Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2004 December 25

December 25

Kevin cooper

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

Non-notable, vanity page. Grox 00:19, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, Userfy if there is a user attatched. hfool 02:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<-- forgot to log in.

• Delete.Mikkalai 03:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Another person who can't afford a capital letter for the last name, and that's never good. Vanity article. Geogre 20:06, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, uncapped last name rule (extreme probability of auto-vanity). Wyss 20:37, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• One late Christmas speedy delete as being nothing more than a placeholder (and not a very good one) for the weblink. - Lucky 6.9 00:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like just a link to a website for advertising purposes. --MPerel 02:14, Dec 30, 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Sierra Times

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

Non-notable web site, www.sierratimes.com, "The Internet Publication for Real Americans". Not related to the Sierra Club. Alexa rank of 93,000 or so. --BM 00:36, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete.Mikkalai 03:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising. Geogre 20:13, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Wyss 20:36, 25 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. from VfD:

Start of How To article. Someone might suggest where it should be transwiki-ed, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. There was a previous incarnation of an article of this title, apparently also deleted/transwiki-ed: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/How to play the violin/June 16 Discussion. --BM 00:49, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I feel like these would be ideal subjects for redirects. People obviously search for them. Good idea? Meelar (talk) 00:53, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• But redirect to what? Violin? Delete unless a good redirect can be came up with. hfool 02:23, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I was thinking violin, yes. Seems like a decent target to me. Also, we could develop a template for wikibooks similar to the one we use for wikiquote (instead of "Wikiquote has a series of quotations by or about X", it could be "Wikibooks has an instruction manual relating to X"). Meelar (talk) 05:26, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• transwiki Yuckfoo 03:29, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This is knowledge. Mikkalai 03:53, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Hmmm I'm thinking transwiki this article, also merge everything new into Violin. Open to persuasion. Kappa 04:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiSource: DCEdwards1966 06:15, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki, Merge the helpful stuff into violin and Delete. Wyss 20:36, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Can this go to Wikibooks? It should be moved somewhere, in any case. Transwiki/merge, do not delete. ~leif ☺ _HELO 05:28, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Elf-friend 11:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - The article is informative. -- Judson 22:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, "how to play the violin" is certainly a subject with notability. -- Crevaner 00:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no valid reason for its deletion. -- Old Right 00:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Sysop acting on this discussion: in assessing consensus, please note the similarity in user pages and VfD voting patterns between Crevaner and Old Right. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I second that. While it is impossible to prove that they are the same person, their behavior is highly suggestive. This has been going on for months. Antandrus 03:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Judson as well. Same in all the vfd's here. Could someone ask a developer to check if the ip's are different? Michael Ward 07:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Megan1967 02:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, rename and rewrite. I suppose as a violinist I should weigh in here. The article could be called violin technique or even basic violin technique -- kill the how-to part of the title. It could cover the French and Russian schools, include a basic repertoire list, and dispense with the how-to style of writing. Potentially it is quite encyclopedic, if it is written as knowledge and not as an instruction manual. Don't really feel like tackling it myself right now though. Antandrus 03:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Military mind

Looks like a bad joke to me, especially BTU (blowing things up). Unless somebody can think of something sensible to replace it with this article should be deleted. Edward 01:39, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

• Delete. No, I think it's an honest entry from a serviceman/woman. Acronyms are very common in army parlance and only half-joking most of the time; FUBAR and AWOL are just the tip of the iceberg. That said, I don't think the current entry or the topic as a whole is salvageable in any way. "The military mind" sounds much too vague and subjective. If there have been objective facts, studies, books, whatever on it, I'm all for rewriting. Pending such a rewrite, delete. JRM 01:52, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
• Delete: It's a shifty dictdef of private vintage in this form. Of course the phrase is used, but it's not used in a special way, and particularly not in this special way. (BTW, the US Navy gave us three words; two are used in computers. There is SNAFU, which stands for "Situation Normal All F*cked Up," and then a comparative form, TARFU, which means "Things Are Really F*cked Up," and then the superlative, FUBAR, which we all know means "F*cked Up Beyond All Recognition." What's unique is that it's the only case of military slang that has an adjectival, comparative, and superlative formation on an acronymn.) Geogre 04:56, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Does that make FUBAR a relative or absolute superlative? Wile E. Heresiarch 20:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • An absolute superlative. The observation that these acronymns exist in an hierarchy comes from Algeo & Pyles, ed. History of English. Partridge is also absolutely chock-a-block with military slang. I think the armed services generate more slang, and more acronymn slang, than even computer geeks. Geogre 15:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sure it's a serious entry, but the subject is too hard to pin down. Perhaps military psychology could be a good article, but this article is too vague and probably not a generally accepted usage. Isomorphic 06:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Rje 13:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, sincere attempt at what amounts to a weak dicdef of two common words. Wyss 20:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Googling for "military mind" yields a lot of hits, so I think it's reasonable to say the phrase is in common circulation. So I can see a need for an article by that name, but I don't know if the current version is it. No vote yet. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Makes sense to me! -- Judson 21:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, the idea of a "military mind" is a legitimate subject. -- Crevaner 00:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. All the page needs is a little editing. -- Old Right 00:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Sysop acting on this article: please note that Crevaner and Old Right have similar user pages and similar VfD voting patterns. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Judson too. I picked up on this independently, it's very suspicious. Michael Ward 07:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete this orphaned dicdef. While there might be something encyclopedic to say about the values generally instilled by the various militaries of the world or about the psychological preparedness that they generally develop, this would not be a useful starting point for such an article (nor would it be my first choice of title). Unfortunately, I don't know anyone who can write that article without it being original research. I know the US Army has done studies on this topic but I don't believe they have been released. Rossami (talk) 05:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The military mind or military mind-set is worthy of an article; and my experience is that the phrase the military mind is the customary way to refer to it in US English. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

No evidence of this Adam Bendorf found on the web. DCEdwards1966 04:07, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete unless proof of existence is provided. Gamaliel 04:14, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as a hoax, noise, patent nonsense. Wyss 20:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Seems speedy for blatant hoaxing. Geogre 05:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as deliberate eident hoax, hence vandalism: No semiconductors in 19th century. Mikkalai 03:16, 27 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Canadian Traditional Conservative Union

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

I put this up, it is non-notable and has never been registered. Spinboy 05:58, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Wyss 20:28, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Just an informal group of politically like-minded individuals. Ливай | ☺ 00:01, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Samaritan 10:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 10:57, 26 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. At this point, this article reads: Vincent Schwellenbach is a relative of Lewis B. Schwellenbach currently seeking a political career in central Illinois. Vincent is currently seeking the office of mayor of Bloomington, Illinois. Notability isn't established. (Indeed, the article is phrased so oddly that I'm not sure that anything at all is said about Lewis B.) -- Hoary 06:09, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

Retract: Shimeru has done a fine job. I suspect that the original author intended to write about Vincent and sleepily mistitled the article; Lewis B. does indeed seem noteworthy and the article is already worthwhile. -- Hoary 13:16, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

