Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 17
| < January 16 | January 18 > |
|---|
January 17
[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. Joyous 17:28, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Blatent vainity of a non notable person, should be a speedy delete. --Boothy443 12:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not a speedy. --fvw* 12:02, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 23:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- They never learn, do they? Place of birth, parents, the whole kit and caboodle. Heavy wiki-sigh. Frankly, I can't wait for the change in policy that allows these to be speedy deletes. Delete one way or another. - Lucky 6.9 00:07, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable.--Clipdude 00:09, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Time for this one to make the cross over to deletion. Edeans 00:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: What rubbish is this? We don't to see padding like this that adds nothing apart to a parent's ego! User: Brookie
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. The article defaults to keep. Joyous 15:50, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
Term from Usenet of limited use outside the creo/evo community. --nixie 01:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. If it weren't nonsense, it would violate neutral POV. How many Wikipedia-time will be spent on this page, trying to clear this off the floor? --Wetman
- I disagree, nothing is stated about the veracity of the hypothesis, nor is any particular side take. It's just an explaination.--Enigma 07:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: 142 Google hits [1]. But the topic isn't nonsense (it's a real, verifiable phrase; see the "Jargon file" which is Google's first hit), and it isn't inherently POV (you can write neutrally about the hypothesis without either supporting or rejecting it). dbenbenn | talk 01:11, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, most of the Google hits provided are forum-based from what I've seen. It lacks neutrality also. - Greaser 01:38, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not all that widespread of a term, and not likely to move past a dicdef. Transwiki to Wikitionary at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:14, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Not even widespread in creationism circles. DJ Clayworth 04:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Has the term ever been significantly used outside of USENET? Is Bruce Salem known for anything besides USENET? If both answers are "no" then it probably should be deleted. -Rholton 06:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- To the first, yes. It is also used in various blogs regarding the creation/evolution debate. --Enigma 07:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Samaritan 08:37, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, the article looks okay, except that nasty typo in "talk.origiOns". Not a dictdef, valid encyclopedia entry. Grue 19:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - David Gerard 23:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 23:58, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Marginal keep. GRider\talk 21:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. In-joke within a fairly restricted little coterie of netizens. No significant usage outside of one particular newsgroup, talk.origins. (Google groups search: 88 hits total, 77 of them in talk.origins). "Godwin's law" gets 54,900, BTW, so this is about 0.16% as notable; if you take into account that Godwin's law is mentioned in many, many groups but "Salem hypothesis" basically only in one, it becomes even less encyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No reputable encyclopedia can afford to have articles on every little thing somebody decided to posit on the internet. Indrian 20:15, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Craptaculous crap, to be kind. Edeans 00:24, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- DeletePhilip 03:51, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Insignificant usenet jargon. Martg76 05:24, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I've seen people talking about the possible engineering/pseudoscience connection in non-creationst areas too, this appears to be a valid topic for an article. Bryan 22:02, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Article defaults to keep. Joyous 16:00, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
Somewhere between advocacy and advertising. No independent verifiability - David Gerard 01:10, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete A splendidly subversive counter to all that "sons of Homer" mythology of modern "birthplace-of-democracy" Greece, nevertheless! --Wetman 01:28, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I think they'd need Tito mark II to make it work, personal thoughts aside - Delete on the grounds of advertising. - Greaser 01:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep after searching online one can easily find sites of support. Just so long as the site for the so-called BPPO be deleted.
- Please sign your votes, IP 68.148.93.27. Good to see you're trying to improve the article, but leave the VfD notice alone please. Andrewa 06:43, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Not enough information in it --PatGallacher 02:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep - It appears to be a real concept with some currency. We can always add more information (that's what Wikipedia is all about). It will need some work on POV. -Rholton 06:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)Delete - after further looking, it seems that some of the web pages I took to be an indication of currency were referring to this Wikipedia article. -Rholton 16:28, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)- Comment: Unsure. Certainly needs work. But how notable is this movement? I'd be surprised if it didn't have some currency, but that's speculation. No vote as yet. Andrewa 06:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. If anyone can prove that this movement is notable, I'll change. But as of now, it looks like mere speculation, not notable. Thanks for catching that, Thryduulf. Khanartist 09:18, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- above vote is from Khanartist who appears to have made the five-tilde typo. Thryduulf 11:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see this comming to pass, but if it is a real movement then it deserves an article. weak keep. Thryduulf 11:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, borderline. article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 00:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This article is obviously bringing forth many interesting discussions. I see the potential ; however, it should continue to be expanded. I personally, happen to advocate the cause. Serbohellas 4;24, Jan 20 2005 (GMT)
- Note: the above vote originally by User:Maninajar diff, who has only one edit. It was re-signed as "Serbohellas" by User:66.222.216.137 diff, who also voted below. dbenbenn | talk 06:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. I'm sure that this general ideology has been around for a while. If it's the only page on the internet talking about it, it just means that no one has bothered writing about it. It still seems notable. CPS 23:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this "nationalist" rant. Seig Heil Y'all! Edeans 00:38, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Crackpot rant. Delete. Martg76 05:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep one can easily find information about the movement, if not in English it can easily be found in Serbian and Greek languages. -- Slav
- Note: at the time of voting, User:Slav had 3 main-namespace edits. dbenbenn | talk 06:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. No racist views. No extremist remarks. I see no faults.My IP:User:66.222.216.137*Note: I'm not a member, but I have been around wikipedia for a while. My first vote :)
- Delete: This issue/movement is certainly not prominent enough to be in Wikipedia. There are no political parties or known organizations that are even mentioning this issue (and I looked for them, too). The author of the article is probably just trying to promote this movement. --Dejan Cabrilo 23:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:31, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
He's a middle manager for a city fire department. Not notable. Cdc 01:44, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No sign of notable heroics? Delete. - Greaser 02:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Waste of Wikipedia recources. -Hoovernj 02:56 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, ditto, seriously. Edeans 01:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Sounds like vanity. -Rholton 05:28, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. RickK 01:08, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP or MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 07:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The votes were 4 merge, 3 keep in place, 0 delete.
A lot of work has gone into the production of this list (which would more acurately be titled Medical schools in Europe and Russia or Medical schools of rank in Europe and Russia (I don't know what this rank is, but I've never had any connection to a Medical school). I have started the wikifcation of it, and after the best part of an hour I've done the sections pertaining to Italy, Russia and France. It still looks and feels like a directory rather than an encyclopedia article. It is linked only from Medical schools in europe - a redirect page. If these are all notable institutions they perhaps we should have an article on each of them (some may already have articles), but only a very few entries on this long (32kb + wikification) list have any information beyond name, street address and (mostly) a url.
Basically this boils down to: Is this encyclopedic? Thryduulf 02:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- There are many such lists on Wikipedia. However, could this one be a copyright violation? Martg76 04:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into List of medical schools and redirect. We may need to break this list up into List of medical schools in Italy, List of medical schools in Russia, etc. It may not be encyclopedic (depending on your definition), but it is certainly Wikipedic. -Rholton 05:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and merge. Agree with Rholton .--JuntungWu 05:38, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, point somewhere, merge, but don't delete - David Gerard 23:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, if not merge with List of medical schools and add redirect. Pity if it does goes. A lot of work has gone into that list. Megan1967 00:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, because it is a very useful and extensive compilation list which is definitely Wikipedia, because it gives a different vision of encyclopedic articles. It should be kept separate, as it happens with the list of medical schools in the USA and a separate reference should be included in the List of Medical Schools article. Renato Sabbatini
- Keep and allow for continued organic growth. GRider\talk 17:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with List of medical schools--otherwise we end up trying to maintain two copies of the same list. Niteowlneils 21:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- For merging, and may be breaking up the List of medical schools into sub-articles by continent for easy of using it. When should we start taking any action on the article (whatever it will be) anyway? - Master Of Ninja 21:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 07:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There were 4 votes to merge to Algebraic chess notation, and 3 to delete.
- Delete. I don't understand the point of the article. It's not very coherent, and the title seems to be misspelled. Most of the contents are already covered elsewhere, e.g. in algebraic chess notation.--Sonjaaa 19:32, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable term. A Google search reveals that while chess enthusiasts sometimes write international notation, they may be referring to any of several chess notations, and use it purely as descriptive terminology GeorgeStepanek\talk 03:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Algebraic chess notation and redirect. -Rholton 05:10, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as not notable chesscruft. We wouldn't likely keep an article about the tiniest and most obscure elements of Final Fantasy or Scrabble, why be inconsistent for chess? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:33, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Algebraic chess notation and add redirect. Megan1967 00:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:36, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Looks like a copy/paste from a newspaper local to the area; I believe this has no potential to become encyclopedic, in addition to it being hardly notable. Maybe if the "January 2005 flooding in Indiana" had killed more than 160,000 people, displaced millions upon millions more, resulted in widespread disease, and caused infrastructure damage worth billions of dollars, instead of washing out some roads, then it would be notable. --CDN99 02:55, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Soft delete. I suppose we don't want a page for every bit of severe weather. However, we can have notable weather events that are far less destructive and widespread than the recent tsunami. -Rholton 05:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Agree, we should have article on less destructive weather events. I'm not sure about this one, though... Abstain. Mgm|(talk) 09:54, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Move into Indiana or use it as teh basis 2005 in Indiana, Flooding in the Mid-western United States, Floods in 2005 or something along those lines Thryduulf 11:19, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a place for news reports. Also would be setting a shaky precedent if kept for future articles: any little storm or flood or drought might get an article. Every day there's a flood somewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:41, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not the place for this news article, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 00:08, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, This ain't google news people. --Woohookitty 01:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, as a Hoosier, I can say please, please delete this. Edeans 01:43, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:14, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't understand the point of the article.--Sonjaaa 19:29, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as, um, chesscruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:31, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. And congratulations to the user for creating a new form of cruft. Khanartist 09:06, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete. Its not even factually accurate - "Exchequer" does not mean "chess board" it is derived from The Norman French? for "checked cloth". Chess board quite possibly has the same origins, but just because A and B are both derrived from C does not mean that A is derrived from B. Thryduulf 11:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, if you read Exchequer, you'll find that yes, it derives its name from a chess board. Uncle G 15:35, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- My appologies, I was basing my comment on what I heard at Dover Castle last summer. Thryduulf 16:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, if you read Exchequer, you'll find that yes, it derives its name from a chess board. Uncle G 15:35, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- The individual articles already had far more detailed etymologies. And a list of "chess-related" hyperlinks belongs in the "See Also" section of chess. Delete. 15:35, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete. All those silly "Rukh"/"rook" puns are BJAODN fare... unless "rukh" actually does mean "rook" in some other language. --Idont Havaname 06:38, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:15, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
VanityGeni 03:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --fvw* 03:11, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity. Wyss 03:50, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yup, pretty clear-cut vanity. Delete. -Rholton 04:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, They never learn. Inter 10:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete vanity, not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:42, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Vannity. utcursch 12:12, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 04:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
216 google hits on a group of sports that is impressive, yes, but is only used by the Mind Sports Organization for its meets and competitions. hfool/Roast me 03:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. --fvw* 09:45, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- 'Merge and redirect, same as above. Inter 10:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- 'Merge and redirect to Mind Sports Organization. Thryduulf 11:12, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Mind Sports Organization and add redirect. Megan1967 00:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. 5 users voted keep. 5 users voted to delete. One person voted "merge and delete" which must be interpreted as keep despite the plain wording of their vote. Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the article (in some form) defaults to keep.
