Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 4 May 6 >

May 5[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid de Graaf and Erik Nagel[edit]

A Dutch man and woman who run a blog and bought a house this year. Het end. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not noteworthy enough. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:48, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Sietse 07:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. self-promotion. Telling about buying your house on a web-log won't get you in an encyclopedia. Mgm|(talk) 14:56, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity --Canderson7 22:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, immediately, contrary to Wikipedia's objectives --Webslingr 12:57, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asheville Mall[edit]

Not notable. Cookiecaper 00:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all malls unless world famous. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:18, May 5, 2005 (UTC) I take that back: merge and redirect all malls unless world-famous. Redirects are cheap and fun. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:50, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Large public objects. Klonimus 08:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'm much more tempted to vote Keep on malls that are upscale (read: have a "swanky kind of store" like Saks or Neiman-Marcus, which are fairly rare), and are major commerce centers in their cities, like Lenox Square in Atlanta, or the International Plaza and Bay Street in Tampa (an article I wrote, actually). If this is the main mall in Asheville, I'll probably vote keep, but it needs a lot more than this. Mike H 09:45, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, pending expansion. Mike H 11:08, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, failing that merge with Asheville. Kappa 10:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Asheville until there's enough material to warrant a seperate article. It would've helped if the author explained why it was so important in the first place. Mgm|(talk) 15:00, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Asheville --Canderson7 22:09, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Asheville, NC. --Carnildo 23:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete, unless there's something special about this mall. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 05:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable, clearly defined subject. Mirror Vax 07:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect seems to make the most sense. The same probably needs to be done for Danbury Fair Mall, International Marketplace and a few others. Vegaswikian 06:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is verifiable and notable too Yuckfoo 20:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is this a joke? It's a mall. Next we'll start getting articles on local Burger Kings. Gamaliel 20:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contrary to the usual usage on VfD, notable does not mean "there is absolutely nothing to distinguish this from any other example of its general type in the world, but I want to keep this substub because I enjoy using Wikipedia as a spittoon". —Korath (Talk) 01:42, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote. There were votes for deletion on another similar article about a generic-standard mall:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Livonia Mall. You can find evidence proving what vote to make on this one in that one.
  • Delete. Non-notable shopping mall, one of tens of thousands in the U.S. Quale 05:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not redirect, do not merge, do not pass go and collect $200 dollars. Neutralitytalk 00:47, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN. Radiant_* 09:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mackensen (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A mall with four anchor stores is almost certainly large enough to be encyclopedic. - SimonP 04:16, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete —Xezbeth 09:21, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Enzik Studio[edit]

"Enzik Studio, located in Winnsboro, Texas, USA, was founded in 2005. They currently offer Logo design, and other services in the field of online graphics design." -- Longhair | Talk 00:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beyond unnotable. Delete as blatant ad. - Lucky 6.9 03:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. This is spam and unimprovable. Samaritan 04:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ad. --Canderson7 22:12, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Preserve We do not delete the articles on Wal-Mart or Enron, so there is no reason to delete this. This article does not engage in "advertising" any more than the Wikipedia articles about those companies and many others -- Archipelago18 17:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it--vianova 17:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it What is wrong with an article about an online company? -- Maravillosa 13:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, advert. Quale 05:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad and/or vanity. Radiant_* 09:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and kill socks. Also note the contrib removed several votes that I have restored, so check history. Niteowlneils 03:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable - advert - Tεxτurε 15:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN Denni☯ 23:28, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect (nothing to merge) --SPUI (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woodland Critter Christmas[edit]

There is already an article with a slightly different title. JB82 00:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Never listed here, so I'm doing it. No vote, but it looks like a redirect. --Dmcdevit 00:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 01:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbank[edit]

see Wilbanked--Doc Glasgow 21:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep as a disambiguation page moink 01:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White powder[edit]

Summary to help with decision-making:

  • Delete 0
  • Keep 3 : Wahoofive, Mgm, Andrewa
  • Redirect 1: Firebug
  • Disambig 10: 8^D, Sjakkalle, N-Man, Radiant, Gmaxwell, Samaritan, Longhair, Barno, Carnildo, Yuckfoo

The consensus is clearly to make it a disambig page. I will remove the vfd tag and link the talk page here, but someone else will have to do the disambiguating. moink 01:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From talk page: "this is completely rediculous page and should be removed immediately -george bush"

This nomination was never followed through and put here. I'm not sure this nomination was made in good faith, but I wasn't about to remove the tag. No vote. --Dmcdevit 01:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rick nominated it here on the 24th April. User:AkCapr removed the earlier vfd tags on the 25th April before the vote was finalised. JamesBurns 01:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aha! I should have checked the history, duh. I have reprduced the previous text below: (I can see it was obviously made in good faith now.) --Dmcdevit 01:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if this vote is really necessary. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who am I to meddle with a previous decision. Disambiguate and rewrite synthesis section on WDOM in it's new location. Mgm|(talk) 15:06, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


"Original research? Advocacy? I can only find two Google hits for "white powder" +Kutyavin, zero Google hits for "Alex Kutyavin" and three Google hits for "Alexander Kutyavin". RickK 23:28, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Not sure if it should be deleted or not but I know that the term "white powder" is used in fireworks for a number of Potassium Chlorate oxidized materials.. which is what the article appears to be describing. --Gmaxwell 23:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to cocaine. Firebug 04:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Disambig. I disagree with Firebug's proposed redirect. In the post-9/11 world, "white powder" is often the stuff found in boxes or envelopes sent to someone's office to scare them into thinking that they've been attacked by terrorists using anthrax. I believe it's also a skier's reference to fresh snow. That's at least 4 legit meanings which a user might look up with this term, so perhaps a disambig is in order? -- 8^D gab 06:49, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
  • Disambig, concur with BD2412. Sjakkalle 07:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Disambig, common term. N-Mantalk 10:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Disambig, I can think of several 'white powders' (in fact a common chem lab assignment is taking six white powders and finding out which is which, although we didn't use cocaine at school :) ) Radiant_* 11:19, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Rocket candy and replace with disambig.--Gmaxwell 05:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)"
  • Keep, disambig if needed, maybe to white powder (gunpowder) or similar. Never heard of rocket candy, and my experience with the stuff is you can't get a rocket to lift with only sugar and pot nitrate as described, effective rocket fuel needs at least some chlorate, a far more dangerous and effective oxidant. I see the pros now use perchlorate instead. Andrewa 03:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per BD2412, Radiant et al. Samaritan 04:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig -- Many uses. - Longhair | Talk 08:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that the article has an "Other meanings" section, but since "white powder" as an alternative explosive/propellant to "black powder" is not the phrase's meaning most often seen in the press in recent years, I vote to disambiguate. Cocaine, anthrax, and unknown-suspected-contraband are all at least as common uses of "white powder" as this one. This article should be kept, but I don't think this meaning should redirect to rocket candy. Maybe rocket candy should redirect to White powder (propellant) or whatever title this article gets after disambiguation. Barno 14:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disclosure - I added the other meanings section on the theory that anyone who looks up "white powder" will more likely be thinking of one of those meanings - but that underscores the propriety of a disambig. -- BDAbramson thimk 22:13, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  • Clean up, move to an appropriate title, and replace with a disambiguation page. --Carnildo 22:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please but disambiguate it Yuckfoo 20:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vallejo Marisa[edit]

Google search on this subject gives only: Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...Isitel and the IP person claim Asarim was written by "Ed & Marisa Vallejo,"about whom nothing exists on the Internet. -- Emerman 02:49, 24 Apr 2005 ...; Appears to have been deleted before, likely self-promotion Terrace4 01:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment Isitel? I'm currently looking at a vague article entitled Isitel at the moment. I'm trying to get the author of the article to clarify what it's notability is. --Randolph 01:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:18, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Vivek Kushwaha[edit]

Looks like vanity/non-notable. --Dmcdevit 01:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -SimonP 04:17, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Rachel Martin[edit]

vanity bio

  • Delete Samw 01:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- definitely - Longhair | Talk 03:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She is in love with Dr. Arnold and writes love stories about him. It's because he's balding." Is there a class of, uh... teasing page something less than a speediable attack page? Delete it, anyway... Samaritan 04:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vanity - Tεxτurε 15:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liberacy[edit]

Delete. Non-notable +/- original research, possibly vanity as well. 133 hits on google for this term, which appears to be a neologism to boot. - Nat Krause 02:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I noticed doing Google searches lots of webpages on Literacy, spelling it incorrectly as Liberacy - how ironic! Megan1967 03:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like original research and/or neologism. As the article currently says, "Liberacy is a relatively new, theoretical form of government." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neologisms are well documented in Wikipedia, view the neologism article for evidence. Article strives for objectivity, maybe cleanup instead? Megan1967 comment is spiteful. Perhaps deletion move is politically motivated? The original research is done by an organization listed at end of article, article just reflects upon it. Lumano 05:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article seems to document a movement forming which could develop at least a fringe significance. For now, it appears to be a neologism (WP documents the existence of neologisms as a concept, but WP doesn't keep articles on each one), not quite original research (unless it's more vanity than it appears), but not yet established as notable per Google searches. Probably Lumano should userfy it for now, and if the term reaches common notoriety, then this fairly good article can be restored to main article space. Barno 15:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do I userfy, and what does that mean? Is it still accessible by the author and readers? Thank you for the more reasonable appraisal, Barno. Lumano 00:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or delete. I'm afraid this neologism is still too new. (All the top Google searches are typos of literacy or Liberace.) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 05:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, neologism, original research, crud. JamesBurns 05:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Statement like 'crud' seem to indicate a less-than-mature attitude toward editing. I mean I'm new here (to registerdom); I understand that impetus for removing this article; but, for God's sake, why are some of you so nasty? Lumano 08:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that JamesBurns should be more civil. The VfD etiquette rules say: "Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before adding a comment." I don't think anybody else is being nasty here. It's a fact that many of the google hits for "liberacy" are misspellings of "literacy". - Nat Krause 09:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable enough. Peter Isotalo 22:03, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research; please note that notability is not a deletion criterion, still. No, really. *sighs* James F. (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exterminate! --Cool Cat My Talk 16:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy as original research (since this article and the external links appear to be a circular reference creating this term) Jon the Geek 17:00, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. Quale 05:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original crud. Iam 06:18, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, So what learn to spell Literacy. Liberacy is an interesting addtion to the Forms of Government list.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Comment: For future re-nominations, please do not just plug them into an existing archived debate. Please create a new VfD discussion page (perhaps with the words "2nd nomination" at the end) and link to the old discussions. Do not transclude them. Rossami (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brandenn Bremmer[edit]

This old VfD has been resuscitated; I explain why at the foot (if you see a red frame, then below that red frame). Add new votes or comments there. Thank you. -- Hoary 02:38, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - copyvio - SimonP 14:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

