Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 25

March 25

Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Scott e^iπ 04:26, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Nadd

The article's creator claims that it is a "primal Internet pop-cultural reference". I would rather say vanity (and a spam link to a non-notable website with an Alexa rank of 555,448). No google hits for "Nerd Attention Deficient Disorder"; "Nerd Attention Deficiency Disorder" gets 610. Unless notability is established, delete. - Mike Rosoft 00:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, possible vanity acronym, promo. Megan1967 02:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, searching for "NADD" not "Nerd Attention Deficient Disorder" reveals a multitude of rerferences, Anonymous.
  • Why "not Nerd Attention Deficient Disorder"? Why do you want to exclude this phrase? (Not that it matters; the phrase itself has no Google hits in this form.) - Mike Rosoft 10:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A searh for NADD gets a lot of false hits. A search for NADD + nerd gets about 910 hits, pretty low for an internet phenomenon. DaveTheRed 05:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Dave, delete. Radiant_* 12:52, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• del. neologism. Mikkalai 23:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:58, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Bastard. -- Scott e^iπ 04:30, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Bastardized

Dictionary definition. Transwiki to Wikiquote Wiktionary if they want it at all. - Marcika 01:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) corrected myself - Marcika 04:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I doubt very much that it will. Wiktionary won't, either (Wiktionary:bastardized). Redirect (nothing to merge) to bastard. Uncle G 02:00, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or make into a redirect to "bastard" to prevent possible recreation. -- Infrogmation 18:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• redirect as suggested above. Pavel Vozenilek 22:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was move to Talk:Helen Keller/Merged, replace resulting redirect with one to Weather lore. – ABCD 20:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Weather Folklore

66.42.50.214 created this page and posted an article about Helen Keller on it. I successfully merged the content into Helen Keller. The question is now what to do with this Weather Folklore article. Obviously, it does not relate to Keller in any way, and there are no pages that link to it -- thus it should not have a redirect. I suggest we delete it unless someone can actually write something on "Weather Folklore". Zzyzx11 01:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The GFDL requires that we keep the article that you have taken the text from. So Rename it to Helen Keller/Merged1 or some such, make a note of the renaming on Talk:Helen Keller, and go to WP:RFD to delete the resultant redirect left at Weather Folklore. Voilà! No VFD required. ☺ Uncle G 02:12, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about doing that first, but I went to VfD on impulse just because I was kinda curious if there might be someone out there who thought weather folklore might be a worthy topic for a WP article. Zzyzx11 05:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• If we have no article on weather folklore, that strikes me as a fairly pressing need. Obviously this ain't it. I may try to put something together if no one else beats me to it, and also add it to Wikipedia:Requested articles. -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Move per Uncle G, then redirect to weather lore. —Korath (Talk) 07:02, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Weather lore. Original article has already been merged into Helen Keller. Megan1967 10:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Weather lore seems the most sensible thing to do. Mgm|^(talk) 21:24, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong redirect to weather lore. Binadot 16:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --Carnildo 23:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tonic immobility

Useless disruption. Delete.--Dmcdevit 01:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• An obvious Speedy delete candidate under criteria G1, G2, G3, or A1 — take your pick. I've tagged it. Uncle G 01:43, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --Carnildo 23:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

paradigmeter

I can find no evidence that this exists. Some of the edits from 24.190.55.243 (talk · contribs) today have been just within the bounds of plausability (c.f. subject-superject), and so I'm not dismissing this out of hand as simply silly vandalism. Uncle G 01:37, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --Carnildo 23:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Buzz buzzelli

Probably nonsense about some guy called "laser-face" who ripped of a shark's face with laser and then wore it. There seems to be a notable writer writing about motorcycles, so write an article about him or delete is my suggestion. bbx 01:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 10:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. This could probably be speedied. Note that User:151.201.136.93, the article's author, blanked this discussion and replaced it with a keep vote. android↔talk 18:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not-non-non-nonsense. This old rhyme from the sea must be told. Plus the grocery thing is public record.
  • If it wasn't obvious, please note that this, err, comment is brought to you by User:151.201.136.93. android↔talk 18:32, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, encourages cruelty to helpless mako sharks. Kappa 18:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have too much time on my hands to waste following this string. android↔talk 18:39, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems that sockpuppets are fond of impersonating me lately. android↔talk 18:55, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, This test is over.
• 'Delete as nonsense. Radiant_* 20:22, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Speedily deleted. If someone doubts, here is the text:

Otherwise known as "laser-face", once used a laser to rip off a shark's face. This was by no means an accident; in 1976 laser-face conned the shark into shallow water using scented candles and a hint of garlic. The 6' mako shark could not resist. Once in close enough, the shark was defenseless against the precise and accurate guiding hand that held a mild laser. It took buzz buzzelli (laser-face) 4 hours and 26 minutes to consummate his efforts. After the incident was over and the shark was faceless, the stunned crowd gazed in awe as laser-face took the bloody shark face and left the beach. Laser-face worked as a librarian and would often wear the shark face. It was later reported that laser-face was arrested for re-arranging groceries in a local grocery store in 1998. In 1999 laser-face was released and never caught in public again. As one of the witnesses on that beach on that mysterious day, I can say that no one will ever complete this feat ever again.

Mikkalai 23:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 15:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blair Nerd Project

Blair Nerd Project should be deleted -- patent nonsense. Google search (just in case) returns no hits.FreplySpang 01:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Silly hoax. -- 8^D ^gab 05:02, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 06:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn hoaxcruft. ComCat 01:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless this thing is shown to have some popularity / notability, it's just a vanity site; it's not the function of Wikipedia to introduce or popularize something that isn't already known outside here. -- Dan -- 16:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This should have been speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 22:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goh yong hang

Some kind of vanity, definitely not notable. Not to mention incorrect naming convention.--Dmcdevit 01:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• delete vanity Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:00, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -Frazzydee|✍ 18:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Scott e^iπ 04:32, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

The dub

Obvious vanity, but interesting; delete.--Dmcdevit 02:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. In fact, speedy delete. Vanity, POV... Moncrief 03:07, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, however I like his term of "Gonosyphiherpilitis". -- Riffsyphon1024 04:05, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Note that the phrase "I just pulled a Dub" contains no adjectives. DaveTheRed 05:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, reads more like a personal attack than vanity. Megan1967 06:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was userfy. —Korath (Talk) 01:35, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Deige

This article is insignificant and unnecessary. --Evanwohrman 02:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Article was moved to User:Deige101 by Ed g2s on 25th March and the redirect deleted. No longer a VfD candidate. - TB 09:38, 2005 Mar 30 (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. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Layer 13

I say it fails the Music Notability test. And very few google hits. Note to Wikipedians...do not use the phrase "lesser known" in your articles :). Kind of a giveaway. --Woohookitty 02:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, under the bar of notability, possible band vanity. Megan1967 06:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Yup, delete. - TB 09:35, 2005 Mar 30 (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. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Björn Rask

A swedish musician that googles to 41 hits. I can't read swedish but none of those seem relevant. The article claims this person has released two albums, but his official webiste doesn't mention the fact. Both records google to 0 hits ([1], [2]). He is also unknown to Allmusic.com; maybe EMI has used its influence to ban him there too. My vote is Delete this vanity unless some evidence of notability comes up. VladMV ٭ ^talk 03:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No relevant hits in searching Swedish newspaper article databases either. / Uppland 09:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Too much swedish and not enough notoriety 129.10.245.175 00:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Che Dorval

This sub-stub is composed of a single line: "Che Dorval (born Jan. 25th, 1985) is a Vancouver based singer/songwriter". I can add the following information: her name is mispelled (should be "Ché"), she is unknown to Allmusic.com, her website does not mention any albums released, she googles to 2 hits. Delete, nn, vanity.

(nomination added at 3:36 UTC, March 25, 2005, by User:Vmv)

I was going to compliment the writer on a witty, concise and well-written nomination when I noticed the lack of a sig. Anyway, delete. Meelar (talk) 06:03, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, God! My apologies, really. I did the nomination. VladMV ٭ ^talk 14:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Submitter forgot to sign, but the article is far too short and the subject far too obscure to escape on a technicality. Average Earthman 12:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:01, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Richard Davis

Inventor of a BBQ sauce, no potential to become encyclopedic, delete --nixie 03:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Linking to external pages within the article in that fashion is a definite no-no. If the sauce is genuinely really, really popular and iconic (compare to HP Sauce in the UK) then the sauce warrants an article. But notice the inventor of HP Sauce doesn't have his own article. Average Earthman 12:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. AFAIK, the sauce is quite notable as condiments go, and the bottle has an image of its creator on it... but I don't think the creator warrants an article; perhaps KC Masterpiece does. (I've never had it; I prefer sauce from Famous Dave's, which doesn't have an article yet. It and/or its creator might deserve one...) android↔talk 17:45, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Leroy von Rennsteig

Probably vanity. Non-notable. Zero google hits. Delete. --cesarb 03:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. He won a race? Was it a major international race, with Olympians competing? The lack of google hits does not appear to suggest this was the case. Winners of local races aren't notable. Average Earthman 12:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Not notable, delete - TB 09:40, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --Carnildo 23:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lokesh

Some kind of pointless personal remark/spam, should be deleted.--Dmcdevit 03:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• This should have been speedied. Two friends making crap on Wikipedia. Simple as that. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:47, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, as user test. DaveTheRed 05:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no article. Megan1967 06:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was list on WP:RFD. – ABCD 22:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

South Sentinel

This is a redirect to South Sentinel Island, a page that does not exist. But it is linked from the Sentinel Islands article. This gives the misleading impression that there are articles for both islands. If it is possible for a non-administrator like myself to sort this mess out, I can't work out how. Please delete South Sentinel. GrahamN 03:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• If there is no infomation on something, it should not have a page linking to nowhere. Delete this and retain the link on the Sentinel Islands article. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:50, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• You're in the wrong place. You want WP:RFD Uncle G 05:29, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
• This place is so much more complicated than it used to be, which can't be good. I don't have the patience to find out what you are on about, Unc, but now somebody has has solved the problem by creating a new stub article for South Sentinel Island (why didn't I think of that?), I change my vote to KEEP. If that counts for anything now it's been decreed that I'm "in the wrong place". Bah. GrahamN 23:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – ABCD 22:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2WS

