Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 26

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

January 26

edit

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was 1 Delete, 2 Transwiki, No clear consensus. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

iGeek

edit

Neologism. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 00:09, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Bart133 03:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. This term gets about 14,500 google hits, but I don't see this term being worth an entire article. --Deathphoenix 14:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. Megan1967 00:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete because of not notable. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Awol (band)

edit

Non-notable band. Zero hits for awol "michael schoolcraft". allmusic hasn't heard of them. From the article: "Acclaimed by hundreds of fans, AWOL..."--doesn't meet audience of 5,000. Niteowlneils 00:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 00:47, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Bart133 03:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Zero hits for awol "michael schoolcraft" tells me it could also be a hoax.--Idont Havaname 06:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. GRider\talk 00:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the bit about being the most important band of the Sherbrooke scene is verified. Doing so would mean the band met the WikiProject:Music guidelines for inclusion. Tuf-Kat 05:21, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Either hoax or vanity ad. --WikiFan04 20:30, 4 Feb 2005 (CST)

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 (18:7)

Its talk page Talk:Cultural imprint on politics is preserved, for more arguments of the discussion. Mikkalai 23:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cultural imprint on politics

edit

((I have changed the title to Cultural imprint on politics))

Delete. Original research. 172 00:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and rewrite. This is definitely a personal essay, but I think it has potential as an article. At the very least, merge with Antonio Gramsci. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 00:56, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) On second thought, knowing absolutely nothing about Antonio Gramsci or his ideas, I really don't feel qualified to vote either way. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 06:23, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and re-title Culture-defined politics, to accord with Wikipedian style. This offers a sensible axiom to hang more facts and interpretations on than merely Gramsci's own. I'm at a loss why this entry should have been selected for deletion. Links pointing to this entry need to be written into a number of entries. --Wetman 01:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't see how any article with a title even close to this could help but be original research. RickK 05:18, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, since all of the radical inclusionists are coming out of the woodwork to vote keep on this ridiculous article, I'll actually vote. Delete, inherently POV. RickK 00:13, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Me? A radical inclusionist? Just for that I'm withdrawing my keep vote. :) -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 06:23, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki to Wikinfo (as is being discussed on Talk page). Original research; personal essay. If you do not know Gramsci, do not make the mistake of thinking this article says anything credible about him simply because it claims to do so. Nowhere among its citations is a credible source for information about Gramsci; it does not quote his work directly even once. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The title has to go, definitely. Maurreen 06:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) Neutral. I don't know enough about the topic to feel comfortable voicing an opinion on the topic either way. But I think the new title, "Cultural imprint on politics", is quite appropriate. Maurreen 06:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe this is a keep vote and can we count it as such. And Maurreen, I am working on the title such as "Cultural determinates on politics" or "Cultural effects on politics". I like the former. WHEELER 18:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I changed the title to "Cultural imprint on politics". I think that this will suit you. I think that this is a beautiful compromise and does justice to the subject matter. Thanks.WHEELER 20:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 06:56, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as is, Malachi Martin refers to a John Dziak. This is not original research. This needs to be looked under intelligence operations. Fr. Martin refers to "professional intelligence experts", that is where we need to look for this information. Thanks.WHEELER 15:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. – Kaihsu 15:52, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 00:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This needs to be re-worked from "culture defines politics because X, Y and Z" into "X, Y and Z said thatculture defines politics." History of an idea, not argument for it. The sourcing is there, the form needs to be re-cast. Bacchiad 06:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 00:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Clearly original reserach, and at any rate, highly innaccurate polemic which –grossly– misrepresents well-known apsects of Gramsci's views; references section rely more on Plato than anything; form is peculiar and idiosyncratic; content is phrased in highly biased, POV terms. El_C 04:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mark K. Jensen 09:11, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, personal essay. Not encyclopedic. --BM 22:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. —Korath (Talk) 06:54, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP, altho a change of title, and wider range of editor involvement could be good. [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 13:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and delete - David Gerard 22:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Carrp 15:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a personal essay --Neigel von Teighen 19:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV essay. Gzornenplatz 19:51, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Somewhat interesting, but original research. older≠wiser 19:56, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite to conform to standards, otherwise Delete. This is a heavily slanted version of the concept, designed to promote particular versions of what is a broad paradigm. User should integrate material on the relevant pages in wikipedia in an NPOV manner. There should be an article on Cultural determinism, which is a term that people might actually look up, and which could use with a thorough, NPOV article. As a side note, the level of hostility over this VfD is far too high. The contributor should not be censured as heavily by those supporting a delete, but should, instead, be given a chance to write an article which conforms to wikistandards. Since the concept is documentable, and recurrant, it should be included. However, the current article is clearly "Gramsci's theory of cultural determination of politics" and not a general article. I hope users can back off of the personal on this one and realize that the goal is to create an encyclopedia, and not engage in turf wars to advance particular versions of ideas. Stirling Newberry 20:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) PS. I have added this article with some examples, it should be clear that the concept can, and should, be documented, and that the effort spent on arguing over this could be better spent producing a much better article. Stirling Newberry 20:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, personal essay. --Michael Snow 22:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • POV personal essay. Merge anything salvageable into Cultural determinism and then delete. RadicalSubversiv E 15:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • move to a subpage and rewrite to conform to standards, otherwise Delete. As such move it to a temp subpage and rewrite first. As it is it is an unnaceptable essay. - Taxman 19:33, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Personal essay. The author might want to consider trying to rewrite it with references if that can be done, but as it stands, it's original research. Smacks a little of Montesquieu. SlimVirgin 05:05, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A chaotic and contratictory exposition on a vague topic. Also, a wrong title for a wrong subject. Politics as a specific type of social behavior is part of human culture. So the title smacks of tautology as well. Mikkalai 22:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To the Administrators. I like the idea of Stirling Newberry. I have asked him permission to move his contribution into my article and then rename it Cultural Determinism. My comments are here at his page. please read and help me with this. I am also prepared to remove the "Cultural Revolutionary techniques" and move those to wikinfo. Thanks and let me know okay. Give me time and this depends on Stirling Newberry. I would like the honor of starting this article for Wikipedia. Thanks.WHEELER 00:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the material and have reorganized it and taken out the material. Would like to change the title again to "Cultural imprinting on politics". Furthermore, I think it deserves a seperate page just to concentrate on the political side of things. This is important for Classical studies! People need this. Is this okay by wikipedian standards. I hope I made enough changes to suit everybody and it looks good. I am not an expert at this--I just know the idea and concept well enough--I don't have access, due to my poverty, of going to a university library. I am doing all this with relative meager resources. If someone can help and smooth things over it would be a great help.WHEELER 15:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My philosophical basis for this work: Greeks are realists; we are lovers of nature. As Socrates says in the Republic. We must see things as they really are not as we wish them to be. Greek philosophy is based on seeing nature as is. As much as my detractors hate this material, it must be presented. Communists socialist, liberals et al., want to change reality according to their ideology. Greek thought is different. We accept reality as is and don't attempt to change it. We accept. We don't see reality through ideological lenses of political correctness. There is a big difference here. I am a Greek--- an ancient Greek. I see reality as is not the way I think it ought to be as so many others do. They butcher reality to fit their ideology. WHEELER 15:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To the administrators I ask you for some intellectual honesty because there seems to be absolutely NONE here. All I have to say is a lot of bad words right now. PLEASE LOOK UP Critical theory (Frankfurt School) AND read with me please :

Critical theory, in sociology and philosophy, is shorthand for critical theory of society or critical social theory, a label used by the Frankfurt School, i.e., members of the Institute for Social Research of the University of Frankfurt, their intellectual and social network, and those influenced by them intellectually, to describe their own work, oriented toward radical social change, And these people tell me original research and that this is POV. I have only to say to you all "Go Jump off bridges"!!!! Screw you people.WHEELER 16:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To the Administrators HOW THE HELL IS RADICAL SOCIAL CHANGE ACCOMPLISHED AND WHY ARE THE REASONS FOR ACCOMPLISHING THAT. UHHHH????? Only my article does so and all the little liberals are coming out of the wood work to vote against this. Truth does very well in a democracy. WHEELER 16:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Discussion

I can't believe that we are seeing all these "keep" votes. This page should even be considered a candidate for automatic deletion without going through the Vfd. Are we just going to allow anyone to state a thesis and write a personal essay around it and call it an encyclopedia article. Are we going to allow the materialists to start a dueling polemic entitled 'economics defines politics' and call it an article? 172 00:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks that way, doesn't it? GRider\talk 00:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Does it? It's strange that you would support such a trend, User:GRider. As a matter of policy, we only note as encyclopedic those (epistemological and otherwise) intellectual debates and polemics which clearly are –not– the original reserach of the respective editor(s). Otherwise, as mentioned, we risk facing a hegemony of personal essay articles rivaling each other. El_C 12:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The footnote in the Loeb is large. It continues:

"Plato illustrates the commonplace in a slight digression on national characteristics, with a hint of the thought partly anticipated by Hippocrates and now identified with Buckle's name, that they are determined by climate and environment." Cf Newman, Introd. to Aristot. Pol. pp.318-320.

Can someone look up Buckle for me and Newman's Introduction. Also Paul Shorey, translator for this edition of the Loeb recognizes this principle. This is not original research but this in information lost due to obscurantism---of the manipulation of knowledge. WHEELER 14:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH. This is information widely known in the 19th and early 20th century. It is just some people want to cover this information up. If you want more information on this subject pick up Classiciscts books from the 19th century and leave that hooey called "modern", which is code word for "marxist", alone and pick up untampered knowledge.WHEELER 15:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Come to think of it, was Antonio Gramsci familiar with J. S. Mill? There might be a connection between Gramsci and Mill or Spencer or the Classicists in Italy!!!!! Somebody help me with research please. This is another book all in itself. WHEELER 15:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, he was. Whether he wrote anything specifically on these is another matter though. All of Gramsci's works are available here. El_C 22:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Title
    • I like the title because it is short and sweet. And encapsulates the total meaning of the concept and idea But if there is better suggestions, I am all for it. If worse comes to worse "Culture-defined politics" is alright but for establishing the concept---"Culture defines politics is better.WHEELER 20:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • How can the title be NPOV when it is a statement? Maurreen 05:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • All titles are definitions. A dog is a dog. There is no NPOV or POV title of dog. A thing is a thing. Democracy is Democracy. The word encapsulates the character, essense, style, concept of what makes up the idea of democracy and it differentiates itself from other things. Maybe this will help: User Talk:WHEELER/Principles of DefinitionWHEELER 15:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC).
      • "Culture defines politics" is a statement. "Dog" is not a statement. Do you know of any other article titles within Wikipedia that take the form of a sentence? Maurreen 16:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Dog is a statement. For when someone says the word "Dog" we think, "Okay, four legged animal that barks and waves its tail." The word "Dog" incorporates in a single word that one large sentence. In the German language, Germans also coin words for concepts that us in English have to describe using a full sentence or even a paragraph. The German word Weltshangshuch (or however it is spelled) is an example of this. In English, this is not possible. Ask your self, a title of anything must incorporate the essence of the subject at hand. For right now, until something better has come across, I am stumped for a good title that captures the essence of the subject material. Have some patience.

WHEELER 17:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wheeler, you and I have different understandings of the word "statement." I will try to clarify. It has nothing to do with concept or idea or representation in general. Nor does the German language having anything to do with it, because we're working here in English. My trouble is with the sentence form and the word "is", which makes your title read as a statement of fact. Do you know of any similar examples within Wikipedia? Maurreen 18:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, not right off hand. The subject material is about a process. The type of government is determined by the culture. So, the subject (or concept) includes two nouns and a verb.
How about "Cultural-political process"?
Since this was studied by "Counter-intelligence experts" maybe someone should call them up and ask them what they call this. Somebody call their friends in Washington, to Spookville, and ask them. That ought to solve the problem.WHEELER 00:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Cultural-political process" is OK. Maurreen 05:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sure, if it was a construct which, as such, is used notably beyond original reserach. Actually, Maurreen, the current 'Culture defines politics' title (whether it is a statement or not is less releavnt) would also be fine had it been a notable, non-original reserach concept. But neither are. We are interested in what –is– encyclopedic, not what it should look like if it was. El_C 12:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
With this new information, I will hold off a bit on changing the name.WHEELER 15:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore on title name. I have no doubts that some doughty old classical professor in some ivy covered dank hall coined a word for this subject and there is a title for it in Latin or Greek. Would someone please search old English Classicists texts. I don't want to reinvent the circle. Somebody somewhere already coined this term. WHEELER 21:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Epistemology? Frankly, the onus is on you to find a preexisting, encyclopedic term/title – nothing's wrong with asking for help, but this should take place prior to placing a piece on the article namespace, in a draft, for ex. I don't wish to chastise you too harshly, but I nonetheless urge you to be more judicious on this front in the future. El_C
According to El C's own web page, "Nothing comes from nothing" is a statement as a title for an Wikipedian article. I would like to point this out to Maureen.WHEELER 15:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So is In God We Trust. And that is not my webpage, it is my userpage. And unlike Culture defines politics, NcfN (which I authored on my first day on WP, incidentally, and which already existed, albeit was undefined) is a well-known philosophical expression that I did –not– coin myself. El_C 22:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New Information
J. S. Mill wrote: "Human beings in society have no properties, but those which are derived from and may be resolved into the laws and the nature of individual man" (7)

Spencer wrote: "Society is created by its units....The nature of its organization is determined by the nature of its units." (8)WHEELER 14:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is more information on the Discussion page that shows where to get more of this information!!!! Please check that as well.WHEELER 14:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is this the proper venue for these thoughts? Also, a minor point, there is no need to exclaim so dramatically, if the new information is credible for the purposes of demonstrating encyclopedicity, I am confident that it will be considered and accounted for by proponents of deletion here. Yes, society is comprised by its constituents, and these constituents combined to form society – many thinkres have written extensively on these areas, but I do not see how these passages (nor the talk page where Rbellin's criticism is especially poignant) elucidate encyclopedicity. It is an original research synthesis that draws its own heavily-slanted (towards idealism) conclusions, it is is poorly referenced, and it treats Gramsci (the only person mentioned in the opening paragraph) in a questionable manner which demonstrate a lack of familiarity with his works. I realize people voting keep wish to encourage this editor with his work and reserach, but they are doing so at the expense of the most basic encyclopedic conventions.

