Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 9

[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 Delete. Rje 04:57, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

[[%C5kesoft]]

[edit]

Delete This entry regards a non-notable company and a stub entry to boot. My google search returned only 7 entries. --BenWilson 17:08, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 21:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:08, 10 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 21:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Peter J. Brennan

[edit]

Apparently a former US Secretary of Labour was also respsonsible for the publication of "Mein Kampf" and the occupation of Czechoslovakia - 3mta3 07:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Patent nonsense. Inter 10:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Ya, Hitler's bio. — RJH 16:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I have speedied this as patent nonsense. There was another previous case a week or two ago when someone cut-and-pasted a Hitler biography with someone else's name used. These doesn't need to go through VfD, it's clearcut nonsense. -- Curps 20:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep entirely rewritten new article. -- Curps 12:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I have rewritten a new article on Brennan based on his term as Labor secretary, his role as a senior New York union official, the 1970 "hard hat riots" in May 1970 and his opposition to affirmative action in the building trades. I am voting keep for the new article. 220.244.224.72 12:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Brilliant! Extreme Keep, now, of course. humblefool® 22:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (the re-write). Dralwik 00:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep new article --Grouse 15:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite, of course. —Stormie 19:17, Feb 14, 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 21:38, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Alexander Marquardt

[edit]
  • Looks like some vanity page for a mba student, Delete--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that this is nothing more than power-tripping by a user Boothy443 with nothing better to do than discuss the content of someones page. Would the page for "Jennifer Lopez" not also be considered a vanity page. But because you happen to feel the opinions of Hollywood adds validity to documenting the accomplishments and life of this woman that she deserves a page over a published author in an MBA program?
    • [Posted by 205.200.75.128; I also indented the comments. —tregoweth]
    • "Vanity page" means an article posted by its subject, which is discouraged. If you are reasonably significant, someone will create an article about you sooner or later. —tregoweth 03:14, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Vanity, non-notable. Delete. —tregoweth 03:14, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, looks like vanity to me. Rje 03:19, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity and non-notable 208.51.105.139 04:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, though the law student in me is more bothered by his false claims of having registered his name as a trademark. Postdlf 05:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, taking a pic without a shirt on is definately vanity :) --The Jacobin 05:41, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Alexander (or whoever posted the article), please see Wikipedia:Vanity page, Wikipedia:Importance and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. (And delete.) Samaritan 16:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it fine, if Sheryl Crow has a page than why not this guy? Maybe he has done more important things than her don't delete unsigned comment left at the top of the page by user:Piceaspruce whose only contributions so far are to this discussion.
    • Well, yes... maybe he does have four multi-platinum albums in a row, numerous top-20 singles, and several Grammy awards... but unfortunately neither this article nor any other information available in this reality establishes that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:44, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probable vanity, and has been attracting vandalism. No encyclopedic notability established. Also, attempts to deflect the discussion to some other article always get negative style points from me, particularly when the other articles are examples as silly as the ones used here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Rub it off er, delete... Wyss 20:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. clear vanity. --Urbanguy1 00:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I heard about this on CIUT - 89.5 FM - Toronto, ON (University of Toronto)! Keep it. It might become part of the blog phenonm. Darryl -Toronto, Ontario. -- this vote by 69.195.44.238, whose three edits are all to the article or to this VfD.
  • Gee, somebody deleted my comment -very demcratic -Darryl Toronto, Ontario -- the fourth edit by 69.195.44.238.
  • Urg, too much information.."chronic masturbators"..mind going blank...Delete, please.... humblefool® 03:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • He is a notable scholar and contributor to the development of several commonly use microprocessors. The basis for this high speed design was the nonlinear Levenberg-Marquardt regression. which resulted in new strides forward in quatum computing. You may delete him now, but he'll be back later. However the vandalism has surely been meant to put doubt on his character. ROLL back the changes -- This is 198.163.10.210's only edit.
  • Sweet jumping mother of delete. A fully wikified vanity article within styling conventions is a first in my experience here. Alex, if you're for real, get a user page. Put this info on it. Contribute something useful on computer-related subjects. And unravel the sockpuppets. They aren't exactly helping your cause. - Lucky 6.9 23:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ohmygod, this is, like, the perfect vanity page. Delete.

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. jni 13:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Matt hooker

[edit]

Well, it clearly isn't a vanity page (or if it is, he's decided that there's no such thing as bad publicity), but he's non-notable. DS 00:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Never heard of this guy before, but a google search for "Matt Hooker" nicole gets 284 hits. Seems to jump the hurdle of notability and verifiability, IMO. - RedWordSmith 01:34, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough - 130 Google hits (Matt Hooker + Nicole Kidman) including hits from his own website and blogs. Megan1967 02:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, simply not notable enough. Rje 03:21, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete- not notable and his website is down. 208.51.105.139 03:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems to be vanity/joke. — Brim 09:25, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, self-promoting crank, entire article is PoV. Wyss 20:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it. —RaD Man (talk) 09:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This guy is a real person--I remember seeing the news reports about him when this happened. And note: per Wikipedia's Deletion Policy, "lack of fame should be completely ignored in deletion debates".
  • Delete, nn stalker. GRider\talk 20:03, 14 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. jni 13:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Smiler

[edit]

Article does not establish notability. RickK 01:03, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-9 01:07 Z
  • Delete, article does not establish notability, possible vanity or prank. Megan1967 02:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Rje 03:22, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Googling for "smiler" + "filton" gives no evidence of this. JoaoRicardo 04:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. vanity. The Jacobin 05:44, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ugen64 05:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Successful attempts at drawing attention encourage further attempts. Why was this not speedy deletion? --Wetman 05:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Because Anthony di Pierro would have listed it on VfU if I had. RickK 06:17, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pure garbage. — Brim 09:26, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete my guess is it's some minor-league tagger. Not notable enough anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for pity's sake. Deb 18:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The name is most notable as a Rod Stewart album from the mid-1970's.Capitalistroadster 23:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 03:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:47, 14 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. jni 13:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

METFIELDism and METFIELD

[edit]

Zero Google hits for METFIELDism, the only hits I could find for METFIELD are towns in England. RickK 01:10, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable.
  • Delete Non-notable. This should probably be a speedy delete, but here we are, anyway. -- The Anome 01:23, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 02:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. JoaoRicardo 04:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. METFIELD is some guy on metallicabb.com. Rhobite 05:48, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. — Brim 09:52, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete joke. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, probable hoax, certainly not-notable. Rje 17:16, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn Carrp | Talk 03:44, 14 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. jni 13:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Democratic Candidates for Presidency of United States, 2008

[edit]

This page duplicates the work being done on U.S. presidential election, 2008. Though something like this should eventually be created it is too early at this point IMHO and, if not, the article should be named U.S. Democratic Party presidential nomination, 2008 in accordance with convention - Jord 01:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Megan1967 02:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Speculation. Gamaliel 02:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There aren't any Democratic party candidates for the 2008 Presidential election, yet. This will be speculation for at least a couple more years. When it ceases to be speculation, it should be covered under U.S. presidential election, 2008. --BM 03:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. By the way, while U.S. presidential election, 2008 will obviously be in the Wikipedia at some point, right now it looks to me to be completely unencyclopedic chat, idle speculation, and gossip-mongering about who are "potential" candidates, and various other unsourced pontificating. Under the United States constitution, anybody who is an American by birth who will be 35 or over in January, 2009, is a potential candidate. There are number of political blogs and web sites where people can and do speculate about the coming election. Wikipedia is not a chat room. --BM 03:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. U.S. presidential election, 2008 covers the subject sufficiently for now. Carrp | Talk 03:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, unverifiable until the actual election day. JoaoRicardo 04:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, move and rework. Cleanup, maybe. Notable speculation is as good as a notable fact. It's a question of fame and importance. This is an important and often discussed topic in the U.S., and therefore it's a totally valid subject. Someday it might be merged into a 2008 Dem. primaries article as a section about early speculation. Everyking 08:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete prediction of far-off future events is not an encyclopedia's purpose. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I agree with Everyking's arguments, the article is, as Jord notes, completely duplicative of material covered on U.S. presidential election, 2008, which I believe with some confidence (as a regular contributor there) doesn't need any breakout at this time. Samaritan 15:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Starblind's argument. Rossami (talk) 19:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Duplicative Trödel|talk 21:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to U.S. presidential election, 2008. --Idont Havaname 04:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, clearly an improper duplicate. Neutralitytalk 02:32, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as speculative and redundant, plus most of what everyone else said above me. Tuf-Kat 03:16, Feb 14, 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. jni 13:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gregory Hudkins

[edit]
  • Delete nonnotable high school teacher, posted by student. Mostly NPOV farce. Postdlf 01:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - 3 Google hits, possible student prank. Megan1967 03:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardo 04:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn -- Cleduc 06:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious joke/vandalism. — Brim 09:40, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete – flamurai (t) 11:14, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete though I do admit the part about "He has humored people with his fart machine" made me laugh. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, prankish tribute or vandalism. Wyss 20:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A couple of good quotes for BJAODN here. --Idont Havaname 04:51, 10 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. jni 13:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Katharine Potts-Dupre

[edit]

Not notable. Fredrik | talk 01:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable - 6 Google hits, possible vanity. Megan1967 03:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. JoaoRicardo 04:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity or maybe even slander. -- Cleduc 06:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Brim 06:25, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Vanity K1Bond007 06:50, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as a user test and a favour to all concerned. Wyss 20:27, 9 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. 9 Deletes, 6 Keeps / Split ups. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of comic and cartoon characters

[edit]

Doomed to be incomplete and too unwieldy to be useful; using categories for articles about characters is probably a better solution. —tregoweth 02:55, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, a never ending list. There must be thousands of comic and cartoon characters. Not practical to maintain. Megan1967 03:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This has been in VfD before, see Talk:List of comic and cartoon characters. Results were 6 votes to delete, 3 to keep and 3 to merge where appropriate and redirect to list of comic strips. Now about my vote: I cannot see how this can be useful. And I'm affraid people will soon create stubs for every single entry in this list, most of which will end up in VfD anyway. JoaoRicardo 04:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Categories are only a substitute if all listed items have articles. (Categories are basically too new to be used effectively as a complete list substitute.) Otherwise, I expect the same old generic anti-list arguments that fail to convince consensus on any substantial list. — Jeff Q 04:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (or split). Categories are inadequate substitutes for lists anyway, since merged items can't be members. Kappa 04:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This survived VfD in January 2004 and had far less content then. Xezbeth 06:08, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain, turning this into a cat will only work if all names have articles, but I don't believe this will ever be maintained unless a Comics Project is started. Mgm|(talk) 09:12, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or split apart. Way too unwieldly as-is. The Marvel Universe alone has tens if not hundreds of thousands of characters. Also not much reason to believe it would be useful to anybody... for example, if I wanted to use Wikipedia to find out who was in Dilbert, I'd type in "Dilbert"--I sure as heck wouldn't type in "List of comic and cartoon characters". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and split up. Most of this information could be put with the pages about the indiviual comics, and List of comic books and List of comic strips suffice as a place to keep names of comics without articles. Nateji77 18:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Split up as encyclopedic but unsustainable. Samaritan 19:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and start over with split sections, which will be Wikipedian and helpful. Wyss 20:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Matteh (talk) 23:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Split up into universe-specific sub-lists. Most already exist, I believe. humblefool® 23:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest further splitting it up into newspaper cartoon characters, TV cartoon characters, characters in animated films, etc. --Idont Havaname 04:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete / split. Mikkalai 07:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • And a strange development: Anon user 68.107.42.139, a/k/a the Cartoon Vandal, attempted to move the page via cutting-and-pasting to List of cartoon and comic characters. —tregoweth 05:28, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Absolutely ridiculous! Unwieldly, unmaintainable, unhelpful, uninformative, and unappealing. A prime example of how not to use a list. Indrian 19:00, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This could be feasible if it was split up. One huge list is not helpful at all. Carrp | Talk 03:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We have categories for this. —Lowellian (talk) 12:27, Feb 14, 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. Keep 14, Merge 10, Delete 2. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eugene Armstrong