A talented 14-year-old who appears to have committed suicide. Well, yes, but Wikipedia isn't a local newspaper. Non-encyclopedic. -- Hoary 12:08, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC) .............. PS: Note the comment below (22:56, 24 Mar 2005) by Chris, identifying the article as a copyvio. -- Hoary 02:07, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's interesting. Robinoke 12:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If all that's written is true it's remarkeble enough to keep. Being young or locally famous doesn't always exclude someone from Wikipedia. Mgm|(talk) 14:08, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • This was covered by several news outlets including the Washington Post [1], and is quite an interesting story. Keep. ed g2s • talk 14:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • International news reports - Guardian (UK), New Kerala (India), The Scotsman (obvious...). Borderline notable prior to death for being a musical prodigy it would appear. Not sure I personally agree with the newspaper's view that this is that newsworthy, but I do occasionally have the ability to concede I may be in a minority, and I suspect this is one of those cases. Weak keep. Average Earthman 14:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of prodigy presented. A 15-year old kid who died last week isn't notable because it makes the local newspaper. Has a CD which was quasi-self-released. I say "quasi", since it was released by his mother, in the same business in which she self-publishes her books (they are listed on Amazon with sales rank around the 2 million mark). Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines, for being the non-notable child prodigy of a non-notable authoress. "Interesting" is not a valid inclusion criterion. Chris 16:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I was unaware of this bogus novel policy that articles are required to pass inclusion criteria. Perhaps you wanted Nupedia - David Gerard 17:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Just because something fails deletion criteria, doesn't mean it should automatically be kept. Remember that many good articles that may have met deletion criteria have been kept, and are now useful. Why shouldn't it work both ways? Chris 18:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I had to read the above twice to be sure you're actually saying what you're saying. If an article does not meet the criteria for deletion, of course it should be kept. m:Wiki is not paper -- Curps 03:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • This boils down to how one interprets the policy, and whether one should adhere to the letter or the spirit thereof. One can make a valid point for 'non-notability' being a valid reason for deletion, based on policy and precedent. One can also make a valid point for the opposite. That's what law courts are for, but thankfully Wikipedia isn't one. Radiant_* 12:30, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Aren't encyclopedias supposed to "interesting?" Robinoke 17:17, 19 Mar 2005
      • Not first and foremost, no. Chris 18:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Not first and foremost, but ultimately so. I believe that interesting articles should be kept and I can't see any good reason for its deletion. Robinoke 22:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • So, "non-notable per music project, vanity, too common, no potential to become encyclopaedic" aren't reasons for deletion. Then I must be seeing things. Chris 17:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • "Interesting" is POV. "Non-notable per music project" is NPOV. Radiant_* 12:30, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
            • Is there such a thing as a debate without POV? Robinoke 20:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, made the news - David Gerard 17:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as memorial vanity (of the mother for her child). Radiant_* 19:05, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Average Earthman. Kappa 19:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Child prodigies generally aren't encyclopedia material. Teenagers who commit suicide aren't notable either, although it is sad. Teenage suicides that get in the local news are only slightly more notable than those that don't. Teenage suicides aren't even notable if their mothers say it was so they could donate their organs. And it isn't notable even when all of this is combined in one case. Also, I don't see what is interesting about it. --BM 00:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, under the bar of notability, possible family vanity. Megan1967 02:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you seriously think that 4 days after their son's death they logged on to Wikipedia to write a stub about him!?! ed g2s • talk 11:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Given the things I've seen in my few months here, I wouldn't put it past them. And since when does an article have to be written by the subject or its owner/family/creator to be vanity? We get third-party vanity articles here all the time. Chris 17:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • The Washington Post and New York Times also print vanity articles all the time, I suppose. This made the news... do you not watch the news or read newspapers? -- Curps 02:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • This is not Wikinews. Not everything that makes the news should be in Wikipedia. Heck, the average town drunk makes the news occasionally. Radiant_* 12:30, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going with delete here or maybe tranwiki to wikimemorial, as he really doesn't seem notable. I think BM has it right. Yeah, he got a mention in the Post and USA Today, but the entire contents of the Post article was "• OMAHA -- Brandenn E. Bremmer, a musical prodigy who completed high school at age 10, apparently killed himself at 14, authorities said. Brandenn, who had studied piano improvisation at Colorado State University at Fort Collins, Colo., was found dead Tuesday at his home with a gunshot wound to the head, sheriff's officials said." Is everything ever mentioned in one of the nations top 10 newspapers automatically encyclopedic? The Post printed the weather in San Diego today as well, should there be an article on that? They must print millions of sentences a year, and 2 have been devoted to this kid. If you look at that link supplied by verdana above you'll see several other Post articles primarily of regional interest are printed along with this one. Are all such things going to be wikipedia articles? Wouldn't it have been great if wikipedia 500,000th article turned out to be "• FORT MYERS, Fla. -- Three teenagers kidnapped a 15-year-old and ordered his father to drop off a $50 ransom at a Taco Bell, authorities said. The father called police instead, and the teenagers were arrested." -R. fiend 03:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just because somebody made a newspaper doesn't make them worth having an encyclopedia article about them. If so, there are about 10 obituaries a day in the local paper I can write articles about. And I'm not talking about the paid ones. RickK 05:27, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with BM. DaveTheRed 05:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Subject would not have been considered notable prior to his death. (See the guidelines for musicians or the guidelines for inclusion of general biographies.) Would WikiNews accept this, though? If so, transwiki. Rossami (talk) 06:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • You are right that the subject would not have been considered notable enough for inclusion prior to his death, but you are wrong in thinking that this matters. Some people become notable in death, such as Nicole Brown Simpson or Laci Peterson, and they become notable simply because the media makes them notable rather than because of any personal accomplishment (thus, the fact that this person happened to be a musician is merely incidental here). -- Curps 03:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)]
      • Yes, some people beecome notable in death. This isn't one of them. This kid died, and a whole bunch of newspapers had a slow news day and ran a couple of paragraphs (dead tree, not online). This is not the same as being the focus of the highest-profile murder trial or most-discussed missing persons case in history. Chris 16:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • You're missing the point. The point being made was simply that notability prior to death is not relevant, and two much more well-known examples were provided to illustrate this point. -- Curps 22:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Sorry to sound callous but this particular person was just another suicide. He did not become notable in death. Yes, he got some media coverage on a slow news day. Coverage in the media is an excellent indicator that the article should exist in WikiNews (now that we have that option). I am becoming less and less convinced that it is a reliable indicator that the article belongs in Wikipedia. No change of vote. Rossami (talk) 22:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I searched for it and was impressed the info was there. - iknowthat ...comment added to the top at 19:51, 2005 Mar 20 by User:Iknowthat, whose only other contributions have been minor edits to a single article. (Moved into place by Hoary.)
  • Keep, this story appeared in newspapers internationally. Meets minimum threshold of notability. -- Curps 22:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) Also in this New York Times story. -- Curps 01:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Internationally? Then how come our newspapers here haven't listed it? Radiant_* 12:30, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
    Please identify which part of the minimum threshold in Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines this article meets. Chris 02:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    What on Earth does Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines have to do with it? His death was widely reported in international newspapers and TV, ipso facto he's notable. The fact that he happened to be a music prodigy rather than a chess or math prodigy (or something else entirely) is merely incidental. -- Curps 02:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    "Widely reported" is a bit of a stretch. I think a two sentence blurb in a few papers is hardly "wide". Every minor thing mentioned somehow in the news on a single day is encyclopedic material? Pick up any paper on any day and you'll see hundreds of things given this kind of coverage. Are they covered in encyclopedias? Are they recorded for posterity? Shall I write an article on that dog that was reunited with it's family after 2 years that I saw on the news several times yesterday? Or what about that day about 2 years ago when CNN gave substantial live coverage about a small airplane that was making an emergency landing without a front landing gear? I remember it, so it must be notable, I guess. And your comment "This made the news... do you not watch the news or read newspapers?" strikes me as a bit condescending. This was not the Space Shuttle expolding, this was 2 sentences buried in the Washington Post that I'm sure 99.99999% of the world's population took no note of. Yes, many of us watch the news and read newspapers, but believe it or not we still somehow missed this breaking story. -R. fiend 05:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    It wasn't condescending, it was in response to someone who seemed to be under the impression this was some kind of family-written vanity page, even though it had already been pointed out that this did genuinely make the news (and not just the local papers, but internationally). By the way, The New York Times gave it 22 paragraphs (some of only one sentence, of course), and Google News counts at least 231 newspapers internationally that ran the wire story or wrote their own [2] in the UK, India, etc. This is not a vanity page, nor a memorial, nor a music-related article to be judged on musician notability criteria, nor a topic of purely local interest, nor a "man bites dog" trivia filler story. Wiki is not paper. -- Curps 07:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    So, if it's widely reported in the international media, it's notable? OK, I'll go create Weather in London, 21 March 2005, since that's widely reported in the international media. It'll be in every national paper in most of the world's major economies, as well as on BBC News, CNN, Fox News (if you consider that to be news), etc, so it must be notable. Chris 03:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Earlier you said something to the effect of "sometimes articles that I think ought to be deleted get kept, so let's even things out by deleting some articles even if they don't meet deletion criteria". Were you serious? -- Curps 03:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I was serious in my comment, but I must have missed the part in my argument where I said what you're implying I said. My argument is that just because something doesn't meet the explicitly-listed deletion criteria, doesn't mean it should be automatically kept - remember that someone in the know can write a full-length article on things which shouldn't be here (note that the list on WP:DP is not exhaustive). It should be noted that this article does meet deletion criteria, specifically "No potential to become encyclopedic" and "Vanity page" (read it again - it very blatantly is one, compare this to the example given). It's also worth noting that your argument re: the music guidelines is also flawed. "I mean, that Bono guy is a nobody, he's never in the news - the fact that he's the lead singer of the biggest rock band in the world should be neither here nor there." One of the major points made in the article is that he was a musical prodigy, thus it should be also judged under the music notability guidelines. You're also flawed in your idea of how many news companies "ran" this story. Just because it appears on their Web site, doesn't mean it was printed in the paper. In fact, most of those on Google News probably didn't give the story column inches in their dead-tree editions, or actual coverage on TV. Chris 16:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    A vanity page is a page about a topic or person known to only a small group of people in a local area, usually written for the purpose of boosting the fame or recognition of that person or topic, and usually written by someone directly involved with or acquainted with the topic or person.
    Right, which is exactly what I think this article is - attempting to boost recognition for someone hasn't otherwise garnered it.
    A topic that made the news internationally is, virtually by definition, not a vanity topic.
    404 Logic not found.
    Your original post mischaracterized this as something that "[made] the local newspaper", and although you have repeatedly been informed otherwise and provided references, you now treat us to your unfounded speculation about how this story "probably" wasn't actually printed anywhere... I can personally attest that it did appear both in print and on television news in a non-local area.
    So it was a slow news day. Ultimately, newspapers have a given number of pages to fill, and TV has the same problem - if there's not enough real news to fill the paper, then they have to turn to things like this. See it?
    One of the things people use encyclopediasfor is to look up background information about news stories they recall, and since Wikipedia is not paper this meets a minimum threshold for being encyclopedic. And once again, the music guidelines you cite are completely and absolutely irrelevant... by your criteria Warning! Godwin's law alert! Adolf Hitler should be deleted because he wasn't a notable artist.
    No, Hitler should be kept as a notable world leader, since that's the one thing he's best known for. According to both the article, and the Google results for his name, the one thing this guy was most associated with before his death was as a musical prodigy. As such, judging under the music guidelines is the Right Thing. Again, you seem to be caught up in this notion that everything that makes the news belongs in Wikipedia. Excuse me for noticing that the guy that egged John Prescott (and that made the news big time) doesn't have an article, and neither does whoever it was that harassed Tony Blair outside that hopsital 4 years ago (we had to put up with that for a whole week). Now, Christine Keeler has an article. She made the news, but her incident was a national scandal.
    I readily agree that if someone had added this kid's bio one day before his suicide, it would have been deleted as a vanity page of a non-notable musician. But the international news story of his death, which received considerably more coverage than you were aware of or willing to admit, became a sufficiently minimally notable internationally news story (deservedly or not) that a background article on this news story meets the minimum threshold for being encyclopedic in a non-paper encyclopedia without size limitations.
    How about you shut up with the pointless conjecture and actually come up with a convincing argument for keeping this? The fact that it's made the news does not change the fact that the whole of this story is "There's this kid, really good at music, studying at college at 14, and he kills himself." That is not the makings of someone who deserves an encyclopaedia article.
    I personally don't really care all that much about this kid or his sad life and death, but I dislike seeing mischaracterizations of this topic and misapplication of irrelevant criteria. It's not your vote to delete, but rather the basis on which you seem to be making it, which is troubling. -- Curps 22:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    As I've demonstrated, the basis for my delete vote is perfectly sound. It is your vote which seems to be defying all logic. Chris 22:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable despite being in newspapers. --Angr 10:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment If this kid really is notable, why don't we even have a date of birth? Chris 16:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Oooooo. Don't say that. Someone will dig it up somewhere, add it to the article, and say "look, now it even meets Chris's standards!" missing the point utterly. -R. fiend 05:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Date of birth and death is only the start, and even the stubbiest of biostubs should have both. That alone doesn't make it a keeper though  ;-) Chris 20:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a death being reported in the news isn't really anything unusual. Sad story, but should be deleted as a memorial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, gently. Memorial. A very sad case to be sure, but not sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Jonathunder 04:29, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tragic, yes, but not encyclopedic. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Sort of an interesting dilemma. People who commit suicide are not inherently notable, but child geniuses who commit suicide so that their organs might go to save others probably are... and indeed, the news reports suggest that his organs went to several needy people. But I have to wonder if the story is all there - maybe his death was triggered not by altruism, but merely by the enormous pressures to which prodigies are subjected; maybe his mother's belief that his suicide was prompted by such a selfless motive is her own projection onto him of her values. Either way, very sad, but the prodigy-suicide combined with the possibility of a notably unusual motive tips the balance for me. -- 8^D gab 11:39, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
    • I get the feeling that the whole organ donation thing is purely anecdotal. Worse still, given the publication dates of some of the newspaper articles, some might have been running with it based on the fact that "Oh, he's in Wikipedia, he must be important". Worse still (without actually checking the details on this one) is the possibility that the stuff on the organ donation may have come from here, resulting in circular references. Chris 22:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Below the bar of notability. VladMV ٭ talk 18:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, this is new. Previously, I'd just browsed the newspaper article in making the decision, but on closer inspection, the "bulk" of the article (I use the word "bulk" liberally in referring to a 3-sentence article) is lifted straight from the external link, with some report-style language like "officals said" removed. Marked as copyvio for now. Chris 22:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE This story is in the nbewpapers not credible. Since this seams to be the source, it is not worth to be a Wiky ...at 23:15, 2005 Mar 24, this was added (out of the correct sequence) by User:81.240.122.249.

