Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 9

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Two votes for delete, three for merge, three for keep = a clear consensus to keep the information, just not a consensus on where to put it. Merge if you like. I am, however, moving it to the correct name. Golbez 18:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Quotative evidental mood

Made up and the name is mispelled. Atomiktoaster 00:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Bad joke (but not BJAODN bad). -- BD2412 ^talk 00:46, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
  • Changing to no vote, per those who know more than I about grammar. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:41, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• I've heard that I want to vote for Deletion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 02:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The article describes (very briefly) a real grammatical category in many languages - e.g., [1]. Not sure if quotative and hearsay markers should get their own article or just be redirected to Evidentiality.--Chris Johnson 04:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with evidentiality. It's real but it's better discussed at that page. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge&Redirect per Chris and Angr. Blackcats 09:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, maybe merge into Grammatical mood. The creator's other contributions (made at the same time) make a joke rather unlikely. To me as a layman it looks like the work of a specialist. Also note: Check out Category:Grammatical moods. Most of the articles in that category were written by the same user who created this one, and they should probably all be treated like this one. Rl 11:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oh keep. Dunno how this one got itself listed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This kind of analysis of modality and mood does occur in linguistics. Looking at mailing list archives, I see a close fit to the mood described here given among others in a review of Palmer, Frank R. (2001) Mood and Modality, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, hardback ISBN 0-521-80035-8, xxi+236pp, $64. 95, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics (1st ed. 1986; paperback ISBN 0-521-80479-5). [2] --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but move to correct spelling. These pages, while likely to be stubby, are convenient to link to from grammar descriptions in language articles. - Mustafaa 17:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Grammatical mood, redirect from the correct spelling. Thanks to Chris J and Tony S for reference links. Barno 18:55, 9 Jun 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Environmental spoiling

nn dictdef (27 questionable googles) --Doc (?) 00:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to pollution. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:48, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete: A redirect wouldn't be bad, but I don't think it's necessary, and we don't have any content here to preserve. Geogre 02:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Right, which is why I didn't say "Merge". Someone who types in this term is probably looking for pollution - I could see it happening. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:37, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete I highly doubt anyone will use this as a search term. --Xcali 04:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre and Xcali. Quale 05:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per BD2412. Blackcats 09:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, same as above. StopTheFiling 18:02, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no need for redirect. I see the phrase "environmental despoliation" more than this, which is probably just somebody's don't-use-big-words version. Barno 18:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no need for redirect. Those looking for pollution will look under pollution. carmeld1 06:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is not about pollution. It could be some sort of psychological term, as a few hits on google and the article itself state. Take a look at google hit Romantic Relationships Study Guide (Final Exam). Poli 07:25, 14 Jun 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

JG-Leathers

• Delete Self referal - not enough contents. Seems like an attempt to use Wikipedia for Advertisement. --219.111.147.78 12:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - this page was here before it was added to by what appears to be its subject, who does appear to be notable. -- The Anome 13:34, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising. As for the notability, we're talking about notable in a subculture of a subculture of a subculture that's largely underground. It would be a tough case to make on those grounds, but the article is advertising at present. Geogre 02:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. Quale 05:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 07:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - over 1000 Google hits for JG-Leathers himself, and he has been interviewed in both Sectret Magazine and MARQUIS magazines [3][4]; and described by a verifiable third party as being "recognized worldwide as an authority in human pony play, training, and harness construction" [5]. Describing this particular subculture/fetish as a "subculture of a subculture of a subculture" is an exaggeration, in any case, and subcultural notability is still notability -- otherwise, do we also delete mathematicians who belong to obscure specialisms? -- Karada 08:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --NeoJustin 17:56, June 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into List of bondage models, writers, photographers and artists or something similar. -- StopTheFiling 18:09, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