[edit]

This is an article about one of the civilian contractors who was kidnapped in Iraq and eventually beheaded. I am submitting this to VfD as a test case, since there are several such articles. --BM 02:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. While the kidnappings and beheadings of contractors, reporters, etc, in Iraq are incidents that were certainly very notable, the individual contractors are not, and don't warrant encyclopedia articles, Wikipedia not being a memorial. In general, the articles are about the kidnapping/beheading incident not about the person. Accordingly, all of the articles about the individual beheading victims should be deleted, and either a section added to the appropriate article about the Iraq war describing these incidents, or else a new article created covering them. --BM 02:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with BM above. But I don't think this information should get lost, I just don't think it should be on an article by itself. Having information about all the hostages in Iraq in one place would be much better. At first, the appropriate article for this seems to be Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005. But that is already too big, so maybe a new article should be created for the hostages. I believe, though, that this will be frowned upon by most VfD voters, who will unfortunately vote "keep" on this one. :-) JoaoRicardo 04:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He was world news for days (if not weeks) at the time, so is obviously notable, although the article could do with added context. The dozens of others who have been similarly murdered since may not qualify for dedicated articles, but he certainly does.--Centauri 04:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I have doubts about this. Being in the news for weeks makes this notable for now, but will people remember this a few years in the future? I see people forgeting news all the time. JoaoRicardo 12:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Will generations to come remember anything if we don't record it? You have two choices: document or rely upon folk tales. There is also deletionist option #3: burn everything. —RaD Man (talk) 21:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if he's the most famous one, but merging into a hostage related article would be good too. Kappa 04:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Denni☯ 05:15, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't think this is memorial-ish in tone. WhisperToMe 05:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- funny, I hadn't heard of him before, but I just heard his name specifically mentioned in a documentary on PBS less than two hours ago. So, I guess he's notable. -- Cleduc 06:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable - 38,000+ hits on Google. Cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. This was headline news, don't you remember? Everyking 08:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of topical interest. Capitalistroadster 10:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not proposing the information be removed, only that the information currently in multiple articles under the names of the victims, be restructured. The articles aren't really about the victims. In general, I think articles titled with a person's name should be a biographical article about that person. If the outcome of this VfD is Redirect or Merge, it is fine with me. I wish there was some system other than Redirect pages on Wikipedia to index a term or name. Encyclopedias have indexes. If someone is not notable enough to merit an article, but has figured in an important incident, we can have a redirect page titled with the person's name to the incident article . But, there might in fact be several articles mentioning the incident, and a redirect can only be to one other page. The set of redirect pages do not actually form an index, even though sometimes you see people (e.g. Jimbo) say that the redirect pages are like an index. To some extent, Google Advanced Search (where you can limit a search to just en.wikipedia.org) is a workaround, but we are then letting Google decide how Wikipedia should be indexed and the results ordered, and Google results will also include Talk pages, User pages, Wikipedia name space pages, etc. --BM 14:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Consolidating the information about the victims onto one page might be an agreeable option—not for the ones about which there is a good deal written, but for some of them—but you can try that without VfD. It is a reasonable enough point to make that these victims' whole lives are not necessarily encyclopedic, just their involvement in whatever events they are notable for. However, I still vote to keep because I think the organization of the information should be dealt with by the people who work on these articles as they think is appropriate. Everyking 19:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That is true, and it occurred to me to just merge and redirect them myself without getting any sanction from VfD, since one does not have to have admin powers to do that. However, VfD is one of the few places where one can go to test the consensus on an issue like this, although it will tend to be muddied a bit by misplaced (in this case) deletionism versus inclusionism concerns. In contrast, the articles' editors are apt to think the articles should exist, so that doesn't seem like a good place to start. --BM 20:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • It would be less muddled if you would say upfront you are hoping for a merge, or would be content with one. The VfD tag says "A request has been made for this article to be deleted".
  • Merge into a central article, then redirect. This article has almost nothing about its supposed subject, and the "see also" list is bigger than the article itself! Having everything as one article would save space, allow for more expansion, and make research on the subject easier as well! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above. Merge and redirect. Meets notability, but doesn't need to be its own article. - Taxman 15:53, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into a conglomerated article about these sorts of victims. Beyond the news-grabbing event, these people weren't notable enough to be encyclopedic. Katefan0 15:57, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge notablity is due to what happened to him and others - makes more sense as a single article Trödel|talk 16:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. The notability is due to the single event, not the person. Rossami (talk) 22:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, no re-direct, he's a crime victim. Wyss 19:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep. Do not merge, do not redirect. BM, are you disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? —RaD Man (talk) 21:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • No --BM 21:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to one article about the series of events, and Redirect each name of someone documented as relevant to that article. These people are in general notable only for their involvement in these kidnappings and deaths (for reasons other than their own individual actions). Admin should review each article for evidence of sufficient notability to warrant keeping. Comment: I believe BM was not attempting to make a destructive point; he posted a test case of one member of a group and asked for a consensus on best course of action. He explained his reasoning in WP-policy-related comments. I have less confidence in RaD Man's constructive intent based on some votes I've seen here in recent weeks, but we all should follow the Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Wikiquette guideline, please. Barno 00:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd love to assume good faith Barno, but BM is a hardcore deletionist. It's unquestionable. See for yourself:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] This list goes on, and on, and on... —RaD Man (talk) 00:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    • It is true that I have a strong tendency to vote for deletion of articles submitted here, and to submit articles from time to time myself. However, you will note that I don't vote delete on all articles. I generally don't throw in many "me too" keep votes, because usually when I would vote keep, the article doesn't need any help from me to be kept. For that matter, I frequently don't bother voting on the obvious "delete" cases, either, although I might if I have something to say. If I cared about being characterized as a "hard core deletionist", I could make plenty of honest "keep" votes to balance things out. However, actually I don't object much to the characterization. I'm not running for anything, and if there are people here who hate my guts because they think I'm a deletionist, that doesn't really bother me. Perhaps I will occasionally persuade someone with arguments, even though he might think I'm a deletionist. I do object to the implication that anybody characterized as "hard core deletionist" cannot possibly be participating in good faith. Suggesting so seems to be overstepping the bounds of civility. I hope that people who object to my perceived "deletionism" will observe Wikipedia strictures about civility, as I generally do, with the occasional lapse for which I apologize in advance. --BM
  • Keep. Samaritan 04:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • merge. Mikkalai 07:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with a merge/redirect for these cases into a single article, which would provide better context anyway. Not sure exactly what to call the article though. -R. fiend 21:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, could well be of interest to someone in the future researching these incidents. Dan100 21:50, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a sad way to establish notability, but he's notable by the media coverage alone. Antandrus 02:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm glad someone has suggested this. These are sad, grubby little articles, all of them, with links to murders, and aggressive reversion of anyone who tries to delete them. Nick Berg's contains four links to the video of his death in the article itself, not just external links, plus a link to a post-murder photograph, perhaps so we can print it out and stick it up as a poster. Others contain the URL to the beheadings via ogrish.com, where you can also watch young girls having sex with horses while you wait for the snuff movie to download. The information about all these victims should be consolidated into one article, written in an encyclopedic way, with some respect for the individuals, no videos, no death pics. It has no chance of happening, but that's my vote anyway. SlimVirgin 05:31, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Non-notable, though it is a worthy topic it does not deserve its own article and instead should be bundled into an article on terrorism or the like. gxti 18:30, 14 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 SPEEDY DELETED as vandalism during voting period. jni 13:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Defetation

[edit]

I believe that this is merely an attempt at sneaky vandalism, the author also added this to Birth, even if this was a real word this wouldn't be the place for it. It scores zero google hits. Rje 03:07, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Hoax, no Google hits. JoaoRicardo 03:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no such word on Google or Medline. Possible hoax. The correct medical term for giving birth is Parturition, which redirects to Childbirth. Maybe a redirect to Childbirth to prevent defetation article being recreated. Megan1967 04:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as funny, but not encyclopedic. -- Cleduc 06:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete almost certainly a prank, to denote similarities to defecation. Even if there's a slight chance that it's an honest attempt to create a neologism, WP isn't the place for that either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, vandalism. Wyss 19:51, 9 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. jni 13:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Conscious evolution

[edit]

Non-notable, POV essay, advertisement, original research, barely coherent, etc. Jayjg (talk) 03:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete (Just to make my vote clear). Jayjg (talk) 04:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic, POV, meaningless, and not entirely literate stream-of-consciousness e.g. a "pantheist universe of the present and past as a kind of metaphorical pre-programmed blind and brute force mathematical equation unraveling as a cosmic process . . ." SlimVirgin 04:08, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete An objective and sensible article on "conscious evolution" wouldn't be such a bad thing, but this certainly isn't it. --Sdfisher 04:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to a blurb in some other appropriately eugenic/racialist/separatist ideology like Nazism, Eugenics or the equivalent. 'CE' is not the term the vast majority use for this frame of mind, including the vast majority who share that viewpoint. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yay! Eugenics! I'm surprised it doesn't link to Zyklon B. Delete (obviously) as personal essay, original research, utter crap, take your pick. Postdlf 05:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I ask that the Jewish Ethnocentrist cabal, give this topic a few weeks to develop, right now this topic is in a very rough and early stage. When I say Jewish Ethnocentrist cabal, I don't mean this as a personal insult or attack against you guys. I just mean it as a factual, accurate and documented reflection of your actions, history, censorship and emotional bias regarding issues related to or regarding jews, judaism, israel and zionism. Please don't let your personal and sensitive feelings about my other contributions prevent such an interesting and relevant topic from existing and being developed. Thanks for your understanding and neutrality in these regards. Dnagod 05:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm being understanding and neutral when I say that this article is crap, and that your comments above show that you are far from neutral yourself. "Jewish Ethnocentrist cabal"? What on earth makes you think that's an appropriate or persuasive phrase to use here? Were you trying to be funny? Postdlf 05:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Sadly, no, he wasn't being funny. Look at his User page. Jayjg (talk) 05:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • To be quite frank, you have no idea what you're talking about as regards the religions or backgrounds of the people you just insulted, nor, apparently, the purpose, method and benefit of the wikipedia. Very bad form. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • DELETE Yikes! What a creepy defense. The Jacobin 05:51, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Cleduc 06:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, rewrite and expand. "Conscious evolution" is getting around 25,000+ hits on Google. It is a genuine term but the article at present needs to be rewritten and the POV eliminated. Megan1967 06:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That does not necessarily make it a genuine 'term,' it could largely be an aggregate of people who mentioned the words in a sentence, but without having a particular model (unified if at all), for it specifically, in mind. El_C
  • Delete - Website notwithstanding, not notable, therefore, also advertisement. It is –an aside– that the contents are highly questionable, that the style of writing reveals a gross unfamiliarity with objective, NPOV exposition, and that it is heavily coloured throughout with grammatical idiosyncrasities resulting in an unstable narrative which reads very poorly. El_C 06:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) Changing vote to keep to reflect AndyL's commendable revision. El_C 18:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rambling POV personal essay, original research. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 06:20, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research. No, it's patent nonsense. No, it's original reserach. AndyL 06:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Dear Wikitroopers, I apologize to those who were personally offended by my remarks regarding the serious problem of jewish bias on wikipedia on issues involving or regarding jews and judaism, I just wish more attention where brought to that fact and that people would stop pretending it doesn't exist or looking the other way. I genuinely and sincerely want wikipedia to be fair, balanced, neutral and possess a wide range of valid points of view.