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

This old VfD has been resuscitated; I explain why at the foot (if you see a blue frame, then below that blue frame). Add any new comments (or votes) there. Thank you. -- Hoary 02:52, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

I have resuscitated this VfD because an article on the same subject has been provided afresh. (On 3 May, originally telling us that there was a side of him that hit the highest spectrums of natural intelligence.) As you'll see, although the VfD process at first may appear to have resulted in a decision to delete, what actually happened was that after some rather lively debate the article was found to be a copyvio, listed as a copyvio, not revised, and deleted as a copyvio. There was no decision about the WP-worthiness of Brandenn Bremmer.

Bremmer still strikes me as a more than averagely interesting teen who had a more than averagely interesting suicide. Good fodder for the "human interest" sections of "news" sources on a slow day, but very minor and ephemeral news. He was no Mozart and his suicide was, sadly, not particularly remarkable. This doesn't strike me as encyclopedic stuff, and my "delete" proposal of 19 March still stands. -- Hoary 02:38, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Not notable before death. (Can't we just link to all that red alarming stuff?)- Longhair | Talk 02:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are 14 year olds in Nebraska allowed by law to donate their organs or was it the consent of his parents upon medical request? I always found that last sentence in the article odd. Megan1967 03:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A philosopher, let alone a psychologist or sociologist, considering the problem of suicide two hundred years from now could - no, would - find this case and the subsequent interest in and discussion about it in the public square, clearly and uniquely noteworthy. Absolute keep. Samaritan 04:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't feel that is an appropriate argument for keeping. A psychologist or sociologist 200 years from now would need info on a whole range of suicides, not just 'famous' ones, and anyone relying on Wikpedia articles for their information for such a study would deserve to be refused publication. Average Earthman 10:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aww, good point. But in so far as Wikipedia articles would cite sources, as they should, that would be appropriate use. (And hey, within the next 200 years, I'm sure we'll start to see professionally or semiprofessionally fact-checked, controlled forks of Wikipedia; we're writing drafts for those now, too.) Samaritan 16:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...okay, but I do accept the emerging consensus that an article on the guy is too granular. I'm going to see what I can do to merge/expand on what is relevant about the case, in appropriate context, on teenage suicide and possibly child prodigy. Samaritan 16:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely nonnotable. RickK 04:49, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Still nonnotable. --Angr/comhrá 06:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs to be cleaned up and what not though. Klonimus 08:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not encyclopedic. Martg76 09:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 10:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a death being reported in the news isn't really anything unusual. Sad story, but should be deleted as a memorial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:29, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Interesting maybe, but not encyclopedic. —Xezbeth 11:59, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons stated in the previous VfD. -R. fiend 20:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolut delete. Not notable; Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Carnildo 22:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. K1Bond007 00:24, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not improved since the last time, not to mention a technical speedy as a recreation. Chris talk back 03:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm surprised. I thought the article had previously been deleted as a copyvio. I can't see anything wrong in creating a copyright-non-violating article to replace a zapped copyvio. No, to me it seems a plain old VfD issue, with the twist that the same process had previously been started but aborted. (A bit of a waste of everybody's time, of course.) -- Hoary 06:39, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
      • Turns out that the replaced article was not different enough to escape being a recreation, thus also still a copyvio. Even though the original source article seems to be AWOL. Chris talk back 10:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You were right, I wuz wrong. But in view of the energy that's already gone into copyvio-irrelevant voting, I recommend that this VfD isn't cut short, so we get a clear yes or no on the WP-worthiness of Brandenn Bremmer. -- Hoary 10:57, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  • Comment. Apparently the article was deleted again for copyvio? Anyway, there should be an article. If a new article is created, all the old votes are irrelevant (since most people vote based on the quality of the article). The topic is a good one, verifiable and very notable. Mirror Vax 13:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope you're not going to waste everybody's time by writing a new article here so we can have a third VfD on it. All the above delete votes were based on inherent notability issues, not article quality. I'd hate to see this turn into one of those cases where someone tries to "improve" an article on a nobody by turning it into their entire life story, no detail ignored, as if mentioning someone's hobbies, family, and other mundane details is somehow going to make a subject encyclopedic. Let this one die. -R. fiend 15:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do you assume that a good article can't be written? Think positive. Mirror Vax 23:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Grue 17:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At 00:44, 2005 May 7, Mirror Vax deleted the entire content of the VfD project page, in conjunction with his or her creation of a new page about Brandenn Bremmer. Putting aside the question of the legitimacy of deleting a VfD page, I see much of the discussion above as not specific to this or that previous article about Bremmer, but rather about the noteworthiness of Bremmer. This made the resuscitation of the content of this page particularly important, but I'd have resuscitated it anyway, as VfD pages are "preserved as an [sic] historic record" -- Hoary 03:10, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

  • Do you have any concerns about deleting an article with no explaination? I have never seen the original article. There seemed to some kind of voting taking place about an article that didn't exist - very odd. I think it may be very confusing to leave the debris of an aborted discussion about an article that has already been deleted here, especially when User:Hoary has tagged a new article of the same title as VfD. The casual reader may be misled. Mirror Vax 04:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have already raised this point, and I have already answered it, in the talk page. Interested readers can see that. Please do not remove the VfD notice from the article a second time; removing a VfD notice (however misguided you happen to think it may be) constitutes vandalism. -- Hoary 04:45, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
      • I gave a cogent reason for the removal, so it is improper to label it "vandalism". Your VfD was entered on May 7, yet it points to a May 5 discussion about an article that was deleted. You need to create a new VfD entry dated May 7. My removal of the VfD notice was entirely proper. Mirror Vax 04:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And articles that are deleted stay deleted unless there's a compelling reason otherwise. The consensus is respected - if we held a new VfD every time someone recreated a deleted page, we'd gridlock Wikipedia in 10 seconds flat. --FCYTravis 07:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If articles were deleted based on their subject and not due to transitory problems, then there would be no need to recreate deleted pages. But the vfd process is horribly broken, and thus recreations are sometimes necessary. If you want to stop recreations, then stop the deletion of articles based on transitory problems. - Pioneer-12 13:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged - SimonP 04:19, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Mara (ogress)[edit]

This is obviously the same "ogress" as is described more extensively on the page Mara (folklore).