Looks like some kind of advertisement -- a schedule for a seminar or something, delete.--Dmcdevit 03:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, maybe speedy as patent nonsense. DaveTheRed 05:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, actually its a list of announcers and programs on a local western suburbs FM station here in Sydney called 2WS-FM. Megan1967 06:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it is a Sydney radio station ( http://www.2ws.com.au/ )- I don't live in Sydney, but I have heard of it before. I don't know anything specifically notable about the station, but AFAIK wikipedia doesn't have a policy of deleting radio stations. I think cleanup would be more appropriate than deletion. -- Chuq 06:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Could be a major station. In this case, delete, but retain any redlinks for a better article. Chris 15:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep. It's a major commercial radio station in Sydney. Rewrite as necessary.--Gene_poole 02:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If it's a major station, then all the more reason to get rid of this crap to make sure someone able to write a good article on it isn't discouraged from doing so. Chris 12:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The current content is less than ideal, but it is hardly "crap" worthy of active article deletion - it is merely a harmless programme schedule that can be incorporated into the improved article in due course.--Gene_poole 04:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I doubt this article will serve as the foundation for a worthy article on the radio station in question. Better to get rid of it and see if the station reappears. Feco 08:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's one the top 5 commercial stations in Sydney.--Centauri 06:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Edited out the ad material, changed article to stub status. Fifelfoo 05:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Fifelfoo's edit. This station is a major stion and its target area is the Western Suburbs of Sydney, and was granted a license in the late 1970's to do so. Capitalistroadster 10:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please. Yuckfoo 01:46, 4 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 no concensus. Editors who feel that this VFD debate was unfair should renominate only after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GRider has been concluded, due to possible evidence present. - Mailer Diablo 10:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bejamin Franklin High School and Benjamin Franklin High School

Right off the bat, you can tell this person wasn't a detailist. Second it doesnt acheive any points for BEEFSTEW. Just a non-notable high school with a very common name. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:55, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

---

• GRider has made an attempt at vote-swinging for this nomination [3].
  • While they say that it's not about the votes, unfortunately that is at least part of the basis on which the admins make their decision. Request that all votes by members who have been approached by GRider in this way be discounted and considered as one multiple vote by GRider. Chris 12:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Insulting request denied. --Zero 14:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

• Delete this and also Benjamin Franklin High School, an identical stub by the same IP contributor. Not notable. Jonathunder 04:53, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
  • "... it's sports and academic programs are perform rather well." [sic] Oh my! BJAODN?
• Keep, rename, cleanup etc. Enough info about what makes it different from other schools, and necessary to coverage of its local area. Kappa 05:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable high school with a generic name. DaveTheRed 05:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I have also made the correctly spelled article's Vfd link to this one as they are the same. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:00, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable high school with a generic name. Gamaliel 08:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Part vanity school, part vanity rant. BEEFSTEW score of 1 (A). —Korath (Talk) 08:49, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the incorrectly titled one and turn the correctly titled but vague one into a disambig, with what little useful information there is being transferred to the relevant district article, if anyone can figure out which that one is. (Don't merge with the main Los Angeles or Los Angeles Unified School District articles). See Granada Hills, Los Angeles, California for an example of how I'd personally like it done. Average Earthman 13:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both, nn, high-schollcruft. VladMV ٭ ^talk 15:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Modified - I removed the POV stuff, and put in the correct template in line with the instructions. Still, delete. Chris 15:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If there's nothing notable about the school, I can't see any reason for this article to exist. --GamblinMonkey 15:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, a quick browse shows at least a half dozen Benjamin Franklin High Schools around the country; at best, this should be a disambiguation page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable schools. -- Jwinters | Talk 17:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth (correct the misspelling). Can anyone tell me if photos hosted on a public school website are in the public domain? I think this photo would make a excellent addition to the article. --GRider\^talk 18:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course not. Why would you think they'd be PD? Chris 20:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Many of the images on Wikipedia are from government-related sources. It was a non-rhetorical question. --GRider\^talk 21:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • They're only public domain if explicitly released into it. It's only works of the U.S. federal government, not state or local, that become PD automatically. —Korath (Talk) 20:55, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you Korath for your expeditious and polite response! --GRider\^talk 21:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all schools are notable.  ALKIVAR™ 21:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've shunted it closer to the correct category. Wincoote 21:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with the rest of the keepers. --Dittaeva 21:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete there is nothing in this article that convinces me that it is notable, being the largest in its district or named after someone famous are not notable. All the schools I went to were the biggest in their respective areas, even though my primary school only had ~70 pupils. My old upper school is by far the largest and most successful of its district and those surrounding it, its named after royalty and has the remains of a saxon palacem and ruins of a saxon chappel in its grounds, has several famous alumini and it doesn't have an article. Thryduulf 22:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Your school not having an article is not a valid reason for deletion of this particular article. --GRider\^talk 22:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    Neither is that a valid counter-argument to the point being made. Chris 00:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    • True, but the point I was making is that my school is more notable than this one, and I don't think it would merit a separate article. If a school with a notability of 5 is not notable enough, why would a school with a notablilty of 1 or 2 be? (arbitrary units). Thryduulf 22:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Note that GRider has recently spammed a number of talk pages (including one for a user who's been temporarily banned from VfD) trying to recruit "keep" votes. --Carnildo 23:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That's how I found out about these articles - I happen to have David Gerard's and Iasson's talk pages on my watchlist. I note that he has now also set up User:GRider/Schoolwatch. Thryduulf 23:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That is correct, I have initiated a Schoolwatch programme in an effort to help foster the proliferation of better school articles on Wikipedia. With the firm belief that all school articles are encyclopedic, this is a step towards concentrating the efforts of many fellow users. --GRider\^talk 23:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Please consider putting Galashiels Academy on your programme. It's in a very unsatisfactory state, and the last attention it got was vandalism (reverted) in November 2004. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

      With the firm belief that all school articles are encyclopedic Bzzzt! 404 Logic not found. Chris 00:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

      • Well, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so having a load of 'me too' votes is not supposed to have an effect anyway.Average Earthman 23:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • GRider is trying to subvert the VfD process by vote garnering. This should not be allowed. DaveTheRed 03:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability. Mikkalai 23:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• ...is actually rather large compared to others in the district? My, what weasel-wording. Delete. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. The topic of Horses is encyclopedic, a very few individual horses like Seabiscuit are encyclopedic, most individual horses are not. The topic of High schools is encyclopedic, a very few individual high schools are encyclopedic, most individual high schools are not. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All public institutions belong in Wikipedia.--Gene_poole 02:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the article and delete this fanatical deletionism. --Zero 02:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Contains interesting information - Wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 02:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a schools gazeteer. Please also identify which parts of the article you consider "interesting". All I see are location, numbers, and namesake. Chris 12:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Note: It appears that User:GRider has contributed a wealth of information to this article between the Vfd and now, thus making it seem more worthy of an article. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:17, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • You sure of that? The article as it stands right now is slightly shorter than the version nominiated for VfD, and contains most of the original information. --Carnildo 03:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • You're right, it was simply a bunch of edits by him. But my vote remains the same. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:24, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep article but send redirect link to RfD. Article has potential to become more encyclopedic. --Andylkl ^(talk) 04:12, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Dpbsmith's arguments. Not all public institutions and certainly not all schools are automatically encyclopedia-worthy. Rossami (talk) 07:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete schools don't belong unless they're noteworthy... imagine the disambig pages for common names (Franklin, Jefferson, etc). Feco 08:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the Franklin High School article, delete the redirect. —RaD Man (talk) 08:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with DPbsmith. Radiant_* 08:59, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, WINP. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is also not a schools prospectus. Chris 12:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. How does this school distinguish itself from the many other Benjamin Franklin schools across the nation, let alone from the rest of secondary education facilities period? Arkyan 12:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Agreeing with this. Why is it that people seem to think that schools don't have to prove their worth to be included when everything else does? Human settlements are the one exception to prove the rule, for obvious reasons. Chris 13:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Funny, I don't think human settlements are obvious keeps. I've put some thought into reasons for keeping schools. Feel free to disagree.  The Steve  15:44, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. If the existence of the school is not disputed, then there is no reason that this is not a valid article topic. Notability is subjective, but schools with more than a few students should automatically pass the test. Wiki is not paper. Someone please wake me up when there is finally a policy vote about keeping school articles. ~leif ☺ _HELO 20:30, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. CDC (talk) 01:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons stated. Slac speak up! 07:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Mandel 19:05, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No content. --L33tminion | (talk) 00:50, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. High schools are verifiable. - SimonP 04:28, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This pointless anti-schoool vendetta is becoming quite tiresome. All schools are public institutions, and all public institutions and facilities are notable by definition. That's right - all public institutions and facilities.--Centauri 06:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re "by definition": Since you say "by definition," it's reasonable to ask: where do you find that "definition?" Dpbsmith (talk) 10:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re "vendetta:" you use that word. I wish you wouldn't, as I don't think there is one. I stand subject to correction on this, particularly by SimonP, but I have never been aware of anyone who thinks all high schools should be deleted, and I have never been aware of any organized campaign against them. If there is one, I'm sure out of the loop, because I have never received a message advising me of any school votes in progress. (And for the record, I hope I never do). Last year, at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/High_schools, I tried to track every school article that was created for a bit more than a month, just to see what really happens. What I found was that

a) school articles are created at a very slow pace, slower than one per day. At that rate of creation, even if you make reasonable projections of growth, there is no credible prospect that U. S. high schools will get comprehensive coverage, comparable to sites like www.greatschools.net or to our (controversial!) Rambot town articles, in the foreseeable future.

b) I saw no evidence of any systematic attempt to delete schools. Many high school articles--generally the ones that would have had decent BEEFSTEW scores if anyone bothered to score them--sailed right in without getting nominated for deletion.

c) If there were a "vendetta," the section of the list headed "School articles created in November that have not been listed on VfD" might well have been like waving a red flag at a bull and been treated as a "hit list." It wasn't.

d) Generally, it appears to be only the very-low-quality school articles that get nominated for VfD.

e) Statement that "it's a waste of time listing these on VfD because they never get deleted" are incorrect. Many of the really bad substubs do get voted for deletion. Some do however get kept for various reasons, including some degree of improvement during the VfD comment period.