• Nothing is, except that he's related to Vincent. Whoever he is. However, Lewis B. Schwellenbach was an American politician and judge, and became Secretary of Labor under Truman. Seems a page about him might be worth keeping. Shimeru 09:48, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've converted the page to a stub. Maybe someone who knows more about the man can expand on it. Shimeru 09:54, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: うまく出来ました! ホーリ 22:18, 25 Dec 2004 (JST)
      • It might, but will it? Keep and let's see! iMeowbot~Mw 21:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and let it grow. Rje 13:09, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• keep I'm going to fill in a real biography of Lewis Schwellenbach in the next hour or two. I rewrote the article, and put in a lot of interesting information (in my opinion). I think that the article is now a fine article, and I strongly recommend keeping it. Morris 15:46, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: That is indeed an impressive expansion. Shimeru 21:04, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Rhydin

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

fancruft DCEdwards1966 06:27, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. An AOL roleplaying forum of no particular noteworthiness. Shimeru 07:22, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Rje 13:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Wyss 20:27, 25 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Into Trance

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

Looks like an ad to me. DCEdwards1966 06:38, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, yep looks like advertising. Rje 13:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Wyss 20:26, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a billboard. Ливай | ☺ 23:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Not even subtle. Icundell 00:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. RaD Man (talk) 04:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete totally an ad Gkhan 02:06, Dec 28, 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. from VfD:

fancruft DCEdwards1966 06:40, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Verifiable and useful to fans, but not interesting outside the Donkey Kong games. Merge non-urgently or keep. Deletion would invite re-creation. Kappa 07:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Donkey Kong characters. Rje 13:07, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge all the DK characters into one main article. - SimonP 13:35, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect. Neutrality^talk 21:27, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect: If someone merges, cool. Don't load the queue with it. Make this a redirect to slow recreation. Geogre 05:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into Donkey Kong Country 3, presumably the only game in which it appears. Mrwojo 19:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion from VfD:

more Donkey Kong fancruft DCEdwards1966 06:41, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Donkey Kong characters. Rje 13:06, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Donkey Kong characters and unlink from Donkey Kong Country 3. Geogre 05:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion from VfD:

more DK fancruft DCEdwards1966 06:42, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Donkey Kong characters. Rje 13:06, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect, per above, and unlink. Geogre 05:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion from VfD:

last of the DK fancruft DCEdwards1966 06:43, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Donkey Kong characters. Rje 13:05, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion from VfD:

still more DK fancruft DCEdwards1966 06:59, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

• • Merge and redirect to Donkey Kong characters. Rje 13:05, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge Wyss 20:26, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion from VfD:

DK fancruft DCEdwards1966 07:00, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Donkey Kong characters. Rje 13:03, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• So Merge it. Wyss 20:25, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• All of the above merged to Donkey Kong Characters. hfool 00:46, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • On second thought, Donkey Kong already goes over the main Kongs. Moving the new page to Minor characters in Donkey Kong, redirecting old page to Donkey Kong. hfool 00:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Nice work, hfool. Merge and redir. Meelar (talk) 00:53, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Bryan 20:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

appears to be vanity DCEdwards1966 07:02, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity. Rje 13:01, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as a stub without context, possible libel. Wyss 20:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Speedied: Content was: "Blake Greene, Formerly a West Palm Beach resident, ex-artist. Now expatriated as a Londoner. Nasty Ho. (1986-)" Geogre 05:33, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

International Web Police

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

Vanity (hoax?), not NPOV. Delete from me. Somebody in the WWW 08:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Comment. Also see [1]. The links are defunct and this vigilante outfit (not a hoax) seems likewise. If they ever did anything notable, I can't see any indication of it. No vote; subject is real and I do not vote on notability. JRM 12:54, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

• The web site has certainly been around since 1999-07, when it entered my bookmark collection. The fact that it appears to have taken the Florida government at least five years to have noticed this outfit is a strong indication that InterGOV has done nothing notable (other than, it seems, obey the cardinal rule of web-only entities: to evolve until they become chat rooms) during that time. 62.255.32.10 21:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, group shows no evidence of notable activity. Wyss 20:23, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if this group existed, the article as stands is nothing more than rumors. --FOo 05:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• To be completely fair: The article contains one fact. The second paragraph, giving the web site registration details, appears to be factual — or to have been factual, at any rate. But Wikipedia is not supposed to be a substitute for whois, of course. 62.255.32.10 21:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Ambi 10:32, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 03:34, 27 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Protein Linguistics

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

• Delete, merge (if there are any relevant parts of links) or rewrite (complete). Written in the style of original research (see what Wikipedia is not). Google:protein linguistics http://www.google.com/search?q=%22protein+linguistics gets one about 21 Google hits. --Lexor|Talk 08:53, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Suggest a merge of some relevant information into protein structure prediction. --Lexor|Talk 09:09, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Suppose Proteins were a clan speaking a particular language what would they be? Scottish, presumably. Clan McHemoglobin, I can see it now. I can't see any relevant information to merge, but if anyone else does, be my guest. This should still not stay. JRM 12:40, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
• Delete, I wouldn't say it's cranky, but this is the very def of original research. Wyss 20:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for new theories/original research. Ливай | ☺ 22:07, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Lexor is a total idiot who has no idea how to use Google. If you typed "protein linguistics" you do not get 1 result. You do not search Google by using underscores between words (e.g. protein_linguistics) Comment left unsigned by 68.97.132.215 JRM 01:47, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
  • In my defense, you'll notice I used the autowiki link: [[Google:protein linguistics]] (note the absence of an underscore!), which generates the link Google:protein linguistics, this generates a search for "protein_linguistics" (with the underscore), rather than "protein linguistics" (which is a bug in the link generation software which I was not aware of). I already noted this fact on the User talk:Natarajanganesan. It does not help matters to throw around phrases like "total idiot". --Lexor|Talk 03:09, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

  I wouldn't know about the "total idiot" part, but you're right. You do not in fact get one result, you get 15. Which doesn't change the fact that this article is a verbatim copy of [2], making it either a copyright violation or original research. Please see What Wikipedia is not. If you are the copyright holder or have permission, you at least need to rewrite this article to conform to an encyclopedic standard. As it stands, it's not suitable. JRM 01:47, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

• Delete. If keratin were a tree, what kind of tree would it be? Very Barbara Waltersish. - Nunh-huh 02:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I think this is not so clear. My concern with this page is largely the opposite: the application of linguistics to biology, including proteins and others entities, is well established, yet this article makes it sound newfangled and conjectural. For example, probably the most widely used textbook in bioinformatics is Biological Sequence Analysis by Durbin et al., which describes computational biology techniques explicitly in terms of linguistics. It was written in 1998. Having said that, a lot of the Wikipedia article does curiously focus on its authors work, esp. the link about "precision, recall and f-scores", and the manner of writing and focus on metaphor makes it sound somewhat quirky. Also, I don't see why we need an article about "protein linguistics" in place of a more general article on the application of linguistics to biology. At any rate, I wouldn't object if the article were deleted, but perhaps Natarajanganesan could write a more objective article (or perhaps he'd rather not). BTW, a more responsible article on linguistics & biology is in this Nature article (it was one of the 15 google hits). Zashaw 01:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree, either a merge with other article(s) or a total rewrite is in order, but the subject does warrant coverage in Wikipedia. --Lexor|Talk 03:09, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 03:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Elf-friend 11:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This is similar to sequences of nucleotides (letters) makes amino acids (words), and sequences of amino acids makes peptides (sentences), blah blah blah analogies but this should go into protein structure prediction. At the very least, the article would have to include some scientific concepts, like Ramachandran plots, steric hindrance, etc as grammar rule analogies to be a keeper (and even then...) --jag123 07:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Christa McAlliffe Regional Charter Public School