Unsigned VfD submitted by Salleman -- Longhair | Talk 03:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:19, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

DTraq[edit]

Advertising for non-notable product. Delete. --Macrakis 03:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable, only 306 google hits. --Canderson7 22:15, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. --Carnildo 22:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advert- Tεxτurε 15:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:20, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Schapelle-Corby[edit]

An article on Schapelle Corby already exists and is quite decent. I can't see this being a useful redirect either. POV issues. -- Longhair | Talk 03:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 03:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV sub stub. Megan1967 05:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV, contains no information of encyclopaedic nature and another article exists --AYArktos 12:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – POV-Fork. — Davenbelle 11:24, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV sub stub --Takver 00:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, irregular title, unhelpful as a redirect, no useful content. Andrewa 12:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 --SPUI (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Residual self image[edit]

Matrix-cruft -- Longhair | Talk 03:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 03:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of a number of concepts from the films that has spawned interest among psychologists, see Literature and Psychology No. 4, Vol. 49; Pg. 43; ISSN: 0024-4759; also has come to get some mention in contexts unrelated to the Matrix.[3][4][5].-- BDAbramson thimk 04:04, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite using BD2412's sources. Mgm|(talk) 15:17, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite, leave the matrix part as an "In fiction" section. Kappa 23:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand psychological term, re-write matrix/star wars stuff. --Marianocecowski 08:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:21, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sarah Auvenshine[edit]

Another vanity article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect --SPUI (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adblock[edit]

Extensions already linked on Mozilla_Firefox#Customizability, self promotion. Appears non-notable. Elliott C. Bäck 04:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, it's notable, and I don't feel there's any reason to believe this is self-promotion. I would guess it's one of, if not the most, popular extensions for Firefox. However, I don't believe it deserves its own article; Merge into Mozilla Firefox and redirect. A section on popular extensions would be very useful. (BTW, Elliott, you can create Wikilinks to subsections of pages with anchors; I've edited your link above.) android↔talk 12:31, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as noted by Android. Firefox extensions are more notable than any other plug-ins I can think of, and Adblock is both the most popular and most discussed-in-the-media of these extensions. But I think the amount of encyclopedic information available makes it more fit for a description in Mozilla_Firefox#Customizability than for a separate article. Barno 15:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, it is notable, but perhaps not notable enough for its own page. K1Bond007 00:22, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. James F. (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Actually Adblock is already mentioned in many places. We certainly can't create an article for every Firefox extension. That would be crazy! Notability is subjective: for me, it is not notable at all. --minghong 09:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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

Falcarius utahensis[edit]

"Falcarius utahensis is a newly discovered dinosaur species found in east-central Utah, in the United States, in 2005." -- Longhair | Talk 04:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete -- Possible hoax. I couldn't find any online references to the discovery. - Longhair | Talk 04:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- sources found. Exciting news :) - Longhair | Talk 04:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! I started the darn thing! Please see the online news services. WBardwin 04:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cool new dino find. RickK 04:50, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable find. Megan1967 05:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Time to get to work (and make Uncle Jimbo proud)... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep articles on all current and extinct species where information is verifiable. This article appears to be a good start. Capitalistroadster 06:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; it's real and notable. And a couple of procedural points: WBardwin, next time add the external links to online news services when you first create the article, that way no one will suspect it of being a hoax. And Longhair, I believe it's considered bad form to mark the addition of the VfD tag a minor edit. --Angr/comhrá 06:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it is verifiable and the nominator has withdrawn the nomination, I am closing this discussion. --nixie 08:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was userfy —Xezbeth 09:27, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Rajiv Singh[edit]

Content move from a users user space into article space -- Longhair | Talk 04:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Longhair, it is much easier to move it onto the user's page and then put the resulting redirect on RFD then deal with it here on VFD. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user page already contained the exact same information and I wasnt aware of RfD. Thanks :) -- Longhair | Talk 04:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, correction: You don't have to go on RFD. You can actually tag the resulting redirect as a speedy delete since it was created after moving a page into user space. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete per Zzyzx11 or delete. Samaritan 21:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete per Zzyzx11 or delete. --Spinboy 21:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable- Tεxτurε 15:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to User:Rajiv Singh, as above. --Deathphoenix 03:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nickolaus A. Pacione[edit]

Self-published author. See http://members.sitegadgets.com/darkpsyche/board/41.html. Vanity. RickK 04:44, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • I wasn't enthusiastic about keeping this, but these 5800 hits for an uncommon name do give me pause... (No vote yet.) Samaritan 05:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's because he's a very prolific self-promoter. Most of those hits are for stories or autobiographies he's spread all over the Net. RickK 05:48, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm: Current amazon.com sales rank 2,410,793 (and it came out recently) and generally horrible customer reviews. Now, if he were widely seen as "the Ed Wood of horror writers," as one of them marks him, we might have something, but no evidence of that. Delete. Samaritan 17:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I loved "rich prose which leaks out like lunch from a colostomy bag". Bahahaha! RickK 18:58, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, prolific self-promoter does not mean anyone cares. If he was good enough to get an article, he'd be good enough to get a book deal. Average Earthman 10:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self-promotion. Unless shown notability, delete. - Mike Rosoft 10:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 12:14, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Afristocracy, Ghettocracy[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor a list of neologisms. Also, according to The Rush Limbaugh Show - On May 3, 2005, Rush says, he will enter the words afristocracy and ghettocracy into Wikipedia so they will spread. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda. →Raul654 05:29, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

People seem to be overlooking that Limbaugh didn't coin the terms. Gazpacho 02:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And? They are still neologisms. And even if they aren't Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as neologisms (and useless ones at that). --Angr/comhrá 06:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - how notable is the prof who coined the terms? That might make all the difference (even if it was listed on Wikipedia with improper motives, that by itself does not render a notable term not so). -- BDAbramson thimk 06:44, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
  • Delete both, neologisms. Megan1967 07:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each of these gets well under a hundred hits via Google. Both are neologisms, regardless of the prof who's said to have coined them, or of Limbaughdom. There's no need for either at Wiktionary, let alone here. Delete. -- Hoary 07:45, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
  • Delete Afristocracy and delete Ghettocracy. Wikipedia is not the medium to introduce new words. Sjakkalle 08:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with The Rush Limbaugh Show or somewhere. Kappa 08:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete a mention on The Rush Limbaugh Show might be appropriate though. cohesion 08:57, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--no evidence of widespread or significant use, lots of evidence for bad faith. Meelar (talk) 09:20, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Publicity stunt. Doesn't even deserve a mention at The Rush Limbaugh Show--Unfocused 14:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It made me laugh, though. I mean, it's no sillier than 1997's ebonics fiasco. And someone else besides Rush coined the term (cf. "feminazi"), so it's worthy of a footnote, at least. It just illustrates once again that the "black leadership" of America hasn't been politically viable since Good Times went off the air. The_Iconoclast 14:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't the place to coin new words period. Mgm|(talk) 15:27, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Possibly merge to the Rush article in a section about his use of language to push POV, along with examples such as "feminazi". But delete these separate articles, reason = neologisms, until such time as the mainstream press carries enough use of the words to make them mainstream. Wikipedia is not a forum for institutionalizing propagandistic neologisms, regardless of whether it's done by a compulsive drug addict whose hearing loss doesn't matter because he's never listened anyway. Barno 15:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with The Rush Limbaugh Show or Rush Limbaugh. Neologisms by individuals should be included with that individual's article. --G3pro 17:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nowhere near enough references to be notable. Don't merge to Limbaugh, it will only encourage him. DJ Clayworth 19:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any supporting evidence that Limbaugh said he would do this? It seems a little petty for a national talk show host. DJ Clayworth 19:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you think it is a little petty for a national talk show host to do a publicity stunt, which I assume this really is? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • From google news: The Left's Race Playbook Never Changes - RushLimbaugh.com (subscription), CA - May 3, 2005 -- RUSH: Now, we got two more sound bites here from this Michael Dyson guy, who's out there ... I'm going to put that word in Wikipedia, so it'll spread around: the ...
  • Merge with The Rush Limbaugh Show. They're as major as "Jean Francois Kerry" and all the other words there. On another note, it's great that such a major (albeit wrong) show has mentioned Wikipedia on the air.-LtNOWIS 19:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't merge. Not the place for neologisms. Bratschetalk random 20:20, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Eh? We have rectum-loads of neologisms from The Simpsons aqui, though I have yet to hear "cromulent" tossed around in the mainstream...while I'm at it, should I include Mike Savage's "red-diaper doper babies" and Glenn Beck's "prosti-tots" in a special show lexicon section under each neologism's respective host? The_Iconoclast 16:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a soapbox, the other for being a neologism. Just in the interest of fairness. Demi T/C 20:48, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
  • Delete. They are currently neologisms. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologisms, results of a one-off stunt on his show. CDC (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism, merge with The Rush Limbaugh Show is not appropriate. Gazpacho 05:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologisms. If there is any evidence that Rush Limbaugh actually was responsible for this, then a mention on The Rush Limbaugh Show might be appropriate. Firebug 10:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologisms and soapboxing. Limbaugh didn't even have the decency to spell it "afrostocracy". Peter Isotalo 22:08, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Decumanus 06:18, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
  • Retain Afristocracy is a term which well describes a growing topic of discourse in American society, namely, are affluent African Americans working for or against the interests of African Americans of less prosperous backgrounds? Its an appropriate entry for the wikipedia. The greatest advantage of our wiki is the ability to record history as it occurs. It appears that many of the objections to the entry are based on a distaste for the articles' presumed author rather than a legitimate objection to its presence in the wiki. That strikes me as censorship. I vote for retention in the wiki. ...posted anonymously at 06:43, 2005 May 9 by 65.122.142.13
    • Comment: little if anything is said here about person who's said to have originated the terms. And such talk would be beside the main point made above, which is that these are mere neologisms. -- Hoary 07:23, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologisms. --W(t) 06:44, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Kaldari 18:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, could go into (needed? article about Micheal Dyson, Lou I 11:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm starting to wonder if the votes for deletion are spurred by political motivations. --G3pro 12:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. — mark ✎ 14:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with either The Rush Limbaugh Show or an article on Rush's use of neologisms. This follows common Wikipedia precedent; for example, cromulent redirects to Made-up words in The Simpsons. --Delirium 15:01, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect with Rush Limbaugh -- 84.176.214.28 17:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, with extreme prejudice. Nice try Rush. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with The Rush Limbaugh Show, Rush Limbaugh or Michael Dyson and redirect, explain in the target of the redirect what's going on, then keep close tabs on both redirects. --MarkSweep 04:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologisms. -R. S. Shaw 05:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:53, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Kevin gnapoor experience[edit]

Not notable, vanity by Tarik Yousif. A total of 3 Google hits [6], no allmusic.com entry, no evidence of any national tour - fails Wikipedia music guidelines for notability. Appears to be a campus act at Thomas Jefferson High School. Unverifiable - could not find evidence of an album even on their own website. JamesBurns 06:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain as I recently did some cleanup in the article. However, note that this cleanup work does not constitute an endorsement. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 17:02, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm listening to their music now: these are thin-voiced, passionless high school rappers who don't even sound the least bit convinced in their own words. Write what you know. Except Wikipedia:Autobiography! I will say that their sampling and production are pretty darn good. Samaritan Cowell 17:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kevin Gnapoor was a character from Mean Girls. This is just high school band vanity. Delete that sheeyat! Mike H 02:51, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Vanity - Tεxτurε 15:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:52, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Tarik Yousif[edit]

