Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 4

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 21:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

SNX

Appears to be notation used from his textbook or something similar... 16 Google Lotsofissues 07:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I never saw that term go by when I was taking chemistry. --Carnildo 19:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• "SNx is the generic notation for SN1 or SN2." Go figure! Sarcasm aside, this is a pretty contentless article. Redirect to Nucleophilic substitution reaction. Rossami (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Nucleophilic substitution reaction. --Marianocecowski 11:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 21:29, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

NATIONAL WRESTLING FEDERATION

Vanity. Gazpacho 08:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --Carnildo 19:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Nicholas Bell

This obvious teen vanity page was tagged speedy. Since "obvious vanity" isn't a speedy criterion, I'm listing it here. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 09:08, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

• SPEEDIED as Patent nonsense. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.--Silversmith 09:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; lame and the product of a hoaxer (see other VfDs today). Samaritan 11:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misprint productions

Originally the content of the article was simply a copy of the content from this website, in other words a copyvio or advertising. User:Jonnabuz trimmed away all that, what remains is little else than the fact that it is an experimental record label, and with hardly any evidence of notability. Sjakkalle 09:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 04:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 05:30, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ubaka Ogbogu

Vanity - suggest we delete this. 29 Google hits suggests he is not a notable poet, and his book is self-published through vanity outfit PublishAmerica Efortune 09:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No sales rank on amazon.com or amazon.ca. Doubtful customer reviews: Ubaka from Canada calls it "A good first collection" [6], [7], [8]. His book is almost certainly not as bad as better, in a fashion, than Atlanta Nights, but... delete. Samaritan 11:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Spinboy 04:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Quale 04:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 05:31, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

The Ultimate Collection

Zillion Ultimate Collections. Don't know if this one is real, or what it is.--Silversmith 09:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like somebody's Winamp playlist. Nestea 10:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It certainly doesn't look encyclopedic. Capitalistroadster 12:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect -- to Madonna. She had a greatest hits album of the same name. If other artists have similar a title, then a disambiguation page. - Longhair | Talk 13:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're thinking of The Immaculate Collection. android↔talk 16:45, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • It may have been an Australian only release. Amazon has listed here a DVD version titled 'The Ultimate...". I'm not a fan. I wouldn't really know :) -- Longhair | Talk 00:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nearly nonsense. Do not redirect to Madonna or any other article, unless someone can find a suitable target for something as ambiguous as The Ultimate Collection. android↔talk 16:45, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. --Carnildo 19:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not useful information. For the record, this appears to have something to do with Barry White. --Joshua 19:56, 5 May 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. —Xezbeth 05:32, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ronan Bergin

Only 8 google hits for name.--Silversmith 10:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• ...none confirming this silly yarn. He was 16 18 years after his birth, he was plagued by ill health and died at 103 with only his college buddies at his funeral. "Stuff it, Chief" indeed. Delete. Samaritan 11:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, not verifiable. Quale 04:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 05:33, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Mark Leahy Bell

From the creator of current VfD candidates Mark Nicholas Bell and Ronan Bergin. No hits whatsoever for mark-leahy-bell or marcus-mac-ghuile-bhael, nor anything relevant for mark-bell michael-collins. Samaritan 11:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, not verifiable. Quale 04:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Against shameless adversaries

A Counter Strike gaming clan. -- Longhair | Talk 13:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 13:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Feydey 13:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. That is _not_ encyclopedic.
• DELETE gaming clans. Not encyclopedic vanity. Mgm|^(talk) 19:13, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence whatsoever of any notability. Firebug 19:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 21:31, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Kohl's Frozen Custard

If they're notable, they probably don't want to be known for this. POV issues. -- Longhair | Talk 13:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 13:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- People should know about this place. Also, what "POV issues"? Guthrie 13:18, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I take the POV issues back. I quickly read "served and wound up in a pint of ice cream". My fault. Article still needs an expansion though. Just covering all the negative aspects of the workplace is POV. -- Longhair | Talk 13:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• A family business founded in 1996 which so far consists of six ice cream stands, at least one of which is not even open yet. This is way below our usual standards for inclusion of businesses. Except for their website and the news article, I can find nothing verifiable to say (and the news article is WikiNews stuff, not really encyclopedia material). Delete. Rossami (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for disgruntled employees. --Angr/_comhrá 05:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• IMHO this is another case for a "Wait 6 months and review" -- either they'll become famous over these incidents, in whuich case a brief entry is probably worth it, or they'll fade away again, in which, delete. But I gather that Wiki rules don't allow such a vote. --Simon Cursitor 07:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is such a rule. Delete it now, if it becomes notable, it can be recreated further down the road. RickK 07:47, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• keep' it is interesting and verifiable and also encyclopedic too Yuckfoo 23:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Should have been written on Wikinews, but not worth the effort and delay of a transwiki. —Korath (Talk) 01:20, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 04:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Narcotix

Band Vanity -- Longhair | Talk 13:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 13:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 04:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Becktionary

"Becktionary is the collection of made-up words by the musician Beck". -- Longhair | Talk 14:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Not encyclopedic - Longhair | Talk 14:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think the fact that a current musician creates new words by the bucketful is extremely interesting... remember that Shakespeare and James Joyce did the same thing. This article, unfortunately, reads more like an ad for the linked website though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep, per WP:FICT or similar. Remove link to external websites as necessary. Kappa 16:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• no reason not to merge this with the Beck article once this VfD has run its course. Soundguy99 16:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, should redirect to Futurama ... the word and concept is from the episode Bendin' in the Wind. Ben-w 18:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge abd redirect wherever this fits best (both articles if needed). Mgm|^(talk) 19:16, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Can't redirect to two places. Barno 20:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivia. It might be appropriate for a merge/redirect to Beck but it's not at all significant in the context of Futurama. Rossami (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivial, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A one-off joke in one episode of Futurama is not encyclopedic. -℘yrop (talk) 19:51, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• redirect somewhere sounds ok Yuckfoo 20:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged - SimonP 02:04, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Pic

Same reason as for Boc--Silversmith 14:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into a character description section on the Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II page. — RJH 16:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II, and redirect. Megan1967 02:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 04:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II. No redirection needed. --Marianocecowski 11:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged - SimonP 02:03, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Boc

Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on Jedi Knight, it is a redirect to Jedi. Not notable. If it is, then an article on Jedi Knight game should be created with this info added.--Silversmith 14:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge contents into a section on the Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II page describing the game characters, then delete this page (no redirect). — RJH 16:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fancruft. Martg76 16:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II. Megan1967 02:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 04:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 05:35, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

William Hamby

"William Hamby is a civil servant, an investment manager, and a web designer." -- Longhair | Talk 14:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No context, vanity, no inbounds, no claim to a life in the public sphere, no relevant web hits by quick search, and his website seems to have been blanked. Delete. Samaritan 15:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Couldn't reach his site either. Nothing verifiable or interesting. - Longhair | Talk 15:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Not much of a web-designer by the looks of things, I couldn't reach it either. Leithp 17:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as contentless link spam, speedily if possible. - Lucky 6.9 03:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non notable. And the external link is currently dead. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (replaced with temp rewritten article). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Lane

He does exist, but the article needs a re-write and I'm not sure he's really noteworthy enough for an article.--Silversmith 15:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Billy Lane is a well known motorcycle builder and now TV personality. His appearances in a number of popular TV shows also helps his notability. The article definitely needs to be cleaned up, but is much better than some I've stumbled on. Wikibofh 15:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I've cleaned up the article a bit (I still think it needs more, but I like to work at a measured pace). Regrettably, after most of my cleanup I discovered that the article was a copyvio of this. I've brought that up on the talk page, but would appreciate input from the veterans on what impact this has on the article as well as the Vfd. Wikibofh 00:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have created a Billy_Lane/Temp to deal with the copyvio. What now happens to this VfD? Do we wait until that gets cleared out and then VfD on the new one? Wikibofh 20:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, copyright violation. Megan1967 02:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Please follow proper copyright procedures. —Korath (Talk) 01:27, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Normally I do.  :) I discovered this after extensive editting, and I wasn't sure if was enough to fix it, which is why I brought it up, so that people would know when they voted. It's the first time I've found it after extensive edits. Wikibofh 05:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colon sex

Only relevant web hit in the first several pages of results (Oh, the things I do for Wikipedia) besides randomized or near-randomized pornographic website hucksterism (and surprisingly little of that) is a pun on the colon (punctuation) from somebody's weblog. No evidence the term is used, unverifiable, misrepresents the extent to which it's "known in the gay scene" or "among heterosexual couples", and uses Wikipedia to promote a neologism. Creation of the article was the only contribution of User:134.155.31.84. Samaritan 16:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Without wanting to seem sexually naïve, is this even possible? :s Chameleon 16:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to anal sex. The colon ends where the rectum begins, so pretty much all anal sex is, by definition, colon sex. --131.94.17.194 16:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC) -- BDAbramson ^thimk 17:01, 2005 May 4 (UTC) (somehow got signed out before I voted).[reply]
• Merge into Anal sex This is also realted to deep fisting. Klonimus 17:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything useful into Anal sex. --Angr/_comhrá 05:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge → Anal sex. —Markaci 2005-05-6 T 03:39 Z
• keep or merge please Yuckfoo 20:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• yuck. merge with anal sex. Sensation002 23:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 21:22, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Differential sail

Bad physics. Not notable. Can come back in the unlikely case it's not a complete fairy dream. --Pjacobi 16:02, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

• Keep. Alleged "bad physics" is notable if it's pursued by brainstorming NASA physicists. Samaritan 16:34, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree, that there is research in the NASA BPP program, which is only crazy, but nevertheless notable. But the four examples I've put on VfD, where originally published by one author:

  Millis' "Challenge to Create the Space Drive," in the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power [9]

Then they were presented by this author on one NASA workshop [10] and made it into one NASA press release.

