Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 27[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Speedy deleted already. Joyous 00:18, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Darshianity[edit]

The religion doesn't exists: 0 Google matches! Must be deleted or qualifyed as an invented religion by someone with great imagination --Neigel von Teighen 20:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Nonsense CSD'ed. 0 hits + Darshianity is a ...religion ... Jimbo the Ape. Jimbo is the founder of WP as fare as I know. Gtabary 20:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm speedying this. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:56, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Speedy deleted. Joyous 00:19, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ivo draganac[edit]

This page should be deleted as it seems to be a promotional autobiography written by User:Ivodraganac (his contributions). --Neigel von Teighen 18:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not only is this vanity, blatant self-promotion, and half in another language, it's also a copyvio from the link given. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:13, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ugh, user has also now created Id design and Id music which are just copies of the same text. Those should be deleted when this is deleted. I'm almost tempted to say that these are all speedys. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:15, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have speedied those two as multiarticle spam. They were exactly identical copies of this junk. Delete or userfy to User:Ivodraganac (without redirect). jni 18:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity or misplaced user page, it doesn't belong here. --InShaneee 20:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page, and not even a very interesting one. Ganymead 22:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, vanity, personal advertisement. Megan1967 01:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If Ivodraganac had contributed anything else, I've have said Userfy. But xe hasn't. This is clearly hit-and-run advertising rather than an attempt to help build an encyclopædia. Delete. Uncle G 14:50, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 20:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for being unverifiable. The person who wrote the article emailed the board asking for it to be deleted. Angela. 20:47, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • This can be deleted as a speedy now under criteria 10. Any article which is requested for deletion by the original author, provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake, and the article was edited only by its author. The only edits other than by the author are related to deletion and the email specifically states that the author created this by mistake -- sannse (talk) 01:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and done this -- sannse (talk) 01:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The votes were 8 delete, 6 keep. But the article got substantially rewritten during VfD, and only 1 delete vote was made after the rewrite.

Alternative Portfolio Selection models[edit]

Editor's note: has now been moved to Portfolio (finance)

Yeah, looks like a bunch of nonsense, Delete. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. If it weren't nonesense, it'd be original research.
  • Delete. Agreed, Nonsense. Battosai

Bacchiad 08:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Exactly what is the context? Nonsense, Delete. Mgm|(talk) 11:27, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and comment: it does make sense... if you already know what it is about. But actually no point in having an article for that. Could be a few lines a financial or stock market article. Gtabary 15:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original researched nonsense (you know what I mean) :)--Neigel von Teighen 18:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Ganymead 22:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: How does claiming that there are two current methods count as original research, let alone nonsense? Kappa 23:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is not non-sense and it is not original research (or at least it has not been original research for 30 years now). It just needed a bit of a re-write, which I have just completed. mydogategodshat 06:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mikkalai 08:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge somewhere. Even the early versions were not really nonsense and subsequent rewrite gave more context. jni 08:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ok a I did bit of cleanup --- [0] edited Portfolio selection, management, and performance [1] merged info from portfolio [2] trimed portfolio [3] added a disambig link in portfolio [4] moved Portfolio selection, management, and performance to Portfolio (finance) [5] redirected Alternative Portfolio Selection model to Portfolio (finance) --- I think it's more rational now: better title, disambiged, merged from different sources. Gtabary 10:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, still isnt encyclopaedic enough or useful. Megan1967 02:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't really care about the article nor am I knowlegable in finance. I cleaned it up because ther was some informations scatered around and the titles were so... bad. But I do see the article as encyclopaedic. There was and is material here, potentially expendable. So I don't understand you there. Gtabary 18:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep as cleaned up. Kappa 12:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Especially as cleaned up, but even as it was first started, it was legitimate material. Come on guys if you don't know what something is, google it a little bit, don't jump on deleting. This is a very important topic in finance. - Taxman 14:14, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as cleaned up, but could use a lot more work. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:21, Jan 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 REDIRECT to Springfield, Massachusetts. Done by Samaritan. Mgm|(talk) 13:30, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Springfield, ma[edit]

External link spam Kickstart70 01:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Springfield, Massachusetts. RickK 01:04, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • I can agree to that...no idea how to do it, though. Kickstart70 01:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • #REDIRECT [[Springfield, Massachusetts]]. I've taken the liberty of doing that, removing the vfd tag, which I know isn't great form, but... Samaritan 01:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • It has been done. This VfD is now moot. —RaD Man (talk) 01:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Springfield, Massachusetts, and endorse Samaritan's action in doing so immediately. (Entire contents of the article was the single line: "Masslive.com".) Dpbsmith (talk) 01:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:21, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Nick Sharp[edit]

This is a vanity page. It is written as a resume, and even refers to his resume as "REFERENCES". Not to be cruel, but he is not significant. He has not written any books of merit, nor served beyond the status of Assistant Profession, a position he's held for 30 years without a promotion. Please consider for deletion.

  • Delete. Kingturtle 01:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.-gadfium 01:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. —Korath (Talk) 03:09, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment/question. From an earlier version, a "Sharpism": "I don't care what the little f***s think, I've got tenure." If true, it doesn't seem that he much needs the leg up that someone might imagine an article at Wikipedia might give him. (Not that I'm suggesting that this ought to be a criterion for inclusion.) I'm a bit puzzled, though. This doesn't seem to me to be a typical vanity article, and he seems more noteworthy than some minor "celebrity" (cf Fiona Yuen etc). Would he be Wikipediaworthy if he taught not actually at VCU but instead fictionally within some US TV sitcom? (To me, he seems more interesting and notable, or less boring, than, say, Henry Coleman.)-- Hoary 05:18, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
    • You are exactly right. Personally I think anyone with a thesis deserves a blurb here on Wikipedia. It's a hell of a lot better than Pokemon. Rhobite 21:47, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete an assistant professor is very unlikely to be professionally notable, or else s/he would be promoted above assistant. seems like vanity to me. Michael Ward 04:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable. JoaoRicardo 06:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Not notable Longhair 10:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This might actually be the proverbial "average professor". Although Hoary does have a point. Alarm 17:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: average professor. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Published professors are notable enough for inclusion. Rhobite 21:43, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Nicholas Sharp" + VCU = 22 Google hits; "Nicholas Sharp" + virginia = 93 Google hits. --Idont Havaname 01:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. How many hundreds of thousands of such individuals are there out there. I'm a newbie, so I haven't seen a lot of this stuff yet, but surely we have to draw the line somewhere a lot higher than this! HowardB 11:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable - feeble attempt to puff up a fairly non-descript career. Brookie 17:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why not ask him if he wants to move it to his user page? 69.243.41.28 03:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:21, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Badr[edit]

Vanity. Move to user page.-gadfium 01:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. Bart133 02:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. JoaoRicardo 06:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gtabary 15:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Ganymead 22:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Edcolins 20:32, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utter vanity. HowardB 11:59, 1 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 18:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bernie Hansen[edit]

Substub on a Chicago Alderman. Sure, mayors of major cities are encyclopedic, but I have to draw the line at Aldermen. Article says nothing, and most google hits seem to be a different Bernie Hanson. -R. fiend 01:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand. Elected local government representaives of major cities are notable and encyclopedic.--Centauri 02:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not even a resident of Chicago and I've heard of Bernie Hanson. —Kelly Martin 02:48, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with R. fiend. I would change my mind if it is proven that he has done something else besides being an alderman in Chicago. JoaoRicardo 06:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What, like driving taxis?--Centauri 11:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. His notability has been established to me. Kudos to Samaritan. JoaoRicardo 05:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A sub-sub-sub...-stub should bring something. Even just anything would be nice. Gtabary 15:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Article expended. Arguably over-linkified and maybe lacking a bit of structure but much better. Hold vote for now. Gtabary 19:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. He has also served since 1994 as one of four U.S. commissioners on the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, a Presidential appointment to a bilateral treaty organization of the Canadian and U.S. governments. He has been Chair of the Commission. His bio there. And I've greatly expanded. Samaritan 18:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Entire text nominated was "'Bernie Hansen is a former Chicago Alderman for the 44th ward." Now it's five paragraphs and an external link and there's more that could be said. Samaritan 18:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The first thing they teach you about chicago politics is that the aldermen have a lot of power, often more easily more than the mayor. Chicago has an unconventional city goverment, but then again, it's a huge and very unique city. In this case, aldermen should be allowed in. --InShaneee 20:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Noteworthy and encyclopedic. GRider\talk 00:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the notability (or lack thereof) of Chicago aldermen, commissioners to international environmental agencies are always notable. As currently written, it's a definite keep. Bearcat 03:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Spinboy 05:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Seems notable enough, and now has significant content. Alai 20:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a good start for an article --Neigel von Teighen 20:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep - David Gerard 22:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. At any one time, Chicago has fifty aldermen. Multiply that by the last 150 years, and multiply that by, say, a hundred large US cities. Then add many hundreds of large and important cities around the world, most of whom have alderman, councillors, or the equivalent, and where do we stop? Surely there has to be a limit on this. I haven't thought though what the parameters should be, but I would think this is going to become a growing issue. HowardB 12:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I sympathize with HowardB here. How many biographies can the Wikipedia have? if we have have one per million people, that is 6,000 just for people currently alive. That sounds too few; there are a lot more important people than that in the history of the world. One biography per 100,000 livers gives you 60,000 biographies, which is starting to sound like too many, but could still be managable. One per 10,000 people gives you 600,000 biographies, which is more than the total number of articles currently in the Wikipedia. So settle for now on one biography for every 100,000 people who have lived. Chicago, being a huge city, gets a few dozen biographies. All this as a kind of rough guideline. Is this guy one of the few dozen most notable people to be associated with Chicago? Alderman for twenty years and Chairman of the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission makes him one in thousand, maybe one in 10,000, but nor more. So: delete. Sorry, Bernie. If this was the Chicagopedia, you'd be in. --BM 18:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • No, actually, "Chairman of the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission" makes him one of about twenty or so. "Chicago alderman" may not make him notable, but "Chairman of the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission" does. Bearcat 10:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Having read BM's expansion on my original comment, I now vote to delete. This, and (I assume) many others like it, does raise a policy/guideline issue that at some point does need to be resolved. HowardB 03:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:23, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Garner[edit]

Non-notable vanity. —Kelly Martin 02:45, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete --nixie 03:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. JoaoRicardo 06:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Vanity K1Bond007 06:33, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gtabary 15:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was an honor-roll student in high school too; what's so special about such non-notable vanity as that? --Idont Havaname 22:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:24, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Tremblayism[edit]

Google returns a grand total of zero hits for this alleged ideology. Unless evidence is presented that it really exists, delete. --Goobergunch|? 02:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Ditto: delete. -- Hoary 03:08, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence that this even exists. I tried to look for any Tremblay that may have originated this, but it seems like a very common surname, especially in Quebec. Also no reference to "tremb" in communism, Karl Marx of Friedrich Engels. JoaoRicardo 06:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this article is about Rodrigue Tremblay, who seams to indeed be an economist (see here his presentation), it could be real. Many publications, books and so on. But as it stands now, this article is un-usable. Have to be contextualised, linkinfied, referenced, calrified... I just don't want to do any of this, because I can not back the existence of a potential Tremblayism theory, nor be sure 'tis about a Rodrigue Tremblay. Gtabary 15:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the tip, Gtabary. Indeed, there's a Tremblay who seems notable within economics. He was also president of the Canadian Society of Economic Sciences and minister of Industry and Commerce in Quebec [1]. The man himself may get an article, but his ideas don't seem to be called tremblayism by anyone. JoaoRicardo 17:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Despite the above revalations about Rodrigue Tremblay, I still think this would qualify as a neologism. --InShaneee 20:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Google test says everything. Delete. --Idont Havaname 22:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, neologism. Megan1967 01:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Spinboy 05:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment -- The above info about Rodrigue Tremblay does not ahve anything to do with Tremblayism. Rodrigue Tremblay may be a social democrat, but not a Marxist. Kevintoronto 14:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, that was suspicious enough... Delete. Samaritan 15:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article did not get reviewed/rewritten. Unusable. Gtabary 10:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 0 Google hits & no reference as to who would use this term or whom it is named after. -- James Teterenko (talk) 05:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:26, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Albert schloshering[edit]