Once again, subject to correction if anyone know more history on this than I'm aware of. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Nothing notable. Saopaulo1 07:02, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve.--BaronLarf 21:22, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all non-notable high schools. That is to say, most of them. Denni☯ 02:59, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Kappa, ShaunMacPherson, Thesteve and others. Samaritan 03:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. See my points at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Any policy regarding school articles?. -- Toytoy 04:39, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another non-notable school. --G Rutter 12:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. High schools are inherently nonencyclopedic. --Angr 12:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- until a consistent policy is made on how to document every single high school, we shouldn't be doing this piecemeal. Joshuaschroeder 06:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 21:41, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think any Wiki contributor should tolerate any objection other than 'not notable'. Especially in context of a high school which is an institution of public record. The 'not notable' crowd have a really contrived idea about what Wikipedia should be, and it's silly. Obscure entries are *exactly* what make this a useful resource. Not "what everybody already knows" Sniffandgrowl 00:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User was created today; he has only two edits not to vfds, one of them to his user page. —Korath (Talk) 02:24, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chvasta

Vanity page, does not appear to be notable, delete.--Dmcdevit 03:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity, especially when I see lines like "One of Atlanta's finested musicians". Also the band Light Pupil Dilate is only known in that immediate area, but deifinitely not a band notable enough either. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:14, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Mikkalai 23:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

M. Chvasta

Same as above: vanity page, does not appear to be notable, delete.--Dmcdevit 03:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Turned into redirect to Chvasta, nominated above. Mikkalai 23:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Brandon Smith

Vanity page. Insignificant. --Evanwohrman 04:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• This one bleeds of vanity. Delete the band geek. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:10, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mark Dever

I question this one. It states he is the minister of a church in D.C, which would relate him to the government some. I got 650 hits for "Mark Dever". Is that notable enough or not? -- Riffsyphon1024 04:09, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Being the minister of a church does not make one notable. He also wrote a book, but the book doesn't seem to notable either. DaveTheRed 05:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, under the bar of notability. Megan1967 06:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• If the church is somehow historically significant, then he could be merged into a new page about the church. Otherwise delete. — RJH 16:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --Carnildo 23:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eric Lansangan

Yet another insignificant vanity page. --Evanwohrman 04:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, personal attack, rant. Megan1967 06:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was BJAODN, delete, redirect to Jigglypuff. – ABCD 15:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jiggly puff

Quite amusing nonsense, delete (and move to BJAODN).--Dmcdevit 04:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Not sure if this is BJAODN-worthy, but it did give me a chuckle. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah well... I guess the standards are higher now, but they'll keep trying--Dmcdevit 04:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jigglypuff -- Cyrius|✎ 04:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redir as per Cyrius. Meelar (talk) 06:00, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 06:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn faminecruft. ComCat 01:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. (Oh, and BJAODN) --Angr 10:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsensical216.40.21.106 12:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jigglypuff --Aranae 18:36, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jigglypuff Klonimus 12:00, 1 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 speedy delete --Carnildo 23:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Origins of Popular Expressions and Phrases

A collection of nosense, plus bad grammar and naming convention, delete.--Dmcdevit 04:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• More vandalism from 67.49.62.38 (talk · contribs). Speedy delete like all of the rest. Uncle G 05:39, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
• Delete, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete both articles. - Mailer Diablo 03:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jonathan speak and Jonathan Speak

Not yet notable undergrad student comedian. Delete. Jonathunder 04:42, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

Note: The first page above was originally nominated by Jonathunder. I left a note on his talk page requesting the addition of the second page (capitalized "S"), pointed out by Charles Matthews. He asked me to do it for him, so I added the Jonathan Speak page to this nomination. VladMV ٭ ^talk 16:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (and Jonathan Speak). Charles Matthews 10:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've just left a note on Jonathunder's talk page requesting him to make this a double nomination to include Jonathan Speak. If he does, my vote is delete both. VladMV ٭ ^talk 15:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Carnildo 20:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Ragib 05:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've also added a VFD tag to the capitalised version of the page just in case (it directs here). Dbiv 22:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much, I'm very sorry, I forgot to do that. VladMV ٭ ^talk 12:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 15:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Block-compression error. – ABCD 15:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IMSCF Syndrome

Although this article does bring up interesting points about "colonial mentality", this article is mainly based on opinion. I vote for deletion.

• Delete, POV original essay. Megan1967 06:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was disambig. – ABCD 20:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Serve

Dictionary definition. I assume it's already in wiktionary, but if anything here is salvageable, transwiki to wiktionary, but most likely, just delete.--Dmcdevit 04:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I can imagine several instances in which this might be linked, with several meanings (servant, the tennis technique, etc.) this should be kept as a disambig ,or else redirected to tennis (potentially tennis techniques or something of that nature. Meelar (talk) 05:59, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • A disambiguation at serve wouldn't cover servant. Disambiguations are for articles that would (otherwise) share a title. Uncle G 06:14, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
    • I can imagine plenty of instances in which articles would link serve with the intent of going to servant. I'm not sure I take such a narrow view of disambigs as you do; they're there to serve the reader. Best, Meelar (talk) 06:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary:serve is far more comprehensive. Take a look. serve appears to be a disambiguation article without any encyclopaedia articles to disambiguate amongst, and hence pointless. It is yet another dictionary entry in the encyclopaedia spawned from a "List of words" dictionary-in-Wikipedia article. And the fact that the dictionary entry in Wiktionary is far better (as is almost always the case) should say it all. A redirect to service won't do the verb justice by a long chalk, and tennis handles the noun. Either {{wi}} this or Delete. Uncle G 06:14, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
• In the interests of serving the reader, disambig between servant, waiter, web server, tennis etc. Kappa 12:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Disambiguate, but move to a name with (disambiguation) in the title (ie serving (disambiguation) or service (disambiguation)), and then redirect serve to service. -Sean Curtin 02:31, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• It's a dictionary definition and not a particularly good one. As Uncle G said above, wikt:serve is much better. I was going to say that we should update any links to point to the Wiktionary definition but then I noticed that only List of English words of Etruscan origin links here. Delete. Rossami (talk) 07:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. wiktionary is good enough for me. This article doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Feco 08:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• As Wiktionary:serve is more complete, delete. (It would have been transwiki otherwise.) Alba 23:45, 6 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other Canon

Delete ad for non-notable site. Gazpacho 05:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, website ad. Megan1967 09:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AMPS Productions

Boy, talk about vanity! Advertising. And the poster tried to link to it from the India article. RickK 06:47, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. An article with 5 external links to a single geocities page and 2 to a friendster profile (since removed) certainly ought to set off warning bells. —Korath (Talk) 07:09, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 10:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, promo. I've also protected the India page from his repeated additions. Nichalp 20:13, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Watch out for user who seems to be vandalising these votes, as well as causing history to break so badly that I couldn't even edit a version with all the votes in place. Chris 02:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity Dsmdgold 17:29, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:39, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

God Bless the USA

Copyright violation - Scooter 07:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm, interesting, because America the Beautiful has lyrics. Does the person who wrote them have to be dead for so long to use or even post them? -- Riffsyphon1024 07:39, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. Read up on the history of lyrics.ch. RickK 07:58, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • 75 years for US material, I believe. Chris 15:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • More like 95. For rough purposes, 1923 is the dividing line. Before 1923: probably OK. 1923: assume it's verboten unless there's some good reason to think otherwise. One good guide is here. And song lyrics are very sensitive, more so than other material. You'll notice that novels are very punctilious about obtaining permission for quotations from song lyrics even when it's just a line or two that's being quoted. I'm really shocked that someone put in the lyrics to God Bless America. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• After refreshing my mind at Wikipedia:Lyrics, I agree that the lyrics should be deleted but the text above can stay. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:24, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• After having deleted the lyrics, there is nothing in the article. Delete. RickK 08:38, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Patriotic song in wide play, especially after the Iraq war in 1991 and 9/11. Mike H 09:13, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, stubby article with very little potential for growth. Megan1967 10:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable patriot song. Kappa 12:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, since it is a song that was heavily played, so is it's original author. Zscout370 15:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: I have updated the page a bit, added a link. What do yall think? Zscout370 16:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable song with some historical context and now that the lyrics have been removed (adding an external link to them was a good idea) I see no reason for deletion. Could use some expansion since the song was around long before 9/11. 23skidoo 17:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Godawful song, but worth keeping as rewritten. Seems to meet my personal criteria for songs. Do we need to delete the lyrics from the page history though? -R. fiend 22:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No idea about the lyrics, though there are two links that have lyrics to them. Its the admin's call. Zscout370 22:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. ComCat 01:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Awful song, but undeniably notable. Jgm 23:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It's jingoistic schlock, but very notable. I still have concerns about copyvio, though. Binadot 16:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well, once this page is voted on, we should look at it and see what is copyvio or not. Zscout370 17:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this awful song. Notable bit of American, um, culture. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is still relevant, and hence more relebant than the Horst Wessel Lied. Ruhrjung 16:04, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Horst Wessel Lied is still relevant, in my POV. Zscout370 16:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As a pop culture item, this song has remained important for twenty years, and is still an important part of American culture in 2005. The removal of the lyrics have removed the copyright concern. I find the reference adequate for a short entry. -- Glen Finney 19:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. So long as no copyvio lyrics are posted, jingoanthem belongs in the encyclopedia. -- 8^D ^gab 02:14, 2005 Mar 30 (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. – ABCD 03:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

9/11 open questions

POV rant. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury?" RickK 07:56, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Conspiracy theory bullshit. Gamaliel 09:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, your honor. (because it's a duplicate, of course) Gazpacho 10:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV rant. Megan1967 10:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV rant, original research, non-encyclopedic, whatever. — JIP | Talk 10:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Average Earthman 12:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Your Honour, we, the jury, vote that this article should be deleted. Jwinters | Talk 19:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep According to Wiki rules: NPOV#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete lack of neutrality cannot be an excuse to delete, and certainly not the first resort. Other articles like September 11, 2001 attacks have a POV that is completely pro-Bush's Official Story and ignores the over 50% of New Yorkers who think otherwise. Why is that not a candidate for deletion? Now that I have read the definition of NPOV, I am able to fix my article, if allowed the time. --Bogusstory 22:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Poll numbers don't matter, facts do. Large percentages of Americans believe Elvis is alive, UFOs probe people regularly, and dinosaurs roamed the Earth alongside cavemen. An encyclopedia shouldn't indulge people in their ignorance. Gamaliel 20:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That is true. However, it should acknowledge that such beliefs exist. See perpetual motion, Christianity and other such articles. It is a matter of presentation. Mr. Jones 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The content of the article is consistent with its title. The facts cited and presented therein raise sufficient questions about some of the events surrounding 9/11. As such, its inclusion is appropriate and helps to counter the systemic bias for which Wikipedia has been criticized. abhatnag 23:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • First and only edit by User:Abhatnag. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Personal essay, cannot be made NPOV. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That is untrue. Convert it to a stub if need be, but I can't believe there's nothing in the article at all that should not be preserved. When there are multiple views of the same thing, shouldn't all the terms used be available, albeit with redirects to a neutrally named article? Mr. Jones 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, POV, no capacity to ever become encylcopedic. DaveTheRed 03:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any useful content on this page would only duplicate existing material on pages such as 9/11 conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel, and 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory, all of which are NPOV (which this article is not), well-written (which this article is not), and thoroughly sourced (which this article certainly is not). NatusRoma 06:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Doesn't look like this person read the article in question. Less than 1% of the information and sources in the article subject to deletion appears in the references above. --Bogusstory 22:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • While the article in question does add include a high degree of detail regarding many of its claims, the existing conspiracy articles are more logically named and NPOV. Adding things like fleshed-out details about the stand-down order to existing articles in a way that is NPOV would be a good thing, as they provide a much more solid foundation for legitimate expansion than the article up for deletion.NatusRoma 19:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm glad somebody got some value out of the article before deletion. My article is too big to merge with smaller articles mentioned, without major edit fights. I believe we can together make my article NPOV and if given time I will make an effort. --Bogusstory 22:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Keep for now Until all assertions have been merged or the article renamed. Bogus, your article should be merged with existing ones or renamed. "9/11 Open Questions" is too vague. How about "Explanations of the events of 9/11"? One other point: do remove the redundancy from the article and link to the articles containing the information. Go to the discussion pages of those articles to question whether they should be renamed. Let me know when you've done this. Mr. Jones 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Personal essay of conspiracy theory allegations. Rossami (talk) 07:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No it isn't. It has a rhetorical style that could be corrected. Mr. Jones 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NPOV, speculation, etc. Feco 07:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I assume we already have a page on this particular conspiracy theory? Delete and possibly replace with redirect there. Radiant_* 09:14, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This information does not appear in other articles. Article requires minor edits only.--Roopkirani 17:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • First and only edit by User:Roopkirani. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆
• Delete serious conspiracy pushing. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 22:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, don tin foil hat. Neutrality^talk 22:54, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: don't you mean remove tinfoil hat :)? Slac speak up! 01:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for all the reasons stated above. --Michael Snow 01:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. First-person, POV rant. --Calton | Talk 01:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV, first-person, and redundant with existing articles. Rhobite 01:48, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatantly POV, and bullshit besides. Neilc 03:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Bogusstory has created an RfC on me for having the temerity to list his article here. RickK 00:29, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I'm less happy with him. OTOH, he can't really understand WP if he thought that would work. Give him the benefit of the doubt? Mr. Jones 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Some of this is covered on other pages, and most of the other claims have been debunked -- even Popular Mechanics has a debunking story.--Cberlet 01:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant, not a useful redirect. —Korath (Talk) 02:35, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original rant. --Carnildo 03:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV pushing. - Andre Engels 08:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anything of value is already covered better (i.e. sourced, NPOV, well written) in 9/11 conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel, and 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above. To whoever's trying to sockpuppet this VfD to death: it doesn't work, so don't bother trying. /sɪzlæk˺/ 09:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There might, potentially, be hidden somewhere in this article, some small little bit of information that belongs on Wikipedia -- hidden inside all the POV-pushing, original research, and speculation which does not. If Bogusstory can't be bothered to separate it out, why should anyone else be obligated to? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, original research, and utterly redundant. Merge serviceable material with 9/11 conspiracy theories. Binadot 16:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- It's homepage stuff not encyclopedia material. I wasn't aware of it and probably wouldn't have voted normally but since Bogusstory specifically emailed me to ask me to vote on the matter, I have. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:01, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't like how quick people here are to label the expression of the view they disagree with "POV" and assume this is a sufficient reason to delete. As Bogusstory correctly notes, POV needs to be rewritten for neutrality, not deleted.

