Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2004 December 29

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Carried out at 00:23, 3 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality

Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 03:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a group of fans of one TV show who hate another, totalling sixty-eight people. Not-encyclopedic. Tuf-Kat 00:01, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, a cross between vanity and advertising. Rje 00:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: "Our cartoon is so much better than your cartoon! It sux!" Yeah. Not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a web guide nor advertising medium. Geogre 04:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, I'm RotfY (rolling on the floor yawning) Hoary 04:57, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to have the potential to become a comprehensive article on this subject, which is my understanding of what "encyclopaedic" actually means, rather than being a synonym for "notable".Dr Zen 05:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. A vanity article about a fun club for one TV show, with the weird twist that they don't like some other TV show. I don't think TV show fan clubs can be encyclopedic unless it becomes a cultural phenomenon like the Trekkies. If a fan club is notable, it probably has more than 68 members and a website. --BM 12:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Sordid vanity. Phils 12:31, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --fvw* 14:40, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, I don't see it has having much potential. --Kevin 14:49, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 18:37, Dec 29, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. There is a clear consensus to delete. However, the nominator notes that he actually moved the content to other pages. In order to preserve the attribution history (a requirement of GFDL), I am instead going to turn this into a redirect. Rossami (talk) 00:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am putting this page up for VfD because the title is not correct (miscapitalization, missing spaces, tries to handle three articles in one title) and this page would not function as a useful redirect to the pages that the information has been copied to (Chaos (video game), Lords of Chaos (video game)). --Tubedogg 00:32, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

• That's actually a good reason to delete, yes. Merge useful info first though - David Gerard 00:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with David Gerard. Dbenbenn 02:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Unsearchable and unusable. Geogre 04:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 23:35, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Carried out at 00:24, 3 Jan 2005 bu User:Neutrality

Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 03:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vanity, a family history. None of whom are notable in any way. Rje 01:50, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Indeed, accountants are non-notable almost by definition. Delete. Kappa 01:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Genealogy. Geogre 04:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. - Hoary 04:07, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. utcursch 12:10, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, everyone's got a king in their line somewhere (usually more). Wyss 21:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 01:49, 30 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 02:25, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

The article describes an attempt made by Augsburg bankers, ruled by Spanish King as Holy Roman Emperor to take part in Spanish colonisation of America. While it is interesting to read, the article doesn't describe what the title says. The attempt was performed by private persons, not by German state and was tied to the Spanish crown more then to German one, partcularly because German state barely function at that time. Delete and copy content into Spanish chapter or German history. Cautious 01:01, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, while the article content itself can probably be salvaged (and is mildly interesting) if it isn't reported elsewhere, the title is fatally flawed. Delete. Fire Star 02:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Err, whut? This in no way comes under policy. Move the bloody page, don't waste people's time with a deletion request. James F. (talk) 03:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • James, please do not use profanity (see Wikipedia:Civility) - "bloody" is derived from "bloody Christ", an expression to which some Wikipedia users may take exception to. Also, I find that statements like "don't waste people's time with a deletion request" only serves to intimidate people to not put articles up for deletion which they, in good faith, believe not to be suitable for Wikipedia. Anyway, taking into account the well-reasoned arguments given below, keep. Elf-friend 11:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The term "bloody" is not in any way understood to be profane in the United Kingdom, nor by anyone I've ever met from Ireland, the US, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and other places where English is spoken. Also, encouraging people to be less quick to rush into a deletion request is a Good Thing. James F. (talk) 04:58, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. See European colonization of the Americas. Do you want to rename the other twelve articles as well? Even if so, that's no grounds for deletion. The content is good. If you don't like the titles, move them, which will preserve the content and history, and then propose the resulting redirects for deletion. But before doing this, I suggest we use the talk pages both of the articles and their parent, I suspect you will find these renames opposed as well. Not a promising VfD nomination IMO! Andrewa 06:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Good article; I don't see anything wrong with the name. If you move them, keep the redirect: it is very likely that people would search for this article by this name, if they know of the other articles in the series. Eugene van der Pijll 09:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Argument only valid, if you understand 'german' always as 'german state'. Should he perhaps named it 'Bavarian colonization...'? Lectonar 10:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Counter argument: some time ago somebody renamed Polish colonisation of America into Curland colonisation of America. If it is valid, why not Bavarian? Cautious 13:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • If one follows this logic to the end: wouldn't any 'revolutions' (e.g. uprising of the Dutch against Spain) which led ultimately to an independent state to have to be attributed, in this case, to the spanish people...? The same would be true with many events in history Lectonar 08:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. A claim that a title is incorrect, even if true, is not grounds under the policy for deletion. It is a simple matter to move the article and change the title. --BM 12:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. German does not imply german state. There was no unified Germany at the time anyway. Anyone interested in the article will understand what is meant. Phils 12:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Other articles imply colonisation by the private organisation with support of the state. We have English colonisation, if private enterprners are working for English state. In this case private Augsburg bankers are working for Spanish state. Cautious 13:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The "Pilgrims" were supported by no state, but they were ethnically British and colonists. I don't know why people are so hung up about whether or not an ethnic group that colonized the Americas were supported by the state. A good counter-example to this notion is the Pitcairn Island colonists, a mixed group of Tahitians and British who settled that island while fugitives from Britain. Britain later recognised this group as a British colony. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Good article, appropriately named, part of a series about colonization of the Americas by different European national and ethnic groups. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep this completely valid article. GRider\^talk 17:45, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, valid and informative content. Article explains well enough what it is about. -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I agree that the article doesn't support the title. Merge with an article about Spanish colonization or Venezuela. Gazpacho 21:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, has promise for expansion. Megan1967 01:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep The lack of "German state" involvement is irrelevant. Anyone who knows a little European history will surely appreciate that the title means that this was a colonization effort involving German speaking people.Philip 00:10, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge With the Spanish colonisation of the Americas. Ofcourse not everyone involved in the colonisation on the behalf of the Spanish state was a spaniard. There probably where croatian, turkish or any other ethnicity involved in the conquest aswell, should all of them have a page? Foant
• Keep, 'German' doesn't have to refer to the state. Djadek 11:44, 3 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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, apparently as a speedy. Carried out at 05:02, 29 Dec 2004 by User:Andrewa who wrote Steves is a crude term for one who practices buggerery. The lexography stems back to Friar Clark, 1006AD

Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 03:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dicdef, probably hoax. P Ingerson 03:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Speedy deletion candidate for obvious vandalism as an insult/taunt page. Geogre 04:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep it. It's an obscure genovian reference. -Me.
  • Please sign your posts properly, IP 69.76.158.32, and incidentally your vandalism of other pages has been reverted. Andrewa 05:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy vandalism. Rje 04:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Deleted. Entire content was Steves is a crude term for one who practices buggerery. The lexography stems back to Friar Clark, 1006AD, previous version read 106AD. Andrewa 05:05, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:26, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Should be merged with JibJab and deleted. Probably these lyrics are copyrighted. I know there was a settled lawsuit between the JibJab people and the company that now owns the rights to Woodie Guthrie's song. --BM 03:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete' Malformed title and not encyclopedic . Could eventually be merged to JIbJab, after checking the intellectual property issues. I'm not sure if lyrics (aside from limited extracts provided for example/analysis purposes) have their place on Wikipedia, though. Phils 12:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, aside from being potentially a copyvio, I don't think Wikipedia is the place for complete song lyrics like this. Rje 16:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, although they could well do with being on wikisource. The reason the lawsuit was settled was that the lyrics turned out to not actually be under copyright (see [1]) - quite amusing, really, since had they not brought the lawsuit no-one would have realised. Shimgray 16:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Ooops - ignore that, for some reason I thought we were discussing the lyrics of the original. Gah. Will not edit without coffee. Just delete, then, no wikisource - it's definitely a copyvio. Shimgray 17:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • And a cleaner version of the parody lyrics are on This Land is Your Land, it seems... Shimgray 17:18, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia shouldn't have entries for the lyrics of specific songs.
• Delete, copyvio, unencyclopedic. Wyss 21:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - With the proper editing, it will become more encyclopedic. -- Judson 22:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 23:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, the song is notable - therefore the lyrics are notable. -- Crevaner 00:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• A quick reminder - if voting keep, note that there's already a copy of the entire content (ie, the lyrics) on This Land is Your Land, better formatted and more useful (among other details, it notes the "singer" for each section, which given it's formed as a dialogue is mildly important.... Shimgray 00:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, copyright violation. Megan1967 01:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Woddie Guthrie's song is not copyright.
  • Guthrie's lyrics may not be but the JibJab lyrics certainly are. Megan1967 02:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Guthrie's are, too, benefitting the Guthrie Children's Fund for several more decades. Hard though it may be for some to believe, he died less than 40 years ago. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:51, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • This was settled when Gunthrie's people tried to sue JibJab over the parody. What it comes down to is that copyrights when the song was first published (1945) lasted 28 years and could be renewed to get another 28 years. The clock ran out in 1973 without a renewal, and the song became public domain. Wired News coverage LostCluster 03:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Copyvio, and beyond that this isn't a lyrics database. LostCluster 02:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It isn't clear whether these lyrics violate Guthrie's copyright or not. Anyway that issue was settled between JibJab and the Guthrie estate. What is clear is that Wikipedia doesn't have a copyright to these JibJab lyrics. On top of that, song lyrics aren't encyclopedic. Finally, even if they are, they are already included in the This Land is Your Land article, and there is no reason to have an independent article containing the lyrics. How many different reasons do you need to remove this article? --BM 21:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there's nothing there worth merging into JibJab. -℘yrop (talk) 22:06, Jan 2, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep as redirect. While a majority of votes were to delete, none were after the substantive change. Rossami (talk) 00:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"in my opinion" = original research -Cmprince 05:26, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Original Research. I don't know what it is all about. The beverage has already been covered at Soma. utcursch 12:12, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be an original theory on the true nature of soma. If there is any actual salvagable information here, it should be merged with that article. --BM 12:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and let it grow. Needs some cleanup of PoV. Delete, I've re-read this and while I think the topic has some merit, it does appear to be mostly original research. Wyss 21:31, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Original research. "Incontrovertible evidence" offered about the "true" soma, plus good old speculation on Finno-Ugaric and Sanskrit (why never Basque?). Geogre 22:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 23:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• That Sanskrit and Finnish are related is an incontrovertible fact? Interesting that the majority of linguists staunchly disagree, or state that if such a relationship is true, its roots have been too obscured by language change to recognize them. Delete as original research, and irreparably POV. Keep as redirect. Ливай | ☺ 05:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• keep, and redirect. I don't get it. Since when is POV a reason for deletion? The association of Soma and Cannabis is discussed at length in indological literature. Here is a, well, semi-notable link [2]. The article text itself is of course bullshit, and the theories should be discussed on Soma. dab (ᛏ) 11:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I have expanded Soma to include reference to soma-raja. dab (ᛏ) 12:50, 3 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:49, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Neologism. -Cmprince 05:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Yes neologism, my vote is delete. Kappa 06:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Was a page about a neologism before original author blanked it. jni 10:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Author blanked it. utcursch 12:09, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• 'Delete. Could be speedy deleted now, since it has no content. --BM 12:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, and no it couldn't. If an article can be reverted to a non-CSD revision it's never a CSD, see the comment at the top of WP:CSD. --fvw* 14:38, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Delete. Rje 16:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, nn neologism in the extreme. Wyss 21:25, 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.

