Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 23

< March 22	March 24 >

March 23

Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – AB CD 16:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chris Sheffield

Vanity and/or hoax, delete--nixie 00:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ditto, throw it out. delete--Thewastedsmile 02:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete I concur! Ganymead 04:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Even if not a hoax, it's vanity. Rick K 06:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Fawcett5 03:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 16:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ed Hunter

As advertising copy goes, this is okay. But as a Wikipedia article, all I learn from it is that the author clearly enjoys the game. Improve or delete. -- llywrch 00:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. If there were anything worth salvaging, I'd say to merge it into Iron Maiden, but there isn't. —Korath (Talk) 00:50, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Advertising. Ganymead 04:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete I don't know what this is, but it isn't encyclopaedic.
Delete Ad. Fawcett5 03:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 16:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Browsergame

Internet neoligism, most google hits are in german so it is difficult to tell if this is a unique type of game--nixie 00:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a poorly written and badly-named article. The correct title should be "browser game." Abstain for the moment, by the way. Joyous 01:29, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising/neologism. It looks a bit less like advertising after I took out the external link to a German site. Kappa 04:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete the ad, and browsergame should probably be a redirect somewhere (e.g. internet game to prevent recreation. Radiant _* 10:59, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete concur is neologism Fawcett5 03:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Neologism. Pavel Vozenilek 18:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 16:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CUMaS

Self-promotion for a student association with 200 members, delete--nixie 01:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete not notable CDC (talk) 04:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, student vanity. Megan1967 05:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. vlad_mv 18:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete [Explanation intentionally omitted.] Chris 23:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity Fawcett5 03:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC
Delete While charming, this is simply not notable enough. Endi

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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. – AB CD 16:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Block-compress error. – AB CD 16:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cape Cod Sea Camps

A summer camp on Cape Cod, non-notable, delete. --nixie 01:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, delete. Radiant _* 09:31, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
delete non notable campcruft Fawcett5 03:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to X-Play. – AB CD 02:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

X-play

Wikipedia already has an X-Play page (The other page in question is with the capitalized P here: X-Play); two pages repeating the same information is redundant and there's little reason to keep both around. --Thewastedsmile 01:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge & redirect X-play→X-Play. ~~X-Play→X-play. The lower case version contains more information and appears to better follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions.~~ As per comments from TenOfAllTrades below. --Allen3 02:30, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. You could have done this yourself, by the way, with the procedure at Wikipedia:Duplicate articles; there's no need for a full vfd. —Korath (Talk) 02:31, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect Thanks for the link, btw Korath. A bit new to these parts and still figuring out Wikipedia. In my opinion though, both X-play and X-Play were lacking in relevant information but I'll leave it up to the proverbial jury.--Thewastedsmile 03:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[[Merge & redirect]Deathawk 03:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect X-play to X-Play. The capitalization of the latter article (uppercase Play) is correct per the show's own website. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to X-Play, the correct form. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 16:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Celetoid

Neologism, a celetoid is a celebrity that gains brief fame by some event that they are attributed to. 3 google hits, not worth keeping as a redirect, delete--nixie 01:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete neologism. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism, no potential to become encyclopedic. Let's not make a celetoid out of the article creator. Barno 16:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was userfy. – AB CD 16:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 16:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Richland northeast

This article is inherently non-notable, and also a terribly-written article. Delete. -- Cabhan 02:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless somebody proves notability. Meelar (talk) 02:25, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. It does get about 5,000 hits on Google, but all of those seem to be results of some athletics events in the school. Notability not otherwise established. -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 03:48, 2005 Mar 24 (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. – AB CD 20:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thua Thien-Hue Province

In Vietnamese, looks like something historical. Has had 2 weeks on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English with no action. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:35, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as it stands; if it is encyclopedic and not a copyvio, a translation/rescue or interwiki would be welcome; translation/rescue would override my vote to delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:35, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, but discount this vote if someone translates the article. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. 2 weeks translation pending elapsed Lectonar 07:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 20:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Xil Rey Veríssimo

Delete: In Portuguese, unencyclopedic, reads like children's fiction, something about insects (didn't read it closely enough to say quite what), probably a copyvio as well. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:48, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Translation of the first paragraph by BabelFish:
We go to witness the degustation of butterflies. We go all praise-the-gods to be immobilized for the mouth of one any green lizard. I killed a grasshopper. I am greater that it. Now I go to pass the spiders. The mortal kiss will only happen when I to want. I go to cover the eyes to it and to eat it later. I gained the confrontation. It was not linear. This body of praise-the-god still has much that if says to it. After all, I gained the spider. I want a flyer! I go to hunt another time. Not páro. Have-of finding a praise-the-god fresquinho__disponível to love.

-- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 03:16, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete it's a bizarre first-person narrative describing bugs in very sexual terms. Not even an encyclopedia article at all, really. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:18, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This has to be the oddest thing I've ever voted to delete. Lacrimosus 06:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'll second that. Bug love! Who'd a-thunk? Someone want to fill us in on the definition of "degustation?" Delete and maybe add the Babelfish to BJAODN. - Lucky 6.9 07:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- From dictionary.com:
  de·gust tr.v. de·gust·ed, de·gust·ing, de·gusts
  To taste with relish; savor.
  
  -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 08:02, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Also, the edit summary translates as: Pretty, Interesting, Lying youngster, Baixo and Maneta. So bizzare. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 08:15, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Speedily delete as patent nonsense. --Angr 09:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Eating butterflies...? This is disturbing. - Lucky 6.9 18:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I can read portuguese, and I can attest this is not an encyclopedia article. It's fiction: "Capítulo I" stands for "Chapter I", for instance. After googling a bit, I found out that "Xil Veríssimo" (without the middle-name "Rey") is a non-notable portuguese poet: he has one poem, called "Ó minha concubina" ("Oh, my concubine") published here. If he were notable, I would suggest transwiki to WikiSource; since this does not seem to be the case, my vote is Delete. vlad_mv 18:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nonsense. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:18, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Brenda Dickson

Article claims Ms. Dickson won Ms. California and Ms. World Beauty, but got no google hits in conjunction with any of those (or for ["Brenda Dickson" "Ms. World"]). ~~Delete as unverifiable.~~ Starblind has shown me the error of my ways, and I wish to keep this article. Meelar (talk) 03:28, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC) Meelar (talk) 03:08, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Keep her official site confirms those facts. Long-running soap actress, and anybody with an E! True Hollywood Story deserves an article too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:24, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's funny. No google hits turned up, and I assumed the worst; here's the search I was using. Nomination withdrawn, or at least I change my vote to keep. Meelar (talk) 03:28, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep But only if this crappy little stub is expanded;) --141.225.252.167 04:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. Notable. Megan1967 05:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Brenda Dickson played Jill Abbott for over a decade on the long-running Y&R soap. Mike H 06:11, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Comment I have since rewritten the stub with much notability. Mike H 06:20, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Local multiplier effect

This is a straight copy of [1]. It is not a copyvio, however, because the page grants permission for noncommercial use. I would say move to Wikisource, but WS documents generally aren't supposed to duplicate material found elsewhere on the web. Ideally, someone should write an original article on the subject. Otherwise delete. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 03:11, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

~~delete, as unusable essay, unless rewritten from scratch. Kappa 04:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)~~ Keep rewritten stub. Kappa 20:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems - non-commercial use restriction is incompatible with the GFDL. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I've written up a stub. -- Scott e^iπ 20:49, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:22, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Cape breton accents

Article on accents particular to Cape Bretton, unencyclopedic, delete--nixie 03:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep, quite a poor stub but a valid topic. - SimonP 03:25, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, valid topic, like California English Kappa 03:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep/Move, agreed with the above but should be Cape Breton accents - Jord 05:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --Spinboy 06:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If moving a project page, please move the VfD page as well.
Sounds okay to me, but articles on localized accents shouldn't cover areas much smaller than this island. Keep. Radiant _* 11:15, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep At worst, merge into Canadian English. Circeus 12:14, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
There's a big difference between this and California English, namely that there has been much published linguistic research devoted to California English, and AFAIK little or none published on the Cape Breton accent. What's already at this article is mostly nonsense: there's really no way the Cape Breton accent could be described as a pidgin, and the old canard about the exchange "Jeetchet? —No, Jew?" is certainly not restricted to Cape Breton. If I'm mistaken, and there has been published linguistic research on this accent, someone should summarize it, add it to the article, and cite their sources. But the article I see before more today should be deleted. --Angr 18:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep I understand that Cape Breton does have a distinctive accent that is quite recognizable. Does need to be cleaned up though... -- Webgeer 23:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, accentcruft. ComCat 05:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but improve. Cape Breton Island is one of the most culturally distinct areas of English Canada. Polycarp
Keep/Move (for correct capitalization) I don't see how this is "unencyclopedic". —Michael Z. 2005-03-26 14:36 Z
Rename it Cape Breton English or Cape Breton dialect. does anyone with first-hand knowledge of Cape Breton vernacular sense that it does not exist as a characteristic form of english? i suspect the answer to this would be 'no' with an overwhelming majority (see Talk:Newfoundland English). the issue of there being nothing published on the subject though is an important one (see Angr above). in the end however, i stand by my intuition that tells me the dialect does exist and will someday be found to do so with research that gets published. - Mayumashu 16:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (block-compress error). – AB CD 20:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

facetiously

There is no potential for metamorphosis of this dictionary article about adverb into an encyclopaedia article about a person/place/thing/concept, nor any place to redirect it to; Wiktionary already has Wiktionary:facetiously, and even it it hadn't, it wouldn't want a copyright violation taken from dictionary.com. Uncle G 03:49, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Delete, concur with nominator. Kappa 04:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dicdef, copyvio. Lacrimosus 06:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons given by nominator. BTW "facetiously" contains all six vowels, once each, in alphabetical order, but I don't think I'd better mention that. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That's already covered in English words with uncommon properties, which, note, hyperlinks directly to Wiktionary:facetiously. Uncle G 11:50, 2005 Mar 24 (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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