Said to be a notable chemist and philosopher, but there's not a hint of what the notability was. Meanwhile, Google has no hits for either "schloshering" (which looks intrinsically unlikely) or "schloschering", regardless of "albert", "chemistry", or anything else. Spelling mistake? Non-notable? Fiction? I don't claim to know. But if, say, a tremendously notable Chlochering were to have existed, somebody else could write him up later -- Hoary 03:06, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

  • Delete. Also no evidence of an "International Chemist Association," or any chemistry association that awards an "Order of the Leaf" award. LizardWizard 03:09, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cannot find evidence for this person's existence. I searched for an Order of the Leaf at IUPAC's website to no avail. JoaoRicardo 06:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like a hoax: no hit with non selective keys: 'albert shloshing', nor 'albert schloshering'. Sounds strange for a well known persona. Gtabary 15:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete possible hoax. Order of the Leaf sounds awfully suspicious to me, but then again, so would Order of the Bath. --Deathphoenix 06:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A herring is a ruse in german - red herring perhaps in english?

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Article has been listed at WP:CP Joyous 00:28, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Pioneer (military)[edit]

Dicdef. -R. fiend 04:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • It's a copyvio. —Korath (Talk) 04:50, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And it's only a dicdef. Delete delete delete! No need to spend time on copyvio. Gtabary 15:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Well, the last part is copyvio. Still, the arti dicdef as it stands is pretty useless. --Deathphoenix 06:05, 28 Jan 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. Joyous 01:43, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Door stop[edit]

And another dicdef. -R. fiend 04:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - It shows promise, and is semi slang, some people might not know what one is. -GregNorc (talk) 01:04, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef. JoaoRicardo 06:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • (Expanded since above) Keep everyday objects. Kappa 11:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can imagine this becoming an article (history, images, etc.). Has already been expanded past dic def status. Mgm|(talk) 11:30, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Current article shows enough promise to Keep. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And now a nice contrib tells us it's also the name of a sandwich. (Vanity we love you!) Wa-ou! Soon we'll have picture of old french fries clogging the door, hereupon making up a nice door stop. And how about a car stop article. Hey, don't forget the supermarket troley stop entry! Only IMO. Gtabary 16:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Please explain your use of the word 'vanity' in this context. Kappa 22:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Sure: Creating an article for the sake of creating an article, without content. Look, I created A article in THE Wikipedia. Am I not nice?. The issue is you let go one dumb entry, and soon you are forced into accepting dumber entries. See, now we have a redirect from doorstoop... Waaaaaaaou! Am impressed. Because one can do it, does not imply it's clever. (Only IMO). Regards. Gtabary 11:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the motivation here is the desire to explain things and make them easier to find, rather than impress people. Kappa 17:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep rescued article. —Korath (Talk) 18:55, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Still a mere dicdef. Transwiki to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 21:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This article has been expanded beyond a mere dictdef. GRider\talk 00:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, could do with more expansion especially on history. Megan1967 01:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • At first, my mind boggled. But then I realised that this is Internet after all, so most likely there is someone out there who would have the inclination to write up "The History of Door Stops". Indeed, someone probably already has. Uncle G 15:56, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Keep, but it needs to be cleaned up and expanded --Enigma 02:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cookiecaper 02:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. (And I just redirected doorstop to it.) Samaritan 04:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's the name of a category of sandwiches. The sandwich reference pushes this over the line from being a dictionary definition to a Weak Keep. Compare Melt sandwich. I can see the possibility of Door stop growing to something like Club sandwich or Tea sandwich. Uncle G 15:56, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Keep, just so that I'll have the pleasure of, someday, seeing the illustrated history of doorstops on Wikipedia. I'm bubbling with anticipation. --Plutor 16:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Void comment: At least the vfd makes me have a good laugh, Cheers folks! I immagine your man: "bubble bubble bubble..." Ha ha. :-) Gtabary 19:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, not a dicdaf. I'm going to add some more detail to it right now. Pakaran 14:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seeing how it has expanded in the past day, it looks more like an article. Now if only there was a picture. Riffsyphon1024 20:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic. --JuntungWu 09:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:28, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Electrotards[edit]

A record company working either here or here, both very small towns. Non notable, 65 Google hits, no references in Wikipedia. JoaoRicardo 04:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Not notable. Inter 12:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gtabary 15:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible company vanity. Megan1967 01:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. Not sure if it's vanity or a memorial for a disbanded musical group. --Deathphoenix 06:08, 28 Jan 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 TRANSWIKI TEXT and REDIRECT to Palestinian National Covenant. Mgm|(talk) 19:21, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian Covenant[edit]

Not an encyclopedia article. Maybe something for wikisource though. (Man, the random page button is turning up all sorts of VfD-fodder tonight.) -R. fiend 04:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to WikiSource and redirect to Palestinian National Covenant. JoaoRicardo 05:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ItisIAnonymous 17:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or send to Wikisource - needs a cleanup. Megan1967 01:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm confused by your vote. Do you mean the text of the Covenant should be kept in Wikipedia? Or do you mean we should have an article on this topic? Just a genuine question, not meant to harass you. JoaoRicardo 02:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • If the article is not going to be kept I would prefer it to be transwiki'd. Either way is fine with me. Megan1967 02:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to WikiSource and redirect to Palestinian National Covenant, as above. There's nothing here that adds to the Palestinian National Covenant article.
    • Above accidentally unsigned vote by User:Deathphoenix
    • Transwiki/redirect, agreeing with JoaoRicardo and Deathphoenix. Samaritan 15:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Transwiki/redirect, agreeing with JoaoRicardo, Deathphoenix and Samaritan HowardB 12:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:30, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Phil Stone[edit]

I found this article while researching Roy LeRoi because I was considering nominating it for VFD. One of the IP address that worked on the Roy LeRoi page also worked on Phil Stone.

The Phil Stone article purports that he is a journalist, yet when I went to his homepage there is only one article. Needless to say that Phil Stone does not merit an article in the Wikipedia. Kevin Rector 04:31, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • If you have a mind to put those other articles on vfd I say go for it. Administrators are a lazy, unreliable bunch -- if you leave that sort of work to administrators, chances are it will never get done. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This Phil Stone doesn't establish notability in his Geocities personal website, looks like a vanity article. However, What links here shows the existence of another Phil Stone, member of The Hub, who might be worthy of his own article. JoaoRicardo 06:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP You sound like a conspiracy theorist! I started the article on Phil Stone after discovering his website after I received an e-mail newsletter. Erase any information that is not true, but to accuse me of being part of some huge conspiracy to advertise some unknown people is a little nutty don't you think? David 20:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Vote actually by User:Timothy001, original author of Phil Stone. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Why did you make this statement? I say right in my comment that I originated the article. Why do I feel you are implying something? I have done nothing wrong. Is it that one technonerd is defending another? David Timothy001 00:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. He does not appear to meet the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies yet. (A google search for "Phil Stone" returned 7870 hits but none in the first few pages appeared to be this person. It's hard to interpret, though, with such a common name.) By the way, there is no better forum for the nomination of the other articles you found, Kevin. The right answer is, unfortunately, to nominate them here individually if you believe they are deletable. Rossami (talk) 21:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it isn't vanity because it's not written by him, it's indistinguishable from vanity, and just as bad. -R. fiend 22:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, and from looking at the other mentioned articles, I concur that most are VfD fodder too. -R. fiend 22:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Dwain 22:46, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Those I was hesitant on. I think Janet, Roy, and The Man in the Movie, at least are deletable. -R. fiend 23:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not yet notable enough, possible vanity/promo. Megan1967 01:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Gamaliel 19:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. Edeans 07:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. non-notable -Willmcw 23:33, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The votes were 9 keep, 10 delete. dbenbenn | talk 19:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of U.S. states by unemployment rate[edit]

