are wikipedia articles on them, but I don't know the names) should be explicitly mentioned in the article. The link should be made. Did Kurtz himself subscribe to such a view? I know, for example, that many theists would not agree with it.

Also, as I said before, unverifiable presupposes that the definition is incoherent. Nothing can be verifiable unless there is a coherent definition (must find a wiki page mentioning this...).

It seems to me that there are two things which differentiate ignosticism from strong agnosticism (which is very similar, and is a bit like an earlier step on the evolutionary ladder of ideas). The first is the belief that not only is the existence of God (if a theologian's definition is used) unknowable, but that this makes it meaningless. In other words, it seems that ignostics are in a way strong agnostics who are also verificationists. The second thing (no less important, and perhaps more so) is that strong agnosticism doesn't adress all the different definitions that exist for the word God, instead seeming to assume that it is something like a typical theologian's definition.

According to the weak and strong atheism article, ignosticism is a type of "weak atheism". However, the definition of "weak atheism" seems to be very muddy and not nearly as well developed, so I'd hesitate from accepting the categorization (especially since it's also used for "agnosticism"). It doesn't seem to be a very useful term.

The main difference between ignosticism and theological noncognitivism seems to be that the latter is sometimes used to justify strong atheism: "Some thinkers propose it as a way to prove the nonexistence of anything named "God". In other words, at least some theological noncognitivists aren't "waiting for a coherent definition", but saying straight out that nothing named "God" can ever have a coherent definition.

The main difference between ignosticism and the strong atheists who come to their position through theological noncognitivism is that the strong atheists would say "since the idea of God is meaningless, this means that God does not exist". In other words, unlike the ignostic, they believe that it is possible to deny its existence even if there is no coherent definition of what "it" is (hmm... seems a bit like saying "no" before knowing what the question is).

Does that sound right? Esn 05:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case... what this article really needs is an examination of what the word originally meant (the person who coined it must've explained it back then) and if its meaning has changed since then. It certainly doesn't help that the very first source for its meaning in the introduction (which is much improved, by the way) links to Kurtz from 1992, who used "igtheism" rather than "ignosticism", and that the definition attributed to Rabbi Sherwin Wine doesn't mention the lack of a good definition for "God", instead seeming to be a version of strong agnosticism combined with verificationism (as I stated above). Esn 06:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The "unknowability implies meaninglessness" arguments you mention remind me of logical positivism. I remember that when I ran across Kurtz's book and read the part on igtheism I noticed a positivist vibe, but I can't provide any details until I run into it again.

I think you're absolutely right in describing ignosticism (at least according to Wine's statements) as strong agnosticism plus verificationism: "we can't possibly determine whether 'God exists' is true, so the sentence makes no sense." I think the way Drange and Kurtz describe "noncognitivism with regard to God-talk" and igtheism, respectively, is the other way around: "'God exists' makes no sense, so we can't know if it's true." There are obviously great similarities between their formulations and Wine's, but it seems there are differences, too.

I'm glad you pointed out that theological noncognitivism is used (by George Smith and others) as an argument for strong atheism; that ought to be discussed in greater detail. (Incidentally, I think you meant to say that agnosticism is equated with weak atheism in the Weak and strong atheism article.) I recall that Michael Martin also discussed theological noncognitivism in his Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, but he did so in the first half of his book (see the table of contents), the half which advocates weak (or "negative") atheism. Like you, I'm not sure that Smith's "nothing named 'God' exists" formulation successfully bridges "'God exists' doesn't make sense" and "God (probably) doesn't exist", but the attempt certainly deserves more mention.

Our edits and discussion have led me to think that the Ignosticism and Theological noncognitivism articles should be made distinct by making the former about the view and the latter about the argument, just as atheism and problem of evil, for example, are separate articles. (You'll notice that Theological noncognitivism is already treated as an argument against God's existence in the template at the bottom of its page and is categorized in Category:Arguments against the existence of God.) That would not resolve the problem of figuring out precisely what ignosticism is supposed to be in the first place, but it would be a step. — Elembis (talk · contribs) 08:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Wine's original statement does seem to correspond well with this article's explanation. "if there is no empirical evidence that could possibly establish either the truth or the falsity of the statement ['There is a God'], then the statement is meaningless". Note the "if"; this means that there could be concepts of God with which he agrees, which is exactly what the Drange quote in this article is talking about. Basically, ignosticism seems to be a step higher than either theological noncognitivism or strong agnosticism. Interpreted from Wine's explanation, it is the refusal to state your views until a coherent definition becomes available. If such a definition does not become available, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view. If a coherent definition is given, he could then hold any number of views, depending on the particular definition. Esn 10:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed the intro

I think I've figured out the major difference, and have changed the intro accordingly. The big problem now is that a lot of the article must now be moved into the theological noncognitivism article, because many of the views are actually noncognitivist in nature rather than holding off judgement until "God" is defined (and noncognitivist only if the definition is found to be incoherent). The Drange explanation should stay, as well as the sentence comparing it to atheism and agnosticism. Some things will have to be moved, of course... Esn 10:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's very simple, understandable, and too the point now. Thanks!  hmwith  talk 16:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the first paragraph again (see the diff). The first sentence had bothered me, because I think a great many theists, agnostics and atheists would agree that a coherent definition of God is necessary before any discussion about the existence of God can proceed. Judging from Wine's comments, the difference is that ignostics think that a given definition isn't coherent, not just that it ought to be. My edit (which itself can be improved upon) was an attempt to make that clearer. — Elembis (talk · contribs) 23:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two problems here. The first is your assertion that most people "would agree that a coherent definition of God is necessary before any discussion about the existence of God can proceed". My own experience seems to point to this not being the case. Indeed, the hardest-to-refute arguments for theism that I've encountered (and, in their own way, the most sophisticated) go something like this: "God is, by his very nature, beyond our capacity to understand, and (because he is all-powerfull) he does not have to make logical sense (because if his existence were bound by the rules of logic, he would not be all-powerfull)". That's one problem - I definitely believe that the statement which you removed is a very important one and should be added back in.

Now onto the second problem: If the quotation from "Spiegel, Ignostic" is correct, Wine actually contradicts himself. One of Wine's statements clearly states that he believes that it is meaningless only if the definition is incoherent. "if there is no empirical evidence". The second statement defines an ignostic as "one who says that the statement 'There is a God' is meaningless by empirical criteria." Do you see the difference there? The second definition is synonymous with theological noncognitivism and igtheism. The first is not (yes, the first definition is also a definition of ignosticism - Wine considered himself an ignostic, and the first statement describes his beliefs. Therefore, it is also a definition as much as the second statement is, even though it doesn't state it outright).

One of the most important characteristics of the first definition is that the person first takes a look at the definition of "God" that is put forward before making a judgement one way or the other. This is NOT as obvious a step as one might assume. Most people believe or don't believe in "God" without once considering that they may have different conceptions of the term (see also that link about children's conceptions of God). This first definition is consistent with this article by Theodore Drange, in which Drange says that the same person may be theist, atheist, agnostic or noncognitivist towards different definitions of God. Drange does not give a name for such a person - one who asks to see the definition before making a judgement - but I had assumed from Wine's first statement that "Ignostic" was the name that he had given for someone who does that.

So, either we try to find more of Wine's writings and clarify which one of the two he really meant - or we mention right in the introduction that there are two definitions, one of which is synonymous with theological noncognitivism and one of which is not. Esn 01:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. You're quite right that the "ignostics believe a coherent definition is necessary" bit should not have been removed. I've heard the "God is beyond our comprehension" (or even "beyond logic") line enough that I shouldn't have made that mistake.

I do see a difference in Wine's two quoted statements (and I've double-checked their accuracy and offered more of the quote), but I'm not sure if it's the difference you see. To me, the first sentence looks like a statement of a principle: "God exists" (or "____ exists" for that matter) is meaningless if (not "if and only if") it's unverifiable. The second is the principle's application (and an example of theological noncognitivism): "God exists" is meaningless (because it's unverifiable). Perhaps the contradiction you see is that Wine jumps to this conclusion without declaring what he means by "God"; on the other hand, I don't see where Wine stresses the importance of asking for a definition in the first place. He says "If there is no empirical evidence that could possibly establish either the truth or the falsity of the statement, then the statement is meaningless", but that simply emphasizes the importance of evidence, not the importance of weeding through myriad definitions of "God". The "What do you mean by 'God'?" question is discussed clearly in Drange's helpful article, but it isn't even implied in Wine's statements as far as I can tell, so this edit of mine should be disregarded. =)

I think the important things to stress, or at least the only things we can derive from Wine's words, are that ignostics think "God exists" (1) is meaningless because it (2) isn't empirically verifiable when (3) it should be. What do you think? — Elembis (talk · contribs) 05:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding for so long... I can't craft a good response at the moment, but I'll try to find time within the next few days. Again, sorry for keeping you waiting! Esn 04:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

From the definition given by the good Rabbi, it sounds like he simply misspelled agnostic. Neither can be said to be nontheist because neither denies the existance of a God, both say that God might not exist. 199.125.109.27 15:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, if you read the article, you can see it's different from Agnosticism, although they are somewhat similar, and some find themselves both ignostic and agnostic.  hmwith  talk 15:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fail to see any distinction. 199.125.109.11 21:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Agnosticism (from the Greek "a," meaning "without," and Gnosticism or "gnosis," meaning knowledge) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), deities, or even ultimate reality is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience.

[Wine] held that "if there is no empirical evidence that could possibly establish either the truth or the falsity of the statement ['There is a God'], then the statement is meaningless." He termed himself an "ignostic," explaining that an "ignostic" is "one who says that the statement 'There is a God' is meaningless by empirical criteria." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.109.11 (talk • contribs)

Summarized (in plain English), agnostics are saying that they can't prove if there is a god as it's impossible to ever prove, while ignostics say that they can't prove if there is a god as there is no solid definition of what is a god. They overlap a bit, but they are distinguishable. I hope that this helps.  hmwith  talk 14:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it's more like this: agnostics don't know if there is a God or not, theological noncognitivists or igtheists say that the existence/nonexistence of a God is impossible to ever prove, ignostics believe that if there is no solid definition of "God", then the existence/nonexistence of a God is impossible to ever prove. There is also a second definition of ignosticism which is exactly the same thing as theological noncognitivism. Esn (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned Up the Introduction

I took a stab at clarifying and cleaning up the wording in the first three paragraphs. For example, it used to say:

If the chosen definition cannot be verified empirically, the ignostic believes that it is not coherent.

This statement wasn't sourced, so I assumed equating unfalsifiability with incoherence is not actually a tenet of ignosticism. In fact, a statement can be completely coherent, but still unfalsifiable. The rest of it was just cleaning up sentence structure and attempts to make it read a little easier. I don't think I changed anything material. --Skidoo 03:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User Edwin McCravy completely butchered the first section. I reverted it. --Skidoo 20:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

--I deny butchering anything. I merely said that no coherent definition has been given to "Yahweh" or "God" (capitalized), thus this sound has no more literal significance than the sequence of letters "Fod" or "Zxcvbnm". --- Edwin McCravy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin McCravy (talk • contribs) 14:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Skidoo is offensive and dumb. He can make his point without criticizing theism

I beg your pardon? Where have I criticized theism? Skidoo 21:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all of those changes were for the better. The "sources" in question were actually deleted by someone from this page. I'm not sure why. Does anyone object to restoring that big chunk of yellow text that was removed?

Unfalsifiability was not equated with incoherence in those sources, this is true (this was Kurtz's definition for igtheism, which we found above in the "Are ignosticism and igtheism really the same thing?" discussion to be distinct from ignosticism. But apparently some trace of the definition still remained by oversight). Rather, unverifiability was equated with lack of meaning. So the current sentence can stay as is, except that "falsifiability" should be replaced with "verifiability".

Overall, this article has become somewhat muddier since I was here a year ago... I'd like to fix it up a little. The very first paragraph for example is pretty muddled, I think. And the sentence "In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless." simply makes no sense to me. What is the difference between "term" and "concept"? Esn (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Opening sentence

"Ignosticism is a word coined by Rabbi Sherwin Wine to indicate one of two related views about the existence of God."

Does anyone else feel the phrase "either of" might be more appropriate than "one of" here? If not, the opening section still isn't clear to me. Sardanaphalus 21:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think that's just a matter of personal preference. The meaning's the same either way. But I don't care. I don't have a problem with changing it. --Skidoo 21:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to "either of" as "one of" read as mutually exclusive to me (i.e. "one is called ignosticism; the other, something different, is called something else"). I realize, though, that's just my interpretation. Hopefully, though, no-one will mind. Thanks for your reply. Sardanaphalus 23:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Article tags

I have removed the ActiveDiscuss tag, because the last significant discussion on this article was from Sept/07, and it was favorable. If anyone objects to this, feel free to revert, but please leave justification comments here. Thanks. --Skidoo (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's that brilliant.

One can vouch or dis-vouch their positions on God depending on the definition of God.

A God that is a separate entity from the universe that made us for his 9th grade science project - I do not believe. A God that IS the universe - Maybe A God that is me (or you, the reader,) watching himself, maybe also true. God is Earth and the Sun - perhaps. That would be cool.

So an Ignostic is just a different word for just plain undecided. Anyone, theist or not, can be an ignostic.

My $0.02 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.180.212.212 (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a word for the undecided - if you read the article, it is clear that ignostics have a very strong position - that in the majority of cases, there is not a coherent enough definition of god, rendering any consideration of their existance or otherwise meaningless. However, as any such thoughts are then meaningless, it doesn't matter what you do or do not believe - belief can indeed be irrational. So an ignostic person can follow a faith. However, unlike agnosticism or atheism, the term ignostic itself does not require a qualifying belief (both atheism and agnosticism require a definition of god acquired from a belief set, wereas ignosticism works without consideration of the proposition of god put forth). Hope that helps you understand the subject! LinaMishima (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

#2 needs to be rewritten

I don't even understand what this means:

"The view that is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by God?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless."

It sounds like "The view that is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, which asserts that skipping ... is meaningless." If this is correct, it needs to be rewritten. If this is not correct, it needs to be rewritten. Ergo, it needs to be rewritten. 131.107.0.73 (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded it, and I think it now makes more sense. What are your thoughts? Does it still need more work? hmwithτ 18:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

examples

These various concepts of non-theism have fuzzy borders and there is dispute over their meanings. If a concept can't be used to predict or describe the world then what use is it? I would love to see specific examples of each non-theistic view. A person who goes about not thinking about gods and the supernatural, who changes the subject when others bring it up is ????? soft atheist? Strong agnostic? A person who shops around all the various concepts of deities and rejects the unprovable ones but may accept the one that appears that is testable and proven is  ????? ignostic? Going down the list of all non-theists with a specific example of each person and their life practices would be so appreciated. 71.86.152.127 (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Note on capitalization

As was necessary in the past, I have corrected several grammatical errors, specifically regarding when it is appropriate to capitalize the word god. Upon reading, I found no such instances (excepting where someone is being quoted and their quote contained a capitalized 'God'. That is obviously appropriate).

It is improper to capitalize the word god (excepting the beginning of a sentence of course) unless referring to the Judeo-Christian god specifically, as they tend to use the word 'God', as their god's 'name'. It becomes a proper noun in that case. There were many uses of the word here (nearly all of them), that referred to anything from the 'word god' to the 'concept of god', yet all were capitalized.

The rules for usage can be found at the following Wiki page;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization

from that page;

"The names of gods are capitalized, including Allah, Vishnu, and God. The word god is generally not capitalized if it is used to refer to the generic idea of a deity, nor is it capitalized when it refers to multiple gods, e.g., Roman gods. There may be some confusion because the Judeo-Christian god is rarely referred to by a specific name, but simply as God (see Writing divine names). Other names for the Judeo-Christian god, such as Elohim, Yahweh and Lord, are also capitalized."

Noisforme (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Strange sentence re: apatheism

"An apatheist may see the statement "God exists" as meaningless, yet they may also see it as meaningful, and perhaps even true.[9]"

They may see it as meaningless as well as meaningful and true? Even the citation seems strange to me, especially when comparing it to the Wikipedia article on apatheism.

173.11.33.161 (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it trying to say, "an apatheist may see the statement "God exists" as meaningless, meaningful, true or false"? --Dannyno (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that seems to contradict the (admittedly limited) research I've done on the subject. 173.11.33.161 (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox issues

I was bold and removed the infobox [9] for a few reasons. 1) The graphic did not give any meaningful information and its meaning had to be described to be understood. This means that the graphic was ineffectual. 2) As noted in the infobox, the definitions provided are not cited and not agreed upon. 3) I found the "inquiring layman" term to be condescending. In the end, I found nothing redeemable about the infobox and felt the article was better without it at all. 98.247.53.229 (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Any reliable sources for Soft vs Hard Ignosticisms?

Are there any reliable sources for the idea of Soft vs Hard Ignosticisms? This would roughly be as follows:

• Soft = I don't know what words like 'God' or 'gods' mean, if they have any true meaning, and therefore I don't know the meaning of questions like 'Do God or gods exist?', nor even whether they have any true meaning, nor how I would recognize their true meaning if I came across it, and so on.
• Hard = Nobody knows (or Nobody can know) what words like 'God' or 'gods' mean, and therefore questions like 'Do God or gods exist?' are meaningless.
  
  

This is rather similar to the difference between Soft vs Hard Agnosticisms, roughly Soft="I don't know whether a God or gods exist" vs Hard="Nobody knows(or Nobody can know) whether a God or gods exist".

I'd be perfectly happy to describe myself as some kind of Soft Ignostic, but the article as currently written ('the term God is meaningless', etc) sounds very much like it is defining an Ignostic as roughly what I call a Hard Ignostic, and I wouldn't wish to have anything to do with such a position. In other words I'm happy to say to a theist that I don't understand what theists are talking about, but I would think I was being grossly arrogant, ignorant, and insulting if I claimed that what theists are talking about must therefore be meaningless - indeed I think I would feel I was being guilty of the usual "I'm right and those who think different are wrong and stupid, etc" that has probably been fuelling religious wars for millenia, though quite likely there are Hard Ignostics who would disagree and give any number of reasons why I'm misrepresenting them, etc (and some or all of them may well be right, for all I know, especially if this article is currently somewhat misrepresenting their position, which wouldn't greatly surprise me). I suspect I may not be alone in feeling as I do, but presumably none of that can go into this article, unless there are reliable sources saying something similar. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

False

Like Ayer, Theodore Drange sees atheism and agnosticism as positions that accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition: atheists judge it to be "false or probably false" while agnostics consider it to be inconclusive until further evidence is met. If Drange's definitions are accepted, ignostics are neither atheists nor agnostics. A simplified maxim on the subject states "An atheist would say, 'I don't believe God exists'; an agnostic would say, 'I don't know whether or not God exists'; and an ignostic would say, 'I don't know what you mean when you say, "God exists" . However, this is false because an atheist would say "There is no god," not "I don't believe in God." 63.247.160.139 (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

See Atheism. Not all atheists are explicit atheists. In other words, not all atheists would say "there is no god." Plenty of atheists say "I don't believe in a god."   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ignosticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Journal/Archives/2002/Conifer.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

sourcechecked=true  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Define both "God" and "exists"

I think the question is even more difficult; not only should you need to define what you mean exactly by "God", but also what "exists" exactly refers to in this context. --Zzo38 (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Ignosticism has a new definition now?

It used to mean: "Ignosticism' is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition" Or the statement 'God exists' is cognitively meaningless.
now it means: "It claims that knowledge regarding the reality of God is altogether unprofitable."
If it's the later what corresponds to the first definition?
--OxAO (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

What does "the reality of God is altogether unprofitable." What the heck does profit and loss have to do with this? Did this person mean unprophetable? If so that would only question theism not atheists and agnostics.

--OxAO (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

This recent deviation towards a new definition goes against everything i have ever known about Ignosticism. As it stands it seems to be more congruent with Deism. The proper meaning was removed at some point this year, it used to mean: "the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition". It seems to me that editors are trying to redefine the term in such a way that it would contrast more with theological noncognitivism and in doing so brought the term closer to Deism. Why this redefinition? Is there some agenda being put forward?

128.61.111.162 (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

An excerpt from a recent (2013) book on Ignosticism starts with the fundamental question that is missing in Wikipedia's definition:

What if the question "Does God exist?" proved to be meaningless? What if the very definition of "God" was incoherent? Could you still, in good conscience, believe in something if it was incoherent and meaningless? Would it even be possible to talk about an incoherent and meaningless thing meaningfully? If not, then what consequences would follow from this realization? These are the questions which the branch of philosophy known as ignosticism concerns itself with...

That basic question "Does God Exist?" now has given way to "What are the properties of God?" That is not a version of Ignosticism that I would recognize.

128.61.111.162 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Tolle

I've removed the section about Eckhart Tolle because it's original research and was added presumably to promote that research [10]; it has (to my knowledge) absolutely nothing to do with ignosticism and the author has not taken any stance or even commented about ignosticism or related subjects in a significant or notable way. It was, in fact, basically promoting misinformation (as can be inferred here from a simple search engine query: [11] ;the poster was led to believe Tolle had a viewpoint or position specifically about ignosticism (not misleadingly) because there was a section entitled "Eckhart Tolle" on the Wikipedia page, which is the first result in a query) for an absurd amount of time (from September 2017 until now, it seems). Removing original research, basically.

The source from Peter Boghossian et. al is a much better source for the article since it actually mentions ignosticism and deals with theological noncognitivism and related philosophical subjects rather than spiritualist self-help subjects (and how they might possibly be related to the subject of ignosticism...?), but may not meet notability standards. There are several sources dealing with the history of the term on the Sherwin Wine article that would be of much better use listed here. 184.88.250.165 (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was - no consensus

Talk:Ravana

I don't understand the purpose of this page. We have an article at Ravana. This just seems like a rival, unwikified article. RickK 08:50, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: Interesting case. An IP with no other contributions has written an essay on the subject of an existing article, and placed it in the article's talk page. Is it a critique of the article or of the subject? Where do we draw the line? There is certainly material in here that should be merged into the article if true. Is someone willing to refactor this talk page to concentrate the useful material? No vote as yet. Andrewa 10:31, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Or as a separate page, with a pointer to it from Ravana. Anthony Appleyard 11:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Talk pages are to discuss the article, not for original research or essays. Mikkalai 22:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC).
• Why not just say: blank it from the Talk page with a note that says, "look at the history for date X if you want to see the long essay someone wrote about this"? I've done that with a few whackjobs who have posted long texts to Talk pages that are of little to no use. Other than that, just Archive it or something along those lines. I'm not sure this is really a VfD issue. --Fastfission 23:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, definately not appropriate for a talk page, but just blank it and get on with life. --fvw* 06:19, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• ARCHIVE the talk page. Please follow standard wikipedia procedure for OT or overlong talk pages, rather than using Vfd as your personal clearing-house for everything. If there is useful information in here, I'm sure future editors will appreciate it if it is accessible. In fact, I suggest you archive or refactor any talk page rather than listing it here. See Wikipedia:Refactoring. The Steve 10:57, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? Who died and made you my mother? This is what VfD is for, so get over it. RickK 20:15, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • I apologize if my tone was overly condescending. I only meant it as a suggestion to keep talk pages off Vfd, which is already overloaded. The Steve 11:03, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• I concur with User:Thesteve that this should be archived and linked to from the talk page, no reason to delete any more than typical talk. -- Jmabel | Talk
• Probably would have just been easier to blank or archive or whatever, but as long as it's here, let's go ahead and remove it from the visible history as well. Delete. - RedWordSmith 23:25, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

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

Galaxy Megazord

Seems to have slipped through the net. Non-notable/encyclopedic. [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] 11:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Certainly not encyclopedic, I've no clue whether this is about a role-playing game, TV series or book. Han-Kwang (talk) 15:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Nonsense as written. Probably from Power Rangers or Gobots or something. Not notable as such. Geogre 16:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• It's a good idea to check the "What Links Here". It's from Power Rangers: Lost Galaxy. Merge back into that article, except not in such minute detail. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Yes, it's Power Rangers. Delete. I'd say it's fancruft. --Idont Havaname 17:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge to Power Rangers: Lost Galaxy —siroχo 23:02, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:19, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• MERGE into Power Rangers vehicles 132.205.15.43 04:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete this fancruft. --Improv 21:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 21:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PsiPog

Non-notable? Alexa traffic ranking of 442,957 and it reads like advertising. However it does get 4,790 google hits. [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] 11:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete for the following reasons: The popularity of the site is in the middle range. The subject matter of the site is pseudo-science. The usual reason for covering a website (when Wikipedia is not a web guide) is that it is a truly significant site that leads the world or provides an invaluable service, that it will be culturally active in some manner. The subject matter of this site does not move me to think we should discuss it for that sake, and the popularity is not sufficiently high for that to be a reason. Geogre 20:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:19, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 17:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - The reasons given by Geogre are sound, and even were it to become a truly significant site at some point in the future, none of what is there would be a loss if it were deleted.

History?

What is the political or social history of the Vietnamese native to China? Le Anh-Huy 17:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

They occationally find those 5 islands in 15c. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Romanization

Why are there two romanizations in Chinese? According to Unihan http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUnihanData.pl?codepoint=4EAC there is only one pinyin version of this for this character.

Standard romanization of Non-Han Chinese people, place,... neednot to be pinyin, e.g. Harbin, Urumq, Va people.--刻意(Kèyì) 01:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Consensus was to move, but there was some concern about what name is the best. So if anyone wants to see if there is consensus on a different name, feel free to do so and propose or move the article based on that discussion. I also saw that Jing Nationality was suggested outside of this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Gin Chinese → Gin people — Relisted. Ucucha 14:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• The official name of them is not based on Chinese language, but native language. Gin and Kinh are different transcription of Vietnamese language of their endonym, just as the majority of China call themself Han people. In Chinese document, Chinese language is called "Han Chinese language" as "official English" in ethnic introduction and Vietnamese language is treated as the abbr of "Gin Vietnamese language" or "Gin language in Vietnam", whereas "Gin language in China" or simply "Gin language" refer the language of resident of Fangchenggang. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't like the current title because of the possible implication that the subjects are ethnic (Han) Chinese which they are not. I'm not crazy about the proposed title which, though fine on the merits, sounds like a race of alcoholics. Despite the term "Gin" being the official term[12] for the people, it is not necessary that Wikipedia use this especially since it is neither Mandarin Chinese (that would be Jing) or Vietnamese (Kinh) but a pinyin-based rendering of the Vietnamese term. Wikipedia uses non-official terms for other Chinese ethnic groups such as Uyghurs, Nakhis, and Monguors. If supported by sources, what about Ethnic Vietnamese in China or something along those lines like Koreans in China? — AjaxSmack 18:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• I kinda like the current title but as Ajaxsmack mentioned, Gin is neither the official mandarin or Vietnamese pronunciation. I suggest we move Gin Chinese → Jing Chinese or Kinh Chinese. Similar fashion to the likes of Hmong American.--LLTimes (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The problem with XXXX Chinese is that it implies that they are Han Chinese, i.e., ethnic Chinese, which they are not. — AjaxSmack 16:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support seems less bad than any of the alternatives. "ethnic Vietnamese in China" seems to conflate several topics (expats, etc.) into a single article, which doesn't necessarily seem like a good idea. (It would really depend whether & how reliable sources discuss Vietnamese expatriates in China). I'm not a big fan of either "Jing Chinese" or "Kinh Chinese", for the same reasons mentioned by AjaxSmack, and more simply because forming neologisms by analogy to American conventions is WP:OR. cab (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Using the name "Gin Chinese" lead someone to a subgroup of Han ethnic, so I advise to move it to Gin people. Here's my points and replies/comments:

1. Gin is their native name, though it's not "Quốc Ngữ". I'd rather say it's Vietnamese government adopted the Alexander de Rhodes' "Quốc Ngữ" than say Gin people adopt a Chinese-pinyin based transcription. Currently, there're no consensus about writing system among Gin people available, so the respectable way to refer them is to use the official term transcripted from their native Gin language - at least it represent their self-identification in 1950s, when the ethnic-recognizer first met them. (Before 1950s, Chinese government call them Yue or Viet people; in 1950s, the government adopted their self-appellation "Gin" to make effort on equality among ethnics);
2. It is necessary to use the official term. Uyghurs is an article describe not only Uigurs in China but also Uyghurs in central Asia, so an alternative Uighur language transcription is accepted, yet Gin people refers only to native Kinh/Gin/Jing in China, excl. Kinh Vietnamese newly migrated to China - Kinh Vietnamese newly migrated to China are recognized as foreigners in China, not Gin people.

--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good point from User:CaliforniaAliBaba about the issue of conflation with recent migrants. Since the context of the article is largely about the official minority, then I support the move for reasons I gave above. — AjaxSmack 10:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

edit warring by ip

Do not delete cited information from the article. the source says the Gin language has no relations to vietnamese- "their linguistic origins are not Vietnamese because they speak a Yue* dialect, one related to those in Guangdong province."ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm the one who has been removing your misinformation. 'Yue' translated to Vietnamese means 'Viet', you dumbass. The source that you pointed to is WRONG, dumbass. There have been several interviews and reports done in Vietnamese on these people. They speak Vietnamese. Their dresses are Vietnamese. The monocore musical instrument is Vietnamese called 'Dan Bau'. Several videos on youtube show them singing Vietnamese folk songs while wearing the head dress and 'ao dai'. You, sir, are a moron. http://tuoitre.vn/Chinh-tri-Xa-hoi/Phong-su-Ky-su/88681/Lang-que-Viet%C2%A0tren-dat-Trung-Hoa.html http://www.talawas.org/talaDB/showFile.php?res=6077&rb=0302 http://vietbao.vn/Phong-su/Tham-lang-Viet-co-500-nam-o-Trung-Quoc/20767257/262/ "They speak Vietnamese, mixed with Cantonese dialect, and some Mandarin" & "They are reported to speak a dialect of Yue, with no linguistic relation to Vietnamese" Do you know how contradictory that sounds when you, dumbass, added the second line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.63.193 (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Watch your language- WP:CIVIL, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and by the way, Yue in this context does not refer to Vietnamese, Yue refers to Yue Chinese (Cantonese), a dialect of which the Gin people speak. unlike Vietnamese, Chinese is written with characters, and has four tones "Yuè" (粵) refers to Cantonese, Yuè (越), means Viet.