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

Not a notable school, and not even spelled correctly. This is from the same anon who gave us Mary-Ann Chester. Me vote delete. iMeowbot~Mw 09:39, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, no reason shown to believe that it is worthy of inclusion. Rje 13:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Explaining why this school isn't notable: it doesn't exist in this form yet. Currently it's known as the Framingham Community Charter School, it only opened in 2002, and the renaming and regional status are still working their way through the state bureaucracy. There really isn't anything to write about yet. iMeowbot~Mw 20:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, middle schools aren't inherently notable and the source for this article is dubious. Wyss 20:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete despite such breathtakingly notable information as the name of its food service company. Gamaliel 21:29, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That was my favourite bit! Wyss 22:55, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's a really good food service. iMeowbot~Mw 02:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Speculation, and it's reminding me of those horrible shock jokes that were told at the time. Geogre 05:35, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, and add a mention of the school to the article on McAlliffe, assuming it exists. 23skidoo 06:39, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Let's not. As above, the name is still only proposed for this particular school, and there are lots of schools out there named McAuliffe. iMeowbot~Mw 13:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Make a mention in Framingham, Massachusetts and delete - Skysmith 09:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Futures. Not a notable plan. And not a notable school. I live within twenty miles of it and I don't recall it's ever being mentioned in the Boston Globe. Actually I just checked the online Globe archives and the articles all appear limited to the Globe West local supplement. Oddly enough, there is no article on the new name, further suggesting lack of notability. Correction: the new name is mentioned briefly in passing in a Globe West article headlined "BROADER SCHOOL BASE EYED CHARTER FACILITY SEEKS REGIONAL DESIGNATION." In other words, not even the local supplement thinks that the renaming of the school is newsworthy in itself. Mention in Framingham, Massachusetts but do not perform an actual merge. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:57, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Elf-friend 11:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Afterthought: Has anybody coined the term schoolcruft yet?)
  • Yeah, I believe Wyss did. Death to schoolcruft (i.e., delete)! Edeans 07:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Do you mean Henry Rowe Schoolcruft author of the book that provided Longfellow's source material for Hiawatha? He's dead already (December 10, 1864). Oh, wait, his name is Schoolcraft. Never mind. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:44, 29 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Gerald Wiblin

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

Horrible, horrible vanity. Non-notable kid, born '88 who doesn't have a girlfriend and apparently thinks the ladies find bad grammar charming. - Vague | Rant 12:33, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

• I agree that it is a little pointless, but I believe with such good grades this kid could become something. I think we should keep the article just in case. Anyway, he may get a girlfriend with such widespread of his e-mail. 203.20.229.26
• Delete. He'll thank us later. —Korath^会話 12:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Sometimes you just have to laugh. Rje 12:59, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Of course it should be Deleted. Nicely put together though. Jeff Knaggs 13:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Come on, it's funny and should be left just as a testiment to the fun of wikis. Honestly, why delete it, it harms nobody, and will make many people laugh. ""Don't delete!"" -- komencanto 15:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Don't Delete. Stunning page, very amusing, wikipedia needs to take a chill pill, let a few things through. The guys at wikipedia are obvious champs, they just need to chill sometimes.
• Userfy or delete; see this message; Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article [[{{{1}}}]] may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. The Wikipedia community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. On Wikipedia, each user is entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper, a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects. Dunc|☺ 14:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Tuf-Kat 19:01, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Maybe a copy to BJAODN, but in the main encyclopedia space? No way. iMeowbot~Mw 19:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, Gerald "needs" to take a wiki pill. Wyss 20:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I wish we could speedy crap like this. Gamaliel 21:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I wish mr. W would use his writing skill to contribute in other fields, in which case this could become a basis for a userpage. However, jokes belong to BJAODN at best. As for getting a girlfriend this way, I seriously doubt it. - Skysmith 09:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Elf-friend 11:50, 28 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Hexblade

Non-notable Dungeons and Dragons fancruft. --BM 02:06, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, sound very very obscure even by the standards of fancruft. Rje 18:44, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, yep, it's hypercruft. Wyss 20:16, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. No, we should have factually accurate articles on every character class ever conceived! The potential to D&D fans everywhere is enormous! (All that and I still don't vote. I daresay I'm really pushing it here. :-) JRM 02:43, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Delete: Third and a half? Via some webpage? No. Even if we weren't committing all these little varmints to a big corral of classes and critters, this wouldn't be suitable, but we are rounding them all up and putting them in their own pastures. Geogre 05:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge into some more general article on character classes if one exists. This doesn't look less notable than some of the other character classes that have articles. Bryan 20:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  Name them. No offense, just curious. JRM 21:13, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

• Delete. Elf-friend 12:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with Complete Warrior with redirection in the Hexblade page. Axel Driken 03:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America for discussion. It is not displayed here because of its huge size.

Alan Randalls

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

He isn't credited under either name at the full credits list for caddyshack - the notability claim given in the article. Given also that there is no strong showing at google, I would say that this is a vanity article, and non notable. --BesigedB 14:07, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep I considered this guy for VfD. He runs a voice outfit called Studioworkx.com in Tampa Bay. They're big enough to have produced work for music stations nationwide, which in my opinion makes the company, and its proprietor, worthy of note. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:39, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, a professional announcer whose voice is heard by millions every day in markets on at least two continents is notable. Wyss 20:13, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 22:29, 25 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Agadilbar