A list using nearly 5-year-old census data, which is only linked to a bunch of other random US states lists ({{US state lists}}, which includes List of U.S. states by postal abbreviation and List of U.S. states by time zone, among others) which link among each other. I can't imagine how a long-outdated list could possibly be useful, nor what actual article would link to it (other than, say, Results of 2000 census). --Calton 05:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep: I'm not sure what your point is. It's listed on List of reference tables and it's noteworthy data. It's as current as census data permits so, again, I don't see what your point is. If this is a means for complaining that the census data isn't taken every year...then this is the wrong way to go about that. Cburnett 06:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Hello? Perhaps you should address what I write, as opposed to what you believe. My points are listed above: it's 5-year-old employment data! This data is collected monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics [2], making this list not only outdated but actually misleading. And, I repeat, what article is going to link to this? --Calton 06:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • How about UPDATING the data instead of deleting the article? Eh? Cburnett 07:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Every month? Since you created this, isn't that your reponsonsibility? --Calton 08:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • I created this? Dude, you need to step away from the computer. The article under VFD WAS NOT created by me. I've formatted it, but did not create it. No one has the responsibility to update a page. Wikipedia is a community effort. Instead of wasting yours, mine, and others' time voting, how about you update the page when you feel like it? YOU are the one unsatisfied with the date of the data so YOU are more than welcome to update it. DO NOT pawn it off on others as their responsibility. Do you even know what you're talking about? Cburnett 08:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Furthermore, because you cannot think of a page to link on isn't a reason to delete (WP:DP). This list amongst other related lists are notable information, which makes it far from VFD. Cburnett 07:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Furthermore, because you cannot think of a page to link on isn't a reason to delete: And neither can you, since you're dodging the question. What pages could this be linked to? And please provide a rationale for your hand-waving notable designation. --Calton 08:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems like good information for an encyclopedia. I guess I don't get whats wrong with it. K1Bond007 06:36, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's an encyclopedic topic, and the info could be brought to date with a little research. As for what might link to it, how about articles on related topics? Unemployment and Demographics of the United States come to mind. — Ливай | ☺ 07:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • An external link to the BLS or some other source seems more sensible to me. --Calton 08:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even not updated info would be of historical interest. / up+land 08:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I agree with the points made by Uppland and User:Livajo. Mgm|(talk) 11:35, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable data, and its common for even five-year-old information to be used in this way, since there hasn't been a nationwide census taken since. If more recent data is available, then someone can add it. 23skidoo 15:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've updated this data with the Bureau of Labor Statistics 2003 geographic profile of employment. --Plutor 16:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mountains of statistical data are published by governments at all levels. You can cut this data many different ways, by geography, by income, by race, by gender, etc, etc, almost without limit. All or most of these tabulations are potentially of interest to someone. They are NOT encyclopedia articles in themselves. If there were an article on, say, Variation between U.S. States in Employment, this data would be interesting in that article. One might also expect to read various theories about the reasons for the variation. But just a raw tabulation of data from the decennial census or monthly BLS statistics is not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a statistical database. --BM 16:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This is one list in a set of lists by state. No one is proposing to make this a statistical database. And unemployment isn't an obscure statistic to have. You're argument is a slippery slope and therefore fallacious. Cburnett 19:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with BM above, Wikipedia is not a statistical database. JoaoRicardo 17:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another un-maintainable list, and Wikipedia is not a statistical database. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • It was based on the 2000 census and there hasn't been another census since. I guess it is the fault of the article another census hasn't been performed. Besides, your point is moot. The article has been linked and updated anyway. Cburnett 20:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Impossible to keep updated enough to be worthwhile. Either way, it's just a pile of statistics, which I doubt are terribly useful together (though unemployment rates on the pages of the individual states may well be). --InShaneee 20:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • And the list can serve as a source for those numbers. Each state can reference the list. Much better than listing a source in 50 places (the link could change). The list also serves to consolidate the data. It's funny you say it's impossible to maintain yet people update 2004 in film & 2005 in film at least weekly to update new grosses for movies. It's not impossible, just not done. Besides, with a source link on List of U.S. states by unemployment rate a visitor can get up-to-date data if they so desire. Cburnett 20:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unmaintainable list. Replace with a link out to the appropriate subpage of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics webpage. (Perhaps [3]?) We should not attempt to be a statistical database. We should link to those who do provide that service well. Rossami (talk) 22:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons given by Rossami. --Idont Havaname 22:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agreed w/ Rossami. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, an unmaintainable statistical database. Megan1967 01:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Carrp 01:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Inherently encyclopedic.--Centauri 02:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Timestamp (2003) invalidates maintenance objections. Mikkalai 08:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • At 10 to 9 to delete, it would appear the dividing line between those that think it's unencyclopedic & those that think it is encyclopedic; and those that think this list makes wikipedia a statistical database & those that think it is not. I think it is necessary to note that the merits of statistics is not listed on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not nor Wikipedia:Deletion policy, ergo it's not grounds for deletion. I think it is also necessary to note that other pages (2004 in film, 2005 in film) have a much higher degree of volatility yet are maintained, ergo "unmaintainability" is necessarily groundless as the article has been updated after being noticed it needed updating. Cburnett 20:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I consider this article to be a violation (however well-intentioned) of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files case 3 - a "mere collection of public domain or other source material". This information is copied directly from the US Labor Dept statistics. The link is even provided right on the page. Comment 2: The timestamp does not, in my opinion, invalidate the maintenance concerns. The title of this article is not [[2003 list of US states...]]. Even if you did change it, that's not what the articles linking in are trying to find. Comment 3: "200x in film" articles are not actually more volatile than this in the long term. They have more current edits this year but once the year's over, they will become highly stable. This article never will. This is an article which will have to be maintained year in and year out. If no alternative were available, we might have to accept that cost. However, an easy alternative is available - the link to the US Labor Dept report. No change of vote. Rossami (talk) 01:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • So you're saying that there won't be 2006 in film to update next year and 2007 in film the year after that.....that these articles just stop? I hadn't heard of the movie industry foreclosing at a definite point in time. I'm also confused as to your using part 3 of the link which says "other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording." Maybe I'm just a dunce here, but are you saying that unemployment rates aren't useful in a modified form? Having just spent no less than 5 minutes trying to find the numbers, I can't possibly see why it shouldn't be desired to have a copy of the numbers of wikipedia. (This is not where I'm a dunce with nearing my 3rd engineering degree and whom I can think of only a hand full of other equal or more computer savvy users. The BLS site is just hard to navigate.) From the linked page on the article, it takes 3 sequential clicks to get to data as displayed in the article. Even then it's preformatted text in a table form. This article improves the readability of the data and sorts it. Cburnett 07:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • The full text of the criterion you cite is "Mere collections of public domain or other source material; such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Small or otherwise for the context critical source material, either in text or image form, is needed. (But of course, there's nothing wrong with using public domain resources in order to add factual content and wording to an article -- such as the use of the 1911 encyclopedia)" This rule was certainly not made to exclude every public domain collection of data that can be found elsewhere, but probably to prevent things more suitable for WikiSource from appearing here. For example, list of countries by area is pretty much public domain raw data with a few explanatory notes about it, and a version of the same list could easily be found and linked to on some other article, but there is nothing about the subject matter or the data itself that makes it unencyclopedic and no reason to kick it off of Wikipedia. I think the same goes for this article. — Ливай | ☺ 16:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: I should have been clearer. If we were, in fact, using the Labor Dept numbers in a modified form or using them as illustration in a larger article, that might be a reason to keep them. However, I do not believe that we are modifying the raw data or even the presentation of the data in any meaningful way. That is, of course, a judgment call and reasonable people can disagree. This page still feels to me like a raw data dump, not what I expect of an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 17:30, 31 Jan 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. Rossami (talk) 22:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of aircraft of the Luftwaffe, World War II[edit]

This list is made redundant by List of military aircraft of Germany, which includes a division for the World War II era. →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 05:27, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

  • The information on the List of military aircraft of Germany dealing with WW2 should be merged with "List of aircraft of the Luftwaffe, World War II". The Luftwaffe article has much more information on the era that the German article doesn't. Conversely, the German article has some information that the Luftwaffe article doesn't. It's not entirely redundant. I'm going to go with Keep and Merge WW2 info from Germany to Luftwaffe. K1Bond007 06:44, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • The Keep and Merge proposal of K1Bond007 is reasonable. 66.220.115.53 16:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This vote is from me. Sorry about that. For some reason the software was automatically logging me out every time I tried to make an edit. →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 06:00, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Delete. Duplicates other content. JoaoRicardo 17:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Not entirely, please look at what I said above. Information has to be merged, one way or the other. K1Bond007 19:21, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, either way is fine. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge, not entirely redundant. Megan1967 01:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Merge - good idea -- Denniss 01:38, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
  • Keep and Marge.... 16:42, 7 Feb 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 with a strong recommendation to merge back into the parent article.

St. Thomas University Students' Union[edit]

I keep trying to merge this with Saint Thomas University, but Spinboy keeps reverting it. There is no content here that requires that this be a separate article. We really don't need the address and phone number, Wikipedia is not a yellow pages. Delete that and there is no content. The template indicates that there are lots of these non-articles. RickK 05:26, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. We already had this debate over at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Students' Society of McGill University. I feel you are just being vindictive. --Spinboy 05:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, if it is merged it cannot be in Category:Canadian Students' Associations. - SimonP 06:05, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Why is that important? RickK 06:06, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • It's important in that there's no legitimate distinction to be made between universities whose student unions deserve articles and those whose student unions don't. Either St. Thomas stays or they all go; nothing in between is appropriate. Bearcat 18:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course it can (the merged article, that is). Sure, only a small part of the page would deal with the student union, but anyone looking for the little bit of information we have on this student union through categories would still find what they're looking for. Merge and redirect. — Ливай | ☺ 13:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Categories exist to serve articles, not the other way round. Mackensen (talk) 06:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge is reasonable. It seems forever doomed to a two-sentence substub otherwise. —Korath (Talk) 06:32, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. The categorization argument has some value, and a students' union may well be worth an article of its own (many are quite significant organizations), but this is just a two-line substub. Generally speaking, if one is going to write about a subject that will potentially be nominated for deletion, it is good to do one's research first and actually start out with something that establishes some kind of notability, not to fill out the empty space with contact info which is of absolutely no interest to anyone except people who probably already know it (and can be found on the webpage in any case). I could change my vote to keep if the article gets better or if a new and more informative article is posted after this one has been merged. / up+land 08:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is there to merge? If Spinboy thinks there is something encyclopedic to say about this subject, he should say it. --BM 11:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete, making appropriate comments on Talk page to preserve GFDL. Look. The Encyclopedia Britannica 11th edition had many long articles; the article on Bible is over one megabyte, for example. The average article length in encyclopedias seems to be in decline. The current Britannica is two-thirds "macropedia" but one-third "micropedia." The World Book, which seems to be directed at a high-school audience, has lots of short articles. Ironically, the fact that Wikipedia is not paper seems to be taken to mean that we have a 32K limit. But there's no reason for Wikipedia to become a nanopedia. Information makes much more sense in context. It's much more likely to get wide review by knowledgeable editors when it is part of a larger article then when it is off by itself. It's much more likely to get treated systematically in relation to other similar pieces of information when they can be seen together. And, if an article can't be in more than one category, then what good are categories? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If there is potential to expand this article to the equivalent of Student_Federation_of_the_University_of_Ottawa or University of Victoria Students' Society, which are not "non-articles", then Keep as a stub. If there is no potential at all for expansion beyond this substub, no matter how dressed up with hyperlink-farms-in-boxes it may be, then Merge. Uncle G 15:54, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
    • Those articles are only expanded by the lists of former presidents. The only relevant information is in the lead, which could be merged into the universities' articles. JoaoRicardo 17:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Then substitute Athabasca_University_Students_Union or McMaster_Students_Union. The point still stands. Some of these student union articles have been clearly padded with fluff, such as contact information (despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a telephone directory) and hyperlink-farms-in-boxes, because there is nothing really significant to say about them apart from "{{UNIVERSITY}} Student Union is the student union for {{subst:UNIVERSITY}} and is a member of {{subst:COLLECTIVEBODY}}". But others have not, because there are significant things to say about the student union. Depending from which of those two categories this student union is in, it should either be kept as a stub or merged. (And the same goes for the other 26 articles, for which this can be viewed as a test case.) Uncle G 12:36, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gtabary 16:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Saint Thomas University. Not enough information for its own article. And the university's article is quite small itself, it could use some expanding. JoaoRicardo 17:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, with clear precedent from the other Canadian university student union articles. (There are really fairly few Canadian universities, btw.) Samaritan 17:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • That's not really much of a precedent, they could all be merged into their respective university articles as well, as has been mentioned. Adam Bishop 17:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • As can all articles on American and British and Swedish student unions. If this goes, they all go. This one is no less notable than any other. Bearcat 04:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Furthemore, a bad precedent is no reason to keep the standard bad. Now, bad is arguable. :-) Gtabary
    • There is no precedent from those articles. 22 of the 26 student union articles were created, and have been largely maintained since, by Spinboy, the creator of this one. Creating an article for every student union in Canada appears to be his project. If anything, the VFD discussion of this article can be viewed as a test case for the whole set of 22 articles. Uncle G 12:36, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
    • Where there is precedent from is Category:United Kingdom Students' Unions. Out of the 700 student unions in the U.K., only 17 have encyclopædia articles in their own right. Ironically, Spinboy cites this as precedent for what he has been doing. But in fact it is precedent for not doing it. Uncle G 12:36, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
      • There already is precedent with the previous vote related to the Students' Society of McGill University. Please, don't attack me. Make your case for deletion, sure, but we can leave the personal attacks outside. --Spinboy 17:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Reporting your very argument from that very debate is not personally attacking you. Uncle G 18:13, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing of importance here. Gamaliel 17:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge main body of article into Saint Thomas University if its not already there. An individual student union never needs a breakout article, and there's hardly an content here anyway. Delete the executive listing as unencyclopedic. If the article creator ever leaves wikipedia I don't know how's going to update things like this, and wikipedia is getting rather full of this sort of stuff. -R. fiend 21:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • "An individual student union never needs a breakout article." Fine, then I trust I'll be seeing all the American and British student unions on VfD by tomorrow...? It's all very well and nice to say this, but when only one such article is actually up for deletion, only that one will actually get deleted. And the bottom line remains that there's no defensible argument for singling this one out; either this stays or they all go. Bearcat 05:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.... some student organizations are notable (see Yale's Skull and Bones Society, for example), but not this one. --Idont Havaname 22:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing in the article. kaal 00:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: nonnotable organization. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not yet notable enough, nothing here worth merging. Megan1967 01:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect or Delete. There's nothing here particularly notable. Mackensen (talk) 06:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect/delete, no preference as to which. That there exists a category for Canadian student unions is bad enough. Madame Sosostris 06:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. There seems to be a clear precedent for other student union articles from other countries as seen in Category:Students' unions. Although I don't know how notable St. Thomas University is (not being from New Brunswick), since all public universities in Canada are notable enough, I believe that the university is notable enough. I am making this a weak keep because I don't know how notable the student union itself is, though I'd be inclined to guess that it is also notable enough. --Deathphoenix 18:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. --fvw* 19:00, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • As I've already noted in several other VfDs today, this is yet another case where you can't make a defensible distinction between which ones are notable and which ones aren't. Either this stays or every article in Category:Canadian Students' Associations goes. And there's no legitimate argument for deleting this but letting American or British student union articles stand, either. The only acceptable options are keep this, or delete all university student unions, period; nothing in between is appropriate. Bearcat 19:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • That's a good point. Maybe we should go put those British and American articles up on VfD next. --Spinboy 19:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • That's an absolutely fantastic idea. Go for it! Nobody cares about these unions except the people who are in them anyway, and they can jus get their own damn sites. Madame Sosostris 05:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • False dichotomy. Your argument is equivalent to posting "keep this, or delete all biographical articles, period" on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Michelle stephens. —Korath (Talk) 20:05, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Disagreed. Biographical articles are not equivalent; there are objective standards of notability that can be applied (though, granted, some subjectivity may come into play with borderline cases). University student unions, however, a topic where notability comes as a group; either they're all legitimately notable or none of them are. If you believe differently, then please, explain to me how you draw the distinction between a notable student union and a non-notable one, because the standard that I see being applied here is "Canadian university = a priori non-notable student union". Bearcat 20:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Most of the people voting on this aren't even Canadian. Yes, a few may not be deleted, due to historical significance, but Bearcat is right. This comes down to is the group notable or not. And if not, why doesn't it apply to British and American student unions? I see a double standard. --Spinboy 21:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Personally I voted to merge this because of the relative lack of content, compared to, say, the Glasgow University Union article, which I voted to keep. I'm not Scottish, and this has nothing to do with any lack of respect for Canada as a nation. I don't consider every student union encyclopedic, but would at least consider voting to keep the article on this one if it can be shown to have a relatively long history, previous presidents who have gone on to do something important etc. In the article's present state, I can't tell whether the union is of even the least significance to anybody outside the present student body of the university. / up+land 10:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Carrp 20:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --JuntungWu 09:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Though the content of the page is minimal, and there is as yet little I can see in the article to suggest notability, I have a bit of a concern with a page that gets slammed with a re-direct within a half-hour of its creation. Wouldn't it be a bit more polite to hold off and watch a page for stagnation, say 48-72 hours or more to give it a chance for improvement? I know some of the articles I've started are far from being finished... but I also go to work at 8am and generally don't get home until 10pm. Between article updates, I do additional research, hunt down spellings of names and dates, etc. in the name of accuracy. If I was Spinboy, I might get a wee bit hot under the collar myself. The biggest downfall of VfD is the failure of the process to adequately address works in progress IMHO. Weaponofmassinstruction 04:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. A sentence or two on why it is notable would have been helpful; but he shouldn't work on it now until the VfD process is complete, and if it is going to be deleted because its notability can't be established, it will have been a good thing that he didn't waste too much time on it. --BM 12:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Student organizations do not inherently merit articles. The encyclopedic content of this article could be summarized as "St. Thomas University has a Students' Union", a sentence which can be included in the school's page. The officers' names are of no interest, the brief description of activities is already implied by the words "Students' Union", and the contact info is beside the point in an encyclopedia. Isomorphic 22:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as above, there is precedent. Also, this union is notable per its way above average student participation - the voter turn out is around 80% where most Canadian universities are at 20 or less and they recently had a successful campaign to get a universal bus pass with the city despite the much larger UNB withdrawing from the deal. - Jord 04:49, 5 Feb 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 with a strong recommendation to merge.