• Nothing more has been heard from this at NASA. No research was funded (nobody knows how to do any research in these directions). Check later NASA BPP publications, check with the NASA search engine, check their newest summary.

  Pjacobi 18:08, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

• Delete. The Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program is a NASA brainstorming project to come up with really off-the-wall types of engines. Most of the stuff that comes out of it will be impossible, either for engineering reasons, or because the underlying physics were not sufficiently understood. If there has been no followup research, then I don't think we need an article on it. --Carnildo 20:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program. Rossami (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep cleanup and expand. Notable. Megan1967 02:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable bad physics. Kappa 23:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Megan1967. —Markaci 2005-05-6 T 03:40 Z
• Keep, per arguments by keepers above. —Lowellian (talk) 08:19, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 21:34, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Disjunction drive

Bad physics. Not notable. Can come back in the unlikely case it's not a complete fairy dream. --Pjacobi 16:03, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

• Keep. Many hits on google, eg [11], writer admits its only a concept. --Sgkay 16:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As this aims for science, not for fiction, try a search on scholar.google.com: [12]. Ooops. Three pages, some already dead, nothing new for eight years. This is a dead concept which had had its five minutes of fame in the 1990s. --Pjacobi 16:15, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

• Keep. Alleged "bad physics" is notable if it's pursued by brainstorming NASA physicists. Samaritan 16:34, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program is a NASA brainstorming project to come up with really off-the-wall types of engines. Most of the stuff that comes out of it will be impossible, either for engineering reasons, or because the underlying physics were not sufficiently understood. If there has been no followup research, then I don't think we need an article on it. --Carnildo 20:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but heavily revise, or merge with Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program if there isn't enough useful information left. The example described in the article is fatally flawed.--Christopher Thomas 23:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program. Rossami (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep cleanup and expand. Notable. Megan1967 02:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but heavily revise per Christopher Thomas. Kappa 23:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Megan1967. —Markaci 2005-05-6 T 03:44 Z
• Keep. —Lowellian (talk) 08:20, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it seems worth covering Yuckfoo 20:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Breakthrough Physics.Dave1898 11:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 21:36, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Diametric drive

Bad physics. Not notable. Can come back in the unlikely case it's not a complete fairy dream. --Pjacobi 16:03, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

• Keep. Writer admits its only a concept, many google sites reference the possibility [13] - --Sgkay 16:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Alleged "bad physics" is notable if it's pursued by brainstorming NASA physicists. Samaritan 16:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program is a NASA brainstorming project to come up with really off-the-wall types of engines. Most of the stuff that comes out of it will be impossible, either for engineering reasons, or because the underlying physics were not sufficiently understood. If there has been no followup research, then I don't think we need an article on it. --Carnildo 20:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program. Rossami (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep cleanup and expand. Notable. Megan1967 02:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The diametric drive is a reasonable use for exotic matter. If the article is deleted, then that on exotic matter should also be removed. --PJF ^(talk) 13:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable, documented speculation. Kappa 23:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Megan1967. —Markaci 2005-05-6 T 03:44 Z
• keep. —Lowellian (talk) 08:21, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• keep, new material properties are being discovered all the time, what seems nonsense or speculation currently may be possible now by applying these curio effects or discovering a new one in the future. I found this entry while looking at the Physics stubs and trying to get a handle on interesting ideas, poorly understood phemonena, etc.. I found it intriguing and the next guy who looks at it might just have the right idea on how to construct it. Synaptic-axon 06:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 21:37, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Pitch drive

Bad physics. Not notable. Can come back in the unlikely case it's not a complete fairy dream. --Pjacobi 16:03, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

• Keep. Writer admits its only a concept, many google sites reference the possibility [14] - --Sgkay 16:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Alleged "bad physics" is notable if it's pursued by brainstorming NASA physicists. Samaritan 16:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program is a NASA brainstorming project to come up with really off-the-wall types of engines. Most of the stuff that comes out of it will be impossible, either for engineering reasons, or because the underlying physics were not sufficiently understood. If there has been no followup research, then I don't think we need an article on it. --Carnildo 20:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program. Rossami (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep cleanup and expand. Notable. Megan1967 02:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable concept. Merging somewhere might not hurt. Kappa 23:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Megan1967. —Markaci 2005-05-6 T 03:44 Z
• Keep. —Lowellian (talk) 08:20, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 05:36, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sarah Acconcia

An article about an art student, 0 hits. Google 0

Lotsofissues 15:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Vanity, obviously. Leithp 20:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 04:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 21:38, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Garying

Really should be speedied as an attack page, but someone might revert the tag based on length. See Talk:Garying. Samaritan 16:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 21:29, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Bowling from the pavilion end

Hoax, no relevant hits for the title (spelling it pavilion or pavillion) plus BBC3, not on Johnny Vegas' IMDB page. Samaritan 16:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, hoax. Megan1967 02:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Quale 04:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. A significant number of anonymous votes were discounted as probable sockpuppets. Rossami (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver McGill

Not noteworthy. 589 google hits and hardly any seem to be about the person in this article. Should have any factual, non POV, encyclopedic information added to The Cat Empire--Silversmith 16:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)}}[reply]

• delete, not notable on his own. Megan1967 02:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i have just read the current Oliver McGill log and completely agree with the writer's opinion. The log is informative and humourous too. When reading the article it was clear to me that the writer is passionate and learned about McGill (not in a perverse way) and music in general.i was disappointed to discover that the log may be deleted as it will probably be replaced by some musically unknowlegdeable prude who has just copied and pasted an article from the net. It will be a great shame if this log is deleted and replaced with mediocrity.it must stay! 60.230.99.205 5 May 2005

KEEP - the log IS factual and informative, it tells you about him, his roots and the reasons why hes seen as being so awesome. There isn't any reason to delete this log - User:220.237.134.5 didn't sign.--Silversmith 12:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope that these insightful and informative articles will be KEPT. I myself have learnt a lot upon reading the material and those who encourage its deletion speak nonsense, flummery and are obviously agitated by some sort of annoying rash. Thus, we must ignore these fiends and hope to see more material that contains even a fraction of the depth and wisdom that underlies these articles. - User:218.215.132.54 didn't sign.--Silversmith 12:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the above 3 users only contributions are to this vote. --Silversmith 13:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am the author of this article and I have a few things to say: Firstly, 'Ollie McGill' returns 516,000 sites on Google, and the first 10 all refer to the musician. Secondly, the claim that he is not noteworthy is surprising, given that as a musician in Melbourne and Australia he is quite well known. We are talking here about a musician whose work and solos appear on the Australian charts - the latest Cat Empire album hit No. 1 here. On top of this, his style is quite unique, and though this area is shakily subjective, he is noteworthy on a purely musical level. Thirdly, he requires his own article as there is more room for discussion around specifically his music. Fourthly, I am in the middle of editing the page, and it would seem like the critics would do better to help me than ask for deletion. Fifthly, If Silversmith has a problem with people contributing only to causes they feel are worth contributing to, I'd like to know why. - User:144.132.112.125 11:21, 5 May 2005 (EST)

