Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 3

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Non notable. Zzyzx11 04:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, bedroom band vanity. Possibly add a redirect to Moldova? Megan1967 04:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• They have never actually played a show since Max is relatively shy. Instead, they sit alone in Max's bedroom late into the night drinking and jamming senselessly. — heh, I found that mildly amusing. Speedy Delete. El_C 05:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Moldova as potential misspelling. --Angr/_(comhrá) 05:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 06:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Painfully disnotable. Don't bother with redirect, unlikely misspelling (and will be recreated as such if I've wrong). Alai 07:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to The Legend of Zelda series. – ABCD 22:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An minor in-joke at a message board does not deserve an article. Apostrophe 04:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Ga-what? Delete. El_C 05:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, gamescruft. Megan1967 06:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 06:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but perhaps merge with The Legend of Zelda series or something similar. It is not just a minor in-joke, and definitly not only one message board. It also shares a goal with wikipedia, getting things correct -- Ian Moody 21:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, as suggested above, or simply delete for lack of notability. -- Karada 21:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A minor in-joke amongst a small group of fans of one game series. Indrian 14:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a pointless article. Thunderbrand 19:15, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with LOZ main topic, or maybe with Ganon (spelled correctly!) page. Gannon-Banned is A PRIVATE JOKE. Do you go on here and find create "all your base are belong to us" topics? No? Similarly, this has no place here. Master Thief Garrett 09:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) EDIT: when I say "merge" I mean in the sense of "cut most of this junk and have a three-line blurb and a link to the .com site". Certainly it shouldn't spam up any other page either. What is actually contained on this page that you can't find on the website itself? It's mostly a (reworded?) textdump of what the guy already wrote. Master Thief Garrett 11:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable fancruft. — JIP | Talk 10:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't even knew this existed. You do know NOA considers this an OFFICIAL term now, and it was recognized at Camp Hyrule 2004. So it is official terminilogy, but maybe it should be MERGED with The Legend of Zelda article. TSA 02:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Why not? Who's it gonna hurt? -NewHyrule
• Keep Gannon-banned is fairly popular on many sites now. I say keep.
• Keep It isn't hurting anything, people are taking the opinion's of someone they don't even know way to far.
• Keep It's fine with me. Wikipedia is supposed to be comprehensive, and this makes it just that much more so.

• Keep I think its cool it's in here. Something to lighten up the Zelda Community. -JC
• Keep It's a popular term in the Zelda community. I've seen it used all over the place, and even on some non-Zelda sites, so it's much more than just a small in-joke now.

• Keep Why not? You have "Pwns" on here, you have "n00b" on here, you have "leetspeak" on here. It's a good term, and the fact that you all know it to post on here defeats your arguments of not notable. Also, it is used by NOA, so I say keep it
• Keep Nothing wrong here.
• Keep! Man, people take stuff too seriously.

• Comment: The above Keep votes are all by anons and a single-edit user, if it wasn't obvious already. Xezbeth 15:51, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep its a good thing
• Delete this is stupid
• Keep why the f*** dou you care so much about this, its not that big of a deal

• Comment: User:TSA's and User:Xezbeth's comments were deleted by an anon user. I've added them back. The same anon user, for some bizarre reason, voted both "delete" and "keep", as the two votes immediately preceding this. — JIP | Talk 17:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - SouthpawLink - And in response to a poster above, there is an article for "All your base are belong to us." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us
• Keep -swdarin- I don't want to see people getting any Zelda-related info wrong. KEEP IT!

• Keep Tis a good thing(then again, I am biased :D ). --nerd_boy 01:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I see no reason it shouldn't be kept... - Chibi
• Keep Definitely keep it!! Why should it be deleted? - Pjotr V

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted (22:24, 2005 Apr 2 Mustafaa deleted "Jerkface" (patent nonsense)) - IceKarma 14:12, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Shameless nonsense, and last speedy delete was vandalized. Klonimus 04:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:68.64.228.93 voted by blanking the above and replacing it with "Don't delete this." FreplySpang (talk) 05:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy - article was never going to be more than a dicdef, and is now degenerating into frothing against Klonimus. FreplySpang (talk) 05:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• speedy no content Howabout1 05:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy. Obviously. El_C 05:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Damn. I was just about to expand that, too. —RaD Man (talk) 05:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted (22:07, 2005 Apr 2 Geogre deleted "Jonathan Passow" (No VfD. Come on, folks: He has a website = no content.)) - IceKarma 14:13, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

• Web geek, comic fan, and aspiring actor. Google doesn't list anything notable he's appeared in, apart, apparently, from a bit part in Hidalgo, where he was uncredited. Slac speak up! 04:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied, never mind. Slac speak up! 06:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was cleanup. – ABCD 16:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Vicefield article reminded me of this one which I saw a while ago. It is partly about Johan Palmstruch, Swedish 17th century financier, and partly about the bank he founded, which was the origin of the present Bank of Sweden. I am not sure if it is intentionally anti-semitic, but it claims that both Palmstruch and an unnamed Chancellor of Sweden at the time were Jewish, which appear to be the type of claims often made to reinforce the idea of the unproportional influence of Jews over finances and politics. Palmstruch, originally (before he was raised to the nobility) called Witmacker, came from a family of Dutch protestant origin which had been settled in Riga for a generation or two. No chancellor of Sweden in the 17th century was Jewish or of Jewish origin. The article has other POV issues as well, but very little factual content. Palmstruch might be used as a redirect to Johan Palmstruch, when that article is written or as a disambiguation whenever somebody writes a real article about the Palmstruch Bank, but I see no reason to keep this in the history or to further distribute it to Wikipedia mirrors. / Uppland 05:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This seems more suitable for Wikipedia:Cleanup. - Mustafaa 12:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Admitted original research, actually. Also highly POV. And the title is misspelled. FreplySpang (talk) 05:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Too boring. 24.245.12.39 05:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As per nomination criteria. Alai 05:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. POV original research. Megan1967 06:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, stupid prank. Slac speak up! 06:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Uh, isn't this a speedy? Patent nonsense if ever I saw it. - Mustafaa 12:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Un-be-lie-va-ble. Original research, POV, grotesque spelling and grammar, sordid casual writing style, double posted on a personal blog with no copy right notice. I have never seen anything like this on the wiki... Phils 12:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete total uselessness. —Seselwa 06:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Deleetzzzzzz... - Skysmith 07:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What Phils said. Dsmdgold 00:28, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if not outright speedy. Strictly POV crank essay. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not verifiable. Listed as a Victoria D-Day recipient, but there was only one such, and not this person. Not listed on the The Victoria Cross Reference website (which is being migrated to WP). Google turns up no appropriate-looking hits.

• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 06:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a hoax (or at any rate, otherwise incorrect) I'd say it was entirely notable... Alai 06:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The only reference to the Victoria Cross is a wikipedia mirror, [9]. Please justify it's notability. Megan1967 06:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • That surely goes to verifiability (and why I nominated it for deletion), not notability. You appeared to be implying by "not notable", that even if the information in the article could be verified, it still wouldn't be a notable entry (but I may well have misunderstood you on this). Alai 06:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • This person probably exists but I seriously doubt he won the VC. There are Google hits for "James Bathgate". If he was "unverifiable" there would be zero Google hits. If the information such as the Victoria Cross was included and it's more than likely not true, I would regard that part of the article as hoax/fiction. Megan1967 07:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. His name does not appear on contemporary lists of VC winners from World War II. The only D-Day VC was Stanley Elton Hollis of the Green Howards, and I notice that Bathgate is claimed as a member of the "light Calvary" which sounds suspicious. This article is obviously some subtle attempt at a hoax. Dbiv 07:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I forget to mention that. I couldn't verify that there even was a "4th Light Cavalry" (even correctly spelt, unlike the article) of WW2 provenance. Alai 15:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 06:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I am amazed anyone could call a VC recipient "non-notable". It is, however, a hoax - David Gerard 09:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'm glad I'm not the only person having this conceptual difficulty with this stated reason. Alai 03:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax - David Gerard 09:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 07:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is simply FAQ-like information, clearly unencyclopedic. The proper course of action is to find a website on the internet with this information and amend the GT4 page to include a link to said page. --Trypa Party 21:21, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep almanac-like information is suitable for wikipedia. Kappa 06:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Kappa, this is an encyclopedia, not an almanac. Besides, would you really find this in Poor Richards along with the phases of the moon and things?Halidecyphon 15:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Depends on if Poor Richard's was or was not published in paper. Klonimus 21:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia not a primary source. gamecruft, take your pick. --Calton | Talk 12:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Could be wikified and turned into a valuable article, with explanations relevant to the game, etc. However, I think it should be renamed to Gran Turismo 4 car list (sans caps).   plattopus^{is this thing on?} 14:54, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. this is entirely non notable (we'd need lists of all cars not only in Turismo 1,2 and 3 as well, but cars in every racing game which would set a precedent for listing weapons in first person shooters etc ad infinitum). Include this info in the Gran Turismo article if it is really needed. If it is renamed s plattopus suggested, it should be renamed to List of cars in Gran Turismo 4, using the format of all other lists in wikipedia. Halidecyphon 15:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with Halidecyphon about we then have to list all the cars from the previous games which is a lot. In addition, this kind of information should be at GameFAQs not Wikipedia. This is gamecruft. --Anonymous Cow 16:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Not encyclopedic. RickK 22:24, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-encyclopedic. —Seselwa 06:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a videogame FAQ site. Indrian 07:29, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not GameFAQS. Dave the Red 07:54, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with a better name - David Gerard 09:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as extremely pointless and unencyclopedic. Radiant_* 13:06, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: The Gran Turismo series is known for it's extensive use of licensed cars, and GT4 boasts over 500 of them, plus somebody who plays the game might find more information on thier favorate in-game cars real world counterparts-Deathawk 01:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopaedic gamecruft. --Bucephalus 10:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete While it is notable that Gran Turismo has a ton of licenced cars, I think a list of the licencing companies would be much more useful/encyclopedic. --InShaneee 16:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 22:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Was marked for speedy deletion. No vote. -- Scott e^iπ 05:55, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not encyclopediac. Trivial. Wikipedia is not a cookbook. --Wtshymanski 06:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Megan1967 06:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Author's clearly a big bologna fan, but nothing here that's not covered by that article. Alai 06:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Convert to redirect to bologna. —msh210 16:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) bologna sausage. —msh210 16:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Bologna sausage. Sorry but Bologna is about the city in Italy. — RJH 18:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bologna sausage. Since fried bologna is bologna that has been fried, I'm not convinced there's much need for merging, but if someone wants to I have no objection... Please let's not have entries for boiled bologna, sauteéd bologna, sliced bologna, balogna on a roll, OK? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• So what? Redirect - David Gerard 09:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Most any food can be fried. Delete or put in the WikiCookbook. Radiant!Radiant_* 13:04, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not going to stand here and listen to this bologna. —RaD Man (talk) 05:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, yes you will, young man! No dessert unless you eat your bologna! Or at least redirect it. - Lucky 6.9 04:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Well David Letterman's mother had a recipe for fried bologna sandwiches in her cookbook which by the way is not included in the 6(six)-entry List of cookbooks, which by the way is reproduced in lockergnome as "Everything you ever wanted to know about..." which — oh, never mind. -- Mothperson 23:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 22:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic. Some of the info could become an article on the YouthQuake ministry, otherwise delete. FreplySpang (talk) 06:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete If not a vanity, certainly reads like one. Alai 06:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Less notable than a pokemon character. --Spinboy 06:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Does not pass pokemon test. Klonimus 07:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Possible vanity, not yet notable. Jonathunder 16:34, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 06:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails Pokemon Comparative Notability Test - David Gerard 09:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The User (who is probably Williams, I'd guess) has created an article on YouthQuake. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • YouthQuake is now on vfd. --Spinboy 22:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The 2 different articles were created by different anon IP adresses Kim Bruning 13:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I should stress that my comment wasn't a complaint; it followed on from FreplySpang's initial comment above. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Roger. Kim Bruning 13:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've voted to keep the YouthQuake article, though; I think that there's room for one of them, and the organisation seems to be more notable than the man. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any relevant information here with Youthquake, which apparently now exists, (possibly as per the nominator's suggestion.) Kim Bruning 13:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to YouthQuake. As usual, the organization is more notable than one of the people behind it. /sɪzlæk˺/ 17:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 16:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity, non-notable. Delete. --Spinboy 06:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Sad and nonencyclopedic Klonimus 07:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any note appears to be entirely connected to the Freedows project, which isn't that notable in itself. Average Earthman 15:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete promo. —Seselwa 06:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Not notable. 24.245.12.39 06:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Bandcruft Klonimus 06:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, reads like the biography of an obscure local band, and is therefore not influential, successful or notable enough for an article. Average Earthman 15:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 06:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It nominates itself - David Gerard 09:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion as "bandcruft", but it does make some claims to notability (tours, record releases), so I brought it here. No vote. Kappa 07:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, under the bar of notability, band vanity. Megan1967 07:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kappa I considder myself a loose inclusionist for public insititutions but not for bands. Klonimus 07:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and delete - David Gerard 09:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity. Not notable. 24.245.12.39 07:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, promo - a company of one. Megan1967 09:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Promo, not real company 1138 08:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Useless article. Vanity
• Delete, Useless article, promo. [[user::CappyCap|CappyCap]] 21:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Not vanity, as not made by Sean Finch; countless other webcomics are on Wiki, why delete this one? JaceSoro 03:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, please point them out to us and we'll delete them as well. At least the non-famous ones. Radiant_* 13:04, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Famous is merely a word. You may not know what it is, but a lot of other people do.
• Delete self-promotion. —Seselwa 06:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete everyone else's reasons rolled into one. Howabout1 02:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Lol, I even have a Fu badge :). Grue 16:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Israel. – ABCD 16:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV essay asserting personal religious beliefs as fact. No potential to become encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Jayjg ^(talk) 08:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic Klonimus 09:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 09:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bordering on patent nonsense. - Mustafaa 12:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Israel. Meelar (talk) 20:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and emphatically no redirect. —Seselwa 06:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research - David Gerard 09:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Cleanup should do. No valid NPOV reason to remove. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:07, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this total Gobbledygook ASAP. IZAK 07:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Israel, as it could be a misspelling or even a spelling used in older texts Avocado 01:12, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete was this suppost to make sense? Masterhomer   05:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Israel. Do not merge gobledygook content. -- 8^D ^gab 19:39, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 16:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable substub, utterly uninformative. Neutrality^talk 08:21, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, stationcruft. Megan1967 09:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no content. —Seselwa 06:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep - David Gerard 09:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article has no content. Radiant_* 13:14, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 07:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEE BELOW THE BLUE BOX RickK 22:12, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Relisting (see previous discussion below where consensus was to delete). Article fails to establish notability. Band's only album is an independent release. JamesBurns 04:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Err, so, why is this being relisted? If it is recreated deleted content, it can be speedied. Me confused. android↔talk 04:22, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • It has been. The article was listed on VfU and then undeleted, and the VfU for it deleted after having been there for only one day. I have redeleted it and restored the VfU listing until the appropriate five day VfU voting period has expired. This VfD should not be here until the VfU period has passed. Invalid VfD listing. RickK 04:30, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • This article has been deleted twice and recreated twice. So far I cannot find anything in the speedy deletion policy which states why this can be recreated even though the author is claiming ignorance of the original vote and that they are not the same person as the first article author, although the article is dicussing the same band. I was unaware someone had removed the VfU entry after only one day. JamesBurns 05:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RickK#Response for the old and new content. This is in no way a recreation of deleted content. --SPUI (talk) 23:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • The only major difference between this article and the first is that the author has bothered to write their names in full rather than their first names. The grounds for deletion was on notability - it had nothing to do with how badly written the first article was. JamesBurns 06:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Please, go to the link I provided above. There's a whole new first paragraph about the band. This isn't really the place for you to argue bullshit anyway, as it's inactive. --SPUI (talk) 06:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • You really need to change your tone of language SPUI. For an admin you are setting a poor example for people reading wikipedia. JamesBurns 04:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • Er? I'm not an admin. I wouldn't want to be an admin. --SPUI (talk) 07:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • Thank God. RickK66.60.159.190 19:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, here we go again. Despite the unanimous delete votes from the previous VfD, this article was listed on VfU, and after a contentious vote, there was a slight majority to Undelete. As per proper VfU procedure, the article should have been re-listed on VfD, but that was not done, so I have now done so. This band is not notable. Delete. RickK 22:12, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. BEC Recordings is owned by the same guy who runs Tooth & Nail Records (the BEC article is going on my to-do list now). They're both pretty important labels, serving as an important "incubator" for bands like The O.C. Supertones, MxPx, Project 86, and Zao, which have all gone on to be major members of their respective music scenes (T&N also released an EP by P.O.D.). If a band joins one of these labels, they do tour on a national scale, and they do get a strong fan base in the Christian circles, beyond what they'd get as a local band or as an internet-only band. A Google query for the band name now results in over 68,000 hits, and "falling up" crashings gets about 5000 hits (which is pretty good for a Christian rock album; it out-Googles several recent albums by the Newsboys, which were atop the Christian charts for a while, for example: [10] [11] [12]). --Idont Havaname 02:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sorry but this band still isnt that notable. BEC Recordings is not Epic or Warners - its a specialist label for mostly Christian bands many of them very obscure. A fair slice of those Google hits are by fans leaving messages on blogs about the band. As has been pointed out on vfd before, the Google Test is not a good indicator of notability for music or pornography. Their "national" tour seems to be mostly confined to churchs, religious festivals and small stadiums. JamesBurns 04:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want this to sound like a personal attack, but... if every band that is on this site has to have a page full of #1 hits and several national tours in which they sold out every NFL stadium, should we delete all the others (including those who started some of the more obscure musical genres)? That's a strict criterion; Christian rock basically is on the fringes of mainstream rock, so its bands don't sell a lot of records and are mainly stuck in the church culture. Pretty much any Christian artist that isn't Third Day doesn't crank out #1 hits in the general market or sell out a very large stadium in every show. (Also just a side note: several Christian festivals - see Cornerstone Festival for one of the examples - draw tens of thousands of guests.) Falling Up is also featured on X 2005, a compilation of Christian rock hits from 17 bands, most of which have articles on this site that have been accepted without question. If you'd like to go through and delete all of those bands too, go ahead and do it. But keep things standard across the site. --Idont Havaname 05:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never mentioned #1 hits. Should we make exceptions to Christian bands just because they wish to be identified in that genre? I dont think so. Notability should be across the board, not just one particular market. JamesBurns 08:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 04:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Idont Havaname did a nice job with a recent update on the article, and it now makes a good case for the band's notability. If the article had always been that good, it probably wouldn't have been up for VfD. Quale 05:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A decent article, and what else is going to use this title? Wikipedia is not improved by deleting this. --L33tminion (talk) 05:21, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hasn't changed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Any band whose article was created by one person, deleted, and then created by a second person who was completely unaware of the first article must be known by enough different people to be famous enough for Wikipedia. (By the way, I have heard of the band too.) Wiwaxia 07:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you know they were completely unaware? We're only taking Cookiemobsta's word for it. Another editor quizzed Cookiemobsta whether they were User:EskimoJoe, EskimoJoe has subsequently "disappeared" and Cookiemobsta has gone silent. Megan1967 08:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Well, whatever happens to this article User:Cookiemobsta deserves some WikiLove for creating a band article that doesn't have redlinks for every effin' member, album and song. Soundguy99 08:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They are notable in the Christian Rock genre. Arguements for Delete all seem to be very weak indeed. Robinoke 08:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Their Allmusic guide entry notes that their 2004 album Crashings made the Billboard Christian Rock and Heatseekers charts. [13] As a result, they are notable within genre. They have also toured extensively meeting the Wikimusic Project guidelines.