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

I also note that a significant number of votes (both delete and keep) argue that this content might be more appropriate in the article about CSS Zen Garden. I concur with that conclusion and will exercise my right as an ordinary editor to be bold and make the merge and redirect. Rossami (talk) 01:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This appears to be a vanity page. I can find no convincing evidence that Dave Shea is "influential". Kelly Martin 06:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. utcursch 05:42, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a vanity page as described here. Shea is less known than are his productions, which are influential (if perhaps mostly at second or third hand). Shea's CSS Zen Garden really is a well-known site among site developers. While some of the text and some of the designs (selectable on the right) of the main page strike me as a little twee, there's a lot of solid stuff here: kludge-free, clean CSS that's usable in the real world where most people use second-rate browsers. I'd previously encountered recommendations of CSSZG's solutions in some of the best-informed contributions to htmlhelp.com's BBS; it also comes first in Eric Meyer's short list of CSS resources at css edge. CSSZG is not just another site, or even just another site about sites. Shea is also a contributor to alistapart, etc. While I'd be the first to agree that writing a blog does not make you encyclopedic, Shea's mezzoblue is actually informative: it's a newsletter in the form of a blog. -- Hoary 07:48, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Delete. If he is not well-known but his productions are influential, they should have articles, not him. jni 08:38, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. As an amateur web developer (who embraces web standards), I have come across css Zen Garden (and Dave Shea) from several different sources, as well as pointing others to it to understand CSS; it certainly has influenced a large number of web developers. I also disagree that someone who isn't as well as his creations does not merit an article—if his creations are influential, then by extension, so is he. I also do not believe that he "fails the Google test"—my search for Dave Shea brought up plenty of references to Mr. Shea; in fact, only the tenth refers to a different Dave Shea. Several interviews and/or biographies are among the top links. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 09:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Dave Shea is both notable and influential. His blog and his Zen Garden creation have been featured in several mainstream and design publications. His influence is most certainly comparable to that of Eric Meyer, whose article survived VfD. Phils 12:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, CSS Zen Garden is notable, Dave Shea isn't. --fvw* 14:36, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\^talk 17:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep it. Wyss 21:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Supposing that his creature is well known, he is not well known except in that context. Therefore, a discussion of him should be with it, and not as a separate article with duplicate material. Geogre 22:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Certainly a valid point of view, but I'd point out that hundreds (though by no means all) of the, um, creatures who toss or kick balls around for a living are only well known in those contexts. -- Hoary 00:55, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
  • I think that most of them should be discussed only in their team articles, if their teams should have articles. The ones who do something else (become spokesmen for rape awareness before they get indicted for rape, who do public service announcements about drinking and driving after they've been convicted of running over folks while high, or just pose in their underwear for sports magazines) have a claim to being known and sought under their individual names. For whatever it's worth, I think we generally do only have articles on the endomorphs who have wider accomplishments than running around with balls. Geogre 04:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 23:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Megan1967 01:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with CSS Zen Garden, and redirect. ~ mlk ^✉♬ 03:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) ~
• Merge or keep, don't care which. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:53, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
• A good ol' "if I've not heard of him, he can't be important". Keep. Dan100 11:11, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Without changing my vote to keep, I beg to differ with you. Shea is indeed a lot less known than are his creations -- which I happen to think is very healthy and indeed the way things should be (the reverse of "celebrity culture" whereby David Beckham seems more famous for his appearance in ads and his hairstyles than for his footie) -- so even if you look for him he doesn't spring out of Google and grab you by the, um, whatever. And if you look at the original article, it was very slovenly. I think the onus should be on the writer of a new article to indicate (however imperfectly) how the subject is notable, and the writer of this one hardly bothered. -- Hoary 13:14, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
• Delete. Cleduc 06:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Samaritan 08:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Stepheno 13:34, 8 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:59, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

This page is pretty clearly a vanity page, although the author was slightly more clever than average. Google reveals that Matt Bieniosek participates in track and field events very similar to the ones purported to have taken place some centuries ago. Coincidence? I think not. Kelly Martin 07:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Fabricated contents. Google says Matt Bieniosek, Shawn Joshi and Derrick Lennox are all somehow associated with Monte Vista High School. jni 11:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Page blanked. utcursch 12:15, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. --fvw* 14:34, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Delete. hoax. Rje 16:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Quite a clever hoax - pity the author couldn't find something better to contribute. Deb 18:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• The referance to the Romulan homeworld seals this article's fate. hfool 19:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax, prank... borders on a speedy. Wyss 21:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not that clever, should be a speedy. GRider\^talk 18:20, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. should be speedy. hoax. Cleduc 06:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ASAP... vanity/hoax Orelstrigo 15:00, 3 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.

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

The final tally is 15 delete (fvw voted twice, I assume accidentally) to 9 keep (two unsigned votes were by extremely new users and are discounted). Failing to reach a clear consensus to delete, the article defaults to keep. I am, however, going to tag this for clean-up. If, after a reasonable period, this article has not been improved, I think it would be appropriate to renominate it. Rossami (talk) 06:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The page consists of a list of the departments of just another hospital. No potential to become encyclopedic. --Paul 08:23, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Hospital vanity. utcursch 12:15, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. All public institutions such as schools and hospitals are notable and encyclopedic. Bad content is not an excuse to delete articles, but an opportunity to improve article content.--Centauri 13:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 14:34, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Keep --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 14:58, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, just another hospital. Unless someone can show that it is noteworthy/encyclopedic in any way. Rje 16:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, major hospitals are enyclopedic. - SimonP 17:21, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Is it a major hospital, thought? What are the standards that make a hospital major? Delete. hfool 19:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • An (admittedly cursory) search suggests to me that the while Markham-Stouffville Hospital is a reasonably substantial institution (215 beds) it's not particularly large compared to other hospitals in the Toronto area, and doesn't have a major research institute or anything of that ilk to distinguish it. (I'm rather surprised to note that Toronto General Hospital doesn't have a Wikipedia entry, actually.) Delete, unless someone knows of some noteworthy research or physicians, or events of historical significance. --TenOfAllTrades 21:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, seems like an ad, no evidence of notability established by the text. Wyss 21:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: A notable hospital is notable. Otherwise, it's a big building with doctors and patients in it, as they said in "Airplane!" Geogre 22:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Spinboy 22:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I can kind of understand the rationale behind keeping schools. But hospitals? Xezbeth 22:24, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not understanding why something should be kept isn't listed as a criteria for deletion. Dr Zen 05:20, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • No, but non-notability is. Xezbeth 08:06, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • I can't find that in the deletion policy. Would you mind helping me out with a quote, so that I can adjust my vote accordingly if necessary?Dr Zen 23:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The article makes no claim of notability. The hospital's own site doesn't, on its face, support a claim of notability, beyond receiving the highest level of accreditation and being the first to receive a quality award. --Chris vLS 22:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 23:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Megan1967 01:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 02:17, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
• Delete - okay, it's a hospital and it has departments. You need to do better than that. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It claims it is notable in its title. Can I ask the admin who clears this up to disregard votes that do not give reasons according to the deletion policy?Dr Zen 05:20, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. A notable hospital is notable. GRider\^talk 18:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Notable hospitals are notable, but no evidence of notability is presented for this particular hospital. Indrian 23:54, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep -Ld | talk 04:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I feel that it could use expanstion, but information on what departments / services are avaliable is of interest to potential patients / health care workers
• Keep Useful info for potential patients.
• Delete...and why would you look up a hospital on Wikipedia if you are a potential patient? Adam Bishop 22:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Samaritan 22:54, 7 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:01, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Vanity page. Delete.-gadfium 08:26, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Well-written vanity page. Friendly delete. (Erm, new phrase. That means: I actually like this article and I'd love there to be a place for it, but I don't think it should be Wikipedia.) JRM 08:40, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. utcursch 12:15, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Yeah, I hope John sticks around and becomes an frequent editor, but Delete nonetheless. --fvw* 14:33, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Delete. Rje 16:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete this innocent mistake. Wyss 21:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Perhaps move to the User namespace, then delete the redirect? -Rholton 22:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 23:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 01:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Cleduc 06:50, 3 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Rossami (talk) 06:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

hey, i think it should stay. i guess maybe modified a bit cause it isnt really a RTS game or anything, but i think it has encyclopedic value. i know people who still talk about it, and i point em to this article.

• This article was tagged as nonsense, so the creator tagged it as VfD and put the above comment. I've removed the nonsense tag, and cleaned up this VfD entry. I'm not voting here.-gadfium 08:38, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Not nonsense, but not a genuine game either. Does not warrant a separate article (yet?). Off-hand mention in the Bungie Studios page is enough. JRM 08:53, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Keep, no harm in having a separate article. It's part of gaming lore as much as SPISPOPD or Exploding sheep -- Ferkelparade π 09:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. Exploding sheep spans multiple games and is far better known than either Pimps At Sea (Bungie-lore) or SPISPOPD (Doom-lore). However, I do see some merit in keeping them separate as opposed to bloating the main articles with them. Undecided. JRM 09:22, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Delete. A leading space doesn't make an article a speedy candidate though, bad tagging GRider. --fvw* 14:32, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
  • Keep. I say keep for two reasons. Firstly, I'm sure more people recognize this game (or at least the joke) than other more obscure titles, like say Bungie's Gnop! which also has its own article. Secondly, just because it's an internet joke doesn't mean people don't want to know about it. For instance All your base are belong to us, Yatta and Tin foil hat all have articles, and with due cause. No one wants to be left out of a joke, and they can find out all about it here. JoeSmack (talk) 18:06, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I couldn't have said it better myself. foobaz|✎ 04:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 23:41, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This is well-known, but not well-documented, in the gaming world on both the Mac and the PC/XBox. Beyond that, I've yet to see a good reason for deleting this - it's certainly not nonsense, and it's accurate. Pbones 04:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, could do with some expansion. Megan1967 01:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep but send to cleanup. RMG 01:35, 3 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. I count 17 Keep votes and 23 Delete votes. Failing to reach a clear consensus to delete, this article defaults to Keep. Rossami (talk) 01:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some additional comments on the process:

1. "Delete as recreation of previously deleted content" can not generally be used as an argument when the only prior deletions were speedy deletions. Speedy deletions are supposed to be non-controversial. The good-faith recreation of the article is often evidence that the deletion was, in fact, controversial.
2. While there is general consensus that forked articles are bad for Wikipedia, the jury is still out on the use of this template trick. Notably, it avoids the maintenance problems that are inherent to forked articles. It will probably be appropriate to revisit the decision on this article after there has been suitable discussion and time for consensus to appear at Wikipedia:village pump#censorship and wikipedia.
3. While a comment warning of a possible Wikipedia:sockpuppet is appreciated, history on this page has shown us that being overly aggressive (such as by using strikethrough on the comment) is too often perceived as an aggressive and personal attack.