• • As for fifthly, it's because of what are called "sockpuppets" - individuals who post multiple anonymous votes in an attempt to skew the process, or who register multiple accounts for the same purpose. This is not a secret ballot, it's a public debate. I'm not claiming that you are fraudulently trying to sway the results here, but you are using methods which have been appropriated by those who are. Got it? DS 11:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Noooo, not 516,000 hits — 122 hits for "Ollie McGill" [15] This is because your search looked for the individual words Ollie and McGill. 122 hits is quite abysmal. Ok, sure on the seach he comes up at the top, but so do I when I seach for my name. I'm numbers 2 and 3 with 41 hits. Oh I'm so FAMOUS!!! You are more than welcome to write as much about the individual band memebers as you would like under the article [The Cat Empire] which could do with the bulking out. Just try to remain neutural in your comments.--Silversmith 11:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dear all, the article is a stout piece of cheese which would stand up against the finest camembert you might care to through at it mrs./mr. silversmith. i sense that there may be a touch of jaloux-fromagerie as the french put it. i think it is a good article, which is not only writte with flare but also has mature aroma. in addition to the article itself, one ought to keep in my mind that the author has cancer. fond regards, me. User:212.143.120.243 Didn't sign. Sig. added by --Silversmith 18:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The author having/not having cancer is completely irrelevent. May I remind you that you are perfectly welcome to add all the information you would like on Ollie, but just under the Cat Empire article instead. Not a big deal is it? I'm sure he's fabulous, and when I'm back in Melbourne next year I'll be sure to go and see him. And if you bothered to look at my user page you would know that I'm a female. merci beaucoup, à bientôt. --Silversmith 18:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable outside the context of Cat Empire. Quale 04:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dare I say that this discussion is getting a little ... catty? - User:144.132.112.125 19:45, 9 May 2005 (EST)

• Delete per above. Radiant_* 09:44, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 02:01, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Waking induction of lucid dreaming

POV and unencyclopedic (it's a "how-to") in its present form. I have already merged info into Lucid dreaming. I then read the VFD instructions which said that merging prior to vote was improper -- oops. --goethean 03:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect since you merged it. Kappa 19:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• If you found parts of it useful to another article, the merge was probably appropriate and the solution now is to redirect in order to preserve attribution history - a requirement of GFDL. Rossami (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the information is already in b:Lucid Dreaming: Induction Techniques. I have removed the information form Lucid dreaming for this reason. Exabyte (talk)­ 02:43, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect--the information is useful in the article after all for the reason Kappa gave below. Exabyte (talk)­ 23:56, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I replaced the WILD summary because wikibooks and wikipedia have different purposes. Kappa 07:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete but without prejudice against re-creation of an article at this title but with the correct content. The current content does nothing to help future editors to create the desired article. It is my conclusion that Wikipedia will be off with a redlink than the current mis-information. Rossami (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ammonia nitrogen

One-line article with little edit history. As far as I am aware, the chemical compound discussed does not exist, and nothing in the article convinces me otherwise. Of no interest. Physchim62 17:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, google results indicate a real and interesting compound. Kappa 19:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Aforementioned google results, aside from wikipedia mirrors, show the phrase "ammonia nitrogen" for measurements where it appears to mean "that portion of nitrogen which is present in the form of ammonia", not a unique compound. (Example here; Compare: "organic nitrogen", "nitrate nitrogen", "nitrite nitrogen", "oxidized nitrogen"). The closest things found in CAS and NIST searches is a Hydrazinyl radical.
• Delete. To the best of my knowlege, the compound does not and can not exist. --Carnildo 20:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I havent heard of the compound "ammonia nitrogen". My guess is that the name was a slip up - It should be "ammonia in nitrogen", not ammonia nitrogen, see for example [16], which lists the same formula in the article. Megan1967 02:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ammonia is a nitorgen containing compound, thats already covered at ammonia, N2H3 is a radical hydrazine, but its not called ammonia nitrogen --nixie 02:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Ammonia Nitrogen is a name for water/wastewater test for Nitrogen in one of the forms it appears in water. The place for information might be articles related to water pollution. There are separate articles for Total Suspended Solids and Biochemical Oxygen Demand, the two most common tests quantifying water pollution. The existing article does not cover this at all and would require being written. --WCFrancis 20:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bad chemistry. Quale 04:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Rossami (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Witten

Unless there's a lot more to say about him, I vote for deletion. Deb 17:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've added some more. Not sure whether it's enough to make him notable, but I think so. No vote yet. —msh210 17:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. More-notable-than-average professor-physicist. A proceedings was published in his honor, after all. —msh210 03:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep according to Msh's assessment. Kappa 09:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Seems to have had a fairly lengthy career and having a proceedings named after you is some evidence of notability within the profession. Capitalistroadster 09:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jeremy P Lewis
  • This is JPL's 2nd edit. Seems authentic, though. —msh210 02:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC). (To JPL: Don't be offended by this analysis. Newbies to Wikipedia often have their votes discounted simply because one doesn't know whether they're sock puppets. However, as I just wrote, you seem "authentic" — not like a sock puppet. (This is true both because your 1st edit — about wholism — seems well-reasoned and because this VFD discussion is not controversial.) —msh210 02:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phonebook of the World

Pretty obvious linkspamming. There is already a link to the phonebooksoftheworld.com website on the Telephone directory article. An individual article on this website? Advertising, pure and simple. I bet the person writing the article is also the person behind the phonebooksetc.website. Worthy of deletion? Over to you. Jez 18:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Same user creates a second article called "Brigitte von Boch" about a woman who's problem is trying to call people in other countries. The solution? Phonebook of the World.

  Section headers from the deleted "Brigitte von Boch" infomercial: "1 a simple housewife, 2 her problem, 3 the Internet Boom, 4 the invention, 5 Website" - Tεxτurε 18:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as spam, advert, non-notable. phonebookoftheworld.com has an Alexa rank of 76,865. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:40, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising CDC (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete Brigitte Von Boch's story is how the site Phonebook of the World.com came into existence. The Phonebook of the World is an extensive site offering many resources with not only links to specific country internet phoneboooks but also with pertinent data/information about most listed countries (population, GNP, etc) as well as clocks that show the local time in a given country. NetScott 16:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Alexa rank is variable but never better than 30,000 and has spent most of the last few months not even making the chart. I was unable to verify any of the claims made in this article except that the website exists. Unless there is a whole lot more evidence presented, I'm afraid I also must argue to delete. Rossami (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• (Same anon) Please keep This is the first time I'm writing an article in Wikipedia. I modified

the article to make it more clearer. It is a true story about a Lady that has helped many people every day to find phonenumbers.

• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 02:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• If Deleted, A Phonebook of the World entry will surely re-appear. (Anon)
  • That kind of threat is not going to help your cause. - Tεxτurε 16:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• (Invalid anon vote) keep looked at the Phonebook of the World and I think is is useful, I just found a number of a friend in Brazil. Olivia (same anon again)
• Delete advert and set a watch for recreation. Gazpacho 05:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No threat: From Wikipedia's own deletion policy (paraphrased) , "If an article is repeatedly re-created .... this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article.".... Where's the threat?? Why is there a problem with Wikipedia having a reference regarding Phonebook of the World? The site's been around for over five years... it's well established now and is becoming more and more recognized. NetScott 16:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • That doesn't mean that one person's stubbornness should determine what's encyclopedic and what isn't. The point of that statement is that if multiple authors recreate a page, there may be demand for it.

    Other editors should note that Special:Contributions/User:NetScott shows no edits outside this page. —Brent Dax 09:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not to give this user too much credibility but if someone recreates "Bill Clinton is gay" every day should we have an article called that? (Such vandalism happens all the time. Advert recreations follow the same pattern.) - Tεxτurε 15:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. —Lowellian (talk) 08:21, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 05:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. RicK K 17:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC) Imposter. RickK 17:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable. —Brent Dax 09:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Sear

Is this notable? I doubt it. Svest 18:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 02:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand - a notable hip-hop DJ and radio host who's guested on many albums. Efortune 14:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, 772 google hits is hardly notable. Will change vote to keep if article suddenly becomes much, much, much longer, un POV, informative and interesting. --Silversmith 19:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 05:41, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Aniqua Hasan

This appears to be a vanity page --bjh21 19:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Textbook example of vanity/non-notable. Famous for a "bleeding face"?! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:13, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no pages link to it, doesn't establish notability-LtNOWIS 20:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: this should be on a personal web page with a web host, which Wikipedia is not. Samaritan 23:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jbb

Title is nonsense? Text is Portuguese? --Tabor 19:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Vanity or diffamation, only the person referred to could tell us! Physchim62 21:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Roughly translated it seems to be about an apparently well liked LESI Professor in the University of Minho in Portugal. If it is notible it should probobly be moved to the Portugese Wikipedia.