Anyhow, Hey guys, think of conscious evolution as a very rough work in progress, with absolutely enormous potential like the rest of wikipedia ;) Conscious evolution is the wave of the future, and the last stage of our human evolution, so please reconsider your vote to keep it rather than delete it! Think of it this way, each one of you is like a brain cell in the mind of the coming god consciousness and the internet is the network that connects all these brain cells together. With that knowledge you discover that wikipedia is the memory of gods brain and our communication its consciousness. So lets consider keeping it guys!! ;)

Also where is jpgordons vote to delete? I am disappointed that he didn't vote delete within 1 hr of the topics creation. <g>

with over 20,000 mentions for "conscious evolution", I think we should keep it and work towards creating a conscious evolution article with all points of view!

Dnagod 07:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think that you need a pro-Jewish bias to want to delete your article? It doesn't even mention Jews (except for the non sequitur paragraph claiming wikipedia has a pro-Jewish bias). Postdlf 09:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please try to restrain yourself and make No_personal_attacks. Also look into the use of the 'colon' to indent. I mean that sincerely. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It needs a major rewrite, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. The topic is an important one. LizardWizard 07:14, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Blather, delete. -- Hoary 08:35, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
  • KEEP. I am very far from being a neo-Nazi or beleiver in Eugenics yet User: Dnagod has made some good points about how Wikipedia has come to be dominated by groups following a herd-mentality that stack the votes on VfD's in order to push ahead their own agenda. You people are discrediting Wikipedia with your un-democratic mindset. In the past hour I have come upon this VfD'ed article AND an entry in the deletion log detailing how an article about Wikipedia's Pro-Jewish Bias was deleting WITHOUT VfD-ing. Now back to the article, unlike the rest of you sheep, I actually read the article and although it is not well written, it is quite valid both in its content and its context in the wider world. It should be expanded and fleshed out true, but kept and not deleted. I urge all voters to vote to keep. -CunningLinguist 08:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That speedy deletion (as it's called) is not surprising. Wikipedia is not about Wikipedia. That person can write their views on their user page or go to Wikipedia:Requests for Comment. Also, check Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. r3m0t 19:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Which article was speedy deleted? Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • What do you mean by calling it valid? It makes little sense, being just an attempt at pretentious twaddle that doesn't even succeed in being pretentious. The arrogance with which you assume that no-one but you has read the article, however, together with your insults to those who disagree with you, suggests that you're either a sock-puppet of Dnagit (or vice versa), or merely a maggot-skinned white-supremacist fellow traveller. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • While my claim that no-one read it was poorly thought out, I still stand by my previous points. Although it is poorly written, I still beleive that the article should be kept because of the fact that "Conscious Evolution" has established its presence on the internet (do a Google-search), the article was far from a "personal essay" as someone claimed, in fact these ideas have been put out in one form or another by various thinkers over time, and I see no white-supremacist propaganda on the page. My comment that no-one read it seems to become more valid the more you read this page. Someone compared the page to Zyklon B...Ummm, excuse me?? are we reading the same page here?? It seems like many of the voters on this page are coming here, quickly seeing accusations of white supremacy by others and voting Delete without actually taking in the article. Your accusation that I am either DNAGod's sock puppet or a White Supermacist is: 1. A cheap attempt to slander me and therefore make any comment I have made on here invalid 2. Patently invalid because: A. A quick look at the edit histories by me and DNAGod or even a look at our User pages shows that we are not related in anyway, in fact if DNAGod is actually a White Supremacist like you claim, I doubt he would wish to relate in any way with me since: B. For your information I am not White. -CunningLinguist 05:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • You misunderstand me. I don't think that the article contained white-supremacist material (in fact I think it had very little if any genuine content, hence my confusion over your description of it as valid). Rather, claiming that no-one but you had read the article, and calling other voters sheep was strongly reminiscent of the style of comments made by Dnagit and his friends at, for example the VfU for Jewish ethnocentrism. In fact it was those comments of yours, in my view, that would make few people take your interjection seriously, not my response to them.
          I did in fact check your edit history, and it was immediately obvious that there was no actual connection between you and Dnagit; I therefore didn't claim that there was. Rather, I said that the tenor of your remarks suggested that there was. I could (and should) have made myself clearer. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • If you believe you can write a NPOV article about whatever subject this article is about, then do so—make a subpage of your user page and take a crack at it, and then we'll review it. The article is so incoherent that I can't even fathom what he's talking about from an outsider's perspective, so I'm curious to see what an objective description of this...whatever it is...would even look like. Postdlf 05:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research. BlankVerse 09:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Human-directed evolution is certainly a topic worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia; however, this is just a weirdly-written little essay about it. Here at Wikipedia, we publish encyclopedia articles, not jargon-filled rants. Keep if totally reworked, though. And what is it with weird remarks about cabals, pro-Jewish bias and whatnot? One would think this was a Stormfront thread, not Wikipedia.Zantastik 09:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a personal essay, not an encyclopaedic article. If the subject is notable (as yet unproven), restart from scratch and maintain a NPOV from the beginning. Oh, and obviously TINC. --Plek 09:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect w Transhumanism. This POV lobbying is very disturbing. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (possibly make it a Redirect page, but I don't think that there's anything worth merging with Transhumanism, to be honest.) It's a rambling, vague, nonsensical, personal essay. (I say this very reluctantly, because as he tells us a couple of times on his User page he makes a lot of money, and as part of the Jewish ethnocentrist cabal (or cable as he puts it on his User page) I naturally have my eye on his wallet.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    AndyL's rewrite turns it into a perfectly aceptable article, avoiding all the problems of its previous incarnation. (I mean, Hubbard as loopy as her namesake (any relation?), but that's not the point.) My vote is now Keep (but keep a close eye on it to make sure it doesn't revert). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • What sort of programming is available on Jewish ethnocentrist cable? Reruns of The Goldbergs and Bridget Loves Bernie? --Calton 02:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I admit that I couldn't make head nor tail of the article as it stands and the reference to Jewish ethnocentrism didn't help. If it can to be shown to be an encyclopedic concept, I will rethink my vote. Capitalistroadster 10:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable, what Jayjg said. --Mrfixter 12:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for what it's worth, this seems to be part of the planned neo-nazi "attack" on Wikipedia. For more information, see the Adminstrator's noticeboard at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents or the original thread at Stormfront http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=173563&page=4&pp=10 (note: neo-nazi site, may be offensive to some). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, non-encyclopedic screed. Ignoring the writer's, shall we say idiosyncratic worldview, if any actual information exists out there about "conscious evolution" (and I don't think there's anything but a bunch of Skinhead tracts), then it can always be rewritten in the future, by an impartial wikipedian. The article, as it stands now, would have to be completely blanked before any real work could begin anyway. Binadot 12:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. At present, it is obviously original research/personal essay -- a rant, in fact. The article is so muddled that I can't figure out whether the term 'conscious evolution' has any encyclopedic potential either as the topic of a separate article or subsumed under some more general topic. If this does have potential as a separate encyclopedia topic, a future editor is probably better off just starting over from scratch. --BM 14:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speaking as the Aryan ideal myself, this is a remarkably fit for deletion piece of original research. Even if an encyclopaedic article could be written on the subject (whatever the subject is), this is never going to be it. Although it gets points for showing there is actually a second Cosmotheist in the world who's found Wikipedia - David Gerard 14:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It's hardly a surprise, they know each other. Jayjg (talk) 16:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Idiosyncratic original research, as well as being twaddle. -- Karada 14:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Gibberish. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm mixed. This article is crap. Pure POV drivel. However, the notion of "consious evolution" is (or at least was) pretty commonplace in New Age thinking not so long ago. It's unfortunate to see that the term and concept is being co-opted by such societal detritus as the neo-nazis. There *could* be an article on the topic, but this is probably a worse starting point than a blank page. I've no inclination to re-write this crap, so for the article in its current state my vote is Delete. older≠wiser 15:15, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps there is an article to be had here on this subject, but this definitively is not it. Horrendous and offensive in its current form (and no, I am not Jewish, though why that matters is beyond me). Given that I doubt very much this will suddenly become replaced with a coherent NPOV article, I vote to delete. Katefan0 16:43, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete in addition to being pure nonsense, also non-encyclopedic article. No value whatsoever. -- Egil 16:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice — as already noted, material of this nature belongs in eugenics and/or transhumanism. — RJH 17:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • there is such an enormous wealth of material on conscious evolution, that it would be an utter shame and waste for such a topic to be merged with other topics. eugenics and conscious evolution are not the same. Eugenics is about selective breeding, where as conscious evolution encompasses all strategies, philosophies and tactics to enable upward evolution. There is also a very spiritual element to conscious evolution, that does not exist in transhumanism. Merging conscious evolution with transhumanism wont work either, as transhumanism which was hijacked and rejects eugenics - even though the founder of transhumanism was an avid supporter of eugenics. Conscious evolution deserves its own category, and has thousands of unique articles and perspectives on it make it worthy. I ask that you give me a couple of months to develop this topic and I will include all perspectives, pro, con, neutral, etc.. etc.. Consider it a work in progress which will encompass all POV on the issue. Dnagod 22:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
More evidence that this should be deleted Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox Trödel|talk 22:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for being original research, largely in the form of a personal essay. I agree with Bkonrad that the concept is capable of having a legitimate encyclopedia article, but it doesn't appear that anyone is all that inclined to write such an article at this time, and there's no reason to leave this around, either as a placeholder now or to pollute the page history later. --Michael Snow 17:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Essay, original research. Xezbeth 17:51, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ditto - orginal research - not coherent Trödel|talk 19:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The concept exists, and is notable, no matter how far-fetched. I would at least keep the introductory paragraph. DanP 19:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ➥the Epopt of the Roman Catholic/Libertarian Chapter of the Marxist/Zionist Cabal 19:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, codswallop, I've read better stuff about consciousness in the lyrics of punk CDs. Wyss 19:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a report on anything, in spite of the ranks of (vaguely related) external links. Posturing. --Wetman 22:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It's possible, though difficult, to turn excogitations on fringe philosophies or religions into respectable NPOV articles: compare the original revision of Cosmotheism (a philosophy/religion similar to this one) with the current content, which resides at William Luther Pierce#Cosmotheism. (Though writing that article was nothing compared to the following six-month battle against Vogel's attempts to turn it back into a proselytizing pamphlet. . .) If anyone can fix this, then keep; otherwise deleting it is no loss. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, then recreate as a redirect to transhumanism. humblefool® 23:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Crap. TIMBO (T A L K) 23:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Eugenics is a subset of conscious evolution, they are not one and the same. Transhumanism is a subset of conscious evolution, because the hijacked (huxley was a eugenicist) version of transhumanism rejects conscious evolution. Conscious evolution does not discriminate, it embodies all philosophies, all view points, all strategies of real tangible transformation towards Godhood! Why would anyone want to delete the most fascinating, creative, imaginative, stimulating and interesting topic that has ever come to wikipedia or the human race for that matter? We are talking about the last revolution where man takes control of his own conscious evolution to attain the ultimate dream of immortality and godhood. Sure the thing needs work, so does the rest of wikipedia, but why would we want to delete something which represents the true essence of wikipedia? If we deleted something because it wasn't finished or could be improved regarding its POV, wouldnt we have to delete all of wikipedia? Boulder Dash! ;) Is not wikipedia Conscious Evolution and conscious evolution wikipedia? Are we not taking control of our own evolution here by building all the knowledge in the universe? Is that not clearly defined in conscious evolution as one of the traits of godhood? Imagine genetically modifying ourselves where we could hold the whole wikipedia (year 2100 version) in its completed form in our minds. Don't you see what this is? We are creating God here, this is mans ultimate dream to be immortal and attain oneness with god. Why would you want to delete this opportunity? Conscious Evolution is the great convergence of everything, all the knowledge in the universe and understood in our post human minds with perfection! Imagine a state of consciousness where consciousness permeates the whole of the universe and knowledge, and even the past and future. This is earth shattering stuff here folks. Please, let this thing stay, it needs a lot of time to nurture, to fertilize - no pun intended - and developed into something profound and wonderful. Give Conscious Evolution a CHANCE! As a reward you will all be given godhood. ;) ;) In all seriousness PLEASE give this a chance folks, please. Dnagod 02:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the essay. You've confirmed my earlier opinion. -- Hoary 02:29, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
In fact, this is fodder for BJAODN.  :) --Modemac 12:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We are creating God here, this is mans ultimate dream to be immortal and attain oneness with god. ...codswallop, too. Wyss 17:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Rant, borderline unreadable. Delete. CJCurrie 02:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original nonsense that's nearly impossible to read. Carrp | Talk 04:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to transhumanism. -Sean Curtin 04:26, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mackensen (talk) 04:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - ideological advocacy - Skysmith 10:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a redirect to artificial selection, no merge. Maybe even a delete first to erase history. -R. fiend 20:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: essay, nothing useful. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. <AOL> Me too! </AOL> --Modemac 12:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE Nazi blogging and dnagod is probably a long-term sockpuppet max rspct 19:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC). u r so obviously here to promote anti-democratic and anti-semitic views max rspct lOOk at your rant >>>