The source says "one related to those in Guangdong province", clearly referring To cantonese AKA Yue chinese which is mostly spoke in Guangdong, Cantonese people are known as 廣東人 Guangdong people in chinese.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

71.129.63.193, don't call people morons or dumbasses, it's belligerent behaviour. Also, if you would like to contest content, please provide a peer-reviewed academic paper that has been published in a recognized journal; things such as linguistics are rather precise things, and we need to ensure that information is both reliable and verifiable. You have made various claims to justify removal without making proper citations to reliable sources. Please confirm that "Yue" in this case does not refer to 粵, but rather Viet. Journal papers would be preferable, if not solely the accepted form of source, for linguistics topics, as anyone can feign an expert in linguistics for the sake of nationalism, and write something up; journal papers are written by people with the relevant degrees, and are reviewed by others prior to acceptance to publishing. Keep in mind that anyone can hire a server and create a website, but only qualified people are able to have their studies published. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gin people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514214156/http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/newsandcomingevents/t20110429_402722638.htm to http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/newsandcomingevents/t20110429_402722638.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Chinese-language Interwiki

Why is there no Interwiki for the Chinese-language article?? 76.189.141.37 (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Because the Chinese article on the Gin links back to Vietnamese people in general because ethnicity and citizenship are strictly separated. Just like how Vietnam has its own ethnic minorities. Not every citizen of Vietnam is an "ethnic Vietnamese". --91.142.213.109 (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

"Vietnamesee language in China" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Vietnamesee language in China and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 9#Vietnamesee language in China until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

"Vietnamese in China" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Vietnamese in China and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 9#Vietnamese in China until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Don mandarin Law firm marketing was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete. Cool Hand Luke 09:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Personal essay, under copyright according to article Deus Ex 14:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Copyvio and original research. N.b. it claims to be a "shareware" sales pitch. That's weird. Someone releasing a makecashfast.txt as shareware? <shudder> Geogre 20:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:20, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 07:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, quickly. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 18:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Pussyfoot Promo was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete. Cool Hand Luke 09:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A one track promotional CD, non-notable. Deus Ex 17:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete Bart133 19:53, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Probably band vanity in its newest form. Geogre 20:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:20, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 07:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 17:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 09:07, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Wilhelm Wargentin was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete. Cool Hand Luke 09:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A Swedish country clergyman, father of Pehr Wilhelm Wargentin but otherwise not notable. / up+land 13:18, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. The only notable fact in this article is already in the Pehr Wilhelm Wargentin article. Average Earthman 20:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Unlink from the Pehr Wilhelm Wargentin article, as this is likely one of those cases of overlinking and optimism. If anyone at all knows more about the fellow, that person should be able to have the article creation credit in the history. Geogre 03:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:20, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 07:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Christina Aroselia was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete. Cool Hand Luke 09:58, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Spouse of Swedish country clergyman Wilhelm Wargentin (also on VfD, see above), she is the mother of Pehr Wilhelm Wargentin but otherwise not notable. / up+land 13:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete'. This article contains one notable fact, that she was the mother of Pehr Wilhelm Wargentin, and unsurprisingly that fact is referred to in the Wargentin article. Average Earthman 20:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Unlink from son's article. Geogre 03:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:20, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 07:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Jesse eisenhour

Appears to be nonsense. No google hits for his name and the name of the company he supposedly ran. Also, I don't believe there are rice fields in Indiana. However, I can't be totally sure this is nonsense, so I'll send it here. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:38, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Absolutely nonsense. Bart133 19:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Absolute nonsense. Last name with no capital letter, silly bio has him in three states at his death, NYC meat packing plants, "vast" rice fields of Indiana. Someone thinks this is funny -- probably the enemy of a kid whose father has this name. Then you get the fact that if it were every word true, we'd be looking at a guy whose bio and obit were not encyclopedic. Geogre 20:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, prank, unless evidence is swiftly presented that it isn't. It certainly reads like a prank. "United Meat pack Inc. was quickly dissolved into three separate corporations: United co., Meat co., and Pack co". I don't believe the town of Blackford, Texas (where he supposedly died on August 6, 2001) exists. maps.yahoo.com can't find it, anywho.com can't find anyone there, and the only Google hits for "Blackford, Texas" and "Blackford, TX" are a couple of genealogy-site hits each where the context is NOT the name of a town. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:20, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. --*drew 07:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Clear nonsense Hazzamon 11:42, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Trendnik

Neologism. 21 Google hits, most of which are Wikipedia and one of which is a forum posting by the person who created the article. Delete please. - RedWordSmith 19:10, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Neologism "only in rare use" according to the article, and a formation that's wildly anachronistic, too. The -nik formation was more common in the Cold War era (not that some group of friends didn't coin it in 2002, I'm sure). Geogre 20:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Wolfman 22:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:20, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 07:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Infrogmation 06:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Xtermo and PARALIUM and United Xtermo Networks

None of these are notable -- they appear to be some kind of fanfiction or very small league fiction? Actually, it's not very clear what they are. Delete them. --Improv 19:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Vanity and self-promotion for a sprite comic "artist." Geogre 20:46, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: promo, vanity, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:21, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 07:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all of them. jni 08:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

JonathanEX

Non-notable. Bart133 19:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Signed vanity article about a "sprite" "artist." Geogre 20:47, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The article states it was written by it's subject, which is a bad sign. Also the subject has once removed the VfD notice, indicating that they're not completely up to speed with the Wikipedia rules at the moment, so it might well be a new user mistake. Average Earthman 20:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Note - the original author changed my above comment. Which is obvious to anyone who bothers to read the history of this page. I've changed it back. Average Earthman 17:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Stay: It will always stay because JonathanEX DID edit it. Tommy_Tallarico 20:47, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Is that a threat? Vanity. Delete. RickK 00:25, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. vfd notice has tried to be removed from the page a couple of times now. [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] 21:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Especially since the perpetrator has done a page move to "Votes for keepition". --jpgordon{gab} 21:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Vanity and poorly disguised vanity at that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly vanity. - Vague | Rant 01:27, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:21, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete DCEdwards1966 06:49, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 06:50, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. User is also attempting to subvert VfD -- keep an eye on things. --Improv 04:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 17:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 09:07, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Wierdo

Delete; nonnotable Finnish rock band started last summer that hasn't released any albums. Most of the article seems to be a list of their equipment. Postdlf 20:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I suspect this is a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is for. This band does not appear to be notable. Average Earthman 20:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• delete. Mikkalai 22:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Unsigned, undistributed band. I'm sure we wish them well, but they are not yet notable. Geogre 03:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: promo, no evidence of notability, probable vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:21, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. --*drew 07:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 09:08, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Bedini sg

Original research ... possibly. Hard to tell, because it's not in the form of an article. Noisy | Talk 20:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Uh... this looks fairly weird, and clearly isn't an Encyclopedia article. Looks more like some form of advert. Delete unless somehow massively cleaned up to leave some residue of anything skulking in there that is both verifiable and of some notability. Average Earthman 20:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. A copy from a "peswiki". Mikkalai 22:47, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm not sure what a peswiki is, but I just hate it when they simplify the school girls. (Nonsense.) Geogre 03:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:22, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 07:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was - kept

Wikipedia:Wikipediholic

An anon user placed VFD on this page an hour ago but made no entry here & no explanation (except in Edit Summary, something about "so not needed"). Because it's anon & policy hasn't been followed, I'm inclined to just remove the VFD but I'm not sure that's a legit reason. Besides, haven't we already been through this before with this page? I have a vague recollection--- Elf | Talk 21:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. This page is reference very frequently through wikipedia internal-land. Elf | Talk 21:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Nonesense listing, possibly a newbie mistake. Darksun 22:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Just remove the vfd... —siroχo 22:39, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Done. Clear vandalism by anon. Mikkalai 22:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Go ahead and un-VfD it. There have been folks before who did try to list this very page. I recall their having been disreputable folks. I think this is either repeated vandalism or a renewed mistake. Geogre 03:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Archives

No archives yet.

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Several Unique Sort

The only Google hits I get for "several unique sort" are Wikipedia mirrors, pages from critticall.com and a forum post. This article is nothing but an advertisement for Critticall, and (most significantly) it violates the no original research policy. Fredrik | talk 23:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete per reasons above. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 04:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:24, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• I just tried stepping through the code, and it doesn't seem to even work. Delete as original research. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It works fine, and it doesn't matter what it _seems_ to you. And it is a separate algorithm from others. I suggest you try, before you talk.

I did try, and it didn't work. I said "seem" because I reserved the possibility that my manual code analysis was flawed. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just retried stepping through it. Although the algorithm does indeed avoid excess swapping, the implementation is broken. Try sorting a list of two elements using it, it never terminates the outer do loop because when it tries to sort the single first element, swapindex and position both get set to zero and never leave that value.

Even if it's fixed, the algorithm is still fundamentally a bubble sort, publishing this is still original research, and quite frankly, I think the whole article is an advertisement. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, you tried it wrong, it _is_ working. And the Quick Sort is also "fundamentally a bubble sort".

Advertisement? You will have a lot to clean, if that's the only problem.

Just checked, it is working. And it is the fastest, when there is not a lot of unique records. By far. (comments by User:212.30.90.228)

• Comment: Cyrius's analysis is mistaken; the algorithm terminates and sorts arrays of two items. Gazpacho 02:22, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Yep, I got fooled by the rather convoluted structure. Once I figured out where my mistake was, I rewrote the algorithm into a more conventional form. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Cyrius's analysis of the algorithm may be mistaken, but I think his analysis of the article is spot-on: it's original research which is only mildly interesting (not notable) because of how this minor improvement to the very non-state-of-the-art bubble sort was discovered. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:40, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Improvements are so "minor", that this sort is faster then QuickSort, when you have 1 million records and only several of them unique. Again, test it before you judge it. (comment by User:212.30.90.228)

And then again, what's the use of opinions of those, who are unable to actually test a piece of code? Who have only some "general remarks"?

You say "faster than Quicksort" like it's some sort of revolutionary development. Quicksort is known to have problems with such datasets. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quicksort is NOT known to have problems with such datasets. QuickSort sorts that kind of arrays with several unique records just fine! SeveralUniqueSort is faster in this case, however.

The hell it isn't! An array where every element is the same is one of the known triggers for Quicksort's worst case N^2 performance. An array with many identical elements will eventually contain one or more subarrays that are wholly identical, which will again cause Quicksort to throw fits.

This assumes an ordinary Quicksort, as the algorithm can be modified to better deal with identical elements. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:10, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We are NOT talking about the naive version of QuickSort. We are talking about the so called introsort, for example. Where this bad case is eliminated from QuickSort and which behaves very good on the semi sorted arrays. Its weak point is elsewhere, in fact it is very good for these "several unique cases". But the Several Unique is much better for those cases than ANY other sort. Not just QuickSort.

• Keep: This is indeed original research, which is why I added the warning to the top of the article. However, the algorithm described is hardly someone's pet theory – it actually does what it claims to do and would be of interest to anyone researching sorting algorithms. Wikipedia is supposed to cover the sum of human knowledge, and while Several Unique may be new the article is still genuinely informative.  — Lee J Haywood 10:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikiepdia has an official policy of no original research. Are you saying we should revoke that policy? -- Cyrius|✎ 20:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Of course not, but the policy talks specifically about theories. I don't think that an unambiguous algorithm counts as a theory by itself. The discussion about its relative performance and usefulness does count as theory, and is speculative while the algorithm is new, but I maintain that the article is fine so long as a warning is present.  — Lee J Haywood 22:50, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • While it talks about theories, it is not limited solely to theories. An article about a new algorithm "introduces original ideas". -- Cyrius|✎ 23:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as primary research (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Niteowlneils 16:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And unedelete it when? Never? After it is published elsewhere (where)? After you get more comfortable with the (digital) evolution (of code and/or algorithms)? When you will understand how it works? After a patent for it is granted?

Yes. We pride ourselves on being hidebound reactionaries, you see; all our rules are based around our comfort level. We begrudgingly accepted that maybe this new-fangled "fire" had its places sometime last year. We are of course also rock-stupid; we could not possibly understand how your wonderful, never-before-equalled, dazzling algorithm works because we are still not sure even how the little bunnies who live inside our computers manage to light up all those little pixels at just the right times. yes, you are completely right; this VfD only exists because we are hidebound and stupid -- and not because Wikipedia has a purpose that does not include being a vehicle for publishing original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you say so ... But I am glad, that the only reason now is the "primary research". That those "clever analysis" are out.

November 21

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

Created by troll/vandal responsible for nominating Jimmy Carter on vfd and moving that article to Jameson Carter and other misdeeds. I've blocked this user since he was warned before to stop. This crap should probably go too. --Jiang 00:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Speedy delete or move to a subpage of this user's. Fredrik | talk 00:42, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. -- Arwel 00:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy. This guy is the most dangerous sort of vandal. Wolfman 00:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: A true vandal. Argues for acid trips being encyclopedic content. Geogre 03:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, you aught to go to Wikinerds. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:37, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Patent nonsense. --*drew 07:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: True, this is very much nonsense, but it's in the Wikipedia: namespace. What are the grounds and policy for deletion in this realm? [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 18:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's an unsettled procedural case right now. Again, generally, people are supposed to clean up their own messes, but VfD is available for namespace articles. Normally, one asks the author to knock out the foolish or inappropriate article, and vandal entries can be unilaterally deleted, but VfD can be used. It's pretty reasonable of Fredrik not to seek a speedy. Geogre 20:20, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - opposes the conspiracy to have articles agree with reality. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:37, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• delete Bart133 19:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Metaru Sonikku was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to speedy delete.

Garbage entry created by 69.153.1.98, along with other vandalism. The entry is named after a video game character (Metal Sonic). Nothing in the entry refers to this, of course.12.202.161.176 02:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted, it was utter nonsense. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 03:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep - Mirv 3 December 2004‎

tagged for speedy. i think it is not a speedy candidate. but, since i removed the tag, here it is for a vote. i take no position. Wolfman 04:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, speedy would be fine by me but it is borderline. --fvw* 06:08, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This does need work but I can't imagine how anyone could imagine it to be a delete candidate, let alone a speedy. Honestly, what part of the deletion policy does it invoke? it's not patent nonsense, it's not original research, no suggestion has been raised that it's a copyvio -- I can imagine the possibility of each of these coming to mind when reading the article, but not by anyone who'd made even minimal effort to understand the article or in the last case, even minimal effort to check that assumption. Please, I want to believe the best of my fellow Wikipedians, why would this article be a speedy delete or a delete at all?? -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I authored the piece originally, and do not understand what is wrong with the article, or why it may not be good enough for Wikipedia... It would be nice to learn what is "good enough," and to have critics make positive suggestions rather than simply make negative comments. M Hoffmann
  • One suggestion I'd make (and would do myself if I wasn't already WP-editing when I should be sleeping) is boil the most important essence of the subject down to a very tight intro paragraph, something like "The term wicked problems is used in the field of planning and in research on problem solving to designate a class of problems more difficult than so-called tame problems. While the distinctions between the two classes are many, the key differences are..." That intro paragraph gives a reader a framework to understand the rest of what you're going to say about the subject. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • M. Hoffman, there's nothing wrong with the article. This may already be clear to you if you've been following this discussion. There is a procedure called "speedy deletions" that is supposed to be used for a very limited class of articles, described in WP:CSD. Speedy deletions are typically things like articles that say "asdfasdfasdf." Your article was nominated for speedy deletion by someone. I haven't bothered to ask that user why. I think most of us believe that whoever did so was a jerk. The actual deletions are performed by sysops, and User:Wolfman, examining the list for action, quickly recognized that it was not a speedy. In such cases, procedure calls for it to be discussed here in Votes for Deletion. Here, I think the issue under debate is whether "Wicked problems" is truly encyclopedic, whether it is a real phrase in real use, whether H. J. Rittel is notable enough for his concept to be worthy of an article, and whether you wrote the article yourself or copied it somewhere. For an article to be deleted, it must be discussed for five days and there must be a "rough consensus to delete," often interpreted as a 2/3 majority to delete. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Antaeus makes a fine case. Please, fvw, could you give more indepth reasoning for your votes, because it's hard to understand why you think we should delete the articles you vote on. In this case particularly, it would be good for everyone to be clear why this should be deleted, because it seems to me this is absolutely nowhere near the line, and if I'm wrong about that, I'd like to know why. Keep.Dr Zen 07:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • You're correct, it's not a speedy, my bad; It looked like yet another cut and paste homework article by an anonymous at first glance. I'm sticking with my delete vote however, putting an odd name on pretty much all real-world problems does not noteworthy make. --fvw* 07:25, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
    • Even an actual copyvio is not a candidate for speedy deletion. As for it being just an "odd name" on "pretty much all real-world problems", the article lists four defining characteristics and eleven secondary characteristics of the theoretical classification. That's more than "an odd name". If you have reason to believe that those characteristics are ill-chosen and that the theoretical construct is of only illusory value, then that is legitimate opposition -- but not opposition that should be dealt with by saying "Delete; this doesn't seem very useful to me so we shouldn't even acknowledge it as a perspective on problem-solving." -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:52, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• First, it's refreshing to see an article that appears to be about something worth thinking about -- as opposed to game trivia, etc. etc. I'm surprised to see it as a candidate for deletion, let alone speedy deletion. It's not trivial, not vanity, not spamvertising, etc. Therefore, keep. However, it does seem uncomfortably close to Wicked Problems -- this gives it more credibility (whereas it's so abstract that it might otherwise be an elaborate hoax) but it could be profitably rearranged. In addition to the introductory paragraph already recommended, I'd like to see specific examples: not just unspecified problems in this or that field, but specific problems. Hoary 07:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, the arguments above are convincing —siroχo 10:44, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep: I had wanted to do some cross-checking this morning, but I have to say that I agree with the author that it's pretty clearly not a speedy. When an article is inappropriately tagged with a speedy delete tag, it's customary to drop it onto VfD so that the nominator has a chance, at least, to explain what's wrong. The article seems to be in process and doesn't seem to be original research at all. Geogre 15:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Nominations such as this are proof that we need a better VfD process. Our current one is broken. Badly. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 16:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Why is it broken? It seems to be working rather well in this case. Someone thought this was a speedy, but I disagreed. So I put it up here to let the community decide, even though I would normally not have nominated it myself. What's wrong with that? Wolfman 17:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Wolfman, please do not take this as a personal attack. You rightfully removed the Speedy tag. The simple fact that anyone can tag something as Speedy and then we all have to vote to keep it is a nominal waste of time. If you fail to see that, then lets agree to disagree. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 18:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • A speedy deletion request for something that should not deleted is a disagreement. Seems to me that requiring that such a disagreement receive discussion is a good idea, and VfD seems like the obvious place for that discussion to take place. In a healthy VfD process, I'd expect some VfD discussions to reach consensus to keep. What's the alternative? Revert wars on speedy deletion? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, unless someone can give a better explanation of why it would be a deletion candidate. It's not original research. It purports to be a summary of work that is properly referenced. I vaguely think I've heard the term "wicked problem" in this context before; if I have heard of something, it's probably notable (though the converse of course does not apply). Ah. I know where I heard of it. It was a programming book entitled "Wicked problems, righteous solutions," ISBN 013590126X, I think I saw it browsing through books in the Softpro bookstore and dithered about whether to buy it and didn't. Google gets 12,400 hits on "Wicked problems" (exact phrase) and the top hits are all relevant. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I just wrote and posted a very short article about Karl Deutsch's work (global, complex problemmes, understanding and solving) and made a link to this article. I brelieve it is needed. User:Lcgarcia 16:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC-5:00)
• Was Keep before the editing done after the VfD nomination, and now a Stronger Keep. I do wonder, however, about the title, which doesn't really make much sense unless you already know the subject matter or until you read the article. Would it be better to have a title like "Wicked problems in plannning and engineering" with a redirect from "Wicked problems"? [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 11:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as a result of proactive editing. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• The vote seems to favor Keep. What is the process by which the Deletion banner is removed from the article? User:DrJeff 20:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

I'm thinking this is patent nonsense? RickK 05:33, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Perhaps not patent nonsense. I suspect that the good Mr. Lewis with the crimson 'neath his chin is a fictional persona of either "Bob" or "David" of the bobanddavid.com website the external link goes to. However, the article does not make it clear that Mr. Lewis is a fictional persona, and I can't think of any instances offhand where a comedian got one article for himself and a separate one for his fictional persona(e). -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • W/o offering an opinion on the VfD Barry Humphries and Dame Edna Everage are the same person, as he admits (even though she won't). --Jerzy(t) 05:39, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
    • I wasn't aware that they had two separate articles. I would have advocated that they be combined into one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete -Cookiemobsta
• "C.S. Lewis" sounds sufficiently crass to be a major success in a certain subgenre of country music. And the article is pretty funny. I'd love to say retain, but somehow it's too good to be true and therefore I must reluctantly say delete. Hoary 06:40, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• C.S. Lewis is a crass figure?! wtf? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• It's a small character from a single episode of Mr. Show. Don't think anything from this article is in the show though. He's mentioned on the List of characters from Mr. Show page. I delinked all the red links on said list, and wrote a sentence or so about several of them to discourage breakout articles such as this. Redirect to List of characters from Mr. Show. No merge. -R. fiend 07:49, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Did the redirect myself. No need to discuss it anymore, I figure. -R. fiend 08:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Eduoption was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Original research? Advertising? Vanity? There are 113 Google hits for "eduoption", almost all referring to eduoption.com. RickK 05:41, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Kill it. Kill it now. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 05:51, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, my guess is advertising more than vanity. Shane King 06:23, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. --*drew 06:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. —tregoweth 07:22, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Jargon. I'm not sure it's advertising, quite, but it's either that or a neologism. Geogre 16:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising. --LeeHunter 18:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Neat neologism. I have a new one: dextreet. Hmm, maybe not. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Asia Cat was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Non-notable feline. Zachlipton 06:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Isn't this what speedy deletion is for? Delete, of course. Hoary 06:48, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• My understanding is that speedy deletion is for just garbage entries and the like. Of course, please correct me if I'm wrong. Zachlipton 06:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, there you are -- how is some proud owner's article about her new moggies not a garbage entry? Why should we be so squeamish -- it's not as if a "speedy" would be a suggestion to zap the moggies themselves. (If I now decide to create a lucid and neutral article about the lunch I've just eaten, would deleting this require a totting up of votes for and against? Say it ain't so. Oh, and here's something else: my article about my lunch, like this about the moggies, is a matter of original research.) Hoary 07:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Speedy deletion is extremely limited. It applies only in an enumerated list of cases at Wikipedia:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#The_cases. Various alternative deletion mechanisms have been suggested and voted on, but so far none have been put to use. — David Remahl 07:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete...Not speedy. — David Remahl 06:50, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• A great cat. This shouldn't be deleted.
  • [Posted unsigned by 24.16.35.135 above Zachlipton's original comment; I moved it down here. —tregoweth 07:31, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)]
• Delete without a doubt. If this isn't a speedy deletion, then the policy needs to be expanded. There is no reasonable basis for keeping this article. Postdlf 07:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks speedy-worthy to me. —tregoweth 07:31, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Blatant vandalism, speedy case #3. See the author's contributions and talk page: [13] . Nevermind original research, vanity, etc... - RedWordSmith 07:37, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Assuming good faith, it is possible that this is a good faith article from a reformed author. Looking at Wikipedia:Vandalism, which is referenced by #3, the only possibly matching type of vandalism is "silly vandalism". I guess, given the editor's history it can be called an extended newbie test, by someone who has been warned but I don't think it's a clear-cut case. — David Remahl 07:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. What happened to the vote with preliminary deletion? If this isn't a speedy it would be nice to be able to get rid of it at least a bit more quickly. -R. fiend 08:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business" or your cat either. Kappa 09:49, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• This is an obvious delete as an unverifiable "vanity" article. It is not a speedy delete according to any of the specific cases. It is also not blatant vandalism according to the way we use that term. Comment: We have tried repeatedly to define a case that would allow for the speedy deletion of obvious vanity articles. Every proposal so far has been rejected as causing more harm than good. If you feel strongly that this article ought to be a speedy candidate, I encourage you to review the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion and propose on how we can reliably distinguish between vanity articles and stub articles on obscure topics. Rossami (talk) 15:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: This is an obvious delete. Both Niteowlneils and I have attempted to come up with new criteria. The wonderful demos was sure that it was all an evil plot. <shrug> This has to stay and go through VfD. Geogre 16:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I still don't get why not a speedy? --Woggly 12:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's finally been speedied by someone with a very liberal interpretation of the speedy cases. It's not patent nonsense, nor vandalism, because it is coherent. The patent nonsense case (the way I read it) is for content like "fgffgfgfgfgfg" or "Mark and very did jiggling of having day bad". Rosammi and David R provided the links to the cases. What people don't seem to realize is that, at least most attempts to expand the speedy cases are NOT really changes to how Wikipedia operates, but simply try to get the deletion policies more in line with current practice. Check out my examples at User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/--most would be deleted under current practice, but none of them are speedy candidates according the way I read the current policies. (FWIW, the contents of Asia cat were "Asia is a young cat that was born on April 15th, 2002, with her brother, Magwi Cat. Charming, young Asia and her brother live with two great owners in the suburbs of Seattle, Washington. These two great kittens came from Meow Cat Rescue, located in Washington.") Niteowlneils 23:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Vanity. Gamaliel 07:54, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Autobiography, vanity. Geogre 16:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if its not vanity (I think it is) Google finds <300 results. Not notable. David Johnson 17:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Puck (Lieutenant) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

If anyone can verify it's actually true, it should be merged into Perry Rhodan. --fvw* 08:05, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

Here is the best reference I could find: http://www.perry-rhodan-usa.com/web1998/Mainchar.htm#Pucky

I doubt, though, that the text and/or image from this page can be freely copied, it's a copyrighted translation of an unknown [to me] source. -- dms 01:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--Delete, fancruft ping 07:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete and merge into Perry Rhodan. Fancruft. David Johnson 17:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete and merge into Perry Rhodan. I know a little bit about Perry Rhodan from various people on some of the forums I visit, and they have never to my mind talked about this character. It is fancruft. Edit: Forgot to sign in. ScottM 02:24, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• As said above, delete and merge. -R. fiend 07:30, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Avatarism was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Delete nonnotable and nonsensical religion—hard to tell if this article was even meant seriously. Postdlf 08:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Perhaps not meant as nonsensical, googling does give a few hits, not sure if they're all related to this avatarism (or should I say this incarnation of avatarism-one). Either not quite notable, or nonsense though, so weak Delete --fvw* 09:01, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Delete: Seems to be a joke. If not, it's a brand-new religion seeking adherents. We don't serve as advertising nor proselytizing platforms. Geogre 16:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Although the word 'avatarism' appears on the web, it doesn't seem to be in reference to this supposed religion. --LeeHunter 18:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Weirdness plus was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

So non-notable it makes my toes hurt. --fvw* 08:52, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

• Delete. Postdlf 08:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I hope they're joking. If not, this is even more trivial than a joke told by a non-recurring character on a Japanese cartoon show that has never been translated but which is shown only on the Internet. Geogre 16:18, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Clearly near and dear to the hearts of those who were there at the time. But notability to anyone outside that small circle, alas, unestablished. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Notable only for its non-notability. --LeeHunter 18:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Surely they're not serious??? David Johnson 17:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 17:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I find it fascinating, and can't really see any reason not to include it. Voyager640 02:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Ditto Voyager64. Dahamsta 02:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Light keep. Assuming that the editors ever go on to do something better, it would be useful to keep this article -Cookiemobsta 02:34, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, and merge this material in with an article on the magazine Throttle (magazine), if it is kept at all. - Scooter 04:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• A junior high school paper? Don't waste my time. Delete -R. fiend 07:34, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Pea soup was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep.

Well, we had quite the discussion about this in #wikipedia chat, and eventually agreed that posting it on VFD to gather a consensus would be the best way to go about it. So: I feel that the article partially needs to be transwikied to the Cookbook, which leaves us with an article which is purely an attack on Apple pie, which I'm sure some of you are aware has been going through some controversy. The image in the pea soup article is purely a parody of the image on apple pie, and while I have no opinion on the apple pie image, I don't feel that satire is Wikipedia's place. Others feel that the recipe is justified, in that it provides depth in information about pea soup, and that the image represents, as it says, Finnish cultural icons, whether it is designed to make a point or not. I do not have issue with the information about pea soup in Finland (though it is perhaps a little POV, on second look), but I feel that without any information on pea soup itself, the article is without worth. Opinions? - Vague | Rant 09:38, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Transiwki part, keep the bit about Finnish culture. —siroχo 10:42, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Well, an article on "pea soup" is not wholly a bad idea. It has a part in English culture too (it was a staple of the working classes, and of course, as a consequence London smogs were named after it). I don't know what the controversy is about apple pie but I think an ironic glance at another article is a nice touch and, if done well, not necessarily something that needs to be frowned on. Recipes are out though. Keep but it should be mercilessly edited adn the recipe sent to whoever collects these things.Dr Zen 10:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I vote keep since I think that this is a subject that could be expnanded (pea soup isn't just a part of finnish culture). Transwiki the recipe this isn't a cookbook. Jeltz 11:37, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Keep Pea soup is notable, and encyclopedic. not to say that the article couldn't use some transwiking or cleaning, but I think the article should stay. McKay 14:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Once you move the recipe to Wikibooks and delete the irrelevant parody content, this article will boil down to "Pea soup - A soup made of (among other things) peas". I don't see how this can be expanded into an encyclopedic article. I'm willing to be proven wrong but right now I consider this a transwiki and delete. By the way, the connection to Finnish culture is properly discussed at Hernekeitto, not here. Rossami (talk) 16:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep it. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 16:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• It's a joke! Look at the sarcasm in it. At any rate, the recipe should be transwiki'd to Wikibooks. A less "funny" article on the cultural importance of pea green soup to Finns could take place in the Culture of Finland article. Geogre 16:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Pea soup is a basic food item of importance in a number of cultures. I don't know about Finland, but IIRC erwtensoep (sp?) is a classic item of Dutch cuisine. Pea soup is mentioned in Aristophanes The Birds. A novel by Thackeray contains this exchange: "Why don't you ask some of our old friends? Old Mrs. Portman has asked us twenty times, I am sure, within the last two years." "And the last time we went there, there was pea-soup for dinner!" Mrs. Timmins said, with a look of ineffable scorn. In Tess of the D'urbervilles Tess says "we have several proofs that we are d'Urbervilles....we have a very old silver spoon, round in the bowl like a little ladle, and marked with the same castle. But it is so worn that mother uses it to stir the pea-soup." There appears to be a "Pea Soup Andersen's" restaurant in California. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • "Pea Soup Andersen's" is indeed a local landmark in Buellton, just up the road from me (don't worry, I won't write an article on it). Btw, Andersen's is Danish, and they used to have their menus bilingual in Danish--I'm wondering if pea soup is a part of Scandinavian cultural in general. Antandrus 16:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Lose the recipe, but the topic seems at least marginally encyclopedic to me. Antandrus 16:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • On second thought, keep the recipe. The article's looking quite good now, thx to Dpbsmith. 23:48, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I found another article about peas soup. Specifically about Swedish pea soup. Ärtsoppa means pea soup and I don't really think that the subject pea soup is is pig enough (yet at least) to justify an article about the Swedish version (I don't know what the regional differnces are). Jeltz 16:51, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
  • This is the wildest guesswork, but I would think that dried peas were historically a plentiful, cheap, nutritious food that could be stored without refrigeration, and pea soup the result of reconstituting them. I'll bet it was an important diet element anywhere peas were grown. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:06, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • That is also my belief but I leave any deeper analysis to an expert of the subeject. Jeltz 22:07, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Keep. Pea soup (in the form of dhal bhat) is still the staple food of parts of Nepal. Gdr 21:14, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Keep. And Pea soup, Hernekeitto and Ärtsoppa needs merging cause they are all about the same thing, just in different languages. bbx 21:22, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Delicious article. Beautiful soup. The theories about its intent, whether true or not, are irrelevant. It's not a disruption to create a useful article! And this one looks like it will develop into a real beauty. Andrewa 23:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Wow. Why would anyone delete this? Keep. Andre (talk) 23:45, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Andre, perhaps you should read the article as it was when I VFD'd it: [14]. I don't think it's fair to judge my actions based on the current version. - Vague | Rant 05:04, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - the article today is definitely noteworthy thanks to the work of various people. BTW User Vague also deserves praise for putting it forward so that the improvements could be made. Capitalistroadster 10:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I second that sentiment. IMHO, this is a shining example of how VfD can work to produce a high-quality article from a relatively unpromising start (Shoe flinging was another memorable example). Antandrus 16:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Mark Richards 17:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Great work. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: What's the difference between mashed potatoes and pea soup? Anyone can mash potatoes! [[User:Bobdoe|-- Bobdoe (Talk)]] 23:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Should there not be a protocol for early removal of listings which clearly are not going to be deleted. What is the purpose of keeping this page up for 7 days? --Tagishsimon (talk)
  • I don't think so. It would just another dollop of complexity to our procedure. And we'd probably need to have a page for "Votes For Early Removal Of Votes For Deletion Discussions Discussions." And concomitant flamewars. And a page for "Votes for Unremoval Of Deletion Discussions That Were Removed Early Out Of Process..." I customarily skip VfD discussions in which the outcome is obvious. Anyway, speaking as one of the editors who helped improve it, I get a warm fuzzy out of watching the lengthening string of "keeps" and compliments. I just don't bother voting in discussions where I think the outcome is determined. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Dpbsmith, the process, although convoluted (complex isn't the word) is never followed to the tee. I've seen many articles remain on VfD for over 2 weeks (which were posted properly). Some streamlining of the process can and should be done. But this isn't the forum for that. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 22:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Flag of North Brabant was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to redirect.