International Council on The Distribution of Canned Good Products

An "alleged secret international organization" that is so secret Google has never heard of it. More likely a joke than an actual conspiracy theory. SWAdair | Talk 03:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Beat me to it! delete --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ive heard of it before i think its true keep --Noog 04:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Account has made no edits outside its user page and this VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I read about this once and it sounds relevant to me keep --Rob P 04:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Account has made no edits outside its user page and this VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Rob P said that he edited many articles in his user page--Noog 04:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC
  - Comment Rob P's edit history shows no such edits. If he edited under an anonymous account, could he please let us know what it was, so we can credit him for those edits? Rick K 05:33, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete stupid hoax. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 04:39, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
I read it in a newspaper article once but i don't know why it isn't in Google keep --JE Mortin 04:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Account has made no edits outside this VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Even if it weren't an obvious hoax, articles on secret societies are unverifiable, and thus unencyclopedic. android↔talk 04:53, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Noog keep --SP Philby 05:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: You will be stunned, no doubt, to hear that this account has made no edits outside this VfD. --Calton | Talk 05:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Secret society, my foot. --Calton | Talk 05:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Hoax. --Silas Snider (talk) 05:12, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Hoax Delete --Kastraphatos 05:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Don't you think that Noog,Rob P,JE mortin and SP Philby are just one person --Kastraphatos 05:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment You too, come to that. ;) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Um, yeah. You think? BJAODN and delete. Rick K 05:35, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Not only has Kastraphatos made no edits outside of his user page and this VfD, he also seems to have bestowed upon himself a number of medals. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 06:18, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - Actually those medals were added to Kastraphatos's User page by User:219.90.73.223, the same person who created the SP Philby User page, deleted Tony Sidaway's comment immediately above, and has made multiple edits to this page. Rick K 06:49, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - So that explanis those wierd medals I've been getting--Kastraphatos 10:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, sockpuppets get tiresome the 2,987th time you see them. Lacrimosus 05:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Patent foolishness, hoax, sock supported. Possible BJAODN. Jonathunder 06:54, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
Delete, probable hoax, sockpuppet-supported, and any "real" secret society's information is unverifiable. Let's permit them to remain secret if their cover isn't blown by all those medals that the anon vandal awarded to Kastraphatos. Barno 16:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, hoax, sockpuppet supported. I disagree though with android's notion that secret societies are inherrently unencylopedic. Look at Skull and Bones. DaveTheRed 23:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps I have a more narrow definition of secret society than you do. The first line of the Skull and Bones article contains this unintentionally humorous passage: "Skull and Bones is the most well known secret society [...]". (The article also goes on to describe Skull and Bones as "semi-secretive".) When I say "secret societies are unverifiable" I mean truly secret societies such as the one referenced/spoofed in the article at hand. android↔talk 00:06, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete The sheer volume of marionettes voting to keep is enough to dispel this or any other so called conspiracy theory. Freemasons are running the world. Have you ever seen a freemason's larder? Full of canned goods !!!4.41.26.37 08:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Element 6? Please, a compound so secret that scientists can't even find it? Nor the FDA, which, if I'm not mistaken, routinely checks food for adulteration? -Jeremiah Cook 20:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus; thus, the article is kept. —Korath (Talk) 01:25, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Century Garden

Article on a housing development.Ganymead 04:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 06:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep A perfectly respectable entry. Wincoote 18:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as mentioned above, it's just not notable. Sonzai 01:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The neighborhood should be listed under the main city article. The 'notable' neighborhood watch and housing development co should be deleted imho. Radiant _* 09:36, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, neighbourhoods have long been encyclopedic. - SimonP 12:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems perfectly notable to me.--Gene_poole 02:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I sympathize with Ganymead and Radiant and would prefer to vote delete on articles like this. But, unnfortunately, the precedent has been established that place-names are all encyclopedia topics. Rambot added tens of thousands of stubs for American place-names automatically. I think this was done without sufficient forethought, and might well be reconsidered, but consistency demands that it not be done on an article-by-article basis. As I understand it, this is "new town" in JB, not just a housing complex. --BM 13:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by MacGyverMagic as unencyclopedic substub. Thue | talk 09:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jordan Austin

This person does not seem to be anyone of particular note. The page seems to be one written by Jordan Austin herself, or someone close to her. Perhaps it was written as a joke.

-Special Kay 04:42, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. The page creator has a history of vandalism. JeremyA 05:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am the creator and please do not delete it. I only vandilized once because I removed something without reading it.

Delete. Mate, there are better ways to impress your girlfriend than writing Wikipedia articles about her. Lacrimosus 21:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete child vanity. Gazpacho 07:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable vanity article. — JIP | Talk 08:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 20:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Powers

Delete. Pointless vanity page. --Daniel11 04:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Silas Snider (talk) 04:44, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. DS 06:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – AB CD 20:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Howard W. Blake

Article does not establish notability. —Korath (Talk) 04:44, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, under the bar of notability. Megan1967 05:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, no notability proven. Also extensive redlinking on non-notable subjects. Lacrimosus 06:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I'm sure he's a notable figure in Tampa (and Florida) history, but the article doesn't express that well enough. Unless someone comes along and rewrites it...(and judging by the number of voters, I think that's a no), I won't change my vote. Mike H 10:33, Mar 26, 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 school (discipline). – AB CD 02:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Newschool

keep

comment: represents a type of skiing

Comment: A VfD tag was placed on this page by User:141.225.252.167, who did not create a subpage. The above text is apparently a vote by User:24.4.96.105. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 05:00, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Skiing. Delete Megan1967 05:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Vote amended as above. There is nothing much here worth merging. Megan1967 03:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Uncommon slang, and seems to apply to other fields as well. ~~Redirect to oldschool as reaction thereupon. Radiant _* 09:14, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)~~
- Oops, that was a pointless redirect suggestion. Well I guess it's nothing more than a dicdef as the opposite of oldschool. Delete as there's nothing much to merge. Radiant _* 11:09, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
"oldschool" is actually "old school". Given that "oldschool" isn't a word, the coinage of "newschool" as its antonym has no foundation to rest upon. This article could be new school, but then that would be too generic. The new school of what? There are many things that have old and new schools of thought. Looking at school (disambiguation) I find that schools of thought are dealt with by school (discipline). Redirect (nothing worth merging in the article) to school (discipline). Uncle G 15:49, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
I agree with Uncle G. Redirect to school (discipline). -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 22:45, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and disambiguate. ComCat 05:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to something more appropriate. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. – AB CD 02:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blake Junior High School

A junior high school. Does not establish notability. (previous vfd) —Korath (Talk) 04:47, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

GRider has made an attempt at vote-swinging for this nomination [2]. (Added by User:Radiant!)

I categorically reject this statement as an unfounded personal attack. --GRider\^talk 23:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well-founded evidence of GRider's attempted vote swinging can be found at the request for arbitration currently in progress against him. Radiant _* 08:45, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Lacrimosus 06:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Make a mention in Tampa, Florida and delete. Not to mention the fact that the article is unclear whether this is a current or former name -- Skysmith 11:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable. DaveTheRed 23:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Unless anything more historical to it. Saopaulo1 07:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree, there is obviously some media coverage on the whole desegregation bussing. So the school is of itself notable. It desperately needs a rewrite but it should be kept. ALKIVAR™ 21:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nn. VladMV ٭ ^talk 21:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is something in there, but unless someone actually writes a decent article on whatever bussing is supposed to be, it's a claim to notability that doesn't actually explain why that makes it notable. Tentative delete. Chris 23:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Busing was a practice used to subtly desegregate schools by busing students from richer neighborhoods into poorer schools, and vice versa. This was most infamously seen in Boston in 1974:

In 1974, the city dealt with a crisis when a federal district court judge, W. Arthur Garrity, ordered busing to integrate the city's public schools. Racially-motivated violence erupted in several neighborhoods -- many white parents resisted the busing plan. Public schools - particularly public high schools - became scenes of unrest and violence. Tension continued throughout the mid-1970s, reinforcing Boston's reputation for discrimination. Mike H 09:04, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I was originally thinking "Maybe keep if an explanation comes up", but it seems that the phenomenon is too widespread for any school affected to gain notability from it. My original vote stands. Chris 16:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless it can be rewritten. Also keep in mind that this barely survived VFD in October...not much has changed since then. Mike H 06:29, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Whoops. Sorry I overlooked that. —Korath (Talk) 08:52, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  - It's no problem. Mike H 09:01, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless expanded. This could be a good article with work. Doc13mets 21:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Schools are notable enough. --Dittaeva 21:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Discount vote as result of ballot-stuffing by GRider.
Delete this doens't establish notability. (ps. Thanks go to G.Rider for spamming two talk pages I happen to have on my watchlist with a list of schools on VfD) Thryduulf 22:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, no valid reason per policy to delete the topic - David Gerard 22:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- To quote the deletion policy, valid reasons for deletion include "No potential to become encyclopedic" and "vanity", both of which this article fulfils. Also a brief reminder that in VfD we vote on the article not the topic. In some cases, it is appropriate to delete a useless article on a worthy subject, but retaining redlinks so someone can do a better job later. Discount vote as result of ballot-stuffing by GRider.
Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 23:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Bussing was a nation-wide phenomenon, not just here, so that's not particularly notable. --Calton | Talk 00:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Contains useful information. Being a real school is sufficient notability in an encyclopedia with 500,000 entries. --Zero 02:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Do you see schools listed in real general encyclopaediae simply for being "a real school"? Discount vote as result of ballot-stuffing by GRider. Chris 12:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Tell us a "real" general encyclopaediae which has 500,000 entries so I can see how your question is relevant to what I said.--Zero 23:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Zero said it better than anyone else.--Gene_poole 02:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Discount vote as result of ballot-stuffing by GRider.
Keep Contains interesting information - Wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 02:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Discount vote as result of ballot-stuffing by GRider.
Keep. Has potential to become encyclopedic. --Andylkl ^(talk) 04:10, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Discount vote as result of ballot-stuffing by GRider.
Delete. School vanity. Not a notable subject, so no potential to become encyclopedic. Jonathunder 04:40, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
Keep. What Zero0000 said. —RaD Man (talk) 08:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Discount vote as result of ballot-stuffing by GRider.
  - Uh, no. My vote is completely legitimate, thanks for asking. —RaD Man (talk) 15:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Bzzt! Wrong. The notice on your talk page clearly predates your vote here. Chris 14:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - Don't you have something better to do? Who cares if a notice on a talk page predates my vote. Believe it or not, many people here are capable of making their own decisions. To imply otherwise is a bit insulting. —RaD Man (talk) 17:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, what Jonathunder said. Radiant _* 09:00, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, WINP. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- WIAN a schools guide. Not every school is of encyclopaedic importance. Human settlements are, by virtue of their founding and persistence. Schools come and go all the time. Discount vote as result of ballot-stuffing by GRider. Chris 12:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and improve, if the existence of the school is not disputed. Notability is subjective, but schools with more than a few students should automatically pass the test. Wiki is not paper. Someone please wake me up when there is finally a policy vote about keeping school articles. ~leif ☺ _HELO 20:26, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as some other voters point out, deletion of this would be against policy. Pcb21| Pete 21:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Please identify exactly how it would be against policy, when it fails two valid criteria for deletion? Chris 14:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Further up you identify two supposed reasons for deletion : "No potential to become encyclopedic" and "vanity". I assume these are the two valid criteria you refer to. Re the first one: It already is encyclopedic, so that isn't a reason. Oh you mean you have a different definition of "encyclopedic" to me... well I don't think we are saying anything ground-breaking when we suggest that that deletion reason is more or less useless. "Vanity"... that makes no sense... vanity is a human trait... not something a school can possess. Why do you really want this harmless, factual, article deleted? Pcb21| Pete 14:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    It already is encyclopedic, so that isn't a reason. 404 Logic not found. Ah, I see your mistake. "Encyclopedic" doesn't mean "it's in the encyclopaedia", otherwise every article here would be automatically so. In answer to your question, not only does it not add anything that we don't already have ("the school was opened, then it closed" - as if that's not here already), but contrary to your claim, it is not harmless. Every single article like this is a hit on Wikipedia, and its reputation as a serious source of information. People elsewhere might think "So, you've got nothing on the culture of third-world nation, but you've got two lines on some unimportant school in Florida?" Why should schools not have to meet the same expectations we have of companies, organisations, musicians, politicians, artists, and everything else? Chris 16:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Chris, I know I probably sound iteratable to you, but I can't help get a bit tired of responding to the same old non-sequiturs. People have been using your line of reasoning "someone might come along ands say Wikipedia is bad because...." literally for years. But it simply is not true! People who write critically about Wikipedia never ever say it has too much on trivial topics. They never do it. (The complaint these days is always about credibility and sources, as you might expect). If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.
    
    P.s. Re "encyclopedic", you seem to misunderstand me. I already said in what you replying to that it depends what "encyclopedic" means... and then you go and tell me the same thing ;-). Pcb21| Pete 17:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - For the record, in Wikipedia:Vanity_page, writing an article about your high school is clearly defined as a form of vanity. Radiant _* 08:56, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
    - re the notability, using DPBsmith's BEEFSTEW guidelines, this scores 3 (ADJ). Thryduulf 15:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep The Steve 16:40, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Note response. Chris 17:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems like a valid stub to me. --L33tminion | (talk) 23:50, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This pointless anti-schoool vendetta is becoming quite tiresome. All schools are public institutions, and all public institutions and facilities are notable by definition. That's right - all public institutions and facilities. And Chris should stop posting abusive comments unless he wants someone to start an RfC on him. --Centauri 06:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, valid stub, already survived a Vfd. Kappa 19:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep.--BaronLarf 21:31, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - no longer even called that name and not notable. violet/riga (t) 22:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) Keep violet/riga (t) 23:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Fails BEEFSTEW. Delete or merge with Tampa, Florida. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:57, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. BEEFSTEW is not policy. All educational institutions are notable and encyclopedic. --GRider\^talk 23:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even though GRider and I disagree on most VfD votes, the contention that anybody's votes are unacceptable because of some perceived ballot stuffing is not valid. Only anons' and sockpuppets' votes are discounted. Editors in good standing have a perfect right to have their votes counted. This supposed policy change is inappropriate to discuss on a VfD page, and should be taken to Talk. Rick K 00:19, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Historic context. Would merit a short article if the school hadn't even reopened. Samaritan 03:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep! be inclusive. SchmuckyTheCat 03:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. See my points at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Any policy regarding school articles?. -- Toytoy 04:41, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Junior high schools are not notable unless very famous persons attended, or major historic events occurred there. Just being integrated or closing at the time of racial integration doesn't make a school historic or notable. Rlquall 05:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
~~keep~~ or redirect, unless we delete Goomba, Template:mehorses and similar harmless but non-notable stuff. dab (ᛏ) 06:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Note that Template:mehorses was deleted, and its articles merged together into one comprehensive article. Radiant _* 10:15, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Provides interesting and notable background on a public institution. (I also reject the idea that being informed of a VFD by another user (even a user as controversial as GRider!) discounts you from participating in the VFD.) --Jacobw 08:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)--Jacobw 08:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Junior high schools are inherently nonencyclopedic. --Angr 12:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:19, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
keep this. Yuckfoo 20:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Wikipedia is not paper. — PhilHibbs | talk 15:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Junior High Schools are not notable Dsmdgold 00:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - As already stated, Wikipedia is not paper. --Oarias 02:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia ain't not no paper. As long as Sentret exists, so should this. brian0918 02:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. Noisy | Talk 10:30, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 16:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
merge and redirect to segregation and desegregation in Florida if not needed there delete. Mozzerati 07:52, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
Keep, seems very notable to me. Dan100 20:21, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Schools are worth of inclusion! --Zantastik 07:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keeep. Wiki != Paper. Mystache 15:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 02:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Capstone English Mastery Center

Spam, also copyvio of [3]. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 04:56, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Then mark it {{copyvio|url=http://www.capstone.org/1/index.php}} and list on WP:CP. That'll make it go away a lot faster, and it won't even give them free pagerank in the meantime. —Korath (Talk) 05:59, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
- True, but I want to see if anyone thinks it's notable. I doubt it, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of that doubt. List it as a copyvio if you want. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 06:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - On inspection, since the wording isn't an exact match and there's so little there, I don't think this is copyrightable. It sure looks like a commercial ad, though, so delete on that basis. —Korath (Talk) 07:49, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ad for not-notable schoool Dsmdgold 21:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 20:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thajungle

Vanity, spam, non-notable, take your pick. —Korath (Talk) 04:59, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I choose all three. What is it with these online gamers, anyway? Delete. - Lucky 6.9 05:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 05:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Lacrimosus 06:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:31, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yule Gibbons