Reminder: Merge does not destroy history and does not require VfD-level concensus to carry out. Further discussions about decision to merge should be made on the relevant talk pages. Rossami (talk) 23:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

St. Thomas Tommies[edit]

Stub article that doesn't establish notability, and there's an entire category of stubs. --Spinboy 05:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Ironic that Spinboy wants to delete this, but wants to keep an equally content-free article about the University's student union. So, Spinboy, if the athletic department's address and phone number were added, wouldn't that make this as notable as your article? Merge this article into Saint Thomas University, just as I have been trying to do with the student union article. RickK 05:57, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge single-sentence substub without potential for expansion. —Korath (Talk) 06:34, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC) Was already merged before vfd, so redirect. —Korath (Talk) 05:56, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gtabary 16:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The potential for considerable expansion about the noteworthy achievements of Canadian Interuniversity Sport teams - this is the Canadian equivalent to the NCAA, people (albeit with fewer teams, given fewer universities, and with a somewhat smaller public profile, but it's the exact equivalent) - should be obvious. Samaritan 17:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Your argument confuses me. Granted, Canadian Interuniversity Sport is equivalent to NCAA and should be kept. But no-one nominated Canadian Interuniversity Sport for deletion. St. Thomas Tommies, on the other hand, is a sub-stub about the nickname for the teams of a single university. Even the NCAA article does not attempt to discuss or even link to every team. Unless further evidence is presented, RickK's merge makes the most sense. Rossami (talk) 22:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Major NCAA teams are notable. The St. Thomas teams, I'll admit, are not as major in the scheme of things as a major NCAA team. But they're as notable in the distinct context of Canadian as one of the upper-tier NCAA teams. Their men's hockey (and this is Canada!) recently made the nationals. And the title encompasses multiple teams. It's certainly expandible to a point that would clog Saint Thomas University, so why stomp down on it now? Samaritan 05:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Because the entirety of the article is already in Saint Thomas University and not "clogging" it, despite the parent article itself being a stub. Articles shouldn't be split until their sections have already expanded enough to merit it; see Wikipedia:Article size. It's difficult even to argue that it provides information that's not obvious from the article title. —Korath (Talk) 05:52, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - has potential to be an valuable article.No Guru 20:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting and encyclopedic. GRider\talk 00:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete- kaal 00:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, borderline not notable. Megan1967 01:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Korath. No merge is needed, so Redirect. Uncle G 16:11, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • I created the Canadian Interuniversity Sport stubs, because only a few teams in the federation had existing articles. Articles such as Vanier Cup were linking to a mix of teams with the article already written (eg. Ottawa Gee Gees), redlinked teams in other cases, and the universities in others, which is inaccurate -- Laval University did not win the 2004 Vanier Cup; the Laval Rouge-et-Or did. Consistency is necessary here. There is no defensible distinction to be drawn between which CIS teams deserve articles and which don't, and there is no defensible argument in which American university athletics teams are notable but Canadian ones are delete-worthy. The only acceptable options are keep this, or delete all university sports teams, period; nothing in between is appropriate. Article is expandable. Bearcat 18:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep and expand. If some CIAU teams have articles, then there is no reason that all CIAU teams (including the Tommies) should not have articles. However, perhaps the more relevant question has to do with whether the individual CIAU teams should have articles. If there is so little content, then perhaps they should all be contained within a CIAU page or individual university pages. Still, users are likely to create pages and links for other CIAU teams, which will bring us right back to the current situation. We might as well expand the article. --Westendgirl 03:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know about Canada, but a lot of American universities are fronts for semi-professional sports teams. In those cases, I modestly propose we merge and redirect the article on the university to the article about the team. Meanwhile, unless something similar is true with St. Thomas and the Tommies, I vote delete. --BM 18:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into the school's article. Incidentally, if a separate article were to exist, I would probably call it "St. Thomas University athletics program" or something similar. Isomorphic 22:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe that all CIAU teams are worthy of articles. -- James Teterenko (talk) 05:51, 2 Feb 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. I've done so. Mgm|(talk) 13:37, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Courtney Jill Kobylanski[edit]

Vanity. 'Delete.-gadfium 05:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. Gtabary 16:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the epitome of a vanity article. 23skidoo 05:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Bearcat 18:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no encyclopedic context and none coming. Samaritan 18:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Spinboy 00:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I'd sure like to get to know her. Riffsyphon1024 20:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep None of you even took the time to google her? I'm voting to keep. -GregNorc (talk) 01:15, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • I did google her. I searched on "Courtney Jill Kobylanski", "Courtney Kobylanski" and "Jill Kobylanski", and got exactly two results each time: the very page under debate, and VfD itself. What's your basis for claiming that she's notable enough to keep, exactly? Bearcat 03:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Lemme guess-- girlfriendcruft? Delete. Edeans 07:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I was also able to find this link about her. - James Teterenko (talk) 05:36, 2 Feb 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: 5 votes, Keep: 3 votes. NO CLEAR CONSENSUS. Mgm|(talk) 19:30, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

S. L. Greitzer[edit]

This has been sitting around for many months without being expanded. The subject wrote a textbook. Is that sufficient?. I think not, but I'd reconsider if it was expanded.-gadfium 06:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Would be indeed nice to see it expended. It's a weak keep. Gtabary 16:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I nominated this as a speedy, as it is nothing except the title of a book. Even if this could be expanded, I doubt it's worthy of inclusion. Delete. I still maintain it's speedy material. -R. fiend 21:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Samuel L. Greitzer gets quite a few hits on Google (for a mathematician) and in JSTOR and has authored or co-authored a few books in the LoC catalogue. He may well deserve an article at some point, but I don't feel passionately enough about it to research it properly and as there is no article to save in any case, it might as well be deleted. Somebody else can restart the article. (It will be a "keep" if somebody expands it in the next few days, of course.) / up+land 22:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: not an article. I'm willing to reconsider if someone expands it. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, in need of definite expansion. Megan1967 02:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless this were to contain a biography, a simple statement about a single book that the subject of the article co-authored is grounds for a delete. If this person were an actor or a musician, this article with its current content would (probably) be deleted. If someone knows more about Greitzer, they'd be more inclined to write a biography if this were a red link article instead of a substub. --Deathphoenix 18:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If they wrote a textbook, they must be pretty good at what they do. -GregNorc (talk) 01:16, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no significant publications in Math journals (a few commentaries on math competitions), one high school maths textbook does not meet the criteria for notability --nixie 01:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:36, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Economic Theorems and Functionals[edit]

Last essay/original research from Bruce McGillis that hasn't been deleted already. Gazpacho 06:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. A list of half-truths and trivialities. Not encyclopedic. jni 19:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, un-eneyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it receives a serious edit. The unsubstantiated opinions (which are at least half the article) need to be exorcised. mydogategodshat 04:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that this is original research, and considering that the author's other works of original research have been deleted... well, this certainly should be deleted. --Deathphoenix 18:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. --Idont Havaname 01:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:35, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

TFQ[edit]

Non-notable piece of software. — Ливай | ☺ 07:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, They are still creating it. If it gains notability, then maybe. Inter 12:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair 10:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think we need an article about a non-notable vapour-mod that's still being created. --Deathphoenix 18:35, 28 Jan 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 not clear, but User:Daelin was bold and merged it. Mgm|(talk) 19:36, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Malachor V[edit]