Prior votes:

1. Original VfD of forked version - November 18-23, 2004
2. First VfD of this template trick - December 17-24, 2004

• DELETE - It sets an extremely dangerous precedent to have censored pages on Wikipedia. What next, a page about politics censored of one particular viewpoint because some people might consider it offensive, or a page about the age of the earth censored of information about theories that do not confirm to the creationists view. DELETE DELETE DELETE Jooler
• ABUSE OF VFD! It just survived a VfD NOT EVEN A WEEK AGO! this is CLEAR abuse of the VfD process. Alkivar 23:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It was nominated by the same person that time as well. —Korath (Talk) 02:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I didn't realize that it was the same user. That's bad. If you aren't satisfied with the results of one vote you shouldn't renominate it immediatly. That's not how the VfD process is meant to work. Jeltz talk 10:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • This page was speedily deleted after I nominated it, then it was recreated once again, so this VFD is entirely valid. Jooler
        • Read the previous VfD. It was recreated before the last vote ended and the continued VfD decided that the recreated article should be kept. - Jeltz talk 22:04, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • By what right was it recreated after it was quite rightly speedily deleted? - That deletion process was flawed and consequently I have renominated it. Jooler 00:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Did you even read the previous VfD? —Korath (Talk) 01:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • Yes, certainly. Did you even read why I and many others strongly believe that it should be deleted? Jooler 01:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • Immaterial, immediate relisting of this after it passed VfD consensus is ABUSE! there is no grey area here! Alkivar 04:29, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                  • The first abuse was the initial creation of this article which sets an unhealthy precedent. The second abuse was recreating the page after it was legitimatly voted to delete it in the initial instance. The third abuse was the recreation of this page after it was legitimately speedily deleted for the second time. The fourth abuse was the removal of the previous VFD debate during the holiday period when many people interested in this subject were away for the holidays. The fifth abuse is trying to shout down the valid procedure for the deletion of this page on technical grounds and not on any real justification for the page's existence in and of itself. Jooler 11:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                    • Pot, kettle. —Korath (Talk) 12:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                      • I'm bowled over by your debating skills. To quote Guybrush Threepwood "I am rubber you are glue". Jooler 12:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                      • The technical grounds are very important in this case. If it was common practice to do like you just did and relist surviving pages it would destroy the entire VfD process. That's why you can't doi this no matter if you are right or not. - Jeltz talk 18:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete delete delete. Actually, hasn't this been deleted before? Can we speedy delete as a re-creation? And, come to think of it, can we add "forks of existing articles" to the speedy deletion candidates? Isomorphic 09:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Apologies. I remembered the earlier Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures). I wasn't aware that this was an alternate display rather than a fork, or that it had just survived a VfD (although I note that opinion there was far from unanimous.) This shouldn't have been relisted on VfD, but I feel that more discussion is needed somewhere. This kind of thing would set an important precedent, and the opinions of a broad segment of the Wikipedia population should be sought. VfD regulars are not necessarilly a representative sample. Isomorphic 11:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: See Talk:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored) for my comments. You could also raise the question on the village pump if you haven't already done so. No change of vote. Andrewa 14:41, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: There is already a discussion at Wikipedia:village pump#censorship and wikipedia. Andrewa 14:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• At the risk of feeding the troll, let me be the first to say keep. —Korath (Talk) 10:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. No, it wasn't deleted before. A significantly different page by a similar name was. The deleted page was a fork. This page is just a view, and was subsequently itself listed on VfD and debated at some length, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse/pictures suppressed. The result was keep. Andrewa 11:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I admire the technical solution, but this is still not the correct way of doing things. Delete. --fvw* 14:22, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Keep - I can safely read it in work now, whereas uncensored I cannot --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 14:53, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Test page, problems with editing, does not render pictures correctly, duplication of material, breaks cache. This test page has made its point but isn't up to production standard and so should not be left around. There was no need to list this test page, just delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:23, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • You believe this is a test page? That random keys were punched to produce an alternate presentation? Section editing is unaffected, incidentally. Cool Hand Luke 21:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This shouldn't have been relisted here since it just survived a vfd. I think that this could be rmeoved early from the vfd page if I'm not misstaken. - Jeltz talk 18:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: The VfD should be removed as it just ended VfD less than a week ago. DCEdwards1966 18:34, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Isn't this a mirror of Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse/pictures suppressed with a different name? No vote yet. hfool 18:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • No, it's not a mirror — it's the same page that has been moved to a better title (but perhaps still not a good title; I have no oppinion). Jeltz talk 19:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The edit seems to say it's just displaying the content of Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse/pictures suppressed. Looks like it'd be a little hard to search for as well, am I right? The link from Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse favors this page, but what is the prob;lem with linking directly to the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse/pictures suppressed page? hfool 20:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: IMO it's not a good title, but the solution to that is to move it, not delete it. See talk:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored). No change of vote. Andrewa 20:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete with Extreme Prejudice. Not only is it a bad idea to carry censored versions, but they will inevitably fork and develop their own, possibly conflicting content. Wyss 21:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Please look at the article before voting. It's no fork. It's a clever use of templates. Jeltz talk 10:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with Wyss. Tuf-Kat 22:02, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I also agree with Wyss. --Idont Havaname 23:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• keep. Mikkalai 23:41, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, I thought this was deleted earlier. Megan1967 01:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I think users should vote without prejudice toward the VfD process - if the process is being abused, it can be handled in other ways, and is in no way relevant to whether or not we should keep the article or delete it. ugen64 03:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Allowing an article to be relisted less than a week after it came off VfD is a sure way to destroy the VfD process. DCEdwards1966 03:21, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • The article at Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse is already censored. The pictures have fuzzy bits over parts of the images that someone somewhere has deemed too shocking to show. I feel that the providing a separate "censored" version without the pictures can only have a political agenga. It it curious that of all the pages in Wikipedia this one should provide the incentive for someone to produce a separate page "to lessen the impact" of the article. The story of this article is the pictures. Without the pictures there would have been no story in the first place. There would just have been unsubstantiated rumours of abuse. To remove the pictures is an attempt to water down the article so that it can be forgotten about. Jooler 18:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • And this article already survived VfD. Are you going to keep listing it until you get your way? DCEdwards1966 20:03, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
        • Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures) was deleted after a majority of people voted for its deletion. It was then recreated at Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse/pictures suppressed, albeit using some jiggery pokery with templates. I nominated this page for deletion. Quite rightly it was speedily deleted. We all then went off for the Chirstmas break and then suddenly it is recreated once more at Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored). This page has been legitimately deleted twice and has been recreated with minor modifications. I see nothing wrong with my nomination under these circumstances. I believe with every fibre of my body that under no cicumstances should we be in the business of self-censoring Wikipedia to satisfy a political agenda, under this principle I cannot support the concept of this page existing in Wikipedia which is why I have nominated it for deletion. Jooler 00:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • The article was incorrectly speedy deleted around 23:00 on December 17 and undeleted less than four hours later. You seem to be making up "facts" to further your argument. DCEdwards1966 03:11, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
            • Hey dude - In what way was it speedily deleted "incorrectly" - I'm making nothing up - it was legitimately deleted - I went on holiday and the page was back when I came back, but at a different title. But forget that - address the issue what is the legitimacy of this page? Jooler
              • Hey dude. This article was not a recreation of a deleted article. There is no content in this article that was in the deleted article. This article was incorrectly speedy deleted because User:Neutrality assumed that it was a recreation. As for the legitimacy of this page: It survived VfD less than a week ago. If that result doesn't stand then the VfD process is meaningless. DCEdwards1966 03:40, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • In terms of the content displayed to a user reading the article it was a perfect copy of the previous article that had an overwhleming majority voting for its deletion. The fact that it was created by using a template and that when you press the edit button you got a different bunch of text what it had previously is irrelevent. You are hoisted by your own petard because using your argument the first deletion should have stood. Anyway you stil haven't presented your opinion on why the censored version should remain. Jooler
    • The whole point is that it shouldn't have been relisted after surviving VfD. The value of the article has no bearing on this. It was determined that the article should be kept. End of discussion. DCEdwards1966 04:05, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
      • No. Your point is incorrect. It shouldn't have been re-created after it was legitimately deleted in the first place. Bye Bye Jooler
• Bugger this. If it's as you say, just speedy the thing and stop listing it here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• KEEP, but rename. It's not censored but "Work safe". The only thing that's missing is the pictures correct? Alternatively one could remove the pictures from the original article and turn them into links, but I think the current solution is better.--Sketchee 03:08, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • What does "work safe" mean? - there is abosultely no way that the pictures should be removed from the original article - the pictures are the story. Jooler
  • To make any Wikipedia page "work-safe" in this manner, simply browse it without downloading images. There is no need for Wikipedia to get involved in this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Every reason has already been given, no need to repeat User:Clngre 03:48, 31 Dec 2004
• Delete there is no room for "censored" on Wikipedia. If you are looking for Abu Gharib at work you should know what to expect. -Ld | talk 05:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. As others have said, there should be no censorship on Wikipedia. In this particular case you are looking at a article that starts:In 2004, reports emerged of numerous instances of abuse, torture, and murder of prisoners. Evil Monkey → Talk 05:29, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
• No vote. Censored versions of articles are fine, in my opinion, if clearly marked as such and adhering to NPOV, and this is a brilliant use of transclusion to create parallel versions of articles that could be useful in many other circumstances. Imagine, for example, having a math article at two different levels of reader skill, or having a shortened version of a long article that cuts out some peripheral diversions. On the other hand, it's also an incredibly awkward hack that doesn't generalize and might not work forever (I still can't believe it works at all). I tried to do better, but could find nothing (at least without a stylesheet change). This page is a critical first step, also providing a motivating example of why it's useful, but I think further progress will require software support. Deco 09:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Factual material belongs on Wiki. Does any national have the right to remove factual information which is merely an embarrassment? User:83.70.225.245
  • this vote is invalid for 2 reasons, firstly it is by an unregistered user and secondly, given the nature of the comment, it appears that the person is unaware of the uncensored version - Jooler 12:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC).
    • You could be right, but you are not the person who determines whether someone's opinion is valid. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • That is correct - but nevertheless the vote is invalid because it comes from an unregistered user. I have left a message on hth talk page of the IP regarding this. To keep the vote here without the strikethru could lead to it being accidentally counted Jooler Please stop trying to tell people that their votes are invalid.
        • Appropriate weighting will be applied, with or without strikethrough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No censorship on Wikipedia. Noisy | Talk 14:25, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete This article deals with the torture of prisoners; anyone offended by the pictures should be equally offended by the written material. It's a natural progression, then, from censoring one kind of content to censoring things related to that content Masked Loser 03:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I say Keep, but with a different title, as "censored" is a word with strong negative value, and isn't exactly the case, since the complete version exists and is linked at the start of the article. Still, moving to Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (safe) might be the best choice. \ wolfenSilva / 07:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: A better solution might be to not display any of the pictures and move the article to Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures). DCEdwards1966 07:44, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As Tony says, if schools want to view the page without pictures, they can turn images off in their browsers. Or say 'hello' to the real world. Dan100 11:33, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Invalid VfD. —RaD Man (talk) 21:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Serves a definite purpose, doesn't require any extra editing effort. "Censored" isn't the right word; "without images" might be more appropriate. Zetawoof 21:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I must disagree with you on this note, as the article in question does actually contain images. Only certain images which may not qualify as "work safe" have been excluded from the page. —RaD Man (talk) 21:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • What does "work safe" mean? Who has defined this term?, and who decides what qualifies as "work safe" and what doesn't? Also, on what basis are you making the claim that this vfd is invalid? Jooler
• Keep. Both version. The 'original' pictures were probably obtained from the media and so would already have been fuzzied out. --PoleyDee 21:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • So why do we need 2? Jooler
• Keep. Andre (talk) 21:28, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why? Jooler
• Extremely delete. JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdramán) 22:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP! I don't what is up with these anti-censorship campaigns. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 02:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Censorship conflicts directly with NPOV. If we're ignoring NPOV we might as well all give up on Wikipedia now. --Ngb 14:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Censorship sets such a bad precedent. --Ngb 14:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia shouldn't be about censorshipsheridan 01:30, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
• Delete Censorship is bad mojo. RMG 01:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The repeated creation of this article reeks of "not wanting to see what I don't want to believe"–type of compulsive denial. While people are entitled to wear as many blinds as they like, Wikipedia is not here to cater for pathological ignorance, religiously motivated or otherwise. Oh, and about requiring a mandatory hiatus before re-VfDing: I proposed such a policy some time ago, but the vote collapsed and AFAIK no such policy has been passed since. If there is a democratically endorsed policy against re-VfDing, then I'll be the first to support it. That said, I'm not certain if this would even count as a resubmission given the speedy deletion and recreation, etc. Ropers 04:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It was not resubmitted... it was undeleted. big difference, it was speedy deleted under false circumstances as a resubmit which it clearly was not, the person responsible for its speedy even agreed he was wrong after the undeletion.  ALKIVAR™  05:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Cleduc 06:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice - if you're looking up the prisoner abuse, you KNOW about the pictures. You KNOW the content may well be disturbing. Who are we to censor things? What next? Shall I create a fork of Sexual intercourse with everything replaced by euphenisms in case any kids run across it? I don't think so. We are not censors. We are NOT here to provide protection, we are here to provide information and we do so in an UNBIASED, NPOV manner. To censor is to inherently take a POV. We can't do it in the spirit of the 'Pedia. Delete, and if this ever comes up again you can consider my vote to be delete. PMC 07:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The basis for the creation of this censored version, as far as I can tell is that the pictures are disturbing. Of course they are, it's a disturbing subject. The nudity is censored in the pictures, so I don't see any problems with the original article. Censoring any further is in violation of the spirit of NPOV. -ÅrУnT 08:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - for all the reasons given above. --Neo 19:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. See my comments on the December VfD. I'm on vacation and just happened to check this. It's not a test page, fork, or any more POV than the warning message that's been sitting on the article for months. It was requested by several, and has been called useful by others; keep it. Cool Hand Luke 21:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I have to take issue with your claim that it's not some kind of test page. Just try visiting it and then try to edit. Even when you do succeed in editing, I believe it's true to say (unless it's fixed in 1.4) that the cache is broken so you may not see changes until you manually purge. For these two reasons it cannot be regarded as ready for prime-time. It's a proof of concept, no more. I produced a similar one, on a slightly different technique developed by someone else, on talk:clitoris. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. No forks. Sets a very, very bad precedent---there are plenty of articles in danger of being similarly forked. Better to turn off image display in your browser. Don't change the encyclopedia to fit your notion of what is or is not good taste; there are other, better ways. grendel|khan 02:26, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a fork. The main article is not censored. This page is presented only to those who look for it. -Key45 00:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• String delete'--Jirate 16:30, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Keep This has survived VFD once. Samboy 23:40, 5 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep with a strong recommendation to make into a redirect. Rossami (talk) 07:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite know if this qualifies as a dictdef, but it certainly is not deserving of an article on its own. If it is genuine, then it could be merged (if appropriate) with military slang.