Capitalistroadster 11:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, just isnt notable enough. Megan1967 12:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. Kappa 12:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. Shimmin 13:22, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. --iMb~Meow 14:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Never should've been deleted in the first place. Grue 15:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• And another keep per Capitalistroadster. Samaritan 18:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Capitalroadster's argument seems reasonable enough. I wonder if the members of Falling Up know about all the trouble this article has created... Sjakkalle 06:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, If an article like this gets kept it will set a bad precedent - any band can put together an independent album and claim notability. Leanne 08:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making an album might be easy, but charting is harder. Kappa 08:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That depends. The Billboard Christian Rock and Heatseekers charts aren't based on many tens of thousands of unit sales a week like the rock and pop charts. Making #1 on those charts would still be a little bit notable. Merely showing up on the genre charts (Top Ten albums of the year? Top 100 albums of the week?) is not notable by itself. How meaningfully they "charted" isn't shown in these comments. Having one release on BEC Recordings doesn't make a band notable; they have to do that themselves. I'm not convinced one way or the other by this discussion. No vote. Barno 14:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you see the South Park episode when they parodied Christian music sales? "Christian Rock Hard". JamesBurns 05:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please keep comments relevant to this discussion. --Idont Havaname 03:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Apologies for going silent; my access to the wikipedia is limited (I'm only getting on at the school library) but I'm still here. You also might be able to check IPs or something if you want evidence that I'm different from the first guy to make the article... Also, as far as notability goes; with Falling Up's Crashings being ranked as 9,427 in music sales. Britney Spears' "Oops, I did it again" album is ranked at #9,591 in music sales. Granted, if you added up all of Britney's albums she'd certainly outperform Falling Up, and this is only a statistic on amazon.com, but for them to outsell one of Britney's albums probably means that they're notable enough for listing on the wikipedia. (And the article Falling Up is about an album by Digby. On amazon.com's music rankings, Digby's album is ranked 96,371 in sales. It seems like Falling Up the band might be more notable than Digby's album, yet Digby's album has no controversy about it). -Cookiemobsta
• Controversial to wikipedia, but not notable elsewhere - lets not get carried away with self importance here. Push comes to shove the general public doesnt give a rats behind about whats being said in this thread. JamesBurns 05:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, I've turned the main Falling Up article into a disambig in order to reflect this and in order to eliminate redundancy with the article on the Digby album. By the way, I added more information to the article about the band. Turns out they've broken a sales record set by Kutless. --Idont Havaname 23:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, still not notable no matter how much is added to the article. Iam 03:14, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Gamaliel 08:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a big fan of Christian Rock, I can tell you this band has gotten heavy play on christian radio stations in the last year (as a side note, they're much better than a lot of recent bland bands like Kutless) Kertrats 00:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Opinions? — Timwi 09:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Please don't forget to cite your own reasons for nominating this. Delete it as an advertisement. Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, book promo. Megan1967 12:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam. I'd have {{del}}ed it had I seen it; would I be wrong to do so? —msh210 16:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you would have--see wp:csd--however, delete normally. Meelar (talk) 20:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. —Seselwa 06:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad - David Gerard 09:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Thus, the article is kept. It is now clear that this VfD will not reach consensus. Deletion is supported by slightly over half of the voters. Many voters expressed concern about POV problems and this should be discussed in the article's talk page. The possible renaming of the article should also be discussed there. Carbonite | Talk 02:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article consists of content that was at Anti-globalization, where the general opinion was that it was a load of rubbish added just to try to slander the anti-globalization movement. It was disproportionately long compared to the rest of the criticisms in the article. People such as myself wanted to shorten it to a summary. User:Sam Spade had the bright idea of saving this by creating a spin-off page. Our policy discourages the creation of spin-offs consisting of the controversial bits of other articles. This content was not good enough to be a section in another article, and its not good enough to be a full article. The accusations are only notable enough to justify a quick summary in the anti-globalization article. Chamaeleon 12:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Note: the article has been tidied and references have been added. The allegations are certainly notable: for example, there's an article about the issue on a website run by Yale University. [14] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:14, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

If I could briefly respond to that note: This isn't about notability, it's about it being a pov fork in that the phenomenon is too marginal to be written on outside the main article (and when it does, pov is the result). It should be made clear this is what many on the delete camp are arguing, better referencing and npov language notwithstanding. El_C 02:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

El C, I'll answer you in full below. Suffice to say here that this is not, in fact, a marginal topic. It may have started life as a POV fork but it's now shaping up to be a legitimate article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:14, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

If I could still have the last word up here. ;) Please see comments by Rama in talk. El_C 07:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Votes should go in the table and below. Comments below please, or to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism

• Delete (leaving summary in anti-globalization) Chamaeleon 12:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I was about to post a VfD myself, but it looks like User:Chamaeleon beat me to it. Good to know I'm not alone. This was originally a section of the Anti-globalization article created by User:TDC. It was overwhelmingly rejected on the Talk page for that article on NPOV grounds, and reverted multiple times. Since TDC continued to revert it back, he was eventually given a 24-hour block for violation of the 3RR. As this edit shows, TDC was clearly writing with the intent of furthering a specific POV. After several more reverts by various users, User:Sam Spade unilaterally spun this section off into a separate article. This article should be deleted: it consists entirely of content that was rejected for NPOV reasons, the article title is inherently NPOV, and the topic is not broad enough to warrant an article. Firebug 12:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete ...obviously. (isn't it a candidate for speedy deletion?) ?Christiaan 12:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  How would that be? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  No it appears not. Pity. Now we have to waste time dealing with this. ?Christiaan 12:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. POV fork. - Mustafaa 12:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Is anyone bothering to read Talk:Anti-globalization? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Lord, what obvious axe-grinding.--Calton | Talk 12:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  What do you mean "Axe-grinding"? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Meaning of axe grinding ?Christiaan 13:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV spinoffs. -Hapsiainen 12:55, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. El_C 13:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete uninteresting rants and counter-rants Rama 13:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete yet another pov rant-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 18:26, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and rename to something like Anti-globalization movement and the Middle East. Okay, that's a terrible name, but I think the article raises a useful point. The debate over globalization intersects with the debate over the Middle East in several significant ways, producing effects that may or may not be deliberate, and I think it's worthwhile to talk about it here. FreplySpang (talk) 20:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  But there's no reason why this topic cannot be covered in Anti-globalization. ?Christiaan 20:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The anti-globalization movement tends to be congruent with pro-palestiniancruft that gets very close to and often is anti-semitism. Keep and allow for organic growth. Klonimus 21:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  But there's no reason why this topic cannot be covered in Anti-globalization. ?Christiaan 22:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Same as Antisemitism and Arabs, it needs it's own article.

Keep All sources are cited. Just as we have Arabs and anti Semitism there is no reason we cant have the anti globalization movement and anti semitism. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:28, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. Cannot be made NPOV. And, according to comments here on the history of the article, it's not only POV, it's a POV fork. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. RickK 22:31, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete delete this article, it dresses itself up as informative but is totally biased. It does not define anti-globalization, or anti "neo-liberal" policies, which are about opposing richer countries using indebtedness and trade law (and war) to control smaller economies and enrich a very tiny fraction of the world's population at the expense of the rest. To the extent that this is being imposed on the middle east, yes, people in those countries will oppose it, but this article has nothing to do with explaining those policies themselves. Ovalrock] POV fork!

  Note: User's first edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:18, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

  It's alright, I can vouch for this person. ?Christiaan 01:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Okay, that's enough, Christiaan. El_C 01:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but improve. Naomi Klein has acknowledged the issue. Neutral. ?Seselwa 06:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  But there's no reason why this topic cannot be covered in Anti-globalization. ?Christiaan 08:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, rantish POV fork. Megan1967 06:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rant. Indrian 07:32, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. Dave the Red 07:48, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Needlessly combines two complex and controversial subjects for the purpose of POV. zen master T 07:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork, rant. Jonathunder 08:54, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Delete POV fant - David Gerard 09:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but first provide references for the quotes. User:Sirkumsize (sig added by (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC))
• Strong KeepTDC 13:36, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep article does not seem POV. Hotly debated issue that deserves mention if someone is willing to write about it. This was an inappropriate VfD --Dzimmer6 15:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork.--Chammy Koala 21:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think a good place to start my argument it to examine what the prereqresites for a Wikipedia article are.

One generally recognized qualification is the topic in question notable? In the case of Anti-Semitism in the Ant-globalization movement a Google search turns up 12,300 on the subject [15]. This is certainly much more notable, at least by this commonly used standard, than many articles in Wikipedia.

Secondly, is the material well sourced. Even a cursory look at the material in question will show that all opinions are very clearly stated as such and all opinions are sourced back to the individuals who made them. These individuals are, I might add, not obscure kooks, but are relatively prominent individuals.

There have been articles about this written in the Financial Times, Washington Times, National Review, The New Republic,

Now with this in mind, ask yourself this question ?even though I may not agree that the anti-globalization movement is rife with Jew haters, is there a significant number of people in the world that do believe this??, if you answered yes, and I think that by the Google citation alone we can see that there is a significant number of people who believe this to be the case, then there really is not other option then to vote to keep.

How fucking ridiculous is this, anyways? Some Wikipedians do not like a certain segment in an article so they work to have its content banned from Wikipedia all together?

• For example, a couple of right-wingers can only revert an article a total of four times before violating the three-revert rule. Ten progressives each committing to voting just once can easily overcome this and more. By working together, we can stamp out certain POVs. [16]

Let me be a bit more specific who I am talking about here, Chamaeleon. Here we have a contributor who sees it as his mission to band together with likeminded folk and marginalize ?certain POV?s?. Not all POV?s, not dishonest POV?s, but POV?s that he sees as representing ?bad stuff?.

First the information is stripped from its original article, and shoveled into a new one which then can be speedily deleted.

They have a term for tactics like this, its called airbrushing, and has no place here.

Vote to keep! TDC 13:36, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This does seem to be a legitimate topic judging by Google searches. I've tidied it up a bit, have added a couple of extra sources, have found links for the quotes already there, and have added a references section. The article needs to be expanded, and examples should be given of actions or statements by anti-globalization protestors that are regarded by others as anti-Semitic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:12, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Anti-semitism has been an issue with José Bové and his support for Yasser Arafat. Clearly article has to be NPOVed, but that does not mean it should be completely deleted. Luis rib 22:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  But there's no reason why this topic cannot be covered in Anti-globalization. ?Christiaan 22:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  You wouldn't allow it to be covered in Anti-globalization; and further research has shown it to be a larger topic than was previously thought. Also, for the record, you're going around deleting links to this article on other pages, perhaps in an effort to show that, because it links nowhere, it ought to be deleted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:42, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

  Can you please substantiate your baseless claims I "wouldn't allow it to be covered in Anti-globalisation." How do you know what I would and wouldn't do??? Also, for the record you have being going around slapping links to this article, perhaps in an effort to justify its existence. ?Christiaan 22:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  And note please that you are in danger of violating 3RR. ?Christiaan 22:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Note. Below are the reversions made to Anti-globalization from April 1-4 by User:Chamaeleon, User:Christiaan, User:Che y Marijuana, User:63.173.114.141, User:Firebug, and User:Rama in an effort to stop either any discussion of the material, or even a link to another article about it, even though the material is properly referenced to credible sources, on the left and right, including a website run by Yale University, and it is clearly not a tiny-minority view. The article written in accordance with Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Cite sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:18, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC) [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

  I have a little challenge for you SlimVirgin. Please point out any edit of mine that that does anything apart from remove a link to this POV fork. After that, you might like to apoligise for your concerted effort to try and paint me as someone pushing a POV. You seem to have a real habit of labelling your political opponents. ?Christiaan 23:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork Refdoc 22:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Apparently a heated topic, but it is a real phenomenon being discussed by credible, mainstream sources, like Yale University as SlimVirgin points out. Should be improved and NPOV'd, but not censored. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 23:48, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