4hockeyfans.com

Delete; self promotion/ad WAvegetarian 00:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy spam/ad --Xcali 04:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree: spam/ad --Mysidia 07:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 07:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy this spam. Jamyskis 09:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• But it's the best message board ever devised on the internet! Ever!!! Oh, fine, delete... StopTheFiling 18:17, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• speedy advertisment --Lord Voldemort 19:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Schulte 05:25, 12 Jun 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bum Rape Island

This article is not quite encyclopedic, not notable, unneccesarily vulgar, there are no links to it, etc... Should be Deleted -- Rmrfstar 01:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Google says 9 results for "Bum Rape Island". Too low for a comic book (or parody thereof) to claim notability. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:52, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete Low Google score, No Alexa rank at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:53, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide, and we are not here to help spread jokes. Geogre 02:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I agree with Geogre -- Mysidia 07:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 08:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It has no importance to anything, and is not noticable. Schrodingers catsup 08:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Some really surreal bits. "Bob swung his fist and connected just as the sentry started to turn into a penis." Good stub, describes the website adequately. Needs categorization. Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a list of websites or website synopses. In addition, the user that posted this has done many other vandalism edits that have been reverted, including posting links to "bumrapeisland"'s website in various entries. Strong Delete. jglc | t | c 17:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've no doubt it was posted for the purpose of vandalism. However this is quite an innovative website and I can't think of a good reason to delete it. "Wikipedia isn't a list of..." arguments always seem to me to miss the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so it should document interesting websites. What is interesting and what is not interesting, of course, is a matter on which we can differ. I happen to find that kind of weirdness interesting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. It seems that a lot of people find it uninteresting, though. This site is one step below an internet meme, and that's about the cutoff for internet notoriety, IMHO. jglc | t | c 18:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. I don't expect many people to find it interesting. I like it though. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • comment. Sorry if I came off too harsh. You're a reasonable man. jglc | t | c 19:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DELETE just dumb

• Comment. In response to Tony, who I think makes some good points, I would have to say that the notability is more important than interest. Wikipedia does not cover every thing that is interesting to someone, rather only notable, important, influential ones and this page is none of those. The site is literally a joke. Geogre and jglc make good points. The article says nothing about the website that is significant, it just mentions its existence. Every single website on the internet does not deserve its own Wikipedia article because it is interesting to a few people, unless the site actually has a significant impact on something. -- Rmrfstar 05:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I find myself in full agreement with all the arguments in favor of deletion, except the particular one that this article is deletable. This is in my opinion a truly remarkable site, a boys' illustrated war story transformed into a grotesquely absurd and comic sadomasochistic fantasy. While I understand that there are many samizdat works similar to this in Japanese manga and anime, I believe that this work may well be sui generis in European folk art. It has much of the exuberance and energy of obscene toilet graffiti. So I just cannot bring myself to vote for deletion. This is quite simply the most remarkable website I have ever encountered. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Rmrfstar's argument. carmeld1 06:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is an 'interesting' site, Wikipedia loses interest if it becomes an 'academic only' encyclopedia instead of a encyclopedia that is broad as can be in scope. --ShaunMacPherson 12:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The argument is not whether or not the site is academic or interesting; it is whether it is notable enough in its interest to be retained. jglc | t | c 13:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Not necessarily. There is no consensus for website notability, and I'm sure we have many non-notable websites that have been kept. There is room in Wikipedia policy for the exercise of discretion. This website is indisputably non-notable but this doesn't mean it should necessarily be deleted. If it's deleted I'll probably include it in an article about the use of graffiti in art and the artistic role of vandalism. From toilet walls to Orton and Halliwell's defaced library books, it's a very interesting subject. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. I like that idea, actually. Why not add a subsection (essentially a merge) to an artistic vandalism article (is there one? If not, it sounds like a wonderful idea) and redirect from the current article. I don't feel as though it deserves a standalone entry, but it would be a great case study. jglc | t | c 15:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • comment That is true, but why not set the notibility bar very low, just above vanity pages? There seems to be enough room to accomodate interesting yet esoteric pages. In fact I'd allow vanity pages as long as they were verifiable as notibility it seems is a POV concept that is apt to be abused esp. when censoring controversial ideas. Best we stay way from 'notibility' in my mind. --ShaunMacPherson 13:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep please agree with sidway Yuckfoo 20:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Keeping an open encyclopedia is like keeping an open mind - it should not be so open that one's brains fall out. Denni☯ 03:18, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
• Delete. Boring, badly done. And even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't be encyclopedic. --Silversmith Hewwo 12:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete too few google hits for a site.  Grue  17:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doreen Chanter