Ignoring the grammar, this article has no potential beyond being a footnote to KOTOR II. As an alternative it could be merged with the KOTOR II article, but it's about 90% longer than it deserves. The location has no reference in any other Star Wars literature—being basically an object to blow up for shits and giggles. —Daelin 07:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've merged the article with Planets of Star Wars. This is my first merge, so I hope I've done it right. I'm rethinking moving it to KOTOR II instead. At the time, Planets seemed more specific, but KOTOR II would be of more interest. (sigh) —Daelin 00:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:34, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Slot[edit]

Dictdef. Apparently copied from the 1913 Webster's Dictionary (see http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/slot - scroll down), so not a copyvio, but still not an article. RickK 07:26, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • More or less this exact thing is already in wiktionary [4], so delete. Kappa 07:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • What, unlike The Disciple, Slot isn't a character in a video game? Why then, delete! -- Hoary 09:08, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
  • Delete. Existing dicdef. Gtabary 16:12, 27 Jan 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. Mgm|(talk) 19:47, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Axial World[edit]

No potential to become encyclopedic. This user may be the originator and sole user of this term. See Timeline of the Axial World's History and his user page, A.Khalil. --Paraphelion 07:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. No reference, no book, not a quote from somone ? WTH is this article ? A hoax, a joke ? Timeline of the Axial World's History is just a selective chronology which looks arbitrary to me. 54 hits on ' "axial world" '. Can't make up my mind. Gtabary 16:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Most of those hits are not the use this person is talking about, I think. --Paraphelion 17:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research Cdc 16:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is obvious that this is a work in progress. I vote to keep it for a while and see how it ends up. The premise of the article might be original as stated above, but it is interesting to those, like me, involved in the area studies. ItisIAnonymous 21:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why did you remove the citation of 'Ahmed Khalil' from the article? --Paraphelion 09:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. Shimeru 23:05, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Work in progress, perhaps; but that's no excuse. Delete both articles. humblefool 01:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research Kostja 08:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 59 hits on Google, and referring to the same subject, example: "Axial world religions" (=Juedo_Christian_Moselm). --Alif 01:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both pages. There are already enough terms to refer to this area, we don't need another. Adam Bishop 20:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, has potential to expand. Megan1967 02:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I used to make up words, and even whole alphabets. I never tried to create encyclopedia articles about them, though. Delete. Edeans 07:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "Axial Age" is a well-known term; but "Axial World" seems to be a neologism coined from it. Delete - Mustafaa 20:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:34, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Merf[edit]

Steaming pile of furry poo. Really, any standard delete reason fits here. silsor 08:03, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Ugh, delete. -- Hoary 09:16, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
  • Delete -- means something to somebody, but means nothing to me. Longhair 10:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Besides, the definition is not completly right anyways. Redirect to Furry maybe? --Conti|✉ 11:50, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, To Furry. Inter 12:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Supposedly a dicdef but I can't find it! Gtabary 16:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dicdef. --Idont Havaname 22:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Furry. Megan1967 02:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "Furry poo" may be too kind. Delete. Edeans 07:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "Merf", said the article, as it was deleted. Isomorphic 22:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:31, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Umenwoke[edit]

About a surname. -- Hoary 09:12, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

  • Vanity, about the creator's surname. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 11:22, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, family vanity. Megan1967 02:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Though it was I who nominated this for VfD, you'll notice that I didn't add '''delete'''. I didn't and don't have any strong desire to see it deleted; I merely listed it here as it's my understanding that surnames usually don't get articles. I'm not qualified to judge the notability of this particular surname, and I'm suspicious about the word "popular", but otherwise I find the article informative and suspect that it's worthwhile. Certainly some surnames should and do get articles: see Kim (Korean name). Unfortunately the latter article doesn't tell me what I want to know: why such an enormous percentage of Koreans have this surname -- however, if I wanted to look this up (in English rather than in Korean, which unfortunately I can't read), Wikipedia is where I'd look for it. Meanwhile, Wikipedia welcomes seemingly endless articles about characters in or features of, say, this or that US TV scifi series (attempts at VfD are resisted indignantly), whereas I'd have thought that anyone interested in that material to that degree would find and use the relevant fansite. -- Hoary 09:33, 2005 Jan 28 (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 CLEAR CONSENSUS. Mgm|(talk) 19:53, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

IntellNet Software[edit]

This was marked as speedy but is not a CSD. Non-notable? No vote (yet). jni 12:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, needs expansion. Megan1967 02:32, 31 Jan 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.

The votes were 2 delete, 2 merge. I'm going to merge it to The Clash (album), where it looks like it will fit nicely. dbenbenn | talk 23:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Protex blue[edit]

Was the song that popular that it deserves its' own article? Longhair 09:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • You're asking for it to be deleted, even if it doesn't deserve its own article it should be merged with the album. If it was a hit single I vote keep. Kappa 10:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge in The Clash and delete. Gtabary 16:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Very unnotable song by the Clash. Some Clash songs deserve articles (perhaps many do), but not this one. The only interesting thing about it is that it was named for a condom and the line "Protex blue; all I wanna do" was a thinly veiled announcement of how horny Mick Jones was. Delete, because I don't think it can be merged elegantly into the Clash article. -R. fiend 19:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 02:20, 28 Jan 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.

I count 14 clear delete votes, 3 merge and 4 keep as is (with one vote by a troll ignored). Since Riffsyphon1024 was bold and merged the material, I will preserve the attribution history in the receiving article by cut-and-paste. Rossami (talk) 23:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mt. Ararat Middle School[edit]

Found this from our {{unencyclopedic}} department. A non-notable middle school. jni 10:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep It's a school. Philip 11:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything relevant with the appropriate geographical article (Topsham (town), Maine?). What is currently here isn't notable, significant, influential, encyclopedic or useful (if you want the phone number, get out the yellow pages). Average Earthman 13:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a school. Gtabary 16:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)      ( Seriously: "Mount Ararat Middle School" -> 185 hits "Mt Ararat Middle School" -> 758 hits. That is why it's non notable yest. And no, because something is a true fact does not make it necessarily a legitimate article topic. Gtabary 16:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising. Xezbeth 22:01, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • School. Keep, obviously. --Centauri 02:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm willing to tolerate articles about schools. This, however, is not an article. At best, it's an external link plus a half-literate, POV rant. —Korath (Talk) 03:17, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. Gamaliel 04:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Cleanup with Topsham, Maine. Also the phone number and address is unnecessary. Also needs numerous spelling corrections and NPOV. Other than that, it's crap. Riffsyphon1024 20:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have just merged it into Topsham, Maine. Riffsyphon1024 20:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not a fan of deleting pages because they are schools.... but there isn't anything here really... Weaponofmassinstruction 00:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even has references - David Gerard 22:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge/redir to Maine School Administrative District 75. Niteowlneils 01:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Mount Ararat Middle School. GRider\talk 18:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I fail to see how, say, a school is inherently notable for some people, but a nightclub is not. And has anyone noted how low-quality most of these articles are? Lacrimosus 20:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I have noticed. Many times. *sigh* Edeans 07:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 23:45, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not just schoolcruft, but promotion to boot. Edeans 07:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Topsham (town), Maine as suggested by Average Earthman. —RaD Man (talk) 10:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No brainer HowardB 13:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Middle schools are not inherently notable, and there isn't anything worthy of the name "article" here anyway. Isomorphic 22:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. school. Yuckfoo 18:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:30, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Arnold van Bezooyen[edit]

Although comparatively well written, it's still a vanity article that does not establish notability -- Ferkelparade π 10:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Not fully agreed with your 'vanity remark'. Why? In the design profession it is common to use personal names when referring to their work. This is not for 'getting your credits', but to reflect that designed products or services are often signed by a designer(team) thinking/characteristics. Design work should reflect the unique personality of a designer (imho), and should therefore be associated with him/her. Should you have doubts on my current/future contributions in the field of materials & design, then I understand your 'vote for deletion' and will respect the public voice. I hope you understand that I am contributing to Wikipedia not for 'shameless self promotion', but do this because I value the initiative and its (believe it or not :) design importance. PS : how do you manage to get your name/timestamp to your remark? Is this a signature? Arnold van Bezooyen, 27 Jan 2005 -- Arnoldo
    • "Vanity" is one of the VFD jargon terms, which you should familiarise yourself with if you want to understand what is written here, that refers to a Wikipedia:vanity page, the criteria for which your article fulfils. If you want an encyclopaedia entry, you'll have to demonstrate in the article what is notable about you that distinguishes you from all of the other millions of industrial designers in the world who were born, went to school, and worked in design jobs, and who also want their own encyclopaedia articles. As for signatures, please read Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Commenting_on_a_listing_for_deletion. Uncle G 16:16, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
    • More than that, autobiographical articles, even if written by a notable subject, are generally frowned upon here. Wikipedia:Autobiography covers this well. Cdc 16:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • No notability established. Userfy Uncle G 16:16, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like advertisement, a CV on the WP. Vanity indeed. Gtabary 16:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Understood, and thank you for your feedback Uncle G. I guess my information is more suitable in my user page (until the day I have become notable of course ;). Nothing left but saying hello to you guys, and see you later. Arnoldo 20:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the content has been moved to Arnoldo's user page, I believe this qualifies as a speedy delete (redirect case 2 - leftover after moving a user page out of the article space). This article is not strictly a redirect but only because the article was moved by cut-and-paste instead of by using the "move" button. Unless there is objection, I will clean this leftover in 24 hours. Rossami (talk) 22:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:29, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Diamond joe[edit]

Band vanity -- Ferkelparade π 11:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • delete I agree this is nothing but band vanity. Thryduulf 11:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion, and no evidence of notability is given. Tuf-Kat 05:44, Jan 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 delete. Joyous 01:29, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Dominic T. Gonzales[edit]

Non-notable vanity page: "he also is known internationally for celebrating life in Rochester, New York, and Dallas, Texas." Zero Google hits for "Dominic Teodoro Gonzales", 1 for "Dominic T. Gonzales" (a credit at the bottom of a webpage; may be unrelated). Primarily a list of "influences" and job history, including an internship. User has one additional edit, adding a link to this page from May 9, which should also be removed. 68.81.231.127 11:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Dwain 22:44, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, possible vanity, political candidate advertisement. Megan1967 02:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this political resume. Please. Edeans 07:45, 1 Feb 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 after it was expanded. Mgm|(talk) 20:03, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Peace dividend[edit]

Recommend merge this with economics if applicable, and delete. Inter 11:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • keep -- both Google and I have heard of the term; a bit of a substub but it's a substub on a notable subject. Dunc|☺ 12:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep -- The term is indeed used in economics, and enough info is out there on the topic so that at least five or six paragraphs could be written on it. That's enough to warrant its own page, I should think. Eric Herboso 12:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable term. At least do not merge to economics, needs a merge target with same level of abstraction. Failing to find one I'm voting plain keep. jni 13:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. IMO this is not a substub at all, but a stub. But then I've never really understood what a keepable substub was supposed to be or achieve anyway. Anything that is worth keeping because we think it will grow into an article is, AFAIK, a stub plain and simple. Andrewa 14:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it was a substub when it was listed, but the expansion has made it a nice, if not perfect, stub. - RedWordSmith 18:47, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could be expanded. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 19:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:28, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Adam brinley codd[edit]

Vanity Page. No use. Pufferfish101 12:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Dr Gangrene 16:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Vanity No Guru 20:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Infrogmation 21:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted. Content was:

Adam Brinley Codd

Born 1983

Interests: Computers and Politics RickK 05:55, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:28, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hayley Kathleen MacDonald[edit]