  And there's no reason why it cannot be covered in Anti-globalization. ?Christiaan 23:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  That's a valid point; however, it is desirable and certainly not uncommon to create sub-articles when the main article becomes large, as in this case.--MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 00:06, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, the phenomena of anti-semitism in the anti-globalization movement certainly is notable, although it may just be anti-Israel as a state, but the vitriol suggests it is more than that, especially since Israel's socialism should result in a natural affinity.--Silverback 23:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  And there's no reason why it cannot be covered in Anti-globalization. ?Christiaan 23:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Israel's socialism? What does that mean? And Christiaan, are you going to repeat that comment after every keep vote? I am of the opinion that once or twice should suffice. Lastly, TDC, as per the statement: How fucking ridiculous is this, anyways? Can you try to relax? El_C 00:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Probably, can't be too careful. :) ?Christiaan 00:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork. Kaldari 03:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, now that it has been tidied up and properly cited. Too large to fit back in the original article, so it's a logical choice for a sub-article, as is recommended when articles get too large. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One article does not need to invariably mean one html page, even though it seems to. Forking an article almost invariably means an extraction out of a single, general narrative. Also, aggrendizing the issue by virtue of which per se. (unlike in the main article: as paragraphs, subheaders, etc.). Fact is: This was rejected from the main article – now, if there is new info that makes it worthy to be included, it should be re-inserted not forked into a new article. El_C 03:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The original article is already 38K, well above the suggested 32K limit. Since there's no room for it anyway, it might as well stay in its own article, with a summary and link in the main. If not this section, then it will have to be something else, which is just more work. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yet the main criticisms against anti-globalization don't get their own articles. This is clearly politically motivated as a smear campaign to elevate this topic beyond its notability. The article already summarizes this issue, and there is no reason to give it its own article, especially when there are more important criticisms which would be first in line for a spin-off if that was decided.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 04:02, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Again, the page size need not be an insurmountable hindrence, and we should not treat the topic differently (and I dare say, better) simply because it was rejected from the main article the first time (rewarding, if you will, poor editing after the fact). El_C 04:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As the edit history makes clear, the section was not "rejected from the main article the first time"; rather, it was co-operatively edited and accepted, and then stayed in the article for over a month. However, more recently one party to that agreement decided to renege, and delete the section instead, and was supported in this by a number of other editors. We should not "reward" those who break their own consensus after the fact, especially when they have explicitly stated that this VfD will be a good way to get rid of the material once and for all. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How do you distinguish "main criticisms against anti-globalization" from other criticisms? How do you decide which ones are more "notable" than others, and which are mere "smear campaigns"? The article itself seems remarkably "resistant" to any sort of criticism; a perusal indicates that fully half of the small "Criticisms" section is itself devoted to "counter-Criticisms" defending the movement. Furthermore, a review of the edit history indicates that the excision of this material was done after it had existed there for over a month, and after an apparent consensus to leave it in by the very editor who decided weeks later to excise it. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Encyclopedic, very notable. Hopefully the attempted POV-pushing, which allows no critical analysis of the anti-globalization movement, will be stymied. "Actually, making it a spin-off page is not a bad idea. It would remove the chaff from the article, and I would immediately list the spin-off page on Vfd and it would be deleted." --Mrfixter 03:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • How can an article that consists of nothing but accusations be encyclopedic? If there was some actual anti-semitism documented in this article, I might change my mind, but as it is (and will probably always be), there is nothing in this article but accusations. Kaldari 23:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Copied from above: If I could briefly respond to that note: This isn't about notability, it's about it being a pov fork in that the phenomenon is too marginal to be written on outside the main article (and when it does, pov is the result). It should be made clear this is what many on the delete camp are arguing, better referencing and npov language notwithstanding. El_C 02:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It's clear from Anti-globalization that there was an attempt by several editors to delete all mention of anti-Semitism from the article, or drastically reduce it, which is worrying. Therefore, that section was moved to its own space and has been extended and referenced, and if it stays, will be extended further, so it is no longer appropriate to move it back. This is a legitimate topic, much discussed in Europe by academics and journalists, and is part of the drift of the far Left to the right, focused in particular on the anti-globalization and anti-war movements. I've yet to see an argument, as opposed to an assertion, from anyone that this topic or the title is either non-notable or is inherently POV, which is what would have to be shown for it to be legitimately deleted. Here is a paper [37] (pdf) on "The British Left and the Jews" by Ben Cohen, a journalist and broadcaster who has served with the United Nations Protection Force. He argues that "the delegitimisation offensive against Israel presently pursued by sections of the anti-globalisation movement, the far Left and certain periodicals of the moderate Left ? many of whose themes are shared by Islamists and parts of the far right ? can reasonably be said to have begun in the aftermath of the 1967 war. It was then that the difference between the anti-Zionism of the ancien Left and that espoused by its new incarnation was established. As Robert Wistrich has argued, in becoming a ?code word for the forces of reaction in general,? Zionism assumed a global importance for the contemporary Left that not even Marx and Lenin could have foreseen. Consequently, ?[t]he extreme Left in western societies not only denigrates Israel and Zionism in a systematic manner, but its irrational hostility frequently spills over into contempt or antipathy towards Jews and Judaism as such." Perhaps if we want to continue this, we should go to the talk page so as not to take up more space. I'll copy this to there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:46, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

No, that therefore it was moved should not have been the solution to this, nor should it remain (for all the more important resasons cited). The solution is/was continuing to work within the main article and go through the usual motions — I am against such emergency forking. As for those claims you cite above, and how they all fit in this, I agree that the talk page is more suited for such a discussion, but I am afraid I am as yet unconvinced. El_C 05:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that it matters why it was originally moved. The solution was not working within the main article or there wouldn't have been an edit war. But regardless, it now has its own space, so the important thing is to find references on both sides and make it a well-referenced, NPOV article. As I said on the talk page, I've yet to see a single argument (as opposed to assertion) that this topic is non-notable or that the title is inherently POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, kill the quotes. Yes, this is a real phenomenon. Rhobite 04:50, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Real, or real marginal? ;) Heh, sorry. Again, the contention isn't notability. See the vfd's talk page, esp. the comment by Rama (read that 1st). El_C 05:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't understand. You say "the contention isn't notability", but then you say it should be deleted because it's only marginally notable? Rhobite 05:57, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • Again, within the movement as a whole, not per se. As in it having been forked out of the main article. I encourage you to give this VfD and talk page a 2nd glance. El_C 06:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • (Moved from above) Within the movement it is a marginal phenomenon. Of course, I remain open to persuasion. El_C 04:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But how can you know that it is a marginal phenomenon within the movement? And in any event what matters is not how marginal it is within the movement, but how much it is debated by reputable, mainstream sources, and it does seem to be the subject of significant debate. We must, as always, go with the references. We should continue this on the talk page. I'll copy this to there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:00, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously I would approach establishing this in such a way, but all this should be happening in the main article. It is there that such a dialogue should be taking place. El_C 05:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep after surviving the necessary POVectomy. —RaD Man (talk) 05:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It is a legitimate topic of discussion. RK 20:37, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this content could go on either the anti-semitism or anti-globalisation pages. too many quotes for what essentially amounts to "a lot of people in the left don't like israel, a small proportion of them don't like jews". do we really need a "neo-liberalism and anti-islam" article? FrancisTyers 08:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Not sure -- Prob' delete. The technical argument that this article arose as a POV fork seems to be valid. But I am against deleting on technicalities. The Anti-globalisation article is already quite large so it wouldn't nesicarly be that worth while to merge back in. On the other hand the Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism doesn't seem to contain large amounts of info' just quotes and counter quotes, all it tells us is that some people say that either is anti-Semitism in the anti-globalisation movement (some sections/all?) (or possibly in the foundation ideas of the movement?). Should we give the article a chance to turn into some thing NPOV and factualy interesting? Or will it be stuck as a POV fork with little info'? I'm not sure.--JK the unwise 10:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) (P.S: For the record I believe the allegations are false and based on the incorrect lableing of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism. However, while it is generally people who oppose the anti-glob' movement who make these allegations, there is also some real disagreement within some small sections of the movement, at any rate the 'movement' is much to diverce for much of this discusion to make that much sense)

Rename (to Allegations of anti-Semitism within the anti-globalization movement) if NPOV issules can be satisfactorily resolved and enough info added, otherwise Delete. --JK the unwise 12:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, should be in the two separate articles. Radiant_* 12:39, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename Anti-globalization and Anti-Zionism - there is a definite correlation between the two points of view, and it is possible to be an anti-zionist without being anti-semetic. -- 8^D ^gab 21:34, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
  • Another alternative would be to rename the article Allegations of anti-Semitism within the anti-globalization movement. Although it is a bit long. Kaldari 20:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd have no objection to renaming it: your suggestion is long but it's accurate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:40, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • The sources describe it as "Anti-Semitism", not "Anti-Zionism"; you can't just decide they meant something else. As for the name, "Alleged" is not used in article titles; rather, the topic is cited neutrally, and the pros and cons are hashed out in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, legitimate article, well written and well-cited. Claims about POV should be solved in the Talk page, not on a VFD. MathKnight 08:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Certainly POV issues can be addressed but there is no reason not to discuss the subject. (posted by GabrielF)
• delete, I could also vote "rename", but how is renaming and rewriting an article different from deleting? This is not even related to Anti-globalization in particular. leftist anti-Semitism would be an ok title to make such a case as there is, even though I think it is self-contradictory (you cannot be a (classical) leftist and think in racial categories, as soon as you even accept that a "semitic" race is of any consequence, you cease to be a leftist) dab(ᛏ) 08:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • changing my vote to find a better title. dab (ᛏ) 12:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: You can find quotes to support any kind of crap, QED. Once again, a) some rather minor views inside a movement are blown up out of proportion, b) anti-israel is once again confused with anti-semitism (and of course everything remotely critical with Israel appears as anti-semitic to some), and c) anti-semitism is such a handy accusation if you want to demonize something. No way this article could ever be NPOV. -- 10:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are some POV problems with this article, but I don't believe they're inherent. I wouldn't oppose a new title if a more suitable one were proposed. Carbonite | Talk 14:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: describes fringe elements and mostly includes citations of commentary and editorial; is used to wage an ideologicaol war. There are things to say about the issue, but the current title is "loaded", the choice of pictures is biased, etc. It is as if we started an article Capitalism and Anti-Semitism and we listed cases of famous or not-so-famous Capitalist antisemites. David.Monniaux 14:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is just slander. -- LGagnon 18:52, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not an article. It's a completely superfluous list of "A wrote this, B wrote that, but C wrote this." I think any article that has "and" plus an "-ism"-word in the title is bound to the become a POV-edit war ground. Strongly reminds me of the fiasco at Socialism and Nazism (moved to Nazism and socialism; both are today simple redirects). We don't need such articles. One can find X-haters anywhere, in any group. Discuss the phenomenon in general at an article "Anti-X", give a few pertinent examples there, and don't try to denounce any group that was ever accused by somebody of being "anti-X" or of having members behaving "anti-Xish". Substitute your favourite POV/religion/sex/doctrine/... for X. If the "X-hate" in a group G dominates other aspects of that group, and is reported by various sources, discuss the phenomenon at length in an article on group G. But do not create "articles" entitled "G and Anti-Xism" or similar. BTW, I think all the proposed renamings below fall under "similar". Just delete this article. Lupo 20:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • In short: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Lupo 06:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Lupo's just outlined what I'd say:) Tobyox 02:01, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this is in, we have to include articles such as Pro-choice and Homicidal Tendancies and all sorts of other WP:NPOV non-notable original research philosophising about weak links between personal politics and personal psychology. --User:Halidecyphon 06:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Cannot be made NPOV. Dsmdgold 09:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Having directly suffered anti-semitic comments from anti-globalization protesters, I know this to be a valid subject.Nasrallah 11:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've suffered, for example, anti-american comments from pacifists. Should I write an article on Pacifism and Anti-Americanism? --Halidecyphon 14:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep A controversial issue is perfectly acceptable for an article; even if you don't believe there is a connection, this is the place to examine the evidence. Last editorial comment is that when I see the ludicrous assertions that are made against anything remotely Jewish here, I can't see why this perfectly reasonable issue should be squashed. --Leifern 17:56, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
• Keep. Censorship is not an acceptable response to an article on a controversial topic. --Briangotts 20:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Expand article and work on NPOV issues. --Viriditas | Talk 22:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There is no connection. Of course that type of writing is never intended to be taken seriously by the thinking segment of the population. Some contributers here might support it for other reasons, but they should keep in mind that Wikipedia is unsuitable as an outlet for such material because the great masses of susceptible people who are the target audience don’t read here. Meggar 05:17, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