Looking further into this discussion, I note that the second edit to this article added a great deal of content which I strongly suspect of being an unsourced excerpt from the book. That would constitute a copyright violation. The contributor was an anonymous editor who only made the one edit to the page and has not returned to Wikipedia since.
After stripping out the suspected copyvio material, this article is left with a definition of what even the keep voters admitted was a neologism. I am going to exercise my discretion as an ordinary editor to merge and redirect this article to Discrimination#Definition. When the concept of rankism is much more widely discussed, I believe it may become appropriate to break this back out to a separate article. In the meantime, I believe that future readers will be better served if rankism is discussed in context with the other, more established forms of discrimination. Rossami (talk) 03:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Coined in 2003, and with only 3800 hits on google (with this article being 6th - not a good sign), not a big -ism in the grand scheme of things. I don't deny that this concept exists, but its a superset of all discrimination -isms, all of which exist in much more and much better defined terms. So, to sum that up, it's a non-notable neologism. hfool/Roast me 04:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Has plenty of potential. Dr Zen 05:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Maybe merge into chain of command or something about pulling rank. --JuntungWu 05:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and delete. Hierarchy or Chain of command might have a place for it. Khanartist 09:16, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Weak delete - too close to neologism, even with cite - David Gerard 23:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, borderline notable, neologism. Megan1967 00:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into discrimination. Not established enough to be encylopaedic on its own. GeorgeStepanek\talk 02:08, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism. Martg76 05:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Xezbeth 17:06, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. as a simple short and rememberable word of this (imho big) problem i think it has its need and use Ebricca 10:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see where this can be comfortably merged. Also, it doesn't fool the reader into thinking the term is more significant than it really is. The subject of the article, "negative discrimination predicated on rank difference between individuals", is a legitimate encyclopedia topic. Just because the title is a neologism doesn't mean the subject isn't worthy. dbenbenn | talk 04:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:16, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Unencyclopedic nonsense. 24.18.253.49 04:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. -Rholton 04:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, but it could be cleaned up, couldn't it? Delete. -- Hoary 06:46, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete, This ranks right up there with "Stuff was invented in 1843 when I ate a gorilla." Inter 10:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Not notable or encyclopedic. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 10:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete although I wish I had a close ally named Zippy. That would rock. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:44, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 00:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:18, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
This page is fancruft, stemming from Poké Battles which itself is just fanfiction. It's a unnecessary article as it is and it has very little potential to improve. Delete. KingTT 05:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Cdc 05:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete minor stub. If anything informative can be said, merge it in Poké Battles. Mgm|(talk) 09:57, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Arr! Down with teh pokemon! But seriously, this is going nowhere. Inter 10:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete amoung the most pointless fancruft I've seen. Thryduulf 11:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as quite non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:51, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and merge any pertinent information with Poké Battles. Andre (talk) 18:59, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Looks like the whole Poké Battles group needs a liberal sprinkling of merge. --L33tminion | (talk) 21:30, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, trivial, nothing here even worth merging. Megan1967 00:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, this article carries no relevance on its own. It should be deleted as it is not important information and is exceedingly short anyway, with little chance of improvement. Ikariotis
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 21:48, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The votes were 9 keep, 1 delete.
Non-notable student organization for a school we don't even have an article on. RickK 05:26, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. They have just posted the same in the Nederlands Wiki but at least this is a human translation. Add to List of words which look like Wiki terms (joke) but keep to confirm that it ain't a wiki term. Don't sound like a wiki term - I think they pronounce it Vikings. RHaworth 07:04, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- A student society founded in 1910 may well be notable, or possibly mildly notorious if they were involved in "abducting" the Manneken Pis. Possible keep if the university article had been of decent size already, but at this point perhaps
merge(under "Student life" or something) with the University of Antwerp article (which is only a substub). I would really like input from Belgians before making up my mind. / up+land 07:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Changing vote to definite keep. Article has improved! I hope VanPeel will do something about the article on the University of Antwerp now. ;-) / up+land 17:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- One input is that their version has been up for four hours and no one has marked it VfD. -- RHaworth 11:20, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Keep. The Manneken Pis abduction adds to their notability. They got press attention and foundation in 1910 shows they've been around for quite some time. Merge into University of Antwerp if necessary. Mgm|(talk) 10:00, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The Manneken Pis incident is certainly notable (the statue was (and probably still is) a favourite on the British Eurotrash program). Thryduulf 11:10, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I disagree that briefly stealing a statue as a joke constitutes encyclopedic notability. I'd delete it, or Merge at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:59, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep The relevance of the Manneken Pis is that it was a Flemish statue in a city Brussels where the Flemish were culturally opressed by the bourgeois French-speaking part of the population. The action was also a call for education in Flemish in Flander's universities. It was an (albeit a tiny) item of world news back in 1963 because of its symbolic value and preceded the famous European student revolts of May '68 in Paris and other major European cities...
- Yeah, but the article doesn't really put the history and actions of the Wikings in this context, does it? Nor does it cite any references or even say when this abduction took place. I tend towards keep mostly because of the age and a gut feeling that this is probably an important group in its own context. When you post an article about a student society, of which there are dozens at every university, you have to explain why it is notable enough to be in a general purpose encyclopedia. More on history and more on the historical context and what effects it may have had on its academic or political environment. Important former members, people who started their political careers in the context of the society etc. A lot of student societies don't do anything but partying and that is perhaps fine for a brief mention in a general section on the student life at the university, but not for an article of its own. You have to think about who is going to read something you write. A lot about the Wikings may already be known or at least vaguely familiar to the readers of the Netherlands Wikipedia, but here on en:WP (or any other language version) that has to be stated explicitely. OK, sorry for the rant, but the article doesn't really make its own case. If it had, it probably wouldn't have been nominated for deletion. Please work on it a bit more. / up+land 20:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You've got a point there! Further elaboration and referencing is on the way! VanPeel 00:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, but the article doesn't really put the history and actions of the Wikings in this context, does it? Nor does it cite any references or even say when this abduction took place. I tend towards keep mostly because of the age and a gut feeling that this is probably an important group in its own context. When you post an article about a student society, of which there are dozens at every university, you have to explain why it is notable enough to be in a general purpose encyclopedia. More on history and more on the historical context and what effects it may have had on its academic or political environment. Important former members, people who started their political careers in the context of the society etc. A lot of student societies don't do anything but partying and that is perhaps fine for a brief mention in a general section on the student life at the university, but not for an article of its own. You have to think about who is going to read something you write. A lot about the Wikings may already be known or at least vaguely familiar to the readers of the Netherlands Wikipedia, but here on en:WP (or any other language version) that has to be stated explicitely. OK, sorry for the rant, but the article doesn't really make its own case. If it had, it probably wouldn't have been nominated for deletion. Please work on it a bit more. / up+land 20:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Grue 19:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, notable. Megan1967 00:17, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Noteworthy. GRider\talk 17:10, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep it might be non notable for english speakers it is for flemish speakers. Waerth 11:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:33, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Appears to be a neologism. -- Scott 05:36, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Dictdef, so transwiki, but non-notable neologism, so delete. --fvw* 09:43, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete, Would I say. Inter 10:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 00:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 21:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The votes were 6 keep, 0 delete.
Fails to establish notability. Created by a User who added a copyvio to Bill Cambell (note misspelling). RickK 05:41, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Should be expanded. Revmachine21 06:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep this notable technology executive. Samaritan 08:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. She has been the CEO of two significant technology companies Palm, Inc. and Handspring. At Palm, she played a crucial role in bringing the Palm Pilot, the first successful PDA to the market. She was a founder of Handspring. Fortune has nominated her and Jeff Hawkins to the Innovators Hall of Fame. Time named her as one of the digital 50. I have added these and other facts to the article. Capitalistroadster 10:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, When comparing the old version to the new, its clearly good material. Inter 10:23, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 00:19, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but clearly needs attention. --Onlyemarie 01:01, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:30, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
A candidate for BJAODN. -- Scott 06:01, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Joke by anon with no other contributions, I'll attempt a greeting as soon as I stop laughing (may be a while). I wouldn't BJAODN, not quite sure why, maybe the humour is too deliberate. Andrewa 06:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - and yes, it's a bit too forced for BJAODN. Samaritan 09:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete though I have to say my mouth is watering, though that might simply be drool. :) 23skidoo 07:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It'll always have a place in my hard drive, though. Khanartist 09:14, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Move to Wiki Cookbook, just in case it exists. Otherwise delete. Mgm|(talk) 10:02, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete though I laughed my ass off over the part about the carcass being cute. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Move it somewhere. Either BJAODN or Wiki Cookbook. Mackensen (talk) 22:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, trivial, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 00:20, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as original research. :-) Raven42 10:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Do not delete, this is taken from a TV show called The Huntress. She shows how to make them after shooting a squirrel with her son. Therefore these are real and deserve an entry.