Incidentally, this article appeared before about a different topic. There is a VfD discussion of it there at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dink/Old discussion Smoddy | Talk 10:45, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect with List of ethnic slurs. Note that that page is under protection and put up for deletion, but that is secondary to this discussion (if it goes, this goes). And Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, but see [3], which is probably even more obscure. JRM 11:15, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. --fvw* 14:29, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. If List of ethnic slurs is deleted then this should be too. Rje 16:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. User has already deleted the vfd notice, so don't be suprised if it comes up again. Cmprince 16:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect is an admirable solution. Btw, the only recent way I have heard this term is as an acronym for "dual income no kids" (which does not need an article) Antandrus 16:31, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Check the edit history; someone did add that definition, but after the original poster deleted the vfd notice. But I'm not sure either definition needs its own article. Dink₁ can go to list of ethnic slurs and Dink₂ can go to list of acronyms. Whether a disambiguation page needs to remain I leave as an exercise for the reader. Cmprince 17:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Reidrect only: I've heard it both as a slur and as DINK. IMO, they're both dictdefs and not appropriate. However, given the presence of the slurs list, it can go there. I just don't think it's worth putting in the merge queue. It's used about as often, in my experience, as "gook," which is to say not very often at all. Geogre 22:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. I initiated the article. I would agree with a merge and redirect to military slang, if people dont believe it deserves its own article. I do not think that it deserves to be snuffed out of existence however. Nor do I feel that it should only go to a list of ethnic slurs page, considering I have only ever heard it used within the context of the war in Vietnam. Sorry removing the notice. It seemed like people still thought this was in reference to that (british?) television thing. I tried to clarify in the discussion for the article. I will leave it alone until the issue is resolved. As for "dual income no kids", I think that is probably too contemporary to have mention here, and is more of "urban dictionary" type of article. --63.172.33.194 18:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thank you for your courtesy, and please don't let this VfD listing discourage you. Specifically, I believe, "dink" was used in the Vietnam War and has been reused since, though inaccurately. It could certainly be in military slang in a section on "the enemy," but the term has spread, unfortunately, into civilian (and, of course, teen) use for Asians and then for "dinky" (i.e. small genital) persons. That's why it could go to the ethnic slurs page, too. I agree that it really ought not be confused with the Yuppy/Buppy type of descriptor, since that should be DINK and never "Dink" or "dink." Geogre 05:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as disambig. There was also a children's cartoon in the 1980s called "Dink the Little Dinosaur", believe it or not. -Sean Curtin 06:03, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are 27 entries for dink in the UrbanDictionary. And that is the appropriate place for it. There is no special reason why the vietnam application should be regarded as more important than any of the others. -- mikeL

This page is now preserved 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. (Several anonymous or suspiciously new users' votes were discounted but that still failed to establish a clear consensus to delete the article.)

Having said that this group's decision is "keep", I am disturbed to note that the relevant standard - the "more than an average professor test" - was never applied to this article. (See the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies.) Neither the article nor this discussion thread establish that she is more than an average professor.

Additionally, I'd like to comment that a vote to keep the article (at least for now) is not an endorsement that the current content must be kept. Much of the biographic detail is in my opinion inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. However, that is something that any editor can fix. It does not need discussion on this page.

I am going to tag this article for clean-up. Please be aware that if the article is not cleaned up in a reasonable amount of time (no firm standard exists), and if notability is not established which passes the "average professor test", there is a significant chance that this article will be again nominated for deletion. Rossami (talk) 01:09, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, Mel Etitis challenges our policy of discounting anonymous votes by noting that we allow and encourage user IDs to be pseudonyms. The point Mel misses is that we are a community. Within this community, BM and Geogre have worked hard to establish and maintain a reputation. The fact that their Wikipedia identity can not be correlated to their physical identity is irrelevant. Their standing in the community is established by their pattern of behaviors here.