Was a back up singer in the 1970s, does not meet music or biography criteria, delete--nixie 01:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as a redirect to Chanter Sisters - This site makes the parenthetical note of Doreen and Irene Chanter that "The Chanter sisters' stellar credits include work with Elton John, Long John Baldry, Chris Farlowe, Phil Manzanera, Roxy Music, John Miles, The Secret Policeman's Ball, Van Morrison, Roger Waters, Meatloaf, Joe Cocker and many other famous names." That pushes them over the notability bar for me. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:59, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
  • After additional research, it is clear that the subject of this article is notable in her own right apart from her work with her sister. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:18, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Keep Notable (if obscure) musician. Formerly in The Chanters, Birds of a Feather (Elton John played on their album!), The Chanter Sisters, and tons of backup work. She's worked with Sting, Eric Clapton, Roger Waters, Phil Collins... Trust me, she's notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:04, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if not expanded, or make it a redirect. Keep if proper material is added. At this time, it is still a trivia trap. Geogre 02:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Excellent rewriting, folks. I wish VfD weren't so often Cleanup, but I'm always happy to see a bad article turn good. Geogre 11:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a redirect to Chanter Sisters --Wetman 02:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep member of Chanter Sisters and of touring bands for acts such as Roger Waters and Joe Cocker. Appeared on records by her band and on other notable artists (please see [6]. Capitalistroadster 04:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable artist. JamesBurns 08:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect per BD2412 and Starblind. Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have expanded article establishing notability according to Wikimusic project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 10:11, 9 Jun 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

B-unit

vanity entry. From Google: "Your search - B-unit "Binbrook Unit" - did not match any documents." B-Unit alone doesn't give results about the school group. Although, there is a Wikipedia article called the B unit which is a railroad terminology. Redirect? Chill Pill Bill 01:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not sure about the redirect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:08, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Creator 24.244.196.169 (talk · contribs) has a history of vandalism. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Was the marking of your vfd tag a minor change accidental? DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yea, I have a habit of clicking "minor edit." --Chill Pill Bill 02:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. B-unit could refer to anything. This thing is not notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:33, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete intersting that they are so feared and yet there are no police reports on there vandlism/gang fightsJCS 03:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, non-notable gangcruft. Create redirect to the railroad B unit article, which *is* notable. Kaibabsquirrel 06:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll support that redirect. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:15, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to B unit. the wub (talk) 07:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete; what kind of gang lists their names on Wikipedia, anyways? jglc | t | c 17:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect as I hop on the bandwagon... StopTheFiling 18:23, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. "B-Unit is a gang that originated in Saint Jean de Brebeuf Catholic Secondary School in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada….The school they are in is filled with B-Unit vandalism, and they are often the center of many gang fights. B-Unit is feared for over 500 kilometres from their origin." Classic! — Phil Welch 01:27, 11 Jun 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Red plaid menace

Band vanity, played some live shows, terrifying free homepage, one ep relased on Seclusion Records which also has a terrifying free homepage, doesn't meet the mucic inclusion criteria in my opinion --nixie 02:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: They have performed a few gigs. Not notable at present. Geogre 02:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Band vanity - "very famous in the town of Haddonfield, but not many other places". Sums it up nicely. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:54, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 08:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above jglc | t | c 17:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete see everyone else's reason. -- Lord Voldemort 19:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Donna Denize