The flag of North Brabant is already shown in North Brabant. If anything more of interest can be said about it, it should be done in that article. --fvw* 11:54, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

• Delete: Speedy delete candidate, actually, for spam, although I'm sure that wasn't the intent of the creator. Again: a single line that goes to a link is spam. There is no content in this article at all, just a link. Geogre 20:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• The editor who made the page probably doesn't understand the process all that well. I don't think it is spam (given the assumption of good faith) but it has no content and could be speedily deleted.Dr Zen 22:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Nothing at all worth keeping. David Johnson 17:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect. Mark Richards 17:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mark (and the Earth stood still). Redirect to North Brabant. RickK 20:58, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect. Intrigue 17:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied per CSD#A1. Radiant 14:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sprankton

This page was voted to be Speedy Deleted in November 2004 yet is still here BrowardHick 07:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Old discussion follows:

---

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

Appears to be some sort of joke. I don't get it. --fvw* 12:11, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

• Speed deleted as silly vandalism. Content was: Sprankton A noun. A disease you get from chewing too much etc. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Move to wikidictionary?

---

• Delete, article was deleted numerous times for being nonsense and since dictionary.com doesn't know about its existence, I'd have to agree. Please let this one run it's full VFD, so we can delete any recreation in line with CSD criteria (which need a full VFD discussion). - Mgm|^(talk) 08:21, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Kjkolb 12:16, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete be gone with the gum. Alf 14:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary --fvw* 12:23, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

• Delete. This article totally sucks. POV, dual content (which could be split into a dictdef and a nonnotable page), irrelevant... McKay 14:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This is no dictionary, and I can't see what encyclopediac content that can be written about totally. Jeltz 15:41, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• I totally think that this article should be deleted. --Idont Havaname 20:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Incorrect dictdef followed by a website review. Both are inappropriate content. Geogre 20:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Totally. --Woggly 12:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Like, Oh my gosh. This article should be so Deleted. --Improv 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Totally and extremely delete this. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I say delete. Cnwb 04:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Totally delete it! Bart133 19:08, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• The parts that aren't dictdef make me long for the parts that are. Delete with fire. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Fatuous love was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

I'm not aware of this term being used exclusively, or frequently, in the manner described. Deb 12:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Even if it is used frequently in this manner, it would need some reference to outside sources--who uses it and when/why--as well as a good amount of expansion to move it past the dicdef stage. Delete. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:20, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Private slang and incorrect dictdef. Geogre 20:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Synonym for Fatuous article -- GWO 12:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Charles Rettig was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

This looks like self-promotion, so I marked it for deletion. JoaoRicardo 03:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Could well be a vanity page, but is so painfully long and lacking context that it doesn't deserve to be an article. Estel 15:02, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Ouch Delete Jackliddle 17:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: A posted CV -- expressly forbidden by policy. Geogre 20:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. -- JamesTeterenko 02:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Double Delete vanity-posted CV and he specializes in Taxation. UGH! ExplorerCDT 05:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• According to this Google search this is a copyright violation, although the response shows him as working in Louisiana, plus when you click on the link that comes up, the page doesn't show. Apparently he hasn't gotten around to putting up the same identical page for his California practice. Delete. RickK 22:49, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice This isn't even a CV, it's an advertisement. Dreadful. Wyss83.115.10.183 03:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Diamond 5 was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

No evidence of notability. Tuf-Kat 16:07, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

• No evidence of notability and at this point, I take phrases such as "[band] as a rock band was incredibly complex and needless to say, its history even more so. It's hard to talk about [band]" as evidence that the obvious question of notability is being actively avoided. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Unsigned, unreleased. They made their own CD at one point, but most of the songs they're mentioned as playing are covers. Memorabilia. Geogre 20:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Although its shame, more work has gone into this than most other non-notable articles
  • Above vote left unsigned by Jackliddle, 17:34, 24 Nov 2004. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 08:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Not exceptionally notable, but such things are in the eye of the beholder, and this is not an advertisement; it sticks mostly to the facts. Needs some cleanup. - Scooter 04:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete some good writing, but not for an encyclopedia Cdc 07:05, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. What Geogre, Cdc and the unsigned voter said. Niteowlneils 16:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete it, extremely. As much as I hate to see this article go -- and I really do -- I earnestly tried to find this group in a number of databases and search engines. Other than Wikipedia, it doesn't seem to exist. 0 hits/matches. Diamond 5 cannot be saved. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 07:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. The article's well-writen, informative, and interesting, even if the subject is a bit obscure. P Ingerson 01:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Maiev Shadowsong was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was inconclusive.

A fictional character from computer game, not even the most important one (having seen the game, I had never heard about her). Delete. Grue 16:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I would need clear proof that this character is of any significance separate to the game to support keeping. Average Earthman 17:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:19, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect only. No one will search it without knowing it. Geogre 20:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't get it. If no one will search for it, why have a redirect? Maybe you meant "merge only"? Grue 20:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are two reasons for a redirect. One is to help searches. The other is to prevent article recreation. I was thinking the latter. Geogre 02:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • Redirects are cheap, and this way it won't be created again. What's the harm? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:50, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Quite weak delete. This is still better than some of the Pokemon articles and other stuff here that I have seen. Jeltz 22:14, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
  • To expand on my vote: I wouldn't as a warcraft fan really want to see this kind of articles on Wikipedia but there are already a lot of them so it's partly a question of where the line should be drawn. Jeltz 22:22, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
    • I suggest some W3 fan would make an article Warcraft III storyline so that would be the only article about these characters. Maybe redirect there too. Grue 07:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I added a heap of information about her in a recent edit, and I believe her contributions to the Warcraft Universe are quite significant, as she was the driving character of the Night Elf campaign in The Frozen Throne. UED77 20:47, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
• Keep. You guys are aware that she's basically the 'main character' of the Elf campaign, right? She's as important as Arthas, Ner'Zhul, etc. Scumbag 01:16, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Oké bananas was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to redirect.

This, and a whole bunch of other pages created today by the same anonymous user, strike me as little more than advertisement. --Woggly 17:42, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) Additional pages are: Kuyichi, Solidaridad (borderline encyclopedic), AgroFair Just to clarify: I think that the concepts, and some of the organisations, are probably encyclopedic. But individual brands I think is stretching it a bit far.

• Uncertain. I think that Fairtrade, as an organisation could do with its own page. At the moment it is lumped in with Fair trade the concept. Jeff Knaggs 17:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: As individual brands, these deserve a mention at the parent article. Fairtrade is worth an article, and its brands can be mentioned there. Further, these articles are substubs that merely say "is a brand of company." Predicate nominatives are not sufficient content. Geogre 20:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Some brands deserve articles (e.g. Oreo, a brand of Kraft Foods [I think]). With 404 Google hits, this doesn't really cut it. Redirect to Fairtrade. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:47, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Fairtrade. a) Not notable enough for its own article, and b) there's really nothing in the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Rhy Thornton was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Non-notable member of non-notable musical group. --LeeHunter 18:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. If he really created a movement, there would me more than 8 google hits for him. Gamaliel 19:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Of those Google hits, only two seem to be for a musician. I came up with an instructor at the Encitas School of Music. All Music has never heard of him nor the band he founded. I don't know whether the story is true or not, but the claims are unverifiable. All articles must be verifiable. Geogre 20:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. David Johnson 17:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Ressonace Cascade was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

I can't believe we need a separate article on a fictional concept of such minor interest, particularly since the author can't be bothered to spell it properly. Deb 18:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Gamaliel 19:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: The Half Life article already mentions this fictional disaster, and it spells it properly. Geogre 20:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: covered under Half Life and Half Life 2 Fifelfoo 22:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Half-Life. Plus a version of it spelled correctly. I think this preempt any future confusion about whether this is a real term or not. --Fastfission 23:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and merge anything useful into Half Life. Don't redirect because 1) its spelt wrong 2) I can't imagine anyone, ever entering the term into Wikipedia. David Johnson 17:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete without merge. Otherwise concur with David Johnson. --Improv 21:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• The G-Man told me to say delete. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Suggestions page was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Doesn't seem an appropiate place. Should have "Wikipedia" prefix. I thought that one of these already existed anyway (though I can't find it :S. Similar to "Requested features". Delete. Estel 19:46, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. The Village pump is where you can make comments and suggestions. Jeff Knaggs 19:49, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Found it now: thanks. Estel 20:07, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Duplicate and unneeded function. Geogre 20:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The author seems to have agreed to this. Andrewa 23:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - could prove very useful. Dracula the bat

**Note. This user does not actually exist. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Quoth the raven, Eversor. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 16:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • • Sorry, I got confused there with all the windows I had open from "Dr. Chicken's" contributions and thought this was one. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 16:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - could prove to hinder the usefulness of Wikipedia, as the Village Pump is a convenient place for this sort of discussion and we don't need to split it into two pages. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 16:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Easy delete, this is the wrong place for this. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:36, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep.

This short bot page is not very good, and merely duplicates some of the information from the Nashville, Tennessee article. It's listed as an orphan, and no wonder. RivGuySC 20:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• The problem is that there are thousands of these useless articles. Someone decided that the United States was so notable that every administrative subdivision in it should have a page. Maybe they were right. In any case, deleting them all would be an enormous task with this process. Still, towns with two inhabitants notable, schools with thousands of attendees not notable? Hmmm. Still, this is actually, it seems, a city-level subdivision. If it is Nashville (it seems to be), maybe redirecting is the right thing. If it's something else, keep.Dr Zen 23:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Rambot articles are a great thing. This seems to be about a "balance" of a city that is in a county. I.e. it seems to be suggesting that the part of Nashville that's in Davidson county doesn't get counted in the Nashville stats? It's not very clear. All cities and towns deserve articles, including those in the various parts of the EU, and Rambot is NPOV (cf. what happens with Australian towns submitted by users who make up places, call names, etc.). Abstain for now, because I cannot tell yet whether this is a demographic correction or just a local partisan cutting and pasting the Nashville article. Geogre 02:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The article is legit. Check the history, it was created by the rambot. What it represents is just unknown. -- Ram-Man
  • Weird. Ram-Man's suggestion is probably the best, here: Merge and redirect to Nashville, Tennessee. (Look, I get annoyed having every other random page be a demographic, but you should compare that to the taunting and juvenalia that goes on with cities that aren't done by Rambot.) Geogre 17:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. These rambot articles were in hindsight probably a mistake, they've made the geography coverage very US-centric. A small town in say Uganda probably won't get a corresponding article. But that can't be undone. Deleting them, or even sorting through them, is pointless now. They did help to set the bar as to what is encyclopedic, and in hindsight they set it a bit low. But it was good to set it. Andrewa 08:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. And over time the geography coverage is growing more global. If Uganda were to release census data like this and someone were to make a bot for it, I would accept those articles too. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Hindsight, schmindsight. It was obvious at the time they were a mistake, but this was during the time when some people (hi Ramman!) thought increasing the article count trumped all other considerations. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, but some idiots wouldn't be told. GWO 12:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Not true, but no offense taken. As fun as it was to see article count going up, I performed the work because that was what I was interested in, same as everyone else (See the initial edits by User:Ram-Man if you don't believe me). I added almost all of the 3,141 county articles manually the same as anyone else, without the help of a bot, before finally writing the bot in order to help me with cities. -- Ram-Man 17:22, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Information about cities and villages are good, information about counties too, but this kind of 'balance' units are not useful, IMO. Also note that this page has zero real links (all links are automatically-created redirects or from the Wikipedia-namespace), and there is zero likelihood of it being linked accidentily either. - Andre Engels 13:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, although what this article represents needs to be explained better. The city of Nashville and Davidson County formed a consolidated metopolitan government. The census data currently in Nashville, Tennessee appears to duplicate the census data in Davidson County, Tennessee. I believe this may be a mistake. Davidson County includes several cities besides Nashville. They all have separate municipal governments, but the residents also participate in the consolidated metropolitan government. I don't think the city of Nashville has a separate municipal government. So, the content of this article, Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee, actually represents the census data for the portion of Davidson County that exludes cities other than Nashville. Or in other words, it may be more accurate to have this data in the Nashville article while leaving the Davidson County data as is (and after merging delete this article). However, it may ultimately be less confusing to remove all the census data from the Nashville article and only include links to the Davidson County article for the total data or to this article for the data excluding the other cities. older≠wiser 16:04, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep (for now). I suppose I am a bit biased (go figure). For everyone's information, there are 14 balances out of the 33,832 cities in the database. If we are voting to delete based on whether we think the these census based articles are useless, then this has already been voted on multiple times and no single article should ever be voted on again because they should all live in die together. Now, the article in question has already been updated to explain its purpose, HOWEVER, if the article serves no useful purpose and cannot ever be expanded I would consider changing my vote to delete. Because I don't know the exact specifics about what this balance actually represents, maybe it is silly to have. But many large cities have sub-articles about the geography or demographics of the city. Maybe this page should be a sub-article of Nashville, Tennessee? My point is similar to the one above: See what census data makes the most sense and adjust articles accordingly. Don't leap to delete until we understand what the data is. -- Ram-Man 17:22, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep until we can sort out exactly what this means. Likewise with Indianapolis (balance), Indiana. -- Decumanus 20:12, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
• Keep. Intro now explains what is being described better. The Rambot articles provide a good framework to build real articles around. Possibly move to Unincorporated areas of Davidson County, Tennessee or Unincorporated areas of greater Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee or something like that, keeping redir so bots will find it for the 2010 census, etc.

[from census.gov]"Estimates will be shown for consolidated cities and the consolidated city "balance," which is the consolidated city minus the semi-independent incorporated places located within the consolidated city. Consolidated cities include: Butte-Silver Bow, MT; Athens-Clark County, GA, Augusta-Richmond County, GA, Columbus, GA; Indianapolis, IN; Milford, CT; and Nashville-Davidson, TN." Niteowlneils 20:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A minor point, but in this case the "balance" is NOT unincorporated--it is incorporated as the consolidated city-county metropolitan government--but it is not a part of any of the other incorporated cities in the county. I probably need to rework the intro I added to the article to make that clearer, but putting it into an unincorporated category would not be entirely accurate.

Picture it like this: All of the land in Davidson County is part of the consolidated city-county metropolitan government. However, some portions are also within separately incorporated municipalities. So the census bureau created two designations to describe this situation: Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee is everything and Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee is that part which is not also included in one of the other incorporated municipalities. It is a little confusing. When it was created, the metro government was set up with two districts: the "urban services district" and the "general services district" [15] The urban services district was originally the area of the City of Nashville and the general services district was everything else. I believe this "balance" article corresponds to the urban services district (or what was once the city of Nashville). What makes it somewhat more complicated, is that some of these "other" cities in Davidson County also include areas in adjacent counties. So the total population of Davidson County less the population of the (balance) is not going to equal the sum of the populations for the other cities in Davidson County. older≠wiser 21:13, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep —siroχo 00:21, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, of course. The article is factually verifiable and noteworthy. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 22:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Redirect. Unlikely to be found where it is. - Scooter 04:55, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. IMAO was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

A blog. Lead item on the Blog today: "I noticed that on Wikipedia there aren't many blogs listed. Someone should write a page about me."

A typical sample: Terrorists, communists, Democrats and liberals are advised not to visit the site, as it may cause brain damage, if that is even possible."

Not encyclopedic. Mostly nonsense. Self-promotional, vanity. Not listed among BlogPulse's 35 most cited [16] Wolfman 20:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• DeleteCheeseDreams 22:51, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not an article. Estel 20:54, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not because it is a blog, but because it is an utterly insignificant one. Gamaliel 21:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The more sockpuppets that vote, the more I am convinced this is a vanity article. Gamaliel 02:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Tubular 22:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Not necessarily vanity, but it would need wider notice to be worth keeping. Actually, I checked this out on Truth Laid Bear. I think consistently top 30 probably makes it notable and I change my vote accordingly to keep.Dr Zen 23:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Second hand vanity then? Delete. Shane King 23:46, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Only if it's vanity to write an article about a book you've read or a film you've watched.Dr Zen 00:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Ashibaka tlk 23:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete it, with fire. --Fastfission 23:48, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. Web guides are not blog guides. An inflated sense of self-worth seems to come with the blogosphere already. (And now the flames really start.) Geogre 02:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: "advert or other spam". Hoary 03:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable blog. - Vague | Rant 04:59, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - According to the Truth Laid Bear site which contains ratings of blogs per visit, this site receives 9124 visits per day according to sitemeter. 1 Extrapolated over a year, that is over 3 million visits a year. Seems to be that makes it pretty notable for a site that should describe from an NPOV view, significant. The current article is problematic from that point of view but I will edit providing that there is a view to keep. Capitalistroadster 10:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know what methodology this site uses, but I have to think there's something fishy about a ranking that puts The Drudge Retort in 20th place and does not list The Drudge Report at all. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The Drudge Report isn't listed because it isn't considered to be a blog. The Truth Laid Bear rating has been used as a source by media sources such as Newsday [17], The San Francisco Chronicle, [18] and the New York Times 3. It is considered to be the most reliable source of visitor numbers to blogs there is. For those of you who doubt the importance of blogs these days, just ask Dan Rather. However, the antics of sockpuppets is not helping the cause of retention so I'd ask you to cut it out. Despite this, I still think IMAO is encyclopedid so I will rewrite as promised earlier. Capitalistroadster 23:16, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, the sitemeter used for traffic ranking is based only on the average of the past week, allowing someone to pop up in ranking from an Instalanche or equivalent (expect everyone to drop in traffic over the Thanksgiving Holiday). The link ranking on Truth Laid Bear is more stable, but has a bias towards seniority (blogs that have been around a while will pick up a lot of links even if they don't have a huge readerships). That said, stop calling my fans sockpuppets! You people are meanie-heads!--Frank J. Fleming 00:27, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If for no other reason than being so badly written that someone stumbling upon this article would have trouble understanding what it is actually about. --Woggly 12:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep. 40.000 Google hits (searched on IMAO + "Frank J") must mean something. On the other hand, the current article is rather bad in quality, and I doubt whether there are good chances it will be improved soon. - Andre Engels 13:42, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: The site seems to notable, and looking at the truthlaidbear link it seems to has a respectable amount of visits a day. The article needs a great deal of cleanup though. ScottM 14:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep because although the style is not suitable for wikipedia, Capitalistroadster says he'll fix it. An alternative would be "delete and start afresh". Kappa 15:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone convinces me that it's more notable than I think it is. Because of the tendency for blogs to link to each other and mutually reinforce each others' pagerank, I don't think the Google test is very reliable on them. I did a Google "link:www.imao.us" search and although the 15,800 hits is impressive, when I check out a few of them I find in many others is simply an entry in a "links" category, not an actual reference to any material in the blog. In such cases, it is hard for me to tell whether the person who linked to IMAO truly reads that blog, or whether it's just mutual-blog-backscratching. A better test is searching for exact phrase "imao.us" in Google Groups. Here, it only gets 218 hits. By comparison, "slashdot.org" gets 59,900; "drudgereport.com" gets 48,600; "wilwheaton.net" gets 1,310; "wikipedia.org" gets 66,400; and my own personal home page gets 483 (So, OK, it's been in my SIG). So, in the USENET universe, the IMAO blog is not exactly a household word. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, Dpb, but I have to say *your* methodology is whack. It's akin to saying that we should disregard a scientific concept's being cited in scientific journals, because hey, those science guys all cite each other and that doesn't count; but hey, if people cite them on Usenet, they're in! You only allow direct cites of pages (because you insist on the whole domain name rather than the word itself) so who knows how many people just say "I saw something about that on IMAO yesterday". Comparing it with slashdot or Drudge is a bit like saying you can't have a page on Gloucester because it's not the same size as Tokyo. In the blog world, if someone feels you're worth linking to, that is, in itself, a sign that you've been noted. Nine thousand visits a day! Okay, that's not 3 million users a year (because, erm, the same people go back each day) but it's not at all bad.Dr Zen 01:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree. This is not a personal attack on Dpb, but his method of determining notability is worrisome at best, not to mention inherently flawed. If you are unsure about your vote then you should not vote or err on the side of keep if something is clearly notable but not within your field of expertise. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 03:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Fairly popular, but not to the point of being encyclopaedic. -- WOT 17:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Mark Richards 17:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is terrible and while the blog may be somewhat popular, I don't think it is popular enough to warrant an article. David Johnson 17:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Undecided. While the current article is worthless and I'm a little doubtfull if this blog really is something that would belong here it seems to have quite some fame for ebing a blog. Jeltz 18:41, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
• Delete. The very fact that the person wrote on their blog that somebody should come and start writing articles about blogs is problematic, and this is definitely an attempt at self-promotion, whether they wrote it or not. RickK 21:13, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable blog. -Sean Curtin 01:03, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• DELETE ExplorerCDT 05:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Blogs are not notable. Indrian 05:53, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, fundamentally unencyclopedic. (Can I concur with 128.223.162.32 above, though, and ask for the Harry Potter books to be taken away too? They're making it hard to get into the local bookshops. Oh, wait...). Also: I don't mark him down for politics, but good Lord that site's a huge mess in Opera. Just saying, is all. Shimgray 17:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Wow, sock puppets galore. In any case, this is "notable enough" to keep based on the information cited by Capitalistroadster. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 20:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• While the article's notability is in question, and rightfully so, I am going to vote delete. The eerie coincidence of this article's creation, and the fact that someone is OBVIOUSLY desperate enough to sockpuppet the vote to hell, makes me think that, as this page currently stands, it is only there for vanity. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 20:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems midly notable, rather err on the keep side myself. --MaxPower 20:25, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable / Non encyclopedic. Impressive amount of sockpuppets though, even more than when GNAA was vfd'd. [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] 20:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC).
• Delete. Not notable. --Improv 21:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Is WIL WHEATON dot NET a significant one then? Sure, let's change it to something more appropriate, but if you only want the most relevant blogs the list needs major revision. PnGrata 01:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • See my comment below for an indication that WIL WHEATON dot NET is significantly more notable than IMAO.us. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, mildly notable. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Wikimol 19:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. More notable than recent VfD survivor Tard Blog, which I voted against. I've run across IMAO often enough before. A 100-page paper concise encyclopedia of prominent blogs would almost certainly include IMAO. Sufficiently notable. Samaritan 07:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotion, a not particularly well-known blog, and a dog's breakfast of an article (an article about a website should provide some information not immediately available from the site.--Calton 03:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

First-edit votes

• Keep. Wikipedia has entries on all sorts of stuff, but no one complains about most of it. The activity of this discussion, including the strong feelings to delete, prove IMAO is notable. Anything worthy of a witch hunt, is worthy of an entry. If the entry is just out of Frank's vanity, why are other people doing it for him? If true, this would prove he's so influential that even when he's being vain, people still listen. - Curi 14:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) contributions
• Keep - If Wikipedia was limited to only the most relevant content, it'd have a few hundred articles instead of a few hundred thousand. IMAO is certainly a popular and notable blog(anyone who can give the Instapundit a popular and permanent nickname with one post isn't a nobody), and deserves to be listed on the blogs page. I'm not saying it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it's just as important as dozens of other articles I've read and found useful/interesting. That said, the article certainly needs a lot of work, but given that Frank keeps pointing his readers here, it's not like that won't happen. - Alsadius 17:59 UTC, 23 Nov 2004
  • User's first edit.
• Keep --Indrian is dead wrong. Blogs are quite notable, being the force that exposed the fruadulent documents used by CBS News against George Bush, and blogs forced both CBS and the NY Times to run their "October Surprise" articles about the Iraqi ammo dump earlier than they wanted, giving the issue enough time to be debunked before the election. In addition,it was bloggers that forced the Swift Boat Veterans story to national prominence, bringing John Kerry's "war hero" status under fire and proving Kerry's oft-repeated "Christmas in Cambodia" story to be an outright falsehood, one that the Kerry campign was forced to retract from their web site. A strong argument could be made that bloggers are no only important, but that they influenced teh outcome of the 2004 presidential election. You don't get much more notable than that. In addition, while most individual blogs lack the power and reach of the media, they collectively offer much more depth of professional and practical experience than the broadcast news readers, and have proven to be the new emerging gatekeepers of information that the mainstream media once was. Bloggers as a group are notable beyond the shadow of doubt with their influence on politics, the media, and to a lesser but growing extent, popular culture. Surely highlighting bloggers in general, and noteworthy examples of them in particular such as IMAO, has much more cultural revelevance than the blog of a "B"-grade actor. confederateyankee
  • User's only edit. RickK 20:50, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Weak Keep:. The site itself is worth noting, however the article could be written better. The intended sarcastic tongue-in-cheek nature of this article is meant to be representative of the site, but is poorly done. - AnywhereAT 13:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • This is this user's only edit. RickK 21:13, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. IMAO is an element of folk culture in the web, widely known and often referenced. AsparagusChallenge
  • User's first edit was to IMAO and second edit was here.

• Undecided. I have a lot of fans of my blog and many of them came here under their own volition to vote without my urging; no reason to call them sock puppets... you... uh... muckadoos. If you don't think blogs are notable, then you're behind the times. Now, not only bloggers are talking about the importance of the blogosphere. The question is what makes a blog notable, and you don't seem to have a standard for that. Maybe you could form a committee and research that. BTW, I find this Wikipedia an interesting project, and the engineer/scientist in me couldn't help but poke it and see what happens (but please don't hold that against me on deciding my blog's notability or lack of it).--Frank J. Fleming 23:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) [contributions]
  • Final comments on this. On the day that Dan Rather announced his resignation prompted by the use of faulty documents which in large part was due to blogs, no serious person can doubt the importance of blogs in the media. However, we must have a criterion for deciding whether or not an individual blog is worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia. The criterion that I have used for my support for keeping has been the site being amongst the top 50 blogs as measured by the number of visitors. The site was also nominated in a Category for the Washington Post best blogs of 2004 in the Class Clown category which also suggests that it has achieved a degree of noteworthiness sufficient for inclusion. Capitalistroadster 00:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Rather denies the Killian memos affair had anything to do with a long-considered and pre-planned resignation. The man is 73 after all. It's just your speculation that the affair "prompted" his resignation. Wolfman 00:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • This is the process for finding the standard... Blog entries that turn up here tend to be of the "I am seventeen and have a livejournal here and a kewl band and go to high school in Denver" vanity-entry variety, which are unarguably not the sort of thing that anyone benefits from finding in a reference work; it's likewise very hard to deny that something with a million hits a week is non-notable, so there's no argument over Daily Kos. Where to draw the line? I dunno. On a gut feeling I'd say higher; blogs are important, but clearly not every blog is important; is it better to describe the most critically notable ones (however that's defined - unlikely to be more than a dozen politically) and generalise the remainder in a central article on blogging, or the blogosphere, &c? The journalistic process is important, yet... hmm. A detailed almanac lists only "major regional" newspapers, and the 1911 Britannica doesn't even have an individual entry for the Times! It has a huge Newspapers entry, glossing over major publications worldwide... You might find Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents of some interest. Shimgray 01:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Also: Opera really chokes on the site. Horrible cramped columnar mess spilling over two screenwidths.)
  • Of course blogs are important as a phenomenon. That's why we have an article on Blogs, and nobody has suggested that we delete it. The question is where to set the bar for individual, particular, specific blogs. We have hardcore inclusionists who deny the meaningfulness of notability and don't think anything factual should be deleted. The rest of us try to determine notability by whatever means we can. Of those who accept the concept of notability, I think we'd all agree that the Drudge Report is notable and deserves its own article. And we'd probably agree that ISeeISay does not. IMAO falls somewhere in between. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Unsigned IMAO votes

• Do not Delete, it is merely a description of the blog. Are we to remove all references to Instapundit?
  • Unsigned comment from 151.199.57.161, author of the article.
• KEEP. The more people that think it is so important to delete that they log on and spout off, the more obvious it is that this is something worth including. To delete it at this point would be akin to removing all the copies of "Harry Potter" from the shelves just because some loud and vocal people call it evil.
  • Second vote from 128.223.162.32.
• Keep - If WIL WHEATON DOT NET is listed, then IMAO should be listed - for balance if nothing else.
  • vote by anon 209.30.181.124 — this ip's first edit
• Keep. Frank J is growing in popularity and is a significant contributor to the blogosphere. I would, however, recommend rewriting the article for more factual content and less promotion/opinion. user dvgulliver
  • Comment from 128.223.162.32.
• KEEP. As a political humor site, many of the "delete" votes above are politically motivated. It is a blog in the truest sense of the word, and oft quoted and linked. Worthy of the entry in every sense.
  • Unsigned comment from 151.193.213.24.
• KEEP. Google has about 16,000 ofsite links to imao.us. It's clearly a fairly well-known blog. The article itself could stand to be tidied up a bit.
  • Unsigned votes aren't counted. -Sean Curtin 01:03, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Unsigned vote from 130.39.143.161. User's only edit.
• Keep - the page that brought us the Nuke the Moon strategy for world peace needs its place in the wikipedia. - anonymous
• KEEP. The site is sufficiently popular to include, the "vanity of the author" notwithstanding. The blantant appeals for recognition are satire in themselves. The political opinions of the author should be irrelevant. In fact, that a vote would be taken on whether a site would be included is deserving of satire of itself.
  • Unsigned comment left by IP 170.110.241.174. Please sign in for your vote to be counted. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 20:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

The Showdown of Plankton & The Shadow

This article seems to be fictitious, especially that I googled it and nothing came up but some video and/or PC game with a similar situation, but only with The Fairly OddParents characters as the heroes. It also seems fictitious in that it is said to be released on all three of these stations: Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, and The Disney Channel, and in addition, it says that characters from all three of these stations unite. Marcus2 20:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete unless verified, though that seems unlikely. This reminds me of an article a few months ago about a fictitious cartoon that united dozens of characters from several media empires. Anyone remember the name? Hope this isn't the same guy... [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:42, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe that was "Hollywood Jam". Marcus2 23:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • That's the one. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: If it can be verified, it can stay, but I very much doubt that's going to happen. Reminds me more of the Angry Dog Late Night show. Geogre 20:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - implausible cartoon, probable hoax. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: If there actually was such a production I'd have heard about it from other sources. knoodelhed 04:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. It's complete nonsense. David Johnson 17:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Kiddie-wiki nonsense. Why can't we get some more imaginative kids who want to contribute real articles? - Lucky 6.9 00:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Kate battle was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Looks like a vanity page. They aren't notable enough a person to have an article really - only 27 Google hits. Estel 20:59, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. Gamaliel 21:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Vote to be kept. Is a valid journalist according to Google.com search. Might add that this writer does a lot of music reviews. Could be helpful to someone searching for info about the writer if they read her/his articles. {unsigned vote from 208.60.212.139, author of the article}
• Could also be deleted. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 21:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Nonnotable newspaper. Delete. Reference link to one of her articles [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 23:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: The newspaper isn't so non-notable, and it sounds like she is on her way to good achievements, but she is not a presence outside of her local community and therefore is not really suitable for an encyclopedia entry. Geogre 02:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity page. The newspaper might be worth an article, but that does not mean their individual journalists are. - Andre Engels 13:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable vanity page. Mattley 23:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Bardameco was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

This page at best is a foreign language dictionary entry, which doesn't belong here. It looks more like a vanity page that should be in a user page. --Spangineer 21:23, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Speedy delete candidate. It's not vanity. Quite the reverse: it's a personal insult page. The article and the picture need to be deleted. Any objections? Geogre 02:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with speedy, case #3. We seem to have a rash of Portuguese pranks, this one by an IP and a new user with no other contributions, possibly the same person. See also this article history. Andrewa 03:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - Just some angry teenager's attempt to sledge his university professor on the internet. - Vaelor 05:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gone. Listing Image:Nuno Silva.jpg as an orphaned image for deletion. Andrewa 09:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. West michigan christian high school was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Non-notable high school. 'Distinguished alumni' yield no Google hits. Deus Ex 22:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. "Non-notable high school" is a contradiction in terms.Dr Zen 23:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Unimportant Ashibaka tlk 23:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: A school that can't even afford capital letters from an author who can't find the shift key. Bet that a bunch of people come along who don't read the article, don't expand it, don't do anything to help at all, and begin hectoring everyone else to "expand it." Geogre 02:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Strong delete - I'm more than a little tired of seeing completely unnotable high schools get onto Wikipedia when much more notable companies and businesses are voted out, just because a bunch of students jump on from the school LAN and all vote keep. Possibly even a vanity page - who wants to bet that David Boes and Jonathan DePoy are/were students at this school? Get this outta here, set some hard standards on this site! Establish a precedent of notability so that future attempts to get your school mentioned on the internet will have to meet a more rigid criteria than getting all your friends to vote Keep on it! - Vaelor 05:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless improved. I'm with Geogre. Useless to project unless we want to be known for two-line junk. Cool Hand Luke 07:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Mention in Muskegon, Michigan and delete- Skysmith 11:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No indication that this would be notable. - Andre Engels 13:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I tried to note it, but I couldn't. -- WOT 17:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless better evidence of notability transpires before expiration of VfD discussion. It's possible that David Boes is a typo for David Boies but I wasn't able to verify this because the online biographies I was able to find, including the one at his law firms website, do not consider whatever high school he attended to be notable enough to mention. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Mention in Muskegon, Michigan, delete or redirect. —siroχo 00:14, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. A school that does not meet criteria for notability and is therefore not encyclopedic. Indrian 05:55, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Incorrectly titled, neither 'notables' are notable enough to have an article. No useful data worth merging with Muskegon, Michigan. Average Earthman 09:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Improv 21:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated. - Lucky 6.9 00:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable school DELETE.NeoJustin 02:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Delete

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Robbie Buck was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep.