For the comments about Wikipedia not being a peer-reviewed encyclopedia, they are right. It is both a weakness and a strength. May I recommend that you review Wikipedia:What Our Critics Say About Us. Rossami (talk) 01:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a vanity page, text seems to be adapted from here. She's published a couple of articles in philosophical papers, which in my opinion does not necessarily make her notable, but feel free to disagree :) -- Ferkelparade π 12:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Vote against deletion (is there a separate page for this? I couldn't find it) I'm in the process of writing this page (in fact it's only been up for about ten minutes); the material so far does indeed come from her own Web site, but I'm adding more substantial descriptions of her positions. She's an extremely popular and well-respected lecturer (on Descartes, expecially) in Oxford; philosophical worth isn't merely a matter of the length of one's publications list. (I don't have a User name -- do I need one for these purposes? I should say that I'm not Dr Christofidou, so whatever else the page is, it's not vanity.) 13:27, 29 Dec 2004.
• Tentative Keep Delete. She is a Lecturer at Oxford. I'm not up on British academic titles, so I don't know how significant this is; but obviously the university if a very highly-regarded one. The article could do a lot better job of establishing her notability. Being popular doesn't equate to being notable. And if she is well-respected, the article does not indicate why. --BM 13:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Changed my vote. Doesn't seem like the author has much more to say about this person other than a "Lecturer" at Oxford is not equivalent to an Assistant Professor in the U.S., and 'could' be notable. That doesn't mean she is, and it doesn't look like there is going to be more information forthcoming. --BM 00:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I recommend getting a user name. You can vote to keep, but your vote may not be given much or any weight if you have no edit history. Whether you have a user name or not please sign with ~~~~ on talk pages like this one. If you want her included I recommend trying to show what impact she's had on her field, and especially at the start of the article telling (randomly page using) readers why they should be interesting in this person. No vote. Kappa 13:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. --fvw* 14:25, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs more info and maybe a claenup, but worth having. --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 14:47, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I've been looking at a number of entries for philosophers and others, and have come across a number which offer a line or two of text, with no publications, on people of whom I've never heard. Is there some reason for not wanting this particular entry (which is, as has been pointed out, a work in progress, and already offers more than many)? --Mel Etitis 16:03 29 Dec, 2004
  • Wikipedia is very uneven in quality. The existence of low-quality articles in Wikipedia should not be used as a rationale to continually add more low-quality articles. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, VfD is not a cleanup tool. GRider\^talk 17:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, it's helpful, could be cleaned up a bit. Wyss 21:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep others seem to feel she's notable enough for a lecturer on wikipedia so I'll support them. Verifiable anyhow. Kappa 21:56, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Vanity page for a random professor. First, it's biography with personal details (hallmark of the vanity page). Second, she is a lecturer (aka "assistant professor"). Third, there is no indication that her works are influential or leading the field. Professors always chalk up publications. We've long had a standard for academics that they need more than to be at a university. Geogre 22:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: "Lecturer" is the first rung of an academic career in Britain, it turns out. So basically every faculty member at Oxford, Cambridge, and equally notable schools is as notable as this person, based on her post alone. The references cite several of her journal articles. The journals are among the most respected ones, but someone else will have to comment on whether these articles are notable. It would be nice if the people responsible for this article had done their homework, instead of expecting other people to do it. No change of vote. --22:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• (The page-writer again — still no User-name; I've tried twice, but both times I was told that my chosen name was in use, though a search came up with nothing. I'll try again.) Aside from the person before last, who seemed not to have read what went before, the debate has been interesting. There seems to be no clear agreement on what an entry is supposed to do. I'd assumed that entries were primarily for those who were looking for them, rather than as introductions for idle browsers (perhaps that's just because that's the way I've generally used Wikipedia). I didn't intend my entry on Dr Christofidou to puff her, to tell people why they should be interested in her; rather, I intended to offer information for those who looking for it. I started with the easy bit – the biography, etc. – intending to add the harder stuff (what's distinctive about her positions and arguments in the areas of the philosophy of the self and of Cartesian studies).
  • The last person is wrong, I'm afraid; the British system is in general more complicated than this, and the Oxford system is different again. I'm surprised that anyone thinks that philosophical distinction is a function of one's position in the academic hierarchy (few eminent philosophers of the past were academic successes, and many holders of University chairs are tedious nobodies). Finally, I don't know what homework I'm supposed to have done; if the reference is to the stuff about what "lecturer" means, was I really supposed to include that in the entry? Incidentally, if the entry gets to stay, and I go back to working on it, what did people mean by the need for cleaning up? Is that the coding, or something to do with the content? --(Call me Ishmael — at least for now) 22:50 29 Dec 2004
    • Actually, those who came before were the ones who had not read what had come before them. In fact, Wikipedia has been around for quite a while. How many assistant professors/lecturers do you see on the site? Know why? Academic articles are for those persons who are notable within their field. This does not merely mean individual, as all academics have to be original to some degree to publish, but rather those who are talked up, discussed, leading. As for whether eminent philosophers of the past have been academic successes or not, that's an utter red herring, for how many academic failures have been notable philosophers? Is this person Richard Rorty or just a striving academic? If the former, then an article is in order. If the latter, then she is like the thousands of others who toil in hope's delusive mine. Geogre 03:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I suspect that what was meant was that you referred to it as a "vanity page", when we've been told that it isn't. I can't comment on that, but your insistence on the claim that a U.K Lecturer is the same as a U.S. Assistant Professor is certainly wrong. Wikipedia is full of U.K. Lecturers; we don't have the formal and highly-articulated hierarchy that you do. A U.K. Lecturer can be equivalent to anything from an Assistant Professor to a Full Professor in the U.S. (Is Associate Prof higher or lower than Assistant Prof? Anyway, "Lecturer" includes all three.) --Mel Etitis 15:51 30 Dec 2004
  • You need to cater for different kinds of readers - people who know who she is, but want to know more about her, people who find her page in a search engine using words it mentions, people who might have followed a link from "oxford philosophers" or Cartesian studies or some such article, "idle browsers" who get there with "random page", etc. // It's not that academic position is a wonderful measure of philosphical distinction, but at least its an objective one, the same as record sales. The argument about notability is a constant one here. One reference is: Criteria for inclusion of biographies (and no, wikipedia is not consistent). // Cleanup is mostly about formatting and maybe some rearrangement. Try previewing a {{cleanup}} tag and see what it says. Kappa 00:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Megan1967 01:34, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: personal promo. A lecturer is nobody in particular. Author has salted other articles with promo links. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not only isn't it personal, or vanity, or whatever, but Dr Christofidou knows nothing about it. The comment concerning lecturers is an inaccurate and petty generalisation. As for "salting" other articles, I added links to a couple of relevant articles, just as I linked from this page to others -- I'd thought that that was how Wikipedia worked. Checking one of them, I see that you've removed it. Isn't that jumping the gun, at the very least? --(Call me Ishmael — at least for now) 17:12 30 Dec 2004
• I've just discovered this discussion; the usual Usenet-level stuff, with dogmatic nonsense from anonymous, ignorant, arrogant little nobodies. Andrea would be upset by some of the crass comments, but then I don't suppose you really understand taht, you autistic creeps. Take the page down; why would she be interested in having n edited duplicate of the bio from her own page on a non-peer-reviewed "Encyclopedia"? I expect that the person who started putting it up had the best of motives, but take it down please, and leave these autistic twerps to play their dominance games with each other. --[A friend and colleague of A.C.] 9.25am 31st December 2004
  • The most striking example of autistic Usenet dominance games in this discussion is your own (anonymous) contribution. Unfortunately votes from anonymous IP's don't count. People writing biographies when the notabiity of the subject can't be readily established aren't really doing the subject any favors. They are potentially exposing the person to a fairly blunt discussion of how notable he or she really is. No university lecturer (or her colleagues , apparently) wants to read on the Internet that she is just another person working in the education industry. Other encyclopedias are not peer-reviewed, either; but they don't conduct their editorial discussions in public. --BM 13:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... a few problems with BM's reply: (1) it seems to be using "autistic" as a general term of abuse (from the Wikipedia article on autism: "people on the autism spectrum have difficulty seeing things from another person's perspective. Neurotypical 5-year-olds understand that other people have different knowledge, feelings, and goals than they have. An autistic person may lack such understanding, an inability that leaves them unable to predict or understand other people's actions"; (2) the use of "anonymous" to mean someone not using a pseudonym like "BM" or "Geogre" or even "Mel Etitis" is peculiar to say the least; (3) I'll pass over the repeated sily stuff about the relative importance of academics and the notion of education being just another industry (we get enough of that from right-wing politicians here); (4) I've contributed to a few non-Internet Encyclopedias, and they were all peer-reviewed to various degrees (at least having a subject-specialist editor who was responsible for accepting, rejecting, or asking for alterations in articles). Mel Etitis 10:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable. --JuntungWu 07:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Dan100 11:39, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• This discussion has been going on for more than the five days mentioned in the Wikipedia guidleines; isn't it time to make decision? I'll vote to keep, which makes the votes for keeping eleven and the votes against four (five including the original questioner, who in fact seems not to have voted). Doesn't this mean that the page stays, or have I missed something? Mel Etitis 17:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I could only find 8 9 keeps, but yeah that's a majority so it will be retained. Some admin will come along and do the paperwork eventually. I should point out that keep decisions aren't permanent, and someone might nominate it again later. Kappa 18:15, 6 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:01, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Someone's blog post? --fvw* 13:13, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

• Delete. Evident vanity related to the speedied Posting my story. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • and that was why I speedied this one in the first place. Jeff Knaggs 13:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Have a look at the criteria for Speedy Deletion: Vanity is not a criterion. --fvw* 14:03, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Merge or just move to users own page? --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 14:45, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • The article was created by an anonymous editor. --fvw* 14:49, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Delete, as vanity. Rje 16:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 18:31, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as fiction, noise, nonsense, vanity. Wyss 21:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Odd. Delete. hfool/Wazzup? 23:45, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Cleduc 06:54, 3 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Carried out at 03:48, 3 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality

Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Film vanity. --fvw* 13:23, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

• No IMDB, no google. Not verifiable. Meelar (talk) 14:35, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs far more to it and a cleanup, but an article should be made about it. --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 14:41, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If IMDb doesn't know about it, then it isn't notable. (Bear in mind that they have an entry on Wilson the Volleyball) Xezbeth 14:57, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The article itself says it hasn't entered production and that it will be made by a group of teenagers. This is vanity pure and simple. Rje 15:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 18:30, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Their page might be, oh, 4 days old. That's how old their forum is. Delete like a bad mob hit. hfool 19:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious vanity. GRider\^talk 19:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, nn vanity. Wyss 21:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as pure vanity for a non-existent film. - Lucky 6.9 19:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can be verified. Someone can always create a (more substantial) page later if and when such a movie finally turns up. As it is, the odds are pretty high this film, if made, will not be released under this title unless the producers really want to be sued by Paypal. 23skidoo 00:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Cleduc 06:55, 3 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.

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

Some cut&paste of a blog post? --fvw* 14:05, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

• Delete. My eyes! The goggles, they do nothing! Wikipedia is not a story database. JRM 14:11, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Delete. Like they said. P Ingerson 14:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not a bad story.. well.. its not the worst ever, but it's got no place in an encyclopedia. Wikisource?
  • Delete. Agree that this doesn't belong, and that there should be a place for it, but I don't think Wikisource would want it either. And please sign your votes, Irishpunktom. Andrewa 15:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Rje 15:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Cyprus2k1 16:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I was the person who initially put this forward as a Speedy delete, but yes, delete would be more appropriate. Apologies, but the effect is still the same. All the best. 18:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Quickly. PLEASE. Deb 18:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 18:30, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• What the hell? Delete as a (short) bad piece of fiction. hfool 19:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as fiction, noise, nonsense... almost a speedy. Wyss 21:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, poorly edited dribble. Megan1967 01:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete; enough said! Newfoundglory 19:32, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• This is the kind of thing that should be a speedy. Delete. Andre (talk) 21:29, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Should delete on the grounds of punctuation, but any other reason will do. DJ Clayworth 02:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Cleduc 06:55, 3 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.

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

Dictdef, Neologism, probable hoax. --fvw* 15:46, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like a load of klate to me. Rje 16:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 18:29, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, at best nn, looks like someone's attempt to personally alter the English language via wikipedia. Wyss 21:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. hoax. Cleduc 06:56, 3 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedied by me. Geogre 03:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not notable. --fvw* 16:01, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising for a non-notable forum. Rje 17:29, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: spam DCEdwards1966 18:28, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, fragment of content serving as platform for a link... spam. Wyss 21:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Speedied as spam. Content was: "GLCOTI, Gamers Little Corner On the Internet

Forum on the net with mostly english gamers.

http://www.glcoti.com/portal.php"

This page is now preserved 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:08, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

and: List of -ell words, List of -ight words, List of -eed words, List of -ick words, List of -ing words, List of -itch words

Wikipedia is not a rhyming directory. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of -uck words for the decision to delete the -uck word list. This vote is for all of the 7 pages mentioned above. Eugene van der Pijll 16:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, wiktionary doesn't need it. --fvw* 16:21, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Keep—see nothing wrong with keeping these lists.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:15, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary if it's not there already. Then delete, a list of words only related by sound isn't encyclopedic. Also rhyming is a dictionary entry property, shouldn't be in encyclopedia. Mgm|^(talk) 17:19, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, an encyclopedia is not the place for these lists and, as fvw says, wiktionary doesn't need them either; see [7]. Rje 17:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, since wiktionary doesn't need it. Jeltz talk 17:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: This crack is wack, Jack. DCEdwards1966 18:27, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• -smack-wack-delete-. hfool 19:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ask the Wiktionary editors whether they want them; transwiki only if they do. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, rhyming or otherwise. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:50, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete ...ack! Unencyclopedic in the extreme, nn. Wyss 20:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Black hell might need thick wrappings of pitch to ignite, but we don't need these dictionary functions in an encyclopedia. Geogre 03:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki. Wikipedia is not a rhyming dictionary. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wiktionary already has lists of rhyming words. Ливай | ☺ 03:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:54, 3 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.

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

Very thin dictdef. --fvw* 16:18, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

• Delete, dictdef. Incomprehensible to those who don't speak in business jargon, so Transwiki would be pointless. Rje 17:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 18:24, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Smoddy | Talk 19:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete jargon dicdef, unhelpful. Wyss 20:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictdef. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:42, 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.

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

Not notable. --fvw* 16:30, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Rje 17:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 18:22, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, might be nonsense. hfool 19:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as pimple puff (male teen vanity/prank). Wyss 20:56, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity/prank. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, this is Anthony and it isn't non-sense.

This page is now preserved 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.