Vanity page about high school teacher--BaronLarf 02:07, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Vanity page or at least advertising for a person who has not yet achieved notability in her career as a poet. Geogre 02:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Subject is not notable (at least, not yet). -- BD2412 ^talk 02:53, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
  • Vote revoked, see below. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:52, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
• Keep all teachers as long as we're keeping all schools. RickK 21:06, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep What are you talking about--a VANITY page? It's your vanity. Just because it's someone you haven't heard of doesn't mean it's not someone notable. Donna Denize has won awards for her teaching, been featured on PBS for her teaching and is a published poet---I don't see you published BaronLarf and Geogre. Also, I don't see fellow teacher and published author Curtis Sittenfeld being criticized for having a vanity page. It's not necessary to be on the New York Times bestseller list to be a good writer or teacher. D. A. 8:00 EST (why is everything on this page in a different time zone?) Jun 9, 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.29.38 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: You have references for these achievements? If so, add them to the article and indicate that you have so that people can re-evaluate. As for whether I am published or not, I should imagine that you have no idea, as I haven't written an article about myself or my real name. Would it change anything if I were really Dr. Bigshot at Prestige U.? No. The least talented child can tell good writing from bad, good painting from bad, and anyone on Wikipedia can assess whether an article is an advertisement and puff piece or not. Establish the bona fides of the subject in terms other than "Buy my book." Geogre 12:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep if the article is correct about her achievements.  The Steve  06:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep conditional as per Thesteve. Anonymous user, you raise good points, but please learn to wiki properly. UTC is the standard time code for wikipedia, as not all the users of en.wikipedia are on the East Coast of the US. jglc | t | c 06:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete most teachers but keep this one as a published author. Pending, of course, verification per TheSteve. Radiant_>|< 09:21, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Donna Denize is an incredible teacher, philosopher, and a friend to all those whom she knows. After just completing two semesters of ninth grade english with her, I am convinced that Ms. Denize is worthy of having a web page on Wikipedia because of her unique teaching style and her love of literature and passion for art. Ms. Denize is committed to educating her students about society's evils and downfalls and convincing the future generations (me) that change is necessary in this country's policies concerning war, government, and education. If people want to know more about her, there should be a medium to inform people of her life, and I believe that Wikipedia should take responsibility for its mission in this incredible web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.254.34 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • While I vote a weak keep as well, the anonymous, assumedly 14- or 15-year-old, user is entirely incorrect. "...her unique teaching style and her love of literature and passion for art" are in no means the reason for anyone at all to have a Wikipedia entry. In fact, if someone's wikipedia entry was based solely on their "love of literature," that would be a good candidate for a VfD. The reason that Ms. Denize deserves a wikipedia article is for her contributions to the field of literature and teaching - not her personality. In addition, let me note that she is not a philosopher. jglc | t | c 15:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Research results

• Comment: A quick spot of on Google turned up the following: she is a Baha'i chaplain at American University. "The Word Works[7] selected Broken Like Job by Donna Denize for publication..." "Donna Denize, a Smithsonian-featured teacher" has contributed to a PBS course[8]. The Library of Congress lists her as a poet, special guest at a ceremony honouring Sterling Brown and Gwendolyn Brooks.
• On the other hand, there were only 64 hits for the search string "Donna Denize." 39 of these were unique hits. A good number of them were for another "Donna Denize," a librarian in Auckland, New Zealand. Several others were hits on the internal St. Alban's school website.. I found no evidence whatsoever of Ms. Denize receiving nominations or accolades in the field of teaching.
• In summary? Ms. Denize is technically a published poet (uncertain as to the status of the publisher - it has certain earmarks of a vanity press). She has collaborated with PBS, but not necessarily in a notable or biographically significant way. She seems to be skirting notability; I can't make a call on this one. jglc | t | c 15:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In response to the anon 69.72.29.38, I would point out that after this article was posted on VfD by BaronLarf and after Geogre and BD2412 voted, I searched the Internet and added material from several different sources. That may not have changed their votes but in fairness to them no one should judge their votes based on the current shape of the article. DS1953 16:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • In the future, please do not hesitate to drop a note on my talk page if you feel that an article I've voted to delete has been improved enough to substantiate asking me to reconsider my vote. I've withdrawn my vote on this one. Cheers. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:55, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 01:58, 11 Jun 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ganeshram

vanity, not notable carmeld1 02:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: A couple of dudes, it seems. Wikipedia does not accept CV's. Geogre 02:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:43, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
  • Userfy/Delete, I agree with BD2412 --Mysidia 07:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Xcali 04:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Jamyskis 09:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was BJAODN/delete. Ingoolemo ^talk 23:18, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Flamer's Bible