Again, there have been many debates and various concepts accorded to such polemics as the article highlights, but it is not the role of the editor to synthesize these together – the role of the editor is to note how others synthesized pertinent thinkers, debates, concepts, etc., in a notable fashion. This, however, is absent from this article. If the editor in question arrives at a notable concept, etc., they need to outline how it has been approached by others and who they included within the realm of such discussions; it is not the editor's role to pick and choose how to phrase such a concept nor most definitely which notable thinkers qualify to appear in it. Lastly, there is the slant of the debate: if this was an encyclopedic concept and if the thinkers appearing in it were not added merely at the discretion/whim of the editor, in a debate involving the intellectual rivalry between epistemological materialism and idealism, the article still needs to promote NPOV, but in fact, it promotes only one side (which I suspect is the view held by the editor): idealism. Similarly, an encyclopedic article that centres on the presentation of epist. materialism should not promote that approach, rather it should highlight the pertinent arguments and counterarguments in an objective, NPOV way. All of these factors are crucial in whether an article is deemed credible and encyclopedic, which this one falls very shot from, I'm afraid. Sorry. El_C

What El C wants from me, is a complete and finished article. This is not Wikipedian policy. Hundreds of articles have started out as stubs. Wikipedia is a "collabrative" encyclopeadia. What El C is doing is making me having to have a full fledged article. If I don't have a full fledged article, he deletes. I am not expected to know everything completely but this is the standard El C is putting on me because he doesn't like the subject material. He changes the rules to suit himself. WHEELER 15:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I never said that. I never said that because it's untrue. What I want is an encyclopedic start. I don't care if it's a stab. You are distorting my argument and grossly oversimplifying it. Whether I like the subject material (or your bias thereof) is not relavent, and it is quite presumptious of you to conclude what I like and dislike. El_C
Paul Shorey relates that these concepts and ideas "are identified with Buckle's name". I quoted from two modern men Spencer and Mill. Read the talk page Mr. El.C, Fr. Malachi Martin knows very well Antonio Gramsci and as a Jesuit priest I trust him better than I do you. Mr. MacAlveny, William Griggs, and Father Malachi Martin know Antonio Gramsci better than I do. What about their credentials? You dismiss my sources? WHEELER 15:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do they call –it– culture defines politics? Do they call it cultural political process? I could care less about credentials, I care about –notability– (as such, user:WHEELER, as such). Also, why do you call me Mister? Since when did I reveal to you whether I am male or female? And if I am female, I certainly could not be a Jesuit priest (and inherently not recieve the same level of trust from you – "credentials" which therefore cannot be attained by merit alone; but that is entirely an aside to all this). El_C
El C is putting standards on me, that are not required of other articles and stubs. So sex acts and how to do sex acts are accepted all the time on Wikipedia, What professional Encyclopeadia ever included that in their topics? Noone. Mr. El C. Irregardless of the psychobable, Fr. Malachi Martin is pretty clear and concise. So is John Dziak. Wikipedia is a collabrative encyclopaedia. It's a stub to grow on. Understand? WHEELER 15:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I understand that this is your opinion, but it contradicts established policy: a collaboration in the article name space must possess an encyclopedic origin. I place the same standards on your work as I do anyone's. Again, it has nothing to do with it being a stab, it has to do with it being original research (all the other criticisms I mentioned, which I think are important and you should approach constructively rather than defensively, are really an aside to my argument of original reserach). I am unfamilliar with the sex acts articles which you refer to, sorry. El_C
Then the next question is Mr. El C where and what article will describe what Fr. Malachi Martin, Mr. MacAlveny, and William Griggs are talking about? There must be some philosophical, scholarly, studied basis from which they talk from. So what is it Mr. El C? WHEELER 15:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If I knew, do you not think I would have already told you? All I said was that Culture defines politics is your original research, I never professed being privy to a solution which would make your aforementioned piece viable in its current form to be included in the article namespace. El_C

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. Stormie 08:42, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Average rule

edit

Strongly appears to be original research. It has no citations whatsoever, I can't find any Google hits that aren't Wikipedia-originated, and it's the creation of User:146.124.141.250 -- the alter-ego of User:Iasson [1], who's using it as the authority for the bizarre voting standards he's been adding to VfD votes and to his RFC [2]. I say this puppy should have been nuked months ago. --Calton 00:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The above IP is not my alter-ego, it is a proxy and a lot of people read and write from there. Not all articles with the above IP are written by me. Iasson 12:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as User:Iasson disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 00:59, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete reasons as above. This three-ring circus needs to leave town for good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:34, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as patent nonsense thinly disguised as original research. Raven42 01:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is getting ridiculous. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 02:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be made verifiably notable. Tuf-Kat 02:45, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. See above reasons. Bart133 02:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. See Calton's and Raven42's reasons. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rhobite 04:15, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. However, this article was created in August, and Iasson didn't start posting his bizarre rules until October. Do you really believe he seeded this then waited around for two months before acting on it? RickK 05:22, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's pretty clear he created it (see my reasons above), and he and his alter ego have been monkeying around with topics concerning democracy ever since which shows his interest in the democratic process.
My own hypothesis is that he came up with this and other cockamamie voting theories and he's trying to use the VFD process to test them out. --Calton 06:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You are correct. I have created 11 voting theories in Wikipedia. Go find them and delete them all! Fascism has to rise in wikipedia! Iasson 08:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree. If they don't have encyclopedic relevance, they must all go. I've already dealt with another person like you who seems to keep insisting that ideas you invent belong in a public encyclopedia. That's simply not within reason, and you should know that. --Stevietheman 08:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Several people have been speculating quietly that this might be the case. It turns out they are right. I'm impressed. No change of vote. Andrewa 10:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for all the reasons given in previous day's VfD for "Quadratic Rule". "Average rule has never been tried as a policy..." Barno 05:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, "average rule" + political -> 462 Google hits, but a lot of the first ones look like copies of this page... mainly anonymous edits here too... I don't see notability here per se, but the "average rule" does seem to exist in some form or fashion. --Idont Havaname 06:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article has been written 6/8/2004. Until now nobody has proposed it for deletion, and a lot of people helped to improve it. Why you want to delete it right now? Is it because I am using it to defence myself in my RFC[[3]] ?? Is it because you are a fascist and you are burning books? I suggest as decision method to be used the Average rule, I also suggest the decision to be valid as long as the average rule requires, I also suggest 25% of Active Vfd voters to vote in this poll in 5 days, in order for the decision to be legitimate. Iasson 08:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not the forum to discuss voting policy, as has already been explained to Iasson. See RfC (also note I added this comment after the ones below it). — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 21:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no time-based rule regarding the deletion of articles, and an article doesn't become any more encyclopedic if it happens to stay alive in the Wikipedia for any length of time. The reasons expressed here for its deletion appear to be valid. So instead of complaining about book burning, how about addressing the concerns? And if you can't address them, just accept the judgement and how Wikipedia is organized. --Stevietheman 08:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Policy bullshits! I am asking you to show me an active poll where the active wikipedians have voted and they still keep valid a decision that says that original research is prohibited from wikipedia. Can you point to that poll? Or, is the prohibition of original research just another decision of the administration cabal? Iasson 09:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • see Wikipedia:No original research. As I understand it, this is a founding principal of Wikipedia. Thryduulf 09:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • I see. We have to find the reasons why the administration cabal insist of keeping such a principal. Is this founding principal by chance? Is it because administration's plans are to create the best encyclopedia in the world and sell it somewhere someday, and they want us to create articles in their encyclopedia for free, but of course without beeing able to tranform their encyclopedia to something else because this is against their business plans? I cant find another reason but maybe you can help me a little to find one, and I am in good faith to believe it. Of course there is also the possibility that this is NOT a founding principal as you claim. Iasson 10:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • I don't think that they could do as you suggest, because of the GNU Free Documentation License Wikipedia uses (see Wikipedia:Copyrights). It is normal for an encyclopedia to contain no original research, as it is a secondary source not a primary source. There is, however, a fork called wikinfo that apparently does allow orignal research. Thryduulf
              • What is going on here? Original research is always considered to be a reason to delete an article in Vfd! Why nobody proposes to move original research articles to wikinfo, and everybody here proposes for every original research article to be deleted? This is another proof that the deletionist gang band has overcome wikipedia. If the owner of wikipedia is not a cabal member, he must uproot deletionist cancer gang band from wikipedia's heart, and he must do it as soon as possible. And dont mention to me undelete policy bullshits. How a newcomer can vote for an article to be undeleted, if he cannot read it? Iasson 11:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • Probably because Wikinfo is not a Wikimedia project. Thryduulf 11:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                  • Aha!..ok then...as I can see wikinfo and secondary_source are sister projects of wikipedia and they welcome original research articles. Thats good! So I propose as a policy, all proposed for deletion original research articles to be moved there insteed of deleted. Then if voted for undeletion, they should return back to wikipedia. And of course if somenoe asks wikipedia about a deleted original research article, wikipedia should point to its sister projects with a warning that this was an ostracized article. If you want to convince me that you are not a deletionist gang band that want to overcome wikipedia and turn a supposed edited by anyone encyclopedia to an encyclopedia that supports your deletionist gang band POV, you HAVE to support as a policy what I am proposing you. If you dont, this proves that you are a deletionist gang band, and every rational human person can understand this. I am not supporting the average rule article right now, I am supporting all the past articles you have already deleted, and the future you are going to. Iasson 11:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                    • You appear to have misunderstood what I meant in my previous comment. Wikinfo is not a sister project to wikipedia. Thryduulf 12:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                      • And what about secondary_source? I consider your answer as an acceptance that you are a deletionist gang band that wants to turn wikipedia to an encyclopedia that , although supposed to be edited by anyone and support NPOV, contains articles that are compatible only with the POV of your deletionist gang band. Nice try, troll guys, but you are not going to win against all rational human persons. Iasson 12:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • Comment: I've suggested to several authors that they check out Wikinfo, and strongly suggest it to you too. You can even write signed articles there, but you don't need to sign articles. I've transwikied one article there myself and intend to do more, but it's far better if the author does it, and the copying is automated and very easy provided you do it before they are deleted here. So I hope to see you and your theories there. But be aware that most of the policies of Wikinfo are based on Wikipedia, and your behaviour here would not go down well there either. No change of vote. Andrewa 12:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                  • And I am saying to you that, for now on, I am going to cast peculiar votes in all proposed for deletion articles. It is finnaly clear to me that your Vfd policy is against NPOV, and as long as I am a strong advocate of NPOV I want to destroy anything that is against it. Be prepared, my peculiar votes are going to flood your POV Vfd policy and procedure, until an administrator bans me. Iasson 12:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • PS You participated in the VfD of the article I transwikied to Wikinfo, it was South African Art Music by David Hönigsberg. It's attracted no objections there yet. Andrewa 13:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • see also Wikipedia#No original_research. Thryduulf 09:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Iasson, you know too much. Better watch your back, or you'll be the next one to get deleted. --Slowking Man 23:21, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
            • Not helping, Slowking. Really. This ain't MTC. humblefool® 04:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I have found 11 persons that have contribute to the article in this 6 months period. Here they are: Stevietheman, 193.92.*.* (seems dialup of the same person), Mike Storm, 213.16.*.*(seems dialup of the same person), 217.81.54.218, Brian Sayrs, 69.194.194.27, Curps, Jmartinezot, Michael Hardy. The fact that nobody of them have ever asked the article to be deleted, means that those 10 persons at least have cast a keep or abstain vote. Not to mention also the other people in this 6 month period who read the article and did not propose it for deletion. All those people obviously are a keep or abstain vote for the article. I am asking an admin to tell me how many people read the article in this 6 months period, and consider their votes as keep or abstain votes. Iasson 09:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: No. This process will be conducted according to our rules, not yours. You seem to have great trouble interpretting these rules, although you have obviously read them. But we don't. No change of vote. Andrewa 10:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • What you mean your rules? You mean the rules that your deletionist gang band have created and imposed to all the others? Where is the poll that shows that current deletion policy is voted by all active wikipedia voters, and also all active wikipedia voters still keep their vote alive in your current deletion policy? You cannot point to that poll, simply because deletion policy has been created by 10-20 people and an administrator cabal, in order to destroy the work of the others, any work that is against gang band's belief or against its plans. This is clear to me, and I am not going to bother with your gang band anymore. Iasson 10:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • It most certainly does not. Just because I came across an article on a subject about which I know little and assumed good faith on behalf of its creator, does not mean that I endorse it. My vote to delete this original research remains. Dunc|☺ 13:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok Duncharris, I removed your name from the keep or abstain list of voters. Iasson 13:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Thankyou, but I'm sure I speak for the rest too. They're certainly not keep votes (not that it'd make any difference), but they might indeed be construed as abstentions if the user has not voted here here. Most of the community haven't voted, so they've so far abstained too. Dunc|☺ 17:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. Iasson is right, it should have been deleted some time ago, and this might have saved a lot of trouble. Better late than never. See why Wikipedia is not so great. Andrewa 08:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. The fact that it hasn't been deleted before simply indicates that Wikipedia isn't perfect, it is not evidence that the subject is worth keeping. -- Solipsist 09:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I can't say anything better than has been said above. Thryduulf 09:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, speedy as vandalism? Dunc|☺ 10:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, another of those seemingly unending Iasson discussions concerning representation and voting procedures? Lectonar 12:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment I was personally intending to nominate Average rule for deletion myself—only after I had gotten replies to a query I sent to some of the other editors of the article, precisely because I was interested in the fact that so many people had looked at it over a period of six months without themselves nominating it. I asked:

I'm thinking of nominating Average rule for deletion on the grounds that it is a neologism and original research. This article has existed since August 2004 without anyone questioning it or proposing it for deletion. Do you think it's legitimate? Do you know of any reasons I shouldn't nominate it for deletion?"
So far I've gotten two three replies.
Michael Hardy replied: "I don't know much about politicial philosophy, but my gut reaction is to suspect you're right." Stevietheman replied "Well, I didn't know whether or not it was legitimate, but I did some work at some point to clean it up. I think the original author of this article also created other works and contributions to articles I've been unsure of (like to Majoritarianism). I don't see why you shouldn't submit Average rule for deletion."
Jmartinezot says "I edited that article just to remove a blank before a comma, so I will agree with the final decision about deletion or not."
Generally, the other editors were wikifying, correcting text, editing for clarity. I don't think any of them were making content judgements. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My edits were only to clean up the article, and do in no way whatsoever endorse the content as encyclopedic. But I think because of my edits, I need to abstain from this vote. --Stevietheman 14:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, original research, no citations presented. The strongest argument is made in the article itself: "Average rule has never been tried as a political regime in human history, but also not even a single community has ever tried to implement it." The kindest interpretation I can make of Iasson's conduct is that he has constructed some novel and complex systems for group decision-making, which may or may not have real theoretical merit as a way of extracting a judgement from a group of people, but which are too utterly impractical to merit serious consideration... and that he was hoping that he could convince Wikipedia to adopt these methods. This material could go on Iasson's user page—assuming, as I do, that he is the author—but it is not suitable for the main encyclopedia namespace. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not the author of that article, but I am willing to offer hospitality to it in my personal page, as long as it is a very good argument in my RFC against the tyranny of the deletionist gang band majority that want me to stop casting my peculiar votes. Iasson 14:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I am not the author of that article. Riiiiiight. It's just an amazing coincidence that the IP number of its creator is an IP number you've used.
      • as long as it is a very good argument in my RFC. It's clearly an appeal to authority you made up out of whole cloth, so it's not only NOT a very good argument, it demonstrates the bankruptcy of your defense, such as it is. --Calton 15:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • It's a somewhat interesting proposal, but so impractical that I cannot imagine its ever being adopted for human group deliberations, even if it could be shown that it was better at identifing the will or the judgement of a group of people than traditional voting methods. Iasson if you are interested in promoting the use of this rule, or have a general interest in voting methods, then you should consider copying this material to your user page, as it is a place within Wikipedia where you could keep it and people could read it if they were interested. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, or more probably something connected with Iasson's views on Wikipedia voting procedures -- which doesn't belong in the main article space. --BM 17:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, block Iasson for 24 hours for disrupting VfD. --Carnildo 18:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. If User:Iasson's quote above (I have created 11 voting theories in Wikipedia. Go find them and delete them all!) is true and not just emotional rhetoric, he/she should be sanctioned for repeatedly disrupting Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 22:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Enough. It's time for Iasson to be banned for disrupting Wikipedia. RickK 00:09, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Note his statement above, "And I am saying to you that, for now on, I am going to cast peculiar votes in all proposed for deletion articles.... Be prepared, my peculiar votes are going to flood your POV Vfd policy and procedure, until an administrator bans me. Iasson 12:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)" would seem to be an invitation... Dpbsmith (talk) 01:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. --Carnildo 01:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, in order to further the sinister machinations of the cabal. --Zarquon 02:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, because There Is No Cabal, and they want the original research gone. --TenOfAllTrades 03:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with you. There is no cabal. I was just wondering about this[[4]]:
Oct 2002 0 bans
Nov 2002 0 bans
Dec 2002 0 bans
Jan 2003 0 bans
Feb 2003 0 bans
Mar 2003 0 bans
Apr 2003 0 bans
May 2003 0 bans
Jun 2003 1 bans
Jul 2003 0 bans
Aug 2003 0 bans
Sep 2003 1 bans
Oct 2003 0 bans
Nov 2003 0 bans
Dec 2003 0 bans
Jan 2003 0 bans
Feb 2004 7 bans
Mar 2004 12 bans
Apr 2004 18 bans (RickK’s arrival and his first ban as administrator)
May 2004 17 bans
Jun 2004 94 bans
Jul 2004 62 bans
Aug 2004 64 bans
Sep 2004 59 bans
Oct 2004 51 bans
Nov 2004 116 bans
Dec 2004 80 bans
Jan 2005 330 bans and still counting!
Iasson 13:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And how is that relevant to this VfD, exactly? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss it. If you want discussion about it, read my rant [[5]] and lets discuss there. Iasson 13:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In other words, you acknowledge that this is wholly irrelevant to this VfD. So why did you post it? It doesn't even make sense anyway: you (quite literally) asked to be banned (the comment "Be prepared, my peculiar votes are going to flood your POV Vfd policy and procedure, until an administrator bans me" from this very VfD) and now you're upset because someone complied. Boo hoo. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Xtra 03:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original "research", or more likely an original attempt at disruption. —Stormie 09:07, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Original research. "Average rule has never been tried as a political regime in human history, but also not even a single community has ever tried to implement it, as long as its implementation is complicated and requires a high level of mathematics." Also, Wikipedia is not a theatre of war, an experiment in anarchy or an experiment in democracy. JRM 13:47, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
  • Delete. I do, how ever, find it really funny how impractical this method would be to actually use. It's junk stat science from an increasingly likely troll. humblefool 00:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete,Delete,Delete This was amusing at first; now just very tiresome.Sc147 02:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research, and delete wikisaboteur for good measure. —Korath (Talk) 06:56, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 22:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and delete - David Gerard 22:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. --Slowking Man 23:21, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just Another Day

edit

Non-notable, unverifiable, and/or prank. From contrib that brought us Tiff Risco, listed above. Nothing relevant for "Just Another Day" Risco. Niteowlneils 01:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless it can be verified. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 01:59, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Bart133 02:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "It opened in only 67 theaters in and around the Jacksonville, Florida area." That's awfully many theatres in an area of that size. And Tiff Risco is a patent hoax, so delete. Samaritan 08:10, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Golden Guin

edit

Non-notable, unverifiable, or prank. From contrib that brought us Tiff risco, listed above. 5 displayed hits, probably typos. Niteowlneils 01:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No google hits for '"Golden Guin" risco'. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 02:01, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bart133 02:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utter nonsense. Djbrianuk 0330 GMT 26th Jan 2005
  • Delete; part of the patent Tiff risco prankspace. Samaritan 08:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. IMDB has no mention of any of these people. —Daelin 02:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. This has been done. Joyous 12:09, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Excellence In Broadcasting

edit

It's simply not really notable how Rush Limbaugh calls his fictional network. Delete or redirect to Rush Limbaugh. --Conti|✉ 01:44, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Rush Limbaugh. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 02:02, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect; the information's already present in Rush Limbaugh. —Korath (Talk) 02:29, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Bart133 02:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. The information is already present in Rush Limbaugh; this "network" only exists for one show; and this article would pretty much have to either be a stub or have enough detail about EiB in it to be considered fancruft anyway. Also, the main article doesn't link to this page. --Idont Havaname 06:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) Sorry, I stand corrected -- the link is in "See also" listed as EIB. --Idont Havaname 06:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Well known, but exclusively in the context of Limbaugh. Samaritan 07:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. This is obviously an exclusive fact that should be redirected to Limbaugh. There is no purpose in having it sit here as a stub. CryptoStorm 8:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect for reasons already stated. - Lucky 6.9 00:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Neutralitytalk 07:02, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 12:11, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

UnderDawgZ

edit

Non-notable rap group. From contrib that brought us Lo' Down (a.k.a. Loco José), listed above. Zero hits for UnderDawgZ darkside. Niteowlneils 02:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 12:14, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Darkside

edit

Non-notable rapper. From contrib that brought us Lo' Down (a.k.a. Loco José) and UnderDawgZ, listed above. Zero hits for "Leroy Weeden" darkside. Niteowlneils 02:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 12:18, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Brett Allen

edit

Two Brett Allen's in IMDB, but neither appears to be this one. Not notable, or hoax. -- Curps 02:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Non-notable. Delete. Bart133 02:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN K1Bond007 20:15, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable and I concur with Curps. --Deathphoenix 22:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 12:19, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Jhilson ortiz

edit

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 02:55, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

  • This was speedied as nonsense, but whatever it is (vanity, I'd say) it's not by any means nonsense. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Its nonsensicalness and notability are the same: zero. Delete. Dbiv 19:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless author can establish value. —Daelin 02:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Twisted satire

edit

Non-notable recently-created website. -- Curps 03:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Ad-ish. Inter 15:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 22:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, non-notable. —Daelin 02:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was 3 Redirect / 2 Merge and redirect / 2 Delete. Redirect to Modern world. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Modern history

edit

We already have thoughtful and informative articles on "modern" history. What we have here is a middle-school essay with an embarrassment of glittering generalities. There is no value in "merging" it with any existing article. Mackensen (talk) 03:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Maybe redirect to Modern world, as suggested by a template in the article? I agree that it adds little to Modern world that need be merged, but it's a reasonable redirect. Cdc 05:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Modern world, but I don't know if there's much of value to merge. Rhymeswithgod 06:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Modern world. Nothing here worth merging. --Carnildo 21:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, no merge, as the article stands now. It could be an independent article, though; there's a Journal of Modern History, there are degree programs and university departments in "Modern History", etc.; this title could hold a better-than-Wiktionary elaboration of such usage. Samaritan 21:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the current content. Nothing salvageable there. But as Samaritan suggests, a completely different article with the same title would be eminently possible. I suggest it also discuss different views of when 'medieval' history finishes and 'modern' history begins (not that any hard and fast answer is possible, of course). May do this myself if I get a chance. Mattley 17:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It should be pointed out that the page was vandalized after I posted the merge message and before it was put up for Deletion. I have reverted the vandalism, but restored the VFD message.*Kat* 02:09, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable/verifiable to Modern world, and add redirect. Megan1967 02:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ditto what Mattley said. —Daelin 02:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete maybe merge some of the content into industrailazation

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. This has been done by Deathphoenix Joyous 12:22, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Evil monkey

edit

A running gag in several episodes of Family Guy, but not all that important and certainly not worthy of its own article. Therefore, a merge to List of characters from Family Guy seems to be the most appropriate course. Indrian 03:44, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with the Family Guy article. Doesn't need its own (and needs a capitalization fix too). 23skidoo 06:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the information, such as it is, somewhere. Samaritan 07:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify your position for the admins who come in at the end, does this mean you would support a merge to List of characters from Family Guy as proposed by others?
      • Yes. :) Sorry for my ambiguity. Samaritan 21:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this. GRider\talk 18:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of characters from Family Guy. -R. fiend 19:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to List of characters from Family Guy. As was previously stated, definitely needs to have "Monkey" capitalized, as well. – Beginning 20:47, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge K1Bond007 21:50, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just merged the information with List of characters from Family Guy (someone even put a picture of Evil Monkey!). Depending on the given name of this character (ie, is he an evil monkey, or is his name actually Evil Monkey?), the final sentence might have to be changed to "The evil monkey turned evil... " vs. "Evil Monkey turned evil..." --Deathphoenix 23:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and redirect now that I've merged it. --Deathphoenix 23:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs expansion. Megan1967 02:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect' minor character. —Korath (Talk) 07:00, Jan 29, 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 2 deletes, 1 redirect. No clear consensus. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bio-Lizard

edit

This is minor, non-notable videogame trivia. Cdc 05:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Cygnys X-9 Space Heresiarchs are rumored to be more notable than Bio-Lizards. jni 07:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no mention of Ultimate Life in Sonic Adventure 2, and I'm betting "the prototype of the Ultimate Life" (as Bio-Lizard is so described) is even less notable than the Ultimate Life. --Deathphoenix 23:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Shadow the Hedgehog. There is a mention there. Megan1967 02:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 12:24, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Castrum doloris

edit

This is a non-notable group; Google gets several hundred hits for "castrum doloris", but a small minority appear to refer to this. Cdc 05:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. The article doesn't exactly instill me with the idea that this group were anything more than on the periphary of a local scene. Average Earthman 12:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 22:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity. "They chose this name (Latin for "camp of suffering"), because we would have liked to express our approach to life" indicates the vanity part of this article. --Deathphoenix 23:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion, and no evidence of notability is given. Tuf-Kat 05:31, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE, but can't be done due to block-compression. Mgm|(talk) 13:07, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Article X

edit

It appears that this was once used in a Wikipedia tutorial. However, now, it's linked only by a talk page and a "nothing links to this page" page (although now it's also linked from this VFD). It doesn't appear to be in use any more and could confuse users who come across it via Special:Randompage. I myself wasn't sure what it was for immediately. Anyway, obviously it's not in use and/or useful any more, and as such I propose its deletion. - Vague | Rant 06:12, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • If not used, delete; otherwise keep. --JuntungWu 09:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, that's what the sandbox is for. Mgm|(talk) 09:47, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't look to be used anymore. --Deathphoenix 23:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Cross out article X. GRider\talk 00:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete / Copyvio -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nova Project

edit

I nominate to delete these two sentences about a "small alternative high school" in Seattle. I have not seen anything that establishes it as notable.--Pharos 05:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. The second sentence is even written in first person plural. jni 06:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • A big-city public alternative high school "where students and teachers participate equally in the decision-making process" is pretty notable. (I went to one, which made the lead story in a large daily tabloid. "Stripper High: Sex, drugs and rock and roll at bizarre alternative school.") Keep/cleanup/expand. Samaritan 08:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, excrutiatingly obvious vanity. —Korath (Talk) 10:57, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, written clearly as vanity. If a good article had been written about this school, I may have been persuaded to merge or even keep it, but this isn't a unique thing (I recall there has been a similar school established for several decades in the UK that has produced at least one moderately famous alumni). They also give no idea of size - if it is twelve students and two teachers, it's not exactly notable. Average Earthman 12:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please try again. GRider\talk 18:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yet another school to keep, cleanup and expand.--Centauri 21:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence yet presented that this is a notable school. (Being a school is not an automatic qualification for an encyclopedia.) In addition, current article is a copyvio (and has now been marked as such). Rossami (talk) 22:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 04:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --BM 23:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I see the current article is copyvio'd so the is moot, but I know the school and suspect that a proper article on it could show notability. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:55, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • I feel a little guilty for nominating this article while my own high school alma mater has an undisputed article on Wikipedia, and only did so because it seemed like the sort of thing that most Wikipedians reject, considering its apparent non-notability. If you or someone else were to write a new article demonstraing notability and without obvious promotional and copyright problems, I would gladly support it.--Pharos 05:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No current evidence of notability. Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was 3 Delete / 1 Copyvio -> Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bound in relationship