Non-notable Denni☯ 22:42, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Hosts a weeknightly nationwide (Australia) radio program, a program that is one of the few outlets for REAL Australian music. Plus his work on TV, again nationwide. (If it wasn't for the presence of Eureka Stockade on Denni's user page, I would suspect he/she doesn't live in Australia.) -- Chuq 23:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Exactly. I can say as a resident of the US that I've never heard of the guy, Triple J, Home and Hosed, or much of anything else in the article. Australian media doesn't really make it across the Pacific in any quantity. That at least three Australians have expressed disbelief that Denni hasn't heard of the guy is provincialism of the sort that usually gets us Americans yelled at. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm certainly not expecting Denni to have heard of him. I'm just expecting him to NOT use "I haven't heard of him" as a VfD nomination reason. -- Chuq 04:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • He also doesn't show up well on google, which is odd for a celebrity. My point is that the Australians here are acting surprised that an apparent Canadian (note the heavy geographical bias of Albertan topics on Denni's user page) thinks the guy is some no-name radio announcer. Yes, he's wrong, but there's no need to act indignant about it like so many people here are doing. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• This is a joke right? Keep, obviously notable. Shane King 23:44, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Extremely keep. Andre (talk) 23:57, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Ambi 01:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Unless you'd like to delete all these. --ZayZayEM 03:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The mind boggles. Andrewa 03:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Did anybody else notice that the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy is listed bold and beautiful atop the main VfD page? *hint hint* kthx. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• keep. clarkk 06:59, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. - Andre Engels 13:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as this person is notable. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm aussie and ive never heard of him, but a JJJ radio presenter is certainly verifiable, so i see no reason to deleate (Non-notability IS NOT a reason for deleation) The bellman 10:56, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

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

November 22

Encarta 95 was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to redirect.

The information in the article is covered mostly in Encarta. A redirect isn't really nessisary, but might be a better option. Greba 23:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I would have just changed it into a redirect rather than listing it. Shane King 00:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect. The page is so bad in quality that no prior merging is necessary. - Andre Engels 13:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect. Mark Richards 17:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 09:09, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Wikipedia:Eric Walters was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to speedy delete.

A user apparently created this article by mistake (note the extra "Wikipedia" in the title), before going on to create Eric Walters.-gadfium 00:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. It's probably a candidate for speedy deletion actually. David Johnson 01:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as a test. Geogre 02:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Interwiki link was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the original. The article is now a redirect to InterWiki.

Another attempt at creating the artice Eric Walters.-gadfium 00:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 09:10, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Note: It is now a substub saying that an interwiki link is a link. A bit misplaced, IMO, and self-reflexive, but I'll abstain on voting. Geogre 15:06, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The article was created after this VFD, so I assume this VFD was about the previous article at that name, not the current one. Still, the current one also has to go, if it should exist it should be in the Wikipedia: namespace, and I don't think we need this kind of dictdefs there either. If anyone feels strongly about it we should run it through VFD again, but for the time being I've just stuck the VFD header on it again. --fvw* 12:51, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

• I redirected it to InterWiki. That should suffice. —No-One Jones ^(m) 20:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Homestar Loses his Marbles was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Hoax. Doesn't seem to refer to any actual Homestar cartoon, and does not seem to be in the HR Wiki. The Homestar Faq specifically says that Homestar isn't on TV. Delete please. - RedWordSmith 00:16, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, just like the Sally Gates article from a couple days ago. Only one Google result on this one, and that wasn't even on the H*R site. Even if it were a real cartoon, it would probably be fancruft; even the Strong Bad Emails don't have their own entry on this site. (Teen Girl Squad has an extensive entry, though... fancruft?). --Idont Havaname 03:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Matt Chapman was born on November 1, 1976. I know he wasn't making Homestar cartoons at the age of nine. Homestar Runner was created first in book form and then later on the Internet in the late nineties. It also would appear that there are other pages of this sort created by User:Ryanasaurus007. It seems he changed the link for this one to a subpage of his userspace, User:Ryanasaurus007/The Homestar Runner Show. Perhaps a friendly note from someone telling him that Wikipedia is not a free wiki host or webspace provider would be in order? -- TomPreuss 05:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, and a harsh warning on the user's page. This is the same fellow who came up with all the other hoax cartoons having to do with "Angry Dog" this and that. At the time, there were concerns that he was of tender years. Now appears that he has a private world he wants to paint on Wikipedia. (I generally try to let something sit on VfD for 24 hours before speedy deleting anything other than the most obvious, uncontroversial ones, like the test pages above.) Geogre 06:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. Elf-friend 18:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. He even trolls the HomestarRunnerWiki. -Wins oddf 03:53, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Speedily deleted. All material submitted by Ryanasaurus007 should be considered false until verified. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Kermogy was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Either it's a hoax or it's such a recent invention that it has no existance on the Web other than here. --jpgordon{gab} 00:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• incredibly unnotable. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: unfathomable nonsense. Geogre 02:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - utterly ridiculous nonsense, get it outta here... - Vaelor 05:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• DELETE ExplorerCDT 05:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete it. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 20:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)

]] 09:10, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 04:18, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. GSBLaX was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Probably patent nonsense. Probably a hoax. Doesn't seem quite patent enough, though. --jpgordon{gab} 00:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Oh, good lord, this nonsense again. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Junk - Delete. David Johnson 01:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Can be speedy deleted as the reposting of three deleted articles. Geogre 02:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Use the Lacrosse stick to throw the squirrel at the bull to remove this article from Wikipedia.--Lucky13pjn 04:21, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Show some evidence to prove this unlikely story's legitimacy, or get it outta here... - Vaelor 05:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Cenk was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

He was in the game Championship Manager 2001/2002 under Gaziantep Buyuk Sehir Bld Spor, which is youth team of gaziantep as a Grey player (one you cannot transfer). -Sinan

This article is about a footballer who has only ever played a single game for a single team. I hardly think this is encyclopedic. David Johnson 00:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If he's for real, keep. See the vfd on Witto Aloma for reasoning. I accepted the argument given there, because it is at least a standard.Dr Zen 02:23, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: A single game and then let go? That's too ephemeral. I suspect that this is a vanity article, instead, by him now continuing his studies in Canada. Geogre 02:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Please see the discussion on Witto Aloma, Geogre. Why accuse editors of nefarious things without evidence? Please, assume good faith. Dr Zen 03:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Witto Aloma discussion does not shed much light here. Witto played over a hundred games and was unquestionably a legitimate player. But still he only scraped through because the vote was inconclusive. Some people thought every pro athelete should be in, some didn't. In any case, just because you happened to get paid for a game doesn't mean you made a living at the sport. --LeeHunter 17:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Please see my vote there. I suspect that it is a vanity page. I have not accused anyone of anything. There is internal evidence to suggest autobiography and virtually none that it is a sport biography. Geogre 06:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Strong delete - Garbage article, possible vanity page also. Absolutely not notable, non-encyclopedic. A band that only ever released one song would be deleted, an actor that had only done a small cameo in one movie would be deleted, and both of those things are more notable than this guy. Nobody has ever heard of him, and nobody ever will. (And Dr. Zen, I say this having read Witto Aloma - there's a world of difference between 116 games in major league baseball, and ONE game for a Turkish soccer team!) - Vaelor 04:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I suggested reading the discussion on VFD (sorry, can't do the link off the top of my head), not the article itself. What difference does it make that the soccer team is Turkish?Dr Zen 05:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • That discussion was archived at Talk:Witto Aloma. The difference is the number of informed editor/readers who will read the article and keep it free from vandalism. Many average readers follow major league baseball. I suspect that we do not have as many Turkish soccer fans editing the en:Wikipedia. There is also a difference in the notability of the players. More people will know of Witto Aloma simply because he played more games. Rossami (talk) 09:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I accepted the argument of James M Lane that all professional sportsmen should be in. Even if the guy only played once, he still would have made his living from football. Rossami, your argument basically boils down to saying that anything American gets more or less a free pass (because American editors preponderate) but anything that is from a non-English-speaking country is more likely to be deleted!Dr Zen 23:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I would not say "free pass". For one thing, I do not agree with the argument that all professional sportspeople should automatically qualify for an article. You do raise a good point, though. Our requirement that an article be verifiable and maintainable has the unfortunate side effect that for topics from popular culture (such as sports or movies), the ratio of informed editors currently creates a bias in favor of US content. Rossami (talk)
          • Rosammi's point about an article's verifiability and maintainability is very valid and well put, but my reason for making that statement initially was in regards moreso to the notability of the article. Like it or not, the number of Wikipedia users/visitors who are aware of/interested in/searching for US Major League Baseball information undoubtedly vastly outnumber those who are knowledgable about/interested in Turkish soccer. It has nothing to do with nationalities, don't make this a race issue. Like it or not, yes, American "editors" do make up the bulk of Wikipedia's - and, in fact, the internet's at large - member base, so topics of strong significance to Americans are more notable to this "public" than more obscure international topics. Hey, I'm from Australia, and a lot that I would consider notable here has already come under VfD because of its lack of notability to the rest of the world. The internet is essentially a mob rule society, live with it. - Vaelor 15:31, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete The IP the person used is for a Canadian ISP. It's a vanity article for an extremely obscure soccer player. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 11:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. Susvolans 15:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. --LeeHunter 17:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Question: Is it even possible to verify that this player did, in fact, play? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:19, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

The answer seems to be no, at least unless someone can read Turkish. I found a Cenk Ogut that won an event at an athletics competition representing a Canadian high school, and a guy with the same name played some games with a Canadian soccer association[19], but that's as close as I could come. "Cenk" by itself does appear on several Turkish (I'm assuming) language sites, but most seem to refer to a high-scoring player from Adanaspor[20]. Niteowlneils 19:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Apparently, he was on a youth team, which makes it definite. Even if it is verified, delete. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:54, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Cribcage 19:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Ham (e-mail) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to redirect to Spam (e-mail).

I don't think you can really say any more about Ham that is already in the article, thus it can never grow beyond being a substub. As the word is mostly used in conjunction with spam, I suggest that the article is merged into Spam and redirected. David Johnson 01:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Redirect only: It's a dictdef of a very uncommonly used contrastive. A merge would take 30 seconds, I guess, but the loss of "ham is not spam" wouldn't be a crying shame. Geogre 02:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, add info to spam if really neccesary. Irrelevant, rarely used niche term, not encyclopedic, no possibility for article expansion. - Vaelor 04:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I don't think it's that uncommon: I've often seen it in discussions of spam filtering and email classification. But be that as it may, I don't see how it can be more than a dictdef, or how there could be anything relevant at this article which wouldn't fit better in Spam, so I vote delete. I've just added the definition to the article on spam. Pnot 07:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into Spam, and change the link on Ham (disambiguation) to refer there, then delete. - Andre Engels 13:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into Spam. ^^^^^^ What they said ^^^^^. --MaxPower 19:40, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
• Delete. Cribcage 19:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Can anyone provide evidence that this term is actually used to refer to email? —tregoweth 06:37, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Incidentalism was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Delete; personal manifesto. Postdlf 02:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Manifesto. Geogre 02:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Rubbish manifesto, no place on Wikipedia. - Vaelor 04:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The Incidentalist Manifesto should go too. I've removed the interwiki redir so it and its history can be more easily viewed. Andrewa 10:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It's not even the final manifesto—it's just a draft of the manifesto. There's also Draft VII of the "The Incidentalist Manifesto" over at the Meta-Wiki from the same IP [21] which has now been superceeded by Draft 11 located here [22] and a few other places. It looks like a one-man "movement" with no followers. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 10:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've just listed the Meta copy for deletion there too. Andrewa 11:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Amgine 16:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete manifest vanity. Fire Star 16:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Vanity and poorly written. Mfecane 22:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Caleb York was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Delete; vanity page of nonnotable college student. One of the better written vanity pages I've seen, so alas, no speedy deletion. Postdlf 02:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Properly moved to a user page, if he has an account. Geogre 02:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity, non-notable, and not even well written. - Vaelor 04:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't imagine why they thought it was appropriate to create this article. David Johnson 11:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Should be moved to user page if he has account (only linking page has also been placed on VfD) - Amgine 16:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia doesn't exist to make random people able to add themselves to a dictionary. Jeltz 16:09, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
• Delete. Later, Caleb. - Lucky 6.9 00:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.--Wikimol 11:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete vanity page. —Psychonaut 15:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --[[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Should have been speedily deleted, whether or not someone thinks it's "better written." Cribcage 19:34, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I would have liked to speedy delete it—I think clearcut cases of vanity such as this should be. However, I don't think the current standards allow for it when the article has this much coherent substance. Postdlf 23:09, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Who is this guy? Mfecane 22:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Seminar presentation was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Seems to be class notes or something. --jpgordon{gab} 02:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

copyvio. http://www.mantex.co.uk/ou/a811/a811-01.htm - Mailer diablo 02:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Fauxtest was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

As far as I know, both the words "propest" and "fauxtest" were invented by Lowtax in the Something Awful Forums thread in which he introduced the new Propest/Fauxtesting forum. This is not encyclopedic. silsor 02:18, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Update: just to clarify, it is not widespread or occurring independently in different locations; all these events are organized through the Something Awful Forum dedicated to "propesting", for which the words were invented. silsor 16:06, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Not encyclopedic, not yet widespread. I'm glad to see the kids going outside for something, of course. Geogre 02:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: Well written article about a legitimate activity which seems to be occuring in various locations independantly of the others. Borderline notable, IMHO. (Changed vote, see below.) - Vaelor 04:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a properly written article and I think it's (just about) widespread enough to be encyclopedic. David Johnson 11:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) Changing my vote after reading above clarification. Not widespread, not notable. Delete. David Johnson 16:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism that does not seem to have caught on yet; if it does we can write an article on it later. - Andre Engels 13:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete 3 google hits. (humorous, perhaps, but encyclopedic? not yet.) - Amgine 15:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Pretty much an advertisement of the Something Awful Forums. Not widespread. Octalc0de 00:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Unfortunately this kind of behavior is not yet widespread enough to merit an article. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 00:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Once this phenomenon attains the general public's attention as flash mobs did (which I don't doubt it will, eventually) then there should be an article. Not before. Ctz 00:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't a "mass phenomenon," this is an idea conceived by amateur comedian Lowtax and executed by a bunch of his shit-nosed Something Awful Forums members feigning interest at the slightest chance of achieving moderatorship. 66.92.130.54 01:16, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  :rolleyes: silsor 05:46, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, for now. This is apparently a legit neologism (though fairly uncommon; I cite [23]), and you never know when this type of thing will become popular. Or, merge with flash mob. --Fermatprime 19:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. There's so little to write about this kind of thing, and it is arguably just a form of advetisement. I'd adopt a strict dictionary standard on this; if you can find an original reference going back five years or so, then consider putting it in a dictionary. It isn't encyclopedic in my opinion. --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 01:26, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge. Just noting that this article is just linked from the article for Something Awful Forums. --84.118.155.181 01:58, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge - if this really is just an activity solely organised on one web forum, with no independant occurences happening outside of what the members of this one site organize, then scrap this article and merge with Something Awful Forums. I once encouraged viewers of one of my sites to email me naked pictures of their girlfriends, that doesn't make the concept encyclopedic. =) - Vaelor 14:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Kweh was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Fancruft and cannot possibly be expanded into a full article.--Lucky13pjn 04:14, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Of no interest to those who don't already know everything about it, and inaccessible to those who don't. It merely documents that there is a thing like this in a single video game. Useless. Geogre 06:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and merge into Chocobo. Not worth having an article just for this and not useful as a redirect. David Johnson 11:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. - Andre Engels 13:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Amgine 15:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to chocobo or delete - nothing to merge. -Sean Curtin 01:30, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Extreme Fancruft! --Improv 21:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Mr. Director was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Barely comprehensible, and if it were, it would be an article about a very unnotable character in Animaniacs. --jpgordon{gab} 04:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Er, what is it trying to say? Delete as incomprehensible fancruft. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 04:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• 0_o Whoa. That is almost patent nonsense. --Lucky13pjn 05:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I remember the character, but this is nonsense. Geogre 06:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Time to sound the incomprehensible fancruft alarm.Rje 06:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Amgine 15:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• It is a sign of how bad the fanc***t situation has gotten that I'm all excited about this one. "oooh! A minor character from a TV show who actually appeared more than once!" Nevertheless, an independent article is not merited; a merge to Animaniacs might be appropriate. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. --Improv 21:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. GPLTrans was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to re-delete.

I proposed this one for deletion in May (archived debate here) and it was deleted by four votes to none (including my nomination). It appears to have been recreated in September.

This is a one-man project which currently does nothing useful and shows no sign of ever doing so. It's been in development since 1999; at its peak I managed to get it to translate the English "a horse walks into a bar" into the French "une horse walks into une bar" (and French was one of the better-supported languages).

The website has been resurrected. It now says:

... it died after years of neglect and bad code. Instead of simply dying though, it has chosen to try life again. In order to do that, it will need to be remade from scratch. Before that can happen, a team needs to be put into place that can provide the support it so desperately needs.

In the example of other successful projects, I propose a governing system that will allow freedom of development but provide the structure necessary to prevent chaos. It is currently in draft form here.

But a governing document is not enough. I would like people to help form the first Governing Council. To that effect, I would like people to step up and volunteer to assume one of the commission roles specified in the Governing Document. Once this is done, and a final copy of the Governing Document is made, we can begin laying down the other frameworks necessary to bring it back online.

So it seems that no code will be written until the administrative system is in place, and I doubt that anyone will volunteer for the envisioned "governing structure" (consisting of four commissions, a governing council, and three-monthly elections) until there's a project there for them to govern!

Anyhow, I thought that perhaps some development had taken place which might render the project more notable, so I downloaded and installed the latest version of the code. It's dated 2002, and as it stands, it is capable of translating the word "hello" from English to Pig Latin, and nothing else. The article's assertion that it is "capable of translating between eight languages" is, thus, something of an exaggeration.

If this project ever attains its lofty goals, it might merit an article. At present, it's about as non-notable as they come, and I see little hope of this changing. Pnot 04:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Sorry, forgot to add: 3000-ish Google hits, but they all appear to be Wikipedia mirrors, Sourceforge pages, or directories of software packages. Pnot 04:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• This can be speedy deleted are a recreation of a deleted page. - SimonP 05:17, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thought it best to VfD just in case: the project website has reappeared since the previous deletion so it might be thought that something had changed. Still, I wouldn't oppose a speedy if it's deemed legitimate. Pnot 05:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted: Recreation of deleted articles is one of the things that drives me nuts. I looked through the deleted history, as well, and this version is actually less full and notable than the previous one. Geogre 06:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Hindu rebuttal was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

• Page was created to house an argument for Talk:Idolatry, and the statement is there anyway. Page unneeded and unencyclopedic. -Aeinome 05:59, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Unrepairable POV. Delete. - Andre Engels 13:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: POV by its very nature. Geogre 14:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Reporting a belief held by an identifiable group is not POV. However, if the elements are included under Idolatry this becomes redundant. It could be expanded and cleaned up, but only if it would not be better merged. - Amgine 15:42, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, gently. The same text is on the talk page, which is where it belongs. Smerdis of Tlön 16:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. There's certainly the germ of an article here. The belief that the gods of various religions are just different names for the same divinity is certainly widely held. But I suspect this has been covered elsewhere. --LeeHunter 17:42, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 03:23, Nov. 23 2004 (UTC)
• It appears to be an excerpt from somewhere else (where it may have been more appropriate) and made into an article. Regardless, as an article it doesn't stand up to examination. Its theme is indeed covered elsewhere. Delete. Fire Star 16:12, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 09:11, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Televangelists was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to redirect.

Superfluous (dupe) page: I can't see how there is or even could be anything in it that would not be in one or other of Televangelism, List of United States televangelists or perhaps List of (insert-country-name-here!) televangelists.

• Redirect Although the point of view happens to coincide with my own, it's certainly not neutral. Hoary 06:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) *Redirect only works. As for what's there now, it's pretty brain dead. Geogre 14:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Good point, delete this then. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 06:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm going to change my vote to redirect. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 22:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No useful content. Andrewa 10:23, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to televangelism (change of vote). On reflection, yes this is a (very slightly) useful redir. Andrewa 18:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I see no reason not why this couldn't just be redirected to televangelism. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 12:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• redirect to televangelism Sietse 13:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) +
• redirect to televangelism - Andre Engels 13:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect = Amgine 15:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to televangelism --Spangineer 15:47, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect. Mark Richards 17:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I'm actually fairly wary of spelling redirects, but this would be a good candidate. Redirect. Samaritan 00:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Spic was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to redirect.

Do we really need this in Wikipedia? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I've made it a redirect to List of ethnic slurs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Republican/Democrat In Name Only was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep

---

The article states that this is a "disparaging term" and then goes on to list people who the term could be applied to. How can this article ever be anything besides a platform for POV-pushing and name calling? Even if the article is kept, the list needs to be removed (or at least provide evidence of who has applied the label to each person on the list). I mean, imagine if the articles for other disparaging terms (eg. Ugly American, Uncle Tom, Newbie to name three) had lists of "putative" candidates for labeling. If this term remains in use for a long time, maybe one day it will deserve an article. For now, I say delete. And if the vote is to keep, at least delete the lists (so please vote about that also, if you vote to keep the article). ~leif (talk)[[]] 07:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• This article is badly needed. Keep and cleanup. If anything, I applaud the editor that chose to combine both of these topics into one article. The list appears correct too. I think finding sources on these commonly-cited "in name onlys" will be no problem. Term has been in use for years and (at least "RINO") has fairly wide use. Enough that reporters ask questions about it and columnists toss it around. Ex: "Conservatives go RINO hunting" - Opinion "Moderate Republicans bemoan party's hard right turn" - news Cool Hand Luke 07:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Leif asks, "How can this article ever be anything besides a platform for POV-pushing and name calling?" Well, for example by being pretty much as it is right now. I'm not sufficiently well informed about US politics to be able to judge the article properly, but I know enough to recognize that RINO and DINO, as explained, fit several of the people listed and may very well be used for them. The article is polite and seems neutral. Unless there's a more compeling reason for deletion, keep. Hoary 07:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Do you think the politicians on these lists, or the people who voted for them, would agree that they are republicans or democrats in name only? I understand that a few of them do, but I think most don't, so their inclusion on the list is presenting only one POV of a controversial issue. There is no problem with Wikipedia containing the fact that politician (or columnist) X called politician Y an XYZ "in name only", but these lists in their present form (with no attribution of who called who what) seem unacceptably non-neutral to me. ~leif (talk)[[]] 08:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• keep. but back-up the names with references. It's definitely a real topic, and DINO/RINO are real, in-use terms, but I'm not so sure about some of the examples. John McCain, for one, may be a social moderate, but I don't think he's a real RINO, certainly not compared to the likes of Lincoln Chafee. Ditto Arnie, who seems to be a committed Republican, despite being way to the left of most of his party on social issues. Varitek 08:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • A "real" RINO? He's certainly called one, by the Club for Growth and National Federation of Republican Assemblies, for example. Agian, citing these would be no problem. If no one else does, I will before VfD is up. Probably it'd be easiest to footnote abreviations for each sorce, because there's high overlap. Say "John S. McCain III of Arizona (CFG, NFRA)", ect. Cool Hand Luke 19:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep. This seems like a flash-in-the-pan epitaph to me but we've kept political slogans that were even less timeworthy. If kept, I strongly recommend the removal of both lists of names. They will continue to create POV difficulties yet they add virtually nothing to the understanding of the concept. Rossami (talk) 09:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. The list of names is important for an understanding of context. -Joseph (Talk) 15:39, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

• Keep - wellknown political term. Article should outline the sources of the terms and response of those accused.
• Keep, but: Keep, but I agree that the lists do less of a service than the rest of the article. The article provides references and gives actual actions taken by identifiable groups. Also, the article ends on a quote, where a guest speaker, as it were, tips the balance of POV for too long. There are quite a few edits that would help, but the article in general is sound and well done. Geogre 14:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Some people get overly offended when their pet senators or congresscritters show up on this list. The list is only for those politicians that are accused of being RINO/DINO in the widespread media. Eg. Arbitrary adding of names is a no-no. By the way, I'm amazed that someone had the gall to put a VfD on this. Ulterior motive? -Joseph (Talk) 15:18, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
  • As the nominator of this VfD, I'm curious as to what you think my ulterior motive would be. Keeping wikipedia neutral and accurate is all that I'm trying to do here; I assure you that I certainly don't have a "pet congresscritter" on either list. ~leif ☺ _HELO 20:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Not certain exactly. It seems like you're determined to sink an article which I don't believe is nearly as POV as you seem to think it is. Also, keep the list. -Joseph (Talk) 23:44, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
• Keep Good article on a relevant topic 129.177.61.120 14:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless there is an objective measure or verifiable authority for inclusion/exclusion, listing names is merely reporting hearsay, decidedly not encyclopedic. (Could be cleaned up to remove names, or to specifically ascribe each inclusion - at which point Wikipedia will become a mouthpiece.) - Amgine 15:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I think citing well-known conservatives and RINO hunting groups that label them as such should be sufficient. We need to characterize the position of such POVs (although more needs to be done to qualify these name-callers). There's no need to include people who have merely been labeled "in name only" by a couple of random blogs because there's actually a reasonably large base that throws around many of the same names. Cool Hand Luke 19:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Mark Richards 17:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Provides a good overview of a notable aspect of current US politics. --LeeHunter 17:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree, Keep. --203.109.254.50 09:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If the list of names is no good, send it to Pages Needing Attention or cleanup or just edit the list yourself; I really don't see what the problem is. AND I've yet to see any remotely legitimate reason under current policy why this should be deleted - there's no case to answer. AND, since you asked, keep the lists too, provided that they can be properly cited. - RedWordSmith 18:11, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your suggestions. I did consider listing it on cleanup, but I saw that there were already a number of people actively editing it and I decided that the article itself seemed more like deletion material than cleanup. I didn't fix the lists myself, because I'm not familiar enough with various partisan name-calling organizations to have known how/where to find the attributions. The policy that is being violated, at least until every person on both lists has an attribution, is WP:NPOV. Without attributions, these lists are inevitably going to be subjects for argument and POV-pushing. I thank the people who have begun finding attributions for the RINOs list since this VfD started. The DINO list is still wholly unattributed, however. Even with full attribution on both lists, I would still favor deleting this article, but if the attributions are added it won't be such a blatant violation NPOV. ~leif ☺ _HELO 20:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 23:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This term is in pretty widespread use... 33,800 Google hits for RINO republican. I don't hear it much from the Democrat side, but the Republicans use it quite often (Rush Limbaugh is probably the most prominent example, but I think it's used by Congress members too). So it's above just a mere inclusion on the list of political epithets. It deserves its own article. --Idont Havaname 00:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Extremely delete. Explaining what it is is no more than a dictdef. Listing people is possibly libellous, let alone POV pushing, and at that, original research. You could, I suppose, have lists of people accused of it. Then you'd only be libelling them. A term's being in "widespread use" does not actually speak for an article about the term. If you wrote an article about "the", I'd vote to delete that double plus extremely. (Don't tell me there is one...)Dr Zen 00:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • This is not libel. Libel cannot involve a subjective statement, period, let alone about a political figure. Nor is this a dictdef—it requires far more elaboration than that. Anyhow, the point of the article is not what any of us think, but to refer to a concept that political talking heads have furthered. In any event, what's with these panty-anty "strong keep" and "extremely delete" things? It's either "keep" or "delete." Nevermind the bad grammar. -Joseph (Talk) 01:45, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
    • "Libel cannot involve a subjective statement"? Don't try that defence if you're ever sued! BTW, a man who doesn't know that "never mind" are two words ought to keep his opinion on "grammar" locked up where no one can see it.Dr Zen 02:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Picking over words and insulting another member doesn't change the fact that there's no way the term can possibly be considered libelous, at least by the laws of the United States. No opinion on keeping or deleting article, just clarifying that there's absolutely no chance this could ever pose a legal problem. DreamGuy 02:29, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
        • It's almost impossible to libel a public figure in the US: you need malicious intent and at least a reckless regard for factuality. This article is no more in danger of that than any other. Keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:42, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but prune the lists and contextualize the entries. "According to XXXX" is not, by itself, sufficient context for inclusion, as each party has extremists/centrists who believe the centrists/extremists to not be "real" members of the party. -Sean Curtin 01:36, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. NeoJustin 03:02, Nov. 23 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable concept. --Improv 21:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Notable topic. Keep, but consider splitting into two separate articles. Bearcat 03:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If the term is still in use in 2008, it can go into the Wiktionary. This is not an encyclopedia topic; there are no neutral POV criteria for determining whether a member of a political party merits the epithet "in name only". --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 01:34, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a very interesting and relevant term that belongs on this site. I didn't know what it meant when I heard it used an Wikipedia was the first place I checked. Imagine if it weren't there for those who don't know for what it stands... it's necessary. --the sleeper 03:41, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Why should we leave people in the dark on the premise of offending someone? --jm51 21:18, 25 Nov 2004 (PST)
• Keep. Very informative and is, currently, reasonably NPOV. People will encounter this term and Wikipedia should explain this term to them. Also, the listings of specific politicians with the rationale is an important and quick heads up on US politics especially given the central role of the US today. As an non-American, I benefit from this kind of valuable information. Plus, this article will provide useful historic information for those in the future who try to decrypt today's bizarre US politics. WpZurp 05:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, please. This is something that exist, if it is liked or not. -- Mattworld 04:31, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think the article is NPOV as is, but the article is not hopeless. COGDEN 08:03, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Ground 21:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. --Sina 09:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The vote so far (after one week) is:

Delete: 4

Keep: 25

Would someone mind double-checking my count? Not that it will matter much. -Joseph (Talk) 05:27, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

As the nominator, I'll go ahead and unlist this now... I see that I am clearly in the minority on this. At least the article got a bit closer to being NPOV during the course of this vote. Hopefully all of the DINO labels listed will also be attributed soon. ~leif ☺ _HELO 06:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Comment after close. I am adding links in this VfD so that this VfD pops up in What Links Here for Democrat In Name Only and Republican In Name Only. -- Jreferee t/c 22:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

---

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Stefan Kamph, along with Stefan Kamph, Author, was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

made up stuff. --Hemanshu 07:42, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

delete as silly. (Pity in a way, because it seems to me much more worthwhile and entertaining (and better written) than a lot of the stuff about game "universes", etc.) Hoary 08:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

delete-- seems like wishful thinking. The only Stefan Kamph to come up in Google is "a 19 year old student", and for a well respected author, oddly does not come up at all in Amazon.com. User:Stefankamph has today being writing short articles, which seem to be up for speedy deletion. Maybe this one should be too because Stefan Kamph, Author clearly does not exist, at least not in the manner the article describes. Rossrs 08:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete both. If we knew for sure that they were by User:Stefankamph I guess we could move to his user space without redirect, but they are both by an anon whose only other edit (a month ago) seems to be OK, maybe a different person. Andrewa 10:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Patent nonsense on its face. I'm going to speedy delete it. Postdlf 11:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Jani mikkonen was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to speedy delete.