I am not an American and I don't give a shit if all you are enslaved by a corrupt theocratic messianic dictator, who throws people into jail without due process and who orders murders of American citizens and torture of innocent people abroad. But perhaps this allows me to stay more objective regarding 11/9. The official story is full of holes and inconsistencies. Some can be explained, some can't because of the wall of secrecy surrounding these events. By placing all concerns in a page called 9/11 conspiracy theories, Wikipedians make a judgement statement, implying that all these stories are bullshit.

For an example of a relatively unbiased and well-developed article, see Kennedy assassination theories. Compared to it, the 11/9 article on conspiracies is a joke. Supporters of official version are quick to carefully minimize the effects of their opponents' edits, by removing as much as they can.

The open questions article is a good start in fixing this deficiency of Wikipedia. It would be a shame, if a majority rule would essencially censor this topic - especially since most of the "arguments" for deletion center around it being POV. Guess what, the "conspiracies" article is the opposite POV. I vote Keep, but a careful and unbiased merge with existing articles would be a good option as well, provided that Bush supporters can control their urge to silence the opponents. Paranoid 07:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • That was an irritatingly immature comment. I'm disappointed that you feel the need to use this VfD page as a vehicle for an anti-American rant. Rhobite 07:13, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Rhobite, that was a shallow retort. Respond to his argument as well as criticising his dislike of the North American system. Mr. Jones 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Excuse me? Comments like that deserve no response except for shallow dismissal. Conspiracy theorists, radical leftists, conservative nuts, and junk science people around here collectively waste a massive amount of time. Please don't instruct me on how to respond to irritating nonsense. Rhobite 07:04, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Believe me, it's even more irritating to see people irrationally dismiss any questioning of the official version. Paranoid 18:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with other 9/11 conspiracy articles. And make it NPOV. --Jyril 11:29, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete if this is only original research. Conspiration theories must be more widely supported.--Jyril 13:46, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; don't bother merging. — Dan | Talk 05:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Bogusstory is now trying to rewrite several other conspiracy claim related pages to insert his POV material, including inserting a copyright violation bloc of text from a commercial encyclopedia.--Cberlet 01:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Has he been warned about the insertion of copyright text? Did he continue after being warned? Mr. Jones 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; and if the above claim is true, then ban user for vandalism. --Kitch 13:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No, don't. Give him a warning first. Mr. Jones 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The user sends personal emails asking for support against deleting this article. --Jyril 13:46, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

• • So what? Mr. Jones 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep POV should be rewritten not deleted. 'conspiracy theoy' is what I would call the mainstream George Bush viewpoint... I see nothing very highly POV in this article or anything nonfactual.... and if there is POV, the solution is to edit not delete, if there are nonfactual entries, they should be edited or corrceted, not deleted. Pedant 22:58, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
  • As a general rule, yes, when an article is POV, it is preferable to edit rather than delete. However, the class of exceptions that leaps right out is when an article is not just POV but a POV fork, which this is -- Bogusstory came right out and admitted that he created this article because he couldn't make people accept what he wanted to do at the existing article on the 9/11 attacks. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • A POV fork? Can you get POV knives too? What are you on about? And if there are people who prevented him from altering the existing article, i.e. unanalysingly deleted the assertions he added, does that mean they are right? Mr. Jones 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • If you don't know what a POV fork is, perhaps you're not as ready for VfD as you think. A POV fork is similar to a code fork: there's a difference of opinion and rather than resolving that difference of opinion, one or both parties says "Okay, you do it your way over there; I'll be over here doing it my way." In open source, forking a project can be a healthy response to a difference in opinion. In Wikipedia it is recognized as an unacceptable alternative to actually resolving the issue. We want the best article that can be written on each subject, not one article containing X's slant on the subject, another containing Y's slant on it, a third for Z's, et cetera. That's Wikinfo's major modus operandi, but it's not Wikipedia's. Addressing your "if" -- yes, if the people who reverted his changes at the existing 9/11 articles did it by "unanalysingly deleting" his assertions, that would be against the policies of Wikipedia. Even if that unproven claim that the deletions were unanalysed and unthinking was true, however (and if I had a dime for every user who claims "they reverted my edits for no good reason" when the good reason is plain as day to everyone but that user...) two wrongs don't make a right. We have mechanisms in place for resolving article content disputes and POV forking is not one of them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • False. I created my article before I registered. My article was bigger than others and could not fit as major inserts into September attacks without resistance. Bogusstory 22:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons above. —tregoweth 23:56, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Evercat 00:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rewrite/move/cleanup. Everyking 05:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep needs massive clean up and POV word choice fixing but lack of neutrality is not an excuse to delete. zen master T 21:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete For once I agree with RickK. AngryParsley 21:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. We should be possibly the only source of NPOV information about rumors and whatnot about the atrocity of 11th September 2001. We're certainly up to the task, and the public has a strong interest in this kind of rumor. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep but massively improve it; else, merge what can be salvaged into the main article (I concure with Tony Sidaway as for the will to be a source of factual and passionless information) Rama 22:14, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: We've already got NPOV articles on rumors, conspiracy theories, and whatnot: see 9/11 conspiracy theories, 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory, 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel, and Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks. There are no NPOV claims in this article that are not already in the other articles. --Carnildo 23:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Extreme POV. --Neigel von Teighen 23:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• No Vote. This article does duplicate some content from 9/11.
• Delete. Speculation does not make an article. Fuzheado | Talk 03:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I believe the 5-day voting period has ended. Mr. Jone's has suggested a consensus based on the current version of the article. I am prepared to follow his suggestions for improvement. Bogusstory 06:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I count ~36 delete votes and 7 keep votes. This article will certainly be deleted. Please focus your efforts on another article now. Rhobite 07:07, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I count 9 keep and 1 merge. I agree this article needs massive clean up but I see issues with 9/11 open questions as shedding light on larger issues surrounding all 9/11 articles, the "conspiracy theory" articles and "misinformation and rumor" article especially. There is a lengthy discussion about the appropriateness of including "conspiracy theory" and "misinformation and rumor" in a title over on Talk:Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks. There are proposals to create a general 9/11 controversy article, and an article on Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report and a proposal to create an article titled something to the effect of Initial reactions to the 9/11 attacks which would cover both true and later proven to be untrue info about the immediate aftermath of the attacks (things like errant initial casualty figures, stories from survivors, world reaction, goverment leader reactions, etc). zen master T 07:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

7 deletes is correct; sockpuppet votes aren't counted. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have a few comments. First, I guess that Bogusstory might want to have a copy of the article in his user space - now is the time to make that copy. Second, I believe that the discussing points out that there are serious shortcomings in Wikipedia coverage of "tricky issues" related to 9/11. The US government was caught lying many times - the whole WMD fiasco, the attack on that Italian journalist, the prison torture, etc. I absolutely fail to see how being contrary to the official line indicates that a version is wrong. It isn't even too farfetched that Bush himself ordered a strike on the towers - worse things happened. Well, this one may be a little bit over the top... but that doesn't mean there is nothing fishy about the 9/11 story.

I suggest that we create some placeholder stubs that can be used to expand that coverage. Their talk pages could then be used to discuss how to do it best. Meanwhile, this article should, of course, be deleted according to Wikipedia procedure. Paranoid 09:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Placeholder stubs? Why? If you have any additional information, please just add it to 9/11 conspiracy theories or 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory as appropriate. Keep in mind the policies on original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. Rhobite 18:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I improved the article during the election on the evening of March 27. If we count votes from Derek Ross and after, I see 10 deletes, 5 keeps and 1 merge. From my understanding, the Wiki rules on deletion allow an article to improve and address concerns while the election is going on and the consensus is to reflect on the improved article. Bogusstory 23:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If your belief is that you can get votes discounted by saying "I improved the article; now none of the votes cast prior to that improvement count", you're quite mistaken. That isn't the way it works. The best you can hope for is that someone who already voted might decide to change their vote if they think the change in the article merits a change of vote. I wouldn't count on that if I were you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see changes but no improvement. My vote stands. --Carnildo 00:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ditto what both Antaeus Feldsparand Carnildo said. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:46, 10 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 redirect to List of U.S. Highways. – ABCD 21:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Highway 47