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

At best this is a neologism dicdef, at worst an ad for the links it contains. No Google hits in context. -Cmprince 18:29, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Odd, reads somewhere between a hoax, a copyvio and a marketing fluff piece. --fvw* 18:30, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Delete. Rje 18:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as almost gibberish. hfool 19:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, as above, borders on nonsense, at best nn acronym. Wyss 20:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:41, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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, apparently as a speedy at 00:33, 31 Dec 2004 by User:Danny who wrote absolutely no advertisements are tolerated on wikipedia

Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidently an advertisement. If HonestGamers really is a major gaming site (and I see no evidence of that), then the page needs major rewriting. Kelly Martin 19:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. The odd thing is google claims 20000 hits but only lists 6 pages of results. I can find no evidence of notability though. --fvw* 20:33, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. Very few gaming sites are really notable, this is one of the many that is not. Rje 20:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, amounts to an ad, nn. Wyss 20:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Dude, why did you delete the history section? What is wrong with you people, is it going to kill you if you dont erase somebody's work on the internet that you will never see and/or care about again?
  • "Dude", stop deleting the deletion notice and we'll stop reverting the rest of it. Kelly Martin 21:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Dude, Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 03:58, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 04:38, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 (apparently as a speedy by Gamaliel. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This appears to be a vanity hoax. --fvw* 19:57, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

• I just realised, this is about Eleanor Roosevelt with her name replaced. My time spent in history lessons has finally payed off... --fvw* 20:09, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as bad-faith stealthy vandalism or silly prank. Either way, it has no place on wikipedia. Wyss 20:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I agree with Wyss. Rje 20:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I've speedied it because it's vandalism. Gamaliel 21:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, justifiable speedy (pure vandalism) but I'd have left it there for the vote and just flagged it as disputed. We may be seeing a new (to me) sort of vandalism here, this has a striking similarity to the recent Kulm incident. Different IP but. Bananas are good. Andrewa 21:17, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:03, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've done some research, but have yet to find this term being used as the second meaning listed. As for the first meaning, I can't expand it, really, and it's essentially a buzzword. Delete as having little or no content. Meelar (talk) 20:20, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, not even sure I agree with the content, nn term. Wyss 20:50, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I have seen this term used by revisionist historian Burton Folsom for businessmen who are financed by the government. Not aware of any other usage. Gazpacho 21:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The concept is a real concept (the business sense). It should have a label in the form of a word or term. Is the problem that it's a word that isn't used widely yet, or is it that it identifies a concept that some would rather not have identified? I'm not sure about Wikipedia policy, but if there is some kind of rule against new words to identify previously-unlabeled concepts, I'd just like to state my opinion that such a rule would be counterproductive toward the advancement of knowledge. And I would question the value of Wikipedia to society. (RJII) DEC 29 (creator of the article political entrepreneur)
  • I wish you had simply answered my question, rather than impugning motives and denouncing Wikipedia. If this term is Folsom's creation and is only understood by reference to him, then it's a neologism and should be Deleted. Gazpacho
  • Neologisms go against Wikipedia's established policy against original research. The problem with original research and untested ideas isn't that they're new, it's that they're unverifiable. It's been a pretty solid consensus on Wikipedia that this isn't the place to introduce new theories or concepts, not because we don't want to be "cutting edge" but because we want to make sure the encyclopedia contains well-established, verifiable facts. Szyslak 09:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, nn neologism. If it's new and not used widely, it's not encyclopedic. Shimeru 22:32, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm only familiar with the first definition, and I don't think either one is well-established enough for an encylopaedia entry. Rd232 23:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What a boring encyclopedia. I might as well go pick up a copy of Encyclopedia Britannica in book form if we have to wait around until something gets around to the general masses before it's even mentioned. I thought Wikopedia was supposed to be something cutting-edge. I see my impressions were wrong. I'm beginning to see its all just rehash. My mistake. (RJII) DEC 29 (creator of the article)

• Delete --fvw* 00:14, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone finds much greater evidence of notability. Szyslak 03:20, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I have never heard of the term, but if it is a commonly used term in political circles then it could be merged with entrepreneurship or entrepreneur. mydogategodshat 03:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Because of edits made in the last day or two, I would like to change my vote to Keep. mydogategodshat 17:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• It is a neologism, but the content is well-written. Don't throw it away, merge into Burton_W._Folsom_Jr.. – Smyth\^talk 16:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please keep this aricle, it is a term. It does need some more editing.

This page is now preserved 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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, apparently as a speedy. The deletion log shows:

• 17:08, 31 Dec 2004 Jimfbleak deleted Medical Specialist Centre (content was: 'deleteagain}}The Medical Specialist Centre a Hospital located in the Wisma Maria building, along the junction of Jalan Ngee Heng with the Te...')
• 23:46, 29 Dec 2004 Mikkalai deleted Medical Specialist Centre (recreated after VfD deletion)

Comment: Next time, please provide a link to the prior VfD discussion thread rather than trying to force it into the existing discussion. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page was vfd'ed a while ago. The outcome was delete. I don't see in the new article anything new or more notable. I am afraid author marked "stub" and will add, in a while, loads of too higly detailed elements (as he is doing there against vfd conclusions). Gtabary 20:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, smells like an ad. Wyss 20:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain. Advertising... for a hospital? GRider\^talk 20:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Abuse of process, and still not notable. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:29, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Qualifies for a speedy, does it not? Xezbeth 22:04, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete I looked at the article's history, and it was created by the same person who created it lasttime. This is vandalism and should be speedily deleted. Spinboy 22:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I remember this trash, Speedy Delete as a recreation. hfool/Wazzup? 23:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speedily deleted as recreated after previous VfD. No new info is added to warrant notability.

• Keep deleted: The author knew about the previous VfD outcome and had taken part (angrily) in the VfD debate. Therefore, this is not an honest mistake. Geogre 04:03, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• If it wasn't the same article, it should not have been speedied! There is nothing to stop an editor from re-creating an article with different information. There is nothing in the deletion policy that says hospitals must be deleted. This is the personal opinion of some editors. The idea that Wikipedia can be "too highly detailed" is very worrying. Edit the article, Gtabary, if you think that. That's what editors do. But chasing another editor around, destroying all his work, is unfriendly to say the least.Dr Zen 23:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There come to a point that you are saying that all Hospitals are to be deleted. There are lots more of Hospital articles on the wikipedia, and why are they not deleted since this is? There is a question to this:

1. There is nothing wrong with Hospital articles. This time I have written with a new and friendly outlook, like Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, etc. I written this time about the outlook of the hospital, instead about the staff itself. This article is just as notable as all other hospitals. What's wrong with writing Hospital articles? User:Chan Han Xiang
2. There is no law that someone cannot write local-interest articles. Wikipedia:Your first article. I did add local colours, and there's nothing wrong with that.
3. Gtabary, I did not say that I will add the same old rubbish information again. I only added the stub, and promised to add more info. Other hospitals are just the same with that. Oh god, what's wrong with that? Hospitals are always not so notable, but in the margin between notable and non-notable. User:Chan Han Xiang

• Article recreated after speedy deletion. The article has been recreated again. At this point, it is simply vandalism. --BM 14:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to delete this one, because I'm party to an RfC about the editor. However, this re-creation is quite against policy. I believe the author does not understand that he is again dancing with vandalism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• keep, possibly redirect somewhere. Sorry, I do not mean to overthrow previous VfDs, and I do not endorse the stubborness of the article (re)creator. But notability is in the eye of the beholder. Why should a real hospital be less notable than, say, Fatty Lumpkin or PallaPalla? If the content was an ad, fix it, or turn it into a redirect, no need for deletion. dab (ᛏ) 10:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Medical Specialist Centre 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.

This article is about non noticeable hospital. Gives non remarkable informations, about non noticeable people. Read especially the details regarding employees potentialy harassing other employees. I suggest this is deleted. Some other articles of the same kind (same author, same federating topic) like Taman Johor Jaya , Hospitals of Johor Bahru Shopping centres of Johor Bahru City Square actually have loads of content but it looks to be petty informations like about my local supermarket, my personal GP, the name of my non noticeable street, the color of my shirt... Am I completly wrong ? --Gtabary 15:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • • Please note that User:Chan Han Xiang edited out (or, rather, "censored", in his own words) comments here by other editors. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Extremely weird. Some workers are left behind to entertain the patients? The bosses run their own clinics and leave? If put into less disturbed idiom, it would be not notable. As it stands, it's incomprehensible without a generous reader. Geogre 20:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: I agree what the writer of the article says. I totally disagree on what Geogre says. Generally, the bosses need to sleep at night. At the same time, hospitals have to be on for 24 hours for the sake of saving people in critical conditions at all times. By looking from the iew point of a human's life, a critically sick or injured person will surely die if there is no help to arrive on time. So, if a hospital is only open for, say, 12 hours, the person will not be able to wait and will even die. Furthermore, the bosses, I presume, are very rich and prominent people since they are able to built a hospital like Tan Tock Seng. So, I strongly urge you to keep the article. Annoyomous user
• Delete. During talk, page author User:Chan Han Xiang asked me for other opinions. I vfd the page. I think this page and many others are excellent candidates for delete. --Gtabary 12:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Mikkalai 19:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of hospitals. Gamaliel 02:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Indrian 04:40, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This is ridiculous, now people are going around and putting up other hospitals for vfd. Spinboy 05:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • What on the page says about the notabolity of the hospital, with the exception that it has to pay high rent to a church? That fact indeed says something about charity in this country... Mikkalai 17:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It is useful, relevant, and the hospital is raised, whom I believe, is a very notable and rich man, who attains the Dato' titleship. Equal to the great Johorian Wong Ah Fook. Chan Han Xiang
• Delete. And is it just me, or is User:Chan Han Xiang screwing around with other people's comments on this page? --Calton 15:44, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, there's irony for you: it turns out that User:Chan Han Xiang tried to delete my comment above as "abusive". Deleting other people's votes? Not done -- full stop, period, end of story. --Calton 15:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable hospital. Ant it's not just you Calton, he is ignoring Wikiquette and attempting to sabotage the debate here. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 01:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Jayjg 05:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Euphoria 08:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages 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.