edit

Original research, not an encyclopedia article. RickK 06:36, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete the current nonsense essay from page history, then redirect to master/slave relationship or to sexual bondage. jni 07:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete—nothing but personal essay/proselytizing. Postdlf 07:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is born into a covenantal relationship with its editors. Of course this relationship is supposed to grow and mature over time, but whether it does or not, the fact of the relationship is established at the beginning. When growth and maturity are missing, the reason can always be attributed to inappropriate article creation. Or something. Delete; the creator is welcome to post it to actual message boards, a personal website, etc. Samaritan 08:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio. I've submitted it to Wikipedia:copyright problems. Uncle G 14:59, 2005 Jan 26 (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 -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Atomgevitter

edit

Seems like band vanity. On Google, the band itself gets 35 results, while a search for one of it's members, "Kaiser Panzerfaust", gives no results at all. Voting to delete. - Vague | Rant 06:40, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. jni 07:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Not notable. Inter 15:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 22:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, non-notable band. --Deathphoenix 23:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion, and no evidence of notability is given. Tuf-Kat 05:31, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Balanced Party

edit

Re-submitting this under Jan 26 because it appears this entry was never listed on the main VfD page. No vote. jni 06:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apparently a one-man political party; the creator of this page put a template:protected on it pre-emptorilly at its creation. I wish you better success, Orion, but for now must vote for deletion.--Pharos 18:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete No Party Political Broadcasts on Wikipedia please. --Woohookitty 19:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The votes were 5 delete (RickK, Megan1967, Rossami, Deathphoenix, and BM) and 3 keep (Curps, Samaritan, Philip). It's been just a redirect for most of this vote. dbenbenn | talk 19:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

HIH the Crown Prince Yi Seok

edit

Bad title, original research, POV, wishful thinking. Copyvio? RickK 07:11, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Move to Yi Seok and create NPOV stub. Not a hoax [6], he is an at-least-minimally notable pretender to the no longer existent throne of Korea. -- Curps 07:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sirs,

Korea is currently partitioned into two nations: both republics.

HIH the Crown Prince Yi Seok is indeed heir to the throne, and there is extensive documentation to that IN KOREAN. However he is obviously an ordinary citizen, with no more or less rights than any other citizen of the Republic of Korea, although a most interesting past and a desire to uphold traditions, and maintain an interest in Korean history: much as any person of age would want to do in a country which has had supreme difficulties in the 20th century.

regards, d.

  • Articles in Wikipedia should follow a neutral point of view. You should create an article at Yi Seok (it is disputed that he currently has the status of "prince"), and try to provide a balanced picture. If it is too pro-royalist, then it will probably be edited by others. Is there an article at the Korean Wikipedia about him? -- Curps 07:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move/cleanup; agreeing with Curps. Samaritan 08:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. It has already been redirected to Yi Seok. --Deathphoenix 23:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

At this point, the original anon IP author has simply copied much the same POV content into Yi Seok.

What do we do now? Perhaps one of the following:

  1. Speedy HIH the Crown Prince Yi Seok
  2. Redirect HIH the Crown Prince Yi Seok → Yi Seok
  3. Stick a {{Vfd}} on Yi Seok

I'd suggest (2) above. I'd argue that Yi Seok passes the minimal threshold of notability, and it's now just a POV issue on that page, as the author seems to be heavily pro-royalist. -- Curps 08:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. Uncle G 18:49, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Extremely POV and combative, now he's making legal threats...

-- Curps 09:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete, sorry just below POV notability for me. Appears the author is using Wikipedia to promote his own political agenda. Megan1967 22:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. In principle, I would think this person is marginally notable -- but then I find people with "noble" lineages living in the lost grandeur of their families to be rather fascinating, if somewhat pathetic. If you read the WSJ and Washington Times articles about this man, his career as lounge singer, Beverly Hills pool-man, California liquor store owner, and now pretender to the Korean throne is interesting, to say the least. However, I find that such articles are very hard to keep NPOV, since the forces driving them towards being POV poppycock are often stronger and more single-minded than the forces trying to keep them neutral and accurate. My effort to clean this up and remove the POV nonsense has already been reverted once by the anon original author. --BM 23:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The policy of removing royal titles is at least as POV as moving them in my opinion. The people who insist on it tend to be hard line republicans. Philip 11:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • That is a false characterisation based upon a false assertion. "HIH" is not a title. It is a style. Wikipedia has a clear policy on royal styles & titles, and it is not one of "removing royal titles" as you assert it to be. It is one of removing the styles and retaining the titles. As such, the Wikipedia article name would be Yi Seok, Crown Prince of Korea. However, Yi Seok does not actually have the title "Crown Prince", given that neither North Korea nor South Korea are actually monarchies any more. We don't attach titles to people that they do not actually have, their own affectations to the contrary notwithstanding. Paddy Roy Bates does not get to be "Prince of Sealand" just by calling himself that, and Yi Seok does not get to be "Crown Prince of Korea" just by calling himself that. Uncle G 15:39, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
  • Comment: Good point about the royal titles. I think a good example would be Charles, Prince of Wales. All the complicated "His Royal Highness" type of titles would be included in the first paragraph of the article, while a relatively simple title (the most common form?) is used as the article title. Maybe something similar for this article, such as Yi Seok, Crown Prince would be better? --Deathphoenix 14:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is that since 1947, when all of these titles were legally abolished, there is no legal forum in which disputes about them can be resolved. The only court in which the claims can be argued is the court of public opinion. Yi Seok claims to be the "Crown Prince", but that claim is not accepted even within the dynastic family. In Korean royalty, titles passed down to the male heirs, but the seniority of a son's mother amongst the wife and concubines of the King determined succession order. Yi Seok's grandmother was low in this ranking order, and even though his father was older, an uncle became the "Crown Prince/Head of the Royal House", and now his son claims that title. Yi Seok's claims are based on the fact that his cousin was born in Japan with a Japanese princess as his mother, and many Koreans are not prepared to consider someone with a Japanese passport, who lives in Tokyo, to be head of the royal house. Wikipedia should not go into the business of validating claims of nobility. We have at least one other case that I know of where Wikipedia articles have been written by claimants to noble titles as a way of winning in the court of public opinion. I don't think we should cooperate with this. --BM 20:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Based on the evidence presented so far, I am inclined to vote weak delete. I am conflicted, however. He is probably more notable than many of the subjects of articles nominated to this page. The current article is reasonably neutral. The article is about the right size so I would not call it a stub. The redirect to the neutral article title was definitely the right choice. The reason I still vote for a weak delete is that I've come to believe that we should raise the bar for the inclusion of biographies of living persons. The difficulties in maintaining this page and preserving it from bias outweigh the small value that I see in the article. Rossami (talk) 21:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Yi Seok. I concur with BM. Thanks for the extra background information that helped me with this decision. --Deathphoenix 18:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. In the end, I vote to delete the redirects and the Yi Seok article, even though I have been trying to clean up the latter. I think the case for notability is borderline but, as I mentioned above, the article is probably going to end up being an edit see-saw as Yi Seok partisans try to turn it into a puffy press release. This is happening even with the VfD spotlight still on the article. He isn't notable enough for it to be worth the hassle of keeping the article neutral and encyclopedic (or, for that matter, written in grammatical English.) --BM 14:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Being an edit-war magnet is not grounds for deletion for any article. In any case, the edit war here is far, far milder than at many other pages. This guy does more than meet the minimum threshold of notability and an NPOV article on him is suitable for inclusion. At this point, it seems that people are voting on a redirect-for-deletion for the original article title; a Vfd for Yi Seok itself would probably need a fresh vote (too much confusion and renaming since the original vote was called). -- Curps 23:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Redirect to hypermarket. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hypermarche

edit

Hypermarché is a French term. Was this ever used in English in the US as claimed in this article? -- Curps 07:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I've heard it used in discussion of the retail sector at least. But this article isn't useful. As it stands, redirect to supermarket. Samaritan 08:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to supermarket Nothing to merge. --LeeHunter 13:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • No. Redirect to hypermarket, where hypermarché is already mentioned. Uncle G 13:50, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
    • Redirect to hypermarket as above. If anything is merged, it should be NPOVed, the part about "much better product" is way above the POV bar for me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:24, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 23:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 10 keep, 22 merge, 11 delete.

Ashlee Simpson on SNL

edit

Is this really notable enough for its own article? I think the information could be merged into a couple of relevant articles and this one deleted. Worldtraveller 08:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep but change the title and spell out Saturday Night Live on the title. My vote is because Wikipedia has a lot of trivia on Saturday Night Live already, rather than a vote in support of anything regarding the highly explosive and controversial topic of Ashlee Simpson. --JuntungWu 09:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 09:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, renamed per JuntungWu, but merge information about the incident from Ashlee Simpson, probably ultimately displacing the "Saturday Night Live incident" section to a short paragraph with wikilink. Samaritan 09:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Reluctant keep. If I ask people who Ashlee Simpson is, a reference to her SNL performance is the most common response. Change to merge with Ashlee Simpson. A girl can change her mind. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • You ask people who Ashlee Simpson is? Everyking 11:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Absolutely! I like to gauge how well known people are whom I've heard of on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Does anybody ever not recognize the name? Everyking 12:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Hardly anybody I ask in person, here in London, ever knows who she is. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Don't think I'll be voting on this, but I had no idea who Ashlee Simpson was until I got involved with Autobiography's article. Even the name of the artiste who had that scandalous lipsynch on some TV show didn't register. Johnleemk | Talk 13:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • To answer this: Yes; I heard about her for the first time in the english wikipedia, and this only because there is this large, intermittent discussion going on. Mind, I'm from Germany, so this does not prove your point; I'm not voting here about this, but for my part I fail to see her noticeability Lectonar 13:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • My interest was in whether people might still be unaware of her in whatever English speaking country Tony (presumably) lives in. I would expect recognition to be lower in Malaysia or Germany. Everyking 14:10, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • Perhaps we could interest you in Jeanette Biedermann :-) Lectonar 14:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
              • I had never heard of Ashlee Simpson other than as a result of Wikipedia articles and controversy surrounding them, and that is the honest truth. She is not so famous as to have made an impression on people who don't follow contemporary popular music, unlike, say, Britney Spears who is to popular music as Einstein is to theoretical physics: the one name that people who know nothing about the topic, know. Oh, I live in the United States. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • Well, I wasn't saying she's as famous as Britney. I was just curious. Thanks for your feedback. Hey, maybe it's good promotion for her, huh? Have you rushed out to buy the album yet? Everyking 14:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                  • Tell you what. Darned if I'll buy a whole album. If you will name the one single Ashlee Simpson song that it is most important for me to hear, I'll buy it from iTunes Music Store. And listen to it. I won't spend $15 and an hour of my time, but I'm willing to spend $0.99 and three minutes. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                    • Ha, OK then, if you want to, listen to "Pieces of Me", that's her best known song. Everyking 14:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I originally thought I heard of her first on WP, but then I remembered she had a relatively small article in Maxim or FHM or one of those before she was particularly famous. Unfortunately, the article mostly went into what a novelty it was that she was so different from her sister, and I don't think I (or anyone else) really got much from it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Ashlee Simpson, dont see how it deserves it's own article. --Boothy443 12:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, Although it should probably be merged with the Ashlee Simpson article. Inter 13:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Although Ashlee seems to get a rather bizarre amount of attention on WP in contrast with other artists of similar notability, I'd say that this is one incident that should be kept, since it was so focused-on by the media for most of late last year. I do think it needs expansion though... there's no mention of the whole "blaming the band" fiasco, for example. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Please, don't encourage him :-)) Lectonar 14:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Man, I wish we could go back to the days when people were encouraged to expand articles. Everyking 16:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Man, I wish we could go back to the days when some people knew the difference between expand and bloat with obsessive, eye-glazing, and utter meaningless detail. (oops, forgot to sign: -Calton 05:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC))
  • Merge with Ashlee Simpson. Agree with Boothy443, it doesn't need its own article; it doesn't matter if it was originally on SNL. — Asbestos | Talk 15:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with both parent articles and delete. Concur with Lectonar. Barno 15:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Ashlee Simpson. It's really a very minor incident that was blown out of proportion and will soon be forgotten. Yeah, it's still worth a brief mention, but not its own article. Pop stars lip-synching is hardly a phenomenon. -R. fiend 16:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Ashlee Simpson as a subchapter. I don't see any reason why this should be a separate article, and odds are the information here will be duplicated in the Simpson article sooner or later, anyway. 23skidoo 16:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • There is simply no reason not to have quality information about this topic. It does not suit my personal POV to have this article, but nevertheless I support its existence for inclusionist reasons. It makes no sense that we have detailed articles on every Pokemon and Digimon character, associated video game and TV show, but we can't have detailed Ashlee articles. What's the problem here? Nominate an article on a Pokemon character and the people who work on those articles will furiously campaign for it to be kept—and I would too, of course. But nominate an Ashlee article, and who's going to campaign? It's really just me who works on them. Now, surely we should vote based on general principles, not based on whether a topic is popular or not among present-day Wikipedians. There is a problem when information is being removed from Wikipedia for such a reason. A very big problem, I'd say. Articles far less notable than this would be kept by nearly unanimous votes. So why can't we be consistent? Everyking 17:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • You may not have noticed but both 23skidoo and myself voted merge, not delete. Yes, this incident is slightly noteworthy, but it's really just a footnote in the story of Ashlee Simpson. You're right, it makes no sense that we have detailed articles on every Pokemon, but I'm not about to take it upon myself to merge every single one into a larger Pokemon article or two, though I would fully support such an action. My opposition to this as a separate artcile is not because Ashlee Simpson isn't currently popular enough, it's more because she's too popular right now, and very minor incidents like this are blown out of proportion and made into full scandals. I think it should be covered more as what it is, not "Acid-refluxgate" but as a small technical problem that occurred on a TV show. This will soon be forgotten, but Wikipedia will keep a record of it for posterity, where it belongs: in the Ashlee Simpson article. -R. fiend 18:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • And that record will have to be greatly abbreviated, since an article cannot continue growing forever and ever. That's why articles like this are needed: to provide the space to permit continued expansion. Everyking 18:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Why can't it? The paper Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, has no problems devoting the equivalent of one megabyte to a single article. "Wikipedia is not paper" is supposed to mean more, not less. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • Articles aren't supposed to get beyond 32KB. The eventual options are to either summarize severely at the expense of the info, or split. I prefer the latter. Everyking 20:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As I recall, this episode is already covered in one of the many Ashlee Simpson articles -- I forget which. For once, I agree with Everyking. Lets be consistent and delete most of the Pokemon, Digimon, and Ashlee Simpson articles. --BM 18:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a stand alone article and do not merge. GRider\talk 18:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Saturday Night Live. The "Pokemon and Digimon characters get an article each" argument won't wash until Ashlee Simpson, whoever that is, becomes more than one character and the analogy actually holds water. Uncle G 18:42, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
    • Hmm. So that means I can write an article about each individual song off her album, then? Everyking 18:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Also, on a simple Google test, "Pokemon" gets roughly 10 times the results that "Ashlee Simpson" does (and indeed it would get even more if we included Japanese-language results). Therefore they're not even in the same stratosphere as far as fame and notability go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:55, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • That analogy doesn't hold water, either. Uncle G 18:46, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
  • Keep as a stand alone article and do not merge. As the original author of this article let me have a few seconds to explain why I did this. The History_of_SNL:2000-2010 article was being co-opted by the Ashlee Simpson incident until it had started to take over. Compare the first mention of this incident (which I wrote):
In October 2004, at the start of pop singer Ashlee Simpsons's second musical performance, an error involving pre-recorded backing tracks caused the singer to walk off the stage. The network attempted to hide the flub by remixing the show's sound for the West coast audience making the pre-recorded track inaudible, which only confused West Coast viewers by making it appear as if Simpson walked off stage for no reason.