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

• POV rant in first person with (as far as i can tell) no encyclopedic content. Lots of uninteglibable html/email code at the top and bottom. Looks like an opinion piece by the user Agadilbar with only 1 edit. Couldn't think of a reason to speedy. BrokenSegue 17:26, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No useful content. Looks like a cut-and-paste from the source of another Wiki or blog site, unformatted and possible copyvio, but let's not waste time on it. The creator has already been sent a welcome, even before their work was listed here, which is a welcome change! Andrewa 18:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Rje 18:39, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as pure spam (it's even still got part of the header), otherwise as PoV rant, orig. res., political ad. Wyss 20:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, lots of poorly edited dribble. Megan1967 01:00, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Requests for money should be speedy deleted (not a vote). 172.161.56.164 04:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Not an article, no chance of encyclopedic. - Amgine 00:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.Mikkalai 03:38, 27 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Article doesn't estalish notability, and googling doesn't reveal anything very interesting. Tuf-Kat 19:49, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, uncapped last name rule (extreme likelihood of vanity). Wyss 20:07, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• keep it, minimum participation 2% for the poll to be valid, decision should be valid for 1 month then we should reconsider, decision method should be majority rule Iasson 20:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • If you mean for these requirements to apply to this nomination for deletion, we already have a deletion policy in place. If not, to what are you referring? Tuf-Kat 20:22, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• delete as per established procedure as likely vaniy. Can't even spell his own name. Dunc|☺ 20:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not establish notability. Gamaliel 21:33, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - as modern Swedish artists go, he's notable.
• Keep, can any conceptual artist be said to be "notable" in the terms that appear to be being used. This article is factually accurate, and this guy is notable within his sphere (I saw an exhibition of his in Stockholm whilst visiting family). Just because this artist doesn't have a legion of drooling fans creating massive numbers of webpages (and those that do exist are admittedly mostly in Swedish) doesn't make him unnoteworthy. This page just needs moving that's all. Rje 01:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • If the article established that he was notable, I would change my vote to keep. If he's had a major exhibition in Stockholm, fine, put it in the article, and then we'd have info on something notable rather than some Swedish dude. Not all conceptual artists are notable, and this article doesn't say he is one anyway -- it says he's a "contemporary artist working within the field of new-media and the conceptual problematics therein", whatever that means.Tuf-Kat 02:03, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • For example: his abnormalAUDIO project appeared in the Helsinki leg of PixelACHE [3]. When it comes down to it, this guy is not internationaly famous, nor is he famous in Sweden, but he is notable within his field. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and I fail to see how Senneby is any more obscure/unnoteworthy than Grave (band) and Pain of Salvation in terms of Swedish artists/musicians, or any of the shedloads of Star Wars fancruft that are floating about. Rje 02:35, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: He is one founder of the abnormalAUDIO project. That's the closest thing the article offers for notability, and it requires external research to establish that that's meaningful. It's true that Wikipedia is not paper, but it's also true that, while we can be more contemporary than most, we still should be somewhat conservative. Most artists have original ideas or techniques, but we have to rely upon the arts community to act as a sort of peer review to separate the notable from the struggling. At this point, this particular artist does not appear to be notable enough. Geogre 05:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable enough for this project. Dr Zen 06:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. Another "if I've not heard of him/her/it, it can't be notable". He's well-known in Sweden. Dan100 10:07, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

For the record, who said, "I haven't heard of it, so it's not notable?" Second, if you know that he is well known in Sweden, you will, of course, have some verification and be adding it to the article? You can demonstrate to the dubious that, in fact, the arts community is honoring him as a leader? Geogre 15:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 18:31, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Delete Very low google hits for a "new media" artists (101, including the article and the vfd here at en. Not on sv.wikipedia. - Amgine 00:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 03:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Relevant and informative. The group of contemporary artists aren't that many and they should not be rated based on their nationality but rather on their relevance. Senneby obviously works in a relevant field of art. --81.232.78.225 12:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - no nomination criterion satisfying Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Interesting to who? - David Gerard 23:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I change my vote to keep. Article now establishes notability. Note that page should be moved to Jakob Senneby if kept. Tuf-Kat 23:30, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

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

Looks like a user page rant instead of an article. A google search turns up two hits for a baseball player of yore of the same name, not this person. Gamaliel 21:25, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Is this an encyclopedia article or an electoral speech? -- Robert Pendray 00:10, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Sounds like a stump speech. Userfy if the correct user can be found and then delete. hfool 00:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like a ranting political speech. Megan1967 00:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 02:11, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. The content has absolutely no relation to the topic; also "original research": political credo from 1st person. Mikkalai 03:42, 27 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Mike Laure was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

From Talk:Mike Laure:

BEWARE as this article may be part of a possible

NONSENSE CAMPAIGN!

All details submitted by 24.199.213.90 should be verified, if possible (Google?)

-- Eric 16:56, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Died in 1927 and Ritchie Valens is his idol? DELETE!

-- Eric 10:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a Mike Laure; offer to cleanup on that basis first. Dunc|☺ 23:03, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• What's with the odd way of listing this? Anyway, looks like you've done your homework on this one, delete and recreate as a stub for a above artist. hfool 00:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable entry. Megan1967 00:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Speed deleted as silly vandalism. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:08, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blast-Ended Skrewt