This page is now preserved 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. —Xezbeth 05:40, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Fireball20xl

Promotion, not notable page. Feydey 19:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable.--Silversmith 20:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 02:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is actually a slightly notable site... I used to know Psyguy personally, and am certain he didn't write this (it seems to come from a public IP). Fireball20xl has produced several borderline notable/non-notable comics, and was at one point the place to acquire complicated sprite sheets for sprite comics. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per tim rhymeless Yuckfoo 20:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)`[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Quale 05:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, NN. Radiant_* 09:45, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 05:42, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Saric

Non-notable, vanity, user just removed (without discussion) {{db|vanity}} that was placed on page by another user. --Tabor 19:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• shouldnt be delted due to his notable award presented by the British Embassy in Athens
• Since he is a link from Stephen Saunder's site he should remain here
  • Comment: Of the last two comments, one is from the user in question, and one is from anon IP which has been editing related articles. --Tabor 20:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definite vanity. --Silversmith 20:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity. --Carnildo 22:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Vanity - Longhair | Talk 00:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but vanity is NOT a speedy criterion. Meelar (talk) 01:02, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 21:42, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

The ninjas

Patent Nonsense Djbrianuk 19:34, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nonsense. --Silversmith 20:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as patently nonsensical kiddie-wiki. - Lucky 6.9 22:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. But, doesn't come any where near our current definition of patent nonsense, see Wikipedia:patent nonsense. Could have been speedied as a test perhaps, but that's a different procedure. Andrewa 17:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete as unresolved copyvio. Rossami (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

chimera (geep)

I think this article is inappropriately named, as a geep is simply another example of a chimera. I've moved the contents to the stub at geep. --Laura Scudder | Talk 19:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per the above.--Silversmith 20:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• If you merged the content, the normal process is to turn this into a redirect (in part, because it's the easiest way to preserve attribution history - a requirement of GFDL). Redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments. First, the text has much in common with this. Second, the title is inappropriate, as User:Laurascudder pointed out. Geep is a better title. The issue of copyright has to be worked out no matter what the title. Fg2 03:27, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - article completely rewritten since it was nominated - SimonP 02:00, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Stone

This looks like a vanity page which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Shoaler 19:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.--Silversmith 20:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT I have rewritten the page to reflect the fictional character ADA Ben Stone from Law and Order. 132.205.95.65 22:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable character on American television. I must admit I thought McCoy was the DA on Law and Order from the beginning. Capitalistroadster 10:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as above, and thank you 132.205.95.65 Kappa 18:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• In the Wikipedia Article Deletion system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the voters, who give their opinions, and the editors, who rewrite pages so that they're actually about valid topics. These are their stories. keep-keep DS 12:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable character on a television show. Redfarmer 14:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why not? He's as notable as any other character on television. Shoaler 14:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, very notable with 211 google hits. [17]

But if that is the consensus then fine. I've added the link from the Michael Moriarty page.--Silversmith 14:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You should add these in [18] 132.205.45.148 17:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A fictional character on a popular U.S. televison show with an ensemble cast is not notable enough for its own article. Anything that could be said here belongs in Law & Order or Michael Moriarty. Quale 05:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would cut about 5,000 articles. 4.13.206.26 08:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Chiu (film critic)

Looking for this fellow, I've seen a few critiques on Amazon. I could do that. Put me in Wikipedia! Delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and speedily. --Silversmith 20:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Me specialise in delete, must delete. Feydey 20:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just because a person makes a few critiques on Amazon does not necessarily make him notable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 05:43, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yale Street Gangsters

Hoax, no hits on Google at all. --Jemiller226 20:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 02:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• While it's possible the gang does indeed exist I'm unfortunately unable to verify the gang, my main expertise being pre-Prohibition era groups, and as my available resources only go back as far as 1990 my knowledge of modern gangs are relatively modest. Although there are no hits on Google, admittedly several of my articles have little to no usable links, this could simply be a local street gang however its notability may be in question as there isn't enough specific information to be able to research further. Is there anyone in Philadelphia that can verify this ? 209.213.71.78 16:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unverifiable and slightly POV (not to mention unencycolpedic) Linuxbeak 23:41, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 05:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 01:57, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Lions and tigers and bears

Non-notable group, no links in, no releases, nothing, zip, nada. Feydey 20:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Wizard of Oz. -Sean Curtin 00:25, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Wizard of Oz. --Spinboy 03:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, my! - Nunh-huh 03:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Fails WP:MUSIC. Redirect to The Wizard of Oz, in part, to avoid re-creation. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article, and your little dog too!, then recreate as redirect as noted above, because the phrase is so widely used as to be a somewhat likely search phrase. Barno 14:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• definitely REDIRECT to Wiz of Oz. Kingturtle 06:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, you know where, which is why. --Silversmith 19:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Follow the yellow brick redirect. --Deathphoenix 03:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs

Non-notable individual/vanity. A cantor who also does art, and once had a tiny article printed about him in a minor weekly. Oh, and like a million other people, he met the Pope. Someone close to Kepecs has kept trying to insert this, and related material, into all sorts of articles. The Google test gets 4 hits for Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs, all from Wikipedia mirrors, and 4 more hits for "Lawrence Kepecs", 2 discussion board entries he apparently made in 1998, and two others apparently not related to his individual. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only the notable (or pokemon-related) can get an article. --Mrfixter 20:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The image of Kepecs with JPII is in several articles where it hardly or barely seems relevant, as in the article Relations of Pope John Paul II with the Jewish People which needs some dekepecsification (and perhaps a move to a better title, like Pope John Paul II and the Jews). If Gary Krupp (in the background) is notable enough to stay on Wikipedia, I suppose one could cut away Kepecs and the Pope from the image to get a portrait of him. Uppland 23:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at Gary Krupp as well, and he does appear to be at least marginally notable. Kepecs, though, is a different story. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a point that needs to be taken up on Talk:Relations of Pope John Paul II with the Jewish People (and I agree with you...). Tomer ^TALK 09:07, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey, where are the WP:MUSIC literalists to say performing internationally as a tenor may be criteria 2? Unenthusiastic delete, but Talk:Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs is interesting; keep it for reference for Hazzan, etc. Samaritan 04:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Keep. Samaritan 07:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Concur with User:Samaritan on merge of talk page. Significant work has gone into trying to fix this article up to Wikipedia standards, which is admirable, but until Page 13 of the Oxford English/Hebrew-Hebrew/English dictionary, ©1998 ed. 4 has an entry, this guy is insufficiently noteworthy to warrant an independent article. I'm not opposed to the inclusion of his name in the caption of the pic of him giving the pope a mezuza, eventhough I think the gesture is unspeakably bizarre, but just because he's named in the Wikipedia doesn't mean he deserves a (badly written, incredibly POV) biographical article. Tomer ^TALK 09:06, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm changing my vote to a VERY WEAK keep. User:Dystopos' argument has not made me entirely change my mind, although it has given me pause to ponder. I'm of the opinion now that perhaps this article can be fixed to be less of a vanity piece, although I'm not entirely convinced yet that the good Cantor is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant an article on him. That said, however, I don't think I need to be entirely convinced. OTOH, I'm still incredibly annoyed by the sock-puppet attack, and think Victor/Merlin/Merlinzor/etc.etc.etc. could use a good spanking out behind the woodshed. Tomer ^TALK 02:43, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Do not concur. Kepecs is a well known personality in the cantorial world. The fact that he was chosen by the Vatican to be one of thirteen cantors to sing for the Pope and presented him with one of his art works is an important point. This was the last group to meet Pope John Paul II (urged by the Pope himself I might add.) and made history. Kepecs' art I am told (currently doing research on it) has sold for as much as $65,000, and I believe he's got an album or two out on liturgical music. He is very interesting. Keep it for future reference.-User:Merlinzor May 5, 2005

• Note: creator of the article.Jayjg ^(talk) 16:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. It's informative, and gives you insights into what a CANTOR'S life is all about, but its not a typical cantor's life as there are many other elements that make this particular cantor's life interesting to read about. Please keep this article so other people can share in this great wealth of knowledge.- bitchykitty cinco de mayo 2005

• Note: User:205.188.113.183's only edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Kepecs is a noteworthy Reverend Cantor - and the title is correct. He has an exceptional tenor voice quality, similar to Luciano Pavarotti. I heard him at a concert in Canada, and he wowed the audience with his spectacular delivery, and mastery of Cantorial music and italian opera. In my opinion, nobody even came close to his delivery. Mark my word. You will see great things from this guy, give the researchers a chance. The fact that Kepecs sang for and gave the Pope a mezuzah has appeared in numerous newspapers, including The Jewish Star, The Nassau Herald, and I think the front page of the New York Times had an article on it as it was happening in Rome in January. His concert in Rome was televised throughout Italy. If you wish I will dig up what I can find.-User:Rabbis May 5, 2005

• Above User:Rabbis' first and so far only contributions are to this VfD page. Samaritan 15:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I THINK THAT THE ARTICLES ABOUT L.E.KEPECS SHOULD STAY, BECAUSE HE DESIGNED A SPECIAL AND ORIGINAL MEZUZAH, ONE OF A KIND, FOR POPE JOHN PAUL. THE POPE ACKNOWLEDGED AND THANKED CANTOR KEPECS FOR HIS GIFT IN A LETTER. CANTOR KEPECS TRIP TO THE VATICAN TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER CANTORS AND RABBIS WAS THE FIRST ONE EVER IN HISTORY AND THE FIRST EVER GIVEN AUDIENCE BY A SITTING POPE TO JEWISH CLERGY. THIS WAS A HISTORICAL MOMENT AND A LOT WAS ACCOMPLISHED. THIS WAS AN HISTORICAL EVENT THAT HISTORY WILL REMEMBER FOREVER. -User:MISSTY MAY 5,2005