Not verifiable. I can't find any "notorious" information on that name. --Gtabary 10:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Please use {{delete}} on such worthless articles—no sense in wasting time on VfD for such nonsense. Postdlf 11:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Was very unsure of the status of this article. Could have been notorious. Will use {{delete}}. --Gtabary 11:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• article speedily deleted

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Diffusie was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

This article consists of a few remarks about diffusion in human lungs. I have added the information to the main diffusion article. Since both the article and the title are in Dutch, and the article does not contain anything that is not mentioned in the diffusion article, I think it is redundant and has no encyclopedic potential. I propose that we delete it. Sietse 12:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Translation of the article: Diffusion happens in the body in the lungs. It happens when a gas moves from a place with a high concentration of gas to a place with a low concentration of gas. This happens in the lungs. Oxygen jumps on the red blood cells from the alveoli. . The last two words seem to be some kind of signature. Sietse 12:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant information, and being in Dutch it would not be suitable as a redirect. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 13:23, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Redundant, no need for a redirect. Geogre 14:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Amgine 15:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - No new information to merge Greba 03:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Quoth the raven, Eversor was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Original material. 62.252.64.14 12:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• there's no reason to exculde this example. If you want something to delete, I suggest you look at United Overseas Bank, or Greektragedies. Keep Dracula the bat 12:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - good article, maybe bulk it out a bit, but definitely keep. Dr Chicken -- Note: No such user Dr. Chicken existed at the time this vote was cast. His 'user page' was the creation of Forgotmytea, and it was 212.219.191.134 who added his vote to this page.
• Nice, but doesn't fit into Wikipedia poem. Delete. Dr Chicken 12:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) See above and see edit history, which has three votes at this time

Keep - cant see any good reason why it should be destroyed - I quite like it.... 56.581.93.77 -- Note: "Anon" vote has been added by User:Dracula the bat

• Delete. A completely non-notable poem. Anyone can write a parody poem, but even if it's good it doesn't merit a Wikipedia article until it becomes notable. Remember, Wikipedia is a secondary source for information about our world, not a place for posting some poem you wrote/found. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 12:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, original material -- Ferkelparade π 12:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Livajo says it all. - Andre Engels 13:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable poems make the Baby Jesus cry. - Randwicked 13:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Original fiction. - RedWordSmith 13:27, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Original paraody. - Mailer diablo 13:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: We're not a poetry site (thank goodness). This is terrible, too. Geogre 14:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Deletable on so many levels. Only of interest (only comprehensible!) to fans of one particular game (OH GNOS He Is Implying The F-Word); original material; not-notable. Very few poems get their own articles, let alone notable parodies of those poems getting articles, let alone modern parodies of those poems which only make sense to players of one game. Oh, and extra style points off for a) tampering with the VfD and b) pulling the old "delete these articles instead" gambit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as original material. Side note to all those who are going to forge anon votes: xx.581.xx.xx? Give me a break. Lord Bob 21:48, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 02:59, Nov. 23 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Either it's a copyright violation or it's original work; either way it's crap. —No-One Jones ^(m) 11:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete' -- Infrogmation 22:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Or Chadash Singers was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

• Neither the article, nor any of the 6 Google hits gives any evidence that this 10-15 member choir has any significant notability. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 12:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No sign of notability. - Andre Engels 13:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Local choir of local significance only. Geogre 14:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete A choir by this name for the LGBT-serving Or Chadesh Synagogue in Chicago was picked up on a couple national gay sites, but I don't think this is it. - Amgine 15:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. David Johnson 15:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Roddy Schrock was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Doesn't immediately strike one as notable. Deb 12:53, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Substub of a person whom All Music Guide has never heard of. It's easy to be a musician. It's hard to be a professionally recorded, signed, and distributed musician. Geogre 15:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete ~ 700 google hits from an apparently active internet promoting band? not notable at this time. - Amgine 15:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. None of the groups he's worked with have a page, so he certainly doesn't warrant one. David Johnson 15:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing in google talk either, not notable --Spangineer 15:53, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Harrison, Robert Biography Lobbyist was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

• Looks to me like someone's CV. Vanity page. - Andre Engels 13:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• User:Kathrynstewart created the page, so I don't think it's vanity, however, I would like to see some proof of notability. Let's list it at cleanup and see what happens. Abstain. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 13:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising/CV. The creator seems related to the Yahoo and web addresses given the article. However, the article is a CV and an ad for services, so that's beside the point. Geogre 15:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Exact same paragraph appears at [24]. The Robert Harrison ceramist/sculptor of Montana is the most notable Robert Harrison in the state which seems to have rather a plethora of them (including a city, several degrees, and a Harrison family of Montana geneology list.) - Amgine 15:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Wolf530 15:31, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Big a fan as I am of Robert Biography Lobbyist Harrison I think we need to delete this. -R. fiend 21:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Corporate abuse was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was inconclusive, leaning towards keep.

Keep - this is a real world topic of interest to many people. Such corporate criminals as Microsoft and Enron are legitimate subjects for comment.

-- Only a stub at the moment, but I don't see what it could possibly be except an avenue for POV. Certainly there are plenty of articles and categories relevant to various private-sector scandals, high crimes and misdemeanors, business ethics issues, etc. If there were anything worthwhile here, it could be merged into one of them. But there isn't. --Christofurio 13:39, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - Amgine 14:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) After a double check for the articles which link here, more than 20 articles consider this term important and predate this stub. Expand or Redirect - Amgine 14:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Barring any objection, I'll redirect this to our article on Business ethics. Seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me. - RedWordSmith 17:57, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• The current content is a self-evident definition - "Corporate abuse is ... an unethical behavior on behalf of a corporation..." While there are many articles which link to Corporate abuse, a detailed review of them reveals no single pattern. Agree with RedWordSmith that this should be redirected to business ethics. Rossami (talk) 18:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to business ethics. Samaritan 21:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Corporate abuse: don't delete

• I want to state my position as I have done envolving Firestone vs Ford Motor Company controversy from Ford Explorer article...

My intention is not to have a POV; but I feel a responsibility to shine light on the controversy that is the 'Ford/Firestone Fiasco' and while numerous sources point to a negligence on behalf of Ford Co., I think others have the right to know this 'POV' instead of just taking the statements of the Corporation.

Ford will never admit to any wrong doing, but this does not make them innocent - to me it (my POV here) proves their lack of responsbility towards its community of consumers. As an example, engineer Stornant wrote that...

• • 'Ford "management is aware of the potential risk with P235 tires and has accepted (that) risk. CU test is generally unrepresentative of the real world," Stornant said, "and I see no 'real' risk in failing (the CU test) except what may result in the way of spurious litigation." from Time Magazine'
    • Documents, charts and maps from Public Citizen.org
    • 'Concerns go back 1 1/2 years before recall...'(USA Today)
    • 'Ford/Firestone Fiasco...'

I will have to disagree with your claim that it's a negative POV comment; To say that Ford is innocent of all charges is in its self having a POV of a ford CEO. Thus, I propose adding it to the |Category:Corporate abuse|....while I do agree that Ford does great things for the public (sholarships, community service, etc.) and I think this should be addressed; my conern is Ford's wrong doings in the past aren't acknowledged...

• • it is unfair to keep the article Corporate crime which to me, should stay, and not keep Corporate abuse - you may say that they are one of the same, but I disagree since a crime is concerned with a guilty action and in cases such as the: Bhopal Disaster no crime has been prosecuted, but this is a clear case of corporate abuse
    • negligence towards the community by placing the plant closer to the city limits than the government stated
    • cutting cost on safety measures and endangering employees, ulitmately the whole community
    • along with numerous acts of negligence

• • in the case of all the accounting frauds WorldCom, Global Crossing, etc:
    • While they may have been prosecuted for crimes, the case still stands that the corporation acted in an unethical way towards it's employees by jeopordizing their life savings - this in its self is not a crime, but rather an example of corporate abuse.

PEACE...RoboAction 19:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Move to a less POV title, or simply redirect if such an article already exists. —Morven 05:34, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or submit to Wikipedia:Votes for refactoring (to be established...). jni 15:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and expand or post a cleanup notice. Perhaps it could be used as a disambig page to various corporate scandals. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep I can imagine this becoming an excellent article discussing corporate abuse's history, causes, regulatory issues, economics, etc... I think the title is already NPOV. Is anyone saying that Corporate Abuse does not exist? Abuse is not ethics. It is the failure of ethics and perhaps something bigger and systemic related to the nature of corporations. Redirecting to business ethics seems like redirecting "criminality" to "morality". --Samuel Wantman 01:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep... as redirect. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 06:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep because the Business Ethics article is a fairly theoretical discussion. This article would contain more practical info such as links to horrible examples (Bhopal disaster, activities of oil companies in North-Eastern Ecuador and their treatment of Cofan tribes). The fact that no strict pattern can be found, other than that ethical and/or legal rules are broken is a nonstarter - there are almost as many ways of comitting a crime as there are economic activities. IMHO, the article should be expanded slightly and serves as a place to find some major examples of corporate abuse. The only problem I have with this article is the word 'abuse' in the title, because abuse is usually accompanied by an indication of what or who is abused.
• Keep as it is a topic in its own right; should be expanded though.
• Keep We cannot let the corruption of the (mostly) right wing barons go un-noticed.--Aika 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Mr. Electric was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep.

Vfd Header added by anon user...no vote, just listing it here for proper procedure -- Ferkelparade π 14:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral - appears to be listed by lottery winner from Arizona? If the claims of company size bear out, should be expanded. Else, advertising. - Amgine 14:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but clean up: It's a mess of an article, but the company seems to have franchises all over the place, including the UK. Saying that it is the largest in the field is a little iffy, since the field is pretty narrow. The company is a franchise electrical repair corporation. People buy the name and logo and then do electrical sub work and repair work. The article is kind of poorly written, but that's no reason to delete (and I think the lottery winner thing is kind of irrelevant). Geogre 18:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. —siroχo 00:06, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep it. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 02:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Article was written by me, when I was logged in. But for some reason,. wikipedia didnt credit me with it until the day after. The reason I put the thing about the lottery ticket winner is that he has made sure that we, people who live either in or near Glendale, see their vans almost everytime we go out, the company is almost impossible not to be seen during a day trip here. "Antonio Money Buddy Martin" 22:07 (MST) Nov 22, 2004
• Keep It needs alot of clean-up, the article is a big mess.

User:Marine 69-71

• Delete. We are not a corporate directory. --Improv 21:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Then we'd have to delete articles on Coca Cola, American Airlines, HBO, Budweiser, etc etc..."Antonio Mr. NBA Martin" 1:32 (MST), Nov 24, 2004

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Taleus was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

This looks like a vanity page. Everything is by a single contributor on one day. Compare external ref. ;Bear 14:44, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

• Delete: Deep Thoughts (tm), but original research and self-promotion. Geogre 18:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: summary of twaddle hitherto unknown beyond a single (advertising-supported Geocities) website. Hoary 02:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete This is not a peer-reviewed or as yet adopted classification system. Wyss 83.115.141.10 20:25, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. GMNASAC was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

This article is about a group of 11 people who like a particular type of music. This is so unencyclopedic it hurts. David Johnson 15:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] 15:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete even if it means I'll never learn the details of the "Brad Perala Salt-Shaker Incident" --Christofurio 16:05, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Oh come on people! Didn't you read? They attended a Reel Big Fish concert. Now if that isn't a reason to be in the Wikipedia I don't know what is. Delete. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 16:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Are you one of those people who doesn't allow people to have fun?!!! I know I am. Delete. Geogre 18:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 22:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I saw Yes back in May. Can I join the club? What? They're not a ska band? No wonder I felt gypped. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 00:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 02:58, Nov. 23 2004 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. And on next (5th) revert of VfD note ban the user for a day. --Wikimol 16:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Wyss 83.115.141.10 20:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Interestingly, Caleb York is in this entry as well... Also, this is not notable at all.

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

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

The result of the debate was - keep with the option to merge

Blardy

Whimsical nonsense. Neologism. --LeeHunter 17:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Google doesn't find it - neologism. David Johnson 17:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Someone's joke. Geogre 18:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge: Dense article, but maybe there is another word for blardy already.
  • Comment: The above is by the page's author, an anon with no other contributions. But they do have a point. This is well-written, and fills a gap in our current coverage of Russell's paradox. The content should be saved. See talk:blardy. No vote at this stage. Andrewa 19:06, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge. Comment: This is a well-known paradox. The usual terms are autological (words that describe themselves) and heterological. See autological word a.k.a. Grelling-Nelson paradox. --MarkSweep 19:23, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Change to redirect "Grelling-Nelson paradox" where the concept (we called it a "jeed" at school, before most of you were born) is thoroughly covered. --Wetman 19:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - not meant to be taken seriously. Deb 20:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: The page's author definitely meant it to be taken seriously, and the Grelling-Nelson paradox is in some form taught in every introductory course of logic or metalogic. Vote below. Andrewa 23:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. There's content there that was not in existing articles, both in some details and in a phrasing that is more approachable by non-specialists. (But the main thing this discussion has exposed is some navigation problems, which I think are now fixed by some new wikilinks and redirs.) Andrewa 23:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or merge as above. —siroχo 00:05, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to "Grelling-Nelson paradox". [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Some say blardy, I say baloney. Wyss 83.115.141.10 20:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep very satisfactory exposition of Russell's and Grelling-Nelson's paradoxes Sangrecio 23:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC).

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

Maseches Brachos Perek Dales

This is the translation of a fragment of the Mishnah and the Talmud commentary on it. This should be on Wikisource or Wikibooks. JFW | T@lk 18:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Transwiki or delete: I'm not sure it's just original source. It looks like it's an explanation of source material, and that takes it away from Wikisource and more toward Wikibooks, but it isn't a book yet, either. It's definitely not an article, though, and it's at a virtually impossible title. Geogre 21:06, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Religious instruction not written from a neutral POV. Wyss 83.115.141.10 20:35, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

A 'musician and blogger currently attending the University of North Texas'. His website has a Alexa.com traffic rank of 2,958,858. Deus Ex 19:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Playing the tuba or getting a university degree isn't encyclopedia-worthy [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] 20:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. David Johnson 20:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Blogs.... Diaries are supposed to be private. This is not to protect the privacy of the author, but the peace of mind of the passerby. Not yet notable. Geogre 21:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity... yawn. Wyss 83.115.141.10 20:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Jake manzano was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Looks like a vanity page to me Jackliddle 19:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• They're non-notable. Don't deserve an encyclopedia entry. Delete Estel 19:36, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Deus Ex 19:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. David Johnson 20:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Some dude. Geogre 21:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 02:57, Nov. 23 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Wyss 83.115.141.10 20:38, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Automotive maneuvers

Might have better credence if the name were spelt correctly. I believe that any possible content ought to rather go to Stunt#Stunt driving. Delete. Estel 20:25, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Nothing to merge beyond the obvious. No pressing need for a redirect. Geogre 21:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete or merge/redir. Spelling seems fine in AE. Niteowlneils 20:25, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete This was written either as a joke or by a complete dolt. Wyss 83.115.141.10 20:40, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Seemingly an article on basic driving maneuvers isn’t necessary; neither am I. --Blade Hirato 03:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Article about a game that isn't even available yet! Deb 20:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. No mention of it anywhere on the net as far as I can tell. Doesn't bode too well for a game now does it [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] 20:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Spamvertising. David Johnson 20:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Possibly a prank. "Third person" shooter? You mean "they" shoot? It shoots? He or she shoots? Fighting Satan? Ahem. Geogre 21:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: a third person shooter is a shooter that gives the player a 3rd person view over the character's shoulder (as i Tomb Raider), as opposed to a first person shooter where you see through your character's eyes. Anyway, this is not a notable shooter in any person, so Delete -- Ferkelparade π 23:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• You play this game, and Satan shoots at you. Just like real life, only virtual! Delete. -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete until the game achieves notability. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 01:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Gotta be a play on Serious Sam, another shooter. Delete hfool 22:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. The Proctiles was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Non notable band formed by members of another non notable band. --LeeHunter 21:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Totally un-notable and unencyclopedic. David Johnson 23:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: No information useful for an encyclopedia. Geogre 04:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice Wyss 83.115.141.10 20:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Dark * Stormy

A recipe. Transwiki to Wikibooks cookbook ike9898 21:54, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Transwiki. Personally I'd just move the recipe over and list this page for speedy deletion. Unless you're supposed to put in a redirect for transwikied articles? Not sure what the policy is. David Johnson 23:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete. The Transwiki policy can be found at m:Transwiki, and it seems putting the page up onto VfD is mandatory under the current rules. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 00:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and Transwiki I want one. Wyss 83.115.141.10 20:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Lia Lemmi appears to be a vanity article about a 17 year old Portuguese girl who has a photoblog. Jwrosenzweig 21:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• "About to become a famous writer"? Let's wait with creating an article until after this happens. Not yet notable. Delete. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:51, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Psh, of cours everyone with a photoblog is notable. Let's invite all of LiveJournal to come in and write vanity stubs about themselves! (GOD NO.) Delete. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 22:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. As "notable" as I think she is, she's not "wikipedia notable" :-) David Johnson 00:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete until she can transform that angst into some notability. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 01:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: A deep passion for driving too fast is a bad thing. She's a teen. Geogre 04:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Senseless vanity, until she becomes more than an average blogger, it's a waste of space here. Delete Oneliner 10:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a blog directory. --Improv 21:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete She's kinda cool but won't be notable until she's committed a felony, or published a book. Wyss 83.115.141.10 20:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Not that there is anything wrong with being a teen, but this is a useless page. Mfecane 23:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Gary Craig

Vanity/nonsense about the latest Guy With The Answers and his trademarked technique. Note the disparity between the article's description of "trained Stanford engineer" and "NLP master" and the disclaimer on Craig's website: "Gary Craig is not a licensed health professional and offers EFT as an ordained minister and as a personal performance coach." -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete both this and emotional freedom techniques, which I guess needs its own listing. Either advertising or promotion by one of the faithful, a new user with no other contributions. No evidence it's encyclopedic. Andrewa 00:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Now unsure (removal of vote). See talk:Gary Craig. Andrewa 11:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I would suggest that the presented evidence may argue for the keeping of emotional freedom techniques, but as long as that remains Craig's trademarked brand of practice and he's not independently notable, there's no reason to have a separate article about him. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete both: I really regard these as the same article posted twice. Advertising and personal medicine. Geogre 04:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. Gamaliel 04:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotion. jni 08:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. I had already typed "delete," but was then rather surprised to get 30,500 Google hits, most apparently relevant, on "emotional freedom technique" in quotes. And apparently used by, and the subject of seminars presented by, many people other than Gary Craig. Withholding judgement until I find out more. It's used to treat horses as well as humans, by the way... Some disagreement on who developed it; some sites say "TFT was originally developed by psychologist, Dr Roger Callahan" etc. but Craig apparently was Callahan's student and played a role in hyping developing and popularizing it. I had wondered whether he a non-notable practitioner of the technique, but apparently not, he's a major mover behind EFT. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with Anthaeus --Improv 21:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment on Anthaeus first post: NLP-Masters and stanford engineers are both by profession not licenced health professionals. So where is the disparity? -- Geraldstiehler 11:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, to be totally frank, Gerald, the first impression that the articles and the website together present meets many of the hallmarks of the classic "quack doctor": a technique semmingly described by putting plausible buzzwords together ("psychological acupressure"); a long laundry list of seemingly unrelated disorders for which the new breakthrough is claimed to be the solution, "the missing piece to the healing puzzle"; a stress on the authority the originator possesses in fields other than the field where their authority is to be trusted (i.e., trained by Stanford University, but in engineering, not anything health-related; a "master" of neuro-linguistic programming, a field of medicine that is still lacking clinical peer review itself, and where no formal body exists to define who has and who has not achieved "mastery"); and finally, finally... while all the other symptoms just tend to indicate someone well-meaning who thinks they've found The Answer, the warning bells really go off on someone who offers their purported medical breakthrough as "an ordained minister". Everything else is a classic symptom of the well-intentioned but perhaps self-misled individual, but cloaking a supposedly scientific technique as religion in order to avoid charges of practicing medicine without a license? That is a warning sign of a different and darker kind of individual. If he's willing to be dishonest about whether it's medicine or religion, purely in order to keep operating, what else is he willing to be dishonest about? Have all of those success stories actually happened? Did that endorsement actually come from that source, not taken out of context? That is why I am urging a great deal of caution in this case. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your honest answer Antaeus. Yes, I understand completely, that this homepage may support such warning bells. To be honest myself, I had some warning lights myself, when visiting the first seminar on this topic. And hadn't it be an old an experienced teacher of mine in well aproved psychotherapy, I wouldn't even have attended the seminar. But the results are better than anything I learned in long years of psychotherapy. And ... there are health professionals with proper academic training working with these techniques. And even then it works. There is a vast growing field on "energy psychology". Not only Gary Craigs EFT, but Callahans TFT, and lots of other related techniques as well. Nevertheless. If the mayority of wikipedians don't want this article to be here. I'll agree to that and we'll wait another five to ten years or so. And see again. Geraldstiehler 07:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• By the way, some guy wrote about having found just a few book on "emotional freedom techniques" at amazon.com search. He/she might include the often used acronym of "EFT" in the search and get more hits. Same aplies to other languages. Geraldstiehler 07:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• To have good results with EFT is very simple right from the beginning. AND there are some advanced skills. Please just try it. We can talk back and forward for ages. EFT hurts believe systems, yes. If you doubt so much, Antaeus, and everybody else, why don't you just give it a try? Penicillin was a breakthrough, so Energy Psychology will be. Please stay curious. In my daily work (I am working with EFT since three years) I see how much people are finding relief about so many different issues and have new options. I am from Germany and let me tell you, we hate that kind of 'helps when nothing else will help' or 85% success-rate and all that kind of stuff. When I first went to a talk about EFT, I just did a favour to a friend. She didn't have a car to go there. I was not only sceptical. I just didn't want to know anything about it. During that talk the speaker gave us one little experience how EFT works and I did feel it in my body. It was amazing. A very old grief and anger about sth that happened in school years ago just faded away and I not only felt peace about it, there was also a shift in thinking, a deeper wiseness that emerged. I signed in the next EFT-Workshop and did learn about it. I'm still studying the News about it and still I am amazed about EFT. I write this because I really want people to know about that opportunity. UlrikeTuzar 05:41 pm, 26 Nov 2004
  • Well, as I've said before, the problem is that most of the arguments that have been voiced for keeping these articles are "the article's subject is a Good Thing." Please note that I have expressed doubt (and, I hope, adequately explained the reasons for my doubt) about whether EFT is really as much of a Good Thing as is being claimed, but that doubt is not the reason for my vote on the VfD. If person A comes up and says "EFT is really an awesomely great thing that everyone ought to know about", and person B comes up and says "Good God, EFT is the biggest hoax to hit modern medicine and it's getting so much more attention than it deserves", person B is actually making a better argument for why the article should be kept. (Of course, person A may not necessarily be pleased by the article that gets kept...) It's not about whether the thing is good or bad, it's whether it's notable enough that Wikipedia should be reflecting knowledge about it. This is why in fact I am changing my vote on the EFT article; the Skeptical Inquirer article on TFT describes it as "a treatment approach on the rise that threatens to overtake EMDR as the premiere power therapy for the twenty-first century", and even though the context makes it clear that they think very little of any 'power therapy', they are describing it as prominent enough that I think notability has been established. On Gary Craig, I still maintain that his notability is part and parcel of EFT's, and thus an article just about him is not merited. (I'd also like to note that EMDR, the technique the SI article takes jabs at early on, saying it "has been described as a prototypical case of pseudoscience within mental health", is something which I have been helped tremendously by myself. So, I am entertaining vague hopes that it might be recognized this time that my "delete" vote is not because I am prejudiced against non-mainstream medicine, nor is convincing me "it really works!" what will change my vote to "keep".)
  • OK, now I understand better. Well of course, I think EFT 'emotional freedom techniques" are notable (and a lot of google hits may emphasize this), but if you have different levels on when a topic is notable. Then so be it. Geraldstiehler 11:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Cribcage 19:36, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Conflicts with the tacit Wiki policy prohibiting articles about muffinhead quacks. Wyss 83.115.141.10 20:52, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Just to rate "notability" of emotional freedom techniques and Gary Craig. Here's some latest news: (Quote) Wow, that's rediculous, www.emofree.com is in the top ten visited health sites on the net.I saw this on mercolas site, emofree is rated number nine out of all the natural health related sites it was 48,880 out of all possible natural health sites out there. The list goes up to just under 100,000 sites, but i'm guessing there are a good amount more then that. MSN (jorge.mojica@comcast.net) (Quote end) Geraldstiehler 07:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Emotional freedom techniques

See above entry (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gary Craig). Not notable. silsor 01:10, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Not notable. Delete. While I still remain very very iffy about this, Talk:Gary Craig is indicating that there's a bit more actual scientific investigation of this method than there usually is of one-man health breakthroughs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) I am changing my vote to a Keep, though I think heavy Cleanup and NPOVing is needed; this article treats it (or its parent therapy, TFT) as pseudoscience, but describes it as a highly prominent pseudo/quasi-science. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Well EFT isn't just a "one-man" thing, though it might really be a breakthrough. As I said in Talk:Gary Craig there are a dozen approaches in the field of so called "energy psychology". emotional freedom technique is just the most popular of those techniques as Craig tied together some crucial knots in his treatment. Geraldstiehler 09:54, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." Geogre 04:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 05:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. jni 10:38, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete* I don't think one should take delete votes from people who clearly don't know anything about this. There are dozens upon dozens of books by many different authors at amazon on EFT, 100,000 websites and it deserves a mention.starfields -- Note: this is User:81.153.66.29's only edit.
  • Amazon actually returns 11 hits; Google returns around 37,000. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Do not delete: EFT changed my life!! -- Note: This is User:62.166.245.51's only edit.
• Do not delete: It is something somone may want to know -- Note: This is User:Dudus's only edit.
• Delete If it's a form of acupressure, or chinese medicine, it should be discussed there in a chapter explaining how it is a branch derived from either acupressure or chinese medicine, but not as a separate article. —ExplorerCDT 17:22, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, it uses the same philosophy of meridians, but blends with modern psychotherapy. I'm not sure, wether it would fit in acupressure.

• Do not delete: It is interesting to notice how people already know everything instead of being curious and learn something that could change their live. You want rather be right or rich? The Emotional Freedom Techniques are absolutely worth to be studied. I am working with that Technique since three years and there are remarkable results. I see! the results day by day. To say 'it is an ad' means to miss an opportunity for healing. Try before judging it. In times of breaking down health systems, pressure because of being unemployed and having no money,in times of terror, war and trauma we really can't afford to simply 'delete' something that doesn't fit in believe-systems. The word has to be spreaded. Sorry, if I made any spelling or grammar mistakes: English is not my mother-tongue. Best wishes to everyone, Ulrike Tuzar -- Note: This is one of 195.158.153.123's only two edits.
  • I'm afraid you're still misunderstanding Wikipedia's goals by arguing in this fashion. (This is why we mark votes that come from people with very few edits, by the way, because they are so likely to misunderstand Wikipedia's purpose and which articles we try to keep and why.) You are arguing that EFT is so wonderful that it deserves to be notable. But we are not here to bestow notability on the deserving. That is simply not the purpose that we are here for. We are here to compile information on that which is already notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:55, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Cribcage 19:36, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Codswallop. Wyss 83.115.141.10 20:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Do not delete* - Emotional Freedom Techniques is very useful and many people have benefited. The emofree.com web site gets MANY hits every day so there is much demand for information. -- Note: This is User:Mjnelson99's only edit.

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

This is a slang term for oxycodone, a morphine-like oral drug. The page should minimally be redirected and maximally deleted. JFW | T@lk 23:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Redirect, its a reasonably common term, someone might want to know. —siroχo 23:59, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect. David Johnson 00:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• This page is begging for a redirect. Aerion 02:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect. NeoJustin 03:21, Nov. 23 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect. Mention slang term in oxycodone article if it can be verified. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect sounds good. This probably doesn't even need to go through VfD. —No-One Jones ^(m) 13:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect. I agree with every comment above (besides JFW's mooting a delete.) Samaritan 22:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect --wayland 12:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Phillip Berghuis was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Obvious vanity page. Check out the creator's user page for evidence supporting this. Also non-notable. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 23:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 23:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Possibly the user intended to create it on their user page, but just did it in the wrong place, in which case it could be a speedy candidate. David Johnson 00:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Autobiography, regardless of intent. Geogre 04:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• DELETE ExplorerCDT 05:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• DELETE I was unaware of the vanity page policy Phil179
• Delete for reasons which even the original author of this article now understands, extremely. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 03:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Walri was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Looks like utter nonsense. Exploding Boy 23:12, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

• It will improve over time
• keep. Keep it, some people might want to know what they are

Comment: The comment and vote above were made by an unregistered user, an IP with many edits. David Johnson 14:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It might not be a real word but if we keep it here it could happen! Vote walri for 2005!! Gjb

Comment: That comment by the article's author, an IP with many edits. Andrewa 00:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• It does get some Google hits. I suggest Transwiking it to Wiktionary. GeorgeStepanek 23:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think this should really be moved into Wiktionary becuase it isn't a real word. Google returns <1000 results, so the word isn't even in widespread use. In any case, the article is factually incorrect as it isn't only used by a few people at one Uni. David Johnson 00:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I have used this word myself, but only jokingly to refer to more than one walrus. In any case, it is a neologism and has no place in the Wikipedia or Wiktionary. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 00:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. A made up word that does not provide any value, even in a dictionary. I would also vote against Meeces (which has 10x the Google hits) unless it was a redirect to Mr. Jinks or Pixie and Dixie of Hanna-Barbera fame. -- JamesTeterenko 02:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Didn't this get speedy deleted earlier? It's a joke. Geogre 04:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Gazpacho 14:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Kill it. Wolfman 00:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Cribcage 19:38, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment: the votes below are all from 2 unregistered IPs, both with no other edits. David Johnson 14:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thses vote were by differnt people on the same network so have the same ip

Whatever. Votes from unregistered users, especially when they have no other contributions, do not count. David Johnson 17:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A vote can not just not count, its either a fair vote or not.. these people may help to ward more things if you give them a chance. Most are knew users, if they dont see their work being kept or even there votes they might not make a valubale contribution

Precisely. It's all about fairness. The reason votes from users with no other contributions are not counted is because it would be quite easy for you, for example, to create lots of accounts to vote with and subvert the process (or get other people to do so). Also, votes from non-registered users are not counted because you could (and have done, by the looks of it) get all your friends to vote 'keep' which is NOT a fair vote. Don't take this personally - it isn't. But the process is fair. David Johnson 00:14, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I dont think there is anything wrong, with asking friends to vote for something, as they are people who know and use the subject. In an ellection you can ask who ever you want to vote for you, this is what i am doing.