Delete. Not noteworthy. Doesn't pass "google test". Nothing links to this page. If somebody would be willing to flesh the page out and provide more information on the person, or some pertinent links elsewhere in the wikipedia, I'm all for keeping it. Right now, it's useless. Avriette 04:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

original author appears to have vandalized Italy as their sole contribution to the wikipedia, upon closer examination of their contribution. Avriette 04:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep, the links provided actually do reference the person in question. it appears that he is a figure of some note in the "naturalist" chef circle, despite failing the google test.Jersyko 04:29, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. "Did you ever eat a pine tree? Some parts are edible." Didn't anyone ever watch the old Grape-Nuts commercials? --Calton | Talk 05:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I did. This should be a keep and a redirect to the proper spelling of Euell Gibbons. Funny thing: I don't know what it was, but something made me think about this guy the other day...and here's an article! I need a vacation. :^) - Lucky 6.9 05:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- i added the redirect. i am sure the world is a better place for it. and by the way, i love me some vegan food. Avriette 05:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ooh, now that is what I call chow. Think I'll fire up the grill this weekend and follow suit! - Lucky 6.9 07:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oops...the redirect should have been the other way around. "Euell" is the proper spelling. Admins, can this be fixed? - Lucky 6.9 07:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, but let's wait until the VfD plays out, because if we move the page the link to the VfD page gets mangled. Keep when moved to the proper page. RickK 07:28, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - I got impatient and fixed it. Manually corrected the VfD link. By the way, keep. Rossami (talk) 00:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ah, burning the midnight oil as well, I see? Thanks for the tip, my friend. 'Night! - Lucky 6.9 07:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep at the proper page. The correct spelling gets 7520 Google hits. --bainer 12:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep at the proper page. Ya I remember those adverts. :) — RJH 18:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Sure do remember that commercial. It was everywhere. Oh, and spell as Euell of course. Antandrus 05:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, hippycruft. ComCat 05:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 20:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kees de Ridder

Vanity entry from a Dutch guy who has a website. Delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's so bad, its hard to believe its not a hoax, delete--nixie 05:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. Lacrimosus 06:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity, so ya. android↔talk 06:35, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Pure vanity. speedy. Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, Mar 23, 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. – AB CD 20:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Circumcision and Media Ethics

This is original research. The author previously wrote this at Circumcision and HIV, but has since moved it to its current title. Rhobite 05:08, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The name "Sirkumsize" leads me to believe that he may have an ulterior motive. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 06:29, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. original theory/research. Fuzheado | Talk 06:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original "research." android↔talk 06:37, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. Jakew 11:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. You guys really don't think that I made any valid point? Sirkumsize 14:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Valid points or no, Wikipedia has a policy against original research. android↔talk 14:09, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It isn't for making "points", valid or otherwise. It is about presenting and summarising existing knowledge, and doing so from a neutral perspective. If someone had written a book or article making these points, it would be perfectly valid and acceptable for us to discuss his arguments, but not as original work. See: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. - Jakew 14:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Oh come on Jake. As if you aren't on a soapbox. - Sirkumsize 14:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) (sig added by Jakew)
    - If you have a problem with me or any of my edits, please discuss them on my talk page. Here, however, we are discussing the merits of this article. - Jakew 15:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- original research and POV. The overwhelming majority of circumcised men don't care one way or the other. Haikupoet 19:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Excuse me? The overwhelming majority of circumcised men don't care one way or the other? About what? Please elaborate? They don't care about Media Ethics? That's interesting. Do you have a reference to back up your claim? Sirkumsize 20:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Err, I think the claim was: the overwhelming majority of circumsized men probably don't care one way or the other about media ethics regarding circumcision. They probably don't even think about such matters. I know I don't care. android↔talk 04:57, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    - The majority of men in the world who were circumcised as children were circumcised because their parents are Muslim. I doubt many Muslim men care about media ethics regarding circumcision since they were circumcised for religious reasons. -- DanBlackham 07:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - Well aren't we full of assumptions today. Is this because media coverage of circumcision isn't relevant to religion or just because Muslims are ignorant! Sirkumsize 09:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research, regardless of whether it is POV. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Orig. research. DaveTheRed 23:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research. Rossami (talk) 00:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete same user trying is luck again. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:01, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Well I'm sorry that seeing article after article biased in favour of circumcision inspired me to write an article explaining why this bias may be occurring. Sirkumsize 09:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Can you give an example of an article that you consider unbiased? What would meet with your exacting standards? - Jakew 12:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Actually no I can't. The new edition of the circumcision article on this website is actually pretty good though. I am not getting a lot of support for this article so maybe I was in error to create it. Given the amount of debate over the neutrality of wikipedia circumcision articles, I really feel that there ought to be an article of some sort that deals with the fact that the subject is controversial and why. I don't know what an appropriate title would be but am open to suggestions. In the mean time, please someone out there support this article! Sirkumsize 01:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - You could try publishing it at Wikinfo. Alternatively, flesh it out with solid references, and I might consider publishing it on my web site. It's not bad (though it could use improvement), it just doesn't belong in an NPOV encyclopaedia like Wiki. - Jakew 17:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research, unclear how any article on the topic would not be. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons everyone else gave. —Ashley Y 00:59, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
Hi guys. I adding some references and fleshed out this article a tiny bit. No long just original research! You might feel like changing votes. Just a suggestion. Sirkumsize 12:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 20:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cerebronaut

Neologism, 10 hits on google so it's hardly in use, delete--nixie 05:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable. Lacrimosus 06:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, highly localised neologism, has not spread, has no influence. Average Earthman 09:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete junkie neologism. JFW | T@lk 09:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to pitcher (container). —Korath (Talk) 01:33, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ewer

Kevinbot tagged this with a speedy after transwiki-ing. The wiktionary tag was disputed, but my opinion is that this article has potential (e.g. ewer design through history [4]) and should be kept. Kappa 06:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're probably right, but how about merging it with pitcher for now? It can always be broken out if it's expanded bigger than that. Radiant _* 09:15, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
I could live with that. Merge to pitcher. Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
A Merge is a good idea, even though there's more content in this article than there is in pitcher. As per the edit history, I agree with Kappa. ☺ Uncle G 14:46, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to pitcher (container) Kevin Rector 18:13, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to pitcher (container). Interestingly, that article is also currently a mere dicdef but there is potential for expansion. Rossami (talk) 00:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – AB CD 20:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pokémon Jade

The Pokemon Jade the author is referring to does not actually exist; it was a con on Ebay. unsigned nomination by User:Trip the Light Fantastic on 15 Feb 05
AGAINST It's still small but it could be expanded and then talk about the what it really was, a rehashing of a diffrent japanese game. unsigned comment by user:Saint-Paddy
Looks like User:Trip the Light Fantastic botched the nomination process and this never made it onto VfD. No vote at this time. -- Cyrius|✎
Delete, gamescruft. Megan1967 06:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Pokécruft. I'd say marginal merge and redirect to ebay fraud, but that itself is a redirect to EBay. android↔talk 06:40, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete if it really doesn't exist. BTW, why aren't there Pokémon White and Pokémon Black? — JIP | Talk 07:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Because of [this] :) Oh and btw, delete as non-existent. Radiant _* 09:16, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If this were fancruft I would be voting keep, but this is not one which even existed, so I cannot. Sjakkalle 09:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. 199 11:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Question. If a page listing of famous eBay frauds are created, can this be added to it? Zscout370 18:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Then we'd get into the question of whether it is famous or not. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Your right, since it will be an eventual "add mine" to the list. I vote to Delete this page. Zscout370 19:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, when will these people give up trying to stuff Wikipedia with pokecruft? VladMV ٭ ^talk 21:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete now, pokecruft. ComCat 05:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 20:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zenome

Does not seem to be notable to me. ~~Weak~~ Delete. Google test 390 hits, Alexa test 155,425 rank. --cesarb 05:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like an advert to me. I get 547 English language hits for Zenome, and a number of these do appear to be unrelated, which would appear a rather low number for a web search directory, strongly suggesting it is not widely used. Average Earthman 09:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Waste o space. --Woohookitty 03:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia ain't paper, but this sucks—Trevor Caira 12:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is no more an 'advert' than the inclusion of Google. If the criteria for inclsuion is how popular a page is then the whole wiki project will grow to do little more than perpetuate the popular. The glory of Wiki is to allow the newcomers a tiny voice in the sea of sites judged virtually exclusively by its PageRank.

Unsigned comment by 65.93.1.143 (talk · contributions)

The criteria is not popularity, it's importance. --cesarb 01:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 20:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Charles Veley

Advertisment for Charles website, also wikipedia is not the Guniess Book of WW. --nixie 05:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, advertisement. Lacrimosus 06:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, website promo. Megan1967 06:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. One line article used to promote a website. To be honest, I'm not personally interested in the view that you're the world's most travelled man just because you've set foot on more places than anyone else has claimed to, this is just a bit of Guinness Book of Records trivia. It's the equivalent of having two hours ashore and then claiming you've 'done' the country. Average Earthman 09:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 02:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Captain Wacky

Not precisely sure what to do with this one. It originally was an amusing, but illegitimate redirect to Paul Keating. Unless someone can come up with some sort of useful content (there may be a Captain Wacky somewhere I don't know about), Delete, and BJAODN. Lacrimosus 05:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Redirects go on WP:RFD. However, Paul Keating is referred to as Captain wacky here. Not sure if that's really interesting though, google shows lots of unrelated people known as Captain Wacky. Radiant _* 09:19, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Someone referring to a politician as "Captain Wacky" is suspicious. It appears to be an epithet used by detractors and critics. Delete. --Smithfarm
Delete, not notable slang. Megan1967 03:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Send to WP:RFD I'm sure he's not the first politician to be called this. Dsmdgold 22:40, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 20:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CaveBear Productions

Self-promotion for a group that has made a few web movies, delete--nixie 06:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Nowhere even approaching notable. It's not even a registered company. --bainer 12:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN. Clearly self-promotion. Their film "Baker Witch Project" appears to be parasiting on another, more well-known, film. --Smithfarm
Stay. Obviously if you take the time to watch the films you can see that they put time and effort into making these films and have as much right to be here as 20th Century Fox or Universal Studios.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:36, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