Well this is why some would argue democracy is a scam, because there seems to be more ignorant people in the world than intelligent (not meant as a personal attack). Based on the number of people voting to delete, I don't see any reason to try to make this section NPOV, as well as include a wide variety of legit POV on the issue. The votes will mean the outcome of deletion is the same (true or false)? You may have proved that wikipedia is simply and mostly a numbers game (encouraging sock puppets and proxy servers). And of course proved I was right in regards to my statements regarding an organized biased jewish cabal, even worse are their lackeys. I think my bringing this fact of jewish biast to the forefront, will never allow for me to make long term legit contributions to wikipedia without the weenies (you know who you are), censoring, deleting or reverting.

I won't waste time developing and expanding this section (unless it is preserved), as it will get purged anyway, so what would be the point? I also think that most people are probably not ready for this kind of truth, it causes too much pain to the masses to realize that for thousands of years their silly revealed religions (especially judaism & christianity in the west) were perpetuated myth-scams and that reality is Man is actually God in the making - you can pretend if you want that we are an end unto ourselves or simply that it isn't true, but deep down you know it is true and you hate the truth. You can't handle the truth! ;)

So please make the deletion final. On a tangent, I think the real problem is that I exposed the absolute fact that every section regarding or even remotely involving jews, judaism, israel, zionism and holocaust denial have a cabal of jewish ethnocentrists, jewish supremacists and (neurotic?) jews, even worse lackeys of jews, who refuse to allow these areas to be fair, balanced, npov, and include legit links and sources. Even worse is that these sections will rarely if ever have the truth regarding the extent of alternative points of view which largely exist and are not pro or neutral concerning jews. By exposing this as a fact regarding wikis jew bias and jew infestation, I have brought the wrath of the jews and their lackeys, thus not ever being able to make legit contributions to wikipedia without those legit contributions being purged, deleted or reverted. Not an insult, not a personal attack, just follow the cabal and you will see I am right.

Would it make more sense that I no longer use this account to contribute? I will still use it to browse though, or would a fresh start be in order under a new name and proxy? In other words, would it make sense I set up new accounts, by instead using one of the thousands of proxy servers I have access to? Does one need to use subtle stealth to achieve positive results of neutrality? Not concerning the jew bias problem.

Wikipedia works for the most part, but your jewish bias from your jew cabal (which includes lackeys of the jews as well) and the inability for the great majority of people to see there is a serious jew problem here will definitely hurt the long term legitimacy and credibility of wikipedia regarding issues involving or even remotely involving Judaism – FACT!

I am glad I was able to bring attention to this fact, even though it’s futile with most people sticking their heads in the sand. However, I enjoy wikipedia and I have faith that history will repeat itself.

You have my blessing purge conscious evolution.

Best Wishes. Dnagod 22:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Given that you've shown yourself unable to keep your moronic racism quiet, even when it would have been in your interest to do so, I doubt that you're capable of stealth. Why not go and work off your psychological problems somewhere else? Buy a 4x4 (SUV) — that seems to be what other people with inferiority complexes do, instead of polluting Wikipedia. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I wanted to thank him for that last bit of racist sludge, actually—that was the excuse this pale-skinned Irish atheist needed to block him permanently. Postdlf 22:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Even after years of observing white supramacist wackos in action, I am continually amazed by the incredible narrow-mindedness these losers display with every public statement, and especially their unending, fanatic obsession with Jews. Jews this, Jews that, Jews all over the place. Jews in the morning, Jews in the evening, Jews at suppertime! They must look over their shoulders and see imaginary Jews leaping out of every shadow and corner to attack them. It must be a mental handicap or something. --Modemac 12:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Modemac, you are exactly correct. I have looked at these "jew biased" sections in question with great detail and they are free of insensitive ideas, free of right wing agendas and carefully sanitized, which means they are politically proper and socially correct. There is absolutely no bias, censorship or questionable POV involving what this user describes as "topics even remotely involving jews and judaism." Censorship of additions, contributions and links which point to politically incorrect, insensitive, alternative and critical ideas should not be allowed on wikipedia. If you allow alternative view points which are racist, politically incorrect, insensitive, hurtful and alternative, you will destroy the credibility of wikipedia. I am glad there are a large number of people keeping a close eye on these "jewish biased" topics ensuring they stay in the same voice they are now. Dariodario 14:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Heh heh. I must admit though, I get a kick out of seeing a crank burst now and then. Wyss 23:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Lest there be no mistake about the ideology being espoused - despite Dnagod's self-immolating protestations to the contrary:
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew"
-- Adolf Hitler, Nazi

Delete this nonsense, but perhaps insert a redirect to higher evolution? Shantavira 17:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep I've replaced the article with a stub on the more mainstream usage of the term "conscious evolution" as coined by futurist and new age guru Barbara Marx Hubbard. AndyL 16:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Having read Andy L's stub, I will change my vote to Keep. Capitalistroadster 18:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Ditto. El_C 18:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, AndyL's ingenuity in finding something reasonable for the article to be about is commendable. But, you know, this book by Barbara Marx Hubbard is not really notable, nor is the author. The book has an Amazon sales rank of 58,000 or so, and doesn't seem to have had much of an impact, though it was published in 1998. Tip of the hat to AndyL, but I don't think we need to be bending over backwards to have an article of this title in the Wikipedia. So, my vote to delete is unchanged. --BM 20:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think articles pending VfD should be so totally altered as to not even be about their original subject matter—the only thing the same is the title. The article should still be deleted, to remove the worthless edit history of the original, unrelated version, and then AndyL can repost his version on a totally clean slate. Postdlf 22:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • well, unlike the editor who originated this article, Hubbard is a published author though that alone may not make her or her theories "notable". I'm fine with deleting the article entirely in a few hours once five days have elapsed. AndyL 22:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's not an encyclopedic classification. I still say begone... Wyss 23:42, 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 DELETE. jni 13:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stop auto at alley

[edit]

This page is unencyclopedic - its about obscuring letters from a sign to make it say something else. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:07, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete This article is unencyclopedia. It is unnecessary. Cabhan 04:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. But oh my god, this is perhaps the most mundane and worthless article subject I have ever seen. Maybe that's worth something? Postdlf 05:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Cleduc 06:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. At first I thought it should be merged with graffiti, but no, just delete. — Brim 10:02, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If appropriately renamed this could easily form the basis for a fascinating article on a very prevalent graffiti subset. Similar modifications to printed signage have been in circulation for years on Sydney's suburban trains, and a proper exposition of the phenomenon, and its localized variants is exactly the sort of thing Wikipedia can and should excel at documenting.--Centauri 11:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I normally enjoy little cultural tidbits more than most people, but this one is just far, far too minor to belong here. Mildly funny though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vandalistic article about vandalism, unhelpful, WP not a DIY guide for vandals, unencyclopedic subset of graffiti vandalism. Wyss 19:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. Carrp | Talk 03:49, 14 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. jni 13:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

SanityFalling

[edit]

I don't think this establishes sufficient notability. Will need cleanup if kept. My vote is to delete.-gadfium 04:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agree with above, no notability. The only possible connection that I see is to the band "Denial of System", but this article fails to cover this band, and the article would require renaming anyway. Cabhan 04:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable -- Cleduc 06:04, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish notability, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable / vanity. — Brim 09:50, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, self-promotional vanity. Wyss 19:44, 9 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 redirect. Not much information to merge, so the merge and redirect votes were counted as merely redirect. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Sullivan

[edit]

This is a one line article that states "Daniel Sullivan is suspected of starting the Great Chicago Fire October 8 - October 10, 1871, in Chicago, Illinois." I doubt an article can be built around this. --The Jacobin 05:38, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment, you are probably right but Google is revealing a number of hits for "Daniel Sullivan" + "Chicago Fire", not much is known about him outside of the event other than he had a peg leg. Maybe a merge and redirect to Great Chicago Fire? No vote as yet. Megan1967 06:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)]
  • Will probably never be much more than a 1-paragraph stub, but even so it's still a valid article. Keep. --Centauri 07:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The Chicago Fire article already has more info on him than this one does, so this should redirect there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as above. --InShaneee 16:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as above. Nateji77 18:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it as duplicate content is all. Wyss 19:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 19:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Great Chicago Fire. Nothing to merge that's not already there. -R. fiend 20:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Great Chicago Fire. Courtland 04:55, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
  • Keep. Iceberg3k 16:14, Feb 20, 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 21:38, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Worldwithoutwalls

[edit]

Besides the problematic title, this appears to be original research: From article, "by Ruchira Bajaj", one of two contribs from User:Ruchirabajaj. Niteowlneils 06:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, POV original research. Megan1967 06:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete what Megan1967 said. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:02, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, essay, original research. Wyss 19:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A couple of lines are coming through as semi-copyvios. It's plagiarized. - Lucky 6.9 23:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. All of the above are good reasons. Carrp | Talk 03:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, looks copyvio. Author also blanked, making it look as if it deserves deletion. --Bart133 (t) 04:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm going to try to turn it into a better article right now... Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)
    • OK, this article was shit, after starting to edit i realised that i could use 1 (one) sentence out of it... i still keep my vote, but if you wish to delete it, go for it. Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)

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 21:41, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Joseph F. Sahid

[edit]