- Unsigned vote by User:132.162.219.179
- Delete. Although I would actually eat one if the chance arose. Axl 18:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I've copied it to my personal BJAODN collection. --Carnildo 20:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:29, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Sopaan and Atkinson, nathan
[edit]A 17-year-old "influential author and philosopher". Zero Google hits for sopaan +Atkinson. RickK 06:01, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity.Khanartist 09:13, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- ... and zero relevant hits for +sopaan +philosopher, so that he's an "influential" one is presumably unverifiable. Only contributions by creator to this point. Delete. Samaritan 10:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Unless someone can prove me wrong and proves he's an author and philosopher, I'll have to say delete. Unverifiable. Mgm|(talk) 12:24, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Rich Farmbrough 23:28, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:25, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Self-promotion. Not notable (even on Fazed). RHaworth 06:22, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Article creator User:63.226.228.177 replaced this vfd section (accidentally?) with: "I am not sure how the inclusion of Makalleli will in anyway affect anyone's enjoyment of Wikpedia.org. He is a person, and the fact that Scott Burley and others may not find him to be noteworthy should not be reason enough for deletion."
- See Wikipedia:Auto-biography, Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, Wikipedia:Verifiable#Obscure_topics and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_general_knowledge_base (esp point 7). If you'd like to join Wikipedia as a registered user, feel free to use this text as your User page. But this doesn't have the potential to be an encyclopedic article. Delete. Samaritan 09:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- vanity Delete--Boothy443 11:37, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:03, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible vanity, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 00:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:26, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
vanity, not notable Michael Ward 06:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Agree. Delete. Timbo ( t a l k ) 06:39, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Entire text: "Christopher Doucette was born on July 12, 1989 in Florida. He has always loved Video Game, ever since he started playing them at the age of 3. Just last year, Chris began production on his first Video game but all did not go well and the project fell apart 1 year later. He is currently producing a gaming network" Delete. Samaritan 08:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity, non-notable. And good luck, Chris. Khanartist 09:12, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete until he finishes a game and becomes notable. Mgm|(talk) 10:04, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong delete: vanity. Stombs 11:16, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete though I do wish him good luck on his game creations. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:04, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:27, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Mailer diablo says it's nonsense. Rfl doesn't think it's nonsense, but that it should be deleted. I just don't want pages to have VFD headers without being listed on VfD. Normally I'd just remove the header, but I wouldn't mind this article being deleted. I put it to you. —Ben Brockert (42) 06:46, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I think it's nonsense, too. If they succeed, then it'll be worth an article. —Korath (Talk) 07:36, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Delete. RickK 07:39, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Anxiously awaiting furhter developments. Khanartist 09:11, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete Glaurung 09:43, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Promotion of the attached website. Mgm|(talk) 10:06, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as prediction of far-off future events. Possibly an issue to revisit in 2012, but delete until then. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:08, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- I still think it's nonsense. :-P -> Delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Let's cleanse Wikipedia of stupid articles. CPS 23:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this patent nonsense. Edeans 01:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:24, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
A magazine that allegedly caused a sensation within the ILEA in 1983. London is a small piece of the world, and 1983 is perhaps a long time ago, but one would expect that Google would find at least one little mention somewhere. It doesn't. (Moreover, this contribution claims to be copyright.) -- Hoary 06:43, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Anon creator's only other edit at this point is the creation of MUHAMMAD HAQUE POETRY, also now on vfd. A journal on education policy with one creator/writer/editor, apparently over its lifetime? Scarce context as to what the sensation was about - "My goodness! They can write journals here?" Delete. Samaritan 08:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Copyright reason is sufficient for me for a delete. Stombs 11:15, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete due to copyright (as with the poetry article) and for non-notability as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:11, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- A friend of mine was Deputy Leader of ILEA and was on it in 1983 - I will ask whether it really did "cause a sensation". I suspect not as there was no shortage of magazines on education policy being published, even from within inner London. Delete. Dbiv 12:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 00:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:21, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. -- Scott 06:55, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Academic Challenger 07:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. TheCoffee 07:39, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Why is "Little is known about his early life" a staple of self-written vanity about young people? Samaritan 08:41, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Because everybody loves a good mystery, Samaritan. Except for us, apparently. If I were going to write a vanity on myself, my early life would be covered in mind-numbing detail. Khanartist 09:10, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete as vanity, non-notable, seems to be a joke even to the author. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:16, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:20, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Genealogy substub. --fvw* 07:54, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Non-notable. Delete. RickK 08:28, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The entire text is "Jha is a family name for the Maithil brahmins in Bihar(India)." No further history or inbound links. Samaritan 08:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable, geneology. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:16, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Unlikely to grow past substub level. Mgm|(talk) 12:21, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, geneology. Megan1967 00:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:18, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Well-written spam. -- Scott eiπ 08:07, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Not notable, delete --fvw* 08:13, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Keep. I removed the POV part about "significant following". The article needs stub-expansion, though. I would estimate, given that it has 290 members, that's it's borderline on the "audience of 5000" (they allow anons to read, and a 20-to-1 ratio is reasonable) criterion. If anyone tries to spam by further linking it in with the wiki, then cut that. EventHorizon talk 08:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: From my experience with message boards that keep view records, the normal ratio is around 10:1. --Carnildo 19:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, websites can easily gain an audience of 5000 without ever being noteworthy. Wasn't that criterion for books/authors? I can't see what makes this site special enough for inclusion. Mgm|(talk) 10:09, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Doesn't sound like there's anything particular about Cardschat.com that a site with the same subject-matter (which may have more members but still be non-notable) would not have. Stombs 11:14, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete 290 members is hardly impressive for a forum, and we don't even know how many of those are active. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:18, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Unbelievable... Let me provide some more insight. User:Nick0r kept inserting links to cardschat.com on various articles (note:Nick0r admitted it was his site, and the nameservers are at nick0r.co.uk). I explained to him that they were spam, why the site was non-notable, etc. Now just a few days later isn't it amazing that an article on cardschat.com pops up? Anyway, considering the merits of the article and the forum itself, it's not at all notable, has only a handful of members and a couple dozen threads. As a comparison, a large forum (and potentially notable because some poker pros post there) would be cardplayer.com (CardPlayer Magazine). CryptoDerk 16:44, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:18, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable band, no longer in existence, which never released a record. The fact that they performed in the De Anza Choir Hall makes it sound like they were probably a high school band. RickK 08:26, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable band. Khanartist 09:08, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete, Non notable. Inter 10:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds like they were a high school band as one of the musicians left for college. Delete, non-notable. Stombs 11:13, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:28, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete for non-notability. Tuf-Kat 03:09, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
Not notable, a not-release-ready simple smtp client, only 147 google hits. --fvw* 08:34, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete, But an article about this application is fine if it gains notability, and maturity. An alpha version isn't notable. Inter 10:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Not notable, plus a first-person statement there about writer's belief. (This is fixed now) Delete; agree with Inter on future inclusion conditions. Stombs 11:07, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- KellyCoinGuy Don't Delete Maybe I'm being selfish, but I'm just trying to organize my thoughts on what's out there in email clients using Wikipedia to make my own observations as well as request the thoughts of the software's authors. Clearly this is not a major player in email clients, and quite possibly it doesn't deserve it's own article, but I'm trying to get something done here in terms of comparing various email clients, even the ones in early development. The author is interested in this article even though I didn't meet him prior to writing this article. However, I don't want to break any specific Wikipedia rules. Would it be more acceptable if I created a Miscellaneous Email Clients article and put in my comments about all of the currently non-notable email clients there? I would be happy to fix the opinion statement, but I think that if it doesn't result in a huge bloat in articles there could be a miscellaneous catch all article for anything that isn't yet notable. Would there be a problem with that? I'm trying for completeness, rather than just noteworthiness. I think it is noteworthy that there are a lot of development efforts going on in this area now :-) I looked in the VfD page, and I couldn't find anything on being "notable" could someone please point me to the text on that subject?