White History

Nonsense. Rick K 06:17, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, POV, neologism. Lacrimosus 06:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism that could turn real ugly real fast. android↔talk 06:32, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps less quickly now that I've removed the hyperlink from African American history. Uncle G 15:00, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
Delete Fuzheado | Talk 06:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to Caucasian. Gazpacho 07:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism, it is not the history of; the academic discipline of History does not have historians who study (and historiography for) people who are racially white, not as such. El_C 07:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No Vote: What a can of worms!! Of the 27,700 Google hits for 'white history', most appear to be for individuals, companies, etc., named White. However, many appear to be about racial history (and not all crackpots): White History web site, The case for 'White History Month', Boston Globe, MBA MBULU'S AN INTRODUCTION TO WHITE HISTORY: The History of White America, White History Month Campaign, Churchhill-the truth; guardian.co.uk. No vote as it's not a subject that interests me enough to work on. However, if it stays, it should be about the subject of white history. As El C says, white history itself does not appear to be a discipline. DialUp 16:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Within the academic discipline of History, that is. El_C 04:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Loaded neologism. Any mention of "White history month" is really just hyperbole arguing against black history month. DaveTheRed 23:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No vote: I think we should have people look up a white history that is not racist, because whenever we look up white history in Yahoo! or Google, we get web sites of White History that are made by white supremacists that do not give accurate information, so for a change lets have a White history page that does not have a racist or prejudice attitude. 66.81.190.183
- At any event, anonymous votes are not counted. El_C 05:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, absolutely nonsensical ≈ jossi ≈ 04:02, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as Nazi vandalism. --Neutrality^talk 05:07, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Good call. El_C 05:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No Vote How the hell can you delete White History and not Black History what about Indian History or Jewish History or Islamic History??? Drexel1 23:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. This debate has been extremely contentious, just like the other debates about other high schools. The result is split down the middle, with some vehemently arguing for deletion, and others vehemently arguing for inclusion. There has been a lot of commenting on people's votes, and there have been claims of vote stuffing. Since this article has been on VfD for a very long time now, I will close it. Deletion requires a consensus, and there does not appear to be one. Sjakkalle 07:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Toowoomba Grammar School

I live not all that far away from this school and know of it reasonably well. I do not think it has anything notable about it. Delete Lacrimosus 06:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- - GRider has made an attempt at vote-swinging for this nomination [5].
Delete. BEEFSTEW score of ~~either~~ 0 ~~or -6~~. Are grammar schools in Australia primary schools (like in the U.S.) or secondary schools (like in the U.K.)? —Korath (Talk) 06:33, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
- In this case it's secondary. A "Grammar School" is usually a private secondary school, occasionally selective. Lacrimosus 06:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
One sentence. Oy vey. Delete for reasons stated and for the fact that there isn't anything here to vote on beyond this one sentence. - Lucky 6.9 07:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Necessary to the description of its local area. Kappa 07:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
404 Logic not found. Chris 21:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this article doesn't tell anything marginally interesting that can't be expected from its title (which could possibly make it a speedy case). Mgm|^(talk) 10:19, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Make a mention in Toowoomba, Queensland and delete - Skysmith 11:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Toowoomba, Queensland, which should be really tough, since there's all of one sentence. --bainer 12:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete outright or merge (one sentence!) with Toowoomba, Queensland. If the article creator can't bother to come up with more than a sentence about this establishment, it bodes poorly for its notability. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep No valid grounds for deletion. I've categorised it. Wincoote 18:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No grounds for deletion, other than being a pointless substub with negative potential of becoming encyclopaedic, and most likely vanity too. Delete. Look at it this way - if we include an article on this school, we have to include an article on every other school in the world, to be fair. Schools are so numerous, that if we embarked on such a drive, we'd easily hit the 2 milliojn article mark, but it would be at the expense of improving coverage of other areas. Think about it - someone hits "random page" repeatedly and gets nothing but pointless school substub after pointless school substub; are they going to take WP seriously as an information source? If you think that WP is an encyclopaedia of some value to someone, especially in areas where buying a full set of Britannica might be out of the question, vote delete. If you think WP should turn into some kind of a joke, a parody encyclopaedia with nothing but worthless substubs about the world and his wife, keep voting keep on crap like this. Chris 21:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - So every time we include an article of a certain type, that obliges us to embark upon a drive to include every other article of that type? We have articles on American towns with a population of less than 100, is there a drive to include every of settlement in the world? Wikipedia should aim to become a valuable encyclopedia, rather devoting itself to impressing "random page" users. Kappa 05:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Suit yourself, but ultimately it's the "random page" users that are best placed to gauge the overall value of WP, by not looking for specific fields. Chris 18:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - Random page users may be able to gauge the average value per page, but wikipedia's true value is what people can find when they are actually looking for it. Kappa 20:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        So, it's OK to keep this page because nobody will be looking for it, and therefore nobody will realise that it's useless? Chris 23:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        As a substub, it's not useful, but the topic has potential and the nomination is about the topic. Kappa 05:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        Actually, I think you'll find it's about the article. Chris 15:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Toowoomba, Queensland and redirect--nixie 22:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable school. I don't see how merging this to the Toowoomba article would improve that article. DaveTheRed 23:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete in agreement with DaveTheRed --Angr 08:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Dave. Radiant _* 09:32, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. - SimonP 12:13, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete per DaveTheRed. VladMV ٭ ^talk 21:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing notable here. Gamaliel 21:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep schools are notable, expand this. ALKIVAR™ 21:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Others have noted why. --Dittaeva 21:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. No reason as per the apparently entirely decorative Wikipedia:Deletion policy why this topic is deletable - David Gerard 22:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- To quote the deletion policy, valid reasons for deletion include "No potential to become encyclopedic" and "vanity", both of which this article fulfils. Chris 01:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
delete if all the author can find to say about the school is one sentence its not notable enough for an article in my book. Thryduulf 22:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
delete, not notable. --Carnildo 22:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not even marginally interesting. --Calton | Talk 00:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All public institutions belong in Wikipedia.--Gene_poole 02:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I can't understand all you deletionists. Is it some sort of pathological obsession you have? If you don't want to read the article, don't read it. Let's have an article with at least the basic facts (where it is, when it was founded, what types of student and how many, etc) on every school in the known universe. Will Wikipedia be more useful or less useful if that happens? --Zero 02:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Less useful, unless we suddenly acquire an infinite number of editors. Having one sentence on a school whose information no-one is able to verify and update (except, maybe me, but in my opinion it's not notable anyway), while there's still zero sentences over at Culture of Azerbaijan destroys the credibility of Wikipedia, floods it with systemic bias, and buries more worthy topics in amidst a sea of trivia. Lacrimosus 04:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment: Hah. WTF are you talking about?!? —RaD Man (talk) 08:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment: These arguments would seem to apply more than equally to coverage of all human settlements, how do you feel about them? Kappa 12:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Human settlements cannot be signed into or out of existence by local authorities. Chris 12:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep Contains interesting information - Wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 02:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Equally, Wikipedia is not toilet paper. Mandel 19:15, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable school vanity. Jonathunder 04:38, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
Keep and expand as per Kappa. —RaD Man (talk) 08:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as vanity. Strong concur with Lacrimosus. Radiant _* 09:00, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, WINP. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete there is no encyclopedic content here, and it doesn't seem likely to develop at this stage. Entering schools for the sake of doing so is at best a folly of the devoted. Unless there is something of note about a school (being the alma mater of a Prime Minister) or the school makes a project of creating an encyclopedic entry) then I can't see the point of enumerating stubs. An An 11:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and improve. If the existence of the school is not disputed, then there is no reason that this is not a valid article topic. Notability is subjective, but schools with more than a few students should automatically pass the test. Wiki is not paper. Someone please wake me up when there is finally a policy vote about keeping school articles. ~leif ☺ _HELO 20:32, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps we need a new page Wiki is not cheap. Chris 17:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - If so, we also need a Wiki's cost is not even remotely close to being proportional to wiki's size, but I digress. And En more than met it's fundraising goals. Wikipedia is not running out of money. --L33tminion | (talk) 03:35, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
IF this page can be expanded, then DO SO. As it is, it's been on VFD for four days and is still 99% contentless. There has to be a minimum level of what counts as "noteable". We could do a list of "Schools in Queensland" in which this could be included. As it is, this is pointless. Wiki may not be paper, but Jimbo still has to pay for the server space. DS 15:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well said. Mandel 19:15, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
I vote for (drum-roll) delete. Mandel 19:15, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This pointless anti-schoool vendetta is becoming quite tiresome. All schools are public institutions, and all public institutions and facilities are notable by definition. That's right - all public institutions and facilities.--Centauri 06:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Another regular school Saopaulo1 06:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'm getting to think the VfD process for schools uses more hard disk space and bandwidth than leaving them be. Samaritan 03:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
keep this and improve. Yuckfoo 01:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
keep i agree that it isnt ideal to have a link for every school in the world, but the toowoomba grammar school is one of the original 'great state public schools' in australia. in the days when the australian government funded 'elite' schools around the country to compete with private schools. I dont have any proper data about the school available to me, but it would be great to see a proper history written for the school, or perhaps just lumped into a historical thread about the greater public school system of the late 19th century. Danubis
- "Subject deserves and article" is neither here nor there, because these votes are about the article, not its subject. The subject may be deserving, but this article has now had 3 weeks on VfD, and it is still no better. Chris 23:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Wikipedia is not paper. — PhilHibbs | talk 15:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Wikipedia is not paper, and even if it were, we must protect our rainforests. brian0918 02:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Noisy | Talk 10:33, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Just another stub, as were all articles on Wikipedia once. Thank goodness we didn't delete all of them too... Dan100 20:33, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable, school vanity. --InShaneee 20:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Schools are noteworthy. --Zantastik 07:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle 08:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alexis_Brandeker