Vanity article. Not notable enough for an encyclopedia. — Brim 06:21, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Note that the anon creator of that page has repeatedly added himself to University of Pennsylvania and Phillips Exeter Academy, and has re-added them after being removed without discussion. He also blanked this vfd page, after which I reverted and warned him on his talk page. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:36, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, bad-faith, abusive self-promotion. Wyss 19:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wyss above says it all Brookie 15:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - This person is not worth listing on Wikipedia. I've met him. 19:41, 19 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. Article is pending deletion due to a block compress error. Joyous 21:40, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Irish dance of Phoenix, AZ

[edit]

Deceptively well-written, this article just tells the history of a dance company. It's really just a plug for a company. Not notable. — Brim 06:36, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, personal essay. Megan1967 06:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but remove promotional bias. A dance school established for 40-something years is notable. --Centauri 07:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • No dance school is notable unless it's being run by the Champions or the Castles. Delete. RickK 08:02, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep long-lived and definitely notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's a local dance school. I tried to clean it up but sadly, found nothing keepable. I've left the cleanup tag for anyone else who wants to try. Wyss 19:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the original author can't be bothered to clean up why should we. -- RHaworth 21:24, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
Comment: because that's the whole point of a wiki. Dan100 21:51, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I cannot be bothered to read the entire thing, but the first few paragraphs do not establish notability, which is about the first thing any encyclopedia article should do (one should not, for example, have to read about someone's favorite foods an TV shows before being informed that they are the President of Tajikistan). It seems those voting to keep are doing so because it has been around a while. Thousands of businesses have been around for 40 years; that doesn't make them notable. -R. fiend 20:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: promo. Cut-n-paste from a geocities.com web site (extlink in the article). Wile E. Heresiarch 04:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivial. Gamaliel 07:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Chequers 05:19, Feb 16, 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 withdrawn. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Liu Shou-ch'eng

[edit]

non-notable — J3ff 06:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination for deletion. — J3ff 22:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - 16 Google hits, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page. — Brim 09:33, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme strong keep. He's actually current mayor of Yilan County, Taiwan (population: 463,000). The text is a massive copyvio so I'll do some cleanup and see what happens. --JuntungWu 18:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • By the way it's 4,550 Google keeps on the Chinese name. --JuntungWu 18:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • More by the way is that this is probably created from a red link in the Yilan County article. --JuntungWu 18:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Yilan County; could probably just list former county governors in a section all their own. Nateji77 18:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, he's even been re-elected, not a viable candidate for VfD. Wyss 19:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree. I am against his political views but I will go to great lengths to defend against deleting an encyclopedia article about him.--JuntungWu 09:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mayor of city. 220.244.224.72 18:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mayor of a decent-sized city. / up+land 19:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A mayor of a large county is notable. Carrp | Talk 03:52, 14 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. Joyous 21:43, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hofflenosh

[edit]

neologism — J3ff 06:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Neologism Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, yep. Wyss 19:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keep - how the heck are we meant to get this in the OED with you lot deleting it?!? I reckon, apart from my vote, this set of votes is going to be hofflenosh ;) We are serious about this, and you are the first site to openly oppose our plans for hofflenosh. Everyone else has accepted it and liked it with a "lol" or two, but once again Wikipedia proves itself to be humourless, with no consideration for anyone else except its own users.
Note: Above vote was made by 213.162.102.59 Unsigned/unregistered votes do not count. Please register with Wikipedia and have at least some edits before voting on VfD. =) --Andylkl 07:25, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep - Though the intonation of the word itself is a bit daft, it's a genuine phenomenon that deserves a specific definition and a word to go with it.
Note: Above vote was made by 172.214.242.7 See above. --Andylkl 07:25, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep - We all come across discussions like this, for example most political ones or 'evolution vs creationism' so I think that a word is needed to decribe this.
Note: Above vote was made by 84.67.1.255 See above. --Andylkl 07:25, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. Btw, it's not that Wikipedia is humourless, check out the BJAODN page for Wikipedian humour. ;) --Andylkl 07:25, Feb 13, 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. jni 13:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Robert B. Katz

[edit]

non-notable — J3ff 06:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity page. — Brim 09:31, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. So he's got into university. Well done. Now go away. 14:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, user test. Wyss 19:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:12, 10 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. jni 13:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bufu

[edit]

Non-notable or BS; possibly both — J3ff 06:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, article does not establish notability, possible vanity or hoax. Megan1967 08:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It sounds like something non-notable inspired by FUBU. It's certainly not "well-known" in North American culture generally. I have a strong feeling it's a local group of friends of about high school age. Delete. Samaritan 15:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete there is a real organisation called Brothers United, for black gay people in the Nashville area, but I'm pretty sure that isn't what this refers to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence of notability, probable vanity. Do they know that "Bufu" is slang for certain sexual preferences? ("My English teacher is, like -- Mr. Bufu! We're talking Lord God King Bufu! He's always playing with his rings, and flirting with all the boys...") -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's either a hoax or lame vanity. Wyss 19:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as probable hoax. "Bufu" + "Brothers United" -> no results. --Idont Havaname 04:46, 10 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. jni 13:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gregory Gauthier

[edit]

non-notable — J3ff 07:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete won a math contest? What's next, spelling-bee winners? How about the grammar rodeo? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:32, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Encyclopedic notability not established. (Brought back fond memories of my own kicking ass and taking names in the New England Mathematics League tests, though.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 19:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Listed as national champion-2004 on Mathcounts page. This is all the credit deserved, however, in response to Starblind's comment, competitive mathematics is indeed a sport, if nonathletic.

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 during debate as recreated content. jni 13:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rigo Murillo

[edit]

This article has been recreated as a non-copyvio. Still seems like vanity to me. RickK 07:54, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) -- Update: see my notes below. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • STRONG KEEP my research has revealed strong suggestions of notability. If http://users.churchserve.com/tx/inspiringmusic/bio.html is true, he's worked with Ray Charles, Itzhak Perlman, Yo-Yo Ma, Jean Pierre Rampal and Doc Severinsen, and has played on several symphony orchestras. If those aren't credentials for a notable classical musician, what is? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. On closer reading, I suspect that link doesn't reveal quite the level of notability one would hope for. The quote from the linked article is, "Throughout his career, he has shared [a] stage along with [such] world-acclaimed artists as...". Presumably those highly notable artists appeared as soloists while Murillo was a member of the symphony orchestra behind them. Even if Itzhak Perlman is at the front of the stage, I don't think it makes every member of the orchestra (thirty, fifty, a hundred musicians?) notable. I would suggest that for a symphony orchestra (one noteworthy in and of itself), only the conductor and maybe the concertmaster are usually above the notability threshold for inclusion. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, thousands of string players have done studio sessions with famous people, this is an ad for a fiddle player. Wyss 19:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This was previously voted for deletion at VfD/Rigo Murillo (14 Jan 2005) and VfD/Rigo Murillo2 (24 Jan 2005). (The first discussion thread was repeatedly blanked by an anon contributor after the discussion closed.) This article has also been speedy deleted. Deletion Log shows:
  • 17:22, 4 Feb 2005 Ahoerstemeier deleted Rigo Murillo (content was: 'blah')
  • 17:19, 4 Feb 2005 Ahoerstemeier deleted Rigo Murillo (content was: 'Please, leave Wikipedia ALONE!!!')
  • 17:08, 4 Feb 2005 Fvw deleted Rigo Murillo (deleteagain)
  • 16:52, 4 Feb 2005 Fvw deleted Rigo Murillo (deleteagain)
  • 11:01, 31 Jan 2005 Wile E. Heresiarch deleted Rigo Murillo (per vfd; see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rigo Murillo2)
  • 03:04, 21 Jan 2005 SimonP deleted Rigo Murillo (listed on VfD, found to be a copyvio)
There is a strong case to speedy delete as recreated content. RickK is probably right that this is just different enough to deserve consideration by the community one last time. The best evidence of his experience that I could find was a page of his own website. Even with those, it does not look like he meets the recommended music guidelines. I'm inclined to delete. Rossami (talk) 20:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The current article is a reasonable basis for an article describing his career. What harm does it do? Just put him in the appropriate category or categories. Mr. Jones 20:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • This may not be the place for this discussion, but the harm it does is that it undermines Wikipedia's encyclopedic authority in relation to what is notable and significant. People come to an encyclopedia not only to obtain facts about particular subjects, but to understand how the subject is important in relation to some broader context. Paper encyclopedias have notability thresholds not only because they are "paper", but because the significance filter they apply is one of their most important functions. Even though Wikipedia does not have those practical constraints, not being paper, it still should apply an importance metric in its selection of subjects and the amount of detail that it provides about them. If someone does a search on Rigo Murillo and finds a long article, or even any article, about him in the Wikipedia, that person is entitled to believe that Wikipedia considers Murillo to be a notable musician. The people trying to get vanity articles about themselves into an encyclopedia seem to understand this much better than some of the editors. They want an article about themselves in the encyclopedia because it means they are important! If an article doesn't seem to establish why its subject is important, then it will seem to the reader that the article is poorly written and the reader will wonder why it was in the encyclopedia. If it later turns out that Rigo Murillo is not significant, the Wikipedia will seem unreliable, even if all the information in the article was correct, and a reader will be less inclined to trust its judgement about significance in the future, and perhaps even to question the factual accuracy of the articles. This is why deletionists waste a lot of time trying to remove "trivia" and "vanity" from the Wikipedia. It isn't because they are trying to save the project a few pennies on disk space. --BM 22:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Culling information is not the way to tell people what is notable and significant, if an article has a properly written introduction that will do the job fine. Kappa 04:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • So you're saying that if it's well-written, any vanity is okay to keep? RickK 06:10, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not actually arguing to keep vanity articles, I just oppose the use of quantity of information as a shorthand for importance. While IMO pure vanity isn't really useful information, deletionists vote delete on subjects with verifiable information which significant numbers of people might want to look for. Kappa 07:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete... it's still non-notable vanity about a guy with 59 Google hits. Should that article's page be protected for a while so that it won't keep coming back? --Idont Havaname 04:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speed deleted as a repost of a previously-deleted article. The original was on vfd (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rigo Murillo), determined to be a copyvio, listed on the copyvio page, then rewritten as a non-copyvio. The non-copyvio version has already been deleted per vfd; see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rigo Murillo2. The author has proven to be a determined vandal as well as a talented musician; unfortunately a desperate need for free advertising is incontrovertible evidence of nonnotability. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notabe - 55 Google hits, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP, There is nothing wrong with musicians' descriptions. This individual's accomplishments and reputation are worthy. --65.134.160.4 13:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for not meeting WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion. Note that this judgement is based entirely off the comments on this VfD page, as the article in question doesn't exist at the moment. If there is something I am missing that makes him notable, please let me know (I'll watch this page) and I will change my vote. Tuf-Kat 03:28, Feb 14, 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. jni 12:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Klaffs

[edit]

Advertising. Copyvio? RickK 07:57, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, advertisement. Megan1967 09:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad, not quite notable enough for cleanup. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad, nothing encyclopedic when PoV is removed. Wyss 19:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:13, 10 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. jni 13:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Capitalist Superiority Day

[edit]