Possibly funny (how would I know) but definitely original research. BJAODN if you like, but delete Denni☯ 02:22, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

• BJAODN. Nonencyclopedic, but rotfl funny. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:41, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Clearly, the author, if he really exists, is a member of a vast conspiracy of delusional trolls and, ipso facto, should be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, or at least forced to eat his mother's over-boiled vegetables. Or else just Delete. DS1953 04:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not funny enough for BJAODN though. JamesBurns 08:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN, but just marginally. I had a giggle anyway. Jamyskis 09:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Not encyclopedic, text dump. (Appears a number of places on Internet, such as [9].) Delete, a BJAODN candidate. - Mike Rosoft 09:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• heh. BJAODN at most. jglc | t | c 18:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. --Carnildo 21:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• OMG, how funny. BJAODN. Hermione1980 23:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic and appears copied from somewhere. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP IT. Flaming is long Internet tradition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.68.73 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • But the Flamer's Bible is not. jglc | t | c 06:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That's why we have an article on flaming. Denni☯ 00:38, 2005 Jun 11 (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. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The weston high school journal

It is just a high school newspaper. The article doesn't establish why the school newspaper is notable. Chill Pill Bill 02:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, notability not established. Mr Bound 02:31, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Weston High School. Oh, wait, there's no article on the high school itself. Delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:35, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of notability --Mysidia 07:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 08:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: A HS paper, but at least this one is properly titled. (Tired of article titles like The Acorn, where that's the name of a few thousand school papers.) Geogre 11:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pretty much all high school newspapers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There doesn't seem to be any other verifiable information to add to it. If there was a Weston High School, Connecticut, I would vote merge. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Quick, someone click on that red link and make another pointless and unencyclopedic high school stub. Delete Proto 11:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for nn. Pointless article. --Lord Voldemort 13:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. -- Joolz 14:12, 12 Jun 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Conservative Pulse

"As of April 25, 2005, the forum had 421 registered members, with the most members ever online at once being 67." Smacks of vanity and self-promotion. Virtually none of the 2,000+ Google hits are relevant. See also Austin Cassidy and Stephen Covington.

• Delete. Vanity. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:39, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reason as above. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:12, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Kaibabsquirrel 06:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. Blackcats 09:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. carmeld1 06:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  ^ rather obvious pawns

• Keep this article was targeted by a radical left-winger for deletion based largely upon the political leaning of the site. Subject site has logged over 1 million hits in the past year. Similar articles exist for Free Republic and Democratic Underground. Afcassidy 06:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ConservativePulse is an established internet forum for political dialogue and discussion. A Google search for the name reveals three pages of results, most of which are relevant to the site itself and involve discussions on other sites about CP. Khatores
• Keep It seems as though this person has never even gone to the site. But, I guess it is easier for this person to throw a fit instead of actually trying to compete. But I guess that's the communist way. Superbug
• Keep Of all the sites I frequent, this one is the most relevant. As a constant lurker, I find the discussion there quite stimulating, even though I am an infrequent contributor.KhendonZ
• Keep In addition to aforementioned votes in regards to outside note of the website, ConservativePulse has had its own interviews with presidential primary contenders and is a focal point for several local politicians & candidates both in the major and minor political parties of the US. The One True Fred

Rather obvious sockpuppets, methinks. RadicalSubversiv E 14:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rather weak jab at other users, methinks. The One True Fred