Vanity page. Should be deleted. Sonzai 07:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be vanity - article author is not its subject. 154 google hits for "Alexis Brandeker". Borderline notability - no vote as yet. Dbiv 12:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- An article can be vanity even if written by someone else (e.g. if you write about your personal hero, local chess club, or whatever). That said, if this Alexis got a book published, I'm in favor of keeping the article. Radiant _* 15:28, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Authored by User:Urhixidur, whose real name, judging from the link from his userpage to his homepage, appear to be Thibault. Brandeker's publications are listed here. I guess this is part of some asteroid project. No vote. / Uppland 12:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Published author, probably will become more notable in the future. --Smithfarm
- Encyclopedias don't feature subjects that might become notable. They feature subjects that are notable. Sonzai 21:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless further evidence is presented. Based on what I can find so far, he does not appear to meet the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. All academics publish. The correct measure for a scientist is whether his work has been influential on the work of others. Does anyone have access to a citation index? Rossami (talk) 23:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He's done his PhD, which is good, and he discovered an asteroid, which is way cool. But I still vote delete. DS 15:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 03:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, if some one can convince me that discovering an asteroid is a common feat for astonomy types I will vote delete. Dsmdgold 22:20, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
- If he discovered a new planet, I'd say the entry should be kept. But he discovered a much smaller piece of floating rock. I don't think that's incredibly notable, do you? Sonzai 22:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Incredibly notable? No. Notable enough to make the cut on Wikipedia? yes. The analogy I would make is discovering a new species. Only a few ilving mammalogists have discovered a new species (and I mean really discovered one, not just argued that an existing species should be split into one or more). Many, if not most, entomologist shave described species. Is finding an astroid a bug or or a mammal? I don't know, and absent any evisence one way or the other, I will err on the side of inclusion. Dsmdgold 00:23, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    - Finding an individual asteroid is not notable. Thousands of people have done this. Finding the first asteroid was notable. Finding the first ten asteroids was notable. Finding the asteroid belt was notable. Discerning the nature of asteroids was notable. Determining the orbits of asteroids was notable. Finding an individual asteroid is not notable, unless there's something particularly notable about that asteroid. Similarly, discovering an individual comet is not notable unless there's something notable about that comet. DS 21:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 21:11, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Jacob Nist

Definite genealogical entry as it stands (I found it, incidentally, by googling "geneology", a common misspelling). Remove the unencyclopedic detail, and this article says he founded the Seattle-Tacoma Box Company and had a notable grandson, John Hopcroft. The current mentions in those two articles should be sufficient. Or am I missing something obvious? —Korath (Talk) 07:41, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It is definitely notable and consists of more than just a genealogical entry.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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 (blk-cmp error). – AB CD 22:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Colegrove

Orphaned genealogy. —Korath (Talk) 08:00, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Rick K 08:03, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
It's a bad sign when an encyclopaedia article trails off into a list of begats and a hyperlink to an advertisement for a genealogy book. There are no Colegroves, Colegraves, Colgroves, or Colgraves in Wikipedia for a name disambiguation article. Delete. Uncle G 15:35, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
Comment: I forgot to mention that the article was written by CLColegrove, which should set off warning bells if anyone's still undecided. —Korath (Talk) 18:32, Mar 23, 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 - non consensus (16 delete, 8 keep, 1 merge, 1 invalid merge and delete) - SimonP 21:16, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Potential nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States

Speculation. Rick K 08:13, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. True, there is some speculation but the article is somewhat informative and of interest. Sjakkalle 09:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Speculation. However interesting it might be, it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. (perhaps Wikinews?) --bainer 12:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - It's well sourced speculation. - SimonP 12:19, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Are we going to delete Higgs boson because it's speculation? --Etimbo | Talk 12:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What will we do when Rehnquist retires or dies? This kind of information will go stale quickly. If we let this one in, we'd have to put up pages that track current speculation on who will become the next "whatever" (President of the USA, of Zimbabwe, Vice Governor of the Czech National Bank, etc. etc. ad nauseum). When I want this kind of information, I go to a news or political analysis site, not an encyclopedia. Information in an encyclopedia should not be ephemeral. (Remember, paper encyclopedias used to be updated only once a year.) --Smithfarm
Delete and merge content to a ~~new section in Supreme Court of the United States~~ new article called U.S. Supreme Court nominations, to include info on how it's done and current speculation. While the article may be interesting and informative the title gives no grounding in time, it would have to be blanked and re-created every time there is the possibility of a seat opening up. -- Lochaber 14:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, easily dated and Wikipedia is not a news/gossip service. Gazpacho 14:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Agree with Lochaber, and merge. Radiant _* 15:27, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Cleanup for the following reasons, which combine to make this a notable discussion:

The current Court has been intact and unchanged for a longer period than any Supreme Court in over a century;
Chief Justice Rehnquist has become an iconic figure, and will leave very big shoes to fill;
Throughout the history of the Court, there have only been 16 Chief Justices, so they do not come and go very often. This article should consider not only who may fill the vacant seat, but also who will become the next Chief Justice {Scalia? O'Connor? Thomas? Someone from off the Court?);
The process of appointing Justices has become particularly politicized since Roe v. Wade, which has lead to rampant speculation as to who may succeed Rehnquist dating back to the 2000 election campaign.

--BD2412 20:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- On second thought, move all of this to an article on Potential nominees to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist on the Supreme Court of the United States --BD2412 20:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - ok, that looks awful... well, keep it as something, maybe Potential 2005 nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States, and redirect everything else to it. --BD2412 20:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - (See my comment below first) Either of these titles would be better however:
      - We don't know that Chief Justice Rehnquist will be the next to go. Any one of them could have a heart attack tomorrow.
      - Even if Chief Justice Rehnquist is the next to go we don't know that it will definitely be this year.
    - -- Lochaber 11:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, speculation, has a short life-span anyway. Lacrimosus 21:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, wikipedia is not a crystal ball--nixie 22:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Speculation. Information dates quickly. DaveTheRed 23:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Speculation. Maybe move to WikiNews if they want it. Rossami (talk) 23:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Speculation and therefore non-encyclopedic. Besides this article will largely be irrelevent once the position is filled. Rje 01:14, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. If that is the case, we should delete U.S. presidential election, 2008, because it is currently speculative, and will be irrelevant once the position is filled (indeed, the same argument could be made for every presidential election that has already passed) - except that it's not merely speculative because we know there will be an election, who is likely in the pool of candidates, and what concerns are likely to drive the vote; and it won't be irrelevant once it is over because it is a piece of American history. This is a very similar situation - the likely candidates and the issues that will drive the selection are known, and whoever gets selected, it will mark an historic point in the history of the court. --BD2412 03:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - I disagree with your analogy. U.S. presidential election, 2008 will not be irrelevent when the position is filled, because we can still have an encyclopedic article on the subject of the election. However, once the next Supreme court justice is chosen, it will be will be useless to keep an article on the process that went into choosing that justice. Furthermore, speculating on an election, a huge event that follows a rigid process and schedule, is vastly different then speculation on the appointment of a justice, which could happen at any time and will happen according to the whim of the President. DaveTheRed 04:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - The opinion on the existence of U.S. presidential election, 2008 is fairly clear in Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Speculation is well documented so the article can be kept. My main problem is with the title (see my comment above) and the article is hard to title because it is not clear when the appointment will be made, unlike the US presidential election which is virtually certain to take place in 2008 (I'm not up on US election procedures, could possibly happen earlier or later in extreme circumstances?). That said IMO this speculation is documented well enough to be included, just not under a seperate title hence my vote for delete this particular article and merge content to Supreme Court of the United States -- Lochaber 11:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - Well, seeing as how Rehnquist's illness sparked dozens of television and newspaper reports over possible successor appointments, how about an article on Supreme Court appointment hysteria? Seriously, though, I think the unusual intensity of coverage of this issue (based in no small part of the factors I listed above) marks a rare phenomenon worthy of its own article, once we can agree on a title. -- 8^D ^gab 12:14, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
        Ok here's another idea. How about creating a new article called U.S. Supreme Court nomination, about how it's done and all (I know it's not really that complicated but there could be more detail about why confirmation isn't as easy as it sounds) with a section called maybe "Speculation on possible George W Bush nominations" or something. As a section the title can easily be changed / updated and new sections can be added when further speculation comes up in the future. -- Lochaber 13:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete in agreement with Radiant!. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Angr 08:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Speculation. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Speculation. Every citizen of the U.S. is a potential nominee. -Willmcw 00:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Again, same thing could be said of U.S. presidential election, 2008 - every U.S. citizen who will be over 35 as of Jan. 20, 2009 is a potential future president (hey, that includes me!) But there is a manageable list of serious candidates, and so there is for the Court - the nominee will be someone who a) has the proper experience to be realistically confirmed by the Senate (almost certainly a sitting federal appellate judge, state supreme court judge, U.S. Senator, or a person in a high-level position of legal counsel to the executive branch) and b) someone who falls within the appointing president's ideological stream of thought. Just as the pundits are probably on the mark when they project who will run for president, they are similarly on the mark to suggest who will likely be the next Supreme Court nominee. By the way, fun fact: nothing in the Constitution requires Supreme Court Justices to be U.S. citizens. -- 8^D ^gab 03:46, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
  - So the potential list is in the billions. There is no specific date range, so this article could include potential nominees dating back to the nineteenth century. If a listing of the most frequently-named , current candidates is needed, it can be included in the main article on the court. Further, I dispute your asertion of the accuracy of pundits. -Willmcw 19:18, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, courtcruft. ComCat 05:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Speculation until actual process starts. kaal 04:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Very informative to know who the leading lights in conservative jurisprudence are right now. --New Progressive 02:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Then an article on Conservative jurisprudence would be useful. This is not that article. Rick K 08:07, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, if the article is substantiated by quotes from news agencies. Ethereal 15:29, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Note There are now 4 news articles linked to this article. -- 8^D ^gab 03:39, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
Delete, speculation - Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Megan1967 03:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Highly speculatory, and to the extent that this is an accurate window into what Bush is thinking, only relevant for a brief time. Postdlf 03:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- a good resource and well-cited, so shouldn't be considered speculation. We do this for U.S. presidential elections in the future. -- Jewbacca 02:04, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Informative but speculatory. You could get a well-cited report on any number of things, but it wouldn't make them encyclopedic.--66.56.42.131 02:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) (a.k.a. Fermatprime, but I'm too lazy to sign in.)
Keep - Even after the chief justice steps down, there will still be plenty of interest in Supreme Court appointments due to other potential retirements. It's an informative page, and no different from the 2008 presidential election page in speculatory nature. --WikiAce 20:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Except that the 2008 election is a predetermined event—it will happen in 2008. It is true that more appointments to the Supreme Court will necessarily be made, but no one knows when this will be, or even who will be replaced, however likely Rehnquist is. Furthermore, candidacy for president is self-motivated and entails overt acts years in advance on the part of the hopefuls. The analogy is not a strong one. Postdlf 23:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:40, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Islamic Fun