- You might consider making a "List of email clients" and putting comments about less significant ones in that. (Excuse me not trying to explain what 'notable' means, the definition seems to be different for everyone. Try importance instead.) I vote merge/redirect to List of email clients or some similar article if created. Kappa 11:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that gitmail is not particularly "notable", however, I'll be darned if I can find anything policy-wise on Wikipedia that would reject an article soley on that basis. The importance article is not official policy, just suggested policy. And it's quite subjective as what's important to one person is not to another. Is it really "important" to have articles on every single minor character in Harry Potter? I mean Minor Ravenclaws is really on the verge of absolute irrelevance even if you are a major Harry Potter fan! Of course, it does give precidence for a list of unimportant things. I'd really like to see a logical argument that the article should be deleted based upon concrete Wikipedia policy, not just a few opinions. Otherwise, anarchy reigns. If we can't come to a consensus to leave the article as is, I would propose that we create a Minor Email Clients or some such thing that can be divided off when things do become major, and make this a redirect page to there. I've seen some very compelling arguments that Wikipedia should be as comprehensive as possible. After all, when you are pushing half a million articles, it gets harder to cherry pick good articles that don't exist yet :-)
- You might consider making a "List of email clients" and putting comments about less significant ones in that. (Excuse me not trying to explain what 'notable' means, the definition seems to be different for everyone. Try importance instead.) I vote merge/redirect to List of email clients or some similar article if created. Kappa 11:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Del. Authors stated intentions amount to misuse of WP. --Jerzy(t) 05:31, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
- Delete. It's trivial to forge the name and return address with practically any email client. Non-notable probable-vaporware. dbenbenn | talk 23:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:14, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Is this really something that belongs in an encyclopedia? It seems very open-ended, especially since there is no definition of a notable disease. Could I add "Scott Burley - common cold"? -- Scott eiπ 08:42, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not encyclopedic. And get some chicken soup, Scott (unless you're a veg). Rhobite 08:43, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. We have List of cancer patients and other such lists. This is a duplicate of several other articles. RickK 08:47, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but expand mercilessly (and link to sub-lists if necessary). Celebrities, when they get ill, have a profound impact on society and the popular perception of the disease in question. Lance Armstrong has created a generally positive image of testicular cancer. Various great politicians suffered diseases that may have influenced their political decisions etc. etc. Can you imagine the impact when Britney Spears develops chlamydia? JFW | T@lk 09:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't think people will be any more eager to get it, if that's what you mean. Lacrimosus 10:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, duplicates content, and of dubious encyclopedic value. Khanartist 09:07, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete, this stuff belongs in the appropriate biography, if relevant. --fvw* 09:41, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- I agree with Jfdwolff that information on this subject should be kept, and not just in individual entries. But it should probably be agglomerated by disease in List of... (and, where appropriate, category) form. Certainly this title sucks, and anything with celebrity would be tricky. (Is Mark Vonnegut, listed, a "celebrity"?) For these specific reasons, I'd have to say delete this specific article. Samaritan 09:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: I would, however, be happy to see lists along the lines of "list of famous people who are believed to have suffered [disease X]. Lacrimosus 10:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: If someone has done something special for a disease or its profile, then list that at their page and the disease's page. I wouldn't object to Lacrimosus' idea, but I can't say I'd be clamouring to read them. Thryduulf 11:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Jfdwolff that a page like this should be kept if rewritten in the context of a celebrity disease's effect on public perception. But the topic name does not sit right for me: I can't imagine it would be searched for. Delete in its current form, but I might accept a 'Celebrities and diseases'. Stombs 11:11, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - If a famous person has a certain disease, that should be mentioned in the article about that disease, not in a generic list. Besides, all the dead famous people (who have not committed suicide or been killed) have died of one medical condition or another, so the list would be rather longish to say the least - Skysmith 12:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete too much possibility for libelous and unverifiable information. I could see how some of this might be useful, but it should remain in the articles for the celebrity and/or the disease, so as not to become a "Who's got AIDS?" gossip list. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:22, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Very good point - Skysmith 09:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:22, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Very good point - Skysmith 09:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Much of this information would better be kept on pages such as List of tuberculosis victims, but there is room for a catch-all. Will ultimately need some sort of sorting criteria; by disease? name? reason for celebrity? -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki to NationalEnquirerWiki, or better yet Delete. What's next? How about celebrity toupees? Or Illegitimate children of celebrities? Celebrity divorces? Celebrities abducted by aliens? --BM 21:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, borderline. Article would need major reformatting if kept. Megan1967 01:22, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. In my opinion, articles such as this which are pointless yet accurate pose a greater threat to wikipedia being taken seriously as a viable research tool than any amount of vanity and vandalism. Indrian 20:22, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. As others have said, this content belongs on other pages. No one's doubting that celebrity diseases are notable, but this way of dealing with the subject is uninformative and useless. There's no reason to lump various disconnected "celebrity diseases" together. Szyslak 03:57, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this list of trivia. Martg76 05:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 21:37, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The votes were 3 merge, 9 keep.
- Keep <this is a goodand informative article, I see no reason why it shouldn't be kept.> Shinaldo 01:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This article should be merged with David. It is mainly about David's interaction with Jonathan, which has been the subject of universal speculation but still not enough to warrant its own article. JFW | T@lk 09:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and delete. JFW | T@lk 09:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep there's nothing wrong with this article. Michael Ward 09:23, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a very nice article. RickK 09:25, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: as the nominator mentioned, it's "been the subject of universal speculation." But I think there is enough to merit a full article: certainly a fully expanded discussion of Jonathan and David debate would bog down their individual articles. Samaritan 09:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Most of the narrative information should be pared. I'm unfamiliar with WP policy with Biblical citations, but speaking for myself having a citation every sentence is death to readablity. There are NPOV problems as well. The article's whole reason for existence, the debate over the nature of the relationship, is actually rather threadbare. Needs a whole lot of work, but the subject is worthy of inclusion. Khanartist 10:46, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Your comment about the readability is well noted. I (and I hope others) plan to improve on this in the future, but cut me some slack! It's only been up for two days!! I was just quickly trying to outline the bare bones of the story and the debate surrounding it. Thanks for recognizing its potential though. Queerudite 22:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep not sure I like the title though. Sounds like a sitcom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:23, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Interesting article! I found the article to be thought provoking and unbiased. The author provides substantial reasons in support of both viewpoints. This article should be on its own page since it is an in depth discussion on the relationship between David and Jonathan. Figaroo 02:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep The page for David is already fairly substantial, and it doesn't seem right to crowd it with this. I only started it two days ago!! I haven't had time to really expand it more. Right now it's just an outline. I hope to expand on the narrative and both interpretations, with external links and citations. I was also going to add a section on its similiarity to the same-sex warrior love relationships common to that era of writing (such as between Gilgamesh and Enkidu in the The Epic of Gilgamesh which parallels this narrative similiarly). It's too much info for the David page, and this article has enough substance to stand on its own. Please give this an article a chance to grow! Queerudite 22:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to David and delete. No redirect. Megan1967 00:30, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Interesting information. Merging to David would make the page too long. Keeping the subjects separate should do the job. Glaurung 09:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- "Keep" This article sheds light on the often unexplored relationship of David and Jonathan. It's well written and deserving of inclusion. Artichoke360 22:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep This article is too extensive to be merged with the David article, and should remain seperate. It is also articulate and well balanced, and deserves to remain purely on its own merits. Moonblade85 00:21, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Poorly written, but we should still keep. Josh Cherry 03:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 21:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The votes were 7 keep, 3 delete.
As noted in the article, he only had one movie role. His current activity, although it piqued my curiosity, is not notable. RickK 09:02, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless his current activities have attracted significant press attention. Mgm|(talk) 10:11, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep only one movie role, but it was a major role in a quite well-known film (some circles even consider it a classic). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:26, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Starblind. Oz Dante
- Keep, as above. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:03, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - David Gerard 23:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, borderline notability but I do agree his role was quite cutting in that film. Megan1967 00:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is of canonical enough importance that a principal actor - billed second on the IMDB entry - is definitely (if perhaps barely) over the bar. Keep. Samaritan 06:37, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete if not improved. Definitely needs work; it's very amateurish presently, making me think it does more harm than good. Can't someone come up with anything else to say about this guy? This "was in a film, now pimps out strippers" really is not an encyclopedia article. Awful picture too. -R. fiend 07:48, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. GRider\talk 21:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Doesn't pass the average actor test. Delete. Martg76 05:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. The article has been listed on WP:CP. Joyous 22:11, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
A long, earnest essay about, or precis of one issue of, or perhaps the whole of one issue of, this zine. The article (contributed by Prozak) ends: Heidenlarm is a quarterly publication of neoclassical music, culture and philosophy. / Editor: S.R. Prozak PO Box 1004 Alief, TX 77411-1004 / http://www.anus.com/metal/zine/ / (c) 2005 Heidenlarm eZine/mock Him productions, which all suggests vanity and/or copyright problems. (Oh, and I think Wikipedia has had its fill of arguments over the wittily named organization behind anus.com -- among which Prozak writes "I find this voting process to be the kind of pathetic clique orientation/in-group psychology that makes the Internet post-1996 quite pathetic", and "I can't say I'm against trolling as a means, especially when the audience is as ill-informed as most are in the current time. Because of that, however, it's important that we as nihilists uphold the value of trolling, since discourse is dead." So prepare for fireworks!) Those matters aside, the coverage is non-encyclopedic. And the number of Google hits suggests that the ezine, however inherently worthy, is not notable. -- Hoary 09:30, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- I've tried to track down the copyvio, but I haven't found it. I don't think this is salvageable though. It breaks too much wiki rules. Any worthy info should be merged. But I feel this should be deleted. Mgm|(talk) 10:15, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- As far from an encyclopedia article as it could get. Interview + Essay + Spam + Copyvio = Delete. - Mike Rosoft 10:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Remarkably, I was about to use a mathematical formula similar to Mike's. Eerie. Delete. Khanartist 10:49, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- I'm turned off by the header alone. And the rest is not encyclopædic, even if I only got half-way. Delete. Stombs 11:05, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Definitely not encyclopedic, but shouldn't we be using the copyvio process on this, as it says right on the bottom that it's copyrighted? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, unencyclopaedic, possible copyright violations. Megan1967
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 21:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The votes were 3 merge, 2 delete.
Unencyclopedic trivia. RickK 09:28, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge. After these are checked for accuracy, I think they can be included in Brain. Mgm|(talk) 10:16, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and Delete, if they are verified. Inter 10:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I have a feeling most of these are already covered by their respective articles, but if not, Merge. They're all actually rather encyclopedic, and interesting in my opinion, but they don't warrant an article by themselves. Khanartist 10:52, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete merge anything new with urban legends and/or brain after checking for accuracy. Thryduulf 11:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Brain, then add redirect. Megan1967 00:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 20:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The votes were 2 keep, 7 merge to 2002 Gujarat violence, 0 delete.