If people can edit wickipdeida with out registrering then there votes should count with out registering.

Other wise you may as well just close off the whole thing to registerd users.

• Not a bad idea. Cribcage 19:38, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By me asking my friends to vote i have introduceed a lot of people who do not know about wickipedia to it, not everyone wants to be registerd.

---

• keep.

we think it should stay, it rids the world of confussion

• keep.

Walri sounds amazing i am a student from southampton and if whoever started this mith can give me his information i would love to do a south of england meeting for the walryyyyyyyyy

keep it up people it sounds awsome!!

• keep.

Seriously 1000 results of walri in google that is amazing

i think walri should be put in Wiktionary

• keep.

• keep.

The guy who did this is a mate of mine and u should keep it. He's mad so if you don't he will kill you

• keep.

• keep it most cirtainly deserves the respect of the masses!!!!!mwahahahahaha tis how our language has evolved after all good old will shakespere made up a few thousand what does this one hurt ps loti are beautiful!

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Icelandic America was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Micronation? Searching for "Icelandic America" brings up a lot of irrelevent links to this subject, but nothing to verify its existence. Zero Google hits for "Islenska America". The article doesn't explain its existence. RickK 23:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Sounds suspicious. Exploding Boy 23:40, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Work of an anon with no other contributions, no verification. Andrewa 23:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If it ain't verifiable, it ain't in Wikipedia. Plus it only has a population of 11, so probably isn't encyclopedic. David Johnson 00:16, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • List of places with fewer than ten people? VeryVerily 01:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Smells like a hoax to me. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 00:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Either a prank or someone's idea of a piconation. Geogre 04:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• DELETE You would think if Iceland annexed territory even a local Icelandic newspaper would pick up the article. None have since the supposed annexation of 3 November 2004. Has to be a hoax or someone's micronation. --ExplorerCDT 05:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Fire Star 16:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• IMO the last version by the same author is suitable for speedy deletion and move to BJAODNS --Wikimol 21:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Certainly delete. Not sure why you would move this to BJAODN - it's not funny. Andre (talk) 23:20, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. --Biekko 00:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, pointless nonsense, likely a joke or self-promotion --Librarian Brent 00:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

November 23

Go famous quotations

List of quotations about the game go; this would be better suited for Wikiquote. —tregoweth 00:17, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete and merge into Go (game). David Johnson 00:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) Transwiki into Wikiquote. Changing my mind; RickK is correct. David Johnson 00:38, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • No, don't. Quotes belong on Wikiquote, not in the game article. RickK 00:33, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikiquote. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 01:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikiquote. That is the purpose of Wikiquote. -- JamesTeterenko 02:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Agree. Transwiki. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 10:12, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Very odd I transwikied this page a while back, [25] yet the page seems to have been created after I moved it. Unless it was deleted and recreated...Either way, transwiki the new content. The wikiquote article is at Wikiquote:Go (board game). [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]]
• Transwiki. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:20, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki Bart133 16:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alien 5

Speculation, made up largely of quotes. Let's wait till there is a definite movie coming up. RickK 00:13, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Delete current entry. - Lucky 6.9 00:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. There's not even a decent amount of speculation on which the article could be based. David Johnson 00:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete (or redirect to Alien (movie), which briefly mentions it). -Sean Curtin 01:43, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. An encyclopedia is not a place for entertainment rumours. -- JamesTeterenko 02:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 02:52, Nov. 23 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. jni 07:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:20, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Blood and Gold

Linked from only three pages and is a redirect to one of them. It would make more sense for this to be a red link (like several of the other novels on The Vampire Chronicles, imho. — OwenBlacker 01:09, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: It would be better if it weren't even a redlink, if someone had something to say about it before creating the article and creating the link from the series. That's what the rest of us do. We write about something and then create links from logical sites. Geogre 05:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Empty articles are not encyclopedic. jni 08:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:21, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Sister Imelda D'Agostino

Although she appears to be a good person, she is a non-notable elementary school teacher. -- JamesTeterenko 02:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Comment The entire section Sister_Imelda_D'Agostino#Holy_Childhood_Association is a copyvio from [26]. But the rest is probably OK. What do I do about this? Mark the whole article as a copyvio because eventually it will have to be deleted to purge the copyvio from the history? I think that's what I'd better do. VfD discussants should review [27] this revision]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 03:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment There's weird stuff in the edit history. Most of the edits are by two anons in the 24.24 range. The presence of comments such as "Buca Di Beppo: Very popular with Imelda is wine night at Buca on Wednesdays. Congratulations" and "Controversy has arisen over Imelda's true intentions in life. In her youth, she classified herself as a 'hellion' that was sent away to the convent. Also in question are her computer skills and game time during office hours." And what's with that "Congratulations Imelda, or should we say Anne?" I wonder whether this is some kind of prank and/or newbie test? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 03:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: It could well be. There is a real Catholic nun by that name who is on faculty at Mount Saint Mary's Colleges and part of the US Board of Bishops outreach. However, this may well be a schoolroom fake-out, or just a schoolroom collaboration. Let the whole article go through the copyvio page, where the author(s) will need to clear and confirm, and therefore get in touch. If they're pranksters, they won't follow through. Geogre 05:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Recently vandalized by another anon in the same IP range as those who created it. This one by 24.24.172.64. Vandalized content was: "Eivdently this evil woman is full of conflict and cheats/". [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did you know?

Non-encyclopedic junk mail, essentially. --jpgordon{gab} 20:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Comment this page wasn't showing up on the votes for deletion page, so I added the template there Kappa 02:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• delete. Man I wish I knew what speedy category this is! Sander123 20:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Tubular 20:06, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• delete not an article, and it seems to be a collection of copyvios. Kappa 04:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Mass forwarded e-mail, and it's also wrong. (The average English speaker gets by with a working vocabulary of 10,000-15,000 words (Americans slightly less than other English speakers). The average German needs 30,000 words. A total of known words for each group is higher.) Geogre 05:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia shouldn't help spreading this kind of lists which always are partly wrong. I don't think that this is copyvios though. Seems more like something found in junk mail and on various places on the internet. Jeltz 07:29, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. jni 08:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete non-encyclopedic, but I would like to see correct facts (if any) moved to appropriate articles if they're verifiable. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 10:16, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Did you know? This author loves exclamation points! It's true! And you know what! We're going to delete this! -R. fiend 03:29, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:21, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Whoknows.avi

There are currently 20 google hits for this filename, and only 10 if you take out the wikipedia and livejournal pages. This does not belong in the encyclopedia. ~leif ☺ _HELO 02:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Agreed. Delete Hoary 03:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparently related to Something Awful web forum. Cool Hand Luke 04:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: If there were 150,000 Google hits for it, I would still vote to delete it. Once more, it's the engraving in stone of a joke told in a stuffy room that smells of methane by-products. Geogre 05:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Just junk. jni 08:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. AtonX 13:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete it. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 23:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:22, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --Bart133 16:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kafka's language

As a native speaker of German who has read some of his work, I can assure that the content of this page is total nonsense, both with respect to "Prussian dialect" and Kafka's writing. Even if it were not, Kafka's language should be discussed on Franz Kafka. Martg76 03:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. "Interesting tidbits" don't deserve their own articles. Gamaliel 03:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I agree, as well, that it's not exactly a set of true tidbits. The generalizations about "Jewish literature" are false, and Kafka's German might be technical, but does that make it Prussian? Isn't the coldness of the prose style part of the meaning of the fiction? Geogre 05:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above --ExplorerCDT 05:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. jni 08:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. AtonX 13:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Wikimol 21:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. As an avid reader of Kafka and other German literature, I can attest to its being written in German. The idea that he could have had anything to do with "Prussian dialect", were such a thing to exist, is ridiculous. Servais 15:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment I agree with you. Last I remembered, the Prussian (Brandenberg) dialect of German is considered the standard German (like Florentine dialect is standard Italian). That being the case, the entire premise of the article is ridiculous. And the article's author attesting that the Prussian dialect and technical German are one and the same...that's an absurd idea, even more so when laced with the analogy regarding Lolita. But even if Kafka did write in a dialect (which being a Czech would have probably been the German spoken in the Sudentenland), then by reduction to the absurd, we'd have to have a discussion of Thomas and Heinrich Mann's use of dialect, or Goethe, or Schiller, or Lessing, or Marx, et cetera ad nauseam. Articles like this should really bring about a new criterion for speedy deletion. —ExplorerCDT 16:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

AFAIK, the traditional dialect of Brandenburg is a form of Low German, which is very remote from Standard German. The latter isn't really the dialect of any particular region. Martg76 02:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We're both wrong (partially). Generally, the Low German dialects were centered further west, in Hannover, Friesland, Netherlands. While Brandenburgisch is considered Low German, it is very close to standard German because of linguistic mixing with middle German and slavic influences. Standard German mostly middle German (half of the Hochdeutsch dialects), which were popular in the Northeast (the other half were in Austria, Switzerland and Bavaria). —ExplorerCDT 06:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment Absolutely. Furthermore, Prussia was much more of a political entity which eventually included various different dialect and cultural regions. In German people will talk of Berlin dialect or Saxon dialect, but I've never heard anyone call anything Prussian dialect. Servais 20:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've heard the Berlin dialect referred to as Brandenburger Deutsch which I assume is the same thing. Prussia was just too far spread, as you said, and even in East Prussia there are several dialects that are now extinct. This article is utterly ridiculous. —ExplorerCDT 21:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete it. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• There is a possibilty if this nonsense article remains of a confusion with Old Prussian, which isn't even a Germanic language. Delete. Fire Star 17:35, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:23, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Capt Thomas J Lee

Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. --jpgordon{gab} 04:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Non notable. Bad title, too. RickK 05:18, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• DELETE Why is this even recommended for cleanup? --ExplorerCDT 05:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• DELETE Of no educational value. User:Marine 69-71
• Delete. jni 08:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. AtonX 12:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: In the south, everyone is "related to Robert E. Lee" and everyone is "part Indian." This article is true genealogy. Probably a mistaken assumption about Wikipedia by the author. Geogre 14:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Not related to Robert E. Lee, and only 1/32nd Indian.)
• Delete; Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. I think this material would be OK for a user page if the contributor wanted to create an account, but it is not appropriate as an encyclopedia article in the main namespace. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. This looks like first-person original research. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 08:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:23, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Bart133 16:54, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

from VfD:

Non-notable architecture firm, self-promotion. RickK 05:08, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

• I change my vote to keep on the current version. RickK 20:14, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I would like to know what you base your assertion of self-promotion on. --203.109.254.49 08:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• DELETE They may be notable buildings in those towns, I've never heard of them like I have heard of the Louvre, or the Guggenheim, or the Palace of Westminster. Non-notable buildings designed by non-notable architects. —ExplorerCDT 05:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. jni 08:12, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, they seem reasonably known from a Google test and a collection of things on Amazon. It seems they are respected and known in the architecture community (as is the founder Thom Mayne). —siroχo 08:17, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Commercial. AtonX 12:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • "Commercial" is not a reason for deletion unless the article is an ad/spam, which it isn't. —siroχo 21:43, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: It seems to me that they're a real firm, and the article doesn't advertise them. The two major projects completed help. I'm not thrilled with the "read the book" bit, but I think we should represent the major firms better than we do. Compared to the difficulty in making a blog, getting a building done is pretty substantial. Geogre 14:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep it. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 20:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, they didn't design any famous buildings. --fvw* 00:26, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Delete vanity;not notable User:fledgeling 04:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to be a fairly notable company, especially given the 2012 Olympic Village part. --Goobergunch|? 19:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as this appears noteworthy. --[[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 21:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep; I'm not enough up on architecture to know how significant a firm this size is, but it doesn't read like an advert, the individuals appear to be reasonably well noted on the web, and a googled list of projects looks nontrivial and international. It's also worth noting that whoever wrote List of architecture firms redlinked them there, so they were presumably considered worth listing. Shimgray 12:39, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Cribcage 19:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:24, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep They are well-known in the architecture field! If people haven't heard of them, isn't that even more of an argument to keep them in Wikipedia so people can learn about them? Gsd97jks 19:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. "Non-notable" is a bogus criterion for deletion in any case - David Gerard 19:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The 2012 Olympic Village is a significant commission, as are others. It has room to grow into a better article. Willmcw 03:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Thom Mayne

Does anybody think it might be a good idea to merge this with the Wikipedia entry for Thom Mayne or redirect to it? If this were to be fleshed out, there would be quite a bit of overlap- well, 100% overlap, really, as it is his firm. For other well-known architects, such as I.M. Pei or Philip Johnson, any reference to their office is folded into the biography. What do people think?

Generaltso 19:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. Mayne is very notable, but the firm and he are essentially synonymous. If other notable architects were associates then it'd be different. -Will Beback 20:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Mike Gately

Non-notable NBA referee. RickK 05:33, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Agreed. Unless something changes, this'll always be a stub. Ash Lux 05:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• The brawl turned into a media sensation, and converage continues. I'd say weak keep but I'd prefer a merge with an article about the brawl itself. —siroχo 07:59, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Totally non-notable. jni 08:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. AtonX 13:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: An in-the-news jot. If his name is to exist here, it would be in the brawl article, and I think it's far too early to write an article about the brawl. We need to know if it's going to result in anything other than suspensions (which will be forgotten next year). Geogre 14:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, do not merge--I can't find anything to verify this. The only referee involved I found named was "Tommy Nunez Jr.". Gately is not mentioned at November 19, 2004 disturbance at The Palace of Auburn Hills. Niteowlneils 18:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. - Lucky 6.9 19:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. His 15 minutes are already over. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I second that. Delete for the same reason as above. --Idont Havaname 04:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:24, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

To Althea, from prison

Move to Wikisource. RickK 05:47, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Agreed —siroχo 08:08, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• I agree too: move to wikisource. Sietse 14:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete. Geogre 14:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Wikisource and deleteBrentS 17:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Wikisource [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:25, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Cantometrics

Article contains nothing but quotes. RickK 05:51, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Comment Appears to have been listed *19 minutes* after being created by a bonafides editor. I've contacted Hyacinth as a courtesy to check whether he's finished working on it.Dr Zen 05:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• More than half the article is from the Middleton reference, does that constitute a copyvio? I never know these things when it comes to quoting. —siroχo 08:10, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not familiar with this subject, but Google indicates that this is notable topic (some hits to www.britannica.com etc., maybe someone who has a copy of Encyclopedia Britannica could expand this article?) and I don't see any reason for deletion. It needs cleanup for the excessive quotes, but I don't think its a copyvio because it mentions the source it's quoting and the quotes aren't really page long. jni 10:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: the quotes are fair use. It seems like Hyacinth is aiming for a full, featured article. I hope that he cuts down some of the citational lumber eventually. It's an interesting field. Geogre 14:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep it. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 20:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. And tell Hyacinth that indiscriminately bunging quotes from sources into articles is not the preferred method for writing coherent articles. Though it does sometimes appear to be his preferred method. -- GWO

There is no ARTICLE there. If there were a discussion of the subject matter, then I could see keeping it. But there is nothing to keep. RickK 20:25, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Comment. The article is now listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (according to the {{copyvio}} template now on the article). Does it still need to be listed here? Hyacinth 06:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. The purpose of this page is to discuss and determine if Cantometrics should be deleted, not to discuss one's opinions of me. Thanks. Hyacinth 06:22, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Huh? I didn't say one WORD about you. What are you accusing me of? RickK 06:50, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Rick, Hyacinth seems to be referring to GWO's comment above, where GWO implies that Hyacinth habitually creates articles like this. I don't believe he's addressing you. -leigh 08:57, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep Cited quotes are not, in fact, copyright violations, as long as the original source is properly attributed. Attributions are a way of complying with copyright rather than a violation. Special consideration is also given to scholarly or educational work using such quotes, work such as an encyclopedia article. The Steve 21:08, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with using quotes, but there needs to be something to the article BESIDES just quotes. RickK 22:00, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • That was in response to it being listed at Copyright problems. I agree with you, but I also have a lot of patience for articles on potentially interesting subjects to grow at their own pace. No change of vote. The Steve 03:22, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Let's be explicit here: publishing, on paper or on-line, something consisting of

    The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown is a great read, check this out:

  followed by the text of the novel (with or without quote marks), is a copyvio, even when done for educational purposes. Some other uses of attributed quotes are not. What User:Thesteve says above is at least technically false; more to the point, it is of no help in settling whether this article is a copyvio or not.

  --Jerzy(t) 02:32, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

  • quote: A brief passage or excerpt. {emphasis mine} No, I am not wrong. Citing an entire work is not a "quote", at least not in the sense that I was using it. The Steve 07:58, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thank you for this clarification; we are probably in agreement. --Jerzy(t) 21:38, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
• Keep. The quotes are/were an excellent start and opportunity for expansion. Unfortunately, the expansion process has been interrupted by the vote for deletion and the copyvio accusation. — David Remahl 15:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sympathetic to the work-in-progress argument, but you should have something substantial prepared before publishing the article. Do prep work offline, or in user subpages. Feel free to re-submit when you've written an article. Cribcage 19:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia builds on collaboration and iterative work, not on editors submitting done articles...Look at the edit histories of any important matter and you're likely to find that it started out as something really poor compared to what it is now. — David Remahl 19:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • You're missing the point. There's a difference between submitting an article which will grow and revise as the community builds on it, and expecting the community to transform a few poorly-arranged notes into a coherent article. As Rick has stated repeatedly, above: There's no article here.Cribcage 20:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep --Pjacobi 20:30, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article has what all articles require and most articles lack: citations and verifiability. See: Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The arguments for deletion seem to be the article is:

1. Nothing but quotes/Excessive quotes/bunging
2. Copyvio (copyright violation)
3. Incoherent/poorly-arranged
4. Not substantial

Please direct me to policies which forbid quotations, short articles, and imperfect prose. Please point to the text of the copyright and copyright violation policies which indicate the article is in fact a violation. Hyacinth 20:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Very weak delete: there's no there there. The article prior to copyvio blanking contained one complete sentence that wasn't a quote. The article doesn't need to be rewritten, it needs to be written. I don't think that it is/was a copyvio per se, and if the quotes given were incorporated into a decent article on the subject I'd vote keep. -Sean Curtin 00:29, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten article. -Sean Curtin 22:25, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

[After] total rewrite

• It seemed to me that everyone was getting caught up in the VfD controversy rather than just getting their hands dirty and fixing it. Isn't that supposed to be the Wikipedia way? So I've Been Bold and rewritten the article. Can we all agree that Wikipedia should eventually have an article on this subject? Can we agree to keep the current version (building on Hyacinth's well-intentioned work) and improve it from there? -leigh 20:21, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Oh, and, uh, keep, obviously. -leigh 20:22, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC) [rfmt by Jerzy(t) 02:14, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)]

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

The result of the debate was - substantially rewritten

List of American Ghettos

A non-NPOV and non-encyclopedic list made by an anon. Delete. Darkcore 06:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Surely we must have more ghettos than this. Gamaliel 06:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• You'd have to have a real definition for a ghetto if you really wanted to have this considered NPOV. Solid, backed by statistics, etc...but since we don't, I'll say delete. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 07:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Very weak delete, if updated with some stats about average household incomes and such, it could be a good list. —siroχo 07:55, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. jni 08:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Agree that a real definition of "ghetto" would need to be in place, and I doubt that the Warsaw Ghetto and Watts have much in common. Geogre 14:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Well, ghetto and inner city do merit articles, and even gay ghetto exists as a redirect to gay village, which is in large part a list. There's also a somewhat parallel category List of named ethnic enclaves in North American cities. However, the list presently under discussion is too dubious to responsibly merge without considerable verification/research. Manhattan, New York is a ghetto!? Samaritan 00:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, they did mean the Harlem section of Manhattan, but the area up at 125th is not a ghetto anymore, man. If you pay $1,800 a month for a one-bedroom apartment, you're not in a ghetto. (And Kingsbridge is a ghetto? And Bankhead is a ghetto in Atlanta (try Techwood Homes).) These inaccuracies just emphasize how much the list lives and dies by POV. Geogre 01:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Oakland is a ghetto? Come as a big shock to the people of the Rockridge, Lake Merritt, Glen Park, and Fruitvale neighborhoods, not to mention the folks at Kaiser-Permanente (headquartered there). POV axe-grinding, clearly. --Calton 01:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherantly POV. I could argue half the listings there. --jpgordon{gab} 17:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no "standard" definition of ghetto, so it's going to be POV right from the start. I currently live in a neighborhood that if you take the income level and "racial mix" (it's a student neighborhood) might be considered a ghetto by this guy's standards, but I don't think would be thought as one by anyone else. Inky 20:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Ugh, Delete. Without any kind of definition of what a "ghetto" is, this page is ghastly. If it improves greatly I'll consider a vote change. Antandrus 06:36, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Page is looking better: abstain for now. May change vote to keep later. 19:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• This is racist garbage. "Ghetto" belongs in discussions of the Holocaust, not in POV nonsense about black-majority cities in the US. Delete. --Sesel 21:41, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete extremely as-is. Garbage indeed. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:07, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • • Important - I changed the entry a significant deal. I didnt have a chance to fully research the income distributions of the neighborhoods on the list, but i made an effort to document the importance of a page such as this. It may be a fatally flawed page, but i tried to give it a go. It obviously still needs income-based justification, because as others have mentioned, the list seems pretty capricious. Like i said, i dont know if what i did merits this page´s continued existance, but i think i at least pushed it in the right direction and hopefully that will give others an impetus to add further material. --Handel 06:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:26, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia represents POV subjects all the time, we just try to represent them in a NPOV way. This is definitely a topic that should be represented, and the rewritten article is starting to make some good progress. - Lifefeed 15:06, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

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

Pat Brogan

This page appears to be nonsense--nixie 05:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Waaa? Delete. Gamaliel 06:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Might qualify as a speedy, but i'm not confident enough to do it myself. —siroχo 07:56, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. jni 08:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Nonsense. David Johnson 11:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• "Babe magnet"??? nonsense. Speedy on the way. Joyous 12:12, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the content was: Pat Brogan - Function: noun Etymology: French bal, from Old French, from baller to dance, from Late Latin ballare, from Greek ballizein Date: circa 1639 1: a very pleasant experience : a good time 2: babe magnet 3: fastest runner alive 4: poor driver Joyous

Bazan

Not notable, vanity article--nixie 01:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, vanity, possible libel (He's also know as a pimp). jni 08:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Seconded: Delete Hoary 08:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. David Johnson 11:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising and insult. Geogre 19:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 00:30, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable --Saigon76nyc 23:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)--Saigon76nyc 23:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:26, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

   ===Yogananda Image Gallery===

While Yogananda himself is a notable teacher and guru, I don't think a collection of images from his book belong in the Wikipedia. They may be valuable on WikiSource, but I don't think so and I doubt anyone wants to TransWiki so many images. (If that's even possible, I'm not sure) Either way, this page is pointless on the Wikipedia and should be deleted. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 07:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• We have Autobiography of a Yogi at Wikisource, but I don't think the images can be uploaded there. I'd say transwiki the images to Wikimedia Commons, in that case. If nobody else is willing to do it, I'll do it. Doesn't belong in Wikipedia though. —siroχo 08:06, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki like Siroxo said. jni 08:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki like Siroxo said. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 10:22, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki --Wolf530 20:06, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete the page, transwiki for the images. Sietse 08:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If someone transwikies the images, fine. Niteowlneils 22:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete this page. The pictures themselves may be moved, kept or transwiki'd as appropriate but item 15 of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#What Wikipedia articles are not explicitly lists a mere "collection of photographs or media files". Rossami (talk) 17:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    * ALL of the photographs have been eliminated from the text of "Autobiography of a Yogi" but the links to the "Yogananda Image Gallery" remain in the text. I submit that the main editor of this e-book should remove the photo text links in the interest of presenting a clean looking text. Thank You for your attention to this matter. T.E. Goodwin 02:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 

Archives

No archives yet.

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Contribution by editor at 102.88.*.*

The text you are adding is not supported by the citations you give. DTP is a skill which is taught in Further Education, but it is not a generic academic discipline.

• https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/5260/chapter/4 is a report on how DTP is being used in Africa. This is an interesting study and may well be useful somewhere in the article.
• https://www.westerntc.edu/desktop-publishing is a course being taught at Western Technical College. Note that it is "not financial aid eligible", meaning that it is not an academic course.
• Zippia is just a links repository.

I recognise your good faith in trying to contribute to Wikipedia but your text runs counter to the Wikipedia:Advocacy policy. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Pocketgate

Pocketgate was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

My God. Not every minor non-event of the election deserves an article. It was a friggin' pen! Gamaliel 08:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Can be covered on the debates page. This labeling doesn't seem widespread. — David Remahl 09:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This is pretty insignificant, I'm not sure it even needs to be covered on the debates page. Louis Ward 01:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable User:Fledgeling01:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Tjwood 19:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Lost/widowed VfD from early October. Seems even more trivial now that it's over. Delete. Cool Hand Luke 06:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Extreme delete. This was hardly a scandal. Any pertinent data can be merged into the main debates article. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 07:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I think it does deserve coverage somewhere, if only to demonstrate how ludicrously partisan the debates got -- the incident is less noteworthy than the reaction to it. I'm pretty sure that it doesn't need its own article, though. Merge somewhere. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Extreme delete. I don't think this even deserves a mention in the article about the debates, either. --Idont Havaname 01:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

Nathan Ritz

Yet another vanity page...18 year old who did some mod work on some online game or the other, I guess there are millions of guys like that out there. -- Ferkelparade π 09:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable in any way. jni 10:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Isn't notable. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 10:24, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. David Johnson 12:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Is this not a godd candidate for speedy deletion? Gtabary 12:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not under the current policy, no. Although it would be nice if vanity pages did qualify for speedy deletion - it would certainly lighten the load on the VfD page and admins. David Johnson 13:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think I understand the reasoning behind vanity pages not qualifying for speedy. Certainly I've seen cases where somebody nominated an article for deletion because it seemed like a vanity page to them, but in fact the person was legitimately notable and, if anything, the article merely needed to be cleaned up a bit. Nobody knows everything, or should be expected to -- if we could just speedy such articles without providing the opportunity for second opinions, we'd sometimes accidentally lose legitimate stuff in the process. Oh, and for the record, this dude doesn't qualify. Delete him. Bearcat 03:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

<Pained sigh> I agree. A page where things are nominated for speedy and have to get three unanimous agreeing votes before being executed, and where any dissent would refer to VfD was my idea. Folks mostly entirely misunderstood. Geogre 05:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete Alren 17:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Samaritan 02:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity. --Idont Havaname 04:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable --JamesTeterenko 05:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable, vanity. So he's an online gamer, so what? [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 21:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:28, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines Destinations was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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, so keep. Cool Hand Luke 08:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The page compiles volatile commercial info, which by essence are invalid if not retrieved directly from company information system. Non encyclopaedic. Practically it is advertisement. Actually for the same reason, the category Category:Airline destinations (British Airways destinations, United Airlines Destinations) and all it's entries, looks pretty much void to me. A nice clean-up may be done there ? Not sure though. --Gtabary 10:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See the category. Category:Airline destinations

• Keep I have to point out that this particular page was created in order to keep the mother page shorter, as has been also done for the other two entries listed. You can find similar destinations lists following this format in just about most major airline entries. If this is considered advertisement, I suppose we have to remove all destination information for airlines across the entire database? Just my two cents. --Huaiwei 11:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Content is not encyclopedic. It is better delivered to readers through other sources (such as the Singapore Airlines website). And, yes, I would probably vote to delete the other "destinations" articles if they are listed. Rossami (talk) 17:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment I have to stress on some points again here. 1. As I said earlier, these particular pages were once part of a far larger entry of the airlines themselves. If, due to a policy of splitting the pages up when they run too long, we end up having to split them like this for presentation purposes, and therefore suddenly running the risks of having them entirely deleted when such a call has never surfaced before, I suppose we shall all have to merge them back again to save the information? 2. Unlike previously assumed, destinatons lists presented in a uniform manner like this does not come easily for every airline, and not even always easily from their official webpages. Some actually involve having to extract the relevant data from entire schedule tables and so on, for the latest and most complete information. Not all airlines bother to indicate the exact airport used, and this can involve additional research on our part. 3. Due to the very nature of the aviation business, just about anyone interested in aviation study, or aviation enthusiasts, invariably need to consider the extent and reach of its operations, and unless we wish to go back to having vague commentary that it "flies extensively to Western Europe and some parts of the United States," there is simply no simplier way then to list the destinations out one by one. 4. Lets be fair. So if some airlines happen to have longer lists, and the whole results are considered unencyclopedic, I suppose bigger airlines shall have no destination lists, while smaller airlines will? That makes little sence. But if we were to then take the stand that all lists like these are indeed worthy of deletion, then shall we delete any destination lists in every single airline article? I went thru Category:Airlines, and I find destinations listed in: Aer Lingus, Air Burkina, Air Caraïbes, Air Finland, Air Gabon, Air Madagascar, Air New Zealand, Air Polonia, Air Santo Domingo, Air Seychelles, Airzena Georgian Airlines, American Airlines, Ariana Afghan Airlines, Azteca Airlines.....could have gone on, but this is tiring. I merely went through those airlines starting from A in the list, and that was what I got. I suppose the point has been made. 5. And while we are at it, I suppose we should remove the fleet information as well, since that can be found in other sources too, and seems to advertise aircraft makers, if this is the way we are to interpret lists and data which are not narrative in nature? Do consider these points when voting, thanks!--Huaiwei 18:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Uh, yeah, what he said. I doubt I could add much to that. (Full disclosure: I started British Airways Destinations & United Airlines Destinations) james_anatidae 20:20, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 21:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Want to share your reasons why? james_anatidae 23:19, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • For the same reason Wikipedia doesn't keep bus schedules. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • An airline destination listing is not the same as a bus schedule. A bus equivalent, will probably involve listing the bus terminals it operates to, which is probably within our means to add. If we want an airline schedule, it would involve listing all the flight numbers, flight times, days of service, planes used, meals served, and that kind of stuff, information we are obviously not prepared to provide. By the way, airline schedules change only twice a year in terms of flying times, and even then, I dont think its worth listing that out. But what I did do, however, was to list out the flight code numbers, with the intention of linking code numbers to important incidents. In case some of you arent aware, we actually do have individual pages of significant flight numbers already, as you can see in the incidents and accidents listing.--Huaiwei 07:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment, while I have no problem with the splitting out of these articles, I question the value of having non-authoritative lists of rapidly changing commercial entities. What's the point? and who's going to consistently update it? -Vina 22:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Everyone! Isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? A work of facts that is constantly updated so we can post articles that need to be changed every so often by anybody with the correct facts? james_anatidae 23:19, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • One way to look at this is that you're burdening everyone else with the obligation to keep it up to date. That's quite different from writing an incomplete article which is informative as it stands. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • 1. The thing is if you refer to my above points, destination listings are actually in abundance across plenty of our airline pages already, added by multiple contributors. We cant exactly say that a singular person is directly burdening others. Just a few days ago, I helped expand Ryanair's destination listing to include all current destinations, and already, multiple contributors have moved in to make it better. I do not know if they consider it a burden! ;) 2. Secondly, and most importantly, those in the know of the aviation business will be able to concur, that except for new airlines, crazed and pocket-deep airlines like Emirates, and the equally crazed budget carriers like Ryanair and EasyJet, most airlines actually do have relatively stable destination lists, which dont involve more then 10 changes per year. Many airlines take years to negotiate new routes, and some route launches can be highly significant events in the aviation industry, because they can involve an unprecedented relaxation of governmental controls. Negotiation of aviation rights are well known politiking tools utilised by politicians, and not just airline bosses, and they do contribute much to political analysis, beyond a study of the aviation business alone. Therefore, airline routes are not like bus routes, in that they are probably less fickle and volatile. They cant just launch them and then drop them within months baring extraordinary circumstances, because we are talking about lots of $$$ invested in each new routing and its sometimes extravagent launch (heck, even a budget carrier in Singapore threw a massive party serving over 10,000 members of the public, who bought tickets to the event of coz, to an Australian-themed lunch to celebrate the launching of its Perth-Singapore flight!)--Huaiwei 07:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep: I think it is good to encourage people to section pages like this out of main articles, and if we delete pages like this, that will become hard to do. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:49, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wile E. and Vina are right. Can you imagine the work it'll take to keep this up? Besides, it isn't anything that someone looking to fly on the airline couldn't find on its corporate website. - Lucky 6.9 00:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Refer to the above. And actually, I dont think our intention is to serve someone who is going to be a potential travellor. Rather, well at least for me, they are there for analysis of the airline's business.--Huaiwei 07:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, sectioning pages out of the main article should not lead to deletion of the new sub page. —siroχo 02:51, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep for every reason listed above supporting its inclusion. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 03:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. There are good arguments either way though. --JuntungWu 04:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep A destination list (which this is) is not the same thing as a flight schedule. DCEdwards1966 20:17, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This isn't content I had expected to find at Wikipedia, but Huaiwei et al have convinced me of its sufficienly notable and encyclopedic nature. It would be entirely unsurprising to find such lists in a paper subject area encyclopedia (of Air Transportation, etc.) Samaritan 21:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Removing sectioned pages would set a bad precedent and give the wrong message to our contributors. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 22:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Just FYI, intercity bus destinations tend to be pretty stable as well, at least in North America. The schedules change, but the destinations do not. The Steve 10:17, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. I see the point for the keep: It is somehow interesting to have info here. Though sounds like a good bit of maintenance required if we want to have accurate info. Some mentioned it; this kind of info is surprising on the wiki. I believe this is indeed like bus timetable. On the other hand I consider the "don't send wrong msg to contributors" rather important argument. I imagine also, as soon as page will be removed, genuine attempt to create them will pop up. So my conclusion: probably a weak keep. Gtabary 12:25, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep I'm supporting this page due to the existence of the similar British Airways destinations page. The extraction of this list from the main British Airways article removed a large section of text from the article and in my opinion greatly improved it. The information is now readily available to anyone who needs it, but doesn't add unnecessary clutter. Similarly I think the Singapore Airlines destinations are a benefit to those who want it and doesn't complicate the main article. Further, the argument that it will be impossible (or very difficult) to maintain is not one I can agree with. The large scheduled carriers do not add or remove routes with great frequency. Mark 18:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Cribcage 19:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Singapore airlines article [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:29, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was - kept

Shwebomin

First note Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jimmyvanthach. "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for Propaganda or advocacy of any kind" (arbcom). It appears that this is some schoolteacher who bogusly claims the throne of Burma. The last king of Burma was kicked out in the 1880s and died in 1916 leaving no children. It appears that the throne went to the strongest individual rather than any geneological descent. Mr Shwebomin has failed to produce any genealogical evidence anyway. His name also doesn't make sense and other inconsistencies seem to indicate that he is bogus. There's more on Usenet here.