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

Non-notable Harry Potter fan-cruft. Should be merged in somewhere or deleted. --BM 21:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep for completeness, or merge if there's a lot of other merge votes. Xezbeth 21:55, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep for completeness. No other article will be placed at this title - it does not clutter. It is factually accurate and varifiable. --Oldak Quill 23:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability not in deletion policy. Well-written and informative. -- Robert Pendray 23:40, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability is the essence of being encyclopedic, which is in the deletion policy. Non-notabity is the main reason articles are deleted through the VfD process. --BM 23:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Do we have an article on Creatures from Harry Potter or somesuch? Merge to that sort of article, otherwise delete. hfool 00:10, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge to appropriate parent article; Ecology of Harry Potter perhaps. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The number of plants/animals in Harry Potter would easily exceed 32kb - even if only substub descriptions were included. Redirects would be coming from article names such as this - it'd be far wiser just to use the article space. --Oldak Quill 10:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why would anyone look for an article on a plant/animal in Harry Potter if they have never read the book and consequently do not know the names of them? They are not, after all, in the common parlance. And if they have read the book, they already know as much as the article can tell them. Is there any other context for "Blast-Ended Skrewts"? Is there actually any good reason for listing more than 32kb of animals/plants that don't have any other context? Dr Zen 10:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no reason to not. Such articles can serve as useful references for anyone reading, watching, playing, [insert other verbs] Harry Potter. --Oldak Quill 12:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Why not? Guanaco 01:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge to some suitable general title; such as those already suggested. Rje 01:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge to fictional animals and redirect. I remember them well, and they hurt Draco, etc. Yes, yes, very fun. However, they're not being referred to by anything outside of their fiction, so readers won't hit the term and need an explanation. Geogre 05:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. What's a good place to put it? --Carnildo 09:11, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • So tempting!Dr Zen 09:28, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I will change my vote if anyone can explain how it could be expanded. The article already says all that can be said about a very minor element of a popular but not otherwise particularly significant work.Keep. Thanks to James and David for clarifying the deletion policy.Dr Zen 09:32, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It could be expanded to mention the phases of their development, their propensity to cannibalism, and their origin as a hybrid created by Hagrid. Also I don't see why completeness is a good reason to delete things. Kappa 15:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. While not being encyclopediac is grounds for deletion, the page Wikipedia:Deletion policy uses to define that term (Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not) makes no mention of fancruft and therefore, being fancruft is not reason for deletion. Dan100 10:02, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or merge since its useful to potter fans. No particular need to merge if the harry potter editors don't want to. The Skrewt is a recurring element of the book it comes from, so its not as minor as some other things like bubotubers. BTW I think the article should mention that Hagrid created these himselves as a hybrid of some other thingies, IIRC. Kappa 13:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, f-ncr-ft. If you want an article about everything in Harry Potter, start a Harry Potter wiki. —tregoweth 16:24, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Why not make a Chemistry Wiki and delete all the Lithium molecule articles on Wikipedia? Lithium is no more relevant to many than Harry Potter. We have the space, the articles are factually accurate and varifiable. No other article will be placed at this name - it does absolutely no harm. Wikipedia serves to cover all subjects in whatever depth people are willing to write to. --Oldak Quill 17:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Because chemistry is part of the real world and the Blast-Ended Skrewt is only part of the fictional Harry Potter world. To be honest, if you want to convince people that you have no sense of proportion and are therefore not bringing any to this debate, then please keep on with that line of argument about "a major element of the periodic table with significant medical and material uses is of comparable significance to a creature that only exists in one author's writings", it makes that point quite well. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:07, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • That's no valid argument. If it's fiction or not is irrelevant. Should we remove all of our mythology entries just because they are fiction, or characters like Tintin. It's mostly the notability that is relevant. Streets and busroutes generally shouldn't be included how real they may be. The example about removing Lithium (if serious) is absurd. I currently have no oppinion about if this should be kept or not. - Jeltz talk 22:57, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
        • Skrewts are not Tintin (there's a statement you don't write every day). I believe Antaeus wished to make the point that they are *only* part of the fictional world and do not project at all from the book they appear in. This makes the article nothing more than textual analysis. The article says what the book says. If this is okay, then everything of this nature should be included. There could be an article called shooting up (Naked Lunch), which would not be about heroin use in Naked Lunch, but would enumerate the shootings up. Enumeration is not encyclopaedic. Do you want Becky Sharp's dress in the first chapter of Vanity Fair?Dr Zen 01:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • If that's the point he wanted to make I missunderstod him, because that is the point I wanted to make too. :) Jeltz talk 10:33, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
          • Dr. Zen explained what I was trying to say, yes. The comparison of lithium with the Blast-Ended Skrewt is indeed silly, but if I left the impression that I considered it silly merely because lithium is real-world and the BES is fictional, that doesn't reflect the actual issues on which I base that judgement. I don't use the word fancruft anymore for a number of reasons, preferring GOOPTI instead, standing for Granularity Out Of Proportion To Influence. Lithium is not only one of the major building blocks of our world as an element of the periodic table, it has had a tremendous impact on human affairs from spending several decades as the only known effective treatment for certain mental illnesses. Now, I'm not saying that fictional constructs never influence the real world; that was apparently misread from my remarks. But how much influence has the BES had on the real world? Has it had the influence of a Tintin, let alone of a mythological figure? Hardly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Blast-Ended Skrewts have had little or no influence on the world but that is a moot point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a place were you go to get accurate information on different subjects. Is it totally inconceivable that one might actually want to know how a blast-ended skrewt look like? Maybe you are talking about them with someone, and you think, "Hmm, what did those guys look like?" (kinda silly i know :P but you get my point). THAT is wikipedia is for, and personally, i think your deletion arguments are totally unconvincing. Gkhan 02:20, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• *yawn*. Please read the deletion policy. Unwarranted listing; keep, obviously. James F. (talk) 17:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into Creatures from Harry Potter even if such an article does not yet exist, to dissuade editors from making separate articles for each. --fvw* 18:36, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Keep, "fancruft" is not a valid reason for deleting an article. Bryan 19:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The reason was "non-notable", or is that not a reason for deletion, either? --BM 01:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • No, it actually isn't a reason. Come up with a reason from Wikipedia:Deletion policy. You know, that thing you're supposed to read before nominating anything - David Gerard 23:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • No potential to become encyclopedic. --BM 18:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • No, sorry, that's a mis-reading of the policy. "No potential" means something for which an encyclopædia article cannot be written - i.e., insufficient verifiable information. Read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#What Wikipedia articles are not, please, like you're meant to, and cite from there. Oh, and before you suggest item 7, that's about NPOV manner. James F. (talk) 03:26, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Please convince me that you are not interpreting the Wikipedia deletion policy to suit your own point of view. I do not see why your interpretation of what the concept "no potential" or item 7 means should carry any more weight than that of any other contributor. If you want to change, add to or clarify that part of the policy then fine, let us do so by consensus, but please do not go around stating what is actually meant by X is ....
          • James, David (and others): please try to accept that some people's interpretation of what are meant by certain deletion policies differ from yours and while they may not (always) be right, your views and interpretations are not canonical either. Let us have open debate about whether articles should be included and not stifle Wikipedia by "beating people about the head" if they use an interpretation of a reason that you do not agree with! Elf-friend 09:26, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Sorry if I appear overly short, sometimes; a significant number of people, most of them rather new to the project, have of late started to push us into a rather more significantly "deletionist" than the one that Wikipedia was founded with, and it is most... frustrating, especially when, time and again, each newly-deletionist user uses the arguments that we argued with the last lot. However, this is not the place to be having arguments as to how you think we should change the policy to something different to how we wrote it, many moons ago. James F. (talk) 03:37, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • I guess you didn't write it well enough "many moons ago", then. In my opinion, this article has "no potential to be encyclopedic" because the subject is too trival for an encyclopedia, not notable enough, which is what I said in the first place. My guess is that you couldn't get consensus "many moons ago" on what it means for a subject to be "encyclopedic"; so it was deliberately left vague, with some enumeration in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not of areas of agreement. The failure to produce clear criteria as to what Wikipedia is means that each case has to be argued now on its own merits, each time. We can agree, at least, that this is exasperating. As for whether the newbies are decidedly more deletionist than the oldbies, I cannot comment, being a newbie. --BM 22:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge As with fvw comment above, needs to be a part of an article which covers the flora and fauna of Harry Potter as a pre-emptive measure. We don't want dozens/hundreds of critter articles (ala grey elves?) - Amgine 01:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge: DCEdwards1966 02:10, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge: Good info, but skrewts aren't a major part of Harry Potter. I don't want to see hundreds of pages dealing with every creature, person, spell or whatever from the books.Carrp 16:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep I can totally image a situation were you think Hmm, how did those crab-thingies in HP look like?. And merging would only add clutter, i think a separate page is warranted.
• Delete, or merge at most. (Co-incidentally watching "Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban" as I type this ...). Elf-friend 11:24, 28 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Selfish set

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

I originally posted this article under the belief that "Selfish Set" was an official term in mathematics. It wasn't until later that I realized that it was invented solely for one question on the 1996 William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition and is not known outside of that test. - Daniel Walker 21:55, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Speedy delete mistake. Gazpacho 23:56, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• If creator wants it, it can be speedied under current policy, correct? Otherwise delete. hfool 00:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Not a speedy I'm afraid, though I'd support adding it to the SD criteria. Delete. --fvw* 18:34, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 03:46, 27 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Bubotuber