0 Google hits for "Capitalist Superiority Day." Founded in Athens, GA in 2001 and I'm willing to bet that I can count the number of people outside that town who celebrate it on no hands. LizardWizard 08:07, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • KEEPI must respectfully disagree. Transplants from Athens, Georgia have begun to spread this holiday all throughout the nation. Last November it was celebrated not only all throughout the state of Georgia, but also in pockets of California (most notably in the Sacramento region), Virginia Beach, Las Vegas, and possibly even so far north as Boston. It can not be forgotten that very few holidays began nationwide. Valentine's Day started out as a small little holiday observed only in a town in West Virginia. Thanksgiving was once nothing but a meal eaten by some pilgrims. Christmas started in a little village in the mideast. It is quite foolish and stereotypically old-fashioned to stand in the way of something just because it's not big yet. Hell, if everybody did that, we'd still be living in caves. And yes, I am the creator of this article. - Lewis Ranja And, furthermore, how is this any less important than friggin' Ashlee Simpson???
    • Boy, did you pick the wrong counter-example. --Calton 10:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some evidence can be cited. Probably fictional, doesn't appear encyclopedic even if it's not. —Stormie 08:42, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. If it ever becomes notable, we can create the article again later, just like band vanity pages. Besides, I thought if there was any "Capitalist Superiority Day" in November it would be the day after Thanksgiving. Dave6 08:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. Gamaliel 08:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nonsense [7]
  • Delete. Patent nonsense. (Oops, forgot to sign Calton 02:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete very obvious joke if one reads far enough down. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Joke/hoax/nonsense. --BM 15:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons given above by others. -- Curps 18:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, rantish joke. Wyss 19:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence presented that it is celebrated to any significant extent. The alleged theme song, "Money, money. it is good Money, money" returns no hits on Googling for exact phrase. Article reads like a transparent joke or hoax. As for the comment above that "It is quite foolish and stereotypically old-fashioned to stand in the way of something just because it's not big yet," Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an incubator for holidays or neologisms or garage bands or memes on the rise. When Capitalist Superiority Day becomes big, we will welcome an article on it, not before. Let Wikinfo or Anarchopedia or Jnanabase get the scoop; we have no interest in being first. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probable hoax or trolling.--Centauri 23:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patent nonsense/joke/hoax. Andrew pmk 02:01, 14 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 speedy delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zionist Domination of Wikipedia

[edit]

Wrong namespace, PoV, essay. -- Hoary 08:09, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

  • Delete. Probably could be speedy delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 08:10, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Patent nonsense. Speedy deleted. --Slowking Man 08:10, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment In the future, I would recommend not speedying articles that criticize Wikipedia. It seems perverse, but speedying just gives the conspiracy theorists more ammunition. LizardWizard 08:12, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not giving conspiracy theorists ammunition isn't a reason to change Wikipedia procedures. Conspiracy theorists have all the ammunition they need, in any case -- since they just make shit up. --BM 12:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how this is an appropriate title for an article. If the allegations should be made anywhere it should be through the e-mail or on the Wikipedia article. I'd like to see the alleged evidence.Capitalistroadster 11:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I had to restore it. This is not Patent nonsense in the very specific way we use that term. It is a personal rant that is clearly inappropriate for the article space (and not really appropriate for the Wikipedia space either) but those are judgment calls that have to be made through the full VfD process. I don't believe this met the criteria for speedy deletion. (In case it wasn't clear, delete.) Rossami (talk) 22:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Curps 22:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Since this seems to be part of the concerted attack by Stormfront, it seems like we should simply Speedy Delete it as a form of vandalism. --BM 22:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is open to everyone.. (and sad if this is a NAZI INSERT); there's no zionist domination of wiki. However if Pro- or Anti-Zionist administrators are RVing articles they should declare that they are of the relevant persuasion. max rspct 23:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: It was speedy deletable as vandalism. Restoring content that can never be part of Wikipedia is a very bad move. We don't permit such "meta" articles here (essays about ourselves): this has no chance of remaining, and dealing with it is a waste of the time of all concerned. - Nunh-huh 23:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Both part of the stormfront 'attack' and utter and complete nonsence. humblefool® 00:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The cabal made me do it, and then they stole my foreskin. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Should have been speedy deleted because of the self-reference, whether good or ill. Delete. Now it sits for five days and gets mirrored all over the Internet. RickK 00:14, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would have speedied it too. Delete anyway. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 00:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely agree with RickK. Regarding stolen foreskins: Blame the GNAA.  :^) - Lucky 6.9 00:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Follow-up comment: Many kudos to Slowking Man for initiating a one-day block of the IP. Great move IMO. - Lucky 6.9 00:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rhobite 00:48, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tried to clean it up but it still seems somewhat non-encyclopedic. hydnjo talk 01:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, should be speedy deleted not necessarily due to patent nonsense, but because it's part of the planned Stormfront neo-nazi attack on Wikipedia, and therefore vandalism/trolling. For more information, see the Administrator's noticeboard at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents or the original thread at Stormfront http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=173563&page=4&pp=10 (note: neo-nazi site, may be offensive to some). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:41, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • With this additional evidence, I now understand the argument for speedy delete - not as patent nonsense but as confirmed vandalism. I know a lot of people think I'm a jerk for insisting on such a strict interpretation of WP:CSD and for careful documentation of those decisions but I remain convinced that it's an important control for Wikipedia and the community's credibility. Rossami (talk) 14:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Tried to clean it up a bit more, but I'm not too happy with it being mirrored even in this form. Its almost better to leave the rabid original, which nobody would take seriously. --BM 02:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Moved to Wikipedia namespace, vote delete. silsor 03:46, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. At least it's in the Wikipedia namespace now, but I don't believe it belongs on WP at all. Carrp | Talk 03:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- couldn't it be speedied because it's from an apparent Alberuni sockpuppet? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Sean Curtin 04:29, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as abuse. Szyslak 08:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme delete, as comical as it is. —RaD Man (talk) 09:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, preferably speedy. Ideological advocacy, definitely intentional abuse of WP VFD policy. - Skysmith 10:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--Pharos 10:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No proof for accusations provided. Abusive. Mgm|(talk) 11:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Antandrus 02:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted per overwhelming consensus. No reason to keep vandalism for a week. Neutralitytalk 02:37, Feb 11, 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 21:44, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wikibility

[edit]

The article is about a non-notable research study being done by some Cal Poly students. They seem to want people to use the article to comment on their experience using Wikipedia. Dave6 08:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't see how this can be developed into a full article. — Brim 09:19, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this could be placed on the user (User:Redstar918's) home page, I suggested that on their talk page. Kappa 11:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. People can test wikipedia already. Redirect to Wikipedia:Sandbox if necessary. — Asbestos | Talk 12:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-encyclopedic on so many levels. It's signed (which hasn't been apropos for quite awhile here at WP) and seems to be encouraging people to edit the article with their wikipedia experiences, guestbook-style I suppose. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move, To that user page. Otherwise delete. Inter 15:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to a user subpage, which is where this belongs. Leave the resulting redirect for the moment, but list it on redirects for deletion so in time it goes, and meantime doesn't disrupt what I'm assuming is a good faith project. Andrewa 16:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Move and list redirect for deletion, per Andrewa. Very annoying. I'm assuming he's going to invite Cal Poly people to play in the sandbox he's created in our main article space. As good guys, we might as well let him do this in his user space, even though Wikipedia is not a free Wiki host and it's not utterly clear that what's he's doing is directly relevant to our purposes. We probably should contact him and insist that any brilliant UI improvements he comes up with be properly licensed so they could be incorporated into MediaWiki. It was rather discourteous of him to do this without even trying to contact the community via the Village Pump and asking. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is not an article and could be speedied. Wyss 19:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, users can add to their user pages, and advertise via community pages etc. Rich Farmbrough 19:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete outright. There isn't so much here that the user can't recreate it himself in his User space. Furthermore, the article is nonsense, and it is hard to believe that such a moronic project is connected with a university-level course. Even if Cal Poly is not a very prestigious school, surely its courses are not so easy that you can get credit for such stupidity. The experience of working on the Wikipedia is not even remotely captured by hacking on some arbitrary text and reporting your subjective reactions. Anyway the students didn't need a special sandbox on Wikipedia for that. Almost any wiki software on a PC with an internet connection would have served as well. --BM 22:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and don't let the User recreate it in his/her User space. The User space is not a chat board. RickK
  • Delete - shallow nonsense of no note Brookie 15:26, 12 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. Joyous 21:44, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Darth Bask

[edit]

This is a Star Wars character from someone's home roleplaying game, not from any the movies or licensed spin-offs. As a consequence, it should be deleted. QuentinGeorge 08:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not encyclopedic, but a query: is this a character from someone's home role-playing campaign? Or is it a character introduced in the rulebooks of the Star Wars RPG? Makes no difference to my vote, but may to others. —Stormie 08:45, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no Google hits for Darth Bask so I doubt this is an official character in the spin-offs. — Brim 09:22, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not in the films, and so even if he did appear in some RPG somewhere, wouldn't deserve an article of his own. Suspect this is someone making it up themselves. Average Earthman 14:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as either non-canonical or hopelessly minor character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, slash cruft. Wyss 19:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Expanded Universe (Star Wars). Megan1967 07:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Do not merge. This character is part of someone's home game, not part of the Star Wars Expanded Universe, so should not be added to the Expanded Universe (Star Wars) article. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco
  • Delete. Apparent fanfic. -R. fiend 20:34, 10 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

This is a Star Wars character from someone's home roleplaying game, not from any the movies or licensed spin-offs. As a consequence, it is of no interest to anyone outside of this person's gaming group, and should be deleted. QuentinGeorge 08:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note: It's not a home roleplaying game though, but from [Expanded Universe http://www.starwars.com/eu/] (RPG page). It is a licensed official product made by Wizards of the Coast. --Sketchee 20:44, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedic, but a query: is this a character from someone's home role-playing campaign? Or is it a character introduced in the rulebooks of the Star Wars RPG? Makes no difference to my vote, but may to others. —Stormie 08:45, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Brim 09:22, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as either non-canonical or hopelessly minor character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The name of the country house in a Daphne du Maurier book that was made into a film starring Basil Rathbone. That's what Google tells me anyway (mind you, it also says it was the surname of the 5th President of Israel, which only goes to show how many people on the internet can't type, since that was Navon). The Expanded Universe Role-Playing Game character appears well, well down the list, and isn't notable separate from the game. Average Earthman 14:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The Expanded Universe (Star Wars) is considered canonical by Lucas et al. So I'd vote to merge a brief paragraph into a list of characters on the Expanded Universe page. — RJH 17:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, slash fiction cruft. Wyss 19:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge a reduced version into the game page. --Sketchee 20:44, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Expanded Universe (Star Wars). Megan1967 07:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Despite the fact the Star Wars RPG is an official product, there is no evidence that the character Navron, or either of the other two characters listed, exist outside the specific game being played by the contributor. This page should therefore not be merged into the Expanded Universe (Star Wars) page. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 16:03, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparent fanfic. -R. fiend 20:32, 10 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • This page cannot be deleted because of block-compress errors. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blain Starhawk

[edit]

Like the previous two pages, this is a Star Wars character from someone's home roleplaying game, not from any the movies or licensed spin-offs. As a consequence, it is of no interest to anyone outside of this person's gaming group, and should be deleted. QuentinGeorge 08:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

These three entries appear in no SW Official RPG Rulebook, and are from someone's home campaign. QuentinGeorge 08:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, as above. —Stormie 08:57, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Brim 09:22, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as either non-canonical or hopelessly minor character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. Inter 15:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As any Star Wars character warrants salvation. (Seriously, Delete) --BenWilson 17:13, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge a brief paragraph on the Expanded Universe page or the Minor characters in Star Wars page. — RJH 17:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as slash fiction cruft. Wyss 19:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Expanded Universe (Star Wars). Megan1967 07:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Do not merge. This character is part of someone's home game, not part of the Star Wars Expanded Universe, so should not be added to the Expanded Universe (Star Wars) article. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco
  • Delete. Fanfic. All google hits say nothing or are WP mirrors. All the information available is "Blain Starhawk a fictional character from the Star Wars Expanded Universe Role-Playing Game." Which apparently isn't even true. -R. fiend 20:30, 10 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. Joyous 21:46, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Irlam i16