"the thinking segment of the population" is hilarious! ←Humus sapiens←Talk 02:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. A valid and actual topic. The POV (alleged or real) is not a reason for deletion. And if someone doesn't think it exists, edit the article. We keep Zionism and racism, and bunch of other X and Y, after all. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 02:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I propose that the current title, and any other proposed titles, redirect to which ever title we all can agree to. I am pretty open minded about titles, and having written the one in use now, I don't claim it to be beyond question. I also think that separate articles could well be written using different proposed titles. Lets list proposed titles below:

1. Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism
2. Allegations of anti-Semitism within the anti-globalization movement
3. Anti-globalization movement and the Middle East
4. Anti-globalization and Anti-Zionism
5. leftist anti-Semitism
6. Anti-globalization and racism

I think the title should be the one most likely to be linked to by encyclopedia readers using the search bar. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I've said above, regarding article titles, the sources describe it as "Anti-Semitism", not "Anti-Zionism"; you can't just decide they meant something else. As for the name, "Allegations of" or "Alleged" are, as far as I can tell, not used in article titles; rather, the topic is cited neutrally, and the pros and cons are hashed out in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but as I said there is probably more than 1 articles worth of content here. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disagree - sources may discuss "anti-semitism" instead of "anti-zionism", but all of the discussion relates to opposition to Israel/support of Israel. "Jewish" is not necessarily synonymous w/"Pro-Israel", and just b/c the sources are misusing the terms doesn't mean we must as well. -- 8^D ^gab 21:10, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

All we are here to do is reference expert sources and citations, any conjecture beyond that edges towards original research. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Lupo 06:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The entire article consists of allegations, even the primary article header states this. I see no documentation of actual anti-Semitism in this article, thus using the term "allegations" seems entirely appropriate. Kaldari 14:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was move to Radio City (India radio station). Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Technically, Radio City broadcasts at 91 MHz (FM) not only in Mumbai, but also in some other Indian cities such as Bangalore (where it was first started), Hyderabad and New Delhi; though locally everywhere. I feel that Radio City (India radio station) would be a more suitable name for the article. Delete. --GatesPlusPlus 12:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Um if there is a more suitable name for the article, why don't you just move it there? Put a note on the talk page first, if it's likely to be controversial. Kappa 13:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move as suggested. However, this case isn't that simple. The real VfD candidate should be the disambiguation page Radio City (radio station) because it is a duplicate of Radio City, which itself doesn't link directly to Radio City (Mumbai radio station). Someone (me?) should sort this out. --Smithfarm
• Comment. If you didn't want to delete the page but only change the name, requested moves would be a better place to post this. That project can help sort out suitable titles and assist with complicated page moves and disambiguation. Jonathunder 06:06, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

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

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

Am I mistaken in thinking that standard policy is not to have redirects from mis-spellings of words? -- Dcfleck 14:22, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

• Keep, harmless. And yes, you're mistaken (see Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for?). This belongs on WP:RFD, by the way. —Korath (Talk) 14:31, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Whoops, I see you are correct, I am mistaken, on both counts. Sorry. -- Dcfleck 14:34, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Well, according to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion#Redirects, redirects can be speedy deleted if they're the results of typos. RickK 22:37, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - even the indefinitely large resources of Wikipedia will run out of space if we have every possible mis-spelling as an article. --Wtshymanski 22:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Misspelling "Condoleezza" (the example given on the policy page) and misspelling "garbage" are two completely different beasts. Presumably this is, as RickK said, nothing more than a typo. And if it isn't a typo, if someone misspells "garbage tin" in an article (though the redirect is currently orphaned), shouldn't we just correct the link? Junkyardprince | Tark 04:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Radiant_* 12:42, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not notable, and seems to be a verbatim copy of a newspaper article. Should be removed, and if this event is considered notable, an actual article should be put up in its place.   plattopus^{is this thing on?} 14:48, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, and probably copyvio. Hopefully not vanity too! Halidecyphon 15:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This reads like a direct copy from a newspaper, and is therefore copyvio. It wouldn't be notable anyway. Average Earthman 15:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 06:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, wikipedia is not a news archive. Megan1967 06:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting, but doesn't belong in an english encyclopedia. Perhaps transwiki to wiktionary of the respective languages if the entry isn't already there? Halidecyphon 15:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not even a dictdef. RickK 22:38, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep but as a redirect to Shivaji maybe include the text in ShivajiDejvid 15:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That would be a merge vote, then?
• Merge per Dejvid. Radiant_* 12:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Shivaji. Luis rib 12:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. - Mustafaa 22:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redir. SteveW 18:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Dsmdgold 23:01, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently a bipedal clothed rabbit. But a google seach [38] only turns up one message on a message board [39]. Delete as unverifiable or original research. --Henrygb 15:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Halidecyphon 15:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Rubbish. The White Rabbit was a rabbit. Delete. Uncle G 02:07, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. —Seselwa 06:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, BJAODN - David Gerard 09:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Google turns up nothing on this band. Presumably vanity; delete. —msh210 15:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Wtshymanski 15:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Dcfleck 15:41, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Update: An intermediary edit (whihc I accidentally missed thorugh an edit conflict) links to www.purevolume.com/theshedheds which clarifies that this is a vanity page. —msh210 16:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. —Seselwa 06:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete or Transwiki, Same as Vfd/Chhatrapati above. Halidecyphon 15:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Bhajan. RickK 22:39, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• M & R as per Rick. Shimmin 17:23, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 07:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page was improperly nominated by Infrogmation. I'm fixing the nomination. This is not a vote. Uncle G 16:12, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

• I found references to soldier blogging and squirrel blogging, but the meaning given in the article seems patently false. Delete unless verified in which case it should be transwikified to the Wiktionary. Mgm|^(talk) 17:28, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• I recommend that if anyone finds meanings for this word, that they write their dictionary article directly at Wiktionary:sblogging rather than here. There's no need to use the cumbersome transwikification process when the dictionary is a wiki that you can be bold and edit, too. Uncle G 00:42, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• See my comment at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sblog. -- Infrogmation 04:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki if verified. Megan1967 06:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Radiant_* 13:12, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• An internet-based term that returns zero google usages of that term. Not even a neologism. Delete. Rossami (talk) 04:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 07:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One of three pages from a anon editor User:137.222.29.52 (see also West Kebab and Hanwell Beer Festival) detailing his eating and drinking habits. A minor brand of beer sold cheaply. Delete as non-notable. --Henrygb 16:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as minor brand. Or merge to list of minor beer brands if we have one. Radiant_* 13:12, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One of three pages from a anon editor User:137.222.29.52 (see also Hanwell Beer Festival and Finkbrau) detailing his eating and drinking habits. A minor local take-away food place. Delete as non-notable. --Henrygb 16:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: the external link is to a local wiki which manges to be completely blank for this place [40], so not even notable locally. --Audiovideo 18:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 06:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 07:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One of three pages from a anon editor User:137.222.29.52 (see also West Kebab and Finkbrau) detailing his eating and drinking habits. A minor local event for beer drinkers. Delete as non-notable. --Henrygb 16:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. RickK 22:41, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

  OK - I tried to track this down on Google: [41] points only to Wikipedia and a site which no longer holds the relevant page. But the festival seems to be held each Easter at "The Fox Pub, Green Lane, Hanwell". That was enough to then find a cider wiki [42] saying that at Easter 2005 they had 17 beers and 2 ciders for drinkers to try. This looks very minor and local with little prospect of expanding to be encyclopedic. Are you really suggesting that every regular marketing event in every pub should have an article? --Henrygb 23:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 06:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, trivial beercruft. Megan1967 06:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (though I wouldn't mind going) - David Gerard 09:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Three non-notable articles, but very well written! Makes a change from "FYER IS HOTT FYER IS GUD FOR KOOKING" kind of contributions. Djbrianuk 23:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyvio. – ABCD 22:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Basically promotional material. For an obscure writer. -- Dcfleck 17:12, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, the article is a copyvio from her official website as linked at the bottom of the article. Mgm|^(talk) 17:31, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove copyvio, keep and NPOV stubify. 11 separate novels published by mainstream publishers over more than a decade is notable. Dbiv 17:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite and keep. She seems significant enough [43] Qwghlm 19:36, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed mind to delete, after reading the below. Qwghlm 00:55, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

You folks don't understand the purpose of the copyright problems process. We cannot keep this. It must be deleted to get rid of the copyvio in the history. RickK 22:42, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Newly founded religion with no national or international importance, looks like vanity. Delete. I've already speedied article on its creator. Putting this one here, to see if I'm right in doing so. Mgm|^(talk) 17:18, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Yes, Mgm, I believe you did the right thing. Smells hoaxycliquey to me. FreplySpang (talk) 20:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Chavcruft. Otherwise redirect to Chav / Klonimus 21:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• No such religion. No such word, even. Delete. Uncle G 02:43, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/hoax. ?Seselwa 06:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Spoof, or perhaps to be very charitable, attempt at social commentary. Alai 07:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Delete - David Gerard 09:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete Hold up lads. You seem to have pages on other religions, for what reason are you discriminating against this particular one.wrightginger
  • That unsigned comment is from user:81.130.181.226 whose other edits are mostly vandalism. P Ingerson 12:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The thing is, wrightginger, we have pages on religions that really exist. Yours doesn't. — JIP | Talk 09:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • this religion certainly does exist. where do you come from, if you are ever in london go south to dulwich peckham or sydenham and ask anyone you meet. thry will inform you at your foolishness. primeporkchop
• Delete. Hoax/spoof. P Ingerson 12:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks mate, clearly you do not quite understand what vandalism is (this is why you, and many like you need to be educated by joining Burberryism) graffiti is vandalism, a broken window is vandalism. Writing a page on an internet encyclopedia about a community of people in South London, known as Burberryism, is not vandalism. Sorry to dissapoint you. Wrightginger
    • The term "vandalism" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. I suggest you go look up Wikipedia:Vandalism. — JIP | Talk 06:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• BALEETED—Trevor Caira 12:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, religion vanity, or patent nonsense. — JIP | Talk 09:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do Not DeletePersonally I feel ashamed that a nation of such religious tolerance could feel so strongly against this.Shame on you and i praise the wrightginger for his courage to stand up to you,you arrogant Oxford-graduates(by the way Cambridge rock)