• ignorant of rules newbie Seems to be an advertisement of the existence of the site. At the same time it does tell you about a site you might come across, which is informative. If Wilki has a policy of keeping information about discussion sites, then keep. If not, then delete. No knowledge about whether the article is accurate or biased in the way it describes the site. if it is seriously biased then maybe it should be corrected and kept.Sandpiper

This page is now preserved 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 userfy. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Austin Cassidy

Vanity. 267 Google hits, many blog comments and such authored by Mr. Cassidy. See also Conservative Pulse and Stephen Covington. RadicalSubversiv E 02:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy if at all possible. Otherwise, delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:37, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete it. --Hooperbloob 02:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy to User:Afcassidy. the wub (talk) 08:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Vanity. Wikipedia is not a provider of space for self-promotion. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, non-notable student promotion. jglc | t | c 18:49, 9 Jun 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Covington

Vanity, but at least this one's been elected to something ("Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor for Group 4 in Nassau County, Florida" -- hardly encyclopedic). See also Conservative Pulse. RadicalSubversiv E 02:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy if at all possible. Otherwise, delete. So much work for so little notability. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:37, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete. Mr. Covington has a very good biography for a college student and perhaps some day he will merit an entry, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... DS1953 03:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Reluctantly... it is cool and all, but he doesn't seem notable enough, at least not yet... --Mysidia 07:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A political office is a political office, and the holder of one is a politican. Many Americans are uninformed about the vital role that Soil and Water Conservation Districts play in the absolutely necessary agricultural community. The goal of this article is to act as a reference to concerning the work of one such individual serving on a SWC Board. More of this individual's work on the board will be posted in the future.

Moreover there is not enough information in Wikipedia concerning local-level politicians, except of course in large cities. This is an unjust double standard that works against smaller communities, although they are just as unique as their larger cousins. Wikipedia should work to correct this bias against small localities and recognize their important contributions to the fabric of America. Khatores

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:MacGyverMagic as an attack page/vandalism/etc.

• 08:58, 9 Jun 2005 MacGyverMagic deleted "Rapistmother" (attack page)

Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rapistmother

An attack article it seems. Google: "Your search - Rapistmother "University High School" - did not match any documents." and Results 1 - 10 of about 28 for Rapist mother "University High School" Chill Pill Bill 02:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Nonsense. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:56, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per BD2412. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 03:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I concur with the above sentiments. --Mysidia 07:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete attack page. JamesBurns 08:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No doubt a teenage-kid-revenge. Oneliner 08:54, 9 Jun 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Michael Gatheright

As written, it is nothing more than someone's testimonial for a deceased friend. Wikepedia is obviously not the place for such things, and to be honest, I'm genuinely shocked that it has lasted this long (created November 2004). And, to be safe, as aparently the subject was some kind of P-funk artist, google only comes up with just 38 hits, most of them cut-and-paste info. DELETE for non-notability, DELETE for patent nonsense in relation to wikipedia's mission. Jeffrey O. Gustafson 02:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 03:08, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy if at all possible. Otherwise, delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:25, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete Not a memorial. --Xcali 04:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Indeed. --Mysidia 07:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 08:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with co-sleeping. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sharing_a_bed

Doesn't contain any meaningful information and is very poorly organized and composed. Maybe redirect to co-sleeping? Asarkees 02:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete. This is really an effort to combine several tertiarily related topics (which already have articles) into a single article. The only common thread is that they have to do with more than one person and a bed. I don't think a redirect to co-sleeping would be quite right, as "sharing a bed" has often been a euphamism for sex. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:33, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete and/or Merge with co-sleeping as another section of it. The perception of two people of different gender in one bed having sex is so omnipresent, that it could be included there. The judical explanations and the bond to M. Jackson's case is ceratinly a relevant piece of information. Oneliner 09:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm afraid that I can't quite agree, although I would like to, that there is a salvage here. My biggest problem is the nebulousness of the name, which requires an ill-jointed discussion. There are nuggets here and there that ought to be preserved, but these aren't very substantial. Until the 1960's, sharing a bed would have been the fate of most children, so any scandalousness is either because of the euphemism or because of our reactions to the pedophilia scares of the 1980's. Geogre 11:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with co-sleeping. Don't really mind which article title the merged article is at. Morwen - Talk 13:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Disambiguation --Phroziac 15:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment — This page was split off from co-sleeping as a compromise solution to a disagreement over whether Michael Jackson was relevant to co-sleeping. See Talk:Co-sleeping for details. Bovlb 04:37, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Merge back. The co-sleeping article should be able to deal with its own controversies rather than forking. Radiant_>|< 09:22, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with co-sleeping. JamesBurns 01:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, useful content.  Grue  18:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge back.--Patrick 23:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, Truthful information and provides good points on the subject.  Mash  2:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Mash has made no contributions. This vote was added by User:62.254.0.30, who has over a hundred contributions. Bovlb