[edit]
  • Appears to be advertising/spam. An obscure, obsolete product for an aging computer, all to provide a pointer to this driver update. --Dhartung | Talk 08:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - less than 39 Google hits, advertisement. Megan1967 09:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Brim 09:23, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weakish keep I happen to know some musicians in the UK still use these machines, especially to process MIDI. This information could be useful. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whether this is deliberate Wikispam or just a review of an obscure driver update by an enthusiastic user isn't obvious to me, but either way it doesn't belong. Impressive list of Wikilinks though. Andrewa 15:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP not a DIY guide or driver database. Wyss 19:12, 9 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 keep. Keep 8 / Delete 5... Lucky made an agreement to Katefan0, which could be assumed as a keep. The author expressed a transwiki to Wikitravel, which did not appear in any of the votes after the nomination. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

55 bar

[edit]

This is a listing for one of the many jazz clubs in NYC, but I don't think this is a historically important jazz club which would qualify as being Wikipedia article-worthy. This bar listing would be better served at Wikitravel. — Brim 09:14, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, article does not establish notability. Megan1967 09:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are thousands of bars in New York. A Google search for this one ("55 Bar" "New York") finds just 14 hits. — Asbestos | Talk 12:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I get 6,000 hits for that Google... sjorford:// 16:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Not notable. Inter 15:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep fairly notable, it's been around for 86 years and is notable within the NY jazz scene. Certainly not just another corner pub. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP! It is an extremely popular historical jazz bar in NYC and in fact used to be a speakeasy during Prohibition. Try Googling "55 bar" NYC and you'll see lots more hits than 14. Katefan0 16:51, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't a guide to NYC bars and jazz clubs. And, in the context of the history of Jazz, it doesn't appear that this club is an important enough venue that an Encyclopedia of Jazz would have an article on it, assuming that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia of Jazz. --BM 18:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think you're correct about that. AllAboutJazz, a Jazz website, mentions 55 Bar some 500+ times. See http://www.google.com/custom?sitesearch=allaboutjazz.com&domains=allaboutjazz.com&q=55+bar Also, a Google search for "55 Bar" +jazz brings up 7,690 hits. Clearly it's notable within a jazz context. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:17, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • I did those kind of searches too. Sure its a venue for jazz, which means that jazz musicians do gigs there. These are announced on allaboutjazz.com, which produces Google hits. But to be significant, I'd want to see some evidence that this is a place which is more than just another venue. Is it the place where important jazz musicians got their start, for example? Have the owners of it been impresarios who were important in encouraging the development of new styles. Any place that is in business as a jazz venue has to have enough local notability to attract paying customers; but that doesn't make it encyclopedically notable. There must be 30 jazz clubs in NYC. What makes this one stand out, apart from cheap beer and a low cover charge? No change of vote. Notability still not established. --BM 19:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The article does not establish notability by itself but there are plenty of hits on Google. Cleanup and expand the article. Carrp | Talk 18:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Clearly the article needs some work, but I remind everyone that the bar for inclusion is not the current shape of the article, but whether it has the potential to become encyclopedic. Katefan0 18:40, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, helpful. Wyss 19:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Katefan. Sub-stubbish as is, but certainly serviceable. Notability established, too. - Lucky 6.9 22:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. Mikkalai 07:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Current article does not establish notability, number of Google hits is just par for a live music venue. If someone wants to demonstrate notability, they should do so in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:05, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep, agree with Katefan0. —RaD Man (talk) 09:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, rather famous. James F. (talk) 14:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, famous if you know about such things. Of course, if a bunch of deletionists haven't heard of it, it must go, musn't it ;) Dan100 21:41, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Now now. I am a deletionist, and you see how I have voted. Katefan0 22:13, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • If the inclusionists would take the trouble to mention why its famous, apart from citing Google hits, which are not indicative of the importance of a jazz venue, the deletionists might not be saying delete. Deletionists don't want to delete the Wikipedia, you know; they just want to have articles that are about significant, important, notable, subjects. You know, like an encyclopedia. --BM 22:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd be very willing to vote keep, but googling and vague generalities about importance are not enough to do so. Please establish notability in the article. Tuf-Kat 03:31, Feb 14, 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. jni 07:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mike Elephant

[edit]

Delete. The actor is not notable, at least as far as I can find. A mere appearance on the Gong Show should not warrant inclusion. His information could perhaps be moved to a Gong Show page, if warranted. --Westendgirl 09:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Man gets gonged on the Gong Show. Does anyone else need pointing out the obvious flaw in making that the major claim to fame? Average Earthman 14:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete though I would have absolutely loved to see that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Not notable. Inter 15:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, sounds funny though. Rje 17:46, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Wyss 19:03, 9 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. jni 07:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jim Szwiec

[edit]

Vanity. – flamurai (t) 11:08, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Vanity. Inter 15:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ditto. – Kpalion (talk) 16:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Rje 17:44, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, user test. Wyss 18:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedian231 19:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish notability, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this article on this non-notable person. The only thing that comes to my mind is "So what?" and "Who cares?" Zzyzx11 08:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Enochlau 12:15, 10 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. jni 07:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First settlers

[edit]

Vague overgeneral title about subject already covered in depth in History of the Strathfield area article. Rmhermen 15:20, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • I guess they bought one of those old models of the universe where everything revolves around Strathfield. delete as unnecessary duplication. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — RJH 17:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wyss 18:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete 220.244.224.72 18:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That was me too. 220.244.224.72 16:57, 11 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 speedy delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lupinski

[edit]

Pure nonsense by vandal 216.47.187.221 -- Egil 15:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm deleting it as patent nonsense. Content shown below. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Lupinski Clan was first found in ancient china, although from eastern europe their roots can be found everywhere, EVEN PLUTO. AIT sources say that the first members of the lupinski clan were aliens, who were in deep freeze from the ice age. They defrosted and started mating with the human woman. The lupinski clan is renound for stopping nazi germany at the top of its peak, on mt. Hialyah. Infact, Oomtak (the leader of the clan) once had tea with hitler and himmler him self, until hitler killed himself because of Oomtaks awsomeness. Another great acheivement of the Lupinski Clan, is stopping the snow yetti's from invading america to rape the woman and pillage america. The lupinski clan stopped them by using alien cyborg criminal assassins, and then they settled an agreement with the yeti overlord, and they gave new jersey to the yeti's.

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 with Wallhack. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wall hacks

[edit]

non-notable, maybe merge with something? Rmhermen 17:12, Feb 9, 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 21:46, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Icmag

[edit]

I can't find any evidence that this is notable, or even a real for that matter. Google for "icmag" gets lots of hits, but mostly for a marijuana magazine. Searches including other keywords from the article get little or nothing. I checked a few subscription academic indices with no luck either. So I suspect it's a hoax, or at best a non-notable feature from some unnamed fiction. CDC (talk) 17:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete if it's from fiction, it doesn't seem to be anything particularly well-known. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:10, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as either as bad-faith vandalism (which is a speedy) or as a stealth ad for some fictional work. Wyss 18:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Icmag is a cannabis magazine which gets 18,000 Google hits, perhaps suggest a Redirect to Cannabis (drug)? The present article as it stands looks like nonsense. Megan1967 08:07, 10 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. jni 07:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Allie E. Brooks, Jr.

[edit]

This was proposed for speedy deletion but does not meet the criteria. Well written, but this person may not be sufficiently notable for encyclopedic purposes. -- Curps 18:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I disagree that it's particularly well written, it seems full of POV and weasel words "some [people] say..." and "a few [people] feel" etc. It's definitely not a speedy candidate, nor is it a hoax, since Mr. Brooks' retirement did get a few words in the local press. I still don't think that being a long-runing and well-admired high school principal is quite enough to warrant an encyclopedia article though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:31, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, school tribute. Wyss 18:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry, John McAllen has worked at the local snack bar for 32 years too, yet he doesn't deserve an article. Neither does Mr. Brooks. Phils 22:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gushing, weasel-worded bio and insufficiently notable subject. That having been said, it's nice to think that a student would write something this heartfelt as opposed to the horrid vandalism that sometimes comes in regarding teachers and faculty. - Lucky 6.9 00:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wagiles 00:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is what the deletion policy refers to as a Vanity page--Whysperseed 08:17, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 07:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Matzke

[edit]

Not notable. There is nothing that makes the name "Matzke" more notable than any other German surname. Dr Gangrene 18:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, genealogoy. Wyss 18:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Phils 22:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wagiles 00:36, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE (has been converted to redirect to Current events during voting). jni 07:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

March 2005

[edit]

A 9-year-old asking a question about why Wikipedia has such a silly name. Speedy time? (I'm not 100% familiar with the criteria for speedy, so I played it safe and put the nomination here.)23skidoo 18:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as user test. Wyss 18:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • If it's really from a nine-year-old, it seems we have a very intelligent and interesting one on our hands. This looks like a speedy delete as a misplaced village pump message/newbie experiment. Admins? - Lucky 6.9 18:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • We have a 9-year-old on our hands, probably more than one. See Types of animals, Ellen Raskin, Wikipedia:Introduction, and [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]). Uncle G 19:48, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
FWIW we also have a registered Wikipedian who will turn 8 next month, who's edits I review from time to time as they're a bit hit or miss. He has an amazing interest in politics and national/world affairs for someone that age. Niteowlneils 20:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hey, can't complain about people starting at an early age, though one wonders if someone who can figure out how to create an article couldn't figure out how to access the Village Pump, but then again it's been awhile since I was 9! ;-) 23skidoo 03:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You don't need to "figure out" out how to create an article, WP practically begs you to do it if you click on a red link or your search fails. Kappa 06:29, 10 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. jni 07:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thonger

[edit]

Neologism, dictdef. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: See Microkini. Vote pending. Uncle G 19:26, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
    • I've seen "microkini" -- unlike thonger, I believe that that's an actual term in use. That one probably needs a cleanup, though. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know (nor do I care?) how long "thonger" has existed as a word,delete has existed for a much longer time; and that's what this article needs. Phils 22:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • ...and I'm a Brief-er. Aren't you glad you asked? Delete. hydnjo talk 01:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) Too much info Hydnjo! Brookie 15:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research ;) Wyss 02:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've never heard of such people and really don't need to! Some people need to get more fresh air! Brookie 15:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it something to do with flip flops. 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. jni 06:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

DTG

[edit]

Non-notable band that fails to meed the WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines. Uncle G 19:37, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

  • Purge the wiki of non-notable vanity. Phils 22:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. – flamurai (t) 02:13, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as short, incomplete user test without context. Wyss 02:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. bigsteviestylle02 17:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete for not meeting WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion (as noted by Uncle G). Tuf-Kat 03:33, Feb 14, 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. dbenbenn | talk 00:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Steve Kieninger

[edit]

Vanity page for non-notable member of non-notable band that fails to meed the WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines. Uncle G 19:38, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

  • Vanity. Trash. Phils 22:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Vanity. Inter 23:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, So vane. Wagiles 00:36, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Jpo 00:46, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. – flamurai (t) 02:13, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. User edited page requesting it be deleted, but not with the same IP as creator. Can it be speedied? – flamurai (t) 02:16, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, orig author seems to want it gone too. Wyss 02:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 06:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for not meeting WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion (as noted by Uncle G). Tuf-Kat 03:33, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yup in my white T