• Do Not Delete I strongly agree, all faiths should be allowed, however radical. If a political party which is racist and intolerant(the BNP) is allowed to run in this country why is this page about a faith which only promotes peace and love deleted primeporkchop
  • No count. New troll. Mikkalai 19:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Fails the Google check horribly, with four matches. This is the primary match, and the other three all disagree with the article. Trylobyte|Talk 00:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A religion of love and peace founded on the concept of hating poor people. I hope to God it is a hoax. Delete hoax Dsmdgold 00:46, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 19:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do Not Delete Worthy of consideration.In any case surely this article should be allowed to stay on.I mean if you don't give it a chance how will this religion get of the ground.(The lovable duck)

• Delete any article supported by pork chops and ducks. - Lucky 6.9 04:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do Not DeleteBy all means this could be what Ken Livingstone is looking for to reduce street crime in London.(the stray cat) Do Not Delete because I said so. Giri

• Comment: I'm going to expand my principles to include an automatic delete of any article supported by cats and Giris. I said so. Deal with it.  :) - Lucky 6.9 23:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hedley 02:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Poorly written nonsense. --StoatBringer 22:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Should have been speedied as nonsense. Postdlf 02:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not DeleteRemember boys will be boys.They will keep on creating artciles until you give in.(the supreme one)
• Do Not DeleteI think u guys should just leave this article alone and get a life.By the way Giri is a person,not a breed of animal.(the wedding singer)

• Delete. no comment even needed. Luis rib 14:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

minor hoax that's already infected wikimirrors.DS 17:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete self-promotion. —Seselwa 06:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, group vanity. Megan1967 06:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 03:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Substub, information obvious from title. Delete or redirect to list of phobias. Neutrality^talk 17:46, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Some specific color phobias are listed in list of phobias, so there is no need to have a generalized article such as this. тəzєті 17:53, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Created to make a point at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Afrophobia. 4.249.147.199 created Wiktionary:colorphobia at the same time that Nazikiwe created this article. Redirect to afrophobia if that survives. Delete if it does not. Uncle G 02:22, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • Afrophobia has survived. --Da Stressor 14:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, under the bar of notability. Megan1967 06:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, rubbish - David Gerard 09:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This article was created because of the historical relationship my research has revealed between the terms colorphobia, negrophobia and afrophobia. My research also indicates that another term that you may probably want to VfD is pigmentocracy. Thank you for all your input.--Nazikiwe 21:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • In other words, self-admitted original research. Delete. Radiant_* 12:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • The books listed in the bibliography for this article are searchable on Amazon.com for those who are interested in seeing the historical facts. The term colorphobia originated in a novel written in 1857. While researching something totally (so I thought) unrelated I came across it in a book written by Frederick Douglass where he noted the peculiar behavior of one of the subscribers to William Lloyd Garrison's "The Liberator". Mention of it is also in Frederick Douglass The Colored Orator: Holland, Frederic May, 1836-1908. To wit: "But on every steamboat, in every omnibus, railroad car, where Douglass was tabood, solely because of color, there was Wendell Phillips ready to take his seat beside his 'despised and rejected' brother, vastly to the annoyance of conductors and agents, who couldn't help feeling the scandal and disgrace of the miserable colorphobia, so pointedly rebuked." Basically, this term was in wide use during the nineteenth century and common knowledge of it makes it worthy of an article signifying that it as notable. Colorphobia is not a dicdef it is a scientific phenomenon. An empirical statistical analysis of the facts will bear that statement out. A google search will probably produce the same level of trivia as would a search for afrophobia on google. However, a search for "colorphobia and douglass" or "colorphobia and grimke" or "colorphobia and garrison" will produce results demonstrative of the substantial facts supporting the article. I welcome the challenge this VfD represents. Any attempt to repudiate the facts presented as to the historical nature of the term colorphobia will only reveal further support for this article.

--Nazikiwe 14:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Dictionary def, no sources. -Willmcw 21:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has been expanded and sourced. -Willmcw 16:26, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wiktionary's already got it. --Carnildo 03:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 94 non-duplicative google hits for this term, many of them using the term in quotes. The fact that you can find a few old references using this term does not mean that the word ever got out of the neologistic stage. Wikitionary takes neologisms. Leave it there, not here. Rossami (talk) 04:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• weak Keep - Historically warranted, although obscure. But atrocious English etymology. Urhixidur 14:30, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Bibliography for colorphobia

• Colorphobia: An exposure of the 'White Australia' fallacy by Edward William Foxall
• The American Bible Society and colorphobia by Francis J Grimke
• How the Irish Became White by Noel Ignatiev
• The Sweeter the Juice: A Family Memoir in Black and White by Shirlee Taylor Haizlip
• Black Reconstruction in America 1860-1880 by W. E. B. Du Bois, David Levering Lewis
• Harlem Stomp! A Cultural History of the Harlem Renaissance by Laban Carrick Hill
• The Portable Harlem Renaissance Reader (African American History (Paperback)) by David L. Lewis (Editor), David Levering Lewis (Editor)
• Major Taylor: The Extraordinary Career of a Champion Bicycle Racer by Andrew Ritchie
• Interracial Intimacies : Sex, Marriage, Identity, and Adoption by RANDALL KENNEDY
• Philadelphia: A 300-Year History by Russell Weigley
• A History of American Literature by Richard Gray
• William Lloyd Garrison The Abolitionist by Archibald H. Grimke (available on Project Gutenberg with an entire chapter entitled [colorphobia]) [gutenberg.org]

--Da Stressor 21:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete original research, dicdef, sounds like afrophobia or racism anyway. --InShaneee 16:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to afrophobia or negrophobia, especially since the sources seem to primarily involve African-Americans, and mostly in the U.S. Unless someone can come up with a major expansion of this article (including sources) about "colorphobia" applied to other "people of color"; Asians, Native Americans, Indians, etc. etc. etc. Soundguy99 18:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I could clean this up, but all it would say is "Serbian wedding traditions vary, depending on where the Serbs are. What they have in common is shooting and alcohol." Is it just me, or does this lack any meaningful information? DS 18:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Geez, my first inclination was to say "Merge to Serbia#Culture", but looking at the quality of that article, and the quality of this article, I don't think it would be an improvement. Delete. --Angr/_(comhrá) 18:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete stereotype. —Seselwa 06:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as the aftereffect of too much Sliwovitz. Hair of the dog, anyone? - Lucky 6.9 23:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Apis cerana. Sjakkalle 12:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is already an article on Apis cerana that contains all this information JoJan 18:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• In cases like these, you can usually be bold and redirect them yourself. Best, Meelar (talk) 19:58, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Apis cerana. Megan1967 06:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• redirect, although according to Wikipedia naming policies this shold be the article and Apis cerana should be the redirect. Dsmdgold 10:01, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as stated above. --Dr Ingel 01:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a student guide. Unless encyclopedic things happen there, delete. FreplySpang (talk) 18:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 06:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. So what? - David Gerard 09:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:08, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, recreate in WikiTravel. Radiant_* 12:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (Block compress error) Carbonite | Talk 03:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very slight definition, which doesn't seem to be confident of either its own headword, or its own scope. Alai 19:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Many Google-searched pages (there were about 157 results) reference a Miami Herald article that cites "Eastern Latin America" as a supposed geopolitical construction of the Bush administration. No notable usage beyond that. —Seselwa 06:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but move to Eastern South America. It's an actual region, so why not have an article about it? Dave the Red 07:40, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Because no-one else calls it that - David Gerard 09:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that no one refers to the eastern part of South America? I find that hard to believe. Dave the Red 20:07, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research - David Gerard 09:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial definition. Radiant_* 12:41, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 12:02, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Given this band is still at school, and the best that can be said about them is that they're big in Purbeck, I'd say they're not notable enough for Wikipedia. Good luck and everything, guys, but Wikipedia is not a vanity press. sjorford →•← 19:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep new article, obviously. sjorford →•← 21:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The band may not be notable, but the genus of shrubs certainly is. Keep as revised. Gdr 20:56, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
• Keep genera. Kappa 21:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the plants. —Seselwa 06:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as plant article. Megan1967 06:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the plant - David Gerard 09:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Its a shame that this perfectly good article on genus will always have the band in its edit history. Keep Dsmdgold 20:15, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as plant article. —RaD Man (talk) 18:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 03:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Character from EastEnders notable? Should be deleted. Is linked there from one location Mo Mitchell, also a character from EE though... Feydey 19:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or keep "Eastenderscruft". Probably more notable than a pokemon. Kappa 20:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) Might be almost as notable as a pokemon. Kappa 11:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I suspect, given my estimation of the relative sizes of the worldwide audiences, that the irony is is that this fictional person from a U.K. soap opera is probably less notable than a Pokemon. Uncle G 07:30, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
    • Well Eastenders has a large and devoted following, and this was a regular character involved in some major storylines. Kappa 08:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • As I said, I suspect that Pokemon's following is larger. Uncle G 10:36, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Merge into some sort of east enders article. Klonimus 21:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, under the bar of notability. Megan1967 06:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Very strong keep. EastEnders is a very notable soap so keep all articles related to it. Should be expanded to the quality of this article for example, which is another character. N-Man 07:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It probably needs to be rewritten and cleaned up, but I guess EastEnders characters are notable enough. BTW this should also disambiguate to Trevor Morgan (actor) to allow for an article on the child actor. Mgm|^(talk) 08:28, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've formatted the article to show context and I've cleaned up its grammar and formatting. 131.211.210.15 08:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I've added a mention of his "most hated soap villain" status. [44]. Kappa 08:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 09:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 13:11, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable characters in notable television programmes. Xezbeth 15:24, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mike H 23:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 07:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Vanity page. Although well written, nowhere near notable enough. The JPS 20:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete forum vanity. --InShaneee 20:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hello, I am the creator of this page, sorry if I have caused you trouble by making this page, I didn't realise it wasn't allowed. Thanks for saying it was well-written though! It is my dream to become a novelist and/or a journalist when I am older (I am 14), so that is a great compliment for me, thanks! Once again I apologise if I have broken a rule.
  • Comment by user 62.252.64.18. --InShaneee 21:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Never mind, feel free to contribute about better known things, e.g. things which pass the Google test. Kappa 21:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If you want to become a journalist, 62.252.64.18, I suggest that you go to WikiNews, the newspaper, rather than Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia. You'll gain an insight into the journalistic process (WikiNews is completely transparent. There's nothing "behind the scenes".); you can get some practice in with fact checking, copy editing, and reporting; and if you create a pseudonym you can maybe even make a name for yourself. Uncle G 07:43, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, forum promo. Megan1967 07:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad - David Gerard 09:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absoutely nonsense. Do a search on "Clunky cartridge button." Nothing. Then copy/paste "cartridge button" with "NES" on a search engine form. Nothing related to what the contributor was typing. In addition it is more of an opinion article. --Anonymous Cow 21:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I don't think it's absolutely nonsense, I just think the contributor has weak English-language writing skills. The article is about the NES cartridge eject button. But I just don't think that an article about an allegedly unreliability in the cartridge connector system of a long-since-obsolete video game system has any potential to become encyclopedic. And the NES certainly wasn't the only system to _have_ a cartridge eject button. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Er...not that I can really tell from the language of this, but there's probably information add to the NES article about hardware problems, perhaps? ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 00:36, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but some information could be added back to the NES article. I asked the page author to explain here, and they posted the following to my talk page (slightly edited by me):