• Above is an anon vote from User:205.188.116.73, contributions. No registered user MISSTY or Missty has made any contributions to Wikipedia. Samaritan 15:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• There is nothing whatsoever in this disjointed rambling diatribe that makes a coherent argument for the enclopedæicity of the article in question. The fact that the "Keep" votes all seem to be User:Merlinzor or sockpuppets is rather revealing that this entire thing is the result of possibly only a single user's unnoteworthy and eccentric POV. The pope and/or the pope's office distribute tens, even hundreds of letters every single day. Getting a letter from the pope does not make a person worthy of an article in wikipedia. The claim that this is the first ever audience given by a sitting pope to members of the "Jewish clergy" is patently false. That notwithstanding, even if it was a historical moment (which remains to be seen) and a lot was accomplished (which is doubtful) and that the event will be remembered forever (is that a prophecy?), that information is relevant to Jewish-Christian relations, and does not make any difference with respect to whether or not this guy is notable, nor whether or not this article is encyclopedia material or ever can be. Tomer ^TALK 15:42, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

• You are supposed to be a source of information, not present biased viewpoints, as I have read some of your various unintelligent comments regarding Rabbis and Cantors. You should not render decisions of elimination based on assumptions as to who is commenting, or if the article doesn't "do it for you" and my rendering is that it is apparent to me that you don't know Rabbis nor Cantors. I am an ordained Rabbi. Wikipedia is free for all to share the information. I am a user of Wikipedia, as I've done much research with Wkipedia, and I find this article about Kepecs beneficial, as do my colleages. I care what happens to this article. The event with the Pope was an event that happened whether you like it or not and an important one at that. It wasn't just "members of the Jewish clergy". It was 141 Jewish clergymen - unprecedented in history, and the Pope's final meeting. What does it hurt you to keep the article? Why should it bother you sooo much? There are a lot of people who DO care about keeping it. -User:Rabbis May 5, 2005

• Wikipedia's purpose is spelled out, as are its guidelines, elsewhere. This article violates a number of them, as do your comments against wikipedians. In cyberspace, your claim that you are a rabbi is unverifiable, but we are constrained as wikipedians to assume good faith. That constraint, however, has limitations. You are, it is true, free to share information. You are not, however, free to turn the Wikipedia project into a platform for promoting your personal views. I'm sure I care about what happens to this article just as much if not more than you do, so that statement on your part is something of a non-sequitur. As for the number of people who do care about keeping this article, the numbers just don't show it. Thus far, the only people who have registered that view, if they're really not all different personalities of the same anonymous user who's been trying to screw this "information" into every conceivably remotely related article, seem to be sharing a single computer. Tomer ^TALK 20:57, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

• An emphaticKeep. My name is Reverend Cantor Victor I. Beck, President of the Jewish Ministers Cantors Association of America. I led the delegation of cantors - one of the 13 cantors who were selected to sing for the Pope on 1/18/05. It was a monumental event unprecedented in Judeo-Christian history. Rev. Cantor Kepecs gave the Pope a mezuzah that he created for that purpose - to show that the Jewish people really want to have reconciliation with the Catholic church. The Pope very much wanted this meeting. Being the President of the oldest Cantorial organization (dating back to 1896)who had such illustrious members as Cantor Yossele Rosenblatt, Ben Zion Kapov Kagan, Chaskele Ritter, David Koussevitzky, Moshe Koussevitzky, Berele Chagy, Israel Alter, Mordechai Hershman, Adolf Katchko, Leib Glantz, Alter Yechiel Karniol, Zavel Kwartin, Samuel Malavsky, Shlomo Mendel, Yeshia Meissels Pierre Pinchik and many others, I feel in my expertise that Cantor Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs is more than a noteworthy cantor, he is an exceptional Cantor and artist, who deserves a page in your encyclopedia. I can only assume that those who wish to remove mention of Cantor Kepecs in this forum are either ill-informed or have other agendas which are not in keeping with the historical and informative nature of this forum.-Rev. Cantor Victor I Beck, President JMCA May 5, 2005

• Note: User 162.83.159.221's first edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • For the record, the many illustrious cantors mentioned above were real people. DS 13:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rev. Cantor Beck: Welcome to Wikipedia! Please avoid personal attacks and assume good faith; these are among the rules we try to live by here. We are not here proposing not to mention the meeting between Jewish clergy and Pope John Paul II; as I write, it is very extensively discussed in the article Relations of Pope John Paul II with the Jewish People. That is not at question here. Neither is Cantor Kepecs' ability as an artist or personal worth. Indeed, many people have deleted who everybody voting agrees sound like wonderful people who have contributed to the world, just like Cantor Kepecs. It is just a question of where to draw our line. Please see Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies for some sense of how we think about this. Again, welcome! Samaritan 18:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Samaritan, I trust as your name implies, that you are a good samaritan. Please do not ascribe any lesser motivations to me than you do for yourself. My entire life and the lives of those with whom I associate, are dedicated to attending to the needs and aspirations of both the Jewish community, and the world community at large. Endemic to this work, is a constant striving to uphold the fundemental building blocks of a civilized society. In the Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the fathers) there is a statement that the world rests on 3 things, on study of Torah, prayer worship, and on acts of loving kindness. Endemic to those 3 principals is a constant striving for truth and accuracy. I invite you to join me in this endeavor. -Rev. Cantor Victor I. Beck, President JMCA 5/5/05

• I assume the "Rev. Cantor" means "principles". Maybe he should trade the title in for another box of crackerjacks and a better education. If he were to do so, he'd eventually learn that the glorification of "the good Samaritan" is Christian propaganda. Tomer ^TALK 21:25, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

• I would like to decreasingly humbly point out that "Reverend Cantor Beck"'s "contribution" here, quite clearly spells out that this article is, as has been pointed out previously, nothing more than self-promotion. I also think it's interesting that the Jewish Ministers Cantors Association of America website is hmmm...Missing in action. A google search for "Reverend Cantor" turns up exactly 5 distinct hits, only 4 of which are actually using "reverend cantor" as a title, two of which clarify that this is a title of sorts bestowed by the Cantorial Associaton of America, not the JMCAA. Another of them is a somewhat sideways joke about a blogger's grandfather, and the other is, Lo and behold, an almost verbatim copycat of the stuff that this anonymous editor keeps trying to inject into wikipedia. Wanna see? Check it out here: [19]. How do you spell "AGENDA"? So then, I decided, why don't I go see what I can find on Victor I. Beck. So, I looked him up, and guess what I found? 13 relevant google hits. About half of which identify him as "Victor I. Beck" and the rest as "Cantor Victor I. Beck". That's right, to my utter lack of shock, there were no "Reverend Cantor Victor I. Beck"s. So then I said me, "How about just plain Victor Beck?" So I did that search. Predictably, this turned up a significantly greater number of hits. I paged through them, and found out that there are a number of people with the names Victor and Beck in various combinations with other names, but still no Reverend Cantors Beck. So, now I'm thinking perhaps what I should do is email Cantor Victor I. Beck, at [email protected], an email address I feel comfortable publishing, since it appears here: [20]...and ask him whether or not he's had free time lately to write disrespectful notes on Wikipedia talkpages. Now that I know he's a part-time resident of Phoenix, perhaps what I should do is head over to whitepages.com and see whether or not I can get his phone number. That might be quicker... Tomer ^TALK 21:14, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

• That other website has the same text because it's a mirror of an older version of the Wikipedia article into which this had been inserted. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATE! I went and visited Cantor Victor I. Beck's website, [21], which is overloaded with java and winmedia crap, but my critique of the bad webdesign isn't really the important point here: NOWHERE on that site, does it anywhere say "REVEREND CANTOR". Tomer ^TALK 21:23, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see the "special cantorial robes and hat" either, unless that tuxedo and kippah count. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• What nonsense. Do you hear what you actually sound like? -Merlin 6 May 2005

• Keep. KEEP, KEEP, KEEP------ Until this article came around I never knew how important Cantor's were in the comunity. I now have a greater appreciation for cantor's world wide, it takes a lot of studying and is hard work. Article should stay... More should be added as well, so there can be a greater understanding for what these men really do. The fact that he gave the pope a MEZUZAH is note worthy in and of itself. The page should stay NO QUESTIONS ASKED!!!!!.- MW

• Above vote is from User:Melbug, and their first and so far only contributions are to this VfD page. Samaritan 18:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)/[reply]