Non notable, probably vanity. --BesigedB (talk) 12:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Unless her age is exceptional, I don't see why this is encyclopedia material. Delete Mgm|(talk) 12:32, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Certainly vanity, and probably untrue as well. (Wouldn't an honors student know to write "an honors" rather than "a honners"?)--Angr 13:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:25, 28 Jan 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 Trogdor, which I have done. Mgm|(talk) 20:39, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Burnination[edit]

Looks like a neologism. Orphan. Is it worth merging or should it be deleted? Mgm|(talk) 12:36, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - pretty much all that can be said about burnination is already present in the Trogdor article,l so there's no real reason to merge anything -- Ferkelparade π 12:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose a redirect to Trogdor would be harmless. — Ливай | ☺ 13:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Trogdor. Sure it's a new word, but it has a bit of a cult following and is rather well-known (as neologisms go). I encountered many references to 'burnination' before hearing about Trogdor. Redirects are cheap, and helps us avoid what is otherwise likely to be a permanently stubby article. --TenOfAllTrades 18:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, could be looked up. Grue 20:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Trogdor. I only WISH this wasn't common use, but I hear it all the time. The popularity of Homestar Runner has made this noteable. --InShaneee 20:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Trogdor, for reasons given already. --Idont Havaname 23:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. to Trogdor. "Burnination" has taken on a life of its own but it still doesn't merit its own article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Trogdor. Megan1967 02:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Trogdor. GRider\talk 19:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Trogdor. Failing that, burninate it in a thatched-roofed cottage. Edeans 07:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Trogdor. --Matteh (talk) 19:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The votes were 6 keep, 1 redirect, 3 delete. dbenbenn | talk 00:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Medicare card[edit]

Stub with no potential to become encyclopedic. The Medicare (Australia) page mentions the existence of the card; that should be sufficient. --Angr 13:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or redirect to Medicare? Cdc 16:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Australia is not the only place with a medicare card. Redirect makes more sense. 132.205.45.148 22:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Medicare (Australia). -- Longhair 23:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Excellent encyclopedic article with potential to expand into something more substantial, useful and interesting. There have been various different types of cards since they were first introduced, and numerous proposals to use them as a form of national ID. This article is the place to document all of that. --Centauri 02:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, article needs definite expansion, but as has been pointed out many countries have a Medicare card, so the article may have to be moved to "Medicare card (Australia)" and existing page turned into a disambig page. Megan1967 02:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, could use expansion on history of the cards, use of similar cards in other places (Canadian provinces have similar card systems). The main article could have subarticles or simply links to Medicare articles.--Circeus 15:37, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, probably with sections for each Medicare card. The OHIP medicare card here in Ontario (mostly, it should be said, called the "health card") has been the subject of public debate for ages - we long used a white card with simply name and number, and one government was going to add photos over a green background of trilliums. The opposition whined that green was the ruling party's secondary official colour, but the blue opposition stuck with it when they got in power. There was much allegation of fraudulent cards having been manufactured and sold to Americans. Samaritan 19:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you want an article on the canadian health cards, then make a seperate article. --Spinboy 00:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • But if the article on the Australian ones (a stub, yes, but you have to start somewhere) had been deleted as you're voting to do now, why bother? Samaritan 14:20, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Philip 15:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --JuntungWu 09:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:27, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Seniomeritocracy[edit]

Article outlining a hypothetical form of governance. Original research, as essentially admitted by its original author (see the article's talk page). It's actually pretty well-written, but ought to be moved to Wikinfo.

Note: this does NOT appear to be by Iasson. --Calton 13:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. While it does seem to exist, it hasn't reached notability yet (297 Google hits). But it's closer to being notable than Seniocracy is. --Idont Havaname 23:17, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I couldn't find a Google hit among those 297 hits that wasn't explicitly or implicitly from Wikipedia. So no, it doesn't seem to exist. --Calton 00:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting find. I also beleive it's not by Iasson, but it's not encyclopedic. Very polite delete, and shop around for alternative outlets for the article, AAAAA. humblefool 00:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, not yet notable enough neologism. Megan1967 02:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even as a neologism its a barbarism. This isn't about anything. We can all make up words and invent stuff about them. --Wetman
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No hits in LexisNexis or ProQuest, see Talk:Seniomeritocracy. Rhobite 19:53, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I read the talk, and it's clear this term doesn't exist in the wild. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 07:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleteotransmorgrify. Lookitme! I can make up words too! Edeans 08:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:25, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Seniocracy[edit]

Article much like Seniomeritocracy above, outlining a hypothetical form of governance. Looks like original research, though I haven't asked its creator directly. This also ought to be moved to Wikinfo.

Note: this does NOT appear to be by Iasson. --Calton 13:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Seems like an interesting and accurate theory, but 25 Google hits don't spell notability for it. Come back when the word's gotten around about it. Right now it's still in the neologism stage. --Idont Havaname 22:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Same as above vote for the deletion of Seniomeritocracy. humblefool 01:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, not yet notable enough neologism. Megan1967 02:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rhobite 19:55, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 07:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Seniodelete. Edeans 08:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Faethon 08:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:23, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)


Vanity. Move to user page and delete. Inter 14:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oops, this might have been CSD'ed while I made a VfD and due to WP being excruciatingly slow, I didn't notice. Inter 14:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I did speedy it. I couldn't make heads or tails of it, and in any case: whose user page would that supposed to be? It was created by 217.168.83.114... So, move to user space if we can figure out where to, otherwise delete. Lupo 14:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:22, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

CBHQ[edit]

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 15:06, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

  • KEEP Doesn't need to have notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so should contain all things, notable or not. JoeBaldwin 15:12, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • As the owner of the site in question, I found the original article to be questionable and riddled with inaccuracies. I managed to correct a few elements so it is looking tidier. Ultimately if it can be refined a little further then I would vote to keep it. With regards notability, CBHQ did achieve a great deal on the internet including uncovering 419 scammers, exposing security flaws in guestbooks, etc. cbhq.co.uk 15:51, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The umpteenth web site for self-absorbed teen nerds who think trolling equals notability. Yawn. --Plek 17:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Non-notable forumcruft. Delete. RickK 20:51, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok our banned former members are coming here and editing the thing to make me look a cunt every 5 seconds so I think we may as well delete it. cbhq.co.uk 22:08, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP This is interesting reading for many people. (81.86.255.0 23:01, 2005 Jan 27 according to history. Uncle G 16:38, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC))
  • Delete ^^^ by "editing it to make me look a c*nt", he means "editing it so it tells the truth about what a nasty piece of work I am". (84.66.99.8 23:23, 2005 Jan 27 according to history. Uncle G 16:38, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC))
  • Delete the article and the vandals it's bringing over here... Long articles don't equal notability... and as it's been said, this is forumcruft just like all that Something Awful-related mess that we've gotten VfDs on recently. --Idont Havaname 23:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete trollcruft. —Korath (Talk) 03:21, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The history of CBHQ is a controversial topic, and the "vandals" are mostly sticking to just this one page, as they have personal issues with Williams which have yet to be settled. I have added a note to the page saying that before any changes are made they must be approved on the discussion page. I hope that this is enough to save the page, as it is an interesting story and definitely worthy of Wikipedia. CBHQ has had an impact on the Internet in many ways (e.g highlighting guestbook flaws) and is therefore notable. - JoeBaldwin (posted without logging in at college) (212.219.92.98 13:22, 2005 Jan 28 according to history. Uncle G 16:38, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC))
  • Delete as utterly and completely non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • A long-winded description of the infighting amongst a small band of non-notable people in a non-notable forum, given in mind-numbing detail. Delete. Uncle G 16:38, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Apologies for our internal problems being brought over here when it's not really something that you guys need to deal with. Joe's been kicked from cbhq as frankly everyone's fed up of him and his ridiculous flouncing, and general weirdness.

  • Delete. And then delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:31, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established. Wikipedia is not a webguide. Indrian 23:49, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this throughly boring trollcruft. Please. Edeans 08:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:21, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Coldfire[edit]

Was listed for speedy, but doesn't meet the criteria. I'm guessing it was marked for deletion due to non-notability. Lachatdelarue (talk) 15:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Article admits that they are not signed to a record label. Average Earthman 16:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. — Asbestos | Talk 20:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep a quote from the deletion policy "Are short almost useless stubs to be kept? - Yes" however i suggest it be moved to the MusicWiki. (Unsigned vot from 68.220.78.181. Anon's third edit. — Asbestos | Talk 11:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete. Not an almost useless stub so much as a completely unnotable band. -R. fiend 23:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion, and no evidence of notability is given. Tuf-Kat 05:45, Jan 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(K=9 votes, D=3 votes, 1 neutral). Mgm|(talk) 20:47, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Alt.fan.warlord[edit]

Newsgroup vanity. --fvw* 15:30, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

  • Delete Cdc 16:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup this newsgroup is certainly notable (it is mentioned in Jargon File for example). Grue 20:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Warlording was the AYBABTU of the early '90s. iMeowbot~Mw 21:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral - this was a Usenet phenomenon of some note back in the early/mid 1990s and as such might be written about encyclopedically, but the current article is very weak on information or context. Keep if someone bothers to make significant improvement, otherwise deleting would be no loss. -- Infrogmation 21:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thoroughly uninteresting and unencyclopedic. -R. fiend 23:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Noteworthy enough as a Usenet phenomenon. Shimeru 23:14, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thoroughly interesting and encyclopedic. GRider\talk 23:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Expand. Has some potential. But if no one bothers, delete. Pufferfish101 0:50, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand, historical Usenet phenomenon. Megan1967 02:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Expanded. Shimeru 09:36, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not an expert with alt.fan.warlord, but I am familiar with "warlording" and .sig problems. This is an interesting Usernet history article, and is certainly notable enough to warrant an inclusion. Oh, and some forum signatures I've seen would do well to heed this article.
  • Keep and expand. Notable, but could still benefit from some more info, especially some sources or external links beyond the group itself. – Beginning 19:57, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable historical Usenet phenomenon. Gamaliel 20:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: maybe a Wiktionary entry lurking in here, but nothing particularly encyclopedic. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:32, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Careful, Jmabel. I've recently witnessed biased VfD admins gaming the vote count by counting "weak" votes as half votes in order to delete an article. Please bare this in mind. GRider\talk 19:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Since Jmabel voted delete, cutting that vote in half would boost the count for the keep tally. But don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory! Gamaliel 19:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Very funny, but this is not a conspiracy theory, it happened last week in fact. [5] If he really feels this should be deleted then he should submit a regular vote of delete, less it be counted as a "half vote". You misread my intent. GRider\talk 20:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:10, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Dr PJ Lang[edit]

Listed as speedy, but doesn't meet criteria. Probably marked as such due to non-notability/vanity. Lachatdelarue (talk) 15:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable. The guy probably doesn't even exist (no google hits) As such, it met the firs criteria for a speedy Glaurung 16:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It actually didn't meet the first criterion for speedy deletions, it wasn't patent nonsense or the like. But, the author blanked the page after it was listed here, so I'm sure it can be speedied now. Lachatdelarue (talk) 16:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity more appropriate for a user page. Author's self blanking lends weight to this vote, but I believe it's only a CSD (#10) if the author *requests* it to be deleted, not if the author blanks the page. Please correct me if I'm wrong, in which case I'd change my vote to a speedy delete. --Deathphoenix 18:48, 28 Jan 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 15 Delete / 7 Keep / 1 Redirect (Leyden High School District). Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

East Leyden High School[edit]