Nonencyclopedic. RickK 09:51, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Cleanup; I'd like to see if this has any basis in fact. Lacrimosus 10:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It more important than all but a handful of things that have ever happened in Australia. But merge as below. Philip 03:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, expand, NPOVize. Here's one link from the bbc Kappa 10:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)Redirect as per utcursch below Kappa 12:11, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)- Keep, but needs serious clean-up. Stombs 11:22, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to 2002 Gujarat violence. utcursch 12:06, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- I take issue with something like this being termed "nonencyclopedic". That said, redirect as noted above since this duplicates information already in the encyclopedia. 23skidoo 22:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to 2002 Gujarat violence, then delete. Article duplication. Megan1967 00:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Re-direct to 2002 Gujarat violence, then delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:17, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect. "the largest riots ever seen in India" are nonencyclopedic? Bryan 22:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 18:30, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
The article reads like a bad advertisement, and frankly, the NPOV policy of wikipedia must be carried out. --Iconoclast 06:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- keep and cleanup. Iconoclast, what are you trying to prove? -leigh (φθόγγος) 07:51, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Definitely keep. This article is fine. RickK 07:54, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep shoggoth. Delete troll. —Korath (Talk) 10:04, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Short be perfectly acceptable. Mgm|(talk) 10:19, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Cthulhu fhtagn. Notable, and I don't see any NPOV problems. I'm not one to throw around accusations of trolling but... Khanartist 10:54, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Keep point one: I'm not seeing the NPOV here, could you be more specific? Point two: NPOV by itself is not reason for deletion, it's reason for cleanup. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:44, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not notable.Baxter0 17:44, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Bad faith VfD nomination. Iconoclast is vandalising Wikipedia to make a point, or maybe simply as a prank. See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/American_Nihilist_Underground_Society. Uncle G 21:56, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. The article needs some sprucing up, but I think its noteworthy enough to be on wiki. ScottM 23:28, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 00:37, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete, this is in no way a notable entry and should be removed. BlackCountess 06:10, 18 Jan 2005
- The above by anon 205.241.44.90. It was, predictably, its first edit. —Korath (Talk) 05:38, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) (BlackCountess had none at the time of writing. —Korath (Talk) 08:21, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC))
- It should also be pointed out that notability or lack thereof is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Kappa 11:08, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The above by anon 205.241.44.90. It was, predictably, its first edit. —Korath (Talk) 05:38, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) (BlackCountess had none at the time of writing. —Korath (Talk) 08:21, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC))
- Strong keep; we have them in the woods around my house. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Any chance of a snapshot? That would round the article out nicely. Kappa 00:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- Curps 22:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Classic Cthulhu mythos. Axl 11:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Part of Cthulhu mythos. —Lowellian (talk) 07:18, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- 'Keep, and remember: don't feed the trolls or the Shoggoth, please. hfool/Roast me 01:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete cthulhuclutht. -- Hoary 07:21, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't understand what do you mean, Iconoclast. -- Korodzik
- Delete See Shuggoth; Lovecraftian invention should keep Lovecraft's spelling. [This vote by Zosodada, who forgot to sign. jni 16:43, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)]
- Keep. What is this supposed to be advertising, and how is it POV? Bryan 22:10, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 20:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The votes were 1 delete, 11 keep.
Article reads in full: Ryo-Ohki is a character in the Japanese anime series Tenchi Muyo, a cute and furry intelligent animal who can often be found in the company of Princess Sasami. Ryo-Ohki is commonly referred to as a cabbit, and is widely considered to be the definitive example of such. Preteen fancruft. Kawaii! (If you don't know what "Tenchi Muyo" [Muyō, actually] is about and have a strong stomach, try the Flash intro to the official website.) -- Hoary 10:24, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC) ..... PS: The write-up for this character given within the article on Tenchi Muyo isn't so saccharine and indeed is moderately interesting; it's both longer and considerably more informative than is this new article up for VfD. -- Hoary 11:03, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
Keep. Pains me to say it (not a fan of Tenchi Muyo), but with a bit of work this would compare favorably with other articles on fictional characters. Unless this one in particular is minor, I don't see why it should go. Khanartist 10:56, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Keep hasn't had a chance to prove it's worth yet. Kappa 11:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep "Ryo-Ohki" gets 50,000 Google hits. It might not be your cup of tea, but obviously somebody cares about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:40, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but improve. Clearly notable. — Asbestos | Talk 13:10, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Samaritan 13:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons stated above. 23skidoo 19:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't know that I'd have called it an article-worthy character, but since consensus seems to be to keep it, I'll work on it at some point in the next week. I suppose that's another keep vote. Shimeru 23:09, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, initial expansion's done. Shimeru 10:32, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Delete, borderline notable. As it stands I don't think it deserves an article. Megan1967 00:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, no less "notable" than main characters on Charmed. Ryo-Ohki is also used by the Pioneer corporation as a mascot for its line of anime releases. Inky 01:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Kiddie-cruft at present, but a one-two punch of 50,000 Google hits and its use as an advertising mascot for a major electronics firm makes me want to say keep and clean up. - Lucky 6.9 23:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, there is cruft and there is cruft. This is crufticity of the sublime kind. Wyss 05:24, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Edelkruft, perhaps? -- Hoary 10:38, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
- Keep, article's been expanded nicely. Bryan 22:12, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Relatively major character of a television & movie series popular in many countries (esp. Japan). Xaliqen 23:51, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:08, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think an internet radio station the existed for two months and had a peak listnership of 20 people is particularly notable. It might merit a paragraph or two in an article about its founders - but they don't even give their full names. Thryduulf 10:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing special about this. Non-notable. Stombs 11:19, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Sounds like a hoax and wouldn't be noteworthy enough to include if it was true. Mgm|(talk) 12:17, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as NN. — Asbestos | Talk 13:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, although it is quite funny, especially the part when they started to lose listeners... Grue 20:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Joke by anon with no other contributions. Andrewa 21:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- For some reason, I keep thinking of The Kit Curran Radio Show. Uncle G 22:15, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDIED. dbenbenn | talk 21:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
vanityGeni 11:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You missed the sockpuppet theatre? That's why you should never spend time away from wikipedia, you miss all the fun bits. See this. Speedy deleted. --fvw* 11:11, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous - 6 clear delete votes, 4 redirect votes. Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the article defaults to keep. Redirecting. Rossami (talk) 03:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Slangdef. --fvw* 11:37, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete. Can defs be speedied, incidentally? Khanartist 11:40, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete - the faster the better! Selphie 11:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) **
Delete. — Asbestos | Talk 13:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)Redirect to List of sexual slurs as noted below. — Asbestos | Talk 13:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)- Delete, unless it's in wide use. In that case Transwiki to Wiktionary. Mgm|(talk) 13:45, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, dicdef, it's all been said. Inter 14:19, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of sexual slurs. It's already there in the list, and redirects are cheap. I can imagine someone typing this in to look up. --Stevietheman 19:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, dicdef, no likelihood of becoming a useful article. I can see why some might see a redirect as a good idea, but this sort of directory is one thing that Wikipedia is not. A redirect that points to a member of a list that will never become an article is making Wikipedia into a dictionary. Subtle point perhaps but important IMO. Andrewa 21:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It's not making Wikipedia into a dictionary... but rather redirecting visitor to a complete article of related material. Not unusual for an encyclopedia. And recall that we're not print-bound. No harm done with a redirect. --Stevietheman 21:50, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of sexual slurs. Megan1967 00:41, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Redirects are cheap. dbenbenn | talk 23:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. 3 clear "delete" votes, 2 clear "redirect" and one "delete and redirect" which must be interpreted as "keep". The decision defaults to "keep".
Reviewing the article, I concur with the assessment that there is nothing to merge. Therefore, I will do a redirect without merge. By the way, my personal vote is redirect for two reasons. 1) Redirects are cheap. 2) It might prevent the article from reappearing. Rossami (talk) 03:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Einstein Field Equations (EFE) is a recently created stub which seems to have no material that is not already present in Einstein's field equation, nor even any such potential. Whether you want to consider the tensor equation of GR one equation or many equations is really a semantic matter, and in no meaningful way does pluralizing qualify the phrase to be a different article. -Lethe | Talk 11:55, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Einstein's field equation. — Asbestos | Talk 13:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Redirect to Einstein's field equation. PaulHammond 13:53, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Einstein's field equation, and then redirect. Megan1967 00:42, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The material is already present in Einstein's field equation, so a merge isn't needed, and the article title is not appropriate for a redirect. --Carnildo 19:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, per Carnildo. —Korath (Talk) 01:20, Jan 23, 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 speedy deleted as vandalism. Joyous 18:21, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Copy and paste vandalism, but I can't find a source so I can't copyvio it. --fvw* 12:36, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
No potential to become encyclopedic --John 12:41, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -Lethe | Talk 12:42, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- It's the same as http://pepper.idge.net/slashdot/deformed_penis_troll and the URL says it all, delete as troll/hoax iMeowbot~Mw 12:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:21, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
I'm having trouble verifying any of the bits that suggest notability, looks like vanity. --fvw* 13:07, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete I also can't find anything under spiross composer or spiross composition. Seems unlikely that this person is notable. --LeeHunter 13:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete The only evidence I can find that a composer or musician by that name ever existed is a link to a page on MP3.com which is now 404'ed. The idea that he performed at the Royal Albert Hall and toured internationally is highly suspect at best. Delete unless credible evidence arises. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 18:14, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
No potential to become encyclopedic. AlistairMcMillan 15:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". The lists of pro/con are nothing but each editors POV. None of the "facts" listed are cited in any way. I wasn't sure whether to mark this as vfd or cleanup, but something needs to be done about it. AlistairMcMillan 17:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep This is referenced in several places elswhere, and while it wouldn't be at home in a tradtional dead-tree encyclopedia, I feel that it fits here. Thryduulf 16:28, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Cleanup and keep. Operating system advocacy can certainly be an encyclopedic phenomenon. (Apple evangelist, for instance.) Samaritan 18:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. I don't know whether the bulk of the article can be salvaged, and my own POV is too strong to even try, but the first section is encyclopedic and already NPOV. —Korath (Talk) 19:38, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- I vote to cleanup this article.