Not notable, vanity from the creator of the Kevin gnapoor experience. Entire content reads: An important figure in American history, Yousif led Americans to victory over Norway in World War 4. He is also a member of the Kevin gnapoor experience. JamesBurns 06:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:51, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Indocentric[edit]

Not notable, member of the Kevin gnapoor experience currently up for vfd. Entire content reads: CROOKED RAIN! Member of the Kevin gnapoor experience. Big Fatsa will one day eat him. Alive. JamesBurns 06:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect --SPUI (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plankalcul[edit]

Is this real? Four Google hits, all PDF files, all in Italian. RickK 07:04, May 5, 2005 (UTC) Ah. Wasn't aware of that. Redirect, as per Nateji77. RickK 18:50, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:49, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Peter Dean[edit]

NN, vanity. "A Life in 70 Poems" only garners one unique Google hit, and that's at Peter Dean's home page. RickK 07:10, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:50, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thrust lab[edit]

Nn, vanity. Formed in late 2004, their albums are self-released which get no Google hits. RickK 07:16, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:48, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Islam Syariaat[edit]

This article in Malay or Indonesian about sharia (traditional islamic law) has been listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for two weeks without being translated. It has been copied from somewhere else, so it might very well be a copyvio. Sietse 07:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments copied from from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
    • I don't know what language this is. Malay maybe? It has been copied from a webpage (links are included in article), but there are no copyright notices there, so maybe it's not a copyvio. Sietse 18:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If no one speaks up in the next 36 hours, I'm going to move this to VfD after one week instead of two. It looks so unlikely to be salvageable. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:18, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Apparently something about traditional Islamic law Sharia, or Syariah--Nabla 16:39, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
    • This article wants deletion, I think, unless someone who knows Malay (or Indonesian--mutually comprehensible) wants to take a crack at it.Dave1898 10:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete Have added a See also section to sharia, which seems to cover what is in the article (as far as my very, very basic knowledge of Indonesian goes). Physchim62 19:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete cohesion 07:36, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 07:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by stoning. Klonimus 08:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:48, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

AskChopper[edit]

Yet another website (askchopper.com). But WP isn't a web directory. Delete. -- Hoary 07:35, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Carnildo 22:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, almost certainly self-promotion. Alexa rank 610,637. —Korath (Talk) 01:48, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

*Don't Delete. A brilliant article. --Heywood Jablomie 22:40, May 9, 2005 (UTC) *Don't Delete. Yes, a fantastic article. --Haile Selassie 22:46, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:47, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Beach bum[edit]

At the very least needs a vast cleanup. More likely, it needs transwiki'ing. Grutness|hello? 07:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. Samaritan 17:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless someone tells me it's not a real subculture. Kappa 18:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to a real article. Current content is worthless, and not a valid seed. —Korath (Talk) 01:49, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Korath. Radiant_* 09:35, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No idea about it, but has high google rate (31,000 on "Beach bum" culture). Serious expanding needed. --Marianocecowski 10:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No content to save by cleanup. No different from deleting it and starting a new article. - Tεxτurε 15:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep --SPUI (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big Sky Ski Resort[edit]

Advertising. RickK 07:43, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Subject is notable, but this is an ad. Sjakkalle 08:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been rewritten and is a valid stub and not advertising now. Keep and expand. Sjakkalle 07:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Embryonic article about a prominent vacation destination that was nominated VfD within 24 hours of creation. I don't even get film developed that fast! I live over a thousand miles away, yet I've heard of it.--Unfocused 14:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite. We need an encyclopedic article on this, but not an inadequate tour guide which doesn't even bother mentioning which state it is in. Average Earthman 15:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending cleanup. Topic passes the notability bar (it's gotta be within the top one percent of best-known North American ski venues), so let's give a chance for the article to be developed. Unfocused, there are editors who scan the list of newly-changed articles looking for vandal entries to delete; please don't be offended that yours got VfD'ed, but instead keep improving it so others will find it worth keeping. Note that articles are often started in a /Temp page, then moved to article space when completed. Barno 15:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Barno, it wasn't my article, but I still think editors are insane to VfD patently obvious topics for WP articles this quickly. It was VfD'd in less than 15 minutes, and it was a pretty basic starting point for an article. This is just plain hostile to new WP users. --Unfocused 16:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your personal attack is noted and filed away for future reference. RickK 18:42, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
        • His personal attack? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with him on the issue, but he seems to be speaking quite reasonably. That was uncalled for. Meelar (talk) 18:44, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
        • I apologize if you feel attacked. I was speaking of behavior, editors in general, and in the plural. I certainly did not intend it to be personal. I WILL be more circumspect in the future when using the potentially inflammatory word 'insane'. Although I wouldn't read it that way, I see the potential for insult I did not notice before posting earlier. Regarding 'filed away for future reference', an explicit 'no comment' from me. --Unfocused 21:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and extreme cleanup. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and NPOV (which I've just done some of, as I love the taste of money). --SPUI (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs improving nut no prob to me CustardJack 16:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I cannot understand how an article about a major ski resort could be listed for deletion. Add the location (Montana) and it's a perfectly good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, because historically the response to blatent advertising/self-promotion has been to delete the article and re-write from scratch? The idea is to discourage advertisers. --Carnildo 22:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we'll have to agree to differ. This looks like a pretty good stub for a ski resort. If it's self-promotion, it's also good information. Far from blatant, and a very welcome article as far as I'm concerned. The IP address seems to be at Brown University, based in Providence. Quite a long way from the piste! Let's just assume good faith, shall we? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Organic expansion is our friend! Samaritan 17:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Ski resorts are real places with real communities of interest and should be kept on principle. My family lived for six years in an Australian ski resort namely Perisher Valley which is part of the Perisher Blue complex. I can assure you that it had and has a community of interest. My dad was chair of the local Chamber of Commerce and a member of the local volunteer fire brigade for example. Capitalistroadster 23:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- notable resort - Longhair | Talk 02:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:45, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Poll of the Day[edit]

The article does not establish notability. The name doesn't seem particularly unique, either. RickK 07:52, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete non notable, not encyclopedic. also could be possibly confusing with such a generic name cohesion 07:57, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete not encyclopedic --Henrygb 10:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. Mirror Vax 12:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 15:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 --SPUI (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MCSD[edit]

Possibly worth an article, but at the moment it's just a glorified advertisement for Microsoft. Grutness|hello? 08:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC) see below[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. This is already a reasonable stub, for all the promo. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- cleanup. - Longhair | Talk 13:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup peacock words like "premier", and weak keep. Computing has far too many acronyms for most to be memorable, but MCSD is the most noted certification among proprietary software developers. Not the most respected -- "Microsoft Certified Solitaire Daydreamer", well-qualified to tell you to "reboot and call back if that doesn't fix it" -- but most notable in the last decade. Barno 15:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, notable certificate. Mgm|(talk) 15:47, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep & cleanup Nateji77 16:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; widely-used credentials are notable. Samaritan 17:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have removed the peacock terms, advertising, and similar things. The article is now a one-line substub with an external link. --Carnildo 22:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and expand. Notable certificate. Megan1967 05:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is a notable credential Yuckfoo 20:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think there should be some information about such common certificates. However, it shouldn't look like an advertisement. Nawwar 20:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, okay... I'm changing to a weak keep. Still very stubby, but at least it doesn't go on about how great it is. Grutness|hello? 05:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 12:12, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Killer Buzz[edit]

A soft drink released early 2005. Available only via order from a web site. -- Longhair | Talk 08:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 08:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable (yet), advert. Megan1967
  • Delete. Advertising. Mirror Vax 12:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As opposed to a short-lived 'jittery caffeine high' produced by most other energy drinks, Killer Buzz produces energy with stamina and extends the body's endurance abilities. That's a sales rap if I ever saw one. Peter Isotalo 22:14, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 12:12, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Mediaglyph[edit]

neologism, original research cohesion 08:18, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. A neologism, some original research, and a non-notable project that isn't likely to go anywhere. --Carnildo 23:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism, original research. Megan1967 05:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 02:41, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wholism[edit]

The page has been created by the Webmaster of the only site that mentions "wholism", and therefore looks like vanity or original research; as a result it has no potential to become encyclopædic. The creator has stated on the Talk page his lack of interest in Wikipedia and unwillingness to learn how to improve the article, so there's unlikely to be any help from him. The supposed religion is merely Pantheism. Two editors have tried to make the article a redirect to holism, but it has been recreated; a redirect to Pantheism might be the best solution. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete disagree with a redirect to pantheism, this is not an accepted synonym. cohesion 08:25, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV original research. Megan1967 09:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Holism. Wholistic is a very widespread alternate spelling for holistic. Samaritan 17:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Holism; as per Samaritan. Redirect may need to be protected (?) --goethean 19:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Holism as per above. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I have opened a discussion page.--Ogb 06:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit Comparison added --Ogb 00:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ogb has been doing some more entirely fictitious editing. [7]. His contributions should be regarded as vandalism. --goethean 00:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that Goethean is the vandal. He keeps reverting all my contributions, which are quite specific and descriptive, such as Whole, Wholon etc to his favourite holism. What is the 'Whole' if it is not God? If he wants to revert the word whole ( without the capital c) to holism then let him. But I don't see that the word whole is specific to holism anyway. I just do not understand what his problem is.--Ogb 03:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is the 'Whole' if it is not God? --Ogb
The word "God" is not be mentioned in the dictionary as a definition of the term "whole". Your opinion may be that god is the whole. But your opinion does not render that usage to be encyclopedic. Please point me to the authoritative sources —as defined by the Wikipedia guidelines—that you can site for this definition.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:40, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

OOM[edit]

I could be wrong, but I think that if you were to google a notable band's name, plus the surnames of its three members, you'd get more than four hits. Grutness|hello? 08:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 09:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- When I read oom, I assumed it was an article about the linux oom killer. -- taviso 09:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Consumes valuable TLA namespace. Mirror Vax 12:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --Carnildo 23:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology of investing[edit]

Dare I say it? "Linkcruft" (there, I said it). Grutness|hello? 08:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under criterion 3: "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, or interwiki link". sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 09:21, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied - criterion 3 (Nothing but 'net links) Grutness|hello? 11:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:39, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Peter Fu[edit]

Article does not establish notability. RickK 08:43, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep --SPUI (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiled brat[edit]

not an encyclopedia entry

Nomination is by User:Chris Q, but the entry was not correctly formatted. Don't consider this a vote. Sjakkalle 10:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • cleanup the article itself is written in a bit of a non-encyclopedic way (spoiled brats are often girls, etc) the movie/real life stereotype of a spoiled brat is a valid idea for an encyclopedia, or so i think DiscipleofMBS 12:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable stereotype or possibly archetype. Kappa 18:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please, ther are even tv shows to help them Yuckfoo 23:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very baby-boom generation concept. -- BDAbramson thimk 01:24, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  • Delete - To me it seems way too vague to deserve an encyclopedic definition. I'm not sure if I would even consider it worthy of Wiktionary... Peter Isotalo 23:43, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough - I seem to have been outvoted -- Chris Q 06:15, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 --SPUI (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catch Without Arms (album)[edit]