  I created that Clunky Cartridge Button article to state information about some defects that it causes on NES games and what effects it causes. I played NES when I was really little, and we have undergone some problems that we remember it having. I just thought that the notorius pop-in button would be worth making an article about due to the notorius defects it has. --TheSamurai 23:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's take up Firebug's offer to add the relevant material to the article-gadfium 08:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have added a section on this hardware bug to the main NES page. It should now be safe to delete the Clunky cartridge button stub. Firebug 08:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm quite familiar with the NES and with the phenomenon he's describing, but this article is misnamed, and the topic is not broad enough to warrant an article of its own. What he is referring to, I think, is the weak ZIF cartridge connector used in the NES, which often made poor contact with carts and resulted in the cartridge failing to boot and the red power LED on the front of the system flashing on and off. Many of you who used to own a NES are probably familiar with this. I should insert a paragraph in the original NES article about this phenomenon, as it is not currently listed, but it doesn't deserve a separate article. Firebug 00:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I wrote a discussion page about this; plus the eject button on the SNES is not as cluncky plus we insert cartridges right into the SNES and on the NES, there is a physical clunky on/off switch for the cartridge insersion. We could keep this since it describes a notorius phenomenon. --TheSamurai 01:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, under the bar of notability, gamescruft. Megan1967 07:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Another creation of SamuraiClinton (talk · contribs), who has given us five of the current WP:TFD listings, at least two current WP:CFD listings, about 20 WP:VFD listings, and (just recently) Wikipedia:Votes for disambiguation. This is definitely not a NPOV title, nor is it one that people are likely to look for. It's an article about a push-button, moreover. Delete and let Firebug write that paragraph. Uncle G 08:09, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Delete, original research - David Gerard 09:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I own an NES, I'm familiar with its problems, and this one isn't significant enough to get more than a paragraph in the NES article, if that. --Carnildo 19:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given. Worth a brief mention in the main article, but not by itself. I remember always making it a point to blow on the cartridge's connector before loading it into my own NES. Otherwise, it was the "Flashing LED of Doom" along with the "Scrambled Raster of Despair." - Lucky 6.9 04:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. ugen64 03:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tagged as a speedy delete, but it's a dog that published a book, kinda. Could probably be merged somewhere. No vote. Kappa 21:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Dean Koontz? Feydey 21:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Feydey. Merge and redirect. RickK 22:48, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect--certainly not speedy worthy. Meelar (talk) 22:49, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dean Koontz. —Seselwa 06:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Dean Koontz. Megan1967 07:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to discourage recreation - David Gerard 09:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into the paragraph on Dean Koontz about his pseudonyms and redirect. -- Lochaber 17:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted (19:07, 2005 Apr 6 Neutrality deleted "Russian Communist attempt to abolish the family" (Per VfD)) - IceKarma 14:16, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Truly the finest in original research I've seen in quite a few Special:Newpages trawls. POV original research rant, not saved by its references; delete. - David Gerard 22:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this crap. RickK 23:44, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this imbroglio reaça José San Martin 00:12, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Firebug 01:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - all of the above. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete extreme POV (both in title and content). —Seselwa 05:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any useful content with Soviet Union or Communism or whatever. Sjakkalle 10:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 'Rewrite NPOV - this is an excerpt based upon a 1975 Law Journal Article. This is the basis for the no fault divorce reform but must be rewritten since this is a source article.
• Rewrite There is very little material that I have been able to find about the true events that occurred when the soviets banned the bourgeoise institution of the family. This article contains some useful references that should be followed up, i.e. not deleted, and the contributor encouraged to share more of his knowledge, particularly if he has books at his disposal. Matt Stan 23:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I suspect that the primary reason you haven't found material about "the true events that occurred when the soviets banned the bourgeoise institution of the family" is that the Soviets never did any such thing. The USSR committed enough actual atrocities that we don't have to charge them with made-up ones. Firebug 06:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Check out Zhenotdel Matt Stan 21:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• KeeP Simply because one does not want to read the truth about the actions of the Bolshiveks does not take away the legitimacy of this article. This is not the place for revisionist history.
• This excerpt was moved out of the Fathers' Rights discussion. It is missing the reference to the peer-reviewed law journal article by Bolas, D. A., “No-Fault Divorce: Born in the Soviet Union, Journal of Famly Law, Volume Fourteen, Number One, pp 31 – 59. This is consider the seminal article on the history of no-fault divorce. Agwiii 17:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Excellent! Agwiii, I made your KEEP vote into Keep. Making it capitals doesn't get you double the votes. :) --Woohookitty 17:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Woohookitty, please don't write such silly things in public. I change "Soapboxish" to "Excellent!" Bolas' article is the definitive history of no-fault divorce. It was published in a reputable, referreed law journal. What you object to are the facts. The Bolas law journal article is not POV. This is clearly an area in which you do not know the facts and are only echoing your social prejudices.

• By the way - I know this is probably the wrong place to ask, but can we get neutral parties to overview the content of the main Fathers' rights article? While the movement is newsworthy enough to deserve an article, the existing article is hopelessly POV, consisting largely of propaganda couched in weasel words. (Examples: "This has led to speculation by fathers' rights campaigners that there are elements in society that would rather have a child brought up in a single parent household by the mother even when the father is available to share in the upbringing of his child." And "The issue for fathers' rights activists is not one of mens' rights versus feminism, as some would suppose, and fathers' rights activists have been at pains to point out that the adversarial family law system can occasionally operate as badly, if not worse, for mothers who are separated from their children by hostile fathers". Both of which I have removed, along with unsourced comments trying to tar no-fault divorce by comparison with Leninist atrocities.) I'd like to see this entire article rewritten from a NPOV. Firebug 18:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Then why don't you re-write it as I suggested in it's talk page? --Spinboy 22:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Spinboy 22:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is a patchwork article comprised almost entirely of copypastes from three or four other websites, and a quick Google search found two distinctly different sides of this issue. This only presents one of them, marking it as POV as well. Very little of this is salvagable. Trylobyte 01:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP The source is a refereed Law Journal. As even my 9 year old knows, a Google search does not constitute research. There are not different sides to the facts - this is not an opinion piece. Would you argue so emotionally if the topic were "Russian Communist attempt to abolish war?" I think not. Sorry Trylo, but your point is moot. Agwiii 08:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote Change to Merge and Rewrite - The article's title itself is loaded, and while the facts don't change, the presentation spins them towards a direct, distinct POV that is at odds with several other equally or more prominent sources. Here's one: International Struggle and the Marxist Tradition, Vol. 1 Yes, the writer is a Marxist. However, the writer of the source the article cites is a Russian woman, the group most affected and thus the most likely to be biased, as can be seen Here. Both sources are likely biased in opposite directions, but the article is very clearly POV favoring the second article. Thus, perhaps it can be saved, but it needs a serious overhaul to be able to do that. Trylobyte 01:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted, nonsense. Neutrality^talk 02:08, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - we don't need to be information censors. 216.153.214.94 02:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 07:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unreferenced vanity. Delete unless we get some third-party verifiability that anyone cares - David Gerard 22:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, clearly self-promotion, 2 hits in google for 'Scott Kuyken activist'. Feydey 22:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable/unreferenced. —Seselwa 05:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since i'm becoming a third party, i say go for it.
• Keep it. what have you got against it?
• The trouble is that it's not verifiable and we have no evidence that he meets the criterion of importance. Unfortunately we don't have the resources to cover every human being, we need to set some kind of bar. Kappa 00:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. however, mine is that of freedom of speech. How is it "unreferenced vanity" or "self-promotion"? Have you any facts to know who exactly wrote this? If you do, please, let me know, because I would like to think that people can write about others and not be accused of "self-promotion."

• • I agree it's unfortunate that they made those remarks. Wikipedia does get a lot of self-promotion, but in this case we can't tell and we shouldn't assume. Sorry, it's just part of the Vfd "culture". Kappa 16:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete as possible vanity, if not that then because it's not important. Even the kid's Google-listed blog is a dead link. Trylobyte 01:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep as a member of the Protest Warriors, I am appalled and disgusted at the ignorance in this discussion. Scott is a major leader in our organization and has been one of the biggest influences of all time on the Protest Warriors. I would look to point out that yes, we do care, yes, this is "important", and no, this is not "self promotion" or "vanity". I understand that there needs to be a bar set not to allow just anyone into wikipedia, and I agree. Scott Kuyken is above that bar and for he deserves to be on Wikipedia.

• Delete Vanity. --InShaneee 16:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Everyking 02:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I fail to see this as vanity. Very informative and relevant to the field of political activists.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page appears to be a lot of unverifiable nonsense about a supposedly widespread word "Leinard", whose meaning is context-dependent. I don't believe a word of it. Delete. Lupin 22:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yep, Delete. I like cats though... Anilocra 22:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense. —Seselwa 05:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 07:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jshadias 07:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I live about 20 miles south of glens falls and have heard this word so, it must be real if i know it! ;-) - Bob Johnston 10:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote by User:69.205.24.137 (who has a couple dozen edits all related to this article) and/or User:82.96.75.4 (whose edits are mainly VfD spam); from the history it seems they could be the same user.
• Delete. Radiant_* 09:02, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this word seems similar to a Snarkle or a Twotch. Klonimus 02:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted (16:24, 2005 Apr 3 Niteowlneils deleted "Suprematistic" (New redir typo--#R4)) - IceKarma 14:18, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just created this page as a redirect to Suprematism, and only afterwards noticed that "suprematistic" is not a proper English word -- I meant to say "suprematist". / Anonymous Coward

Unsigned nomination by 145.254.166.135 (talk · contributions)

Speedied per case #R4. Niteowlneils 23:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 22:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An American Idol contestant who didn't make the cut from 195. Does not meet the highly inclusive WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. I found this during my daily sweep for abandoned vfds; the previous vfd in February resulted in "merge", but there was nowhere to merge her to then, and there still isn't, and the article's been sitting abandoned with {{vfd}} ever since. —Korath (Talk) 23:23, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Do not redirect to American Idol or we'll need to have redirects for all 100,000 people that audition each season. RickK 23:46, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 05:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere, don't just delete - David Gerard 09:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Where? —Korath (Talk) 10:14, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per music guidelines. The whole point of Idols is that most of its contestants are NN (and rather crappy if you'd ask me) Radiant_* 13:10, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, she obviously have fans that were concerned enough to make a link for her, otherwise this would never have been started. One link that would work to link all the contestants is Complete Contestants Listing from the American Idol page.
• Delete, non-notable, maybe vanity. Grue 16:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC
• keep., I AM Emily Neves, I am certainly vain (Leo), but the years will tell with even more certainty that I am more than notable.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is a pure dictionary definition. Wiktionary already has this word in its dictionary. There is no potential for this page to become an encyclopedia article. 130.132.200.29 23:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• ... and there doesn't seem to be a suitable target for a redirect. Delete. Uncle G 02:33, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. —Seselwa 05:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was BJAODN. – ABCD 22:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article was moved out of the article space, but it seems to have been moved back. This is a hoax article, and should be moved to the Wikipedia space, or deleted altogether.