Full text is "There is no United States Highway 47. However, some signs in Montana for Montana State Route 47 mistakenly carry the United States highway shield." There has never been a US 47. --SPUI (talk) 08:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Mike H 08:15, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Add note to List of U.S. Highways and delete. Gazpacho 09:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That page already says "There has never been a U.S. Highway 47." The piece about signs in Montana is non-notable; that kind of thing happens everywhere. --SPUI (talk) 11:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 10:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if accurate. If someone is reading U.S. Highway 46 and U.S. Highway 48 and wonders if there is a U.S. Highway 47, they will load this article. Why would you want to make them find something less useful than the stub that exists now? Is the wikipedia really improved by removing this handful of potentially useful bytes from it? ~leif ☺ _HELO 21:42, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redirect to List of U.S. Highways. We don't have articles for the other non-existant US highways, so why should we have one for this? (vote changed, see below) --Carnildo 23:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is notable that there is a U.S. Highway 46 and U.S. Highway 48 but not a U.S. Highway 47. Klonimus 09:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of unused U.S. highway numbers or similar. I agree with Leif's reasoning when he argues against deletion, but I do not think that each and every unused highway number should have a separate article. Sjakkalle 06:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Simply not-notable. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 19:06, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of unused U.S. highway numbers, otherwise this will set a precedent for creating individual articles for everything which does not exist. A reputable source should also be cited for the statement "some signs in Montana for Montana State Route 47 mistakenly carry the United States highway shield." --GRider\^talk 19:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • There's a photo of a shield in Montana at [4]. It's just not notable though. --SPUI (talk) 20:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • List of unused U.S. highway numbers? Why? There are approximately 730 unused highway numbers, and of those, maybe four could have even one sentence written about them. --Carnildo 22:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of U.S. Highways, there's nothing to merge. --iMb~Meow 19:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Not a bad idea actually. I'll change by vote to redirect. --SPUI (talk) 20:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. Radiant_* 08:24, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect the existing information, but keep the web page with new information re: reason for no US 47. Sure there is currently no US 47, but there have been at least suggestions made for what should become such (the most common is redesignating US 45W and US 49E as 47, plus a connecting route)
  • Suggestions by who? It doesn't look like there's been any official state or AASHTO plan.[5] --SPUI (talk) 23:11, 8 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 delete. – ABCD 16:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Usana

• Delete. Advertisement. Enochlau 09:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Concur. Delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (after disregarding sockpuppets). – ABCD 20:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spyde

Looks like a vanity article. Article does not seem to establish notability and has no incoming links. "Spyde" gets 578 Google hits, but "Spyde #netsplit" gets only 87. I vote delete. — JIP | Talk 09:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, possible vanity. Even myself who uses a 'handle' only write about myself in my user page section. - Mailer Diablo 09:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 10:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote amended above given attempts by sockpuppets at a lack of originality. Megan1967 03:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• At this point, anon user:70.19.62.245 added a false vote to which he/she added the signature Megan1976's name. (Note the transposed digits.) User:Megan1976, a sockpuppet, edited the comment into a personal attack. User:Spyde, another sockpuppet, edited the comment to a different personal attack complete with another false signature. The comment was later deleted by user:Aerdil, a user with a very short contribution history.
• Keep, (personal attack deleted). JIPTHEGYPSY 69:69, 69 Mar 1969 (UTC)
  • This comment also added by User:Spyde
• why are there three lil ticks for bold :(, testing (ps keep) Megan1976 21:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As noted above, this is a sockpuppet
• Keep, Tom joined the new order of Cadets of Temperance, being attracted by the showy character of their "regalia." He promised to abstain from smoking, chewing and profanity as long as he remained a member. New he found out a new thing-namely, that to promise not to do a thing is the surest way in the world to make a body want to go and do that very thing. Tom soon found himself tormented with a desire to drink and swear; the desire grew to be so intense that nothing but the hope of a chance to display himself in his red sash kept him from withdrawing from the order. Fourth of July was coming; but he soon gave that up — gave it up before he had worn his shackles over forty-eight hours — fixed his hopes upon old Judge Frazer, justice of the peace, who was apparently on his death-bed and would have a big public funeral, since he was so high an official. Megan7515 12:69, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This vote actually added by user:Zoombini, another sockpuppet
• A long essay on Canadian history inserted next by user:Megan1976 which he/she deleted then reinstated. Later deleted by user:R. fiend
• User:Aerdil inserted a long poem next. Later deleted by user:R. fiend
• Keep, Just because someone might not be famous and such doesn't mean that they're not worthy to write about. Spyde is an extremely amazing person who has helped many through their ups and downs. Oh and thanks R. fiend for deleting my legitimate vote. Navy1 22:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) This vote was deleted by user:R. fiend when he/she cleaned out the vandalism. It was probably a mistake, however, and the user added the comment back.
  • This vote doesnt count. No edits of this user besides this VfD at this moment. Mikkalai
• user:Megan1976 vandalizes this discussion page by adding a VfD header. Spyde continues to vandalize the page by editing other votes, etc. Later deleted by user:R. fiend
• Delete. Clearly nothing but a complete moron who vandalized this page. -R. fiend 22:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• delete. nonnotable. Mikkalai 23:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This vote does not count. Please disregard. Zoombini
    • I think votes from real users like Mikkalai count more than votes from sockpuppets like Zoombini. — JIP | Talk 07:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• No evidence presented that the subject meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Delete unless better evidence presented. Rossami (talk) 06:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. I've never managed to get Alexa to serve me anything but a blank page, but Google finds exactly one hit for and no links to the "fast-growing website" that is apparently this person's biggest claim to fame. —Korath (Talk) 07:34, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity Feco 08:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. And vandalizing the VfD discussion doesn't help. --cesarb 14:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Won't be long now. - Longhair | Talk 07:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

US economic power

Delete as an essay, not an encyclopedia article. The topic is encyclopedic enough, but I don't know that any of this is salvagable for that article. --Rlandmann 08:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Rant. Probably a copyvio or somebody's school paper. RickK 09:01, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing useful. Gazpacho 10:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic, possible original research. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POv original essay. Megan1967 10:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, original research, fortune-telling. Binadot 16:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:42, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Bsplayer

Advertising. RickK 09:54, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, and Send for cleanup. Google returned 374,000 results. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, 383,000 Google results. What proof is there that its advertising? -- Riffsyphon1024 10:17, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup. Megan1967 10:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have cleaned the article up. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:27, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Keep but it needs more cleaning - cleaning as it cutting out the huge list of features, which makes this look like a brochure. - DavidWBrooks 13:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup.--Matteh (talk) 03:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup.. list of features could be explained with a simple hyperlink --Aika 17:50, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:51, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

List of monarchs deposed in the 17th century

Non-notable, full of red links. These are based in Malaysian states. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unnecessary list. Megan1967 10:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Malaysian monarchs are notable. Rename if it's only about them. Kappa 12:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • this is not only about Malysia,but i was just on sites where there where only they listed.Give me a while and ill put more from other countries in.Oh,and Mailer Diablo ,i dont know what you consider uefull,but i for one do consider monarch information VERY usefull! David.

    Comment by 84.244.78.79 (talk · contributions)

    • In that case, expand (or request for expansion) on the article then. :) List_of_monarchs_deposed_in_the_19th_century provides a good idea on how the article should be formatted as well, by country. - Mailer Diablo 14:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as arbitrary list. However, we probably have a List of monarchs somewhere, and that could use the annotation of who were 'deposed'. Radiant_* 12:53, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • NO!I have spent an hour finding teh data.And teh list would take an enernity to modify,because id' have to put all the states rulers.

    Unsigned comment by 84.244.78.79 (talk · contributions)

• Keep. As Mailer Diablo points out, there is already an article for List of monarchs deposed in the 19th century, as well as List of monarchs deposed in the 18th century and List of monarchs deposed in the 20th century. Following that precedent, keep and cleanup/expand. FreplySpang 15:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. - SimonP 16:27, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. Zscout370 23:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. - Mustafaa 01:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. And can I say I find Megan1967's comment extremely disturbing. --Gene_poole 02:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand per Mailer Diablo. DaveTheRed 03:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 2 British monarchs added. PatGallacher 01:45, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

• Keep and Expand. --Briangotts 04:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge put all the lists of deposed monarchs for various centuries together, under headlines for each century. Should be placed under a monarch/monarchy category. -- Glen Finney 19:31, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Youngeun Kang

Vanity. - Mailer Diablo 10:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 10:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Kappa 12:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. A poor attempt at a vanity page.--LukeSurl 15:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sensitron

Corporate vanity. Privately held start-up. Google finds mostly other companies with that name. Rl 12:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advertising junk CDC (talk) 19:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with reservations, Article needs rewrite and expansion. Megan1967 03:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising--nixie 13:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's ok. sam
  • Comment: Vote above by the same anon user who created the article, removed the vfd notice, and blanked this page. Rl 07:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advertising 137.229.25.181 03:33, 2 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 delete. – ABCD 23:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Constructioner

Advertising. Inter\^Echo 13:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, a bad article is not a reason for deleting it, it's a reason to send it to cleanup. I may consider changing my vote if there's another reason brought up. -Frazzydee|✍ 13:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and send for cleanup. Google returned 11,400 results. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikispam. Chris 15:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A software tool always gives lots of spam, but this doesnt make it notable. BTW, these thousands of google are in fact only 370 reports, mostly from various warez sites: try the last page in google report. Mikkalai 23:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Mikkalai. Radiant_* 09:08, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, promotional spam--nixie 10:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam on sight. —Korath (Talk) 01:53, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:54, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Louis Hendrik Potgieter

Nonsense. Bordering on speedy. Inter\^Echo 13:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Also see Dschinghis Khan, a somewhat established article. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Eugene's improvements. - Mailer Diablo 13:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• "He spent a lot of time at Yale because, as a Yale student, he attended Yale." Er, right. Delete content and redirect to Dschingins Khan. Radiant_* 20:24, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• With some help of Google, I've completely rewritten the article. It's a keep now, I'd say. Eugene van der Pijll 21:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, under the bar of notability. It could possibly be merged with the Khan article but that article already outlines anything of significance. Megan1967 01:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewrite. Good job Eugene. DaveTheRed 03:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep new version. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 22:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lilybbs

This is a University bulletin-board system; there's nothing more to be said. It's apparently not even the largest in China. Perhaps it could be made into a redirect to the university. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It could probably be speedied now, as its creator has blanked it and added a message that it's 'died'.Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ADM: Knowledge Management Desktop - Powerful outliner and KM program with many unique features

Advertising. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete as obvious advertisement. Who wants to bet what the odds are someone will ever type that title into the "search" box? — JIP | Talk 14:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'd originally marked this as a speedy delete; it's obviously a cut-and-paste advert. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• An obvious advert. Speedy. Mgm|^(talk) 22:44, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• delete spam. no notability. (but not speedy, guys, RTFM) Mikkalai 23:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unless the responsible party pays real, honest-to-God advertising rates. Since that's about as likely as the dinosaurs returning, strong delete. - Lucky 6.9 05:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ad Dsmdgold 15:13, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 02:00, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Munchausen: Being a True Account of Some of the Recent Adventures Beyond the Styx of the Late Hieronymus Carl Friedrich, Sometime Baron Munchausen of Bodenwerder