Article is insultive, POV/Propoganda based and not informative. Unsalvagable.

Delete Cat ^chi? 08:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Stereotek 10:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Davenbelle 10:13, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Lots of software packages have Wikipedia articles, and this one seems to be noteable. If the article doesn't present a neutral point of view (which it appears to be doing), add the appropriate tag or edit the article. Martg76 12:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, is notable. Agree it seems POV, ask for cleanup/review instead. Qwghlm 13:17, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Examples included "Mustafa Kemal, the hater of Islam, forbade the use of Arabic in Turkey, banned the hijab and closed down the Aya Sofya Mosque in Istanbul. Which is it?" and "Ignoring the hand over agreement, the Christians turned the beautiful Mosque of Córdoba, in Muslim Spain, into a Cathedral (1238). Which one is it??" is not a pov? Cat ^chi? 15:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No it isn't. The "Islamic Fun" games themselves can love Islam and hate Christianity as much as they want. Saying the game has a pro-Islam bias does not cause such a bias in the article itself. At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, I'll make an analogy: the article on Adolf Hitler can safely say Hitler hated Jews without immediately becoming an anti-Semitistically biased article. — JIP | Talk 15:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So it is factual that "Mustafa Kemal is a hater of Islam", etc... etc... The misguided person is using a "game" to promote his views in the CD, 100% propoganda, not wiki material. Cat ^chi? 22:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, we're not actually stating those views, we're just quoting the game and illustrating the source of controversy. The same way we can quote Karl Marx as saying "Religion...is the opium of the people" without actually promoting that viewpoint. The article makes clear that it is the game makers and not Wikipedia that is supporting these opinions. Removing POV isn't a process of removing all statements of opinion, but stating who believes what without actually saying whether or not that belief is justified. Keep since the article seems to be encyclopedic. — Ливай | ☺ 01:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Seems notable to me. DaveTheRed 23:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. N-Man 23:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is a very bad package of computer games, but it seems to be notable to me. Carioca 23:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment—I'd never heard of this game until now. Is it really receiving a lot of negative press, or just a couple scattered reviews? If the latter, it's not notable and there's no reason to keep it. Psychonaut 13:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable precisely for its controversial content. Wikipedia should not sweep things under the rug. Binadot 18:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Scotch Game. —Korath (Talk) 01:42, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Napoleon Gambit

I have never heard of the Napoleon Gambit. The variation given is not a gambit since nothing is being sacrificed (except the queen, 3.Qxf7+?? is not mate). The author is probably confusing this with the Napoleon Opening, which is 1.e4 e5 2.Qf3, but I see no useful content in this article worth merging anywhere, and since the Napoleon is not a gambit I cannot see the title being useful either. Sjakkalle 09:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why not rename to Napoleon opening or Napoleon variation? -- Mgm|^(talk) 10:22, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

We could if the content was any good, but everything in the article is wrong.

The opening is bad, it does not "enable the player to achieve checkmate in three moves".
The moves are not given in algebraic notation and I am at a loss as to what "xxx" means.
Can be averted by protecting h5 with a knight? Since "b*F7" (I think he means Qxf7) is not mate there is no need to.

My nomination is because the article is far too poor to be included at this point. Sjakkalle 10:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I might also mention that the Napoleon Opening is extremely rare, like the Hippopotamus Defence which is also on vfd. That article was at least written properly. Sjakkalle 10:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe consensus for Hippo Def leans towards keeping it? So Napoleon Opening would presumably be equally valid. ~~I'd suggest deleting this and changing it to a redirect to the latter. Radiant _* 11:12, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)~~ since Sjakalle knows a lot more about chess than I do, redirect as per his suggestion below. Radiant _* 14:02, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I have created an article for the Napoleon Opening, mostly so that nobody falls for the temptation to move this article there. Since the Napoleon is not a gambit, I cannot support redirecting "Napoleon Gambit" to "Napoleon Opening". ~~My vote remains delete.~~ Sjakkalle 11:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some google hits suggest that there actually is a Napoleon Gambit, which is a version of the Scotch Game. I suggest to redirect there. Martg76 13:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well spotted Martg76, it is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 Nxd4 4.Nxd4 exd4 5.Bc4. I stand corrected and change my vote from delete to redirect to Scotch Game. Sjakkalle 13:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 22:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Draugiem.lv

Advertisement for a website. Delete. — JIP | Talk 11:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, advertisement. --bainer 13:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, website ad. Megan1967 04:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:48, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ethelred, Earl of Fife

Very short article with little or no context and therefore should be deleted Berserker79 11:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then put it on Wikipedia:Requests for expansion. He appears to be a notable historical figure - deletion is only for where no proper encyclopaedia article could be written or where the existing article has no useful material at all. Keep. Dbiv 12:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep pending expansion. Garnered from brief Google search that he is notable, or at least was in his time. Received the title Earl of Fife for "meritorious service". I went ahead and expanded the substub to reflect this. --Smithfarm
Keep and expand if at all possible. I don't believe the Scots handed out Earldoms like confetti, so he must have done something worthwhile. Average Earthman 14:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep I've categorised it. Wincoote 18:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. A valid historic personage. Note that his name is sometimes spelled Aethelred. Katefan0 19:21, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

* I updated the page to reflect this and added links to the Ethelred and Aethelred disambiguation pages. Hope this isn't jumping the gun; it seems the consensus is to keep him. --Smithfarm

Keep - historical Saopaulo1 07:22, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. James F. (talk) 00:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful information. Rick K 08:09, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
The nomination is incoherent and the article subject is a notable historic figure, therefore keep.--Centauri 06:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:50, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Berridale

A rather small and unimportant place somewhere in Australia, the only notable thing about the place is that an alleged politician called George Ober grew up there; however, Ober does not seem to be verifiable ("George Ober" liberal and "George Ober" Australia both turn up nothing relevant on Google). If the questionable paragraph about Ober is removed, we're left with a place that is some distance from Canberra and has four distinct seasons -- Ferkelparade π 12:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep if only because we have kept all articles about towns and villages on Earth. Sjakkalle 13:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Remove any and all nonsensical parts of the article (even if that leaves the article nearly blank). Mark as geographical stub. And keep. Radiant _* 14:03, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Apart from the illformed sentence on the seasons and the dubious claim for one George Ober, what exactly is nonsensical about it? It's a genuine town, so deserves an article. Also generates 23,000 google hits - the place is also a popular tourist area, so the town's impact is larger than it's population. Average Earthman 14:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Those were the nonsensical things I referred to, and by my vote above I fully concur that it deserves an article. Radiant _* 15:19, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the seasons bit? Kappa 21:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Nothing now I've rewritten it. Before it seemed to suggest 40 degrees heat and snow in summer. Average Earthman 09:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep all small unimportant towns. Article needs to be cleaned up though. DaveTheRed 23:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'ts the administrative centre of the shire, which is a very popular tourist destination, so not that unimportant. Average Earthman 09:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - I was merely quoting Ferkelparade's nomination. I make no judgements on this places significance, or lack thereof. DaveTheRed 19:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Real place. My dad once lived there. I'm going away for the weekend but I will work on it when I get back. Never heard of George Ober and I follow politics with a fair amount of interest Capitalistroadster 00:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep all real places. We have articles about many places of a similar size, mostly in America. Rje 01:10, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Settlements are inherently notable. They arise for a reason, not because someone pitches a tent randomly. Chris 16:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep all real places. Rick K 08:10, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All towns are notable.--Centauri 06:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Jpgordon and Charles Matthews. Thue | talk 09:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Research paper on hitler