I suggest as decision method to be used the strong majority (2/3) decision method. I suggest if a decision is taken to be valid for 2 months then reconsider (means that only after two months someone should be allowed to put it again for a vote for deletion/undeletion) . I suggest this Vfd poll to be legitimate only if after 5 days voters' participation will exceed 9 votes (regardless the population of the active or legitimate electorate).Iasson 20:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)- Keep and Clean up. An article on operating system advocacy is potentially worthwhile, but a simple pro/con list likely will never manage to be NPOV.
I further suggest that any VfD comment longer than 75 words that contains policy statements not directly related to the article in question should be stricken if a simple majority (1/2 of logged in voters) concur. Users posting such comments should be flogged with a wet noodle until the matter is presented for reconsideration after a period of not less than two days.--TenOfAllTrades 21:41, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)- Apologies to my fellow Wikipedians; I have redacted the excess material from my comment. Policy commentary belongs elsewhere. I should know better than to edit while irked. --TenOfAllTrades 00:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- How about this vote? "Vote:Clean up. Suggest:"Strong Majority, decision for 2 mnth valid, min_voters= 9 in 5 days."". Suggestion is 67 letters long. Iasson 06:37, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Apologies to my fellow Wikipedians; I have redacted the excess material from my comment. Policy commentary belongs elsewhere. I should know better than to edit while irked. --TenOfAllTrades 00:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: These are sensible and potentially valuable ideas, but they need work, raising them here is not going to affect the result of this listing, and it's probably counterproductive. Please go through the established channels for proposing and discussing policy changes. I know it's hard work. Vote below. Andrewa 21:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and Clean up. An article on operating system advocacy is potentially worthwhile, but a simple pro/con list likely will never manage to be NPOV.
- Keep. Pro/con lists are awful, this article should be refocused to cover operating system advocacy efforts. It's OK to have some OS comparisons, but we already have the Comparison of operating systems article. Pro/con lists must die. Rhobite 21:09, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Pro & con lists supports you. Uncle G 00:17, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
- Keep. Lots of good material here. Needs work, yes. Andrewa 21:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - it documents common arguments in OS advocacy - David Gerard 00:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the introductory section. Delete the rest. All of it. My immediate reaction was that that pros and cons list will cause a perpetual simmering edit war. And — blow me! — a "'Does!' 'Doesn't!'" edit happened right as I was reading the article! What belongs in this article is a discussion of what operating system advocacy is, not a vast tract of actual operating system advocacy itself. "Here are some of the arguments, false or otherwise" says it all. Uncle G 00:17, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
- Keep, needs definite cleanup and expansion, more NPOV. Megan1967 00:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I think this article consists of accurate statements about widely held opinions. Jimbo has said that "facts about opinions" are legitimate. I took a fairly careful look the Mac OS section and have no doubt that all of the opinions mentioned could easily be backed up by citations. That they aren't is an obvious weakness, which can be fixed. I saw no obvious evidence of bias in the article. It is a reasonable summary of the "conventional wisdom." I am curious to see where the article goes. The big danger, of course, is that it will become a battlefield for POV-warriors. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Topic has a strong potential to be encyclopedic. As it stands it is more "off topic" than anything else. The lists should probably be removed and replaced with at least a good stub. I would like to hear more about the history and future of operating system advocacy, and motivation for it. --Casito 02:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. the NPOV policy doesn't mean what you think it means, Alistair; an article that describes POVs is itself NPOV as long as it doesn't take a stance on whether any of those POVs is actually true. Quoting from the policy: "when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct." As long as this article is merely describing the various common arguments that are made, it's fine. Bryan 22:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
2 users clearly voted "delete". One clearly voted "keep". A number of others added insightful comments but chose to abstain from a final decision. This (barely) meets our generally accepted threshold for deletion. Rossami (talk) 03:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Very recent development, which makes it not have encyclopedic relevance. Further, the site to which the article refers to has been down for weeks. --Stevietheman 18:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Seems like advertising to me. Thryduulf 19:23, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Not Sure I made some contributions to know-how wiki. I seem to remember reading about know-how wiki in a newspaper article too, so it could regarded as 'well-known'. It was quite a clever idea of a wiki (unusual approach for formatting the information), and a free and open resource just like wikipedia. As for whether wikipedia should have a article on it... I guess that depends. I don't know what the normal policy is on articles about websites. Also the website is offline at the moment (has been for a month or so), which I guess counts against it! -- Nojer2 23:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I agree the idea behind the site has great potential, and I hope something else like it springs up... just think, an open "How to do everything" manual. However, this particular effort was very new and that also tends to be a strike against encyclopedic relevance. --Stevietheman 06:35, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment If the wiki were still live, I'd lean toward inclusion on the basis that, well, our bar for wikis should be a little bit lower than for other web phenomena. I get the message "Forbidden: You don't have permission to access /~paquetse/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi on this server," though, which suggests that at the moment it basically doesn't exist, in which case I don't think it merits and article. No vote yet. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm shocked that that statement has gone unchallenged for 2.5 days! Yes, Wiki is in some sense the religion, or at least passion, of WP editors. But that only emphasizes the PoV involved in saying "Wikis are special in WP." Special in the WP: namespace, fine; they must not be treated any differently from other software topics in the article namespace. --Jerzy(t) 15:51, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
- Retain Know-How Wiki was running up until at least December 2004, when it was being hit very heavily by wiki spam. I assume the site owners had to take it down because the spam overloaded the site. The article could be updated to reflect those facts. It seemed like a useful idea for a Wiki and had some interesting content. The site may be gone, but the concept has not. If removed then we are erasing history. -- kiwiinapanic 08:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- But a question still remains: Was Know-how Wiki notable enough before it went down? --Stevietheman 16:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:07, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is going to have entries for individual game show contestants, now? Uncle G 19:56, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
I figured that because she came in second in a field of sixteen, that this would be an article worthy of Wikipedia. She won challenges at some strategic times when she would have otherwise been eliminated, showing some of the intricacies of this reality gameshow. Val42 20:41, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete. Game show loser. Any intricacies of the game can be covered on the game's article. Niteowlneils 20:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete game show contestants? In an encyclopedia?! Come on. Ken Jennings and that guy who inspired the movie Quiz Show, maybe. The rest of the lot can take a hike. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:14, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete on the basis that it's a bad precedent. There have been thousands of game show contestents (reality and panel format), and being one isn't a measure of notoriety unless you become newsworthy such as Ken Jennings or Charles Van Doren, or the guy who won the first Survivor (or someone like Dr. Joyce Brothers who made their first public appearances as game show contestents.). If kept, I don't see the point in retaining the LDS references. 23skidoo 22:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, borderline notable but this article will set a bad precedent, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 00:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 09:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The votes were 6 keep, 2 delete.
In Arabic. Had its 2 weeks on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, nothing happened. Only one sentence anyway, no great loss I'm sure. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:36, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Persian, actually, and looks worthless. Delete. - Mustafaa 21:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, nothing really here. Megan1967 00:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- How can a national soccer federation be not notable? Kappa 11:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- A simple Google search reveals that the Football Federation of Iran was established 81 years ago and is affiliated with FIFA. Yet another example of an article requiring renaming and cleanup, not pre-emptory deletion. Keep. --Centauri 03:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No, it needed
(and needs)translation into English. And as per the policy on that it was moved here when that didn't happen for a fortnight. The mechanism is working as it should. Please read the policy. Uncle G 11:30, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
- No, it needed
- It's a keep now. -- Eugene van der Pijll 17:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Someone made a stub in English, so Keep. -- Curps 18:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep fixed stub. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:14, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep--Boothy443 10:30, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep ~ mlk ✉♬ 06:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) ~
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:04, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Student resume. DJ Clayworth 19:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a way for web-loggers to advertise their curricula vitae to potential employers and their web-logs to potential readers. Nor is it a means for circumventing the fact that Google charges a fee for advertisements. Uncle G 20:25, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete. Advertisement. Binadot 20:30, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete. Sigh. 23skidoo 22:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, advertisement, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Certainly unencyclopedic: this is no random forum. Jogloran 11:39, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No matter whether it's vanity, advert, or resume, it doesn't belong in wikipedia... Enochlau 22:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
Per our standing concern with sockpuppets attempting to bias the voting on this page, the anonymous and unsigned entries had to be steeply discounted (including the nominator's opinion). All facts presented by the anonymous contributors were considered, however. In aggregate, the final fact that tipped the decision to "delete" was the inability to source the use of this term in any significant levels outside Wikipedia. Wikipedia strongly discourages original research. Verifiability means more than just "go try it". For us, it also means that the concept is widely discussed in its field and that independent analysis about it is already available. The original author's intent is laudable but should be initiated in some forum other than Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 04:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Metanet article appears to be something like original research or a vanity page. The article reads more like a technical proposal for Metanet than like an encyclopedia article about Metanet. In several places it asserts minor points of view, e.g. "Unfortunately, membership is by invitation only" (only unfortunate if you hold the POV that participation is important), "Implementing an anonymous network on a service by service basis has its drawbacks," and the section evaluating various threats to Metanet stating how "worrisome" they are.
Rather than informing the reader of Metanet's existence and explaining its purpose, history, and characteristics, the article seems to be aimed at readers who already accept the need for such a network and are interested in reading about how it could be done. (In fact the article offers no proof that Metanet even exists other than as somebody's fantasy; if there is a Metanet website, a true external link to it rather than to IRC channels would be a good start toward making the article encyclopedic.)