High school vanity stub Bumm13 16:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Unless there's really something that distinguishes East Leyden H.S. from other U.S. high schools, it's simply vanity. It's also a stub with only information about the city it is located in. Bumm13 16:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, positively useless single-sentence nanostub. Should be a speedy delete under criterion #4 IMO...and not because it's about a school. I'd vote the same for any subject presented this poorly. - Lucky 6.9 23:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same anonymous editor created a dozen or two such microstubs. IIRC he was also responsible for the prank article Smith N. Jones High School which doesn't speak well for the reliability of his other creations. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Public institutions are inherently notable. What goes for suburbs and railway stations goes for schools.--Centauri 02:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless expanded to show notability.-gadfium 03:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. —Korath (Talk) 03:28, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: holy crow, are we still debating every school article here? Why is it that every other policy on Wikipedia gets hashed out through existing processes and this never does, or people refuse to accept the policy that's established? This is the very thing that made me give up participating in the Vfd process once before. It's madness, I tell you, madness. Jgm 03:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Based on the current number of school VFDs I think the answer to your question is "yes", unfortunately. --Centauri 08:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I strongly agree, and appreciate the The Bridge Over the River Kwai reference. Edeans 08:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It may be worthwhile to add an education section to the respective geographic article, but these sub-sub stubs only serve to irritate and annoy. And no, filling the article out with pointless blather wouldn't help. Average Earthman 13:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless sub-stub. Gamaliel 04:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to WikiSchools and DELETE. Denni☯ 05:19, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
    • Keep This is the first time I've heard of Wikischools. What's the point of such a site? How many people will ever visit it? I want Wikipedia to be all embracing. Philip 15:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Google says there is no WikiSchools. --Idont Havaname 01:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not a subject, it's a sentence. If there was any information at all other than the notation that it is a school, I would vote for keep.... but as there isn't, I'll pass.Weaponofmassinstruction 00:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. --Idont Havaname 01:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redir to Leyden High School District 212 which has more info on the school. Niteowlneils 01:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable vanity stub. Jayjg (talk) 03:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. All public institutions are *not* notable. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 08:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful school stub. GRider\talk 18:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Carrp 18:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 23:53, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As said. —Ben Brockert (42) 00:53, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:16, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this schoolcruft. Edeans 08:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schools are inherently notable. No such thing as school articles being vanity or schoolcruft. --Andylkl 10:17, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Except of course, when the only editor of the article is one who went there, and when that only editor is the only person on the entire Wikipedia in a position to improve the quality and accuracy of the article (which they seldom will do). Schools are not inherently notable; the proliferation of such articles is not a testament to WP's coverage, but to its systemic bias. Delete. Lacrimosus 19:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mmmmmm, schoolcruft. It's whats for dinner. —RaD Man (talk) 22:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but Expand, schools are notable CunningLinguist 01:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but Expand. There's nothing especially notable about most of the other high schools listed in Wikipedia either. --BaronLarf 17:25, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Two wrongs don't make a right. —Korath (Talk) 18:12, Feb 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. Joyous 01:10, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Jill Gubbins[edit]

Noteable? I don't think so. Delete, and the image, too. Lupo 15:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - not every reporter is notable - she isn't yet, if the article is to be believed. The image is a copyright violation; it's lifted from the byline of the linked article. Cdc 16:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see no notability. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. Dbiv 00:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No notability and the "great pair of battleships" line shows how seriously our author intended it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough. Great pair of battleships are sinking. Megan1967 02:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The terminology used in the article lends the suspicion that this may well have been written as a joke. Image is copyright of the BBC. Average Earthman 13:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Entire text submitted for vfd: "Jill Gubbins (1983- ) Jill Gubbins, an avant garde reporter for the BBC, so far only renowned for her coverage of her own spiritual home, the Rivelin Valley. Works for BBC Stoke after reporting for South Yorkshire during her shakey start with the corporation. Report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/southyorkshire/i_love_sy/spiritual_home/rivelin.shtml). Generally famed for her overuse of words such as 'pesky' or made up words 'fain' and 'pace', she is sure to be remebered by many throughout her travels in Europe, late 2004. Described as many as having a 'great pair of battleships', Gubby has earned a place in the hearts of many a boy in her home of Sheffield, UK."
    • Possible borderline attack page; 37 web hits for "Jill Gubbins". I see that it's since been blanked by the creator, so speedy. Samaritan 21:13, 28 Jan 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 placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:09, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Bin[edit]

Listed for speedy, but doesn't meet the criteria. Probably listed as such due to non-notabiliy/vanity. Lachatdelarue (talk) 16:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable vanity Dr Gangrene 16:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, either vanity or non-notable Carole a 09:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. __earth 07:55, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Doesn't meet the speedy" eh? A waste of our time. --Wetman 08:09, 30 Jan 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. User:Wile E. Heresiarch has speedied it. Mgm|(talk) 20:50, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

English-Chinese translation[edit]

Wrong title, possibly unencyclopedic subject, no context, looks like an advert and could be a copyvio. Other than that, fine. Actually, could be a speedy, but I'll put it here first in case anybody can make sense of it. sjorford:// 16:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I am having huge difficulty matching title to content... Smoddy | ειπετε 22:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speed deleted as patent nonsense. Content unrelated to title, and an incomprehensible mess to boot. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree with speedy deletion. Deleted history reveals it has been speedy deleted several times over the past month by different admins, and probably a few times more before MW 1.4 started providing good logs of deletions. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:08, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Regner[edit]

Pretty sure this is some kid insulting his buddy, but my knowledge of slang is not universal. DJ Clayworth 18:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually I have heard this term used before in a variety of circumstances. It is usually used as an exclamation and it is similiar to "Oh my God!" the point is to remove any hint of blasphemy. SithCommander 18:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • If it means the same thing, I'd still consider it blasphemy, as the "Duh" guy I am. Delete. humblefool 02:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Googling the phrase "regner sucks" gets one hit on a porn site, next to a bunch of other gibberish intended to direct googlers to the site. Googling the word "regnered" gets nothing. This is a "completely idiosyncratic non-topic". --Angr 20:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Personal junk. -- Infrogmation 21:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologous, non-encyclopedic, and without a hope for the future. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:13, 28 Jan 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. I've redirected it to Nuclear fallout. Couldn't find anything to merge. Mgm|(talk) 20:55, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Radioactive cloud[edit]

Believe it or not, a radioactive cloud is a cloud of radioactivity. I cannot see any way in which this can expand to become an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 19:10, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Nuclear fallout. There's nothing to merge, but the term "Radioactive cloud" is established enough to warrant a redirect. --Plek 20:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep/redirect I believe it could be expanded. Grue 20:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Would be a very useful redirect. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge any non-duplicated information with the fallout article. I agree with Smoddy. There might be some potential to discuss fictional radioactive clouds, but that can probably be handled under fallout, too. 23skidoo 23:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, needs definite expansion, if not merge with Nuclear fallout and add redirect. Megan1967 02:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, to fallout --Enigma 02:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Nuclear fallout as specified above. That article contains enough information such that Radioactive cloud isn't needed. --Deathphoenix 18:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect/merge. Samaritan 21:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The votes were 6 keep, 3 delete. dbenbenn | talk 00:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shaba North[edit]

Non notable. ' "Shaba North" ' -> 15 hits, 'Shaba North OTRAG' -> 13 hits. Gtabary 20:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Not really notable. Can't see it expanding. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Shaba was a region of Africa's largest country during the regime of Mobuto Sese Seko. It is most certainly notable and encyclopedic. Keep, rewrite and expand accordingly.--Centauri 02:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, Shaba is indeed notable but Shaba North is not borderline. Megan1967 02:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable as a geographic location. JuntungWu 05:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all real geographic locations. GRider\talk 19:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Including the back garden of my house? Uncle G 19:28, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
      • Certainly. As soon as it's officially gazetted as a political division or otherwise uniquely identified by the geographical names board in your country. :-) --Centauri 05:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • So not "all real geographic locations", then. I thought not. Uncle G 12:42, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Keep and send to Cleanup. There have been a whole slew of rocket launch site and test range site articles added to Wikipedia within the past month, some of which I've run a first pass over. (I've found, incidentally, that if one sticks a {{geo-stub}} on them (or a more specific stub, if one knows it) they sometimes see improvement. I do wish, though, that the anonymous author would (a) create a user account so that we can find all of the articles in order to tag them, (b) not write in telegraphese, and (c) learn, and apply, wiki markup.) Whilst not mainstream, at least these articles are about real places and their reasonably notable uses and histories. (Perhaps I should recommend (d) to the author as well: Disguise your articles to make them appear as if they are about Digimon characters, and then no-one will dare VFD them.) Uncle G 19:28, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • weak keep and cleanup. There have been a plethora of geo-stubs about rocketry sites arriving in the last few days, probably all the work of one Wikipedian. They're all about this length, and weren't connected anywhere useful. Hopefully they're mainly now in their correct regional stub categories where people will spot them and work on them further. Grutness|hello? 07:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is _not_ about a geographic location but about the launch site of the first OTRAG rocket. This is what must be considered here. This is what is non notable. I indeed saw the geographic location could be notable, but it's not about that. Therefore vfd. Gtabary 10:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - perfectly valid topic on African launch site. --Rlandmann 13:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:07, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Kuriki[edit]

Many reasons. Non-notable (2 hits on google), unencyclopedic. --Woohookitty 20:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Un-understandable, thus, unencyclopaedic. --Neigel von Teighen 20:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A game instruction manual? Not encyclopedic. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non verifiable. Gtabary 10:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Defaulting to "keep." Joyous 00:11, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)


Pizzeria Napoli (Baghdad)[edit]

Article on a restaurant. Not encyclopedic. Mattley 20:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Restaurant articles may be encyclopedic if the restaurant is notable or historic. I don't know that this article makes enough of a case for this one, and article is an orphan. -- Infrogmation 21:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. So little server space, and the kind of little gem you'd love to come across on Special:Randompage. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almost interesting, but not encyclopedic. -R. fiend 23:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's only natural that new businesses have opened up in occupied Iraq, isn't it? There must be hundreds of them. What makes this one different? What makes it different from the first Italian restaurant to open up in any town or city? If it's really that interesting the content could be added to an article on Baghdag or occupied Iraq. As an article in its own right, just not encyclopedic. Mattley 23:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting, useful, encyclopedic.--Centauri 02:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. This is highly interesting, but unencyclopedic. However, it is an interesting historical footnote, and I'd like to see it merged into one of the many Iraq war articles we have. Neutralitytalk 02:06, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, not yet notable enough, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Vaguely notable. --JuntungWu 05:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Marginal keep. Noteworthy enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. GRider\talk 19:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm genuinely puzzled. I really do fail to see that this is even interesting, let alone encyclopedic, for the reasons I've mentioned above. Would someone please elaborate on why they take the opposite view. I don't mean to be a dick about this but I'd like to know why people have voted to keep. Mattley 13:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Mattley said. —Korath (Talk) 01:21, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A Notable place of business in Iraq based on the fact that coalition troops frequent it. Notable from a military history standpoint in my POV. --JPotter 18:36, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or "merge": this is a window into something. I am not sure this ultimately belongs in an article of its own, and I think a broader article would be more appropriate, but until someone has the right place to merge it to, we should keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:38, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. This is not in any way notable or encyclopedic. There are hundreds of thousands of restaurants in the world and probably at least a thousand in a city the size of Baghdad alone. I am honestly surpised at the number of keep votes here. Even schools are far more notable than this one pizza place out of thousands and thousands. Indrian 00:10, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mattley said it. Edeans 08:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A nice slice of life. A less nice WP article. Gtabary 10:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Psychonaut 16:26, 5 Feb 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.