Wikipedia is not a place for writing homeworks. Delete. Possibly a speedy deletion candidate (under "no meaningful content or history"). - Mike Rosoft 14:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I speedied it once, on the grounds that anyone who makes Mussolini an Austrian is writing nonsense. Charles Matthews 15:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Contains nothing useful that is not in Adolf Hitler. The title does not appear to be a meaningful redirect either. --Allen3 15:27, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Morden Hall Park. —Korath (Talk) 01:54, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Gilliat Hatfeild

This page is not really about the person but about the Morden Hall Park he gave. The content is the same has this latter page, which is more detailled/wikified. Besides the are no links to this page. Lvr 15:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

redirect. RJFJR 16:21, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
redirect. Surprisingly, "Gilliat Hatfeild" is the correct spelling, according to the Morden Hall Park website. FreplySpang 16:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 16:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Steven woods

Unverifiable substub. Possibly vanity? sjorford →•← 15:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Google search for "Steven Woods" site:.au gives 50 results, none of which are in a pottery context. Delete for non-notability. Dbiv 17:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, posible vanity. Megan1967 04:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 16:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Multiple contradictions within the deprogramming movement

Current status: DELETED

Appears to be a list of unverified--and probably unverifiable--statements. In effect, this is an opinion piece. It's an intriguing one, interesting opinions are put, but it's not--with this title and this wording--an encyclopedia article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Ed Poor surpasses himself in posting provocative POV. Charles Matthews 16:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete or perhaps keep as an obvious example of what shouldn't be in Wikipedia. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as inherrently POV. Nothing here worth merging with deprogramming. DaveTheRed 23:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Interesting POV --Neigel von Teighen 23:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hi, Ed. I think the first point is the best... What's an NRM? Norman Rockwell Museum? Natural Resource Management? Non-traditional Religious Movement? Hmm... what's that Wiccan internet thingy I've been hearing about... NRM... I was close. Oh, by the way: original research, personal essay, cannot be made NPOV. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research, strong POV, no sources, editing errors, etc. I'm disappointed to see a long-time editor producing material like this. -Willmcw 00:07, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete without merging. I too am ashamed to see this editor continuing to create multiple "straw man" articles of this sort. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The consensus is to delete, and I have no objection. I'll cut and paste to User:Ed Poor/cults. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:34, Mar 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 - should be merged - SimonP 21:20, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Confessio

This is a dictionary entry. It is the definition and an example. This has been transwikied, and ~~should be deleted~~ as the last step in that process. Kevin Rector 17:21, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki and delete as dictdef. Katefan0 19:23, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, has potential for expansion, like what was in the Confessio of St. Patrick and other examples, when they started, if they are still used, what their purpose is, how they have evolved, etc. Kappa 21:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment if a person wanted to write about what was in the Confessio of St. Patrick it should go into Confessio of St. Patrick. How about, when someone wants to write about when confessios started being written, if they are still used, what their purpose is/was, how they have evolved, etc. they can start an article at that time. As it stands it is a dictionary definition (and Wikipedia is not a dictionary) with one example (which does not make it not a dictionary definition). Kevin Rector 22:29, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Current content is a mere dicdef and has been that way since this orphan article was created on 8 Jan 05. However, I can see a possibility that it might someday turn into a real article. I'm inclined to vote keep for now. If it is not expanded in a reasonable time, renominate without prejudice. Rossami (talk) 23:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Inclined to merge. This is just the Latin word for confession; other works properly titled confessio, such as the Confessions of Saint Augustine, are Englished that way normally. Unless someone wants to argue that confessio now is taken to represent a literary genre of its own, I would merge this data at confession, and add other notable memoirs called "confessions" there, like Rousseau's and Tolstoy's, as well. -- Smerdis of Tlön 00:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Confession. Megan1967 04:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the idea of merging with Confession. Kevin Rector 14:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
I think this could be made into a decent encyclopedia article, but this usually doesn't happen without a nudge, and the best nudge is usually a VfD. If it's expanded by the end of the voting period then keep. If not, delete, but keep it as a redlink and see if that prompts anyone to create a full article. Redlinks are good like that. -R. fiend 23:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect unless substantially expanded. -Sean Curtin 02:11, Mar 26, 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 - redirected - SimonP 21:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Dippet

Dictionary entry (including definition and some etymology) for a Scottish slang word. The entry has been transwikied and should be deleted as the last step of the process. Kevin Rector 17:37, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget to read the text about the Harry Potter character at the bottom. ☺ Uncle G 18:36, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
Keep ex-headmasters of notable fictional schools like Hogwarts. The dicdef is no longer needed. Kappa 21:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment Armando Dippet is hardly notable. If he was he'd have his own article and this one could potentially redirect to that. However, I would venture a guess that Armando Dippet would end up on VFD as fancruft if it ever got created. Kevin Rector 22:35, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Slang dicdef. I see no possibility of expansion into an encyclopedia article. The reference to the HP character has already been copied into List of characters in the Harry Potter books (attribution preserved by comment on talk). Delete as the final step of the transwiki process. Rossami (talk) 23:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Rossami, and maybe make it a redirect to that List of Characters? Radiant _* 09:32, Mar 24, 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. – AB CD 21:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pokemon of the day chick

It's an gamecruft FAQ in IGN. Google returned 84 results. - Mailer Diablo 17:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More gamecruft. Can't these be speedied? Delete no matter what. - Lucky 6.9 17:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete one more pokemoncruft. vlad_mv 18:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A feature column on a game site. Not notable. DaveTheRed 22:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I choose you! Zscout370 02:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, pokecruft. Megan1967 04:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete now, pokecruft. ComCat 05:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by SWAdair as spam. Thue | talk 09:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

DDB Design

Looks like advertising for a future company. Google results says it all. - Mailer Diablo 17:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spam, pure and simple. Make it go away. - Lucky 6.9 17:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's gone. Speedily deleted as spam. SWAdair | Talk 10:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Daniela Stanciu as spam. Thue | talk 09:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Daniela Stanciu

Non-notable. Also see []Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/DDB Design]]. - Mailer Diablo 17:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 16:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MarkKelly

Vanity. Inter\^Echo 17:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, no notability. Lacrimosus 21:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. DaveTheRed 22:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was move to WP:IFD. —Korath (Talk) 01:58, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Hitler1916.jpg

Doctored beyond recognition, compare to [6]. 213.54.227.131 18:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This belongs at Images for deletion, not here. android↔talk 19:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Have reposted it there. 213.54.227.131 19:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Rmhermen, as joke neologism presumably. Thue | talk 09:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Katie-ism

Silly vanity. Delete. --BD2412 20:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Never mind - already gone. --BD2412 21:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyvio. – AB CD 16:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Patrick girouard

This name breaks WP's naming convetions. Patrick Girouard passes the Google test for notability, but this page should be reirected to correct capitalization at Patrick Girouard. I propose redirect and merge.--Dmcdevit 20:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you must be looking for Votes for merging - this is Votes for deletion. If you're keen on a merge and redirect (in that order, usually), be bold and do it yourself. Chris 21:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Chriscf beat me to saying the same thing. Read Help:Renaming (moving) a page. Uncle G 21:11, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
Boldly moved to Patrick Girouard. --BD2412 04:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Made the above link shortcut to the new page, as there may still be a legit question of notability. --BD2412 04:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's a Copyvio of one of the external links: this one. android↔talk 05:11, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
- But it was originally written by the Illustrator. ~~android↔talk 12:06, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)~~
  - An impostor left this message. Wow, I can't believe someone would be this much of a dick and do this. If you want to make a case for this article, create a login and let us know who you are. Christ. android↔talk 04:30, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Change vote to strongest possible Delete given the behavior of the above sockpuppet, unless a substantial rewrite is done in place of the copyvio. Even then, it'll be a tough sell for me. android↔talk 04:30, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:59, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Randolph Thompson Dible II

Vanity page (cf. [7]). I'm not sure whether the author is noteworthy enough to have his own article or not, but if he is, someone else should be creating an article for him, not he himself. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 22:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Clear vanity. Google has a single hit which is a different blog. I was going to speedy this on sight before it grew (clearly some of the linked dicdef-like stuff will need either major re-writes or deletion too) --Vamp:Willow 23:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, patent nonsense. Lacrimosus 23:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is certainly not patent nonsense, but under Randolph Thompson Dible II we would expect a biographical sketch, wouldn't we? Move this to Consciousness or wherever and then delete. <KF> 23:54, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vanity
Article (and VFD notice) blanked by author (Special:Contributions/24.190.55.243) and sole (non-VFD-notice-affixing) editor. Speedy delete under criteria G2 and G7. Uncle G 12:01, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

Now (speedy) Deleted on grounds that content wiped by original creator; no links into page. --Vamp:Willow 12:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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