The Metanet proponent seems to be advertising "his" article about Metanet on at least slashdot: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=136334&cid=11387401 . Rather than serving as an encyclopedia article it seems this person wants to use the article as Metanet's homepage. 170.35.224.63 21:28, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research. Most of the content was written by the author of this article]. GeorgeStepanek\talk 01:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Abstain. Slashdot link talks about freenet, where does it say anything about metanet? Also, does anyone have a link to an archive of the other link? Not in google cache, and it seems to be a 404? Did you mistype the ip address?
- The slashdot poster's signature has changed, in the last four or five hours. Previously it was something like "Build an internet free of the corruption of corporations and governments," with a link to the Metanet article.
- The second link has gone 404 just in the last few hours.
- Sounds like the Metanet proponent is losing interest, making this article even less encyclopedically noteworthy. 170.35.224.64 21:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The article was hosted on the poster's own IP address, apparently via cable modem. Possibly he has taken it offline because of the bandwidth hit from listing it here. GeorgeStepanek\talk 00:02, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Or maybe he doesn't like slashdot trolls following his sigs back to wikipedia to be screwed with. I mean, if you had vandalized the page, Mr. 170.35.224.63, it would just have been reverted. If I really wanted to be evil, I'd put a marginal article up for vote to delete too.
- The article was hosted on the poster's own IP address, apparently via cable modem. Possibly he has taken it offline because of the bandwidth hit from listing it here. GeorgeStepanek\talk 00:02, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Abstain. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
- Yes, but unverifiability is cause for deletion, and there are more issues than whether or not Metanet exists. 170.35.224.64 21:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that's true for just about everything - Global Warming, Aliens, Ghosts or even things like String Theory. That does not mean you do not write about them.
- Huh? That's a non-sequiter. There is ample debate about ghosts, string theory etc. But there is no indication that there is any debate about Metanet, as described in this article. (There are plenty of other uses of the word.) GeorgeStepanek\talk 00:02, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that's true for just about everything - Global Warming, Aliens, Ghosts or even things like String Theory. That does not mean you do not write about them.
- Yes, but unverifiability is cause for deletion, and there are more issues than whether or not Metanet exists. 170.35.224.64 21:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm convinced. Delete. —Korath (Talk) 00:42, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Abstain. Of course don't delete it. Just because it's not a mainstream network doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that there aren't 100s/1000s/100000s of nodes on it. I'm sure Wikipedia has a lot of articles about thing that can't be proved to exist, or are denied to exist.
- This is on the Talk page, having been removed from the main article:
- "Helping the Cause An effort is under way to translate this page into as many languages as is practical. If you see your native language listed at the side of the page, we would appreciate you clicking on it, and translating just a sentence or two!"
- Doesn't this sound just a touch suspicious? 24.125.12.101 appears to have been spamming 19 different language wikipedias. GeorgeStepanek\talk 03:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, unless someone adds some reputable references. Paul August ☎ 04:07, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Anonymous votes
[edit]I moved anonymous votes down here. dbenbenn | talk 00:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Dont delete it, we like it.
- Delete
- Fair enough, delete.
- dont delete
- Delete 68.64.32.15 13:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Do not delete, this is the only reliable source of info we have on these networks. Entry-points to multiple different meta-nets can be found on IRC. Due to the highly private nature of these networks it makes sense that people are saying "We can't find these networks". That's the point. If you haven't been invited, you'll have a hard time finding one. That doesn't mean this page contains invalid/inappropriate/untrue information. If the page is deleted it will simply be submitted again. Also, the author of this "delete" article fails to realize there are MANY meta-nets. There isn't just one. Rumour has it two of them may be linking up at some point but that's about all I can say. This "delete" proposal is unfounded editorialism at best.
- Then it should be deleted as unverifiable. (No change of vote.) —Korath (Talk) 05:15, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Why is this article a "reliable source of info"? It may be true, but without verifiable references there is no way for anyone to know. Without verifiability, it remains as you say, a "rumour". Rumours have no place in an encyclopedia. You have it backwords, it is the proposals to keep which are, so far, "unfounded" the burdened of proof, falls on those wanting to keep, not delete. Paul August ☎ 05:38, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I consider myself an "expert on the matter" and I am verifying right now that at least one metanet exists, seeing as how I am a member of one. Seeing as how the Wiki entry is fairly broad and general in its descriptions, that makes the entry hard to verify automatically. That doesn't mean impossible, just hard. The fact that some of the information is hard to verify does NOT lessen its validity or accuracy. I'm telling you, as a member of an actual metanet exactly as described, that the article is accurate and perfectly valid. You appear to have a very "guilty until proven innocent" type of attitude about this matter, which I believe goes against the concept of this site and its goals.
- Keep - I have spoken with the author of that slashdot post, he did NOT submit this page, and thus is clearly not using it to promote his network, seeing as how, quite clearly, a member or owner of some other Metanet submitted the page. I know him well enough to know he is telling the truth. He actually wasn't even aware of the Metanet entry on wikipedia until someone else pointed it out to him. Don't make conclusions upon things you can't prove.
note: for those criticizing the unverifiability of the article, notice the 3rd "external link" which allows you to actually *connect to a metanet* for evaluation purposes. It doesn't get much more verifiable than that.
- Keep Metanet exists. The idea of "evaluation purposes" is silly. If you can't figure out how to get on Metanet from a 'public router' then you shouldn't be on anyhow. It sounds like many want this entry deleted because they can't get on. Are we going to delete entries on religion because some people don't get it?
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 18:01, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Obscure slang definition, the extremely few Google hits I get are somewhat relevant to the article but seem to indicate that "Khoodeelaar" is not even used in the sense mentioned in the article but is the moniker of someone occasionally writing about the campaign -- Ferkelparade π 21:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Uuuuuunnncle G! is a SayVeeEffDee word used to oppose this let-us-get-Wikipedia-to-spread-our-political-campaign-for-us article. Delete. Uncle G 23:10, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, neologism, possible advertisement. Megan1967 00:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:58, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable, vanity page. Though it sounds like fun. Madame Sosostris 22:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nice name though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 09:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The votes were 4 keep, 1 merge, 1 delete.
Seems like an advert to me. --Ryan B. (Talk, contributions) 22:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Marginal keep. There's not enough here to make a determination one way or the other. I say keep as long as someone expands this beyond sub-stub status and establishes notoriety. 23skidoo 22:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible advertisement. Megan1967 00:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Robert McChesney, founder of this org, scores 127,000 Google hits as an exact phrase. It would seem that this is notable, though it certainly needs expansion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:55, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Robert McChesney. It is (as yet) only notable in that he founded it. GeorgeStepanek\talk 01:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I've expanded this entry a little, agree it needs more. It's distinct from Robery McChesney in that it's a multi-issue organization whereas McChesney is an author and academic. Ekai 02:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - we shouldn't drop the information about this "Free Press". If nothing else, it will be useful for the eventual disambiguation Free Press will merit (there's a book publishing house Free Press, and scads of newspapers). Samaritan 09:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 09:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There were 10 votes to keep, 0 to delete.
totally non-sensical if you ask me, at the verry least it needs to be renamed and have a stub message stuck on it.--Ryan B. (Talk, contributions) 22:10, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Not sure why this might be VfD'ed. It's a real movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069995/ and a fairly famous one at that. I'm perplexed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:21, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Well that saved me looking the ID up. (-: Uncle G 22:47, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Keep, real and quite famous movie. Could stand some cleanup, though...the last sentence is admittedly a bit hard to parse -- Ferkelparade π 22:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't know why this was VfD'd, personnally. A poorly written article is not grounds for deletion. Half the fun is in fixing these things up. 23skidoo 22:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. No reason to be on VfD. Binadot 23:08, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Looks fine now. --Etimbo | Talk 00:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I', not entirely sure why this came to be the subject of a VfD. It seems an odd film, I'll give you that, and the article isn't going to get featured any time soon, but that's no reason for a deletion. Thryduulf 00:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, cleanup and expand. That table looks jarring and probably needs changing. Megan1967 00:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It's a template common to several film articles. There might be a better one. Uncle G 11:20, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
- Keeeeeeep. --JuntungWu 07:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I am wondering right now why this was even submitted to VfD. Seems fine to me. The table needs Cleanup or Expansion. --WikiFan04 02:47, 20 Jan 2005 (CST)
- If you don't like the look of Template:Infobox_Film, then be bold. Uncle G 15:28, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
- KEEP Why was this on on VfD anyway?? Oh. Must have been because of sex. Oh my oh me. Oh me oh my. Edeans 03:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to 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 17:57, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Local band with no records. DJ Clayworth 22:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Half of them don't even have last names. Madame Sosostris 22:23, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete no evidence of notability Cdc 22:43, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity and not notable. Cookiecaper 23:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 21:16, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any votes here.
Pretty close to patent nonsense, but I figured I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. Complete text at time of VfD is: "Am i neutral being?" Possibly D&D related? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:12, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm ready to take the heat in case anyone disagrees, but this was more than "pretty close to patent nonsense". Entire content was "Am i neutral being?". I've speedied it accordingly. -- Ferkelparade π 22:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Addendum: For the record, it's not D&D related but related to the TV series Charmed. There has been lots of fun with charmed-related articles already - some people have spent lots of time creating dozens of substubs about totally nonnotable minor characters, copy/pasting lots of copyrighted material into different "list of..."-articles etc., then recreating all that stuff after it had been deleted. If you ever have a bored afternoon, follow the links from the main Charmed article and dig around the edit histories of the related articles -- Ferkelparade π 22:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, based on my understanding, "patent nonsense" by the WP definition refers primarily to random or semi-random words or characters. An article named "etjpforijgp" or "Monkey soapdish shadowfax mudskipper" would certainly be considered Patent Nonsense. I'm not sure that this qualifies, as some might see real-article potential in the Charmed Neutral Beings concept. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on this one though, as I won't miss this silly little article one bit. :) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:45, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- We have actual content, apparently, at List of Charmed Good Beings and List of Charmed Evil Beings. This does not make the article that was deleted any less patent nonsense, since unlike these other articles the deleted content contains nothing that would answer anyone's questions about neutral beings on Charmed. It seemed more like sandbox play or confusion than an attempt to create an article, which makes it patent nonsense under the local definition. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:28, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It's back as a redirect. Odd, but then again, redirects are cheap. hfool/Roast me 01:51, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 08:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The votes were 2 delete, 6 keep.