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

More non-notable Harry Potter fancruft. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia of the real universe, not an encyclopedia of every fictional universe. --BM 22:02, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. Please point out where Wikipedia is an 'Encyclopedia of the real universe', I must have missed it. There's 23 'What wikipedia articles are not' and Fancruft isn't one of them. Xezbeth 22:08, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft is VfD short-hand for one category of article that is non-notable, or "nn": fan trivia. (In this case, hyperobsessive fan trivia.) You won't find non-notability in the list of 'What wikipedia articles are not'. However, notability of the subject is the hallmark of an 'encyclopedic' article, and that is listed. --BM 22:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep for completeness. No other article will be placed at this title - it does not clutter. It is factually accurate and varifiable. --Oldak Quill 23:36, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't believe it's hyperobsessive fan trivia. Harry potter is extremely widely read, almost all readers will have heard of it. -- Robert Pendray 00:05, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • People will have heard of it, of course. Does that mean that Wikipedia needs to incorporate the Encyclopedia of Harry Potter Trivia, with 2000 or more articles on every minor feature of the HP Universe, including the plants? Aren't there fan web sites for this cruft? --BM 00:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are missing the point of Wikipedia - it is not a paper encyclopedia - therefore it can never get to full. Nor can a subject ever be improportionately covered - Wikipedia is always growing, and improportion is only noticable through "Random Page". Therefore the only criteria which we should use (unless we believe ourselves to be infallible) should be factual accuracy, varifiability and occasionally clutter. The articles I am submitting are factually accurate - they begin by describing that the object comes from Harry Potter, afterwhich I describe them within the context of this world. You can varify the articles by reading a copy of Harry Potter (I can dig up page references if you so wish). They certainly do not clutter - no other article is likely to fall under the name 'Bubotuber'; if one does this will likely be secondary (so Bubotuber (Harry Potter). Thus, there is no reason to delete the article - it is a waste of your and our time: the article does no harm. --Oldak Quill 01:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've read Harry Potter. All 5 of them. This is mentioned as a sort of aside, to make the herbology (or something) class repulsive and boring. The information is better presented togeter with other little bits of similar information, so that people don't have to go running all over the Wikipedia to find the information on the Flora and Fauna of the Harry Potter Series. It's not a matter of totally expunging the information from the Wikipedia, it's moving it to a more useful location (in my opinion, anyway). hfool 03:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The number of plants/animals in Harry Potter would easily exceed 32kb - even if only substub descriptions were included. Redirects would be coming from article names such as this - it'd be far wiser just to use the article space. People would not have to "[run] all over Wikipedia" as categories and lists would easily link the articles. --Oldak Quill 10:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Merge to an appropriate article; is Ecology of Harry Potter extant? Harry Potter does in fact exist, and is in fact widely read, but the description of the plant makes it sound like it doesn't even have much influence on the books, let alone the influence on the real world that would justify its own article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Do we have an article on Creatures from Harry Potter or somesuch? Merge to that sort of article, otherwise delete. hfool 00:10, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge to some suitable general title; such as those already suggested. Rje 01:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect only. I've read all of the novels, and this is minor to the point of utter insignificance. Will people "have heard of it?" Well, yes, if they're reading the HP novels. Will they hit a reference to it in the New Yorker and wonder what it means? Will it be a crossword puzzle clue? Will it be a reference in a poem? Will it be a bon mot dropped by a toast master? Will anyone who doesn't already know what it is need to know what it is? No. Geogre 05:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Even for an "Encyclopedia of Harry Potter", this would be borderline non-notable. I just finished re-reading the Harry Potter books over the past two weeks, and I couldn't tell you where in the series this comes up. --Carnildo 09:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into something like Plants from Harry Potter or Potpourri from Harry Potter or Harry Potter's junk drawer. I am against outright deletion, however. Gamaliel 09:16, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. BM where are you quoting "Fancruft is VfD short-hand for one category of article that is non-notable, or "nn": fan trivia" from? I have no recollection of that being policy, and as such is not a reason for deletion. Dan100 09:59, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Dan, if you read through this page for a few days, you will see that "non-notability" is the main reason that articles are deleted, along with vanity and advertising. "Non-notability" is the main way in which articles are not "encyclopedic", which is specifically mentioned in the deletion policy. The "-cruft" suffix denotes various types of trivia and non-notability, "fancruft" being one of the most common. The article under discussion is "fan-cruft", meaning non-notable trivia. It is beginning to seem to me that what gets deleted as "fancruft" depends on who is voting on VfD on any particular day, and that, indeed, there are numerous people who think all fancruft should be included. Shouldn't there be a consensus on this, rather than every VfD vote rehashing it? --BM 15:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Well spotted, BM, a consensus decision would save a lot of breath. However the present non-system has been defended because 'it's impossible to get a consensus'. Kappa 15:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I would certainly favour a reasonable consensus - by which I can't see how we can say we'll only put in notable academics, industrialists, geographical features, etc. when we'll allow anything mentioned in passing in a work of fiction in. That would certainly boost those who wish to mock Wikipedia in the press. But given the size of the user base, anything decided with less than 100 people voting would be utterly silly, so it would have to be a well populised vote. Average Earthman 17:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, Harrycruft. —tregoweth 16:25, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: subtrivial fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This is trivia for the obsessives - while a huge number of people read the Harry Potter books and watch the films, the vast majority realise it is an entertainment, not something to fill in info about every last little bit of the film. Ideally, they'd be an alternate Wiki for all this stuff, that people can fill with every last minutae of Harry Potter, Pokemon, or whatever, and leave Wikipedia to be a proper encyclopedia which merely covers the important facts. So JK Rowling, of course, Harry Potter, yes. Bubotuber, no. Average Earthman 17:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• *yawn*. Please read the deletion policy. Unwarranted listing; keep, obviously. James F. (talk) 17:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into Creatures from Harry Potter even if such an article does not yet exist, to dissuade editors from making separate articles for each. --fvw* 18:36, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Keep. "Fancruft" is not a valid reason for listing an article for deletion. Bryan 19:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Much too trivial. --LeeHunter 23:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into Creatures from Harry Potter as per User:fvw above - Amgine 01:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 02:09, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Ideally merge somewhere. If that doesn't happen for a while, keep. I always have confidence that reasonable content will eventually be sorted out and properly merged, even if at the outset it's split up into a multitude of stubs. Everyking 22:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Why do people hate Harry Potter? Gkhan 02:26, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Why are you assuming that people hate Harry Potter? If you're assuming that people could not possibly vote for deletion or merging of anything Harry Potter-related unless they hated Harry Potter, I'm afraid you're quite mistaken. I've voted for merges and deletes on articles for things that I loved, like Animaniacs and Futurama. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Elf-friend 11:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into Plants of Harry Potter or something of the sort. DO NOT DELETE. Meelar (talk) 17:17, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC
• Marginal keep. GRider\^talk 18:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into something suitable and redirect. Mindspillage | spill your mind? 21:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into appropriate article (for example: Plants in Harry Potter. No need to have stubby articles spread about the place. Article should mention Neville Longbottom owns one. (That is the plant we're talking about, right?

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

Jim Shliferstein

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

Non-notable college junior and Wikipedia vandal[4]--15 displayed hits for "Jim Shliferstein". Niteowlneils 21:55, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, looks like vanity to me. Rje 01:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I hope he's experienced blocks of various lengths. Having peed on our wall, he now wants to write his name there. No thanks. Geogre 05:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Jim left a note on my talk page a few days ago (related to the Sun piece, not this article). He seems nice enough, and I think he may be beginning to understand what Wikipedia is about, so let's not bite him badly. Do delete this vanity article, of course -- he's not of note as a journalist -- but let's see if we can't kindly but firmly steer him into being a supporter (or benign appreciater) of this site (rather than turning him into a persistent returning problem)? Jwrosenzweig 08:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable onanistic practictioner. Gamaliel 08:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.Mikkalai 03:48, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of onanistic practitioners. Ha ha. Just kidding: Delete. It may even be a hatchet job (e.g. written by someone else to attack Mr. Shliferstein.) EventHorizon 18:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• It's a clear-cut Anti-Vanity case, isn't it ? - Delete.