Now, that claiming a throne is not reason to delete (though the article has serious accuracy and POV problems) but I don't think he's notable for kicking up a fuss as is "Michael of Albany". There are a couple of articles in local papers, but nothing in the Guardian as stated, and nothing otherwise of note. Dunc|☺ 11:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

>>>>>>>NOTICE MEMBERS in ENGLAND <<<<<<<<

I am not from England, but if a member here on wikipedia is located in England, would they mind contacting the

The Philip Green Memorial Trust because Prince Shwebomin is listed as a Patron of the organization along with other prominent people in the United Kingdom and from around the world.

They could give information concerning his lineage if they are accepting him as a Patron becauase he would had to provide an application with family information that for their organization that helps children in the United Kingdom.[28]

• The Philip Green Memorial Trust: Prince Shwebomin is listed on the first row left side

• There contact information: [29]

Address: The Philip Green Memorial Trust

301 Trafalgar House Grenville Place Mill Hill London NW7 3SA United Kingdom

Phone and Fax:

Telephone: (020) 8906 8732

Fax: (020) 8906 8574

Email:

General inofrmation: info@pgmt.org.uk Questions about this site: webmaster@pgmt.org.uk

Jimmyvanthach 12:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

• Weak Keep - no matter if his claims are disputed, he's borderline notable for claiming the throne and being discussed on Usenet. Article needs some serious NPOV work, though -- Ferkelparade π 12:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I'm in two minds over this. On the one hand I don't think that people should be able to get an entry in Wikipedia just by randomly claiming a throne with absolutely no evidence, but on the other hand if someone were to look him up here it might be useful to have an article describing how bogus his claim is. However, that article doesn't exist at the moment, the present article contains nothing of value, and his notability is very low (fraudulent claimants are mentioned all the time on alt.talk.royalty, and very few of them are notable, and the article in the "Hounslow Guardian" doesn't carry much weight), which makes the chances of anyone looking him up quite slim, so unless someone's willing to put the work into writing something NPOV (i.e. effectively writing an entirely new article) it should be killed off. It's very much like the Micronation articles, in my opinion: being a fraudulent claimant doesn't make him automatically liable for deletion, but it doesn't make him automatically inclusion-worthy either. Proteus (Talk) 14:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Being a contrarian is not sufficient, in my opinion. I'm not in favor of separate articles on any pretenders, no matter how loud they are about their claims. Rather, in a "monarchy of" section of the nation in question, a single sentence saying, "The monarchy is extinct; however, there are several who claim a right to it, including X, Y, and Z" is sufficient. If there were a strong claim, or were the claim to have enormous support, then that would be slightly different, but only slightly. Geogre 19:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm mostly with Geogre here, except I would redirect rather than delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:51, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Keep Even it seems that he is a pretender to the throne, he is notable based on Newspaper Articles that have listed him as possible heir to throne to Burma, it seems from the articles that there is no other heir that is claiming the throne of Burma besides him:

• A Royal Encounter: Interview of Prince Shwebomin by University of Leeds

• Guardian Newspaper article about Prince Shwebomin

• West Essex Independent Newspaper article about Prince Shwebomin "East End exile for Burmese Prince"

• Prince Shwebomin speaking to Jewish war veterans gathered at Arlington National Cemetery by Washington Times

--Saigon76nyc 19:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)--Saigon76nyc 19:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just as a note, I'd be loathe to assume notability based on some of those links - the journalistic rigour of the two (local) London-area newspapers is an open question, and they're both actually printing the same article - [30] and [31] appear to be identical, after both are set to "printer friendly"

Additionally, the Leeds University link is part of an outreach project at a local school ([32] this, judging by the URL) - it was likely written by a student there ("This project aims to bring together the collective talents and creative strengths of children from Britain and Europe who are producing work, in electronic form, under the common theme of Childhood."), and certainly isn't a "university publication" as may be implied by the link. In addition, it seems to basically say "This guy said he was the Crown Prince of Burma, and he's really a nice guy" - would this class as independent verification?

I can't comment on the validity of the Washington Times article, but he gets one line there and no comment about him other than a name and a quote. Again, not much verification. Just noting you need to keep an eye on what's actually being cited in support... Shimgray 21:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: promo. User:Saigon76nyc appears to be a sock puppet. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence that I've seen, just seems to be somebody with delusions of grandeur. modargo 21:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete As I have pointed out, this man's claim is not something that is debatable; it is a clear impossibility. The last King (Theebaw) outlived all of his sons and died long before this man was even born, so he could not possibly be a "Crown Prince". The simple use of the name "Prince Shwebomin" is ridiculous as well as Min means prince, so he's repeating himself. He seems to only be associated with others of equally dubious legitimacy in that bizzare section of society that seems devoted to making themselves seem "higher born" than "normal" people. As for the links, one is a copy, the others are dubious and according to this story http://www.cherwell.org/?id=74 more than a few have worried about their reputations being sullied by appearing to endorse his self-appointed status. NguyenHue 22:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)NguyenHue
• Keep but if and only if the strong counterarguments to refute the claim are included. - Skysmith 08:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep I've revised this article, removing POV. This chap may not be the frickin' king of Burma but he's notable enough to be factually portrayed as a first class snob and opportunist on Wiki (with his own supplied info). Wyss 83.115.141.10 16:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Cribcage 19:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 19:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and beat out the POV. Gamaliel 21:22, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep with counterarguments to refute the claim to title Prince --Jimmyvanthach 18:20, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Icon Red

Vanity Halo clan. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 14:57, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I used to belong to a more notable clan. I'm not about to go make an article about them however. [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] 16:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. jni 16:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Certainly doesn't belong on Wikipedia. David Johnson 16:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• A 7-member Halo clan!!! Wow, I am glad Wikipedia exists to notify me of such earth-shakingly important organiz-- Delete -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Alren 17:16, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: We've already established the fact that I am one of those against people having fun. The allure of the name in pixels strikes again. Vanity. Geogre 19:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 21:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Yeah, down with fun! --fvw* 00:29, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Comment: delete log shows this has already been speedied once twice before. Wolfman 05:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --[[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete extremely. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:31, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Garden Soccer

Fixing this VfD, which someone partly nominated but forgot to write this part. Will be happy to take their nom as my own. This appears to be a sport someone made up. Not notable, possibly original research. May be from that guy who invented another group of fake sports that were on VfD a few weeks ago. Delete this. --Improv 16:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Well it isn't fake, but it isn't popular either. Get rid. David Johnson 17:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Everyone has a "garden" sport of this or that sort. Backyard football, street baseball, street hockey, etc. The article is slightly amusing, though, so delete pleasantly, and get a rabies shot. Geogre 19:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Not widely recognized as of 2003. Not as interesting as Soccer Bowling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:38, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Don't delete it. Just look at www.gardensoccer.com to really understand.
  • Anonymous votes are not counted. --Improv 20:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Sorry, my name is Baz. I created www.gardensoccer.com and posted this. Must I register in order to be listened to? :( RobertoBaggio

You don't have to register to be listened to, but you do have to register if you want your vote to be counted. Incidentially, you haven't given a reason why you think the article should be kept. I looked at the URL before, but I didn't see anything on there to convince me. David Johnson 22:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm new to this so forgive me for any mistkaes I make. I think it should be kept as it's very informative. Sure, Garden Soccer only has a small fanbase but with the help of the likes of Wikipedia, it can grow. I'm sorry if this isn't the kind of thing wanted on here bt one day Garden Soccer will be big and Wikipedia can boast this content and get some nice public opinions. Anyway, delete it if you must but it'll be a shame. Cheers. Also, I did my best to not turn the article into one long advertisement for my website, hopefully I did ok. RobertoBaggio

• • Sorry you're getting such a rough introduction to Wikipedia. The article is well written, and you'll notice that nobody called it advertising (and believe me, if people thought it was they would have said so). But Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion, and is not for the purpose of helping games with small fanbases grow. It is an encyclopedia that has articles on games that already have a significant fanbase. You will have to wait until Garden Soccer does before we will accept an article on it. You may have noticed that you have a user page. If you click on it RobertoBaggio, you will see that I have taken the liberty of putting the Garden Soccer material on your user page, where I think it's OK for you to have it. You may want to add some introductory notes explaining your connection to the game. Try not to be bothered by the tone of this discussion. I think the page is probably going to be deleted, but it's not a big deal. You gave it a shot but it's probably not going to work. But nobody minds your giving it a try. Take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion_log if you want to see some of the uglier submissions we get. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note that as the kind-of nominator for this article, I want to state that I agree with Dpbsmith that no ill-will is intentioned in putting this on VfD -- we mean nothing personal by placing it on VfD. --Improv 04:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cheers Dpbsmith. There's a childish discussion going on about this very article right here if you're interested. I guess I should wave goodbye to this article though. *waves* RobertoBaggio

Actually, that's a very interesting thread and I suggest that other Wikipedians take a look at it... a great view of how Wikipedia looks to a group of curious outsiders who have just discovered it. Exchanges like "How come you can just edit pages willy nilly, I just deleted a load of stuff." "Hey, leave Wikipedia alone! What did you delete?" But I think my favorite quote was "Little did they realise they'd have to deal with vandals like you." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not to name name's but one member of that messageboard leads a one man crusade against myself and Garden Soccer. here are some of the comments he has made on the subject recently. There are others but they're in a 13-page-long thread on the other messageboard. I believe he's the little vandal who keeps "messing" with this article. Anyway, I'm glad you found the thread helpful.RobertoBaggio

• Delete it. It's a game that this guy (^^^) made up with his two friends. You can't be having an encyclopedia page for every childs silly hobby. He's already gone too far by creating a website.

Above posting is by User:195.92.168.178, who was also kind enough to vandalize the article in question. --jpgordon{gab} 00:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. --jpgordon{gab} 00:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 00:29, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Delete. jni 09:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It's annoying enough on the forum from whence it came. It's just a bad joke. ~Aconite~
• Delete. Cribcage 19:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:31, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Deaths Worse Than Fate

An online free novel by an otherwise unknown writer. JFW | T@lk 17:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. JFW | T@lk 17:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. not notable enough. --Bucephalus 17:12, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable self-promotion. David Johnson 17:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Spam. How can it be the first book in the "Fates series," when there is only one of them? Geogre 19:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. El spammo. Totally unencyclopedic to boot. - Lucky 6.9 20:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. A free book can be found in many other places, they don't need ads here.
• Don't Delete. We list poorly drawn webcomics and sites featuring men showing their rectums. This at least is interesting.

[[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 21:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete --fvw* 00:29, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad. Jayjg 20:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Don't Delete. The point is not only the story being a free book, but the author shaping it following his reader's comments. Like a moderated wiki used on a novel. Richy 10:58, 25 Nov 2004 (GMT +1)
• Delete CheeseDreams 22:52, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Don't Delete As the maligned author, I can say for certain that this is not self-promotion; I didn't post this. As I am familiar with your site, it does seems to list items such as this. As an above user pointed out, this site lists webcomics and the goatse man. The latter is expounded upon as though he were the fifth Beatle. If you choose to delete, choose to delete. Just don't do so out of elitism or snobbery. Xen 22:52, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:32, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Studiospooky

Vanity/ad. 9 hits in Google. --Wikimol 17:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. --Wikimol 17:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another vanity/self promotion article. David Johnson 19:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Ad. I'm not sure if the Spookytim article is VfD material or not, but the studio founded by the same is clearly inappropriate. Geogre 19:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only vanity, but overwrought vanity. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 21:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 00:28, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Delete it. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 05:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:32, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Hello. Crikey. I'm Spookytim. Please, don't even do it the honour of voting on it. It shouldn't be there and I realise that. Only I didn't at the time, stupid as that sounds. I'm really sorry. I'm probably the kind of pillock who plagues projects like this one twice a minute. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Monkeyfilter

Deletion discussion

from VfD:

Is this encyclopaedic? More to the point, is it even true? Deb 20:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. The page was only created today - I say give them a chance to expand it before nuking it. The brand passes the Google test anyway (528,000). David Johnson 21:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, as David Johnson's evidence suggests. —siroχo 21:45, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - it's certainly true that American Spirit tobacco (a) is pure tobacco, and (b) contains more of the nasty addictive nicotine than other commercial prepared cigarets. (I don't know what the numbers are for loose tobacco.) As far as the Kurt Russell reference, that's kinda pointless. But there's interesting stuff about the brand (and its parent company) that could be developed, including some FTC activity. --jpgordon{gab} 21:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• What the hell? It's mindless! It's a famous brand, alright, and it's one of about 3 brands that were introduced by the Big Tobacco folks after the events of "The Insider": They came out with "natural" cigarettes (i.e. those they hadn't tampered with). It's not known for being something Kurt Russell smoked. Sheesh. An article on this subject is ok. This article is dumb. Send to clean up and cross our fingers. Geogre 22:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup (do not merge). [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 22:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I've shortened and stubbed it. --jpgordon{gab} 23:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, agreeing with everyone (though understanding Deb's uncertainty). Samaritan 23:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Hope someone will come with more history. I've seen these things in tobacco shops for a decade or more (well, not recently, since I'm now almost never in a tobacco shop). They may have been made by an "independent division" of Reynolds American since 2002, but they're way older than that. The thing about them was that they were always presented in marketing as being from an indie company, maybe even one owned by Native Americans, but were always rumoured to be a product of one of the big boys under a "false flag". I don't think that much in the way of "truth in labelling" applied to tobacco products, other than the infamous warning label and tar and nicotine contents, at least until the "tobacco settlement". Hope that someone will come up with facts and details.
  • Comment: Deb's uncertainty is understandable. One would need to be American and be, know, or date a smoker to have run across this. Further, though, I would like to suggest a move to American Spirit cigarettes so as to avoid people looking for the ostensible spirit of America by this name. Geogre 01:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with the move, and make this a disambiguation for this page and something like American exceptionalism. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 08:16, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. We are not a catalogue. --Improv 04:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not a catalogue. --[[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 21:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful information for the curious, if 1) expanded a bit 2) moved to American Spirit cigarettes. And, for what it's worth, I am not a smoker, and I know about this from seeing it for sale here in Tokyo. --Calton 05:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with the page about its company. CheeseDreams 22:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Cribcage 19:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:34, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. -Sean Curtin 22:23, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Disambig

As there are others I have this a disambiguation page. Note there may be two superheroes of the same name (neither with an entry) but I'm looking into it and will rework it or clarify at some point. (Emperor 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

Damon Armstrong

Non-notable photographer. Google search for "Damon Armstrong" photographer brings up 14 hits, only 5 of which are unique. RickK 20:35, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Fails the Google test. 99% of edits were made by the same unregistered IP = shameless self-promotion. People like that should be banned from editing, in my opinion. David Johnson 21:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising. If the article were about Coca-Cola and had this many press-release links, it would be deletable, too. We ought to represent artists better, but the living ones tend to drop page rank boosts on us. Geogre 22:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 00:27, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• Delete I might add something here if that is ok gentlemen?!? Well it was I that added this article to Wikepedia... Please understand that I was under the assumption that it was ok to add another photographer to this site. I wasn't intentionally doing as you folk (didnt appreciate D.Johnson's comments) have suggested attempted shameless self promotion. Perhaps I should of read into it a bit more before adding the article to this section. Regardless just delete it please and sorry for adding it to wrong section. D.A.
  • The general rule is that autobiography is strongly discouraged. I, for one, think we need much more coverage on photographers and artists. They don't show up well on Google searches, and anyone of note is hard to verify (all articles must be verifiable) for people who don't know the subject. There is also a prohibition against advertising. That said, there is a need for references (to allow the verification), so there's a bit of a double bind there. If you have been putting up shows and doing tours, I'd say you do need to be covered (and I'd much rather err with a less than notable but real photographer than with a fictional cartoon character or blogger somewhere). If you can tone down the promotional aspects of the article, please let us know, and I think it's fair to say that people will re-evaluate their votes. Articles are on VfD for 7 days and absolutely can be improved. Geogre 01:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Well, there's nothing on that page anymore anyway. --Idont Havaname 04:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you George for explaining a few things. I agree with you on what you say as well (the double bind point.) As for re-editing the article to see if people will re-evulate their votes I am not sure. It seems there is NO place here for not as "noteable" photographers or artists that are starting to become more popular as compared to say Ansel Adams. You seem to agree that there perhaps could be a place for it here... I for one would like to see that also.
    • If you create an account, which takes about 5 seconds and doesn't require disclosure of any information, you get a user page on which you can say pretty much whatever you'd like about yourself. I'd like to see more coverage of photography, too. I hope you decide to stick around. You could probably do a lot to improve our article on Lomography for a start. And if... this is a very big if and you need to be sure you understand the GFDL... you felt like contributing one or two of your lomographic images or two to that article, I know it would be more than welcome. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:34, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Catto

• Can't see this ever becoming anything but a stub. Deb 20:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep. A lack of content regarding an article isn't enough to outright delete it; perhaps changing the article into a disambiguation page about the two names would be in order. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 21:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Never heard of it - doesn't appear to be that common. And even if it is common, it belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. David Johnson 21:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: not a common nickname, not useful content, not informative. Geogre 22:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. --fvw* 00:27, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Delete... I know a lot of Catherines, but none that go by Catto. --Idont Havaname 04:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a baby name book. --Improv 04:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• delete this one. I know a lot of Catherines but none that goes by Catto. Dunc|☺ 11:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not merge. Do not redirect. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 22:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect or merge. Almost certainly vanity. -Sean Curtin 00:10, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:35, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Why does anyone care?

from VfD:

Untitled

As above for Catto. Deb 20:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I think in this case, a redirect to one or the other would be a good replacement for this article. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 21:16, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I hope we don't have an article on Catherine, as we're not a baby name book. Subject = words -> Wiktionary. Subject = actions, events, lives, and culture -> Wikipedia. Geogre 22:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Chuckle. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 22:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Catherine, redirects/dab from; Kate, Katie, Cate, Catharine, Cathy, Kitty, cat (disambiguation) (some of these already done). Dunc|☺ 23:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Catherine —siroχo 02:41, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Catherine, but I agree with the premise that we are not a baby name book. --Idont Havaname 04:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a baby name book. --Improv 04:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect. Gamaliel 04:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Catherine which contains a great deal of noteworthy information. Sorry Geogre. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 22:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Cribcage 19:52, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:35, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Reckless Youth

It's been sitting around for almost two years now, with no connection to a page and only 1 update. I'm not really even sure if this is someone's personal piece of the game, or an actual part of the game. Either way, it's minutae that's not encyclopedic. --Wolf530 21:19, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Normally I'd say to keep it, as there's not really anything wrong with the article, but since its an orphan and has been for some time, I say delete it. The only edit since creation was only wikification, so it can't be that notable can it? David Johnson 21:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Aaaaaaarrrrgh! Someone's fiction, I presume, or, at the best, with greatest charity, a footnote to a footnote to a commentary on a film series. Geogre 22:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 00:27, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivial fancruft. jni 09:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Unsure. If this is part of the canonical Star Wars EU, it should be merged and redirected to Expanded Universe (Star Wars) for the moment until a more suitable article is spun off. But if as also seems possible it's just details from a particular role-playing game session, it should just be deleted. Tend to delete in the absence of evidence of canonicity, but no vote as yet. Andrewa 17:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• If it's just something that was created for the game (even if it was published), delete. -Sean Curtin 02:34, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:36, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Cdc 06:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quakers Hill Anglican Church

Orphan deadend substub which simply gives an address and link for a parish church in Sydney, not obviously different from many others. --Henrygb 22:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing more than an address. David Johnson 23:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 00:27, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Delete: In this form, just a page rank booster. Geogre 01:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, it's a bad article but that entitles it to be cleaned up not destroyed.Dr Zen 03:19, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable church. Gamaliel 03:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Could be mentioned in Sydney, Australia and deleted - Skysmith 10:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a particularly notable church AFAIK, and the current article says nothing to indicate it is. I have not attended this particular church but have attended others in Quakers Hill. Interesting that both the authors have worked on this article as IPs but seem regular contributors. Andrewa 17:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and improve Intrigue 17:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable church--84 hits--the individual church my parents belong to (which I also consider non-notable--just one location of a fairly minor protestant religion, Congregational church) gets 3300. Niteowlneils 20:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. RadicalSubversiv E 07:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Cribcage 19:53, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 24

Kelly Hart

Left as a VfD by another user but not listed here. It's kiddie-wiki as it stands. Or, if you prefer, "fancruft." Delete, merge or...? - Lucky 6.9 00:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. It might mean something to somebody, but it sounds like nonsense to me. David Johnson 00:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• It Googles, but barely. Apparently, this is a really minor character. - Lucky 6.9 00:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Make room for Kelly cousin of Mary Hart or something. Minor fictional character from a children's show. Geogre 01:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. What about tons of minor pokemon, then? And stop bossing: wikipedia is for all, including children. Mikkalai 02:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What about the Pokemen? Delete 'em, or at least have a corral where they can all mingle freely. Bossing? No, rather this is a minor character from a children's show, not "This was written by a child and must be deleted." As a character from a children's show, its appeal is automatically limited to a narrow spectrum of Wikipedia users (researchers). So, that acts as a multiplier to the minor part the character plays in the fiction, and that is multiplied by the poverty of the writing, and that is multiplied by the needlessness of a stand-alone article on this subject. Geogre 05:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What about the Pokemen? -- Gotta merge 'em all... -- GWO

• As this article presently stands it most certainly should be deleted. EXTREMELY. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 03:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Deletenot notable. Unfortunate, yes but not not.able User:fledgeling 04:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 05:09, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Delete --JamesTeterenko 05:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. fancruft. jni 09:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This character is of no significance whatsoever separate from the children's TV programme I believe this refers to. Average Earthman 17:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --[[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Extremely minor fictional character, not identified as fiction. Niteowlneils 20:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg 20:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, as I have now merged all the relevant information from here into Kimberly Hart. Bryan 19:10, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Sadly, delete. I happily clicked on this article hoping it was about someone I know with that exact same name. Damnit. I vote to delete it out of spite. - Lifefeed 15:02, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• And, tragically, Kelly Hart's woes continue as another delete vote is added. —tregoweth 18:45, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, especially since Bryan has done us the kindness of merging her with Kimberly. -leigh 09:24, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Goatvomit666

• Vanity by an unsigned band and posted by a known vandal. Thought this should have been a speedy but someone thought otherwise. Oh, well. Delete as non-notable. - Lucky 6.9 00:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a speedy candidate, but is certainly non-notable, unencyclopedic and vanity. David Johnson 00:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete it a lot. What's dumber than naming your band Goatvomit666? Writing about it in Wikipedia. Geogre 01:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, vanity. Beside, I don't remember anyone named Goatvo being in the MIT class of '66. (That extra 6 is probably a typo). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 05:08, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Delete. Antandrus 05:14, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete -- Infrogmation 06:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable unencyclopaedic vanity, the list goes on... Fire Star 06:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. utcursch 13:37, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg 20:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was - Keep

Mobile Suit Gundam Seed DS

This game is not out yet, Nintendo DS just came out a few days ago, non of the details are verifiable. -Vina 00:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Speculation, unverifiable, and trivial. Geogre 01:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As a note, it is indeed verifiable - there was a tech demo for it at E3. That is to say, this game is announced as in development. Snowspinner 03:12, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Unverifiable.
  • Above unsigned vote is by Mikedblimpster and is his first edit in Wikipedia. jni 09:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 05:08, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with Geogre. jni 09:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Contains no encyclopedic information, and there is probably none to add. Andrewa 11:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. (As much as I hate being the minority vote in the way of consensus.) Might well turn encyclopedic, given time. -- Itai 17:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg 20:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. An article can be created for this if/when it becomes encyclopedic. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 21:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Game is announced, and a tech demo has been shown at E3. See [33]. I have revised the article to reflect what information does exist. Snowspinner 17:54, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Andre (talk) 03:42, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Sigh. Extreme weak keep. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 06:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• A tech demo is not sufficient in my mind to raise a topic to the level needed for an encyclopedia article. Delete until the game is released and has an impact on something (culture, trends in game development, etc.) at which time the article can be easily recreated. Rossami (talk) 15:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Would you also want Prince of Persia: Warrior Within deleted, as it doesn't come out until Thursday? What about The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap, which existed prior to its Japanese release. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was created in March while the game didn't come out until October. Category:Unreleased albums exists almost purely to chronicle albums that don't exist yet. And not only do we have Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince already, we have Harry Potter: Book Seven already - an article for an unreleased book that doesn't even have a title. We also have non-existant television shows (Law and Order: Trial by Jury) and movies (Serenity (movie)). So why delete this particular unreleased game? What distinguishes it from the large number of articles we have on announced but unreleased items? Snowspinner 16:36, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • If your other examples are ever nominated, I would vote consistently unless there were extenuating circumstances. I know that I am in the minority on this issue but I believe that pre-release anythings should pass a very high hurdle before being considered encyclopedic. They are inherently difficult to verify and maintain. Rossami (talk) 22:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I personally can't see the problem with unreleased things having articles. There's plenty of them, and it isn't as if the game is going to suddenly vanish before it's release. (If it does, then it will be even more notable). [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] 19:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Russell Ford

Not on IMDB is a pretty strong indication an actor/cinematographer isn't notable. Probably vanity. --fvw* 00:54, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• Oh, no, not the Ratman stuff again. Delete: trust me. Delete. Geogre 01:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. jni 09:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. As far as I can see, no major distribution, no major appearances in films, no major successes at independent film festivals. As note hasn't been established, he does not warrant an article. Average Earthman 17:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. —tregoweth 18:49, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Googling for "Ratman" "Russell Ford" yields one unrelated link to a book on football. Delete. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:57, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Ryan Gray

Sometimes I wish we could speedy delete vanity. --fvw* 01:44, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• Delete: not notable -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 01:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes I wish an army of administrators could speedily delete vanity (and some other) stuff. Hoary 02:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: At least make warm wishes from one's mother a speedy criterion. Geogre 05:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. jni 09:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be in a couple of rock bands, none of them notable yet. Andrewa 11:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• He's got his mother's love, so I think he can live without a WP article. :) Delete. -leigh 09:28, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Howard M Scott

Not notable. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 01:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I think the creator of the page was confused about user pages and articles. I have offered to move the page to his user page, but he might just end up copying and pasting it. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 03:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Howard scott is new here, so he didn't know about user pages and articles. He has given me permission to delete his user page and move Howard M Scott there[34][35]. This should make everybody's decisions a lot easier now, since it's just a redirect to a user page ;) -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 04:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Unnotable. Delete. Hoary 02:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Great opportunity to explore the utility of wikipedia
  • This unsigned comment by 156.62.3.22 shouldn't be counted as a vote, IMHO jni 09:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Never mind counted, it can't be interpreted as such. --fvw* 01:51, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 05:08, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Delete the redirect to User: namespace. jni 09:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Now unwanted redirect, with no significant history. Good work. Andrewa 10:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect speedy deleted under Redirect case 2. Rossami (talk) 15:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was - kept