• Keep HIS CREDITS HAVE EARNED HIM THIS ARTICLE. - DONALD TRUMP MAY 11, 2005
• Keep. I do think Cantor Kepecs should have an article, but I wish there was a way to punish the many silly people who have invaded Wikipedia just for the sake of keeping this page here. My vote with change to Delete if any further capitalised entries are made by anonymous/brand new accounts. JFW | T@lk 21:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he needs so many sockpuppets to mitigate his notability he cannot be notable. JFW | T@lk 12:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I resent being called that. I worked hard to try to edit articles, and to add information. That was not a fair remark.-Victor 5/6/05
    • Very unfair, but not all information belongs on Wikipedia. That is the point in VFD. Wikipedia relies on community opinion, rather than experts, to determine whether an article is worth keeping. JFW | T@lk 09:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why one would choose to change his vote based on other peoples votes. -Merlin 8 May 2005
    • It was a deterrent. I warned you all. JFW | T@lk 21:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. His notability has been established. -Arthur May 11, 2005

• Note: User:162.83.130.189's first edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sockpuppet overload. RickK 21:59, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Kepec's notability has been more than sufficiently established. He is a leader in his field. The papal audience is notable on its own, of course, but so is the good Cantor. Perhaps you would be more impressed if he tried out for American Idol. -- As to the desire to punish silly people, we are here to edit, not to attack people. Dystopos 04:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the interest of developing a community consensus on this issue, the community should take any evidence presented by those outside the community under consideration but is not obligated to be swayed by opinions from outside the community. Very little evidence of Kepecs' notability has been forthcoming. I had voted to keep the article because I do not consider notability to be a very useful criterion by itself. Other criteria such as NPOV and self-promotion seem to be adequate for this case. Although I welcome any actual evidence, at this point it seems I have no choice but to change my vote. I vote to merge any useful information into other articles. The interesting life of a cantor can be detailed in a more generic article. If the presentation of the mazuzah is significant, other places can be found for that bit of information as well. Dystopos 21:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No question about it in my mind. The artform of singing, as well as graphic lyricism, is shown in this man. He's a hero to other singers. Peter Ellis 05:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I think everything I can say has been said already re: Cantor Kepecs. I've tried editing some of the articles myself at Wikipedia (where anyone can edit). However I have found that it is difficult to keep the edits in, as others who may know less about certain matters, take them out. I've always been from the school that an article is written by someone, and can be edited by others for punctuation, phrasing, and sentence structure, but what you are looking to do is completely remove others works, who have spent their time researching people, events, concepts, intellectual ideas etc. Morally, this is wrong. On another note, I feel that Wikipedia is an excellent source of information to the general public, and all of you have done quite well, but just because you have amassed a lot of knowledge editing in certain areas, nobody knows it all. Sometimes an expert in a field may "pop in" to see what you are doing. He may want to make corrections, or add to a listing, based on his expertise - so let him. -Victor 5/6/05

• Note: Second "Keep" vote by this editor; see above.Jayjg ^(talk) 14:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hazzan Beck, the problem is that Wikipedia is not vandalism-proof; rather, it is vandalism-resistant, and as a result of this, we can be quite ardent in demanding proof of an article's validity. "If this Hazzan Kepecs is so notable", we say to ourselves, "should not his name have been mentioned by more people in more places? Could this not be a vanity article, such as children and the mad make to promote themselves, or a friendship article, like the well-meaning make to promote their friends?" We look at the claims made in an article, and if they do not seem to match what we find in other places, we become wary of fraud - because fraud is sadly not absent from Wikipedia. Some do it out of malicious glee in their vandalism, others do it to further their argument that Wikipedia is inherently valueless... please do not assume that we have agendas other than trying to make this the best resource that we can. All are welcome to contribute if they do so properly. If someone contributes to one of these debates, and he has never contributed to Wikipedia before, then once more we become suspicious. "Could this not,", we say to ourselves, "be merely a friend or relative of the article's creator, arguing on his behalf not out of any inherent value in the article, but merely out of personal loyalty or friendship?" After all, a ten-year-old can create an article claiming that he is the strongest and fastest boy in all his school and that he will surely be President one day, and when we recommend that his article be deleted immediately as nonsense, his six best friends can instantly protest that he IS the strongest and fastest boy in all his school, and that he WILL surely be President one day, and everyone deserves the chance to know about him. They can even claim that they do not know him, but that his article has convinced them. If such a statement in a deletion debate is someone's first and only contribution to Wikipedia, then we consider it as being of lesser merit than the same statement from someone who has participated for months. Even if someone signs their statements, we cannot know that they are who they claim to be - but if they register an account (and why not; it's free, after all), then their every contribution to Wikipedia is recorded and made available to all, and we can then judge their worth. If someone makes an account, and uses it to insert the word "poop" into the name of every member of Congress, then we know to discount their statements. If someone makes an account, and uses it to create many exquisitely detailed but false articles about wars that never happened between nations that never existed, then we know to discount their statements. If someone makes an account, and uses it to say that such-and-such an article must not be deleted - and does nothing else - then how are we to know whether they are trustworthy? The answer is that we cannot. I can claim to be a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Catholic, a man, a woman, an exceptionally bright child, a chemist, a rabbi, a surgeon, a pilot, a soldier, a tailor, a chef, a lawyer, black, white, or jaundiced from gradual liver failure, but these cannot be proven and are not relevant to the trustworthiness of my statements in these debates. What is relevant is that I am the Wikipedia contributor with the username DragonflySixtyseven, and every one of my contributions can be examined for value.

I hope that I have made my point clear to Hazzan Beck and to the others who support this article but have not yet proven themselves.

Incidentally, I vote weak keep DS 13:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete: insignificant and agrandized writing. Kingturtle 06:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity. —Lowellian (talk) 08:23, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm striking my vote to abstain. It seems that with the vast ranks of sock warriors in support, my own vote is far less neccessary. I want to vote keep; I might be persuaded to change it back with less enthusiastic hosiery, and more proof. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 19:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nonnotable, vanity. --Angr/_comhrá 13:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because I'd rather have an article on a person who has made achievements in life then half the articles we have which are on roads, towns, schools, pokemon, TV shows etc. Just because someone is not that noted on the net (google) does not mean they are not worthy of an article if in "the real world" they are notable. There may be people who are interested in this person, and I don't see the harm in keeping this article when there are many more articles less deserving. --Silversmith 19:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friends, one of my colleagues and Rabbinic students (I teach certain topics) made mention to me a few days ago that a listing about me appeared in Wikipedia. I was overwhelmed and honored to learn of this. Today, I was curious to see this listing first hand. I read everything that was discussed about me and was amazed and flattered by many of your remarks. Ladies and Gentlemen, I am just a simple Reverend Cantor - one who serves G-d, and the Jewish community. I try to do good, to sanctify G-d's name, such as when those who are less fortunate than I need help, I would help them in whatever ways I could. I feel this is a glorification of G-d's holy name. The trip to greet the Pope, I felt was also a sanctification of G-d. The fact that we were given the opportunity to offer blessings to him because of all the good that he did for the Jews, from the Holocaust era until his death, was so very important. Pope John Paul II was a righteous gentile, always looking to do good. He was an exceptional man of peace. We all wanted to recognize this. We were told by the Vatican, that we were the only "People" to ever say "thank you" to a Pope. I am an average person. I feel my voice is average, my art is average, my grades in school were only a "B". My life has not really been all that interesting. You all have done such a superb job on your works at Wikipedia, and you all are to be commended for your research efforts, "Yasher Koach." You did such great research on me, that you even discovered my old screenname that I used to use. My breath is taken away. I'm so flattered that I have such a following, I never knew it. I feel, however, that perhaps I am unworthy of the great honor bestowed upon me of having a page in your excellent encyclopedia. I am really not a "great" person. Perhaps my page should be reserved for someone of much greater worth than I, for someone of major importance. I applaud all your efforts. Thank you for thinking of me. May you all be successful in your quest for truth. May G-d bless you all. -Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs 9 May, 2005 12:55