[edit]

looks like gibberish. could be lyrics, but that'd be a copyright violation and it doesn't say they're lyrics. Nateji77 20:04, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedily deleted. Move along, nothing to see here. --Golbez 20:48, Feb 9, 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, however I couldn't resist the cuteness of this page so I moved it to User:Ta bu shi da yu/Types of animals and reverted back to the original submission :-) Ta bu shi da yu 06:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Types of animals

[edit]

There's nothing here we haven't already got in other articles (and better written). Can someone suggest where best to redirect it? Deb 20:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • delete evidence suggests this was written by a little kid. Delete, but let's be really nice about it. UPDATE: Keep as revised. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:41, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Aww, it's so cute. I'd hate to delete it, maybe move it to BJAODN. It's not something that can stay where it is, though. --Golbez 20:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Should have been given a speedy delete in the first place. How can you be really nice to an Anon and one who had just before this article, vandalised Wikipedia:Introduction? -- RHaworth 21:42, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as sandbox escapee, but oh so gently. We should encourage more kids, especially ones who take the time to add wikis. It's certainly a BJAODN candidate if it isn't considered cruel to place it there. - Lucky 6.9 22:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Jpo 00:45, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I adore this article. Speedy it. Wyss 02:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this was an honest effort, and I think we can make a useful redirect or a disambiguation page out of it. Someone could easily type in "Types of animals." And RHaworth, looking at the edit history, I don't see what the problem is with those edits to Wikipedia:Introduction. - RedWordSmith 03:14, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • A redirect or disambig is a great idea. Is that what finally happened to that "Pope hat" thingamawhatzit we were debating last week? Oh, and thanks for the LOL, Wyss! - Lucky 6.9 03:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I've tried to make a disambig out of it, although I'm no biologist. Let me know what you all think. - RedWordSmith 04:20, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure too sure it's a good idea to encourage 9-year olds to browse wikipedia, with some of the content it has, and the way pages on children's topics can link to adult ones. However, wikipedia seems to need an article to cover 'types of animal' so I vote keep unless someone does find a place to redirect to. Keep rewritten page, thank you RedWordSmith. Kappa 04:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point. Meantime, keep fine new disambig page. - Lucky 6.9 04:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Fairly useful disambig now. Keep. -Sean Curtin 04:32, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful. Megan1967 06:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now in its present revised state. —RaD Man (talk) 09:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • After monitoring this discussion, changing vote to delete. —RaD Man (talk) 17:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is much better now than the original. However, animals do not come in "types". Other terms are used for the classification or taxonomy of animals. Moreover, this is not a disambiguation page. A disambiguation page is in order when several articles on different subjects would otherwise have the same title. By the way, there is already an Animals article, which is itself a disamiguation page. The current text would be an improvement over the text of Animals and could simply be merged there. However, this page should be deleted and Types of animals should not be a redirect. We shouldn't be in a big rush to create articles for every phrase or term that somebody might conceivably enter into a Google or Wikipedia search box. At present, if you do a search on "Types of Animals"+Wikipedia in Google, the first Google result is Animal, which is perfectly fine. The article was created originally by a child, which is not strong evidence that "types of animals" is a phrase that warrants an article. It is getting to be ridiculous how many articles are being created just because Wikipedia's search function is pathetic. Encyclopedias have indexes, you know. --BM 16:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even after improvement, the article is hardly a legitimate discussion of animal classification, and simply muddies the waters where there is a legitimate taxonomy. In what sense is an animal's conservation status its "type"? This has no academic value. Postdlf 16:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Postdlf, this is not a helpful article, more misleading than anything else, has no scientific basis at all. Wyss 17:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As others have said, this article is not scientifically accurrate. It mixes different levels of taxonomy, and mixes different kids of categoreis, and gives so few examples in each case is does discuss as to be misleading. A total re-write could produce a useful page on Taxonomy of animals, except that that already exists. This was a nice try, but simply not up to the level of being encyclopeadic. DES 17:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I now withdraw my request for deletion. Deb 17:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia does have a page on the taxonomy of animals, animal, but apart from types of animals there is nothing about any other possible ways of classing animals, or nothing that I can find.

Voting so far: Delete=8 Keep=4

Wyss 18:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I basically agree with BM, though I wouldn't terribly mind this being a redirect to animal or some article that may exist on animal taxonomy, but basically I think this is a delete (and the original should have been speedied). -R. fiend 20:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Type, class, and category are synonyms. There are many ways to classify animals other than Scientific Classification (which is addressed in the disambig) and the stub mentions several: Conservation status; relationships with humans such as Domesticated, Wild, Feral and Pet; Marine mammal. In addition: Working dog list several ways to classify dogs alone; Breed standard is another unscientific categorization of animals (see also List of horse breeds or maybe Cattle); animals are also typed by the biomes in which they live, desert animals, prairie animals, woodland animals, etc; and could identifed as Food or Game animals. -DialUp 06:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. It's a decent article but still needs more clarification. --Andylkl 07:36, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please keep in mind that the original article amounted to a cute user test by a child, a borderline speedy if ever there was. Wyss 23:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Your honour, the defence submits that our client is a reformed character. Kappa 20:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Heh heh, methinks your client never needed reformin' ;) I adored her article, don't think much of this rescue attempt though. Wyss 22:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I really wonder how useful the existence of this page is. Nothing really links here, and I can't see anyone doing a search for "types of animals" (excepting an occasional 8 year old). Are we going to have pages for kinds of animals, sorts of animals, categories of animals, various animals, etc? It seems any useful information here that isn't already included in animal should be merged into that article under an animal classification section. -R. fiend 17:35, 15 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. dbenbenn | talk 00:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Timeline of the Axial World's History

[edit]

"Axial World" appears to be a neologism, and the article Axial World was VfD'd (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Axial World). However, this article remains. No reason why this can't just go into Timeline of Middle Eastern History. -- Curps 20:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Golbez 20:47, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • "2005 BC: Deletion. of yet another timeline article." These "special timelines" articles are becoming tiresome. What's next, Square root of 3 ratio geometric series timeline? Phils 22:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, PoV history at its ugliest. Wyss 02:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I guess I was to quick about deleting it I guess some of it can be merged into Timeline of Middle Eastern History like Curps said, but if kept in this form, delete. Mgm|(talk) 11:24, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Without an article on Axial World this doesn't make sense. DJ Clayworth 18:50, 10 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 Stupid Day, KEEP Towel Day. dbenbenn | talk 14:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The votes appear to be

Stupid Day and Towel Day

[edit]

Stupid. Jokes on a website, not notable enough. There's plenty of other pages related to RinkWorks which could also be below the bar - a merge or delete might be in order for some of them. sjorford:// 21:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<apology style="grovelling">Sorry for the double-listing - I obviously wasn't concentrating properly that day, as I just assumed they were a related pair of articles. Won't do it again.</apology> sjorford:// 14:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Disintegrate. Yawn. Phils 22:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I do recall that Adams' fellow fantasy/SF writer Terry Pratchett celebrated the first towel day, asking fans who came to a book signing he was holding to bring their towels. There should be something about this in the Douglas Adams article, but it doesn't really merit an article of its own in my opinion. It seems to be more talked about than celebrated. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, though Stupid Day would have no shortage of celebrants if it were for real. Denni☯ 02:24, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
  • Delete zzzz. Wyss 02:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I say to delete Stupid Day and keep Towel Day. — Kieff | Talk 02:39, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not an expert on Towel Day, but merge Stupid Day to RinkWorks and redirect. It might have been useful to have separate VfD listings for these, just for future reference. --Idont Havaname 04:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't entirely delete Stupid Day. Merging it with RinkWorks would be a good idea. BTW, I usually celebrate Towel Day. 85.76.152.179 05:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Towel Day. Merge and redirect Stupid Day. Megan1967 06:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep towel day. —RaD Man (talk) 09:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Stupid day. It is a non-official holiday, but nevertheless a holiday. Wikipedian231 17:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Especially Towel Day. -SocratesJedi | Talk 17:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I am the original author of the Stupid Day article, and while I would personally like to keep it, the overall opinion seems to be to merge it with RinkWorks, preserving the actual content. So that's what I'm going for. 85.76.152.179 ~
  • When Towel Day starts to approach Bloomsday in popularity come back and write about it. Until then delete (or maybe merge somewhere, if you can find a spot). -R. fiend 20:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Towel Day, delete Stupid Day, and please don't do this kind of joint VfD listing of two articles about which a contributor might well have different opinions. JamesMLane 17:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both of them. --BM 17:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with JML, keep Towel Day, delete Stupid Day due to no evidence of any notability. List these types of things seperately next time. Gamaliel 17:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Towel Day, delete the other. Furthermore, I second JamesMLane that we should not be joint-listing articles on VfD! Can we make this an official policy? GRider\talk 20:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that forbidding joint-listing articles on VfD should be official policy, especially when they're written by different, unrelated users, as in this case. I wrote Stupid Day but I have no idea who wrote Towel Day. 193.167.132.66 10:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Towel Day. Stupid Day gan go.

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. dbenbenn | talk 00:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edward Pawula

[edit]

vanity — J3ff 22:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Phils 22:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Vanity. Inter 23:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "His favorite food are hot fudge sundaes" does not quite reach the notability threshold. - Jpo 00:40, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • He's a 17 year old whose greatest claim to notability is getting a mullet (haircut). Cut it. Samaritan 01:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, since hot fudge sundaes should never be conjoined with conjugation errors in vanity articles. Wyss 02:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. And the original author (probably him) deleted the VfD notice on this article. (I put it back, but he'll probably delete it again.) --Idont Havaname 04:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Can't we speedily delete these things? I mean... darn. LizardWizard 06:08, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- 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 keep. No consensus, Keep 3, Delete 3. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bhote Koshi

[edit]

The text is incomplete & not edited. As it is I'd say delete, although a very thorough rewrite could change my mind. JimmyShelter 23:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Seems reasonably informative, if badly edited. Perilously close to a copyvio, though - see this article from nepalnews.com. Keep it if it can be cleaned up. - Jpo 00:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs cleanup is all. Wyss 02:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - 2 Google hits, possible original research. Megan1967 06:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup - I imagine most web pages on it will not be written in English, so number of Google hits is unlikely to be accurate (I'd be interested to know how many hits there are on the Nepalese or Chinese rendering of 'Bhote Koshi'. A $98million energy project seems notable, but this isn't very clear on exactly what the project was. [This is by User:TSP, who forgot to sign. jni 14:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)]
  • Delete. Currently reads like a news item. jni 14:02, 15 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. dbenbenn | talk 00:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perpendicular Universes

[edit]

The original nomination omitted the header, causing the first four comments here to appear to be an extension of the prior discussion. Now fixed. Rossami (talk) 16:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

google search shows two results, and the artilce doesn't make much sense bakuzjw (aka 578) 20:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I get 811 results for "perpendicular universe" and 117 for "perpendicular universes", although some of these are probably about something else. Nonetheless, delete unless the original research problem is fixed up before end of VFD. JYolkowski 23:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • the google serach was under the guys name (DR. Kransov phd) not "perpendicular universe." bakuzjw (aka 578) 00:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, although I find it hard to believe that a real PhD can't spell "universe", "relatively", "large", "evidence", and "believed", among other words. (-: JYolkowski 03:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, see Wikipedia:No original research. Random refernces to "perpendicular universe" in Google are not references to this guy's theory. -- Curps 02:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The complex mathematical formula almost tricked me, but delete. --Plutor 18:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, appears to be nonsense, certainly OR. Pretzelpaws 19:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. --Ponder 20:42, 2005 Feb 14 (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_February_9&oldid=1142222487"