This page is now preserved 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Audio Collective

delete. Non-notable, self promotion WAvegetarian 03:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• keeeeeepppp do yo thug thang! -FDemopansies 03:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, FDemopansies, in just 6 short edits on Wikipedia, you've had two articles speedy deleted ("spicbeater" and "niggerbeater"), had edits to Minuteman Project reverted as vandalism, and cast this vote. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:47, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete, by the way. Non-notable, self promotion. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:47, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete --Xcali 04:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable dicdef. Almost a speedy candidate with its lack of content. JamesBurns 08:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:44, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Two speedies in 6 edits sounds a lot like a true ViP. Geogre 11:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't play those games. jglc | t | c 17:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --NeoJustin 17:42, June 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was -- The option that appeals most to me is the last one given - Nuke the article (It has no unique information; two of the names are red, and the only blue name is already in Indian mathematicians) and then move Indian mathematicians to this article. So it is written, so let it be done. --Golbez 18:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

List of Indian mathematicians

This list is not significant enough to warrant a seperate article. There are only three entries here, only one of which has a real article. There is alread a List of mathematicians article. List of Indian mathematicians is somewhat presumptous and nationalistic considering there is no such list for famous French or English or Russian mathematicians, who greatly out-number Indian ones. 172.144.98.81 03:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The list would look a lot better if it wasn't looks a lot better when not divided into mostly-empty alphabetical categories (really that's what makes it appear presumptious). But it seems that the better practice would be to make the missing lists (French, English, Russian mathematicians), which would certainly be in keeping with lists of persons in various other fields by nationality. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:51, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Keep. I've seen much more insignificant lists. Make lists for countries with substantial mathematical traditions. --Barfooz (talk) 05:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Indian mathematicians (under whichever title is the more consistent with style). Average Earthman 06:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It seems somewhat presumptuous to try to force people from one country to wait until some other countries' lists have been created. Kappa 07:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The problem isn't the existence of this list, it's the lack of the existence of the other lists for French and Russian mathematicians, IMO. --Mysidia 07:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Create categories for Indian, French, Russian etc. mathematicians instead of creating more lists - Skysmith 08:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Categories cannot be annotated, formatted, rearranged, easily copied, merged or split, or have multiple titles for the same entry. They also don't work on most wikipedia mirrors. Kappa 09:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • While there are merits to the points in your first sentence, it's not our task to worry about Wikipedia mirrors, which in general disregard GFDL freedoms/protections and don't contribute to the cost of all this not-paper. Barno 19:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. until with Indian mathematicians until the list has some more meat to it. And note to Skysmith, lists and categories are different and can be used simultaneously. Putting red links at the top of cats is ugly and you can't add b-dates to them. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Indian mathematicians. As per Earthman. JamesBurns 10:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No need for this as Indian mathematicians perfectly suits the need. --Oneliner 12:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • So after deleting this, what will happen the next time someone wants to start a List of Indian mathematicians? Kappa 13:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • We tell them there already is one under Indian mathematicians? Average Earthman 17:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • And we have another Vfd on the matter? Kappa 17:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • So leave a redirect under the List title, getting users to the desired information instead of having them recreate it, leading to a duplicate VfD. Barno 19:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Indian mathematicians --Carnildo 21:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and move Indian mathematicians over it. Per Wikipedia naming conventions lists should have "list of" prefix so this is the right title for Indian mathematicians.  Grue  18:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge with Goto. Golbez 19:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