This page is now preserved 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Rossami (talk) 01:24, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article, though well written, is not notable enough in and of itself to be included as a separate article from Clubs and organizations of Columbia University. I suggest the content be merged as a subheading in that article, not be its own. There have already been recent arguments over too many columbia articles, and I do not wish this loose end to be inflammatory, unless it can be expanded in the same way as Core Curriculum was. --Ctrl build^talk 21:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Comment. Ahem hem. If you think this is a merge and redirect, then you should have done it. Be bold. If you think the change of venue would be controversial, then discuss it on the Talk page first, or put up an RfC. I realize there's lots of precedent for it, but I still don't like people using "Votes for deletion" as "Threats for discussion/expansion". Don't list articles here unless you want them deleted. Not edited, not merged with something else, deleted without leaving a trace. For that reason, no vote. JRM 21:17, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)\
• JRM is correct. If you think the content can be merged, just do it, and redirect. The only reason to ask for a vote on deletion is if you are encountering unreasonable resistance to the merge/redirect -- unreasonable resistance being from perhaps one or a small number of people who insist on a separate article for reasons that don't seem valid. If you merge and redirect, you can then propose later that the redirect be deleted, if you feel that is appropriate. However, since you have put this up for a deletion vote, I consider it non-encyclopedic and vote Delete. --BM 22:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I do not think the content should be merged, that is the issue. If you all wish to merge it I will, but I believe the superfluous page should be deleted. --Ctrl build^talk

00:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • • Merged in Clubs and organizations of Columbia University but not redirected --Ctrl build^talk

00:58, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. One of the problems with this approach is that, now people can and have voted Delete, a bold merge and redirect is no longer an option unless the article survives the full VfD monty. Otherwise, attribution for those edits would be lost, which violates the GFDL. This makes it doubly important not to list articles here unless you really want them deleted, because there's no going back. For that reason, a vote. JRM 23:22, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect supporting JRM. I find it distasteful that people vote 'delete' when even the actual nominator doesn't want that to happen. Kappa 23:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Problem is that the nominator doesn't "own" the vote to begin with. You could let Ctrl build "withdraw" his nomination and then have BM "own" it, as he was the first to express the opinion that it should be deleted. But what's the point? We might as well just do a proper VfD. I'm sure some people wouldn't be principally opposed to having all Wikipedia articles pass VfD at least once, just to be thorough. ("Delete Nomination of the Week"? :-) JRM 00:16, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
  • I do not think the content should be merged, that is the issue. If you all wish to merge it I will, but I believe the superfluous page should be deleted. --Ctrl build^talk

00:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • I don't object to the information, and it is fine with me if it is merged with the Columbia article. If there isn't a reasonable section in that article for the info, then it is also fine not to merge it. I just don't think the information is notable enough to warrant a separate article, and since the article is up for VfD, "delete" is my vote. --BM 20:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Merged in Clubs and organizations of Columbia University but not redirected --Ctrl build^talk

00:58, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. non-notable. I find it distasteful that people find distasteful other people's argumented votes. Mikkalai 00:03, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, as above. Rje 00:06, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge, and redirect or delete.
• Merge and redirect as above. —Korath (Talk) 03:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect is logical and follows precedent (the nightmare that was Dartmouth College), but I agree that it is seldom useful to scold other voters, and especially to scold nominators. If it has been nominated, just take it from there. It is not bold to merge and redirect, in fact, but rather reckless. A good many folks get very upset when that kind of thing is done unilaterally. Geogre 04:07, 30 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.

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

Hoax or vanity I think, I can't find any information on them. --fvw* 21:10, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

• Comment: I found 7 google hits [8], one appears to be a magazine review of their album [9] which gets 7/10. Kappa 21:23, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Indeed 7 hits, not yet notable. Gtabary 22:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not convinced they'd be notable even in Finland, and they seem to be completely unknown outside of Finland. Maybe in time, but not yet. Shimeru 22:37, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for non-notability. Tuf-Kat 22:34, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:55, 3 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 23:05, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Not worth having as a separate article. Add the link to the website to the George W. Bush article and redirect this there. 172.172.35.229 21:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears to be a large, organised protest. 7m hits in Google [10] Jasoncart 21:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This user wrote the article. 172.172.35.229 21:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Also being a bit disingenuous by not using quotes in the search. However, "Turn Your Back on Bush" still turns up 17,900 Google hits [11]. I think that makes this worth keeping, if it can be expanded in encyclopedic fashion. Trouble is, I'm not sure it can be — other than "This is a protest wherein people turn their backs on President Bush," is there anything noteworthy to say about it? Delete unless someone can expand it to show that there is. Shimeru 22:44, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
      • Apologies, I didn't mean to be misleading with my Google hits figure. 7m is incorrect, the 17.9k search is better for validating the article's notability. Jasoncart 23:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Sigh, I mean delete... the usual unbelievable vanity... Phils 22:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Alleged protest movements don't have the potential to be encyclopedic unless there is evidence of an actual movement -- meaning more than a web site. Four students turning their backs at a graduation ceremony is an incident, not a movement. --BM 22:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - It's made the news, it should have it's own piece on Wikipeida [12]. Googling it gave over 10 pages of results. It's a no-Brainer really, it has to stay. --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 22:34, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. This IMO does sound interesting though. Aside: once again the difference between a non and a double quoted google search is huge. In that case a no-db-quote, is meaningless for words are too common. Now try a "Turn Your Back on Bush" -> 17000 hits. So there _is_ something here. It definitely looks like add for their jan 2005 appeal, but can we ignore it ? Gtabary 22:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• How about when they get 10000 people to turn their back on Bush duing his Inauguration Day ceremony, then we put them in. Delete, but kindly, as I think any group which could manage to do that would deserve an entry. hfool/Wazzup? 23:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Dlete. Mikkalai 00:04, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, media coverage and many Google hits. That makes it borderline notable enough for inclusion. Megan1967 01:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Occasional signs of barely surviving freedoms in America should certainly be highlighted. -- Simonides 01:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of much of anything. Making the news is not enough to get in Wikipedia, otherwise I could write about car pileups. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I certainly wish them well, but I'm not sure that this has more notability than walking into the draft office, singing a chorus of "Alice's Restaurant" and walking out. I would prefer to see this information yoked with other protests, and especially student protests, in a logical article where things not sufficiently notable in isolation can be spoken of in toto, but I don't know what such an article is. (Even mooning Bush, so to speak, doesn't seem to make a difference, as the man is kept behind a sanitary cordon at all times so that he never sees demonstrators. Since he doesn't read newspapers or watch the news, nothing can affect the man in the high castle.) Geogre 04:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If it really does get 10,000 people involved on January 20, that will be different, but at a current tally of four it's not a keeper, it's just a political advertisement. You can get anything you want ta da da da da da... Andrewa 04:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Well, I'm torn; like Andrew above, four people wouldn't be notable unless it received a lot of attention, but 10,000 definitely would be. So I'd need to see some evidence that the group really has thousands of members/participants or that it has received a lot of news coverage. No vote, but leaning towards keep. Everyking 04:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Articles mentioning these particular protests (turning one's back on a given signal during the inauguration) in Reuters and CNN, international news reporting organizations. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: I gather a lot of Wikipedians don't like Bush, but those opinions shouldn't be relevant here. I think there's an important principle at stake, so at the risk of being provocative, let me ask those voting keep a question: If instead of being anti-Bush, this was a proposed demonstration by a racist group (or something similar that you don't personally like), and consisted so far only of a four-person incident and some Internet and news coverage, should we have a article on that? I'm genuinely curious. I don't think this campaign will change the world a lot, but I fear it compromises Wikipedia significantly. No change of vote. Andrewa 21:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • There's an answer to that: In Britain, however, during the same year as the first American anti-disco demonstrations, see below, The Young Nationalist publication of the British National Party reported that "disco and its melting pot pseudo-philosophy must be fought or Britain's streets will be full of black-worshipping soul boys," though this had been true for twenty years with many white male English teens considering themselves "soul freaks". -From Disco. An encyclopedia records the views of racists too. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Here we have an article dedicated to this particular planned protest, whose title is an anti-Bush slogan. You're comparing it to a section of an article, with a neutral section heading. But is there perhaps a better comparison? Andrewa 03:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I think that's just a quibble, really. You ask whether an article about a protest on grounds not favored by those who vote for this one should be kept. The article must have a provocative name and the protest must have received equivalent publicity. I don't know whether such an article has ever existed, but if it did I don't see why it should be deleted. Since I have no reason to believe that Wikipedians are particularly opposed to Bush or are in the habit of letting their personal political views influence their votes on VfD I concentrated on demonstrating that Wikipedians do represent unpopular views fairly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment: Thanks for clarifying that. To you it may be a quibble, but IMO your first reply didn't answer the question at all, and this now does. My reason for thinking that a significant number of Wikipedians must have an anti-Bush bias is that I'm still struggling to understand why anyone would vote to keep what looks to me to be a blatant piece of political advertising. This is not a criticism, it's an honest question. All the article says so far is that four unnamed students have protested in this way, and that an unnamed person is organising a much bigger demonstration in three weeks' time, and that some websites exist to promote the plan. As for the press services (which confirm this), I think they set the bar a bit lower than we should. But if others disagree with this, that's fine. Andrewa 19:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, if Tony is correct in his claim that Reuters and CNN have both covered this, which isn't true for most auto accidents (and for those which are covered thusly, we should have an article). Also, if the same were true of a KKK rally or the like, I would vote the same way. Tuf-Kat 22:33, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • It occurs to me that I should support my claim. CNN, Reuters. I expect that there are others but those two did it for me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep. `JuntungWu 03:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep! Neutrality^talk 03:45, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth/expansion. GRider\^talk 23:35, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Andre (talk) 21:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I oppose political vanity articles more than anybody, but this artle has potential (and so far is) encyclopedic. Brownman40 05:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think it's notable that though mostly kow-towing to Bush, the mainstream media has made some reports on this movement, more than they did for Not in Our Name and Code Pink and the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition Pedant 01:30, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

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

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

While the term "utimate metal" is indeed used, I can't find so much as a single example of it referring to a specific genre (i.e. not Pantera were the ultimate metal band). Tuf-Kat 21:45, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Not yet notable. Again must be db-quoted in google to make a meaningful search: -> 43 hits, seamingly just usual marketing hipe about products. Gtabary 22:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable in any case, and probable hoax. "Indeed 'Ultimate' might be a bit of an understatement"...? Shimeru 22:50, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No such genre, and I know metal well enough to know this. --Idont Havaname 23:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, sounds like the marketing hype for a new Black metal band. Rje 00:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with Extreme metal - --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 11:07, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:55, 3 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.

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

Doesn't establish notability: Road vanity. --fvw* 21:52, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

This was intended to be a link from the neighborhood list for Yonkers, New York. It's not just a road, it's also a neighborhood as well.