<boilerplate> Wikipedia is not a way for web-loggers to advertise their curricula vitae to potential employers and their web-logs to potential readers. Nor is it a means for circumventing the fact that Google charges a fee for advertisements. </boilerplate> Uncle G 23:05, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Comment No vote yet, but Mickey Kaus is fairly notable. Kausfiles is on Slate.com, if I remember correctly, whixh is certainly notable. Khanartist 23:28, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Comment Google claims 240,000 results? This would seem to indicate notability, unless Kausfiles has another meaning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:56, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- How many results does Google Groups give? <boilerplate> The practice of web-logging is well-known to distort Google Web search results. Treat the Google Web Test as unreliable when it comes to web-logging. The Google Groups Test cuts through the web-logger-induced fog somewhat, though. </boilerplate> Uncle G 00:44, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
- Good point. Groups shows just under 300 results, but those DO go all the way back to 1999. But while we're looking at Google tabs, over on the News tab, it seems Klausfiles has been mentioned on NPR, The Washington Post, and American Politics Journal, among others... and that's just within the last couple weeks. I completely understand what you mean by Googlebombing but this just doesn't seem non-notable to me, at least not in the way that term is usually used around here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:13, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- How many results does Google Groups give? <boilerplate> The practice of web-logging is well-known to distort Google Web search results. Treat the Google Web Test as unreliable when it comes to web-logging. The Google Groups Test cuts through the web-logger-induced fog somewhat, though. </boilerplate> Uncle G 00:44, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a very prominent blog on slate.com. It is is frequently mentioned as one of the first political blogs. --BM 00:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, I'm in agreement with Uncle G's comments. It will also set a bad precedent for future articles. Megan1967 00:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- What is the bad precedent? That there should be articles on blogs? The only way an article on this shouldn't be in Wikipedia is if we are going to have zero articles on blogs. I would put this in the top 10, say, most significant blogs. In VfD, we are voting on whether the topic merits an article, not on whether the article currently does justice to the topic. If the subject merits an article and the article is poor, it should be retained and marked for cleanup, or attention. --BM 01:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Famous, leading mainstream U.S. political blog, easily in the rarified league of Instapundit, Atrios, or Wonkette. I just did a quick wikify/stub/Category:Weblogs. Samaritan 06:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Kausfiles is clearly notable being one of the first political weblogs by a notable journalist with a significant readership. During the 2003 recall, Kausfiles made a post breaking the story of Arnold Schwarzegger's interview with Oui magazine talking of participating in group sex which led to other allegations of sexual misconduct by the candidate. Mickey Kaus should also have an article as he is notable for his 1992 book The End of Equality which was significant in the move towards welfare reform and his earlier journalism career. I have added to the Kausfiles article. A Google search http://www.google.com.au/search?q=kausfiles&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official/ 1] shows approximately 240,000 articles while there are 25 articles in Google News for Mickey Kaus indicating that he has a good profile. [2]
This reflects the importance of this site both amongst bloggers and the wider community. Capitalistroadster 08:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This is actually a notable and well-known blog with a fairly high readership. -- Curps 17:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Definitely notable - even I know that one, and I'm neither a blog aficionado nor an US citizen. And which political blog can claim to have had that kind of impact on the California recall? regards, High on a tree 03:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Very well-known blog. --Stevietheman 18:10, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:53, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Spam for a message board. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 23:30, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as spam. Such a pity it's not a speedy - David Gerard 00:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Vote for deletion... DELETE! Offensive article about one's interest. Not really an encylopedia article. --Nzo 23:49, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:22, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity. If there's any doubt, note the threats of re-creation on this vfd's discussion page. —Korath (Talk) 20:32, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete spam. -R. fiend 20:37, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Posted to the talk page: "D69 is important. There are no grounds for deleting this artical. It is of interest, and should be read with respect to all members of the D69 base. DELETION IS NOT AN OPTION. If this artical is deleted it will be recreated by ALL members of D69. Thankyou for your time to read this. Cheerio." - 194.238.50.45
- au contraire, deletion is the only option. If this "artical" is recreated it will be redeleted by ALL sysops at wikipedia. Cherrio. -R. fiend 22:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete is the only option, and continued deletion if it is recreated. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:51, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Neologism: "The term first began appearing in online chats in early 2005." -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 23:34, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. This is a natural candidate for speedy deletion: nonsense from Anonymous User:141.161.125.211 (no other edits) which takes more people's time to delete than it will to invent more of the same. To foist it on Wiktionary simply fills that site with garbage.
- Unsigned vote from User:Wetman
- Keep. This is a valid phrase, I've seen it around and used it myself for nearly a year now.
- Unsigned vote from User:68.40.57.10
- Keep. I am the Anonymous user who entered the word. Sorry, I wasn't registered at that time. I have added other terms that are valid (The Michigan Review), though anonymously as well. I have seen the term sloot from multiple sources since early last year. My original "2005" reference was a typo. There are many people these days who count as sloots, the phenomenon is getting stronger with every new person who signs on to match.com, etc, and there is no other word to describe this. Perhaps I or someone else can beef it up, and/or move it to wiktionary.
- Unsigned vote from User:Ztrawhcs. User has only 4 edits, all to this section and sloot article.
- Deloote. -Sean Curtin 00:54, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-encyclopedic. Rmhermen 00:55, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- Curps 17:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. A dicdef for a neologism that appeared in a campus newspaper isn't notable. Sloot is no Smoot. --TenOfAllTrades 19:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- D3l3t3 and unravel s0ckpuppet$. - Lucky 6.9 23:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Josh Cherry 02:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:59, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Its basically a desciption of a (relativly) (sp?) small and unimportant mall. No chance of becoming encyclopediac.Trevor macinnis 23:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, trivial, possible advertisement. Megan1967 00:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge or keep. Kappa 09:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, I fail to see how this is encyclopædic. Inter 10:28, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It seems reasonably important to the town of San Gabriel. Kappa 10:37, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 08:16, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The votes were 1 delete, 6 keep.
Ancestor of the article's creator, "family vanity". Bardus 23:38, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible vanity and geneology. Megan1967 00:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep,
If verified. Otherwise delete. Inter 10:30, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)It's been verified. Keep it. Inter 11:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) - Keep. Information is verifiable. He is notable as a businessman for his role as establishing the I. W. Harper brand of Bourbon which is made at the Bernheim Distillery in Louisville to this day. He was a notable philanthropist establishing the Bernheim Forest nature reserve south of Louisville. I will rewrite the article adding information and removing the note about the author.Capitalistroadster 08:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Have now made changes to the article.Capitalistroadster 10:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. A shot for Capitalistroadster. :) Samaritan 12:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. GRider\talk 21:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Not a bad article, actually. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't really understand the objection. Deb 17:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a solid article.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP or MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 05:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
3 votes to keep, 3 votes to merge.
Extraneous. I think it should be merged with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Cookiecaper 23:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with the hierarchy of needs article. Sc147 01:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge, Is good. Inter 10:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The importance of self-actualization has been stressed to me at a few points in my life. Perfectly good subject for a separate article. Everyking 11:08, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with Everyking here. The term self-actualization now has an independent existance outside of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. -Rholton 17:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 01:29, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:48, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Game show loser that doesn't seem to have been in any controversies/scandals related to the show, nor been a 'first {something}', nor seems to have used the appearance to jump start his career, or anything else that makes him stand out from the hoards of other game show contestants. Niteowlneils 23:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, article will set a bad precedent (see previous Dinah vote), un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 00:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Non notable. Inter 10:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge. Kappa 11:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:47, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
This is a dictionary definition, and I suspect also a neologism. Thryduulf 23:58, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, And perhaps transwiki, if the dicdef is verified. Inter 10:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki. Megan1967 01:30, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete neologism that never took off. Of 438 displayed google hits for "carbon community" -lehigh (to filter out Lehigh Carbon Community College), I count only 59 that are used in this sense, the vast majority of which are cut and pasted copies from each other. —Korath (Talk) 01:44, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:44, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Non-encyclopedic. A how-to, POV. RickK 00:05, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
Can this be moved to Wikibooks or another wiki project somehow? --220.244.224.40 00:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. POV, original research, non-encyclopedic. By the way, you have to be signed in to cast a vote here. Binadot 00:28, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, POV original research, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It almost hurts to say this, but Delete. There is some good advice here, and it's obvious someone put a fair amount of effort into writing this. But it just isn't an encyclopedia article, and the basicness and childish tone ("...can't play worth jack shit...") would make transwikiing not likely worth it. PS: The part I found most amusing was "Use acoustic guitars when first writing songs. This can be done outside of practice, even at school with the two guitarists" It sounds like he's advocating playing acoustic guitars while at school. I'm reminded of Animal House when Bluto walks downstairs and dispenses his unique brand of music criticism... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:08, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete how-to, original research Sc147 01:19, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Original research. There are however some good things in this article, so it's a shame. Perhaps it could be cleaned up and moved somewhere more appropriate. Inter 10:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Original research. I like how User:Starblind put it... --Bookandcoffee 01:52, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research. TigerShark 00:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:40, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable website. Only 21 displayed hits (don't be fooled by the count top-right--look bottom center--only 3 pages). Has apparently been in existance for less than one month[3]. Niteowlneils 00:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- PS Meant to mention that, based on the contrib's user name, this seems to be promoting his own website. Niteowlneils 01:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, website advertisement. Megan1967 01:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. If Indopedia thrives, it may deserve an article. At the moment, I can't get it to load. -Rholton 03:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Advert. —Lowellian (talk) 07:17, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.