Sorry, I get it now. Keep.

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

Aräometer

A page in German about hydrometers. I don't think it contains anything that needs to be added to the present hydrometer article. A redirect is probably also not necessary since it's a German word. Sietse 22:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons above. There's no need to waste time on translating this. Martg76 08:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I believe the article should be translated before condemnation. After that point, however... translate - Amgine 01:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I put the article here in the first place because I think it's not really worth translating. I suggest you use babelfish if you don't understand German and want to check the content. Sietse 16:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Why don't you just believe the guy? Mikkalai 03:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This kind of substub is moronic. There are around 200 countries in the world. Every one of them has a Defense Ministry, a Post Office, an Agricultural Ministry, and probably a few others. If someone is qualified to write an article on any of them, and wants to, he can. Great. Meanwhile, what is the point of an article that is indexed in Google under "Afghan Defense Ministry" and says in effect, "The Afghan Defense Ministry is the Defense Ministry of Afghanistan". It is verging on nonsense that could be speediable. --BM 22:36, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I disagree. We can all agree that the topic deserves an article. Obviously, this is not that article, but I don't think it's barren enough of facts to warrant deletion. Meelar (talk) 23:08, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: The article says in its entirety: "Afghan Defense Ministry is an organ of the government of Afghanistan. The name applies to both the bureaucracy and the building in which it resides. Some of its functions include overseeing the Afghan National Army." Stubs are one thing, but anybody seeing the phrase Afghan Defense Ministry knows alll this without reading the article. The only actual information in the article is that the Ministry has its own building, which is, anyway, a reasonable guess. This kind of "article" makes Wikipedia look foolish and moronic. Why don't you add an article on "Kabul Police Department" while you are at it? Here's the text: "Kabul Police Department is the organ of the city government of Kabul which oversees the police department." Good grief. --BM 23:50, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I agree. Delete. I believe it is completely barren of facts other than what is clearly implicit in the title.-- Robert Pendray 23:54, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. Substubs are not nonsense, but I do believe they fall under "very short articles with little or no content" of WP:CSD. Hence, they are speedyable by admins who wish to do so. (Or so is my interpretation, at least.) Of course they are also expandable by contributors who wish to do that. Speedy or expand, your choice. What I am strongly opposed to, however, is listing these things on VfD. This is a policy/precedent discussion, not really a discussion on this specific article. BM, could you do me a favor and, in the future, consider taking this to Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion, Wikipedia talk:Substub, a vote, a village pump post, or something similar? I don't think putting these things on VfD is the best course of action. JRM 02:05, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
  • Surely anything that is speediable, as you say this is, should also be eligible for regular VfD deletion. If an admin sees this here and wants to speedy it, I don't have a problem with that. --BM 14:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Of course it is, and I'm not saying this VfD is invalid. It's just that VfD is a whole lot more administrative overhead. And now that it has been put here, I don't think it would be wise for an admin to speedy it. For one thing, there is no agreement here over whether it should be kept or deleted. This VfD has to be taken to the bitter end, I'm afraid. JRM 15:24, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia has no size limits so hopefully one day every ministry of defence in the world will have a great encyclopedia article about it. This is just the start of one more. Dan100 10:04, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

  I think you're missing the point, Dan. People are not arguing that the Afghan Defense Ministry should not have an article, they're arguing that the current article is not acceptable, and that even no article would be better (presumably because the red links would alert people that a new article could be created). "Starting" an article is too trivial to count for anything, if you don't put in something that at least hints at a direction for expansion. (For example, see Harry Frankfurt). JRM 12:16, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

• Delete if not expanded: not an article. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Since the entry Government of Afghanistan is currently only a redirect to Politics of Afghanistan, some actual work remains to be done. Such fragments as this require no thought, and take longer to delete than to create.

``Wetman 17:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete unless expanded significantly. The current article contains nothing of value whatsoever - what is there is blatantly obvious. If this was a stub, I'd vote keep for sure, but this is a sub-substub. Give me at least one fact I couldn't tell you from merely knowing that Afghanistan exists. Average Earthman 17:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, no content. --fvw* 18:37, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia should have an article about the Afghan Defense Ministry, and all Wikipedia articles are a work in progress so deleting it just because it's currently a stub is silly. Bryan 19:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Before reading the article, I had no idea that "Afghan Defense Ministry" could be applied to the Dept. or the building. Meelar (talk) 19:06, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

  See metonymy. That "ministry" can refer to both the entity and the building it is located in is not specific to this ministry. It's not even specific to the English language. Since this is turning into an "actual" discussion, I'm going to vote. JRM 01:40, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

  True, but it's not universally true of all defense ministries, either (see The Pentagon and United States Department of Defense). I'm not claiming that this is a great article, merely that it meets the extremely low bar of having content. Meelar (talk) 20:12, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete The article has no content. - Amgine 01:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, as per my comments. This substub contains no information that cannot be derived from its title and a working knowledge of what defense ministries are. We are better off with nothing and letting people know an article can be written. I don't want it deleted because it is a stub, but because it is a lousy stub. If you don't mind the pun: this is an article only in name. JRM 01:40, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC) No vote. Ld has taken the productive way out and ruined a perfectly good policy/precedent discussion in the process, all in the name of improving the encyclopedia. Bah! JRM 19:42, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  Keep. I might as well swallow my ego completely. After all, I couldn't let my own precious edits go to waste. *sigh* JRM 23:55, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
• Delete: little or no info on the subject. Potential candidate for speedy deletion. Mikkalai 03:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If this is deleted why not delete United States Department of Defense as well? I'm sure there is a lot to be written about the Defense Ministry of Afghanistan. -Ld | talk 17:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  Because United States Department of Defense is an article. Afghan Defense Ministry is not. I'm sure there is a lot to be written about it. And I'd like to encourage people to do it, by eliminating the content-free substub we have now, and letting people know we have no useful article on it, none that's of any use at all. You could even put it on Wikipedia:Requested articles. Or we could leave it here, mislead contributors into thinking we have an article, and mislead readers into thinking we have something useful to them. Neither is true. JRM 17:38, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

The Defense Ministry is considered the most powerful ministry in the Afghan government. It can be expanded very easily. I have already updated it with some useful information. -Ld | talk 18:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Grmmblmml. I'm an idiot. Note to self: editing always goes over talking. Hang on, I'm coming over to help. Bah, what happened to the times when people would just have healthy discussions on policy and precedent on VfD, instead of all this loathsome editing? :-) JRM 19:42, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