I was tempted to just nominate this for speedy deletion as recreation of previously deleted content. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Catch Without Arms, but there is a little more info here than in the last version, as well as a cover. However, I still think that articles about albums which are going to be released in more than a month are more promo and advertising than encyclopedic content. Therefore, I say delete. Sjakkalle 10:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, concur with Sjakkalle, not notable (yet). Megan1967 12:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all this information is available through either the official site or music news sites, it is only aggregated here for the sake of reference. I am not an agent of the band nor am I attempting to promote the album through this site. I am only adding information for the sake of reference. In regards to albums being put up ahead of their release date, the Nine Inch Nails album With Teeth was up and running on the site for well over a month before the CD came out, and it wasn't taken down nor tagged for deletion (from what I saw, anyway). Erikpemberton 06:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--This will certainly deserve an article on its release, and there's no reason not to have it now. This is not vaporware, and all the information is verifiable. Meelar (talk) 21:24, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this too please Yuckfoo 23:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Meelar Kappa 23:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Meelar. —Markaci 2005-05-6 T 04:20 Z
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:38, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Raymond feilner[edit]

Unmistakable vanity page. --JMBell° 10:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nonsense/personal attack --Henrygb 10:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete -- attack - Longhair | Talk 12:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, personal attack. Megan1967 12:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or speedy; it's at least a teasing page. Samaritan 17:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as attack page. --Carnildo 23:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vanity - Tεxτurε 15:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy?) Delete ...do we even *have* a personal attacks clause yet? Master Thief Garrett 06:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:38, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Nerdwanker[edit]

Neologism, one google hits. Also, original research. Was speedied last time it went to vdf, but author insists on recreating, so please let it go through vfd this time. Thue | talk 11:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The one Google hit is someone's nickname. This appears to be an idiosyncratic neologism, with no supporting evidence. The previous VfD discussion reached rapid consensus for deletion. Speedy delete. -- The Anome 11:42, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not that I think there is any reasonable doubt ths should be deleted, but letting it go through the 5 day vfd process without speedying it increases the chance that the creator 'gets it' and does not recreate it. Thue | talk 11:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Megan1967 12:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism, already deleted --Silas Snider (talk) 20:41, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. --Carnildo 23:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 12:11, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sons of Krishna[edit]

I can't find any evidence to support this. Also see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/20._April_2005 for an interesting discussion on the German-language Wikipedia. Also see [8] for more skepticism about the now-deleted German Wikipedia article. Delete. -- The Anome 11:33, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

This passage from the Gita has no relevance to the article. Imc 23:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like complete fiction, probably put in as a test to see what happens. Vijawada presumably was meant to be Vijayawada. Osho was only a Hindu by birth. Sanatana Dharma is not a Hindu, but an alternative name for Hinduism. Imc 23:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:37, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Furi[edit]

Supposedly the creator of Jungvolk, but no google hits for Hitler Furi Jungvolk. Thue | talk 11:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program. Sjakkalle 08:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bias drive[edit]

Non notable concept of M.G. Miller for space drive which would contradict the laws of physics and without the slightest hint, how it can be build. Entered the NASA BPP program through the concept paper cited above, but never got any further evaluation, let alone further research. Two hits on scholar.google.com, one of them dead. Also note, that the term is used for a an unrelated concept in electronics and control theory. --Pjacobi 11:51, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

  • Merge into the stubby Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program page, along with all the other hypothetical drives mentioned. (I added a link to a paper where the Bias drive is described.) — RJH 15:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the page of blue-sky concepts for space drives that RJH cited; keep a redirect, perhaps, from a disambiguation page if the electronics and control-theory uses of the term (cited by Pjacobi) get at least stubs added. Not individually significant, but a verifiable example of the many wild-hair ideas that get mentioned in brainstorming. NASA took proposals on these for one of their more speculative idea searches, but this one didn't inspire a multibillion-dollar research program. Barno 17:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, black-sky concepts. The sky appears blue only within the atmosphere that's diffracting it. Barno 17:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see pitch drive and disjunction drive, which appear to cover similar territory.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:36, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Buff ryders[edit]

A student lifestyle web site started in 2005 -- Longhair | Talk 11:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:36, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Henry seeley[edit]

Not notable on his own to warrant a separate article. Entire article reads: Songwriter for the band Planetshakers. His wife is Alex Seeley.. JamesBurns 12:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. The "Planetshakers" article is pretty comprehensive. - Lucky 6.9 18:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Leanne 05:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 15:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Iam 06:19, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:35, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Domain name pointers[edit]

A domain name FAQ. Looks to be cut and pasted from a hosting companies site. -- Longhair | Talk 12:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:34, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hekal Tiamat[edit]

Impossible to verify - no sources and sounds like nonsense --Redit 12:29, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Well there's a song by the metal group Acheron about it, and a site [9] claims they needed permission to use the name, so I'm not sure. — RJH 15:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So secret that it's pretty much invisible if you search google for Hekal Tiamat -Acheron. Delete. Anilocra 19:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 15:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A dictionary definition at best. There is not enough information to make an informed and accurate entry beyond a basic definition of what "Hekal Tiamat" supposedly means or represents. --Anonymous 13:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is not enough information available to be more than a dictionary definition, at most. --LadyRhianna 20:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 real consensus, so redirect --SPUI (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A.C.A.B.[edit]

duplication of content because criminal tattoo (unsigned) 12:52 UTC, 5 May 2005 209.67.213.122

-- I'm only submitting it correctly and not voting. Those are the submitters' comments above, not mine. -- Longhair | Talk 12:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:29, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Bostonian Adventure Society[edit]

Impossible to verify - no sources and sounds like nonsense. Sounds like a fake secret society --Redit 12:37, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverifiable. Just 4 Google hits, all of them Wikipedia mirrors. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Average Earthman 15:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Probable hoax or prank. Online search of The Boston Globe (1980-Current) and the Boston Herald (1991-current) for exact phrase "Bostonian Adventure Society" returns no hits, although the Globe has had articles about the workings of "secret" organizations such as The Vault. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect --SPUI (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Shakespeare[edit]

Simpsonscruft for a one-off gag that took less than five seconds of screen time.DS 12:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge into Treehouse of Horror III if it's even noteworthy enough for that. Brighterorange 17:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above, but do not link to it from Shakespeare or zombie. Kappa 18:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Makes more sense to have everybody's favorite bits in the context of the episode. Lots of people do seem to cite this as a favorite moment so it sould be mentioned in the ep guide. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:28, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarke[edit]

not notable, Vanity.

Unsigned VfD originally submitted by user Silversmith on 23:34, 5 May 2005. -- Longhair | Talk 15:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Vanity - Longhair | Talk 14:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 'More to come soon'? What we have so far is unexceptional and uninteresting, so I don't expect this to improve sufficiently to escape the standard vanity tag. Average Earthman 15:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nateji77 16:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vanity - Tεxτurε 15:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:28, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Pieces of Fruit[edit]

A cafe set to have its grand opening on June 15, 2005 -- Longhair | Talk 13:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Vote changing vandalism by 158.143.8.12 repaired. Also vandalised the VfD for Chandler Blackstone. -- Longhair | Talk 00:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 06:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Creative production[edit]

This transwikified dicdef has been around since August 31, 2002, and has shown no indications of growth since it was created. A previous VfD attempt resulted in no consensus. Delete this overly broad topic, or provide proof of viability by showing meaningful expansion before this article becomes a lasting tribute to the Halting problem. --Allen3 talk 12:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, this is a renomination after about 6 weeks. Kappa 12:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, if anyone wants to write an article on this the fact that we deleted this dict-def won't hinder them. --W(t) 13:21, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Delete it's been a subsubstub dicdef for 3 years now, not likely to change anytime soon. Whatever there is to say about this topic is in other articles like creativity, art, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a pleonasm to me. Delete, replace with redirect to production. Radiant_>|< 15:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reasons I gave the last time around: that there's no sign that it's anything but a non-subject, and that the only coherent argument given so far for keeping it is that it could be improved -- while none of the people arguing this has yet bothered to improve it. -- Hoary 15:39, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Delete. It hasn't been expanded, and right now it is useless. --Scimitar 15:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nearly 3 year old dic def substub showing no signs of growth. - Mgm|(talk) 18:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 20:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, stubby dictdef (though the phrase gets surprisingly many google hits; ah well, everything is permitted in PR, I guess). Jitse Niesen 23:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dictionary stuff, really. Barely that, I've never heard of this strange term. It sounds like PR nonsense. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:27, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Using a computer to teach illiterate prisoners to read[edit]

  • Whatever this is, it isn't an encyclopedia article. Rmhermen 14:03, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- not encyclopedic. Longhair | Talk 14:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, nor an advocacy forum. Delete. Barno 17:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definately delete. --minghong 19:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's sort of an essay or story, not an article. If there's any such notable projects. They need to be merged into the appropriate prison article. Mgm|(talk) 21:41, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personal essay. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - DavidWBrooks 23:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essay written in first person. Sjakkalle 07:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete 1st person essay Yuckfoo 20:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 --SPUI (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle Eagles[edit]

POV, not notable, should be re-written at the very least--Silversmith 14:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- unless a major POV cleanup occurs. - Longhair | Talk 14:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- changing vote to Keep, article quality has improved. - Longhair | Talk 02:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've cleaned it up and made it a stub. RickK 23:02, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now, ty RickK. Kappa 01:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Current champion in national professional basketball league. Capitalistroadster 01:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unresearched nomination which should not have been made. Oliver Chettle 02:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, I withdraw my Nomination then. Although it still only gets 676 hits on google.