Possible hoax? I didn't have any luck on Guinness World Records nor Google. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Probably better known as "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen". Delete as being beyond the pointless. Chris 15:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Fuzheado | Talk 15:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No, it's not a hoax, but checking a library catalogue or two is often better than googling when looking for a book. It seems to be something other than the original Baron Münchhausen stories. From the catalogue of the British Library: Mr. Munchausen. Being a true account of some of the recent adventures beyond the Styx of the late Hieronymus Carl Friedrich, sometime Baron Munchausen of Bodenwerder, as originally reported for the Sunday Edition of the Gehenna Gazette by its special interviewer the late Mr. Ananias formerly of Jerusalem, and now first transcribed from the columns of that journal by J. K. Bangs. Embellished with drawings by P. Newell. Noyes, Pratt & Co.: Boston, 1901.[6] The author's full name is John Kendrick Bangs and that article links to this book title. There seems to be no reason for this to be an article of its own at this point. / Uppland 15:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep moved and expanded version. / Uppland 19:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Baron Münchhausen (as if anyone will actually type that title in themselves) and maybe make note of it there if not already done so. I don't know if this title is indeed the longest, so making that claim without backup probably doesn't work. 23skidoo 17:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No redirect. it is not Baron Münchhausen as we know him.
• Move to Mr. Munchausen. This is not the first book with very long title, and there is a custom to abbreviate titles and names in references and article names. Mikkalai 00:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pointless. Megan1967 01:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Mr. Munchausen and expand (per Mikkalai). Google confirms John Kendrick Bangs was an author of at least some note, this book shows up as well, and his wiki page has links to reasonable articles about his other books. The Bangs book appears to be something distinct from Adventures of Baron Münchhausen and would be a legitimate article with a little more material and an abbrev title. Dryman
• I am confused by some of the previous comments. There is no content worth moving anywhere. This was arguably a speedy delete candidate (without prejudice against a future real article). That said, the topic of this book does appear to refer to the same Baron Münchhausen. Pending further evidence, I'm going to vote to return this to a redlink, though I see a strong argument for redirect. Rossami (talk) 06:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • We are discussing the what to do here. Yes, the content is silly, but... (a) the topic is valid and (b) what would be a reasonable title is better to decide now, while we are at this, also because it is linked from several places. Mikkalai 18:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It now real content (thanks to Mikkalai). Keep (though I would not object to "keep as merge and redirect to Baron Münchhausen since the book seems to be primarily known as a parody and I favor keeping topics in context.) Rossami (talk) 23:39, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Can we please not have page titles of over a hundred characters long? Nobody's going to search on this term so a redirect would be very very pointless. Move/expand but no redirect from here. Radiant_* 09:10, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Mr. Munchausen and delete redirect, it's not a proper subtitle. Gazpacho 14:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moved and expanded a bit. Mikkalai 00:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, valid book. Grue 17:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the moved article. Tobyox 22:03, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with abbreviated title. Might need redirects for other possible abbreviations of the title. -- Glen Finney 19:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cawthra Burns

Possible vanity. Supposedly claims were not found on Google. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity or genealogy, being unverifiable makes it even worse, delete--nixie 13:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sadie's Children's Photography

Advertising. Google returned only 8 results. - Mailer Diablo 15:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete CDC (talk) 23:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 01:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Should be merged with Kevin Carmony page, as a minor part of his bio. Kevin Carmony appears notable enough to remain, so this would just extend the information on him. Ooops, hit the save button accidently before signing -- Glen Finney 20:31, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Glackin

Surname vanity. There are no Glackins in the encyclopaedia to warrant a name disambiguation article. And Wiktionary won't want such a highly suspect definition as this. Uncle G 16:01, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

• I concur. Delete. --Securiger 12:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sean Connor

Seems like vanity, can't find anything on google about this Sean Connor, delete.--Dmcdevit 16:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is this been deleted? He does exist, check out the Rovers Website.

Unsigned comment by 83.71.51.162 (talk · contributions)

• The question is not of existence; it's of notability. However, this question is irrelevant, as the article is a Copyvio of some text from the provided external link. I'd support a keep if notability is verified and the article is substantially rewritten. android↔talk 18:26, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, under the bar of notability, copyright violation. Megan1967 04:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep since there is no consensus to delete, there are two delete votes and two keep votes. Sjakkalle 13:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chacha cricket

Even if this is true, I'm not sure it passes the notability test. Plus the name capitalisation is wrong if it's meant to be a person's name. Delete.--Dmcdevit 16:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Looks legit, Abdul Jalil is a cricket fan/team mascot that has appeared in a variety of international press stories. [7] [8] [9] I do not follow cricket, but this looks equivalent to the San Diego Chicken. Keep or rename → Abdul Jalil. --Allen3 17:27, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• I have Renamed it too Abdul Jalil, but the person is authentic and I saw him in several cricket matches of Pakistan, even saw him yesterday on stadium --zimbabao
  • No you haven't. You (presuming that 202.46.19.93 (talk · contribs) is an alter ego of yours) have done a copy&paste move. Do not do copy &paste moves. I've marked the copy for speedy deletion. If the article is kept, and it is decided in this discussion to rename it, it will be renamed at the end of the process. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion. Uncle G 18:37, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
• Delete, under the bar of notability, team vanity. Megan1967
• Keep Seems to be on the same level of other semi-pro mascots like the San Diego Chicken Dsmdgold 16:40, Apr 7, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Signatures Network

Advertisement. Delete, and remove the spam links in related articles. Lupo 17:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this person has been putting amazon links in other articles, which I am currently removing. -Deadcorpse 19:53, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, spam. This spammer has used deceptive edit summaries in other edits [10]. — Jeandré, 2005-03-26t13:49z

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 to Iris (Stargate). —Korath (Talk) 02:04, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Iris Deactivation Code

Does this stub merit so much as a redirect? If Google doesn't find it notable, should we? My Magic 8-Ball answers "Outlook Not So Good", what do you think that means? Is a consensus discussion necessary to field this nomination? As I see it, this article stands no chance of becoming encyclopedic; is this clear? Discuss amongst yourselves. --GRider\^talk 17:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know. You tell me. Might be a merge, but since you don't want to commit on that, neither do I. Chris 01:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Iris (Stargate) and redirect, IMO. Bryan 17:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Iris (Stargate). --cesarb 18:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Iris (Stargate) and redirect -- Jwinters | Talk 18:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep Gatecruft. Kappa 18:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the aforementioned page. Zscout370 23:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn iriscruft. ComCat 01:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• either Keep or merge with Iris (Stargate). Megan1967 01:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or delete, not encyclopdic on its own, Martg76 12:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fungimon

Non-notable. Google test 11 hits, with only 4 hits looking vaguely related, all 4 to a Digimon fanfic. Delete. --cesarb 17:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. *moncruft. android↔talk 18:30, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn *moncruft. ComCat 01:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, fancruft. Megan1967 02:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, original content, etc. 03:14, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

  Unsigned comment by Dunro (talk · contributions)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 02:11, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hotels.com

No vote yet. Found on the list of NPOV disputes. Previous editor alleged spam. Should be speedy, but I wanted a VfD. Jwinters | Talk 18:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment How do you know when a company is notable enough to have an entry? Does the answer change if it is an internet company? Other issues aside, is an entry for hotels.com important enough to be included? If the answer is no, then delete. If the answer is yes, then clean it up so that it is an origonal unbiased article.Vegaswikian 21:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • To answer your questions, 1) we debate over them, but most small companies are not notable. 2) yes, somewhat, since google-testing is somewhat distorted for internet companies. 3) Apparently controversial or it wouldn't be here, but personally I'd say keep it. Radiant_* 09:11, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup. hotels.com has had many national television and print advertising campaigns in America over the last couple of years. I can even think of their snappy slogan off the top of my head: The best prices, the best places, guaranteed. Mike H 00:08, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed with Mike H. Keep. -Sean Curtin 02:38, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Very well known. I've heard of it and I'm not American. Wincoote 02:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons stated above. --Briangotts 04:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, but somebody please rewrite it to eliminate the potential copyvio. --Kitch 12:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I removed the extraneous {{spam}}, {{npov}}, and {{copyvio}} tags. There did not appear to be an obvious copyvio. As I said before, I was looking on the list of NPOV pages, and this came up. I figured I'd put it to a vote instead of having multiple boilerplate tags on the article. I vote keep -- Jwinters | Talk 18:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Jean-Claude Killy. – ABCD 21:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Temptations of Jean-Claude Killy

Having nominated the article for deletion, I found that it had previously been speedily deleted on two occasions. However, the content now is very different, and I feel needs further debate. In fact, it is rather a well-written article, and far more than a stub. However, I don't feel that a single magazine article merits its own article, unless it has in some way been very influential, which this doesn't seem to have been. Deb 18:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I created the article based on an empty link directly from the Hunter Thompson page and what I thought was a need for it. Though not a particularly significant article it is indicative of Thompson's style. I also think that the relative importance of the article depends on where you're coming from. For Killy fans it probably means nothing, for Thompson followers the information is useful in locating the source and content of the original Scanlan's article, as well as giving some insights and context into Thompson's well-known sports addiction. Logan 5 19:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, under the bar of notability, article recreation. Megan1967 02:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Jean-Claude Killy and link to him (rather than to the title) from Thompson. / u p p l a n d 03:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Uppland. Rossami (talk) 06:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The page doesn't establish why that particular article on Killy is noteable. Martg76 12:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. According to this article in Rolling Stone, "Thompson invented a whole new genre when a fellow journalist called his feature on the skier Jean-Claude Killy "gonzo." The piece was written for Playboy, which turned it down; it was published by a fellow maverick, San Franciscan Warren Hinckle. Thompson later said that his realization that he could "get away with" such an outrageous writing style convinced him to stop trying to write "like the New York Times. It was like falling down an elevator shaft and landing in a pool full of mermaids."
• Merge and redirect per Uppland. Looking at the content and comments here I'd agree article is more appropriate for the Killy page than a stand-alone. Logan 5 16:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Barneycam

I don't think this is important enough to merit an entry. Google only finds hits on one web site. I don't think this is in the same league as Jennicam. AdamW 18:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Thank goodness for that! It would be very very scary to have the big purple dinosaur running around in his scanties and showering, webcast. Delete as, uh, not yet established to have encyclopedic notability. Barno 19:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This guy doesn't need an article. Either delete, or else rewrite to reflect the widely-known videos of President Bush's dog, Barney (Karl Rove: "No, no! Who put blue ornaments on the tree?". No, I'm not making this up). See [11]. Meelar (talk) 21:36, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence that it is worthy of an encyclopedia article. Zzyzx11 23:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible web vanity. Megan1967 02:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable web cam. DaveTheRed 03:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Historic aging list