See, there we go :) Its amazing how VfD encourages us to write about subjects we wouldn't normally care about. -Ld | talk 21:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, but do we really want to encourage that? No, wait, lest I make myself look even more foolish. I once proposed something eerily similar as User:JRM/Countdown deletion. Hmph. Now I'm not convinced I wasn't just codifying existing practices. :-) JRM 23:55, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

• It's unfathomable to me that anyone would vote to delete this. Of course keep. Everyking 22:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Of course there is a lot to be said about the defense ministry of a country. Honestly. Intrigue 00:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Not in doubt now it has been rewrittenPhilip 00:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

EPAS

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

I don't see how internally designed and used software can be notable--single hit on a blog. Based on the contributor's user page, likely an autobiographical article, as well. Niteowlneils 22:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Poorly written, possibly some type of self-promotion, not worthy of a topic -- Robert Pendray 23:57, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, Pseudo-vanity. Rje 01:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity and non-encyclopedic Cmprince 05:52, 26 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

• Keep - It should be left to be added to as the elections occur. I've just added 3 more elections to the 2004 list, which I believe could be completed at some point, and if this 2005 page is maintained as the events occur then it could be a valuable resource. --User:Mattb90 23:00, 1st Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Currently empty list of elections that haven't happened yet in 2005. Wikipedia is not a calendar of coming events. --BM 23:36, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. While it may be a couple weeks early, I see no harm in this being here. It should begin to accumulate material soon. Remember, 2005 is only a few days away. Even before then it could show the predicted dates of some elections in 2005. Ливай | ☺ 23:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, it'll soon fill up. Bearing in mind we have film pages for the next three years containing forthcoming films, sports pages for the next 2 years containing forthcoming sporting event etc. OK it's empty, but I don't see why it should be deleted only to be created again. It actually being there will probably encourage people to fill it in anyway. Rje 01:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The forthcoming films and sporting events shouldn't exist either. It isn't encyclopedic to have forthcoming events. As for people filling this in when the elections take place -- there is a nearly empty Elections in 2004, which did not get filled up and contains one election from Romania, and no Elections lists for any other year. Even minus the "forthcoming" aspect, this is just another stupid list, and isn't he way Wikipedia seems to document elections. --BM 01:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Borderline Keep - but only if someone will take the effort to actually create an article here. A timeline of upcoming elections is something that would be of use and interest, but someone actually has to make the article here. As mentioned above, the 2004 version wasn't well used (though I suppose someone could fill it up after the fact). If no one wants to sit down and make the list, then it should be deleted. 23skidoo 06:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The policy BM quotes from is 'Wikipedia is not a place for conducting business'. Elections are not commercial enterprises! Dan100 09:55, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If it's known any given election is scheduled in 2005, this is only because of the previously enacted, currently applicable law. That such an election is coming up will be notable and relevant to the state of the polity in question as of the time the election is listed, not just later. Samaritan 11:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. As the Elections in 2004 wasn't almost completely empty and the Elections in 2003 doesn't exist, that suggests this will remain empty. If someone actually makes the effort to show that these will be filled and improved, good, keep it. But as it is, these articles will just annoy anyone following the links. Average Earthman 17:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. (Please) I created the Elections in 2004 page about a week ago and haven't had the chance to fill it yet so you can't draw any conclusions from that. I created the 2005 page and intend to put in planned elections even where the date is uncertain (the list is ordered by country). These pages spring from the respective year pages which state 'X elections held/to be held this year' which I found to be annoyingly incomplete without a link to where they actually are. User:Btljs
• Keep. Coming events, particularly national elections, are undoubtedly notable. Furthermore, in a matter of days, this page will cover past events. ElBenevolente 02:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Mikkalai 03:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Jmabel | Talk 07:53, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. In order for the poll to be legitimate, after 6 days voters' participation in this poll should exceed 1% of the active voters population. The decision method that should be used in order to decide what to do should be the majority rule method. Whatever the poll's decision is, it should be valid for 3 years then reconsider. Iasson 02:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

from VfD:

Non-notable. The article itself says that Fireball is a minor character in the 1964 movie, Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer. Movie sub-trivia. --BM 23:43, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Merge with Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (television special) and delete the redirect. Ливай | ☺ 23:49, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (television special) and delete. Megan1967 00:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above. Why we need to merge it is beyond me, but what the hey. Geogre 05:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Um 'the above' is merge but not redirect. If it's merged the redirect should be kept to save the trouble of merging histories. This redirect is harmless. I vote merge or keep. Kappa 23:39, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a pretty good way of keeping the main article to a reasonable length. I doubt anyone would research the character on their own, but this is potentially informative to someone researching the program since the Rudolph article now links to this. In fact, I admit turning a vandal listing for Clarice into a stub similar to this one just last week. - Lucky 6.9 00:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The main article is only 4099 bytes long. Why do you think that is too long? --BM 02:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge. Elf-friend 12:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion Advertising. --BM 00:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did link several sources on their website, which can be removed if there is a consensus that such links are inappropriate. I did in, addition, put "Request a catalog" on the bottom (really because I love their catalog and many others have said the same), which can also be taken out if necessary. However, I am in no way affiliated with IronMind, other than being a happy customer, and they are certainly a notable organization - the long list of institutions that testify to using their products [5] should be sufficient affirmation of that. They really do fill a niche by offering unique and well-designed products to assist in strength training. Ground 00:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Further, the statement They are renowned by weightlifters for their innovation, product quality and customer service is factual and representative of a majority viewpoint; it is part of the reason the company is notable. Ground 00:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've reworded the article to make it (IMO) less effusive, and removed the "Request a catalog" link. Ground 01:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But you haven't removed the "renowned" sentence. How do you know this statement is true? What is the source for it? If it is based on your personal assessment of "weightlifter opinion", based on what other weightlifters have said to you, that is unverified and unverifiable original research and is not admissable. Statements made in the Wikipedia must be based on verifiable public sources, nor personal impressions. For example, if a recognized journalistic source about weightlifting has surveyed weightlifter opinion regarding the quality, innovativeness, reputation for customer support, etc, and that is the finding, then you can report the finding and state the source. Otherwise, it is indistinguishable from the P.R. puffery of the company, and is no better because you don't work for them. --BM 02:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've eliminated the original research. Ground 15:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, well known business, peerless in the relm of handgrip sales. Sam Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 00:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. But Wikipedia is not a product catalog, a shopping guide, or a place for testimonials about consumer products. --BM 00:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. In what way is that article a product catalog or shopping guide? I see no products. It's just an average company info page. Dan100 09:53, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep de-POVed version, but it would be nice to have some external references like a magazine article about the products or something discussing major companies in the field. Kappa 17:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. An article about a company is not necessarily advertising, or we'd have to delete Pepsi too. And if they publish a journal that makes them notable enough for me. Bryan 19:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep this article as the company's notability exceeds Wikipedia's standards, even if they do fluctuate. Triped 21:53, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep this well known business. Bryan Derksen says it best. —RaD Man (talk) 02:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not a product catalog, a shopping guide, or a place for testimonials about consumer products. GRider\^talk 18:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kochel

Advertising for a German resort. If this place is notable, then delete the article and wait for someone to write a real article about it. --BM 00:28, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

speedydeleted as advertising only. --Vamp:Willow 00:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)