[10] --Silversmith 11:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Works better without the definite article [11] Kappa 14:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow 998 hits. I was worried for a second there they might have actually been notable. --Silversmith 14:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect --SPUI (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord is my shepherd[edit]

not encyclopedic. --Silversmith 14:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:25, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sandal Vandals[edit]

Sandal Vandal nonsense. -- Longhair | Talk 14:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:25, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

JakkeP[edit]

Sandal vandal nonsense. -- Longhair | Talk 14:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:24, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Grasmaaier45[edit]

Sandal Vandal nonsense -- Longhair | Talk 14:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And how would you know, you live on the other half of the world, man ? You sound pretty sure of yourself, you tell me why you are sure that this is nonsense? (Unsigned comment by 134.58.253.131 - 00:56, 6 May 2005) -- Longhair | Talk 15:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "27th of may", what year?, "currently studying law school..." hardly going to be notable enough for inclusion. -- Longhair | Talk 15:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --SPUI (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saudi Arabian Jews[edit]

Delete WP:POINT, also, I'm sure there are some jews among the 100,000 foreign workers living in the KSA. Just because the KSA reports its statistics as 100% Muslim doesn't mean it counts all foreign workers. Regardless of that, if something doesn't exist as Klonimus points out, why bother making a list of it?Yuber 15:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 15:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Btw, the Saudi government would typically reject visa applications of foreign workers with a Jewish background.JFW | T@lk 22:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, consider censuring creator. --Carnildo 23:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:POINT. Firebug 23:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:POINT. K1Bond007 00:17, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 03:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and allow for organic growth. In the future there may be jews in Saudi Arabia. There are several jews mentionied in the Koran and hadith, who are historical figures and thus worthy of of inclusion into a List of Saudi Arabian Jews. Perhaps editor's such as Yuber might try and expand this list. Personally I consider this article to be a stub, and I encourage wikipedia community to add to it, instead of deleting it. Klonimus 07:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally unverifiable, and sneaky POV besides. Mirror Vax 12:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; utterly moronic "article". There was no Saudi Arabia in ancient times, so there could not have been any Jews there. -R. fiend 15:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is untrue, Muhammed fought with several tribes of jews living around Mecca around 670 CE0. Klonimus 18:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was in the Arabian penninsula, not Saudi Arabia, which did not exist until the 20th century. -R. fiend 19:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily deleted. Klonimus, if you want to make a real article, then make a real article, but don't leave worthless stuff like this here. --Golbez 20:17, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • To explain my delete - it fit the criteria of lacking context. It was a speedy candidate. As for rejecting Jewish workers, I dunno, I once sent a package to a man named Goldstein working for an oil company in Ad Dammam, IIRC. --Golbez 20:36, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • Dude! Instead of deleting the article you totally should've added "Some guy named Goldstein or something in Ad Dammam" to the list. Then it wouldn't have been empty and we'd have a first rate article on our hands! -R. fiend 21:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:22, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

MakkeK[edit]

Sandal Vandal nonsense -- Longhair | Talk 14:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:22, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Chandler Blackstone[edit]

Self promotion of start up company running an as yet unopened cafeAverage Earthman 15:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 --SPUI (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slut Girl[edit]

A comic book that only ran six issues? Must be a million of these. Google search is obviously useless for the term, but "Slut Girl" + Ishatushi gets zero hits. -- BD2412 thimk 16:09, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

try "slut girl manga" on google (doesnt help the artists name was spelled wrong, either). 6 issues doesnt mean it wasnt important, it probably means it was a limited series rather than an ongoing series that got canned. i think Ghost in the Shell might have been six issues, and Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind was... 8? Manga tend to have more than 26 pages per issue, too. Nateji77 16:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come now, comparing this short-run sex comic to Ghost in the Shell? I'll concede, though, that "Slut Girl" + Isutoshi does top 1000 hits... but I have faith that the vfd process will work correctly, one way or the other. -- BD2412 thimk 17:26, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting they were equally noteworthy; I was using GitS as an example of a very noteworthy comic with very few issues. Nateji77 18:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I stand humbly corrected - I jumped the gun on this one, I think - got caught up in the mis-spelling of the author's name. I don't believe in withdrawing vfd's, but I think this article will end up being kept. I added quite a bit to it just now! -- BD2412 thimk 23:18, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup. Nateji77 16:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, amazon.co.jp sales rank is 63,673 [12]. Kappa 18:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A small number of issues doesn't equal non-notable, especially for Japanes comics. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:10, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • What is this crap, I thought this was supposed to be the thing that anyone can add articles to? (comment by article author BlueRhythmJohnny)
  • Delete - Same author is creating "Ol' Baldy", "Oy Carumba", and "Frankensauce" with text like "I call it that because...". (See comment by author above) - Tεxτurε 22:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Newbie user still learning the ropes. Others are speedy deletion candidates, but this seems slightly noteworthy based on the sales rank. Can anyone tell me about the artist? Mgm|(talk) 22:13, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The other articles were just newbie mistakes. This is a well-meaning user who has now been in touch with several other editors to learn the ways of Wiki, and this article seems at least slightly noteworthy. Solver 22:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Number of issues has no bearing on notability. 23skidoo 23:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please, it was a mistake to remove this Yuckfoo 23:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 1000 Google hits for Manga.. sorry this just isnt that notable and considering its been discontinued it wont get anymore notable. Megan1967 03:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming this is hentai mange without tentacles, Keep as notable for just that reason. --Simon Cursitor 06:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable, notable. Mirror Vax 12:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sorry for my upset comment above, I did not understand the process. I read some of the pages about how wikipedia works, and I realize some of the othre things I posted were not really "articles". But this is, so you should keep it. Thanks. --Brjatlick 16:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't seem to be notable. Grue 17:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted --SPUI (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Sheldon[edit]

Vanity page --bjh21 18:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:21, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Potato Mom[edit]

Googling "it's your mom" potato yields 9 on Usenet and 102 on the Web. Hoax or nn. Delete. —msh210 18:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Martg76 19:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not even verifiable information to merge into your mom. Delete. Samaritan 20:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd rather merge into YOUR mom. --SPUI (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just a vandalism/joke ... delete - DavidWBrooks 23:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vandalism/joke K1Bond007 00:14, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think this is a "real" joke, at least not a widespread one. In any case, very few jokes need their own articles anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:55, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense joke. Megan1967 03:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:20, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Fall of America[edit]

All speculation. (Apart from the bit where it tells you to say "Hi, Bob"). DJ Clayworth 18:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:19, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Arab dictatorships[edit]

I don't see how this can ever become NPOV. --Euniana/Talk/Blog 19:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Controversy is no reason to delete pages. If people object, there can be a section of criticism or alternative points of view. Keep. Just cut down on POV parts. Wikipedia abounds in double standards. Why is "Arab dictatorships" taboo, but POV titles like History of United States Imperialism get a pass from the delete-brigade? Pure hypocrisy.
Because the United States is a country with a central federal government and has been acting as one single entity for a long time. However, the Arabs are culturally and geographically diverse, and non-Arab Muslims or Middle-easterners are often mistaken for Arabs and lumped together. "Arab dictatorships" imply the Middle-eastern dictatorships have all been Arab, or that the Arabs are more prone to have dictatorships, which is a highly biased point of view. This is not just controversial; this is highly inaccurate. --Euniana/Talk/Blog 18:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
However Arabs, as diverse as they may be, view themselves as a single entity (see Pan-Arab nationalism). Keep or merge with an article on Arab governments or politics. I don't think that political correctness should limit the discussion on Wikipedia. Arab dictatorships are a reality, everybody knows it, even the delete crowd.


  • Only inbound is right-wing politics. Absolute monarchy provides evidence that while Saudia Arabia is, the other Gulf States are not absolute monarchies, as this contends. There's no way this adds any information that isn't covered elsewhere on Wikipedia; it's POV-based pastiche, stripped of context. Delete; expansion on the government of Arab states should go to Arab states. Samaritan 21:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Samaritan. No redirect. Meelar (talk) 21:19, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. Firebug 00:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:POINT Yuber 01:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I questioned this articles ability to become neutral a while back, it has failed to do so. Delete Sabine's Sunbird 02:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as is: POV, (probably deliberately) provocative title; contentious content. If the topic can be NPOV'd (which I beg to doubt IMHO), an article could be worth Wiki-ing, but I fear it would be likely to be flame-warred, simply because of the inherent heat generated by this subject. --Simon Cursitor 06:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We'd probably see a Jewish dictatorship within 48 hours of letting this one stay... Peter Isotalo 23:38, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but cut down on POV and adequately source. —Seselwa 00:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV Stancel 21:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:15, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

The Last Memento of The Beatles[edit]

Non encyclopaedic, non-notable, vanity, advertising, unconfirmable, palpably false in parts. Should be deleted, and possibly protected. Also The Last Memento Of The Beatles Vinny Vincent Ruello Allan Kissick Lu Ruello Hope AlbumDrops Of Light should be deleted, and possibly protected. Rich Farmbrough 21:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a Beatles article, my first instinct would be to call such a thing notable. It even has an external link. Can you give a bit more info on exactly what you think is patently false and how this is not notable? Mgm|(talk) 22:02, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • the external link is to the page of the person trying to sell the item Vincent Ruello and his alleged manager. His claim to have an item worth millions (article "almost priceless piece") is not supported at [13]. His claim that there waas an Austalian Daily Telegraph article does not seem to be borne out, see discussion by my brother on the talk page. Michael Heatley was not the Beatles' agent as far as we know. In other articles of the group, Allan Kissick does not seem to have ever managed the Easybeats (googleing he only exists on 2 'pedia mirrors), I can find no record of the Hope Album (google ("Hope Album" Ruello) no hits). I have removed references from the Easybeats and Beatles articles, which were effectively vandalism. The only google hits on "Last Memento of The Beatles" are the site selling it and wikipedia mirrors. ("Drops of light" has more important meanings) '"Drops of light" ruello' gets 1 hit (you can listen to their music) 'pentultima ruello' a massive 4 hits. Given the author's unreliability on all these facts, I would not want to rely on the article being a genuine Beatles association item, without a reliable source, but even if it were, there's thousands out there (I have books that belonged to J.R.R.Tolkien, but they're not worthy of articles, and wouldn't be even if they were extensively autographed). Rich Farmbrough 23:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like the first sentence above says, this is junk. jls 5 May 2005.
  • Delete all, advertising. Megan1967 03:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for reasons stated above.David Farmbrough 6 May 2005 08:52 (BST).
  • Merge with the article on the Abbey Road album as a trivia item -- but only if this is genuine information. If, as suggested above, it is fiction, then Delete. 23skidoo 23:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rich Farmbrough you are a jeolous vindictive person doing things against the spirit and policy of Wikipedia. The last memento of the beatles is exactly what it says. This must be allowed to stay. the history of Drops of light and Allan Kisick is also true and relevant. Michael Heatley who is the manager today at EMI London is the agent for Apple still and current. If anyone dares remove any of my historical articles due to jeolousy or other motives you will be reported and the articles will simply go back up. Rowan Ayers was interviewed on the 26th Dec 2004 Daily Telegraph by reporter Peter Holmes authenticating the history of this English treasure. unsigned comment from 144.138.137.38
Personal attacks are against the spirit and policy of Wikipedia as well. Gamaliel 03:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to be appreciated, thanks to those who've reverted the vandalism of the VfD. I like the way Wikipedia uses the minimum amount of discipline to fix problems, very like how wolf packs becve internally. Rich Farmbrough 21:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- He's been attempting to sell this item on eBay for years now using high cost main page 'featured item' exposure, along with similar kooky write-ups. I tried locating older eBay auction archives but they don't seem to be about anywhere I could find. Wikipedia is free advertising and he knows it. -- Longhair | Talk 16:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I firstly appologise for my anger and what I said to you Richard but you did slander me and my item. I will reach a compromise with the wikipedia community. Remove my advertising web page but please keep the history and the item and my connections with Sam Leach and Allan Kissick....Kind regards Vincent Ruello comment from 144.138.137.139
Apology accepted. However the consensus will likely be implemented by an admin. Rich Farmbrough 20:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, this is a beautiful late rare memento with exquisite pedigree. Phil Jenkinson who made the cartoon wobble on the BBC launch for the album working with Rowan was the pioneer of pop/rock clips. there are not thousands of these out there, I own the original and have only released a couple of dozen. This is the only history made available of this piece. Im honored to be here at wikipedia and to meet you all.Vince.