This simple paragraph was then re-edited by Everyking to prevent Simpson from "looking bad", then edited by other users to add even more details to compromise until we finally got to this:

The foibles of live television were exposed in October 2004 when at the start of singer Ashlee Simpson's second musical performance of the show, a pre-recorded backing track for the wrong song was accidentally played. Simpson's father (her manager) had decided to use a vocal guide track because her voice had been weak in rehearsal. During the performance the vocal track was shut off but the musical track continued and Simpson walked off the stage. She subsequently apologized for the error during the show's closing—the incident served to highlight the always precarious nature of live television, as noted by the night's host, Jude Law. It appeared viewers that Simpson had been lip synching and the incident received wide-spread coverage in the news. The following week the incident was the subject of several skits.
Coincidentally, a team of reporters from the CBS news program 60 Minutes led by Lesley Stahl had been taping and interviewing during the production cycle, and recorded both the rehearsals and the immediate reactions by Lorne Michaels and others. Michaels said immediately afterwords that he had never been asked about using a vocal track, and would not have allowed it. However, since then the production practices of SNL have been scrutinized by reporters and Michaels has admitted that backing tracks are sometimes used. The 60 Minutes report also revealed the intense writing frenzy that goes on during the week leading up to a show, the involvement of the guest hosts in developing and choosing their skits, and the rule that all skit dialog is performed as-written, with no improvisation allowed on camera.

Albeit the last paragraph is mostly about 60 minutes it highlights the fact as to how this incident has grown into an edit war in the SNL article.

Despite Willmcw]'s claims, I am not trying to keep either Simpson or SNL from "looking bad", I couldn't care much less. Willmcw has subsequently added it back to the SNL article and tightened it up nicely, it looks much better now HOWEVER it will only be re-edited by Everyking at the earliest opportunity and we'll be back where we were.

Furthermore there is the question of whether the details of this incident belong in the SNL article or in the Ashlee Simpson article. I think a fair compromise that can cut out a lot of unnecessary detail in both articles is to keep this one and we wiki-link to this article from both. Jeff schiller 19:55, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

That isn't a reasonable "compromise". A lot of people don't want excruciatingly long Ashlee Simpson-related articles popping up like weeds all over the damn Wikipedia. I can see why Willmcw didn't want the article on SNL to be swallowed by Ashlee Simpson, but the compromise would have been to keep the description of the incident short and refer people to the Ashlee Simpson article for the boring (I mean, uh, fascinating) details. --BM 20:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Concur completely. Ambi 21:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This isn't "all over the damn Wikipedia" this is one article about an event in pop culture. Normally I wouldn't think it warrants its own article but the excessive amount of editing by OTHER wikipedians makes me think otherwise. Jeff schiller 22:13, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • Strong merge. Ambi 21:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Ashlee Simpson. Before I got involved in the mess on Wikipedia, the only thing I knew about Ashlee Simpson was a vague recollection of someone getting caught lip-synching on SNL. But that doesn't make the incident noteworthy enough for a complete article. As for the Pokemon, I'd nominate the entire Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokédex for VfD if I didn't think doing so would get me lynched. I might do so anyway. --Carnildo 21:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Ashlee Simpson, no redirect. This episode in her (short) history proved to be quite damaging to her credibility. Perhaps make it a subheading there. Megan1967 22:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Make minimal merges to both Saturday Night Live and Ashlee Simpson and delete. RickK 23:33, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is well-covered in Ashlee Simpson. silsor 23:46, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I can see that Jeff schiller thought cancer surgery was needed to save the SNL article, but it's at the risk of metastisizing around Wikipedia. Merge into Ashlee Simpson (or maybe Milli Vanilli), no redirect (who'd be looking for it?). and, for the record, I'd never heard of Ashlee Simpson until I stumbled over a VFD for one of the long series of Ashlee-mania articles that showed up there. --Calton 00:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Ashlee Simpson --nixie 03:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - This was a notable event. -- Old Right 11:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the text. Somewhere. My preference is: merge into Ashlee Simpson as a section, and add a link from the Saturday Night Live article to that section. 1) The information in these detailed and well-written paragraphs should be kept because it seems to be of high quality. It's not of much importance where. 2) I would have voted against a stub on this topic, but there is now enough information to make it acceptable as article. 3) Nobody is going to find it by typing in the title; it will be found by search or by following a link. Therefore if the content is merged, then the article should be deleted, as I don't think it's of any use as a redirect. 4) The event is of far more significance in relation to the career of Ashlee Simpson than to the history of Saturday Night Live. (My apologies to the sysop who has to decide how this vote should be counted. By Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping I guess, or maybe Quadratic rule. Just kidding. Really.) Dpbsmith (talk) 17:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Ashlee Simpson. Jayjg (TALK)]] 20:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • MERGE. Are you guys fucking kidding me? Yeago 23:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, where Ashlee Simpson is concerned, this is the sort of club it takes to do anything other than add to the articles. --Carnildo 23:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Ashlee Simpson, I suppose, with a blurb at Saturday Night Live. Tuf-Kat 00:13, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tuf-Kat, though what he suggests is pretty much where things are at now, so just deleting this does no harm. Jgm 03:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. This is, so far, the most notable thing that's happened to her, and really ought to be in her main article rather than getting shunted elsewhere. -Sean Curtin 03:18, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. (Jeff schiller has covered the main history of this matter in his comments). So long as the incident is properly covered in the relevent articles, Ashlee Simpson and History_of_SNL:2000-2010, there is absolutely no need for a separate article. There are too many Simpson and SNL articles already, IMHO -Willmcw 08:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete That "incident" is covered already, and this is not the SimpsonPedia, really. A completely un-noteworthy singer taking up so much of our time is ridiculous. -- AlexR 14:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Has Ashlee appeared as a guest character in The Simpsons yet?
  • Strong merge. —Korath (Talk) 07:04, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this cruft on one of the Simpsons. It's already covered in sufficient detail in the main article on her. -- Hoary 09:42, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 10:45, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Ashlee Simpson. Simpson's article doesn't look to be in danger of exceeding 32KB, anyway. - Vague | Rant 10:48, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Where will it be in another six months or a year? Everyking 11:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • We can cross that bridge when we come to it. I keep getting told that 32K is almost a dead issue anyway. Does anybody know a specific list of browsers that actually had that limit? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Netscape Navigator <= 4.76 and Opera <= 6.04, according to Wikipedia:Browser page size limits. —Korath (Talk) 15:01, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
        • 32K still makes a good soft limit on article size. Much larger than that, and articles tend to becomes hard to read in one sitting. --Carnildo 21:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Ashlee Simpson, and cut the Ashlee Simpson article way down. —tregoweth 18:59, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Death to comprehensive detail! Long live the stub! Everyking 19:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge conservatively with above mentioned articles and delete. Postdlf 00:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete for reasons already stated. --Idont Havaname 01:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't require separate article. silsor 01:47, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
    Comment, Silsor appears to have already voted above. Not counted. dbenbenn | talk 23:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stop the insanity. Gamaliel 03:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Insanity? It's information. What are we doing here? Everyking 04:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • We're building an encyclopedia, not an Ashlee scrapbook. Gamaliel 04:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • It isn't a scrapbook, it's an encyclopedia article. What distinguishes scrapbook information from encyclopedia information to you? Everyking 04:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • A scrapbook takes information from many sources and gloms it all together. An encyclopedia takes information from many sources and combines it into an overview of the subject. A scrapbook quotes primary sources. An encyclopedia summarizes them. --Carnildo 05:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • Wiki is not paper, you know. Everyking 05:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
              • What does that have to do with anything? --Carnildo 05:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • Everything, as far as I can tell. Everyking 06:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                  • Maybe you should re-read what I wrote on the difference between a scrapbook and an encyclopedia, then. I said nothing about size. --Carnildo 06:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                    • If you go around removing information from articles, what does that indicate? Everyking 06:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                      • That there's no point in discussing this, if you're not going to read what I've written. --Carnildo 06:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Ich bin Warm - Kronecker Delta 11:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • User's 13th edit. - Vague | Rant 12:35, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless Everyking leaves and goes away, the article's contents will be perpetually unreadable, unreliable, and laden with spin. Better to have a blank space than a cancer. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • How nice. I didn't even write the article, you know. Everyking 22:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the fact that she was caught out miming on SNL be mentioned in the lead intro paragraph in the Ashlee Simpson article? That is, after all, what she is best known for. -- Chuq 09:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • No, it's not that important. She's best known for being a multiplatinum selling artist with a hit reality show, anyway. Everyking 00:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • That's a matter of opinion. I wouldn't know her from the other Britney-clones if it wasn't for the SNL incident. Every second good looking female in California has a recording contract, but not many people have been so blantantly caught out miming on a high profile television show. -- Chuq 00:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Do they have triple platinum albums and hit TV shows, too? Everyking 00:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Re: platinum albums - I had a quick look around Wikipedia but couldn't find a list to verify - but probably. These girls get signed up, have the hell promoted out of them for a year, sell a million records then get dumped when the "next chick" comes along. Haven't seen or heard of her TV show in Australia (I don't think) so it can't be that great (we do get the popular American shows here). It was the SNL incident that put her in the headlines. http://lipsync.us was created due to her. The cynical of us might say it was an intentional publicity scam... -- Chuq 00:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
              • I think the show did air in Australia; instead of this arguing, you could go research that info. Everyking 01:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • A Google Groups search of aus.tv for "ashlee simpson" returns three threads - one laughing about the SNL incident, one laughing about how bad her music is, and one laughing about how commercial her music is. That proves my point exactly. -- Chuq 02:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                  • The incident is available online as a 7 megabyte .wmv download at [7].
                • Chuq said he hadn't seen or heard of the show. What's that got to do with whether it aired or not? Personally, I haven't seen or heard of it either, and I'd hazard a guess that it aired on cable television, to which subscriptions are a lot less common in Australia than the U.S. Most successful cable shows eventually make it to free-to-air (and thus, a wider audience) but The Ashlee Simpson Show hasn't done that yet. - Vague | Rant 04:02, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep'. Neutralitytalk 07:07, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Just edit the page a little instead of deleting it. After all the lip-syncing incident was heavily talked about. It even got a little more attention than the campaign for a few days back in October. That in itself means it deserves its own article. -- Crevaner 17:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic but I felt like looking it up. As of late January 2005, what is Ashlee Simpson best known for? To find out, I did a search on the New York Times for the exact phrase "Ashlee Simpson" and got about twenty hits (i.e. the New York Times has mentioned her name about twenty times in the years 2000 through the present." In reverse chronological order, and omitting some utterly irrelevant ones:

  1. An article about another topic says "'It's possible," Juror No. 8 insists.' Sure. And maybe Ashlee Simpson will develop some talent this week."
  2. One is an article about voice-training software that ends with the remark "Of course, being on key is not a prerequisite for fame. Just ask Ashlee Simpson."
  3. An end-of-2004 overview says "ASHLEE SIMPSON, just a tip:/Singing's more than moving lips,/And an artist understands/It's bad form to blame the band."
  4. A long piece begins "ASHLEE SIMPSON got caught with her microphone down on 'Saturday Night Live' in October, and five weeks later, on Dec. 5, 'Good Morning America,' which had been especially gleeful in its post-mortem of the debacle, presented Lindsay Lohan in a 'live singing debut'-- lip-syncing just like Ms. Simpson." The article goes on to argue that lip-syncing goes back to 1929, there's nothing wrong with it, it's not essentially different from a singer using a microphone in the first place.
  5. A December 26th piece, "TV's Best Live Moments" of 2004 (Janet Jackson, etc.) comments that "Before Ashlee Simpson blamed the band, and the norms of contemporary live performance, she tried to save her "Saturday Night Live" blunder with a humble-pie two-step and sort of did: the pure panic in that dance is something modern choreographers should study."
  6. An article, and an earlier event calendar, list "Destiny's Child, Gwen Stefani, Good Charlotte, Kelly Clarkson and Ashlee Simpson" as performers at a radio station WHTZ-FM (Z100) concert
  7. An article on tofu at a Japanese pub says "Yuba arguably has more character than plain tofu, which is like saying that Britney Spears lip-synchs less transparently than Ashlee Simpson."
  8. A movie is mentioned with the words "Her third album, 1973's "Hard to Stop," is reissued this week: it had no breakout hits, but give her a break -- it was released when she was 20 years old, the same age Ashlee Simpson is today"
  9. A letter to the editor says "I'm sure Ashlee Simpson is a talented young woman, but the real talent behind her success lies with the writers, musicians, engineers and producers who have crafted enjoyable pop tunes for her to dance to and occasionally sing along with. My only problem with this situation is that the Ashlees of the industry are sold to the public as artists."
  10. An article on "Rockism" opens "BAD news travels fast, and an embarrassing video travels even faster. By last Sunday morning, one of the Internet's most popular downloads was the hours-old 60-second .wmv file of Ashlee Simpson on 'Saturday Night Live.' As she and her band stood onstage, her own prerecorded vocals -- from the wrong song -- came blaring through the speakers, and it was too late to start mouthing the words. So she performed a now-infamous little jig, then skulked offstage, while the band (were a few members smirking?) played on."
  11. "Ailing Singer Needed Lip-Sync, Father Says"
  12. "Saturday Night Slip-Up"
  13. "A Girl Singing Group Aims for the Stars" "The girls recorded two songs for a special Christmas CD that will be released next month at Wal-Mart and FYE stores and on which they share billing with Raven and Ashlee Simpson."
  14. "Who Wants to Be a New Simpson?" "JOE SIMPSON is suffering from a peculiar strain of empty-nest syndrome. After years of struggle, Mr. Simpson, a formerly penniless Baptist minister who these days wears a chunky diamond stud in his left ear, has guided his two daughters, Jessica and Ashlee, to success as MTV reality-show stars and platinum-selling pop singers. But now, just as he's established himself as a pop-culture Midas, Mr. Simpson is fresh out of children...."
  15. A review of the HP version of the Apple iPod says "Hewlett-Packard has also created stickers called HP Printable Tattoos that can be affixed to the iPod to personalize and protect the player's surface....But never fear: if you suddenly tire of that Ashlee Simpson wraparound, it comes off."
  16. Arts briefing: "Dropping into second place, as it had when "Now" was issued at the start of August, was Ashlee Simpson's "Autobiography," which retook first place two weeks ago."
  17. Arts briefing: "For three weeks Ashlee Simpson's "Autobiography" (Geffen), below, and Volume 16 of the pop compilation series "Now That's What I Call Music!" (Universal/EMI/Sony Music/Zomba) have occupied the top two slots"
  18. Arts briefing: "POP CHARTS: ASHLEE ON TOP -- Sales of Ashlee Simpson's debut album "Autobiography" (Geffen) rose last week after the season finale of her reality television series, "The Ashlee Simpson Show" on MTV, pushing the album back to the No. 1 slot on Billboard's pop charts"
  19. Arts briefing: "Ashlee Simpson's run atop the Billboard 200 chart of best-selling albums ended after a week when her debut, "Autobiography," with sales of 270,000 copies, slipped to second place behind the 16th installment of the compilation series "Now That's What I Call Music!," left."
  20. "Dave Chapelle, Paris Hilton, Lenny Kravitz, Ludacris, LL Cool J, Jon Stewart, Ashlee Simpson and Sean Combs have joined the lineup of celebrities who are to appear when the MTV 2004 Video Music Awards are broadcast on Aug. 29 ..."
  21. LONG INTERVIEW: "Ashlee Simpson: Platinum Brunette." It opens "HOW quickly they grow up. Ashlee Simpson was an ingenue three weeks ago; now she's a superstar. A million copies of 'Autobiography,' her charming debut album, have been shipped since its release on July 20. Her reality series on MTV, "The Ashlee Simpson Show," has become a 3.4 million-viewer-a-week hit.... VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN -- You just shipped a million albums. How do you feel? ASHLEE SIMPSON -- Amazing. Oh my gosh. I'm freaking out. Everything is so exciting. Oh it's so cool. It's got the album cover on it and it says one million! I was like, this is insane. When I saw it, I started crying. Isn't that insane? Just to have an album in stores. It's the coolest."
  22. Arts briefing: "SISTER ACT -- Ashlee Simpson, the kid sister of Jessica Simpson, is standing tall atop the Billboard Top 200 chart today."
  23. Article on Simpson: "Raunchy or Sweet Reflections Of Adolescent Self-Esteem" "There is some actual talent as well as show-business ambition in the Simpson family. Ashlee Simpson, 19, is the younger sister of the famously ditsy pop singer Jessica Simpson, and she has her own television acting career (as a character in 'Seventh Heaven') as well as her own MTV reality show, 'The Ashlee Simpson Show,' which followed the making of her debut album, 'Autobiography' With songs by Ms. Simpson and some very experienced collaborators, the album is a thoroughly calculated package..."

Remember, these are in reverse chronological order. In my judgement, and by my count, as of late January 2005, Ashlee Simpson is about equally well known as a highly successful pop wunderkind with, it is acknowledged, "some actual talent as well as show-business ambition," and as the subject of the embarrassing incident on SNL. But notice that after the SNL incident, all references seem to treat her as a joke. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Man, that's a lot of research you did. Why don't you see what you can contribute to some of the articles? They've been made desperately emaciated of late and could use some more info added to them. Everyking 04:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Dpbsmith should put his findings on the Ashlee Simpson page in a paragraph on her declining reputation. 68.118.61.219 10:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I probably will, but I'm certainly not going to rush into it. So much of what would need to be said would involve reporting contemporary value judgements in an NPOV way. How much of the animus against her following the SNL incident was really related to lip-syncing, and how much was that this nineteen-year-old revealed herself to be "not a trooper," i.e. an inexperienced performer who was not able to handle a bad situation gracefully? Other questions that puzzle me: has she been pushed to sing too many public performances, with inadequate voice training, to the detriment of her vocal health? The whole story of the SNL incident at least raises this question. I haven't yet found any handy on-line video of her Orange Bowl performance, but if she sang far worse in public than in recordings, this suggests either lack of attention to her vocal health, or flattering studio enhancement of her recorded performances. The latter wouldn't bother me at all; nobody complains that Bing Crosby (or Whispering Jack Smith!) couldn't project like an opera singer and needed to use a mike. The former would be disturbing. Speaking of wunderkinds suddenly projected into the spotlight whose welfare I wonder about... how's Charlotte Church doing these days? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You must certainly NOT put your material into the existing A.S. articles. It is a well-established Wikipedia policy that each bit of information about A.S. goes into a separate article. Your material is sufficient for three or four articles, at least. --BM 18:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Look, an article gets long, you break out some content. It's perfectly reasonable. Everyking 18:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Or, you could say, "This article is already long enough for the subject. Lets find something to remove or condense so there is room for this new information". What a concept! You seem to think that A.S. is a great artist; since she is only 20 or so, she has many years of her career ahead of her. What are you planning -- that by the time she is 40, Wikipedia should have a few hundred articles on Ashlee Simpson? --BM 20:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ashlee Simpson does dinner theater, Ashlee Simpson on the state fair circuit, Ashlee Simpson on the International Space Station, Ashlee Simpson in Playboy, Ashlee Simpson saves Christmas... the possibilities are endless.... Gamaliel 20:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Logically, I think there should as many articles as necessary to contain the info. One should not remove notable information from Wikipedia. Everyking 21:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To fit me in your 32K bed of Procrustes, you would have to cut off Pieces of Me! Ashlee 21:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh, that seems like a bit of a stretch. Procrustes

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 -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wauter.tk

edit

Non-notable personal website. Possible vanity. From the article: "wauter.tk is an infamous yet modest internet website, which is dayly updated by its sole owner and content-provider Wauter" and "It draws none to minor attention on the web". 5 Google hits (mostly links posted by the author himself). --Plek 09:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity/spam. --Gene s
  • Delete, Vanity. Inter 15:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advertisement, vanity. Megan1967 22:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable ad. (User:Deathphoenix)
  • Delete -- Infrogmation 03:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tim Jones

edit

Vanity or not notable. More on the talk page of the article Talk:Tim_Jones --Gene s

  • "Timothy Edward Jones" seems to yield more relevant Google results. His main apparent claims to notability are winning Journalist of the Year from the University of Montevallo, and "European Confession", published by an author-subsidized print on demand house. With a release date of July 12 2004 and an Amazon sales rank of #2,019,874, the claim to be a "cult classic" is doubtful. (Both gushing Amazon.com reviewers have only reviewed this book.) Zero Usenet hits for the book. Delete. Samaritan 10:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Author subsidised print runs require clear demonstrations of influence, and in terms of fiction that is either in sales or critical reviews from established sources. Neither have been satisfactorily demonstrated here. (This doesn't go to say it's necessarily a bad book, of course, but Wikipedia isn't intended as a first source, so original reviews and promotion are not acceptable) Average Earthman 12:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, not yet notable enough, possible vanity. Megan1967 22:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • WHAT?! It's one of the world's great pieces of classic literature, and also that dude who sang about how it's not unusual to be loved by anyone, and you want it deleted?!? Oh, wait, I misread the title. Nevermind. Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:11, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. hahaha, I was thinking of (almost) the same thing too. --Deathphoenix 23:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (yawn) ;Bear 16:48, 2005 Jan 27 (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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First Sudanese Civil War

edit

As much as I understand the creator of the page... POV Lectonar 09:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • While there are several pages linking to this, and an article should at some point be written, this should be Deleted so that the red links return. — Asbestos | Talk 11:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and list on requested articles. The article at time of writing appears to be a short bit of blather, some form of rant about their school, and a piece of irrelevant personal vanity. Average Earthman 12:56, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Turn it into an factual article. It would be an excellent subject. Everyking 21:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic POV. Megan1967 22:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd almost mark it for speedy deletion as a newbie test. --Deathphoenix 23:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. After deletion, this article should be listed on requested articles. Though it would be an excellent subject, starting over would be better action than trying to modify an immature and biased article. NeevaN 03:45, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup Gazpacho 06:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This should be kept as a reminder that no one has bothered to write an article on the First Sudanese Civil War. CPS 07:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • No, the redlink and the listing on requests is the reminder we need. Average Earthman 13:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, so someone will create a proper article. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this, but we sure should have an article on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:58, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • I worry greatly about deleting this, crap though it is, because I fear it would set a precedent that could mean deletion of a legitimate article on the subject. I may write a stub on it later to see if that will change things. Everyking 03:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alex Hunter

edit

Non-notable genius and reincarnation of some god. Or a hoax. Delete. jni 10:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Patent nonsense. Average Earthman 13:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "Local cult status" --LeeHunter 13:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Inter 13:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Insult page aimed at some bloke named "Alex Hunter". Delete. Uncle G 13:56, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
    • No. Self-promotion. Delete. -- RHaworth 04:17, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity, possible hoax. Megan1967 22:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity of the deity kind. --Deathphoenix 23:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mgm|(talk) 14:15, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

San Van-wood

edit

Odd hoax. jni 10:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete hoax. Kappa 12:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I like odd things! Inter 13:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia can of course tell us who really was deputy president whilst Nelson Mandela was president. Delete. Uncle G 14:00, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic, hoax. Megan1967 22:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This has got to be a hoax. --Deathphoenix 23:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mgm|(talk) 14:16, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Phillipé Le Çonnlone

edit

A hoax. Zero Google hits. jni 10:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • delete hoax. Kappa 12:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, The oddness of it all. Inter 14:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete what looks to be genealogy. --Deathphoenix 23:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Rather interesting in an anti-French way. Ganymead 06:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, obvious hoax. And "Phillipé Le Çonnlone" is not a real name in French or any other language. -- Curps 11:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI. Has already been transwikified to wiktionary. Mgm|(talk) 18:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Outwith

edit

One line dictdef. (Transwiki) — Asbestos | Talk 10:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I cannot see how this could be expanded to be encyclopedic. jni 12:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dictdef. Move it to Wikitionary. Inter 14:03, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Deathphoenix 23:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Megan1967 02:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mgm|(talk) 14:18, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

The Audioholics

edit

According to the article the group was created January 2005. --LeeHunter 12:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. New groups can be notable from scratch, of course, provided that at least one of the members is previously notable. However, the current article gives no impression of anything other than that this is a very new band, and therefore no evidence of note or influence that would justify an article is present. Average Earthman 12:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The Band contains James Collard who has been in many successful bands before and is known around Stockport for his excellent bass playing skills. Is this what you meant by "New groups can be notable from scratch, of course, provided that at least one of the members is previously notable." because if so, I think you should keep this. 213.249.155.239 13:28, 2005 Jan 26 (according to history Uncle G 18:48, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC))
    • Has he indeed? Well, firstly, that wasn't mentioned when I voted delete, and secondly - prove it. I googled, and didn't see his name before I got bored (and I shouldn't have to google to prove this, it's a requirement that the article demonstrates this rather than make a vague claim and expect us to believe it). So name the bands, and to which label they were signed. If they weren't signed, then he isn't notable - this is an encyclopedia, not a local entertainment guide. Average Earthman 13:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, When a band hasnt released a CD, I dont think it should be notable at all, unless its fan following is pretty large. Inter 14:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "Has as a member a man who is known around Stockport" is not the world's best example of notability. Delete. Uncle G 18:48, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, not yet notable enough. Megan1967 22:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable band. James Collard himselfes seems to be non-notable. --Deathphoenix 23:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion, and no evidence of notability is given. Tuf-Kat 05:33, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Neutralitytalk 07:03, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've found some fan pages on them 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. dbenbenn | talk 23:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

77th Academy Awards nominees

edit

This was used in the 77th Academy Awards article as a template. I think putting sections on separate pages is not a good use of the template system. If the nominees list needs to be moved to a separate page after ceremony, that can be done then. -- Fredrik | talk 11:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Why not simply do a merge? Mgm|(talk) 12:32, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have alredy merged the list with the article. Keeping the template would have put an ugly vfd message in the article. (This deletion request might have been appropriate on templates for deletion, but in this case the template is also an article). Fredrik | talk 12:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I have redirected this to the parent article, to retain the edit history. sjorford:// 15:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Phil Fury

edit

Phil Fury is apparently a young wrestler. After googling him, the only relevant link I found was his blog. The January 25, 2005 entry says "I look forward to my imminent wrestling debut".