Saosin[edit]

Band with one EP. --LeeHunter 20:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I now think this should be a Keep. As pointed out below the band has many hits on Google. --LeeHunter 14:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability not established. Citations? Smoddy | ειπετε 22:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep -- 35,400 Google hits is pretty good for a lesser-known band, much less one of this style. --Idont Havaname 23:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep due to noteworthy Google hit count and existence as a real band not of the garage variety. GRider\talk 00:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, borderline notable. Never heard of them before seeing that article. There have been hundreds of one EP/album bands in this category and this band just isnt that standing out. Megan1967 02:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Megan, based upon your voting track record I suspect there are hundreds if not thousands of bands you've never heard of before and will continue not to have heard of until you stumble upon them on Wikipedia. This is never ever a reason to delete something. If something is, as you put, "borderline notable" we are behooved to keep. GRider\talk 17:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Well I'm not the only one. There are thousands of bands out there, most of them not notable, and I seriously doubt that anyone has heard of every one of them, whether they are on wp or not. Megan1967 02:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Vote changed to delete, article still does not establish notability. Megan1967 04:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Samaritan 21:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google hit count is quite convincing. Alarm 13:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete doesn't meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion, and no evidence of notability is given. The google hits seem to indicate that notability is possible, but certainly don't establish it. The article should estabish its own notability. Tuf-Kat 05:47, Jan 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 delete. Joyous 01:06, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Material explorer[edit]

This appears to be original research. Both links in the external links section fail the Wikipedia:Alexa Test with "No Data Available" at all. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:30, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Totally incomprehensible. Not notable. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original non-notable incomprehensible research. --Idont Havaname 23:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article has potential. External links have been updated meeting the Wikipedia:Alexa Test. Material Explorer &theory will be notable soon, though if no result in 2months, move it to wikifnfo (original research).vanbezooyen 12:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable and rather hard to understand. Articles about student projects should not be kept on the merit of the student in question claiming the subject will be notable soon. Move to wikinfo or user page straight away. If vanbezooyen's claims about future notability turns out to be true (and I do wish him good luck), the article can be recreated. Alarm 14:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move. ok. good point Alarm, I'll put a request for moving the page to wikinfo for now.vanbezooyen 17:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Adv. Gtabary 10:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:04, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy and James Pullicino[edit]

Non-notable identical twins. Article claims notability in terms of their usefulness to biologists and geneticists but Google says not. I think the game is given away by the comment about their looks. Dbiv 22:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. —Korath (Talk) 03:35, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, possible delusions of grandeur, no exceptional claim for notability. Average Earthman 14:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete|eteleD. Edeans 08:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A WP test. Gtabary 10:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:03, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Keyserling[edit]

Geneaology article, possible candidate for deletion based on precedent. -- taviso 22:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete (as a geneaology article) and split into seperate articles. -- taviso 23:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as geneaology article. Interesting read, though. Is there a suitable wiki site for something like this? - Lucky 6.9 23:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:03, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Watered Stock Fraud[edit]

39 google hits, most being mirrors of this article. Not a term used by anyone except one person. Tempshill 22:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn. --Idont Havaname 23:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 02:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:01, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Peter Botham[edit]

Seems like an interesting guy but not terribly notable. --LeeHunter 23:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable enough, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the article can be expanded, I'm in favour of keeping it. The guy seems notable enough. --Spinboy 05:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like a self written article (being a husband and father isn't notable, so shouldn't be listed, no matter how proud you are of your children). Can anyone find any sales of these books? I haven't on a quick search, which suggests his books haven't sold significantly, so then his being an author isn't notable. Neither is having a degree, or being a teacher for three decades (admirable, yes. Notable, no). Average Earthman 14:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity. Receives about 380 Google hits, mostly for other people with the same name. --Deathphoenix 18:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:00, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ruius Martinus[edit]

Hoax? Zero Google hits for "Ruius Martinus" or even Ruius Martinus. I even tried Rufus instead of Ruius. And Ruius by iteslf doesn't turn up anything in the first few pages. RickK 23:29, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Yeah, the newly-added info about "Emperor Ortho" and "he may have never existed" proves it. Hoax. RickK 23:43, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity, hoax. Megan1967 02:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, all very fishy. "Ortho" is Otho garbled, and certainly associated with Poppaea Sabina, but name is completely implausible according to Roman naming convention - no gens mentioned for instance, in an era where that still mattered. Stan 04:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep,I don't understand I everyone assumes it is a hoax. If you can't find something on Google does it mean it doesn't exist. I mentioned he is not that well known. Also, I made a mistake on Otho's name. You can check up on the history, because it is all correct. I red about him in a encyclopedia at my school. I found his life story to be most fascinating.
    • The above by User:Winterhaze13. Great. Then you won't mind giving us the name of the encyclopedia, the date of its publishing, and the page this information is on? RickK 18:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • User:Winterhaze13 is a novice user whose only edits have been to here, the article, and the sandbox. Uncle G 15:57, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
      • Response. Well, I don't remember the name of the encyclopedia now. When I was writing it up I was relying on memory and some notes.
        • Uh-huh. RickK 21:28, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, I think it is fairly plausable that I don't remember the name of the encyclopedia.Like I said I was relying on memory.
            • Experience tells us that it is far more plausible that this is a hoax being defended by il'Empriere'sts perpetrator, because that is what happens most often, and time after time. Assuming good faith I suggest that you sign your talk contributions, and cite your sources as the editing page emphatically suggests. And don't let the fact that your first article met with suspicion put you off contributing. Uncle G 15:57, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
        • So you remember all this detail, but not what encyclopedia you were using. Delete as probably hoax. In the unlikely event that this is for real, next time remember to include citation as part of addition of obscure material. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:46, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified. Josh Cherry 01:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've tried looking here and there for something but found nothing. Sorry. Marcus22
  • Delete, likely hoax. Edeans 08:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I checked my copy of l'Empriere's last night. There is no remotely similar entry for this name or for any likely variants. Article for which no sources can be found and for which the author provides no sources when pressed. Delete. Uncle G 12:52, 2005 Feb 1 (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. dbenbenn | talk 15:10, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

134 (number)[edit]

No practical use. Joke entry. Pufferfish101 23:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Numbers are inherently notable. --Goobergunch|? 01:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would be foolish to remove 134 without removing the whole series. Not a joke. ---rrreese|? 28 Jan 2005
  • keep. There's a pretty active project involving numbers here. Joyous 02:58, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.-gadfium 03:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've been busting =my= ass on this series. Denni☯ 03:14, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
Your hard work is appreciated. PrimeFan 20:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Why people should read the article in question before commenting on it... Yes, it =is= a joke parody, but it's funny, and this article will soon have reeal information in it soon anyway, so let's leave it to amuse those travelling this particular corridor. Denni☯ 00:10, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Keep. The practical usefulness of many these articles is somewhat questionable, but they do serve a purpose and are, in their own esoteric way, informative. -R. fiend 06:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The practical usefulness of most Wikipedia articles is in question, but we keep 'em because they're cute and kinda fun. Denni☯ 00:05, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Keep. I CSD'ed the page originaly. Well, v0 was definitely a jokish entry. It is still now jokish. But it looks a number article has the right to exist regardless of content. I have seen better number articles though. Like thaught provoking, or curiosity stimulant... I genuinely find this one, poor. Gtabary 13:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't establish notability. This is a slippery slope, are we going to have to create articles for every number? Maybe this could be merged into List of integers. Sarcasm aside, Keep. --Plutor 17:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 18:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This number is more interesting than I thought it was when I added an entry in the Slovene Wikipedia a couple of days ago. Anton Mravcek 23:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, nothing wrong with keeping this article. Megan1967 02:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. — Brim 10:17, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, Wikipedia definitely needs one article per number. Get to work, boys, a million Wikipedia articles is no problem. Why stop at a million? And lets not discriminate against negative numbers and real numbers! Delete (Good grief!) --BM 17:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, BM has a point there. But looks like WP on some aspects is over-inclusive. When you add all the kids who want to do a test + the vanity of droping an article on the WP, well.. indeed a million won't be enough. I suggest an article per digit of the pi number. We are sure there will be enough there. Gtabary 18:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Please see the project page and project talk page to add to the discussion of what numbers are notable enough for Wikipedia to have articles on them. For example, the fifth Fermat prime might deserve its own article, the next prime number after it probably doesn't. PrimeFan 20:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Numbers are important to human civilization. Riffsyphon1024 20:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Don't call any number non-notable! --Idont Havaname 01:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Don't call any number non-notable!" Especially if you don't want anyone to go looking for things to contradict you with! (e.g., Hardy and Ramanujan on 1729). PrimeFan 20:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just wish that the person who started this article had taken a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers#Before Creating a New Article first. Thus, he might have then taken a look at 130 (number) and jotted his observations of the number there. If the section on 134 at 130 grew long enough, then someone could've made the call that the number deserved its own article. This way, people have somewhere to jot down in a common place interesting facts about a number while avoiding the careless creation of number stubs and easing the anxiety of people who wonder if others don't know that numbers are infinite. PrimeFan 20:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, and may God have mercy on the souls of whoever started this project. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:43, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Careful, Jmabel. I've recently witnessed biased VfD admins gaming the vote count by counting "weak" votes as half votes in order to delete an article. Please bare this in mind. GRider\talk 18:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Then I hope you've mentioned this to the administrator(s) in question when you've seen it happen, rather than just making this vague accusatory statement about "gaming the system." Joyous 21:58, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
I apologize, Joyous, that was a bit vague. I have posted my account of this occurence on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion today with the specifics. GRider\talk 22:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate the clarification. Joyous 22:09, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • The first fifty or so integers are fairly well covered. Certainly, the first ten integers, plus 12, are associated with a goodly amount of human activity. Past that, there is still significant relevance in the areas of mathematics and the sciences. I'm not sure, Jmabel, where that deep sigh is coming from, since (I assume) you're not doing any legwork on this one. It's also worth remembering that while the integers may progress to infinity, there is not a great deal of human relevance to record after the first few hundred, though some powers of two, some prime numbers, and some dates may be of note. As they say, if you build it, they will come, and who's to say that this is a quixotic endeavor? Denni☯ 03:23, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  • Delete, cute, but useless. Edeans 08:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Natural numbers are always notable. jni 08:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A worthy series. ÅrУnT†∈ 09:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:59, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

The fifth gene[edit]

This is band vanity. Google turns up nothing relevant, allmusic draws a complete blank. Rje 23:52, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I just went hunting for this then found your VfD notice :-). Delete. ugen64 23:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete Johntex 02:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete another non-notable, vanity band article. --Deathphoenix 18:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Likely yet another non-notable local garage band vanity page. --Idont Havaname 01:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion, and no evidence of notability is given. Tuf-Kat 05:49, Jan 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 delete. Joyous 00:58, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

The Hubba-Bubba Company[edit]

Does not seem to exist: zero Google hits. Looks like an invention of the Cartoon Vandal. —tregoweth 00:25, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Hubba-bubba is made by The Wrigley Company--nixie 01:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic, possible vandalism/hoax. Megan1967 03:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; although the gum brands listed do exist, most notably Hubba Bubba (I grew up on the stuff!), as noted above they are made by Wrigley, not by a Hubba Bubba company, so any information here is probably in the other article. Doesn't look like intentional vandalism or hoax to me. Probably just misinformed. 23skidoo 05:01, 28 Jan 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_January_27&oldid=1142647785"