• Delete. My concern is, appart of saying it's a road (or a neighborhood) what is specific ? Many important roads on the planet had fire. Does not look very specific to me. Gtabary 22:45, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. For several reasons, but most importantly the deletionist elements around here are making up non-sense terms like road vanity. What, did the road get a Wikipedia account and decide to write an article on itself? Nelson Ricardo 22:51, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing noteworthy about the road or the neighborhood that I can see, according to the article. "Wakefield Towers" might (or might not) be worthy of an article, but not the road it's on. Shimeru 22:54, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Specific? It's very specific. Bronx River Road is a distinct area of Yonkers. It's both a street and neighborhood, like Pelham Parkway in the Bronx. Don't think of this as a "street" article, think of it as a "neighborhood" article. If Crestwood can get an entry, so can Bronx River Road. Is it the word "Road" that causing confusion?
• Keep. Mikkalai
• Keep seems significant enough, and can be used to link articles on other places together, almost like some kind of pathway. Kappa 01:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Rhobite 02:15, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: The Bronx River Road runs in Bronx, too (shock!). It's a long road. Calling it a neighborhood is misleading. Suggesting that this neighborhood is organized around this road and is notable enough to standout beyond any other neighborhood anywhere else (e.g. Canberra) is too far a stretch. Geogre 04:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • You are confusing the road with Bronx River Parkway. The road is in Yonkers only. Nelson Ricardo 12:01, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • You're right. I was confusing the two. I still have to say that a neighborhood needs to be known outside of its own city to be encyclopedic, but I was mistaken about this one. Geogre 14:03, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into Yonkers, New York and delete -Skysmith 11:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Bronx River Road was once a street in the Bronx as well, but the name was changed to Webster Avenue.
• Keep. Maybe I should start Wikiproject:Roads. --SPUI 20:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep -Ld | talk 05:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - What in the hell does road Vanity even mean? --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 11:04, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • A claim of "road vanity" is the claim that people are writing about the road or street because they live on it themselves. The clearest case of vanity is when someone writes about himself. I must be of wide interest because I am interesting to myself and my friends. By extension, there is "school vanity", "road vanity", "hometown vanity", "boy scout troop vanity": the subject must be interesting because I am associated with it, and I am interested in it. --BM 14:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I think the "vanity" issue is the balance between the self-actualization needs of contributors, and the needs of Wikipedia users. I think the "vanity" in a vanity article is: "I feel like creating an article of my own, and all the good titles seem to be taken. So, I'll start an article about a soft drink consisting of the ingredients list copied from the label. Or an article about a local shopping mall. Or a list of songs whose titles contain the name of a color." Such articles are "all about me" regardless of their subject matter. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this so-called road vanity. GRider\^talk 23:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Andre (talk) 21:31, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline keep because it's a decent, informative, well-written article. Wouldn't oppose merge-and-delete into Yonkers, New York, which is where it should go if its main significance is in relation to that town. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Major local roads are encyclopedic. Wikipedia is very detailed, so these type of articles are common and in fact, I think, should be encouraged (to an extent of course). Brownman40 05:11, 3 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. There was a strong suggestion in the comments to move the article to a clearer title. Joyous 23:10, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Original research? 172.172.35.229 22:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Even without research on Google I know many facts thqt back that article. I immagine we have a great stub there. Gtabary 22:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Tentative keep. There is a factual basis for an article here. I don't know whether this is the best place for it, though. It might be better placed as a subsection of publishing or mass media. Shimeru 23:14, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• "keep". It is not original research, as references show. Mikkalai 00:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, has potential for expansion. Megan1967 01:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Legitimate topic. (Would that I could similarly vote keep for Wordsworth in Harvard Square, and the Avenue Victor Hugo Bookstore in Boston). It's gotta be moved somewhere though, that article title is awful. "Consolidation of the U. S. publishing industry?" Nope... "Decline of independent booksellers in the U. S.?" Nope... Dpbsmith (talk) 02:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Move to some other title. For the love of Mike, this is a bad, bad, bad title. There is a crush in publishing, as large houses are bought by larger multinationals and catalogs are ripped apart and even prestigious academic presses that never noticed profits and losses begin imitating the trades, but, of course, that's not what this article is talking about! How absurd. At the same time, retailing has changed, although, frankly, what has really happened is that the mall stores that killed the neighborhood shops are getting killed by big chains and the Internet. The funky used shop is actually doing well, just as the used record shop hasn't been hurt. How about Trends in retail books? Geogre 04:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but yes, move to a better title. "Publishing in the modern world"? James F. (talk) 05:08, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with publishing. -Cmprince 05:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with publishing or find a title that makes any sense. Ambi 05:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with concentration of media ownership, no redirect. Gazpacho 06:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, agree that a better suited title is in order. —RaD Man (talk) 11:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • RaD, we already have a title. It's concentration of media ownership. Gazpacho
• I vote keep, of course, as I created and primarily edited this stub (not yet a full article, which it could easily be - as voters might have seen, there are at least three book length works about it.) Have to vote against merges for the latter reason. Title could do with a change, but it is NOT just about American media ownership (I'm overly sicked and tired of Americentrism on Wikipedia) - it's about Western publishing in general; the "crisis" is not widely accepted as being one - intellectuals complain, businessmen feel justified (obviously) - hence "possible", but suggestions welcome. -- Simonides 20:08, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Hi Simonides. While there may be a lot of works written about it, that doesn't mean it can't be part of the publishing article. While it's not just an American issue, neither is it just a Western one. I merged Crisis into publishing to see what it would look like. Do you (or the rest of you) find the current version agreeable? -Cmprince 21:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with Publishing and delete. No reason for there to be an article on a "possible" crisis in publishing, separate from the article on publishing. --BM 22:37, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Marginal keep. VfD is not necessary for merging/redirection. GRider\^talk 22:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Certainly keep the content. Merge with Publishing makes sense to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:57, Dec 31, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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, apparently as a speedy at 00:39, 30 Dec 2004 by User:Gamaliel who wrote vandalism - hoax

Closing the discussion. Comment: Even though hoaxes are a form of vandalism, they are specifically not candidates for speedy deletion. Rossami (talk) 04:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hoax. There is no such person currently on Jeopardy, and I could find no Google hits for "rob mcrae" jeopardy. 172.172.35.229 22:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why this isn't a speedy? --OntarioQuizzer 23:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Because nowhere in WP:CSD there is any mention of hoaxes. Delete. --fvw* 23:03, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Okay. Strong delete, by the way. --OntarioQuizzer 23:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Strong delete for reasons above. --Idont Havaname 23:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I'd also like to suggest a user ban -- as he's vandalizing other Jeopardy!-related articles with this hoax information as well. --OntarioQuizzer 23:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Rje 23:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons mentioned. GRider\^talk 00:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I've speedied this because such a hoax is vandalism of Wikipedia. Gamaliel 00:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking... --OntarioQuizzer 02:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Cleduc 06:58, 3 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 reached, so the article status is defaulted to keep. The final unsigned "delete" vote was disregarded in this decision. Joyous 23:30, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 22:38, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

• Delete. Google link search only shows 514 links into the site (contrast 39,000 for gamezone.com); no evidence of significance. Kelly Martin 22:41, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Google: "gamingw.net" - 30,700 hits / "Gaming World" +gamingw.net - 21,400 hits / "Gaming World" 1,940,000 hits (not all relevant). Seems notable enough, keep and allow for cleanup. GRider\^talk 22:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete based on the Google hit evidence and the fact that the article is written like an ad anyway. --Idont Havaname 23:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• This site deals with creating games, rather than playing them, which is somewhat interesting. Delete it as an ad anyway. Shimeru 23:18, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. Rje 23:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable vanity and advertising. DCEdwards1966 04:26, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - When I Google the domain and click the option for sites that link to it, I get one, yes, only one other site. Searching for mentions of the domain get a lot, but reading through the first bunch of sites just shows that someone from the site has gone around and posted mentions about it on every bleeding publicly accessible site they can find, so it's no wonder they also came over here and made a site about thmeselves. Ad. Vanity. Spam. Linkcruft. Nonnotable. Take your pick. Of course if they ever do become genuinely notable, someone else will make an article about them and it'll be no problem. DreamGuy 05:01, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - As it is a unique website that is based on game CREATION. Allow for cleanup, although the article has already been edited further since initial vote for deletion.
• I've heard of it, so I'll say keep. Andre (talk) 21:31, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete rpg2knet's article went, so why not this one too?

This page is now preserved 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Carried out at 04:22, 3 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vanity page. Only pages I can find on the web about Dr. Efird are his faculty page and a few archived discussions about God. Doesn't rise to encyclopedic significance. Kelly Martin 23:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, agreed. Academic with no notable accomplishments. Shimeru 23:20, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, no real significance. Rje 23:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, --fvw* 00:13, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
• del.Mikkalai 00:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:56, 3 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 at 00:25, 30 Dec 2004 by User:Mikkalai. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zero hits on Google, and who would credibly believe that an Iranian province would be named after the turnip? Hoax. Kelly Martin 23:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete as being patent nonsense. See [13] for the real story on the splitting of that Iranian province. andy 23:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Jasoncart 23:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Rje 23:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 00:13, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

Speedily deleted as vandalism initiated at the Turquoise page. Mikkalai 00:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Cleduc 06:58, 3 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:16, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable. Delete or merge with alt.sex.bondage. Neutrality^talk 03:10, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

• This is a repeat VfD. Anyone have a link to the old discussion? I remember how I voted before. Unsurprisingly, I'm sure, I voted delete, and I do so again. It is simply a saying. Therefore, at best it would go to Wikiquote, not Wikipedia. Geogre 04:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: How has this existed for over 2 years? DCEdwards1966 04:23, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as extremely non-notable, most likely author vanity as well. DreamGuy 04:35, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Stet. It's not a "mere" saying; it's more like to a theorem, which has a name but is an established fact. It's not quite a fact, perhaps (though I'd argue that it is), but at worst it's Jargon (in the CS Jargon File (jargon.net) sense): it's the standard name within the relevant community. Call me the PC Police, but it seems to me that deleting this entry would tend to marginalize that community, and I don't see a pressing need for Wikipedia to be in that business. Excuse my anonymity. 12/30/04
• Delete. A quip from alt.sex.bondage, however often quoted there, and even if elevated to being a named "law", isn't an encyclopedia topic, unless it reaches the wider culture. Removing the article doesn't marginalize that "community"; the community is already marginal. There are hundreds of these "laws". A few of them, such as Murphy's Law, are notable. And the rest aren't. Wikipedia is not the alt.sex.bondage FAQ. --BM 13:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, certainly non-notable, vanity on behalf of the users of alt.sex.bondage. Rje 15:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• [The wikiquette page indicates that it's not inappropriate to elaborate on disagreements; if this isn't the right page for it, excuse my ignorance and redirect me.] [Full disclosure: I am not a member of ASB and had never heard of Ugol's Law until yesterday.] What about Cayley's Theorem? It's named for somebody, and it's relevant only to a tiny subset of the population. It's encyclopedia-worthy because it's true. The principle named Ugol's Law is true and important; ask any clinical psychologist. And it matters to a lot more people than Cayley's Theorem; again, ask any clinical psychologist. It wasn't named by Ugol, any more than Cayley's Theorem was named by Cayley; it needed a name and therefore it was named after the person who first stated it. (Cayley certainly didn't state his theorem in the form it has now; the language it's in now hadn't been invented yet.) There are two differences between Ugol's Law and Cayley's Theorem. One is that Cayley's Theorem can be proved. But rigorous mathematical proof is by no means the only valid standard of knowledge; even physics can't usually attain it, let alone biology, let alone psychology. So this difference doesn't matter. The other difference is that, indeed, descriptively, ASB is marginal and mathematics isn't. But (1) should that be the case normatively? (2) is the purpose of Wikipedia to marginalize the (genuine) knowledge of marginal groups? I know I'm being quixotic about this; I made it my academic specialty because it hurts me when people are bigots without even realizing it. This is an eminently rationalistic form of bigotry, but I don't think my calling it that is any less honest than "the community is already marginal" (which offended me when I first read it, before I decided to interpret it descriptively). I hope you can see this from a perspective other than your own.
  • This and the previous anon are User:141.213.133.30, who has no other contributions than these. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:39, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Long-standing, well-known. Doesn't look like vanity to me. Zetawoof 21:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a law, and, unlike Murphy's "law", not notable. Josh Cherry 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or, at worst, merge with alt.sex.bondage. While it is obscure, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide access to information about subjects that the reader in unfamiliar with. While this is definately an area of marginal interst to most, it is long standing and established usage within its area. --68.104.17.212 05:59, 16 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.