Note that this page was nominated for deletion on January 26, but there was no consensus.

Nothing links to Phil Fury.

  • Delete, vanity. dbenbenn | talk 22:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this horrid vanity. Phils 22:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I believe I voted delete the last time too. Inter 23:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ditto. Wagiles 00:34, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedically notable, I didn't check the edit history to see whether the "vanity" tag applies. Article says he suffered a spinal injury in 2002 wrestling in a 1-on-2 match. Too bad we can't transwiki to DarwinAwardWiki, because this guy apparently AGREED to take two guys on at once. Barno 00:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That wouldn't make him a darwinner, as he wouldn't have lost reproductive functions, but really, delete. humblefool® 03:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: No, but it's harder to use reproductive functions with a broken back. And can a guy who goes back into the ring after healing be considered smart enough to attract a fertile woman? Barno 19:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Jpo 00:38, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this icky promotional material. Wyss 02:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - fails Google test, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Dwain 23:16, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN, Vanity. — Asbestos | Talk 23:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE to leet. dbenbenn | talk 23:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pheer

edit

I quite like our leet article, but do we really need a separate article for every leet phrase? -- Ferkelparade π 12:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge, if it's notable. Otherwise delete. Inter 14:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Leet. Doesn't need its own entry. — Asbestos | Talk 15:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge no redirect. I don't think it requires its own entry. --Deathphoenix 23:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Leet. Concur with Asbestos to avoid creating duplicates. --JuntungWu 02:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Leet. Agreed. Doesn't need its own entry. Longhair 10:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, no need to redirect. --Idont Havaname 01:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Leet and add redirect. Megan1967 02:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 23:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nunsthorpe

edit

Was listed as a speedy but is not eligigle. About some suburb, but lacks context. Notable? No vote yet. jni 12:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And it's not eligible, either...
  • From the deletion log:
  • I agree that this wasn't a CSD. Uncle G 20:54, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
Sorry, I was being overzealous at that moment. For the record, this article was contributed by a user who has repeatedly vandalized Wikipedia. I abstain from voting on this one. ike9898 22:44, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Contributor was: Franklin College, Grimsby, Humberside. So if nothing else, we can be confident the contributor wrote from first-hand knowledge. (Or does that make it original research?) -- RHaworth 20:10, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
    • Restored in order to allow the VfD discussion to continue. No vote yet. Rossami (talk) 21:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep. In the state I have left it, I think it is an OK geo-stub. If Williston, Ohio (pop. 211) originally posted as semi-vandalism (see diff page) gets an article then Nunsthorpe (pop. - what - 2500 at least) is certainly allowed one. (I did think of moving the original version to the talk page of something like social deprivation or council housing — for Nunsthorpe read any one of a thousand council estates nationwide.) -- RHaworth 07:22, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Keep Nothing wrong with it now, just stubby.ike9898 13:28, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Nunsthorpe exists and is sufficiently notable for an article, although it could do with some expanding. TigerShark 12:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mgm|(talk) 14:20, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

French defeat

edit

I can't see the point of this list. Seems like more of that nasty US anti-French garbage. --LeeHunter 13:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to the User page of the originator, he's English. 66.60.159.190 19:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) (not a vote)
English? I should have guessed. :) --LeeHunter 21:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • needs to be speedy, was created by a vandal--Boothy443 13:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The article was created by User:Mike1971inter. I see no indications that he is a vandal. However, delete as non-encyclopedic. Although it could be redirected to History of France. RickK 23:43, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, But I'd rather see it here than CSD. Inter 15:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete on the borderline of speedy material, but VfDs don't usually hurt anyone. This article might be the most boring anti-French joke ever told. For any serious academic purposes, this material could be found in the articles on the history of France. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:38, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sordid. Phils 15:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Samaritan 18:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, irrelevant, potential speedy - Skysmith 10:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-encyclopedic and POV. Note to other voters: we probably can't speedy this since there's nothing in WP:CSD allowing for this sort of article to be speedied, as far as I know. --Idont Havaname 01:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the scholar who wrote this should actually read about the Hundred Years' War, and explain what he means by "50 Years War". Delete. Khanartist 09:03, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mgm|(talk) 14:21, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Horse and Groom

edit

An article about a pub. Get this: Unusually for a pub, it serves alcohol, and has a jukebox, dart board, and pool table. How notable! Uncle G 13:20, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

  • Delete because they fail to mention whether it also has a bar and barstools or not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Ad. The appropriate sarcasm, I feel, has already been said. Inter 15:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Might be notable if it actually had a horse and groom on premises. --TenOfAllTrades 17:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 22:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, all the good jokes have been taken. 23skidoo 05:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. no mention of even more than usually inappropriate interior design, attempts to turn it into a tasteless bistro or dragonian landlord. - Skysmith 10:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair 11:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mgm|(talk) 14:23, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hagelien

edit

"unbelievable" Uncle G 14:02, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

  • ledete, sorry delete; can't we speedy this? Lectonar 14:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, Although it's entertainment value is slightly above zero. Inter 15:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I've heard of the electric guitar, the acoustic guitar, and even the steel guitar, but I've never heard of the unbeliveble guitar before. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 22:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, unbelievable vanity. --Deathphoenix 23:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Da Vinci Code. Mgm|(talk) 14:28, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sophie Neveu

edit

Article has very little information. Sophie Neveu at Da Vinci Code is much longer and better. Delete or expand says I! Lapinmies 14:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge, Indeed if there is anything to merge. Otherwise delete. Inter 15:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to Da Vinci Code. There's nothing to merge. — Asbestos | Talk 15:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Da Vinci Code until there is sufficient information for a breakout article. Mgm|(talk) 21:52, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Da Vinci Code K1Bond007 21:53, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that there's nothing to merge that isn't in Da Vinci Code already. I wouldn't redirect, because someone might come along and write an encyclopedic article on her later. --Deathphoenix 00:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Da Vinci Code. If the character descriptions there get too big, consider breaking them into separate articles. --TenOfAllTrades 03:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the character descriptions in Da Vinci Code get too big, consider making them shorter. --BM 00:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing really here to merge. Megan1967 02:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mgm|(talk) 14:23, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Gary and Chesco

edit

Some drivel. I almost speedied it. jni 14:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete, Due to its nonsensical nature. Inter 15:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Junk. I would have gone with your first instinct and Speedy'd it. — Asbestos | Talk 15:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Certainly delete, at least. Samaritan 17:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for nonsensical vanity. Words fail me. --Deathphoenix 01:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Where is R._fiend now, and all the other Wiki's who ran around like chickens with their heads cut off to delete some pages I contributed to?! Here is another page by the same person - Two Jamie's! Dwain 01:17, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RARR

edit

No evidence is presented, or locatable, for the existence of this acronym. Uncle G 15:18, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

  • Delete. Can't find anything on "Ready to Attack and Roar in Rage". — Asbestos | Talk 16:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense neologism. lol, lmao. --Deathphoenix 01:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mgm|(talk) 14:26, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sleeping Giant Music

edit

I know what would happen. Xe'd list your band's vanity article alongside all of the other vanity articles for other two-bit bands that think that Wikipedia is a means to obtain free advertising. Uncle G 15:39, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

  • Delete. They've made an album, but they only get 276 Google hits. -LtNOWIS
  • Delete. Vanity/Advertising. — Asbestos | Talk 16:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, not yet notable enough, advertisement, looks like vanity. Megan1967 22:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, non-notable band. I once woke a sleeping giant. That's why I have this little problem. --Deathphoenix 01:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's an advert. They even wrote it as an advert. Average Earthman 13:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • And a giant delete for this little advertisement... --Idont Havaname 01:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion, and no evidence of notability is given. Tuf-Kat 05:37, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neal Dorfman

edit

This is vanity. Rje 17:04, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • It is. If the creator's reading this, see Wikipedia:Vanity page, and feel free to register and make this or something like this your Wikipedia:User page. Otherwise, delete. Samaritan 17:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 22:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 01:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh yes, I forgot to mention, the nice author of this page blanked the {{VfD}} notice and is a vandal too.
  • Delete. Vanity page by some vandal. jni 08:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mgm|(talk) 14:31, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

MiniOS

edit

Non-notable software development project, currently at version 0.52 (only other released version was 0.51). Zero hits for "g-soft" minios or "gsoft" minios. Contrib's IP traces to an Amsterdam ISP--probably self-promotion. Niteowlneils 17:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Abstain. Google returns 11,300 hits for "MiniOS". GRider\talk 18:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but none are for this MiniOS--most use the term generically, like from the first hit, "Below is an alphabetical listing of MiniOs's by OS flavor for use as APs, node routers, servers, or anything that needs an OS with a small footprint." Niteowlneils 19:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (and trying very hard to avoid making "something that isn't an operating system running on something that's hardly an operating system" jokes) --fvw* 19:08, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • Delete, Based on the Google stuff above. Inter 19:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not demonstrated. Searches in Google Groups can sometimes be more useful than searches on the Web. (For most topics, the number of hits in Groups is about 1/4 to 1/10 that for the Web; for example, on the Web I get 13,600 hits for "jimbo wales" (exact phrase), and in Groups 1,260. Searches on gsoft minios and g-soft minios in Groups get ZERO HITS. (That's a search on two keywords, not on the exact phrase). Given the number of USENET newsgroups that actively discuss operating systems, it is not credible that a notable OS would receive no mention whatsoever. For comparison, microware os9 gets 4780 hits, "montavista linux" (exact phrase) gets 196, "oberon os" (exact phrase) gets 333, etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable software. --Deathphoenix 01:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Dpbsmith that zero Usenet hits for an operating system means it's not notable enough. Also the 11,000 Google hits are generated by pages in other languages, in which minios seems to be a real word. Restricting search to English language gets 1,600 Google hits. JoaoRicardo 07:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gsoft

edit

Non-notable software developer. According to their website, their only release is a 0.52 alpha or beta. May amount to something someday, but right now they're just one of the millions of grains of sand in the software development beach. Contrib's IP traces to an Amsterdam ISP--probably self-promotion. Niteowlneils 17:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kevin thomas

edit

Vanity. --fvw* 17:51, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable.Dr Gangrene 19:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Even the article puts a questionmark in front of that name. Inter 19:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as obvious vanity. If he's notable enough to have an article, I'm sure this won't be a useful start. Mgm|(talk) 21:56, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 22:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity. --Deathphoenix 01:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Steef

edit

Not notable. --fvw* 18:01, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

  • Delete, Not notable. Inter 19:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Not notable. YannisKollias 01:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 01:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons listed above. --Idont Havaname 02:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, and he even had the nerve to announce the article in his blog. JoaoRicardo 07:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David Santa Ana

edit

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 18:04, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

  • Delete, "..the high school scene". What the hell? Anyway, not notable. Inter 19:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I have an article written about me that mentions things that I've moderated. It's on my own web site. Delete. Uncle G 21:06, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • I've got something called a user page. Delete non-notable vanity. --Deathphoenix 01:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable vanity. The only person mentioned in the Exeem article is "Sloncek (aka Andrej Preston)"; no credit's given to David Santa Ana there. --Idont Havaname 02:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 162 Google hits for him, very few for someone who claims to be an Internet celebrity. JoaoRicardo 07:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Riz

edit

Not notable. --fvw* 18:06, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity or attempt to find a life partner. Dbiv 19:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 22:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whether a vanity or a joke I can't tell, but certainly not a keeper. By an IP with no other contributions. Andrewa 23:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: On closer inspection, it seems to be a clear vanity page, copied from his personal website, probably not a copyvio assuming he did it. No change of vote. Andrewa 00:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity more appropriate for a user page or a singles site. --Deathphoenix 01:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, bad joke vanity. --Idont Havaname 01:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this, although might be an appropriate redirect to Riz Rollins (probably notable Seattle DJ and writer) if anyone wants to write that. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:08, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This guy is famous you guys!! What are you thinking!?

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 22:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Waltham, New Zealand

edit

Delete This page is not neccesary

  • Delete Not listed in Christchurch,_New_Zealand#List_of_Christchurch_suburbs -- RHaworth 19:11, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely exists, there are other articles about suburbs of significant world cities although Christchurch may be on the small side. Google searches show many refs to Waltham. Wants expansion and might want renaming, though. Dbiv 19:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Suburbs of major cities are notable and encyclopedic.--Centauri 21:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Heavy sigh. If only this was categorised properly, someone would have made it into a proper article before now. It should have been in the category with Christchurch's other suburbs (Category: Christchurch urban districts). I've improved it a little. (As for the naming, there is a generally held convention in New Zealand that all town names and most (but not all) suburb names are unique within the country - thus all other suburbs are currently simply listed as "X" or "X, New Zealand" unless there are clashes). Grutness|hello?   22:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Oh, and please sign your nominations, User:Zxcvbnm, it's a normal courtesy here. Andrewa 23:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Real place. Keep and Expand. RickK 23:37, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Duh, keep. —RaD Man (talk) 01:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all real places -RickK^H^H^H^H^H errr...  ALKIVAR™  04:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 23skidoo 04:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. I've just added some details. dramatic 09:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It was a bit of an orphan but it has now been updated. Alan Liefting 11:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Suburb hosting major international sports venues. Average Earthman 13:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\talk 00:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Who put this up anyway?