I didn't mean thousands of that particular item, I meant things like "THE MAGICIANS CAPE WORN BY JOHN LENNON IN 'THE MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR', 1967 the red wool full-length" I.E. association items. I wish you good luck finding a buyer for yours. Rich Farmbrough 19:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – Rich Farmbrough 21:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Horeb Jewish Society[edit]

Advertisement for an internet micro-movement; not notable, not verifiable, completely POV Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any new entry in the first person is suspect. JFW | T@lk 22:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since this sounds like a scam to me. Money for conversions? That is a huge red flag to me. Zscout370 (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 04:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete, it is not advertisement to give a source.There is no money involved or asked.The 7 usd is exclusively a symbolism, and nothing as an amount in comparison; there is no charge to study and to convert and I have no doubt that even the 7 usd is not absolutely compulsory...It is a new section in the Jewish denominations.
  • Dont delete They dont ask any money; instead they urge the applicant to send if he/she wants a donation to http://www.armdi.org/savelives.html, the American Red Magen David and they consider this as a token of good will from the applicant.Conversion is in practice.
  • Note: User 213.114.224.163's second vote. Jayjg (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont delete It is a mistake to delete a reference to "The Horeb Jewish Society".At least make a different and more appropriate entry about them.This is a new movement that offers the opportunity to people around the world,to learn, approach, feel and understand better the Jewish people and Judaism.It is like the "Bible Society" in Christianism."The "Horeb Jewish Society" wants to help deeply interested people to become Jews and to make Judaism eventually, an immediately household word; "we are Jewish as well".Not only it wants to fight anti-semitism but it also and mostly wants to bring to the entire society the wisdom and beauty of Judaism and of the Jewish culture and a close and spiritual relationship.
  • Note: User 213.114.224.163's third vote. Jayjg (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont delete It is not about money; it is about spiritual and religious conversion to "Horeb Judaism".It does not ask for any money; it actually says on the Web Site:"Applicants who cannot afford this amount, will be duly converted without any charge".It is a new movement in Judaism that advances understanding and cooperation between all people, in addition to the actual conversion.
  • Delete and Kill the socks. Radiant_* 09:38, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Dont delete It is incorrect and unfair to delete this entry in Wikipedia.In addition, looking at the last entry above my own, it shows that the bad and prejudiced are voting as well...Is that what Wikipedia should be about?I am sorry then...
  • Note: User 213.114.224.163's fourth vote. Jayjg (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect --SPUI (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poot[edit]

Stub on some creature from My Teacher is an Alien by Bruce Coville. It does seem to have entered the public discourse, so a seperate entry is unnecessary. Delete. JFW | T@lk 21:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:12, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Havid Dusa[edit]

Apparent hoax. -- Tabor 21:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Obvious nonsense. Mirror Vax 11:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nonsense - Tεxτurε 15:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Both since it is nonsense and because of this edit by the article's original author. 10qwerty 16:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:11, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Water fluoridation quotes[edit]

A collection of quotes moved from water fluoridation. This is an intensely silly politicised issue, but these quotes are not scientific opinions and therefore are more for entertainment than actual article content. They should either be deleted or transwikified to Wikiquote. JFW | T@lk 22:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, POV, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Soapbox, original source material. Some could be transwikied, I suppose. Any important content or ideas should already be in water fluoridation, so no merge is required. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 05:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, already said. Not Wikiquote material, in my opinion. Not notable in my impression. How about Wikisource. if it is an original material. --Aphaea* 08:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream...Delete, or perhaps send some over to wikiquote. This is not an encyclopedia article. -R. fiend 15:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and please spare Wikiquote. Eustace 23:10, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
    • Comment, On behalf of the English Wikiquote community I heartfully request to every voter who will vote after my comment to review Wikiquote deletion policy and past discussion. If this page will be posted as is, I dare say I will delete it as speedy as Danny did once here. --Aphaea* 10:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you Aphaea, you are right. This should be deleted, and I've changed my vote above. JFW | T@lk 11:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • HALF OF THIS IS IN FULL CAPITALS SO THAT THE READER WILL KNOW IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. I am kicking myself for not having previously thought of this extraordinarily ingenious idea. If I now say DELETE you'll know that my vote is important too. And that aside, what no quote from General J D Ripper (via Doctor Strangelove)? -- Hoary 10:28, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
  • As the "creator" of this article, and I use the term sparingly, I really don't object to this article being deleted. Incredibly, this initially formed the bulk of the Water fluoridation article, and unfortunetely I haven't had the time, or the assistance to begin sifting through it, and searching for coherent/useful information. If anyone wants to step in and rescue something, that might be a good thing, but I believe that most of it is junk anyway. It just seemed unfair to come in and delete what was such a large portion of content, that had seemingly developed over time, without giving the editors at Water fluoridation a chance to save some of it. Given that it has been a few weeks now, I think it's reasonable to delete it now, but we should give a couple of days for the editors at Water fluoridation to oppose this, as the article does link to this page, and that is where the content originated from and was developed. I'll post something to the Water fluoridation discussion page, and if there's no response in a couple of days, I'd say its quite fair to remove the page. --Brendanfox 11:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Darrien 23:08, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
  • Comment, I will first say that I believe the original Water fluoridation article is very much inadequate seeing that it is definitely not neutral and no where near the overwhelming concensus of international scientific research (notice there are 4 links to "pro-fluoridation" sites and 19 links to "anti-fluoridation" sites). Nonetheless, what I think someone was trying to do was to make the Water fluoridation quotes article be a place to relieve some of the clutter from the original article. I do not think it worked, and it is definitely a mess. Instead, as I believe it has been suggested earlier, if the authors want to write an extensive article on the objections to water fluoridation (using "facts" and opinions disputed by most of the scientific world), I think they should do it in another article entitled something like Water Fluoridation (controversy) and have the majority of the original article expressing facts (such as where water fluoridation is used/banned) and conclusions accepted by the scientific community. A bit of this controversy might be fine in the original article to represent the beliefs of some people, but I do not think it would do much good to just move/keep this amount of quotes in the original article. dozenist 04:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:08, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Essentialism as a political philosophy[edit]

This page is about a dubious political philosophy. Created and edited only by one user whose name is cited as that of the philosophy's creator. Google doesn't show any results for the philosopher. The webpage cited as the main resource doesn't even provide information. Seems like vanity.--Bkwillwm 22:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vanity/nonsense. Mirror Vax 11:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless shown not to be original research. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The webpage cited in this goofy article contains the following statement (as of Sunday evening) -- "Our users have posted a total of 0 articles

We have 2 registered users." So this is an article about a philosophy in which two people are mildly interested, but not interested enough to contribute a post to their own website on the subject. Non-notability just received its paradigm. --Christofurio 22:50, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus to delete, nowhere to merge to). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snæbjörn[edit]

Wikipedia is not a names database. Vanity. RickK 22:50, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • (Invalid anon vote) Keep it.

Anyone not in favor of Snæbjörn being added to the Wikipedia's database, please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen, which contains an Icelandic version of Stephen, Stefán.

This article is not being considered for deletion, so neither should Snæbjörn.

Regards, Siggi Olafsson.

  • The above is by User:213.213.151.31. Stephen is a disambiguation page with a long list of articles about people whose first name is Stephen. Please point to the similar list of articles on Wikipedia concerning people whose first name is Snæbjörn. RickK 23:34, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into an article that covers the family of names to which this name belongs. Families of names are inherently encyclopedic (and damn interesting). I'm starting to feel like I should write a template on this, so I'm going to start a discussion on it now. -- BDAbramson thimk 00:13, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Kappa 19:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please point to such an article? So far as I know, there is none. And I don't understand dab's comment about "the family of names to which this name belongs". I know of no such article. Precedent has long been to delete articles on names unless they are disambiguations. RickK 04:25, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • E.g. move it to björn and wait for some other björns to accumulate. Kappa 05:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's just silly. RickK 06:10, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia:no personal attacks Kappa 06:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's the mild version. It took me several tries before I wound up with words that weren't a real personal attack. RickK 09:01, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
              • LOL we seem to have the same effect on each other. Kappa 12:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary if they want it, or delete. --Carnildo 23:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (rather than transwiki) as it doesn't seem to meet Wiktionary's criteria for the inclusion of proper nouns:
1. It is used as a common noun (especially if it is commonly written without capitalization).
2. It is used in an attributive sense with the expectation that the meaning will be widely understood (a David Beckham hairstyle).
3. Words or terms derived from the name are already in Wiktionary.
4. The name appears in different forms in different languages (e.g. John/Johann/Jan/Juan/Jean/Giovanni ...)

--Angr/comhrá 13:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Snaebjorn is a variation of Bjorn (bear), which is related to Berlin, Berne, Brno etc, and also Brown. [15] Kappa 14:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not Berlin, which is a Slavic word unrelated to bear. And anyway, having a listing for a word based on its etymological cognates is a characteristic of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia, so it shouldn't be here. And the whole name Snæbjörn does not meet the criteria for inclusion at Wiktionary, even if Björn does. Björn does not, however, meet WP's criteria for inclusion, so it should never be created here. --Angr/comhrá 22:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bjorn when it's created. The current version is of vanityish type considering that Icelanders refer to people only by first names... Grue 17:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just a name. Radiant_* 09:39, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 16:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SchmuckyTheCat 15:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Instantnood 08:27, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:07, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Near-death experience of jesus[edit]

Nonnotable scholar with an idea not shared by many.

Lotsofissues 22:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Evan Powell" + Jesus = 159 Google hits. It's not a notable theory. --Idont Havaname 00:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect → Resurrection of Jesus. This is just one of the many skeptics theories that reappears from time to time. --Allen3 talk 01:02, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:13, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable as far as I can see. Dabbler 02:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, speculation. Megan1967 04:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable -- the original article stated that the hypothesis 'has not received the attention it deserves' - I removed this as POV. But, on reflection, it is really an authorial admission of non-notability. Doc Glasgow 09:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete personal speculation. --Marianocecowski 11:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsuitably POV title, no useful new content. Much of it is original speculation; The encyclopedic content is already covered well both at Jesus and at Resurrection of Jesus. Andrewa 13:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:06, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Richa Agarwal[edit]

Vanity, non-notable. Delete. —Markaci 2005-05-5 T 23:57 Z

  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Quale 05:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wonderful person, obviously - but non-notable. Just like the rest of us. -- BDAbramson thimk 17:18, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity - speak for yourself, BD. I am hardly wonderful. (But definitely non-notable.) - Tεxτurε 16:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_5&oldid=1081092967"