Oh god. Yet another list page. And a pointless waste of space at that. Also, it's impossible to determine who is famous or who is not famous...slippery slope and a waste of space. --Woohookitty 21:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Ouch. I can't even tell what this is from the awful forrmatting. Is this just a list of really old people for every year? Why? Delete. Please. The fact that Alexander the Great is on a list of old people is highly amusing, however. -R. fiend 21:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This article seems to be trying to replicate the contents of the Births and Deaths sections of the various year articles into a single article. The reference to Young's Historic Aging List also makes me suspect that this was copied from somewhere. The individual year articles contain the same information. Delete as duplication --Allen3 23:24, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This appears to be claiming to be naming the oldest famous person of each year (the actual selection process appears to be pretty much random), but the formatting is shot to pieces and due to the haphazard selection criteria it is simply POV and not encyclopedic. Average Earthman 00:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless drastically cleaned up, I can't make sense of it at present. PatGallacher 01:24, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
• Delete. That page makes me nauseous just looking at it. Doesn't seem useful even if cleaned up. RickK 08:34, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Illucid, poorly formatted, and redundant. Binadot 16:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I really can't see this going anywhere; even were it coherent it'd a) be trying to prove a point (original research) and b) not actually managing, due to shoddy methodology (One person a year? Sheesh). Shimgray 17:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is surely a copyvio if ever I did see one! Or did the author research each single year and type the result in, manually? If so, give the guy a medal for sheer devotion to pointlessness.--Orelstrigo 17:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It is an interesting concept, but for many reasons doesn't appear appropriate as a page of the wikipedia. I would recommend the author consider editing some of the pages of those famous people to note the point at which they became the oldest famous person for a given period of time. I'd also recommend that they brush up on the wiki pages pertaining to writing entries and practice a little in the sandbox, Believe me, I am still learning myself, but this page is just mind-boggling in its current form. -- Glen Finney 20:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Munger, Tolles & Olson

Ad for a law firm. Delete. -R. fiend 21:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. non-notable. Mikkalai 22:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just an ad with nothing notable. Zzyzx11 23:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Promotional, not notable. Interesting compensation scheme, though. android↔talk 23:58, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a law firm. Now, it may be a stereotype, but I'd imagine that the US has rather a lot of law firms these days. Unless a better statement of why this one is exceptional can be made, then this isn't worth keeping. Average Earthman 00:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a stereotype. It's a reality. android↔talk 00:55, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 02:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement. Binadot 16:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gooser

• del non-notable. Quoting: "the first album to be released later this year". Mikkalai 22:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I do not see how they pass the Notability and Music Guidelines. Zzyzx11 23:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Puff piece. If the first album gets a widespread distribution and good sales, then they can have an article. Average Earthman 00:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deletion by copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 03:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson School

Del. Not a single word of notability. Mikkalai

It does have the #1 SAT score among boarding schools in the country.

• Then if that is the case, then every school with that same claim can make a page on here. That will be thousands. My vote is on Delete. Zscout370 23:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Boarding schools aren't as easy to merge into the geographical article as other schools, so I'm not sure what to merge to if it is not possible to usefully expand into a sizeable article without pointless padding (create a new article on boarding schools in the state - Boarding schools in Missouri?) However, the text of the article... does it read to anyone else as if it has been ripped directly from the website? This simply isn't an encyclopedia article at the moment. At the very least, thoroughly clean up. Average Earthman 00:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slow Down I'm a student at the school and started the TJS page earlier today. I admit, it's baad, but only because I just put it together! True, I shouldn't have ripped info from the TJS site (my fault), but I simply wanted to make a starting point for which myself and others associated with the school could work. I say, don't delete anything until we at least have a chance to complete the article.

One of the reasons I thought it would be allright to start an article for the school is the presence of articles concerning Phillips Exeter Academy and other, similar institutions. Of course, TJ is in no way as well known as these schools, nor does it have the resources or man-power to function as they do. Still, TJ does offer similar educational opportunities and frankly, (though I feign from making this the school's single point of interest) a similar degree of success. For example: the method of teaching at TJ is similar to (if not matching) the"Harkness table"style as advertised by Exeter. If you are going to delete it, at least do it once the article has reached its completed form and you can truly judge its relevancy. -Cartweel 00:30 26 Mar 2005

• VfD's last for about 2-3 weeks, so if you want to fix up the article, the clock is ticking. Plus, the other school was added, since it pumped out people that have influence the government, or still do today. Also, there is another project where all schools can be listed, so if Wikipedia does not want the article, I am sure you can find a place for this school. Zscout370 00:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • VfD's are supposed to last for 5 days, though they tend to get taken care of haphazardly. And since the article is a copyvio, the keep votes are inappropriate. Delete. RickK 08:36, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity coypvio. —Korath (Talk) 01:05, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Unfortunately voting on Vfds only lasts about 5 days, not 2-3 weeks. Kappa 01:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not only is it a copyvio vasnity article, but Wikipedia is not boardingschoolsreview.com Chris 01:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant hype for the school, no worthwhile facts or links. AlanH
• Delete, nn schoolcruft. ComCat 01:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All public institutions belong in Wikipedia. --Gene_poole 02:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --JuntungWu 08:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Imagine the disambig for every Jefferson/Franklin/Lincoln school in the USA. Schools shouldn't go on here unless they're notable. Feco 08:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Feco and Chrisf. Radiant_* 09:12, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and every other article on a nonnotable high school. --Angr 10:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only does it fail to distinguish itself from the multitude of Thomas Jefferson schools, but it reeks of a really cheesy advertisment. Arkyan 12:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Copyvio. Gamaliel 20:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Copyvio. Slac speak up! 07:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Non-notable, possible vanity. It's disturbing how many Wikipedians think that every public institution deserves an article. Binadot 16:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. School vanity. Jonathunder 03:28, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
• Keep. This pointless anti-schoool vendetta is becoming quite tiresome. All schools are public institutions, and all public institutions and facilities are notable by definition. That's right - all public institutions and facilities.--Centauri 06:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • You did notice that part about it being a copyright violation, right? You are aware that Wikipedia policy is to delete copyright violations, right? And are you really claiming that there should be an article on your local sewage treatment plant and the electrical box on the corner? RickK 22:25, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This pointless anti-encyclopedia vendetta is becoming quite tiresome. All schools are public institutions, but not all public institutions and facilities are notable by definition. That's right - not all public institutions and facilities.--Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- until there is a consistent way to record all schools, articles like this should be eschewed. Joshuaschroeder 06:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Techlore

Advertising. If the site is notable (which I question - 170 Google hits, not many for a website, and many of those not referring to the site), let someone create a new article with NPOV. For now, delete. LizardWizard 23:27, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but with reservations. Article needs rewrite and expansion. Megan1967 04:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This website is not notable enough for my standards. Plus, in its current state it's just an ad. - Marcika 16:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete In its current state, it is just an advertisement, and pretty blatantly so. If someone wants to edit it into an informational article and can show why it is a notable entity, then would reconsider for keeping. -- Glen Finney 20:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe someone hoped that link spamming the 'pedia would boost their Alexa rating past the 5 million mark [12]. Delete. --Securiger 12:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to News management. – ABCD 20:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fake news

• del. original research and antibush propaganda. Mikkalai 23:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content and redirect to Propaganda. Same reasons. If there is anything helpful in this article, it should be added to the propaganda article. BoomHitch 23:34, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All sources are primary sources using renowned newspapers articles. The issue is obviously relevant, as Googles gives 420,000 hits to "fake news". The content may be changed at any time by Wikipedians, adding new examples of "fake news" from around the world, from all political parties, wings and schools of thought. The reference to the Bush Administration is merely illustrative and may be dwarfed in the future if Wikipedians are able to add new content. Note that there is also a reference to the Clinton Administration. Paulo Andrade
  • Just to point out to those who didn't check the history here, the above comment signed by Paulo Andrade was posted by 200.167.38.94 (the creator of this article). The article is now more NPOV as you state, 200.167.38.94. Still, it remains to be seen why "fake news" deserves its separate article when we already have one on propaganda (since October 2001). BoomHitch 01:23, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • 200.167.38.94 - In fact, I am Paulo Andrade. For some unknown reason my IP address has changed since I logged in for the first time as Paulo Andrade, although I'm still using the same computer. If I log in again with this same name, the system won't accept it. Paulo Andrade
      • I'm not sure I understand the difficulty you are having here. I regularly use more than one computer to use Wikipedia, and I never have any problems logging in. android↔talk 02:50, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, I understand. The mismatched signature and off-handed way in which your edit (addition of the Clinton administration) was mentioned just seemed to be a little curious to me. That does seem odd that you couldn't log in. We could continue discussion on this issue on your (Paulo Andrade's) talk page if you want. BoomHitch 03:02, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Not decided yet, but leaning towards Confirming vote to Delete. Thinly-veiled jab at the Bush administration in the middle of what basically amounts to a link farm. (BTW, I'm guessing many of those Google hits for fake news are references to The Daily Show, other satire, or something else completely unrelated. I don't think the Google test can be easily applied to this article.) android↔talk 01:05, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • The Daily Show - A search for "The Daily Show" + "fake news" shows 20,000 hits, so if you take this from 420,000, you still have 400,000 hits. Paulo Andrade
    • In other words, over 4% of the hits can be discounted by identifying one other common occurrence of the phrase "fake news". A search for "fake news" satire yields 26,400 hits, another 6%, and that's just for satirical fake news sites that identify themselves as satire somehow. android↔talk 02:47, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • However, some of the results for "fake news" satire overlap "fake news" "The Daily Show". And on the other hand, "fake news" journalism for instance brings alone 218,000 results. Paulo Andrade
• Undecided This phenomenon seems to be getting some press lately, and seems like a worthy topic for an article. But the current title is awful, and the article mostly just links. Might be better to delete and start from scratch. I would reconsider if really cleaned up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:06, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Megan1967 02:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - If an article has too little links, it has no sources, if it has too many links, it is a collection of links! Come on. Paulo Andrade
    • Only one source is actually being used. android↔talk 04:17, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with propaganda... I fail to see how this provides any additional info (if it were expanded from just the current incident..) that wouldn't belong there. Dunro 02:52, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to propaganda. This article is redundant with the far superior propaganda article. DaveTheRed 03:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Propaganda is about advertising, ads, TV commercials. It is not about news. No one searches for "fake news" looking in "propaganda". Fake news are a deturpation of news, but they are not propaganda per se. Paulo Andrade
    • Propaganda is not limitted to advertising, ads or TV commercials. It is, to quote the propaganda article, "a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda." Please read the article in full to get a better idea of what constitutes propaganda. DaveTheRed 05:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Please make the distinction clear in the article itself. BoomHitch 04:32, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Propaganda - I agree that there may be an intersection area between fake news and propaganda, but there are portions of "fake news" that have nothing to do with propaganda, and many parts of "propaganda" that are not about fake news. Languages are not perfect, and words commonly overlap their meanings, as you can see in Wikipedia if you compare for instance entertainment with fun or amusement, or when you compare the word Muslim with the word Arab. Each word has its own singularities : you can't force one content into the other. Paulo Andrade
    • New sections - Read sections "journalistic fraud" and "fake news satire". They have nothing to do with propaganda. Paulo Andrade.
      • Comment, ok now the article seems to cover several different definitions of "fake news." All of them seem to be covered better elsewhere. For instance, the parts on fake news as propaganda are better covered in the propaganda article. The part on fake news as journalistic fraud is better covered by the journalistic fraud article. Furthermore, inserting a section on fake news as satire contradicts the intro sentence: "Fake news ...[is] a deturpation of traditional journalism in which false facts, or government official propaganda are deliberately presented by the mass media as genuine news reports." For what its worth, I've also never heard of journalistic fraud seriously referred to as fake news. DaveTheRed 01:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Reply - The quality of the article is not being judged. Its existence is. Articles that the Editor judges as not having good quality receive a specific seal of non-quality (see amusement, for instance), but they are not deleted for this reason. Paulo Andrade
        • Dave took the words right out of my mouth. The additions have actually made the article less coherent; nearly everything in it is more thorougly covered in another article. I've changed my vote above. android↔talk 03:21, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
        • Spockpedia - If Wikipedia was Spockpedia, all words could be deleted through arguments. All words have something in common with other words, but this is not an argument for deletion. Plane, aviation and helicopter, for instance, have something in common. Water, ocean, sea, lake, river and waterfall have something in commmon, but they all exist as separate words. Video news release, propaganda, public relations, fake news and Bush administration payment of columnists have also something in common, but they should all exist as separate words, as they present different angles and unique perspectives. Paulo Andrade
        • Selection of reality - Every word is a selection of elements of reality that presents a unique perspective. Words are like mathematical sets with multiple intersection areas. You redirect A to B when all elements are equal. You merge A with B when A contains B or vice-versa. Neither of these happens here. Paulo Andrade
        • Censorship - Note that you can also censor ANY word by dissecting it, slicing it in different pieces and rearranging the slices in different places. The word love, for instance, could be censored by merging it with feeling (once love is a kind of feeling). It could also be censored by slicing it into several types of love and rearranging the slices (e.g. to friendship, sex, marriage, solidarity, compassion and spirituality, for example). This is a very dangerous possibility, as deletionist censorship can be carried out intentionally by any individual or group of individuals at any time, bringing serious doubts about the credibility of Wikipedia as a true "free Encyclopedia". I'm not talking about technical deletion or POVs, I'm talking about censorship. Paulo Andrade
        • Rewriting main definition - Now there is a new and more clear main definition, that probably may avoid further confusion. Of course anybody can perfect it at any time Paulo Andrade.
          • Comment We are not arguing that fake news should be redirected because it is similar to propaganda. We are arguing that it should be redirected because it is a subset of propaganda, with the exception of satire, and that can be covered in the satire article. We are not censoring fake news, merely saying that everything in the article can be covered better elsewhere. It would be like having an article on curtains, and another article on green curtains. DaveTheRed 19:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Reply - First, you can only talk for yourself - who is "we" ? do you represent someone else ? Second, it is clear that what you say does not correspond to the present reality of the article. The article has now at least three different topics and only one of them has some degree of relationship (not equality) with propaganda. Third, you implicitly admits to be attempting to censor the word "fake news", saying that "we are not censoring ... because of this or that"Paulo Andrade
          • Stalinism - In the Soviet era, Josef Stalin, the Soviet leader (who was a dictator) used to censor articles in Encyclopedias. Just a reminder. Paulo Andrade
          • Diversity - Personally, I believe in concepts like diversity, multiplicity and complementariness. Orange is not simply a combination of yellow and red, it's another color.Paulo Andrade
            • Firstly, comparing us to Stalinists constitutes a personal attack, which is not allowed on wikipedia. Secondly, while I only represent myself, I can make a fair guess as to the motives of the other wikipedians who are pushing for a redirect. Thirdly, the three definitions of fake news don't seem to sit well together. The inclusion of satire completely contradicts the intro sentence, and fake news as satire is better covered in the satire article. I've never heard journalistic fraud refered to seriously as fake news, but if it was, the definition is better covered in the journalistic fraud article. Which leaves the propaganda side of fake news, which is better covered in the propaganda article. The fact remains that fake news is not a concept radically different from any of the topics it purports to cover, and having a sepearte article on it is redundant. This is not censorship, merely improving Wikipedia.