Perhaps I'm misreading what you wrote, but are you voting to delete then? Tomer ^TALK 19:55, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Fascinating character of international fame, emminent in several ways. Not even borderline IMO. Andrewa 16:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can a guy who gets no Google hits have "international fame"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do realise there was a time before the internet? Google is not the be all and end all.--Silversmith 09:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I realize that, but the internet has been around for a looong time now, and anyone of "international fame" has been mentioned in many different places on it. And Google is not the "be all and end all", but anyone of "international fame" would have at least a few Google hits. He gets just one non-Wikipedia Yahoo hit as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Very simply: It just means that nobody who knows about him has written a web page, other than this one. No change of vote. Andrewa 13:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, it means a lot more; it means that no-one has bothered to write anything much about him anywhere significant. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because this discussion is getting overly long. Radiant_* 09:45, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sometimes I think that we should put a word count limit on valid votes, and ignore all those over 60 words say (or pick any other figure). I doubt such a policy would actually change any decisions; If you can't put your case into a neat, short sentence, then probably you either don't understand it, or you do understand it and know it isn't very good! No change of vote (and besides, I'm over 60 words already). Andrewa 13:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. WOW!!!! What an unbelievable man of character. No question in my mind, he's tops in his field, respected by his own colleagues, & the Jewish community at large. There is an "emminence" to this man. I'm not an editor, just a user, but I am very impressed with Kepecs. -Stephen May 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Note: Another anonymous editor with almost no edits, all to articles related to this, and all having the exact same viewpoint as the previous anonymous editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An inspiration to many. Very worthy. -Professor Kaufman May 10, 2005
• Note: Another anonymous editor with almost no edits, all to articles related to this, and all having the exact same viewpoint as the previous anonymous editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject of the article has written to comment on his own lack of encyclopaedic notability. However, he may very well become notable in the future (heck, he's only 35 now and has already met the Pope)... we shall see. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 19:36, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

• • I rather doubt the veracity of the claim that the comment was actually made by the person purporting to have made it. That notwithstanding, if you read what that person wrote, it sounds very much to me like the author is saying "it's a nice gesture, but insufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in the wikipedia". Tomer ^TALK 19:55, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

• I rather doubt it as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT : It sounds to me that the subject of this article is extremely humble. Others who apparently have heard him, think very highly of him in the singing world, as do his colleagues such as Cantor Beck and various Rabbis. This is the mark of a special person indeed. He's not full of himself, and not looking to aggrandize himself. The word that comes to mind was mentioned by a couple of you - an "emminence."- Victor 5/10/05
  • What, exactly, does this comment have to do with the subject here (the subject/article's noteworthiness, in case you've forgotten)? Tomer ^TALK 21:03, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

• The words that come to my mind are "multiple sockpuppets playing mind games". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• To me this sounds like a communist trial - guilty until proven innocent. Does it not? -Victor 5/10/05

• No, it doesn't. Incidentally, I think what you mean is "a drumhead", or perhaps even "a Cardassian trial", not a "communist trial"...your use of that phrase, followed by the "guilty until proven innocent" demonstrates ignorance and a political POV, and your oblique characterization of those who disagree with you as "communists" does nothing to improve your credibility. ... Nor, might I add, does the fact that the only two people (not "a couple of you") who have used the word "emminence" (sic) are you and another anonymous coward, "Stephen May"...neither of whom appear to be able to spell particularly well. Interesting, however, that you should both happen misspell the same word exactly the same way. Tomer ^TALK 22:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Andrewa also used it. I just copied that spelling without looking it up. -Victor 5/10/05

Oh my. Another of your sock puppets who can't spell. How ever did I fail to catch it? Tomer ^TALK 23:06, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you call it, Wikipedia is not a government. Yes, guilty until proven innocent. It's not up to us to try to clean up your article in order to make it useful, it's up to the original poster and subsequent editors to write it so that it explains what makes the person notable. So far, no one has succeeded. RickK 23:19, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

How do you want me to fix it? Tell me how, and I will. It's a shame to lose the article.-Victor 5/10/05

I suggest first removing all unverifiable claims and opinion (aggrandizement, as it has been called here). Strive for accuracy and objectivity. Add references (books, news articles, etc) as much as possible. If that can be done, then most of the above discussion of notability is moot. The question of notability is up in the air and needs to be satisfied by matters of fact rather than testimonials. Dystopos 00:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Specifically which facts in the article are in question. Is it the Pope visit? There is a newspaper article in the discussion section. I'm sure there are more, if we really look. The wall that was built appeared in the Newtown Bee (in discussion section)- the arts newspaper that goes all around the world to every gallery and auction house. Very prestigious, and very difficult to get into. There's The Jewish Press article on him. We can call Yeshiva University to find out if he actually got degrees there. That he sings internationally, that has been proven from the Rome article. There may be more articles, I would have to research it. Tell me what else you need me to find. I'll do what I can. -Victor 5/10/05

• Maybe all your friends can help you. Gosh, with 5 or 6 of you working on it together, it should take no time at all, don't you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• That's not nice. I'm trying to be constructive here. There are articles that appear in hard copy which are not accessible through the internet. Example Newtown Bee.-Victor.

• Delete. Smells like a massive vanity attack: the aggrandizing, lack of documentation (a press release in a weekly newspaper giveaway section?) and verifiability, and an army of new users who all write in exactly the same style? Rabbi "Beck", this is really unbecoming of you. --Calton | Talk 05:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I can only comment on myself. I am not Cantor Beck, nor am I Merlin, though I do know the latter well. I do not know any of these other posters though. -Victor 5/11/05

Victor, forget it your wasting your breath. I found 2 more articles which I posted in "discussion." So now there are 5 newspaper articles about him, and I'm sure I can find more. -Merlin May 11, 2005

I may have been able to track one down also. -Victor 5/11/05

I posted some also. -Rabbis 11 May 2005.

• Delete. Zscout370 (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.- GETALIFE mAy 11,2005

• Note: Vote by User:64.12.116.196, an anonymous AOL proxy. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. For those attempting to distill a consensus from all this blabbering, observe that, although an annoyance on this page, sockpuppetry should not reflect on the status of the article itself. I'm inclined to think that the Cantor does merit an article, at least as much as any minor James Bond character or American Idol finalist. It should be edited to remove matters of opinion and exaggeration and monitored for recurrences of vanity. Dystopos 20:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I agree with you. Unfortunately, that would leave the article with less than 1/4 of its current content. Tomer ^TALK 21:16, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Further comment. I've been trying to clean up the article and I think I just have to give up on this. Kepecs seems to be a promising tenor in the Cantorial community and was priveleged to have been invited with other cantors to a papal audience. His major artwork - a decorative fundraising wall at a Cantorial seminary - is made of carved and painted foam. The multiple newspaper clippings, improperly scanned and uploaded, establish nothing beyond his existence as a performer. I don't know if the article can be cleaned up enough to be neutral. Dystopos 21:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I highly recommend anyone interested in this discussion also read Talk:Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs, which is IMO where most of the above discussion belongs too. No change of vote. Andrewa 00:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If the vote for this rambling VfD is ever tallied and the article deleted, I would like to request that, if the sock-puppet master who has fought so hard for its retention wants, that s/he be permitted to have the article as it stands prior to deletion. If s/he can turn it into a worthwhile article in the next couple months, as well as learn a bit more about the Wikipedia, like such fundamental concepts for example as how to create an account, then perhaps this kind of nonsense can be avoided, at least with this editor, in the future. Tomer ^TALK 02:27, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 02:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. I HAVE SPOKEN!!!! Sockpuppet#56 image removed

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep as rewritten. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BidPay

An obvious advertisement; perhaps the business truly is notable enough to rewrite this into a decent article, but based on the reviews here they're pretty shady. —Miles←☎ 20:54, May 4, 2005 (UTC)}}

• Delete, advertisement.Feydey 21:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 350k+ web hits, and formerly known as Western Union Auction Payments (so probably often referred to simply as Western Union). Notable and obviously controversial, a real article in this space would definitely be a keeper. Samaritan 21:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete unless article is rewritten with NPOV. Looks like the relationship between Western Union and BidPay is that they're owned by the same company. Thanks for fixing my template, Sam. —Miles←☎ 23:33, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Current version is a copyvio (and is now marked as such). I'm afraid I don't consider two bad reviews on Alexa to be much of a controversy - not even WikiNews material much less an encyclopedia article. But even if the controversy were more substantial, they are a very small subsidiary of First Data Corporation (the parent of Western Union). Any controversy about their services should be discussed there. By the way, most of those Google hits are false positives. Very many are comments at the bottom of merchant or auction pages that "we accept PayPal, BidPay, ..." Only a few are really pages about BidPay. Delete. Rossami (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, but their using it shows a sufficient form of notability, I thought. Samaritan 04:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite - BidPay is a notable Internet company. Firebug 00:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after rewritten. BidPay is a popular service. Cookiecaper 00:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Hugely prevalent service. Tens of thousands of eBayers can't be wrong. --Gene_poole 03:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- notable auction payment service - Longhair | Talk 07:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (Sigh) Another collision between the VfD and copyvio processes. I can't find the rewritten article, the page shows a red link to me. But a rewritten version should be kept, and the copyvio deleted as per procedures. Andrewa 16:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has not yet been rewritten. I don't know what happens when, as you say, there's a collision between VfD and copyvio, but my guess is that if no one takes the initiative to write a new article for this hugely popular service then the article will be deleted as per copyvio guidelines, VfD consensus or no. —Miles←☎ 04:40, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Sheridan

Delete: Not notable. Possible vanity. May be notable in the future ("It is forseen..."?) --Durin 21:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. slow day today, where are the comments? Feydey 21:34, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I foresee that this page will be deleted. Leithp 18:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Even though this maybe entered as a joke, his story on how he got to where he is toady is interesting enough to be notable. Only if it were given a chance with someone that can write it up properly. --Athenia Animus 22:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If this article and the one on Nine Inch Nails are both accurate, ISTM he would pass the notability test easily. No vote as yet. Andrewa 16:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alaun

Alaun is the German word for alum. The existing en Wikipedia aricle on alum covers all that is in this stub and more besides.