Franklin Income Fund

advertising--[[User:Marie Rowley|Marie | Talk]] 01:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Blatant spamvertising. Delete. Hoary 02:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. I suspect this is a copyvio, too, though I haven't been able to locate the source. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. There are only facts. Cleanup required. Feel free to write facts that they instead were crooks, embezzlers, etc., but not stick labels. Mikkalai 02:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It's a complete non-notable mutual fund, just like hundreds of other balanced income funds in the "large/value" section of the Morningstar style box. What makes this one so important that it should have an encyclopedia article about it? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 03:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Hundreds of thou people are using it. Surely it is more notable than a gross of rap singers here. Mikkalai 03:27, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• How exactly is this SPAM? I disagree. Since this article appears noteworthy I'm going to err on the side of keep unless of course someone can provide good reason not to. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 03:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. As noted above, this is just one of many thousand mutual funds out there, and lacks any individual notability. Deletionist 05:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The individual notability is that someone bothered to put it here. There are thousands of other things out there no one bothered to describe. So what? Mikkalai 07:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, reads like advertising. --fvw* 05:08, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
  • It reads like description, unless you want to smear it with dirt. Mikkalai 07:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising as it stands. If cleaned up and made NPOV, it will be possible to keep it. Those interested in keeping it should do some cleaning. Geogre 05:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, not really an ad, but I tried to make it less like one anyways. —siroχo 07:30, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup one of America's/the world's oldest giant mutual funds, which certainly wouldn't have bothered making such a lame spamvertisement of its own accord. Would suggest a merge if I knew of a likely target that existed (Franklin Templeton Investments doesn't...) Samaritan 08:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Huh? The Massachusetts Investors Trust (now MFS Investment Services) dates back to 1924. Franklin only dates back to 1947. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Slightly more notable than most mutual funds, but still below my threshold of inclusion. jni 08:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep if a non-advert version can be made. As it stands it's almost certainly a copyvio -- past performance does not guarantee future results is obligatory adspeak. Agreed w/ Mikkalai about the significance of this topic. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It is de facto obligatory SEC report/filing speak, not ad speak. Mikkalai 16:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Right. What's relevant here is that the presence of the phrase suggests strongly that it was copied from elsewhere. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless cleaned up. Does seem to be more notable than other funds (4000 hits, compared to 60-800 for other funds offered by my former employer's 401k plan that I googled), but I think Wikipedia would be better served by an article on the parent company Franklin Templeton Investments ("franklin templeton" gets 249,000 hits), so if cleaned up, it could be moved there to serve as the beginning of that article. Niteowlneils 19:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd support moving it there as well. —siroχo 21:38, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ditto. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:31, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed: A cleaned up version of it should go under that title. Geogre 15:25, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment Ruthlessly cleaned; above discussion refers to [this revision]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• weak Keep --fvw* 23:06, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
• Delete. Cribcage 20:25, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Move to Franklin Templeton - The parent company is one of the largest in the industry and manages dozens of funds like the Frankin Income Fund. mydogategodshat 03:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Move/Merge. -leigh 09:31, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep. --[[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Untitled

from VfD:

New Zealand Photographers

non-notable, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Howard M Scott. --fvw* 02:28, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• • I am sure we have more than one photographer in NZ. Meanwhile delete.

ping 08:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. If anything, this should be called List of .... However, the same net effect could be achieved as the intersection of a category of New Zealanders (if such a category exists) and Category:Photographers. --MarkSweep 09:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Change that to weak delete, considering the recent edits by Drstuey. I'm still opposed to the kind of fragmentation this article is indicative of. A person's profession and their country of origin/residence are basically orthogonal categories. How is an NZ photographer essentially different from a Brazilian photographer, aside from the obvious fact that they are affiliated with different countries? It would suffice to simply add an NZ photographer to categories "Photographers" and "New Zealanders". The nice thing about categories (as opposed to list articles) is that they intersect, i.e., one can query all articles that belong to two or more categories. Drstuey's changes are a vast improvement over the previous version, but now the article is more about photography in NZ. --MarkSweep 13:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no article here. jni 09:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Comments in the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Howard M Scott section indicate this was a new user misunderstanding. Average Earthman 17:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Has been revised since my initial vote, but I'm not convinced that the current article establishes that there is a clear New Zealand based style/trend/scene/school (not in the physical sense) in photography. But it's more of a weak delete now than originally. Average Earthman 18:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I'm torn between meanwhile delete and good articles often start with a stub - there should be an article here - a proper article, not a bloody list - obviously this is not it, but ... - Drstuey 11:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • OK, I have edited the article, removed the Howard M Scott content, which as pointed out here was a mistake, and added some proper content. Have I done enough for this to be a keep? Will you change you votes? Anyways, I vote Keep. - Drstuey 11:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • A commendable effort, but I'm afraid there's still not much concrete information there, just some names of photographers and the fact that new zealand has a lot of nature. Unless there's something fundamental that differentiates New Zealand Photographers from Photographers (living in New Zealand doesn't count) I'm afraid this isn't going to get my keep vote. --fvw* 12:23, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Notability

I think an article on photography in NZ is certainly notable as a topic. What I don't like is the use of this annoying Oceania template with red links to every tiny island, as if we need articles on photography in all of these countries. Richard001 (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Photography in New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150911063213/http://www.thearts.co.nz/artist_page.php%26aid%3D1 to https://www.thearts.co.nz/artist_page.php%26aid%3D1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151005165836/http://citygallery.org.nz/exhibitions/yvonne-todd-creamy-psychology to http://citygallery.org.nz/exhibitions/yvonne-todd-creamy-psychology

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was - kept

Southern rap

This article should be merged into Dirty South. Southern rap is definately the more mature article, in fact it can probably take the place of whats currently in dirty south. But I don't think the article should be about the history of rap produced out of the region of the American south, as the title would suggest. In fact the article as it stands is almost exclusively about Dirty south, a distinct subgenre of rap. People I'm sure would always be searching for it by the name Dirty South, that is how the sub genre is almost universally known. There shouldn't be an article about the history of rap in the south in general, because either they are doing rap in the dirty south style, or they are doing rap in a style similar if not identicle to whats played on the radio (in other words there is no reason to organize an article based on that type of geographical region besides the article on dirty south). In addition, we don't have articles on regions which can aruably have a local rap scene with its own distinct rap style, such as possibly the northern california scene).

• Above was posted by 67.180.61.179
• Keep. You can see from the rap template at the end of Southern rap that East Coast hip hop and West Coast hip hop both have legitimate articles too, and this is all obviously a sensible and well-accepted part of an ambitious collective namespace related to rap. Note that it's linked from Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board/USSCOTW (where a collaboration was proposed on No Limit, a Southern rap music label, at that; the existence of Southern rap is taken well enough for granted), and Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres and many germane articles. Samaritan 07:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If southern rap and Dirty South are merged, then they should be at southern rap (or southern hip hop), not Dirty South. Tim Ivorson 13:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Extreme Keep. Yet another perfect example of why VfD is a convoluted and broken process which will break the back of Wikipedia. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep -- surely, the fact this is a unanimous keep means that VfD is a convoluted but non-broken proces -- GWO 16:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I disagree. The fact we're all standing around here in a circle jerk voting keep over an anonymously listed article proves what a waste of time this endeavor was and that there is definite need for the bar to be raised in order to nominate something to be listed for deletion. This is proof-positive that the entire VfD system is indeed polluted and broken. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 19:36, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. --[[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep DCEdwards1966 20:03, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, it's well-done and has potential for even more expansion. I am confused though, when I hear someone talk about "southern rap," I think of Big & Rich. :-) Inky 20:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep I could be wrong, but I believe Dirty South is a specific style of music, i.e. early Outkast, Goodie Mob and the like. Southern rap includes that as well as later Outkast, No Limit and New Orleans hip hop, Nelly and St. Louis hip hop, and maybe even Miami bass. They're just not the same thing, any more than G Funk and West Coast hip hop are the same. Tuf-Kat 06:36, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. -Sean Curtin 22:26, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Rename to Southern Hip Hop, to reflect the difference between the bassheavy funkadelic music of Southern Hip Hop, and the cuss-laden raw lyrics of Dirty South. It seems to me that Southern Hip Hop is a more common name for the genre anyway. Make Southern rap into an "umbrella article" explaining the difference and the connection between the two. --Regebro 21:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

Count Anan

New research, though apparantly not written for wikipedia, not established or even well-known. --fvw* 02:34, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• Delete. Not encyclopedic, resembles essay or (poor) inaugural or prelection speech by some history professor. I couldn't verify the contents with Google, anyone more knowledgeable in ancient history wanting to check this? jni 08:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Why is it called "Count Anan" in the first place? Contents don't match title. The material sounds highly suspicious. Something with that many novel claims must be verified, and probably peer reviewed, before we have any business reporting it. We are not a way around the peer review process. Geogre 13:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Title isn't related to the article, and the article is obviously original research. Inky 20:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. What they said. Pisser that this has to hang around for a week before being trashed. --Tagishsimon (talk)
• Delete. All edits by anon IP 66.81.0.10 were bogus too, including attempts to link to this article. Etz Haim 22:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Paul Eastlund

Vanity, now with 400px high pictures of the guy. Coming soon to theatres near you. --fvw* 02:37, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• I've retracted my vote and am abstaining. Evercat 02:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity or libel, not sure which. And you have to be an eleventh level wizard to get your own article here. Seriously, editors of conservative campus newspapers have gone on to notable things. This one hasn't yet. Gamaliel 02:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete editor of a college newspaper, same as thousands of other people. that's not particularly notable. vanity, with picture goodness. Wolfman 03:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• EXTREME DELETION is in order. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 03:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Cornell Review is an unusually notable campus newspaper, founded by Ann Coulter no less. But Eastlund is no Ann Coulter. (For which he should, arguably, be very proud.) Delete, unless article becomes something very different, is clearly not vanity, and establishes notability before the end of VfD. Samaritan 04:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Deletionist 04:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: A college student. It takes more than shouting to be encyclopedic. Geogre 05:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --JamesTeterenko 05:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. jni 08:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If he's really that notable, then merge into Cornell Review. David Johnson 12:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. harlancrystal
  • User's only edits are here and to Paul Eastlund.
• Delete. Loud fish in a little pond. Might warrant one line in the Cornell Review article. Which he already has. Average Earthman 17:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --[[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 22:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Whether it be for vanity, non-notability, pranksterism or whatever, it just doesn't belong here. DreamGuy 04:37, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Death to vanity. --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 01:40, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, wait for accusations of Wikipedians' liberal bias. —tregoweth 18:53, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, but notice the objection on the talk page: "we are trying to add a series of such figures over time. If you must attack our page, give us more than 20 minutes to build the damn thing first." I've seen this complaint on a couple different occasions; perhaps VfDers are becoming a little hasty? -leigh 09:38, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

---

votes and comments by anon editors.

• Do not delete. I go to Cornell and I assure you this is a real issue. Eastlund is known pretty much across the state. 10:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Notice that there's already a wikipedia entry for the paper he is the editor of.
  • Unsigned comments from 128.253.117.62. User's third and fourth edits.
• Delete. I don't know why my friends made a damn wikipedia entry about me. -Paul Eastlund
  • Unsigned vote from 68.192.149.117.

Marie Robinson

I can't find any evidence of Marie Robinson being notable enough for wikipedia inclusion. --fvw* 02:57, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. I happened to have the Grove Art database open for another article so I looked her up. No entry. Gamaliel 03:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Not yet notable. At 21 years old, she has not yet had the sort of regional or national recognition or influence on others that are necessary for an encyclopedia account. Geogre 05:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable (yet). jni 08:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a shame, because I like her stuff. But I tried hard to find some supporting evidence of notability and failed. Wikipedia is not the vehicle to gain notability. Hopefully in a few years, she'll have enough recognition to merit an entry. Wolfman 16:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DJ Eternal Darkness

Vanity. Created by User:Djeternaldarkness. Ambi 03:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete vanity;not notable User:fledgeling 04:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 05:07, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Delete: Grand Master Vanity article. Geogre 05:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotion. Not notable. jni 08:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Move to User:Djeternaldarkness and delete the redirect. — A.M. 00:22, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It doesn't really contain any information suitable for a Wikipedia user page, it's just an ad. --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 01:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity of the SPAM variety. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 19:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Asle Toje from VfD:

Sweetshop

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I don't see this becoming encyclopedic (but please prove me wrong). --fvw* 04:10, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• redirect to Confectionery. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect —siroχo 07:24, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and don't redirect. Anyone looking for a sweet shop, would enter "sweet shop" not "sweetshop". David Johnson 13:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, actually... I think "sweetshop" with no space, or "sweet-shop" with a hyphen, is common British usage. Although I think "sweetshop" could also be a likely typo for "sweatshop."
    • Well I'm British and I've never spelt or even seen it spelt that way. Google says 28,000 hits for "sweetshop" and 210,000 for "sweet shop". David Johnson 15:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, sorry about that. WIthdraw the suggestioon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • At the risk of confusing matters, I've seen it spelt that way... it may be an older style, though. I'd concur with the redirects. Shimgray 11:26, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Confectionery. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect as mentioned above. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to confectionery. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Jose r. mesarina

Not notable --fvw* 04:24, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• Not listed in the Lambiek Comiclopedia. "Unbelievable Laundry Detergent Man" gets 136 Google web hits; 0 Usenet. Hard to imagine notablity. Afraid-I'm-turning-deletionist delete. Samaritan 04:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• There's nothing "deletionist" about you, Mr S. We all get the urge to delete occasionally. One look at this page and I too felt it coming on.Dr Zen 05:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. jni 07:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Most VfD nominators do their jobs well, so it's not unusual to vote "delete" most of the time. This is a rapt autobiography for a comic "unleashed on the world" in 2003. Vanity article. Geogre 13:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Improv 16:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --[[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CivicActions

Is this particularly notable? I'd guess no. --fvw* 04:41, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• Delete --JamesTeterenko 05:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a newbie editing experiment. Anon author has no other edits and has already blanked the article. jni 07:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Doesn't look like a test, but as the author has blanked it, I say speedy it. David Johnson 13:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy delete: The author blanked it, yes, but if you go back to the content before its first VfD listing, it was promotion. If you go back to its very first version, it was only an external link and no words (which would have made it a speedy). Geogre 13:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VfD results

from VfD:

Doesn't appear to be notable.Ok, the TMNT thing makes him notable even to me. Keep. --fvw* 04:40, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• Delete Keep. -- JamesTeterenko 05:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It appears that he is also the owner/creator of Heavy Metal (magazine). See here. Along with TMNT, that is notable enough for me. -- JamesTeterenko 19:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. jni 07:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Change my vote to keep. jni 08:54, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails the Google test (38 hits). David Johnson 13:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually, it passes the Google test, 3,710 hits for Kevin-Eastman "teenage mutant ninja turtles" —siroχo 22:20, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: The less said, the better. Not notable. Geogre 13:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. According to what links to the page, this guy created the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.--Lucky13pjn 14:32, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. They're notable, he's mentioned there as the creator, as of 2004 that's about 99% of everything there is to say about him. Anything more can go into Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles until there's enough to warrant a separate article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• If he's done nothing of note since Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles then redirect. A quick google suggest that this genuinely is the name of one of the creators of that comic. Average Earthman 17:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or at least redirect. First of all, David Johnson, [36]. And second, [37]. 630 and 640,000 is pretty considerable. If this guy created TMNT, then that's notable enough to keep him in. Add that to the article, and try to get more information on him. --Fermatprime 19:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely notable. The article does need work, however. DCEdwards1966 19:59, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, he's notable and influential in the comics area. But a general call needs to go out for expansion on this article. Inky 20:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, fails the google test. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 21:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Is this a poor attempt at comedy, or did you mistype? RickK 06:42, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep (see above) —siroχo 22:20, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons above. Samaritan 23:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Aside from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Heavy Metal Magazine, he also founded the Words and Pictures Museum in Northampton, Massachusetts and is married to B-movie actress Julie Strain. -Sean Curtin 00:25, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep He's quite notable :) How did he fail a google test? Someone actually decided not to google thinking who's he? --Asmodai 21:38, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. He's worth a stub. TMNT was huge. --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 02:19, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. TMNT, Heavy Metal, and marrying Julie Strain makes him worth at least a stub. --Calton 06:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep it. I believe even the VfD nominator now agrees this is keepable. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep this was one of the requests for articles in the Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Culture_and_Fine_Arts#Comic_books comics section.
• Keep. So, if I married Julie Strain, I'd be eligible for an article? Sweet! —tregoweth 18:56, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Worked for me! —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 06:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. Eastman is a highly notable figure within his field. Gamaliel 07:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. He is a significant figure within the comic industry. --kees 03:30, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

end moved discussion

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kevin Eastman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011131252/http://forum.newsarama.com:80/showthread.php?t=127540 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=127540

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kevin Eastman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://the-5th-turtle.blogspot.com/2008/03/final-release.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060522003405/http://www.metaltv.com/kbeinterview.pdf to http://www.metaltv.com/kbeinterview.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kevin Eastman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111202085038/http://heavymetal.com/kbeinterview.pdf to http://www.heavymetal.com/kbeinterview.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905113916/http://www.boneville.com/2008/02/17/remembering-the-self-publishing-movement-rick-veitch-part-1/ to http://www.boneville.com/2008/02/17/remembering-the-self-publishing-movement-rick-veitch-part-1/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120710032918/http://mblc.state.ma.us/hypermail-archives/massyac/9905/0272.php to http://mblc.state.ma.us/hypermail-archives/massyac/9905/0272.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150331023015/http://www.kevineastmanstudios.com/About-id-389.html to http://www.kevineastmanstudios.com/About-id-389.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402133710/http://www.kevineastmanstudios.com/TurtlePower-id-385.html to http://www.kevineastmanstudios.com/TurtlePower-id-385.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150331023015/http://www.kevineastmanstudios.com/About-id-389.html to http://www.kevineastmanstudios.com/About-id-389.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually he's NOT Jewish

Actually Kevin Eastman is NOT Jewish in any way shape or form.

See here:

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Co-Creator Kevin Eastman Interview ... rockingodshouse.com/teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles-co-creator-kevin-eastman-interview/

So actually Wikipeida if you don't mind I wouldn't mind changning it for you. Please? Thank-you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.60.57 (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That's not what is said in the interview. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

^What's not said in the interview? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.97.145 (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Where can you find season 2 of the teenage mutant turtles

I can't find it any were 2600:6C48:6A7F:93D0:2D13:ED13:D65F:D8FD (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Circle of Aradia

Not notable. --fvw* 04:58, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems like a non-notable wicca community, just as non-notable as a random church. Gamaliel 05:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable group. Fire Star 06:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. jni 07:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. David Johnson 13:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NewGil pictures

Not notable. --fvw* 05:11, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. jni 07:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails the Google test (22 hits). David Johnson 13:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Still looks like a high school partnership with no actual films, not a studio, full of vague words to mask what seems to be just a couple of dudes. Geogre 13:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Robert Newman

Not notable, cf. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/NewGil pictures. --fvw* 05:22, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. jni 07:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity by one anon author. David Johnson 13:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Some dude. Geogre 13:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to the article on the British comedian and author Rob Newman who now uses this version of his name in his publicity. Average Earthman 17:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Jayjg 20:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per Average Earthman. Samaritan 21:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete both. Vanity. RickK 08:58, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Protest_guan_05.jpg

Vanity, only appears on vanity page Paul Eastlund -- JamesTeterenko 05:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Use Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. --fvw* 06:39, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

I will remove this from VfD. I also forgot about the possible personal user page use that you mentioned previously. So, I will not immediately nominate it for deletion, but may do so in the future. -- JamesTeterenko 00:03, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Normal later PICT0016.jpg

Vanity, only appears on vanity page Paul Eastlund -- JamesTeterenko 05:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Use Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. --fvw* 06:39, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

I will remove this from VfD. I also forgot about the possible personal user page use that you mentioned previously. So, I will not immediately nominate it for deletion, but may do so in the future. -- JamesTeterenko 00:03, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jake Dallman

Not notable. --fvw* 05:45, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable with 4 Google hits, all for unrelated persons. [This is my vote that I forgot to sign yesterday. jni 08:58, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)]
• Delete. The station doesn't have an article, so he doesn't deserve one. And well done Fvw - you VfD'd that one minute after creation! David Johnson 13:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: A DJ. Geogre 13:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

San Popo

San Popo (Google) local folk-hero nickname for Porfirio Podres Google

Unverifiable Nonsense. Probable Bad Joke. Wolfman 05:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Agreed.Stbalbach 05:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Actually, take a look at the users previous edits. He/she is from New Mexico and has made legitimate edits about the region in other articles.Stbalbach 06:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• On further research, none of the names mentioned in the article are showing up in any search engines, incuding Ignacio Gomez, the supposed author of a book in a "books in print" database search.

• Delete fvw* 05:58, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. --Flockmeal 05:58, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Has been deleted before, should be deleted again. -- Infrogmation 06:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. jni 07:14, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. If its been deleted before, its a speedy candidate. David Johnson 13:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy delete: If it can't be seriously verified, it's got to be speedy deleted. Geogre 13:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep It seems pretty real to me. All of the New Mexico references are correct, including the one to Roberto's and even the stuff about the Sun in the 60's. Plus, I remember one of my history teachers talking about this back in junior high; if it's not a real event, it's at let a local legend. --User:216.165.22.61

1999 (number)

Reference to a year in a video game. Created by an anonymous user whose only other edits were vanity. -- JamesTeterenko 05:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete fvw* 05:58, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Delete. Possibly nonsense too. The game uses AD years? This substub then really refers to 1999. Cool Hand Luke 06:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Rewrite to be a proper number article (see Category:Integers for examples), if 1999 has any unusual mathematical properties etc. Failing to accomplish that before VfD expiration, then delete. jni 07:14, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• If nobody has anything to contribute to it then it should be deleted. Jeltz 11:06, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• I re-wrote it with some meaningful information. (Note that this is a comment to allow voters to re-vote.) 66.245.105.240 14:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok, now it's a proper article. Still not notable though, I'm sticking with my vote. --fvw* 14:16, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
  • With this change, I move from wanting it deleted to being indifferent. However, this reminds me of a "proof" that a number theory university proffesor gave that there were no uninteresting numbers. It was a simple proof by contradiction. Assume that there were uninteresting numbers. Let x be the lowest positive number in this set. Since x is the lowest positive uninteresting number, that makes it interesting. Since we have a contradiction, there are no uninteresting numbers. -- JamesTeterenko 19:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • This being Wikipedia, we have a webpage on that very "proof": see interesting number paradox. -- Walt Pohl 07:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Intrigue 17:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge whatever is valuable and then redirect. I can't see any reason why 1999 (number) needs its own article. Intrigue can you explain your vote? --[[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 21:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as it stands now. —siroχo 22:07, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete to me it seems to do no more puropse than state the obvious as its as of this vote Fledgeling 23:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. As a number, 1999 is entirely non-notable. Its properties are entirely uninteresting and could also be said of an infinite number of other integers. Rho 03:57, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete -- Jmabel | Talk 07:37, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete it. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:24, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Number articles are used to reference the use of that number in math, science, entertainment, history, language, etc. See 0 (number), 1 (number), 2 (number) for examples.
  • Yes, but we can't have articles for all numbers so generally only the interesting ones are given articles. There's an page about this somewhere in the wikipedia:namespace. --fvw* 23:26, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
• Delete -- I dont think it, as a number, is notable enoug 18:00, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: 66.245.105.240's effort was valiant, but there's just nothing there. None of the stated characteristics are unique to 1999, and all of them combined still don't make it a notable integer. As a song, as a year, yes. As an integer, no. -leigh 10:02, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Since there are other articles about numbers and Wikipedia has (almost) unlimited space I will vote Keep, although there is at present not much interesting information about the number 1999 here. A notable feature of 1999 is that it is a prime number. Forgot to sign it when I first wrote here, so I'll do it now: 129.177.61.124 14:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Simplistic view of good and evil

Orphaned vfd created by anonymous user. --fvw* 06:35, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• Delete. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. jni 07:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Indeed. Delete. --Woggly 11:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. David Johnson 13:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Musings. Geogre 13:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete essay. Gazpacho 01:40, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 02:27, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Well I dare you, shouters of delete..or should I say lynch? to write a better article about good and evil. And isn't it good? Atleast amusing? You should be ashamed of yourself..... have you read an actual enclycopedia, for example? They don't even mention good and evil so how can you know? I'll never know if they're true....but D&D is fairly describing of their good & evil alignements, and I think you all fit in the latter.

Dancing naked in the streets is good.

Service Delivery

Some obscure contract management procedure ; no context, and links only to a similar article. -- Paul Richter 07:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete fvw* 07:51, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Delete unless proper context, or a target for merge/redirect, can be found. jni 08:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Woggly 11:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• This should be merged into the service delivery section of the service article, and then turned into a redirect.mydogategodshat 03:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Naiman

Wikipedia is not a Mongolian dictionary --fvw* 07:59, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Mongolian wiktionary, if such a thing exists. Else delete. jni 08:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Makky

Vanity/nonnotable. His apparent web site fails to reveal anything encylopedia-worthy. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 09:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete fvw* 09:40, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

J. Hollywood Wilson

As is blazingly obvious to anyone who's read Nabokov's Pale Fire, "Zemblan literature" is a nonsense. This article is a spoof, and no doubt its author will enjoy reading the earnest discussion I am hereby kicking off. I must say, I'm a little reluctant to advocate deleting it, because more thought has gone into it than into the majority of legitimate new articles (on such-and-such a character in this or that brain-dead science fiction series, etc.); still, delete. Hoary 09:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Not having read Nabokov, it's a great comfort to know that in these cases using google is sufficient. Delete --fvw* 10:58, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Good catch! And excellent lit-crit-babble in the article. I woulda believed it. Delete. --Woggly 11:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: All Zemblan speakers are stalkers, anyway. (Hoax.) Geogre 14:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• BJAODN and delete. Not only are they stalkers, but they use too many footnotes. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:39, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Well Done! I didn't think it would be caught this quickly.~Bopal
  • N.b. that comment by User:12.220.171.239.

Loss of identity

A translated story. Most probably a copyright violation, but even if not, does not belong on Wikipedia. --Woggly 10:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Probably yeah, the Mouni article linked was also a copyvio. Delete. --fvw* 10:56, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Delete even this one-liner: <Random Words> is the title of something in some language, and that's not a reason to get out the monkeys with the typewriters to secure article spaces for them. Geogre 14:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete this one-line article. jni 09:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nasty alien

Huh? No context, and badly written. --Woggly 10:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Marked for speedy deletion. If that fails, Delete. --fvw* 11:06, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

from VfD:

No context, barely any content. Full text is: "Excelent place for nudism and erotic art". "What links here" suggests it is a resevoir or dam in Romania, but that information wouldn't even make a proper stub. --Woggly 10:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) Keep current redirect. --Woggly 12:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Excellent place for Delete. --fvw* 11:24, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Keep fvw* 22:59, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
• Delete: Photograph it, give it a false name, and promise it a big career in Hollywood, and then delete it. Geogre 14:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Rewritten, but I can't change my vote. The reason is that what it says now is what you already know if you followed a link to the article, and if you typed it into the search, you really don't get anything. Geogre 05:06, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Come on, Geogre. I had no idea "Vidraru" was a lake before today and neither did you. "It's a stub" simply is not a criterion for deletion but an invitation to construct.Dr Zen 05:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • No, "it's a stub" isn't a qualification. "It's a substub" is, when the contents are the same as the title. "Vidraru" = "Lake Vidraru": If you don't know the thing by its full title, you won't/can't search it. If you do, you know it's a lake. Geogre 15:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Geogre, see its redirect target Lake Vidraru now. I've learned more already. Samaritan 07:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect. The Lake Vidraru is better both for being a title our users will search more often and because its contents actually say more than the title. Geogre 15:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, better, speedy as insufficiently informative substub. Kappa 16:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep now Kappa 06:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete it speedily. Jayjg 20:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I've made it into at least a stub.Dr Zen 23:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep geo-stub about a man-made European lake that is completely unrelated to the nonsense sentence voters before Dr Zen were voting on. Samaritan 02:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Hey, I wasn't trying to fool anybody! The "what links here" made it clear that the lake was what the page referred to. It took me less time to make a stub than it would have done to list it here, so I thought, why not?Dr Zen 03:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I've been bold and redirected to Kappa's fortuitous creation Lake Vidraru, a better-still stub which I stumbled upon looking for an appropriate category for Vidraru (Category:Geography of Romania, it turned out). Samaritan 07:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, as redirected by Samaritan. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep now. -leigh 10:06, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Luke Christiansen

Not notable. --fvw* 11:18, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• Delete - anonymous posting of an unknown person Jeff Knaggs 11:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Woggly 11:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I've come across a news article about a local contest in Auckland, and there doesn't seem to be much more info about the guy. Doesn't seem notable. Delete. -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 11:43, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: A young man with big plans, autobiography/vanity. Geogre 14:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Jayjg 20:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Varndean college

Not notable. --fvw* 11:39, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable, and not a useful start to a real article. The comment that it "specialises in many subjects from Computing to Archealogy [sic]" reminds me of Dorothy Parker's comment that Katherine Hepburn "runs the gamut of emotions from A to B." They really ought to add Zymurgy or Zoology... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I suspect zymurgy would improve the writing quite a bit. Useless substub. Will consider an actual article. Geogre 18:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Asterik studio

Not notable, advertising. --fvw* 11:40, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't fare too badly on the Google test (2,570 hits) but its still advertising. David Johnson 13:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• delete --Gtabary 16:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Spam. Once more: one line of text and then the link = spam = speedy delete candidate. If it's expanded and made full by the end of VfD, I'll reconsider. It doesn't matter whether the one line is "a studio on Mars" or "buy my book here": one line to link is spam. Geogre 18:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad. Jayjg 20:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Gsd97jks 19:40, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Article reads: "A graphic design company situated in America", end of article. Delete. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 06:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Airtight

Dictionary definition. Jay 13:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Already a better definition in Wikitionary, so no need to Transwiki. David Johnson 13:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete fvw* 14:00, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg 20:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I can imagine meaningfull contents (e.g. how airtight containers are manufactured, how it is tested, history). Should be redirect to hermetic or vice versa and expanded. --Wikimol 10:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It could also be something along the lines of the quest for sealing for submarines, pitch on ship's hulls, pressurization of aircraft, spaceships, etc. I'm not sure that the title would do it, though. Perhaps it could be a disambiguation page showing folks the various ways the subject could be discussed. Geogre 15:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VfD footer

This section describes how to list articles and their associated talk pages for deletion. For pages that are not articles, list them at other appropriate deletion venues or use copyright violation where applicable. As well, note that deletion may not be needed for problems such as pages written in foreign languages, duplicate pages, and other cases. Use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for discussion of mergers.

Only a registered, logged-in user can complete steps II and III. (Autoconfirmed registered users can also use the Twinkle tool to make nominations.) If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process.

You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign-in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure.

• To nominate multiple related pages for deletion, follow the multi-page deletion nomination procedure.
• To nominate a single page for deletion, you can use Twinkle, or follow these three steps:

I – Put the deletion tag on the article. Insert {{subst:afd1}} at the top of the article. Do not mark the edit as minor. If this article has been nominated before, use {{subst:afdx|2nd}} or {{subst:afdx|3rd}} etc. Include in the edit summary AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. replacing NominationName with the name of the page being nominated. Publish the page. The NominationName is normally the article name (PageName), but if it has been nominated before, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" or "PageName (3rd nomination)" etc.)

II – Create the article's deletion discussion page. The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page. Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page for editing. Some text and instructions will appear. You can do it manually as well: Click the link saying "deletion discussion page" to open the deletion-debate page. Insert this text: {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ Replace PageName with the name of the page, Category with a letter from the list M, O, B, S, W, G, T, F, and P to categorize the debate, and Why the page should be deleted with the reasons the page should be deleted. If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done. Use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion for [[PageName]]. Publish the page.

III – Notify users who monitor AfD discussions. Open the articles for deletion log page for editing. At the top of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert:{{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}} Replace NominationName appropriately (use "PageName", "PageName (2nd nomination)", etc.) Link to the discussion page in your edit summary: Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. Publish the page. Consider letting the authors know on their talk page by adding: {{subst:Afd notice|Page name}} ~~~~ If this is not the first nomination, add a second parameter with the NominationName (use "PageName (2nd nomination)" etc.): {{subst:Afd notice|PageName|NominationName}} ~~~~