DaveTheRed 19:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Reply - I see your point. I never meant to attack you personally, my dear friend. However, the rules of Wikipedia allow Stalinist censorship, that's my point. And in my humble interpretation what is being carried out here is a kind of censorship. While deleting an article is a right assured by the rules, the abusive use of this right may constitute censorship. Please read again sections "Spockpedia" and "Censorship" above and section "Mr. Editor" below. Paulo Andrade
• Satirical fake news and journalistic fraud - The inclusion of satirical fake news does not contradicts the intro sentence, once webzines, portals and other producers of satire are also media outlets. Secondly, satirical news contain facts known to be false presented as real news - that's the definition (although in this case the public usually knows about the satirical aspect, but this detail was not specified in the intro sentence). Thirdly, journalistic fraud is a broad term but it applies to fake news every time the reporter or journalist knows the facts are false (e.g. when he/she invents the report) or knows for instance that the source is lying but presents it as genuine. Please reread the intro sentence, it covers well the three aspects of fake news, and maybe new aspects to be added in the future.Paulo Andrade

• • Mr. Editor - Please may I use this space to grab your attention for a few seconds to focus something else (I don't know other way of doing this). Of course it is your decision to keep or delete this article, but whatever is your decision here I ask you - or should I say I beg you - to talk to other Editors or to your superiors if they exist, about something very serious : Wikipedia can be used by a group of people to deliberately censor words, masquerading censorship as technical deletions. In a literal interpretation, these people are following the rules. But do rules permit censorship ? If they really do, this is a flaw, IMHO. I strongly suggest that certain users should be closely watched. User Mikkalai for instance created this page of VFD only 25 minutes after I added the first scratch of the article. He didn't wait to see if there would be new updates or developments. In his User Page, he admits to be a professional observer of pages, with purposes of deleting or merging them. How did he know about a new page so fast ? On the other side, user android seems to be eager to delete the article. Of course I'm also an enthusiast because I have created the article, it took me several hours of patience and work. But he alone interfered five times in only two days. This is really odd, to say the least. I suspect some of these users are not "technical purists" trying to defend the "integrity" of an Encyclopedia. They act more like censors, in the Stalinist style. Please pay attention to their future moves not only here but in all other words. And thank you for your time. P.S. If you wish, you can send me an e-mail using my user page.Paulo Andrade.
    • • • • See that Recent changes link over on the left side of the page? That's how one can find new articles "so fast." I'm "eager" to delete the article for the reasons I've laid out above. You would be well-advised to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I don't take kindly to inferences that I'm some sort of "Stalinist censor." android↔talk 12:13, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
          • Reply - Again I must say that I understand your point and that I never meant to attack nobody. As for the "Recent changes", I didn't know this button. However, you really seem to be anxious to delete this article (or at least that's my sincere impression). Notice that you came back once more and now this is your sixth participation in three days. Frankly, this sounds really odd to me. I did understand your point, but I have doubts if you understood mine : I do believe that the rules of Wikipedia allow censorship whenever there is an abusive use of the right to delete, and that this is an opportunity to discuss also this point. Reread sections "Spockpedia" and "Censorship" above. If you have a suggestion, take the opportunity to leave it. Paulo Andrade
            • You seem to be missing the point entirely. This is a VfD discussion, meaning that participants respond to arguments. You seem to have no problem doing this yourself. If you think my behavior is odd, take a look at any contentious VfD discussion; you will see the same pattern from regular VfD contributors. If you have a problem with deletion policy, this is not the place to make such arguments; this discussion should be for the article in question only. I don't care if you "meant" to attack or not — it was a personal attack, plain and simple. android↔talk 22:57, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• I sincerely don't see the things this way, Android, but anyway it's your interpretation. With respect to the deletion policy, you're right, this is not the place to discuss it, but I don't know any other place, and I still think it is a relevant issue to be discussed. Maybe at least you agree with me that someone (not necessarily you, but someone else) may potentially want to delete words with the deliberate intention of censoring certain ideas or angles of study over a subject, alone or guided by organized groups. Technically, any word can be deleted through arguments, if you distort them far enough. 29 Mar 2005, 01:20 GMT Paulo Andrade

• • • Mr. Editor (2) - I take this opportunity to suggest the introduction of some sort of mechanism to avoid the abusive use of deletion rights by an individual or an organized group. Notice that in the present model not only individuals but organizations, companies and governments may interfere directly in Wikipedia with the purpose of censoring it, Stalinist style, once logical arguments may be twisted to delete any word. Perhaps an Ombundsman could be introduced in Wikipedia, or some kind of Council to oversee polemical deletions and cut the excesses, interfering every time the right to delete is transformed into a right to censor, Stalinist style. I thank you in advance if you pass these suggestions away or discuss them with other editors or superiors of yours. Paulo Andrade
      • • • Diversity again- Once more I want to emphasize the concepts of diversity, multiplicity and complementariness between different words, and suggest that everybody reread the article in its present state before emitting new opinions. The main definition was changed and is now more clear, precise and inclusive.Paulo Andrade

• I've read through the article and fail to see any significant distinction between the concept of "fake news" and "propaganda". Redirect. Rossami (talk) 06:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • See above - (each word has its own singularites, new sections, new main definition, Spockpedia, censorship and new main definition) Paulo Andrade
    • Comment: I have read all of the above. No change of vote. Rossami (talk) 03:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Covers the same ground as propaganda. Feco 08:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • See above - (each word has its own singularites, new sections, Spockpedia, Censorship and new main definition) Paulo Andrade
• Merge with News management, which is more relevant than Propaganda. Also, Propaganda is quite long enough already without something merging with it. --Angr 10:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • See above - (each word has its own singularites, new sections, Spockpedia, censorship and new main definition) Paulo Andrade
  • News management is an ideal place IMO. Mikkalai 04:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • • The editor will decide - That's it. I have no other points to add, unless someone wants to discuss a new point. I need to rest and it was a pleasure to discuss with you. 29 Mar 2005, 01:20 GMT Paulo Andrade
• One way could be to turn this into a disambiguation page with links to different uses of fake new (hoaxes of exposure, journalistic fraud, satire, propaganda, what have you). As for Andrade's comments, he is not winning any friends with that worn-out rhetoric - Skysmith 09:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Securiger 13:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I removed your vote table. Please see this page (specifically the part that says Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of votes...) No offense intended; it's just generally regarded that such tally boxes are actually harmful to the process -- keep in mind that it's not about the votes, it's about the discussion. android↔talk 13:52, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Hmm... - Thank you, Skysmith. Just a last thought : Do robots have hearts ? Do Encyclopedias have a soul ? If so, what soul ? Are they user-friendly ? Does Wikipedia have a soul ? Paulo Andrade 30 Mar 2005, 21:56 GMT

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

Wow. I can't believe that Wikipedia has decided to suppress information about such an important, well-established global phenomenon. The term fake news has been used for years to describe the exploitation of public trust in the news media to further an agenda.94.222.189.97 (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)