• Sorry, it's getting late, the above comments should be signed Physchim62 21:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:24, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Alum. Megan1967 02:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak delete. Why redirect to alum? There is nothing useful to merge and we don't normally redirect from foreign terms unless they have some currency in English. But no big deal. I assume the lister wants this deleted although they don't really say that, or why. If I'd seen this first I'd probably have just redirected it without bothering VfD! Andrewa 16:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almond bark

This article appears to be meaningless. Physchim62 21:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Current article is nonsense. Even if rewritten to be about the confection "almond bark", it would probably just end up as {{Move to Wikibooks Cookbook}} --Tabor 21:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Carnildo 22:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Joke by anon with a history of vandalism. Andrewa 16:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Saintly

Appears to be a vanity article on a non-notable individual (the only hits on Google appear to be on pages by the man himself). Should be deleted, IMO. ChrisO 22:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Same user keeps recreating "Alan herman" article too. --Tabor 22:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I live in the US and remember Captain Saintly from football. He was noteable and should be kept. Maybe re-writing is an alternative, but he was big in the football world here in the U.S. Cubswin 04:40, 05 May 2005(UTC)
  • This user has never made any edits to Wikipedia other than the comment above - I smell sock puppetry at work... -- ChrisO 18:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable U.S. football fan, vanity. Quale 05:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep / Possible Change. Wasn't this mascot called "Captain Saint"? I called the Times-Picayune and they said it was Saintly, but I am almost certain it was Captain Saint. Help me here.Millward 04:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Brock

Notability, "best known"?, a delete? Feydey 22:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Hey," I thought when I saw this up, "is this the Brock: On the Attack Mike Brock?" I'd vouch for the claim he is among the best known; my professional journalist/blogger friend has asked me 'have you seen what Brock: On The Attack is saying about this or that' at least once. Samaritan 22:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable bloggers; I'll trust Samaritan on this one .Meelar (talk) 01:00, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. --Spinboy 03:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mike H 09:42, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 10:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can easily say that Mike Brock is one of the "best known" bloggers. Among the political and media community, he's very much considered a must read. --24.141.149.194 14:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above User:24.141.149.194's first and so far only contributions are to this VfD page, so despite my own position that vote shouldn't stand. Samaritan 18:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Samaritan's reasoning. Heck, he's host of a major-market radio talk show as well. - Lucky 6.9 19:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the host, but a regular guest on Mark Elliot's show (the main one, not the addiction one...) Samaritan 20:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please people will look for this here Yuckfoo 23:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Samaritan's assessment. Kappa 23:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. significant. Kingturtle 06:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems notable to me, assuming the article is accurate, and this seems to be unchallenged. Andrewa 16:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star wars FAQ

User has recreated twice after speedy deletions. Not encyclopedic. Appears to be an attempt at a discussion forum or something. --Tabor 23:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure if this was really speedy material but the description one of the admins used was on target. This is an attempt to form a discussion board, not an encyclopedia article. Delete and politely encourage the anon author to contribute to our many other articles about Star Wars. Rossami (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia articles are not lists of FAQs. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per all above. FreplySpang (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. This looks like a cut-and-paste from SuperShadow.com. Also, the anonymous user who made the page has been posting spurious links to the Star Wars article. Binadot 00:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unencyclopedic. KingTT 01:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete I don't think that it should be deleted. It is a database where people can come and find quick and easy answers about the Star Wars universe. I think that it is a great idea and that they should be included in all articles. Anyone can ask a question and everyone can answer the question. I don't see this as a discussion board, merely as a way to get quick knowledge about the Star Wars universe to other Star Wars fans on this website. - By the way, I am NOT the person who created this page. I am merely a user who saw the page and thought it was a great idea.

• Extremely strong DO NOT DELETE! This page is awesome! Don't say it is not encyclopedic, because it is. It is a unique encyclopedia. I see it as a way to encourage users to add information. Also, a lot of information does not appear on the Star Wars wikipedia page, no offense to the creators or anything. It's just that there is a lot of information there that they think is the most important. What about the other information that everybody knows? There are a lot of people who don't know things like that and want to learn them. The FAQ page is not an actual FAQ page. Actual FAQ's have one person, an official representative of that company, in this case Star Wars, answering everybody's questions. Whoever made this, was saying everyone help everyone. The user stated it was NOT a discussion board, and just wants to make it easier for people to obtain information that they want. I have been to SuperShadow.com. This web page looks absolutely nothing like it. And there is nothing wrong about posting links to it on the Star Wars web page. It is a related topic from the Wikipedia site. How else is everyone supposed to learn about it? And by the way, someone has deleted the link from the Star Wars page! Think about the positives. If enough users contribute questions and answers, it will be a huge information database. There will be so much stuff, you may not even have to ask your questions anymore. You just look them up from the long list. This is an outstanding idea and I would THINK that Star Wars fans would want to keep it! Ilovetolearn
• Delete. This is not an encyclopedic article. This article appears to be a rumor mill/fan message page, and as such should be deleted swiftly. - UtherSRG 15:48, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE the article is not a FAQ as it contains no frequently asked questions or answers to them. It can't be encyclopedic, since it's a discussion board. If it were a real FAQ I'd say transwiki it somewhere, as it is, it's a non-article request for discussion. I suppose you could redirect it to its own talk page. 132.205.15.43 01:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not. Gazpacho 05:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete without even having to look at the article. From the consensus of previous voters I can deduce this is fancruft and/or speculation. — JIP | Talk 09:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With this new feature anyone can come and ask questions about the Star Wars Universe. Once a question is asked, anyone can type in the answer. With enough information, this could be an outsanding web page. In other words, an attempt to use Wikipedia as a free web host for a new experiment. As someone else commented above, Wikipedia is not a FAQ site, although Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not doesn't seem to say that explicitly. Maybe it should. Andrewa 15:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better Off Alone

No potential to be encylopedic Rangek 23:50, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

• Keep. This is probably the biggest international hit song the Netherlands has ever produced. It was the most-played song on Canadian radio in 1999; original source chart isn't online but another person confirms my memory. It reached a mainstream audience in the United States, where Europop is a notoriously tough sell. Equally notable to or more notable than any one of its fellow Category:1999 songs or Category:1999 singles. Samaritan 04:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe that was on Toronto radio, now that I think of it. But something close. Samaritan 04:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Over 750 unique Google hits. RickK 04:53, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- and expand. Notable song. - Longhair | Talk 07:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and expand. Notable. Megan1967 10:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Top 5 hit in Canada, top 40 in US and club hit throughout the world. I have expanded the article to add info on production of track and chart performance.Capitalistroadster 11:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Megan1967. —Markaci 2005-05-6 T 04:11 Z
• keep per capitalistroadster Yuckfoo 20:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lovely song. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 03:02, 2005 May 9 (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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Iwaszko

Delete as CV. Plans to go to university and release important films. FreplySpang (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Vanity. See also related page Hidden Lotus -> not notable, and although I think "trademark" was probably meant, isn't it just asking for a copyvio by stating "Hidden Lotus is a copyright of Nathan Iwaszko."? unsigned vote by Tabor (talk · contributions) FreplySpang (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Modified article.
The offending text has been removed.

• Delete, vanity, nn. RickK 04:54, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. High school student, doesn't finish until the end of 2006, then plans to study film-making at uni in 2007. The long list of film credits seem more like high school assignments or video club entries than useful content. I wish him well as a fellow Aussie, but on the evidence, he's not yet Wikipediable. Andrewa 15:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep redorect as per Kingturtle. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Maclaren

This article is entirely made up, unless the "Maclaren F1" is actually a different car from the McLaren F1 (which was a product of Bruce McLaren's company and was designed by Gordon Murray), which I doubt. Delete ASAP. James von Mann 23:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been speedied. If James' description of the article was correct, I can confirm that this was a valid speedy as an obvious hoax. Bruce McLaren and Gordon Murray are well-known among fans of F1 and sports cars since the Can-Am series of the late 1960s. Barno 14:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: was the writer trying to mean Malcolm Maclaren? Since Macolm Maclaren has been deleted, I am going to recreate it as a redirect to Malcolm Maclaren. Kingturtle 06:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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