• BJAODN hilarious joke. This article is now important that encarta is becoming a peer-reviewed wiki/ matt me

RickK 23:41, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Move back to BJAODN and delete the freaking forest of redirects out of article space. —Korath (Talk) 00:09, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Meelar (talk) 00:59, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN, but I strongly suggest having it on its own protected page. Zzyzx11 01:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• As per Korath, including the redirects. (This isn't the worst redirect mess from 2005-04-01, though. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Willy on Wheels. I gave up tracking back through the redirects after 9 levels.) Uncle G 02:30, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • Someone please deal with Editable Takeover/ Reaction to takeover and Wikipedia:Editable Takeover (the editors ain't done with this prank yet) while we are at this. Uncle G 02:46, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• The article is now in mainspace via, I believe, cut-and-paste; Wikipedia:April 1, 2005/2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia is a fine destination for it, but is now redirecting. I don't care where it goes, so long as it is out of mainspace and the destination and all plausible redirects protected against all monkeyshines. — Xiong talk 04:10, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• 'BJADON oon its own separate page. r3m0t ^talk 06:32, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN, probably one of the best written candidates for BJAODN we've seen lately. Definitely worthy of a place there. Megan1967 06:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Why on earth was it moved back? BJAODN of course, delete anything that's in the article namespace. --Michael Snow 06:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete from main article space, speedy if recreated - David Gerard 09:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to /Wikipedia namespace If you're going to BJAODN it, every page from the Department of Fun should be BJAODN'd too.
• I guess we should let the Britannica staff decide on this :) Radiant_* 14:08, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

What I want to know is why this article has had so many deletions and edits. It is only about half the size that it was on April 1st. Please, someone revert this article and protect it on the BJADN.

• I'm torn between BJAODN and Wikipedia:, but clearly, it doesn't belong in the article namespace. Equally clearly, it shouldn't be deleted permanently, and *the history shouldn't be lost, either*. Comedy by committee is always suspect, and the original should be visible. Let us note *also*, though, that many places (including me) probably *linked* to it, and the links shouldn't die. If it was originally in the WP namespace, and I think it was, let it be removed henceforth to the space time from which it came... --Baylink 15:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (a sentence or so, not the whole article) and redirect to Wikipedia. JYolkowski 21:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move back to BJAODN and protect the main namespace version as a redirect. Keep the redirect(s) on the article namespace, since there are links from the outside to them. --cesarb 21:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Is Wikipedia really being taken over by Britannica? If not, then the article is a bad waste of our space. Delete. Changed my mind, now that I know what BJAODN stands for. I specially liked actually the references to spirit's such as God and Elvis. BJAODN "Antonio one a Wikipedian Always a Wikipedian Martin"
• BJAODN I thought it was funny, personally. However, make sure that it's in the form that it was after the last edit on 1 April. -Jeremiah Cook 02:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move and Redirect Create some sort of archive of Wikimedia April Fool's Day jokes. --Kitch 12:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This should be kept in some way, or form! This was an absolutely classic page! But there should be a disclaimer at the top declaring its status as a non-factual article/ parody. --Hoovernj 23:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. I've never had so much fun in the main article space! - Lucky 6.9 04:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Moved into the Wikipedia namespace for now. silsor 06:50, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia: and keep (as a separate article, although the idea of an index page to Wikipedia April Fool's hack articles is a good idea). Noel (talk) 16:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This was funny. Samboy 21:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all redirects to April Fool's articles from the article namespace. Might as well keep the "article" itself if it stays in the WP: namespace. -Sean Curtin 22:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete funny, sure. Does it belong in an encyclopedia that is trying to be legit? NO. protohiro 06:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia namespace or BJAODN, failing that. Protect it either way. --InShaneee 16:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Note we have a lot of incoming links to this article, see e.g. the front page of Alexa. By all means situate this in the WP namespace, and by all means have a notice saying "This was an April Fools joke in 2005" somewhere prominent, but keep the direct to satisfy the traffic. Pcb21| Pete 22:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in BJAODN; disclaimer as hoax would be fine. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 18:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as BJAODN. Greatest Internet hoax in recent times with all sorts of spinoff gags. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:14, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN and Protect the redirect as above. This was a good article as a joke, but clearly doesn't belong in the main articlespace beyond April 1. --Deathphoenix 17:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Revert back to April 2nd version. This was an excellent April 1 joke but some users simply can't move on in life. Thuresson 09:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

del. hotdog merchant. notability. Mikkalai 00:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• i vote to not delete. who is this mikkalai guy anyway? get a life (unsigned vote by IP 161.253.37.19)
• Delete non-notable/propaganda. —Seselwa 05:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 07:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*not delete, no reason to delete an article of local trivia--161.253.36.179 02:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Trivia != encyclopedic. Delete. Radiant_* 12:41, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. vanity. Mikkalai 00:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete José San Martin 00:15, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. —Seselwa 05:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not-notable. Also someone removed VfD notice Jackliddle 16:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Roach Motel. —Korath (Talk) 12:06, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

del. neologism, dicdef. Mikkalai 00:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'd say redirect to Roach motel if we had such an article. Since we don't, I guess we should delete it as a neologism. Dave the Red 07:28, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since [[User:BD2412] was nice enough to create a Roach motel article, redirect there. Dave the Red 20:05, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Roach Motel Klonimus 02:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. JamesMLane 05:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guys, are you serious with redirect? Are you sure that "roach hotel" is used in the same sense as "roach motel"? And by the way, there is a direct, original meaning of the term "roach hotel". And what about a (lousy) computer game "Roach Hotel" by Micro-Lab? What about doing some research before voting? Mikkalai 18:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I say redirect to roach motel because I believe that the term "roach hotel" is itself a neologism. Since it bears a close resemblance to the term Roach motel, it should be redirected there. If you know of a real use of the term "Roach hotel", independant of "roach motel", please inform us of what it is. If you believe that the computer game deserves an entry, you are entitled to write one. However, a google search for "Roach hotel" + micro gets 84 hits, so I'm inclined to think the game is not notable. Dave the Red (talk) 22:20, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I second... er fifth the redirect - if there's anything to be said about the term "roach hotel", it can be said on the roach motel page anyway - no one would bother calling something a roach hotel unless they were trying to sound like roach motel. -- 8^D ^gab 07:53, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

del. promo. notability. Mikkalai 00:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete self-promotion. —Seselwa 05:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 07:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad, see above - David Gerard 09:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 22:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not a notable enough song to have a full article written about it. Lachatdelarue (talk) 00:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 05:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 07:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. non notable song. The page didn't have a deletion notice, so I added it. Dave the Red 07:22, Apr 4, 2005
• Redirect - David Gerard 09:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article has only existed for a couple of days, the band has an article. It's in a category Category:2001_songs. Perhaps we should delete that whole category with all its articles? None of them seem notable. MarSch 15:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless the article establishes that the song is notable in some way. Otherwise, could be merged into the article on the album, though there's not much to merge. I guess the song title wouldn't hurt as a redirect, but it wouldn't help either. Many or most (though probably not all) of the songs in the Category:2001 songs could probably also be deleted (or redirected). Tuf-Kat 18:48, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There was a hit song "Private Eyes" by Hall & Oates in the 1980s. I don't think that top-10 H&O song noteworthy. Nor do I think this song noteworthy. -- Toytoy 12:21, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 22:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another school. Delete. P Ingerson 00:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; zero content, just stats and generic fluff. Could also be speedied since the author blanked it. —Korath (Talk) 00:54, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. notability. Mikkalai 01:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 05:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, school vanity. Dave the Red 07:18, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no verifiability - David Gerard 10:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's not verifiable about it? --BaronLarf 02:04, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity. Radiant_* 13:11, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, fluff. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This article is now hunky dory. However all schools and public institutions are notable and encyclopedic.Klonimus 03:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What are the provisions of the "provisional" keep? If the article remains unimproved, how long should it remain in limbo before it can be deleted as abandoned? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 02:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and continue to expand. --BaronLarf 02:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. School vanity. Not notable, so no possibility to become encyclopedic. Jonathunder 03:09, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a private elementary school with some slightly unusual arrangements. Not notable. --Carnildo 03:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Take away the name of the place and what are you left with? Right. Empty, unencyclopedic article. Delete for questionable notability and lack of content. Why do half-baked articles always seem to involve a school? Discuss.  :^) - Lucky 6.9 04:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonencyclopedic vanity --Angr/_(comhrá) 08:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - As with all Schools, I vote to keep. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:39, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. bbx 16:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - As with all Schools, I vote to delete. --Bucephalus 17:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep please Yuckfoo 01:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As with apparently non-notable schools lacking pithy or interesting article content and likely to remain unimproved in future, I vote to delete. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. As long as Spinarak exists, this should also exist. --brian0918™ 02:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All the usual reasons apply.--Gene_poole 02:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. All the usual reasons apply. Say, Gene, where's your friend "Centauri"? You'd think he'd be here with bells on, to vote. --Calton | Talk 04:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Noisy | Talk 10:38, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 14:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, absolutely useless. Grue 16:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, essentially vanity. --InShaneee 16:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, perfectly notable. Dan100 20:32, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Schools are noteworthy. --Zantastik 07:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. very notable. NRS11 3:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User has only two edits, both to this page. Indrian 04:03, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Gamaliel 14:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. However, put a Wikify tag on the page if it's kept. --Kieran 09:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Lochaber 14:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This school is not notable. "Organic growth" seems unlikely — even with more verbiage on the screen, the school will still be not notable. -- Dcfleck 03:37, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)*Keep this school article. Notability is subjective. This should probably be moved to a better title, though. ~leif ☺ _HELO 19:05, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Note To admins, this article has undergone substantial revisions during the VFD Process. Please evaluate the current article on it's merits, it may need to be resubmitted to VfD, since some people would change thier votes (Towards keep) if they saw it now. Klonimus 03:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Some might, but I would certainly not. Still nothing particularly noteworthy. Many schools have community service requirements, sports teams, eighth grade graduations and all the other stuff you have included. I do appreciate the effort you have put into this article, as most of the time these articles remain unchanged throughout the VfD process. If you could just give it something that makes it stand out from the crowd, I would be happy to change my vote. Indrian 03:28, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, now a quality, informative article. Kappa 03:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Even this rewrite fails to establish any notablity whatsoever. The JPS 10:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I voted above. My vote is still delete, and for the same reason - zero encyclopedic content, just stats and generic fluff. —Korath (Talk) 12:41, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

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