--JuntungWu 09:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)--JuntungWu 09:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Delete nominator - David Gerard 22:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • That's being a bit harsh, isn't it? The complete text of the original stated 'Waltham is a suburb of Christchurch, New Zealand.', and it wasn't mentioned on the Christchurch article at the time. The VfD process has actually turned this article into a good one. The original nominator should have done a quick google as well, but I can see why they originally thought this wasn't worth having from the one line article. Average Earthman 08:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 22:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proto-Ionian theory

edit

Original research. No publications. No matches on http://scholar.google.com/ - hits on standard web search overwhelmingly Wikipedia and mirrors. --Pjacobi 18:14, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

  • Delete original research. This theory is "produced by one researcher". --Deathphoenix 01:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. JoaoRicardo 07:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Speedily deleted: created by banned user:Irismeister Mikkalai 07:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Brian E. Ussery

edit

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 18:57, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

  • I smell vanity ... Delete. Dbiv 19:10, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Dr Gangrene 19:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 01:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. JoaoRicardo 07:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Green Day- Warning

edit

As informative as it can be, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Inter 19:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an album reviews site. Dbiv 19:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV. Gamaliel 19:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Warning (album) Kappa 21:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It contains a wee bit of useful neutral information about a couple of the songs that could quickly be merged into Warning (album), redirecting (or attributing the original author in the edit summary) to keep the edit history. Samaritan 21:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, review is POV un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 22:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Attempt to use Wikipedia as a blog site, possibly innocently, by an IP with no previous contributions. Yes, there's a little that could be merged if anyone cares to take the trouble, but IMO it's not sufficient reason for a redirect otherwise. In any case preserving the history is only necessary if the text is copied, information isn't generally copyrightable, so I doubt that there's any need to preserve the history in this case. I'll send the author a welcome. Andrewa 23:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not appropriate, POV. 23skidoo 04:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, not a possible common mistake for Warning (album). JoaoRicardo 07:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't even find the "wee bit" Sam refers to, and there's already a perfectly good article on this album. Jgm 03:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I just added to it: "86 (Live in Prague) was a bonus track. [new section: Songs] "Warning" and "Minority", both uptempo, pop-rock songs, were released as singles. "Waiting", a slower song, was also released as a single but was less successful than "Warning" and "Minority". "Macy's Day Parade" is another slower song from the album." That's it. Of course, that's unrecognizably rewritten, uses Green Day- Warning for a few points of (public domain) information alone, and integrates additional information (that "Minority" was also a single). And I even credited "Dr. Tunes" and this article in my edit summary. So it would be GFDL-compliant to delete now. Samaritan 06:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Still strong POV. Riffsyphon1024 20:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not appropiate, POV --Neigel von Teighen 20:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Amazon.com. --Idont Havaname 01:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Erik Jorgensen

edit
  • Erik seems a nice enough young singer, but his article's indication that he is "planning an audition for American Idol" and would appreciate a talent agency getting in touch with him indicate to me that he has not yet achieved sufficient prominence to warrant an encyclopedia article. Jwrosenzweig 20:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I would say that Erik is rather enough an achievement, because it says in the article that Erik has worked with Elias Coblentz, of whom is a title of Wikipedia and that could be a reasonable enough excuse. 12.215.116.201 (from talk page. silsor 20:33, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC))
    • I don't understand your comment -- Elias Coblentz does not have an article here (though an article was written about him and deleted several months ago -- apparently Elias is an 18 year old musician who at least one person believes talented -- the article was fairly glowing about his musical achievement -- but there are only 11 google hits on his name, and his band, "Butt Love Titties", is not familiar to any musician I am acquainted with). I don't think Erik's association with Elias is enough for us -- sorry. Jwrosenzweig 20:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not yet noteworthy. Also, association with a noteworthy person does not necessarily make one noteworthy. If Erik succeeds in becoming famous, then someone will write an article for him. Shimeru 22:22, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, not yet notable - agree with Jwrosenzweig. Megan1967 22:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, possible vanity. If he was on American Idol, maybe. Working up to an audition for American Idol, no. Sorry. --Deathphoenix 01:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardo 07:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not yet notable. --Idont Havaname 01:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion, and no evidence of notability is given. Tuf-Kat 05:39, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 22:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sindre Goksøyr

edit

Presumed autobiography of little notability, although he seems to be trying hard. His own claims to fame is quite unfounded. Perhaps his skillset also, I don't know. -- Egil 20:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 22:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. He publishes a comic strip in a major newspaper in Norway, as well as in other magazines and newspapers. He also played the guitar in a band that made 4 CDs. Might actually be notable enough, although the article could benefit from being toned down. I'm not Norwegian, but I'm not convinced that he actually can claim to have earned "national fame". Alarm 00:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but remove hagiographic bias. --Centauri 02:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable. AMG lists a Piledriver and a Pile Driver, none of which seems to be the band in question. I would welcome proof that he is of national fame in Norway. JoaoRicardo 07:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. GRider\talk 00:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Based on the article, he appears to be a notable figure in the Norwegian comics scene. Gamaliel 04:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Based on the article, he himself thinks he is a notable figure. I do think evidence of notability needs to come from outside sources. Egil 12:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I should note that he is associated with a number of important/notable organizations in Norwegian comics, so I think he's notable on that basis, just as I'd think a Marvel or DC writer or artist I'm not familiar with is notable. Gamaliel 20:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No notability established; probable vanity. Google yields a platry 53 hits (few for anyone in the general field of entertainment) and many are wikipedia and its mirrors. I know of a band called Piledriver who were pretty well known, but I'm pretty sure they weren't Norwegian. -R. fiend 20:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but tone down. Goksøyr is notable enough, he's not the biggest name in the norwegian comic scene, but one of the most successful artists. --Emuzesto 21:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. (Can not be deleted due to block-compressed revisions errors) -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dongery

edit

Obscure group of no notability. By same author as Sindre Goksøyr. -- Egil 20:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 22:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. JoaoRicardo 07:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 16:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jippi Comics

edit

By same author as Sindre Goksøyr. Questionable notability. -- Egil 20:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep it. It's real and notable among those who like such things. Also has been around for awhile. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:24, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 5,000 Google hits, as well as an article on the Norwegian Wikipedia. JoaoRicardo 07:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Worthy of note. GRider\talk 00:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Societas Vitae

edit

Non-notable student organisation. Possible vanity "Societas Vitae" records 53 hits on google. Djbrianuk 20:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Cannot possibly keep all minor student societies. --Edcolins 22:02, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. Cdc 01:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Already listed in De La Salle University, and doesn't need more coverage than that. --Deathphoenix 01:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable. JoaoRicardo 07:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete This is a professional student organization operating in the said university. It cannot be deleted just like any other vanity, self-glory, and non-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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NexTT Group

edit

Non-notable IT company, only a handful of Google hits, website under construction. About their apparently sole product they write: "legal concerns have kept it in its beta stage". --Plek 20:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable ad. Maybe this belongs in a company financial report, but not here. --Deathphoenix 01:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, for the most part. The other comments seemed harsh (wouldn't call it an ad exactly, since it doesn't have any links, etc. to the website or websites), but I do agree that the content does not best fit Wikipedia.
  • Delete. Not notable, 16 Google hits. JoaoRicardo 07:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 16:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of Ukrainian companies

edit

Based on the disconnect between the article title and its content, this appears to be a disingenuous attempt to sneak link-spam into Wikipedia. I don't know enuf about the subject to know what companies in Ukraine might be notable enuf for articles (and a google search of Wikipedia didn't uncover any existing articles), but it doesn't seem to be this one, with only 400 hits. Also, given that it was created by User:ApriorIT, it is probably self-promotion. If someone can salvage it with more appropriate content, great, but I don't think it should be kept this way. Niteowlneils 21:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, advert. — Ливай | ☺ 21:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, still stubby but now encyclopedic for sure. — Ливай | ☺ 16:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete sneaky ad. --Deathphoenix 01:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete platform for external link. —Korath (Talk) 03:49, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC) Keep, rescued. —Korath (Talk) 07:56, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. JoaoRicardo 07:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete lists and ads. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I just salvaged it. Stranger, we need a 2/3 vote to delist right?
  • Keep, Looks OK in current form. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:07, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Works for me. And a big tres bien and mucho gracias to User:210.213.244.241. Niteowlneils 21:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 16:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Austingirl

edit

Not notable. Thue | talk 21:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Edcolins 21:55, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this is a credible speedy as a personal attack page. Entire text: "AustinGIRL Is a known troll among BBS boards. Specifically she can be found at bbbs.fuckedcompany.com and bbs.nicetaco.com. Some have rumored that AustinGIRL is in fact a woman. A woman from the on-line community of Austin, Texas." Samaritan 21:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as likely attack page, and even if it were true it's not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:06, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, not even for a brief mention on Internet trolls. --Deathphoenix 01:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Attack page. Ganymead 05:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable. JoaoRicardo 06:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, attack page. --Idont Havaname 01:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, attack page, Djbrianuk 02:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Information patent

edit

Neologism. Does not deserve an article (yet). The sole meaningful occurence I found is [8]. It shouldn't even be a redirect towards software patent to my opinion. The same apply to the expression "data patent". Unless otherwise proven... --Edcolins 21:46, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non notable expression. JoaoRicardo 06:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mikkalai 07:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sourced from a reference on IP law. Gazpacho 06:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 00:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Furnation

edit

Advertising/promo piece. --BesigedB (talk) 21:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep it's got nearly 100,000 Google hits, and it's been around for nearly a decade. Easily notable, though the subject matter is certainly not for everyone's taste. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:19, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or speedy. The reason why FurNation (correct title) has 100,000 Google hits is that it offers free hosting. That it serves as a furry Geocities of sorts doesn't in itself make it notable; in fact, it has done little else besides creating a pornographic magazine. Fancruft. Nightwatch 01:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Around 27 thousand Usenet hits discussing it as an apparently notable subject in its subculture. Keep. Samaritan 01:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Popular fetish sites are notable and encyclopedic.--Centauri 02:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough. JoaoRicardo 06:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as promo piece for non-notable site. (Mere popularity doesn't constitute notability; if it did, a great number of porno sites would be notable, pizza delivery companies' websites would be notable, etc. etc.) -- Hoary 09:23, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
  • Comment: It doesn't get that much google hits because it's a porn or fetish site. It's a site where furries can get their website hosted, and it's their individual decision alone what to put there, whatever it is. --Conti|✉ 11:47, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article could probably use cleanup, but the site seems reasonably notable within its subculture. Shimeru 22:55, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'll take Samaritan's evidence of notability. Kappa 23:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Middle earth will freeze over before this article is deleted. Allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\talk 00:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Phdts

edit

Neologism. Thue | talk 21:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - and "infrequently used," at that. Cdc 01:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Internet slang and delete. --Idont Havaname 01:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't merge, as this doesn't seem notable enough. 119 Google hits for an Internet slang seems an awful few. Also 13 hits in Google Groups. JoaoRicardo 06:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable acronym, non-encyclopedic, Wiktionary at best(I don't think it is). --Deathphoenix 14:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talovikova

edit

Article makes no claim of notability. Thue | talk 22:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 22:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. JoaoRicardo 06:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 14:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Edcolins 20:20, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Done by me. Mgm|(talk) 14:05, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ken Mankoff

edit

Article ("Ken is a programmer at Columbia University working at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (http://www.giss.nasa.gov). In his free time he knits....well.") doesn't establish notability. Only 600 hits, and all but the first I scanned appear to be usernames in various public forums. Niteowlneils 22:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. OK, so he's a programmer who knows how to knit. But does he know how to purl? --RoySmith 22:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Funny comment, RoySmith. I vote Delete for reasons already given. --Idont Havaname 01:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. JoaoRicardo 06:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 14:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gtabary 15:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hi I'm Ken Mankoff. I didn't make that page, someone else wanting to learn about Wikis did. I just added the GISS link. Yes, please delete it. Yes I can Purl. No, its not vain.

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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vanbezooyen

edit

Somebody trying to start their personal home page on Wikipedia, I guess. Nothing of note. silsor 20:51, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I already deleted the redirects Van bezooyen, Vanbezooijen, Van bezooijen, Bezooyen, Bezooijen. silsor 20:52, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Karen Toshima

edit

Wikipedia is not a memorial. JoaoRicardo 23:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The murder of Karen Toshima is mentioned specifically in the Wiki article on Westwood/Westwood Village. This article provides further information on this occurrence. Polylerus

  • Delete. Tragic, but we can not have a memorial page for every murder victim. Not notable enough for it's own page. Aviationwiz 00:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If delete must win the vote, merge the last paragraph and link to California State University, Long Beach and everything else into Westwood and/or Westwood Village. Samaritan 01:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur with where to merge Kappa 01:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delete. It's not possible to have articles for every murder victim in the US; they'd outnumber existing pages. If anything permanent was changed in the LAPD or in Westwood as a result of her death, perhaps merge relevent information into the relevent articles. 23skidoo 04:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I concur with 23skidoo. I was the person who originally added the mention of Karen Toshima's murder to the Westwood article, but I think she is worth mentioning in Wikipedia only insofar as her death is relevant to the history of Westwood as a whole. I didn't add that link or that page and I don't know who did. While her death is tragic, I concur with JoaoRicardo that Wikipedia is not a memorial. There are simply too many people in the world (and too many tragic deaths in Los Angeles) for Wikipedia to have a full article on each and every one; that's what the Web as a whole, blogs, the Internet Archive, and Google are for.

--Coolcaesar 07:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete a sad story indeed, but street-crime deaths are not generally encyclopedic. 34 relevant Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:59, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. While sad, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Also, she is mentioned in Westwood Village, which should be enough. --Deathphoenix 14:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial for people who only get 34 Google hits. --Idont Havaname 22:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 01:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_January_26&oldid=1142647799"