20 GOTO 10

This article was previously marked as speedy for being "not encyclopedic", but that is not a criterion for speedy. This article is about a line of programming code used in a simple program. I abstain. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with GOTO. Useful demonstration, but does not require its own article. On a side note, I remember writing those little programs... ah, the good old days... -- BD2412 ^talk 03:55, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Keep it. 11,000 Google hits. [10]. --Barfooz (talk) 05:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is obviously a hello world type thing and shouldn't be merged with anything else. Kappa 07:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• What the hey? An entire article about a line of program code? This is useful information, but not encyclopedic as its own article. Why not have an article for 30 I=I+1 or 40 IF A$="Y" THEN 60 as well? Merge with GOTO. — JIP | Talk 07:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please read the article, not just the title. Kappa 09:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I did read the article. How else could I have said "this is useful information"? The article's contents are useful, but they belong in the GOTO article, not in an article about one, essentially entirely random, line of program code. If I had based my judgement solely on the title, I would most likely have slapped a speedy delete tag on the article. — JIP | Talk 09:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I agree that it is notable, but it should be merged with GOTO. the wub (talk) 07:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - with Gotoor with BASIC programming language - of which this is an example. Yes, I can get nostalgic too, but Goto is/was one of many keywords in that language. If kept then expect to see articles on 'next n' 'for a=1 to 6' 'load ""', poke, peek, etc - each with arbitrary variables and numbers before and after them. (If you are under 27, then please abstain as you will not know what we're talking about) --Doc (?) 08:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Article GOTO Merge. Would be far more useful in expanding the article "Goto" -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not about GOTO. Kappa 13:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with GOTO. If we keep this we set precedent for keeping "30 GOTO 10", "60 GOTO 20", etc. It's best to keep as an example of GOTO. Mgm|^(talk) 09:12, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • This title gets the most hits. What program would "30 goto 10" represent? Kappa 13:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • What program do you think "20 GOTO 10" represents? This isn't the name of the program. (That would be something like "HELLO.BAS".) It's just one line of code from the program. Programmers do not refer to this program by the name "20 GOTO 10". And there are plenty of other programs that happen to contain this line of code, such as this one or this one, that have nothing whatever to do with this article. Programmers refer to these as infinite loops. The only thing that "20 GOTO 10" is actually the name of is, ironically, an album. Uncle G 18:38, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• The article about hello world programs does comprise examples in many programming languages. The hello world program article is not entitled 10 PRINT "Hello World", after one line of code in one "hello world" program in one particular programming language. Drawing an analogy to hello world program also draws our attention to infinite loop. And, I often RENUMbered from 100, anyway. ☺ This is the wrong title. Merge as per everyone else. Uncle G 11:28, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
  • You are suggesting merging this because it has "the wrong title"? It makes a horrible fit with Goto. Also it gets far more google hits (11,700) than 200 goto 100 (88). Kappa 13:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Google hits are a poor metric in this case, and are an entirely useless mechanism for deciding upon a sensible encyclopaedia article title here. There's an awful lot of source code indexed by Google Web, and random lines of code are not sensible encyclopaedia article titles. The fact that, for example GOTO :LOOP gets three times that number of hits doesn't mean that it is a sensible article title. Another example: puts("hello world") gets over a million hits, but no experienced C programmer will tell you that that is a sensible title for the article that we actually have at hello world program, even though that latter only garners roughly 55,000 hits, 1/20th of the number that the line of C code does. The best solution is transwiki to Wikibooks and then merge to Wikibooks:QBasic:Flow Control, since this is really the annotated development of one specific small BASIC program. But since JIP thinks that the article should be kept, a merger, either to infinite loops or to GOTO, is a compromise. Uncle G 18:38, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
    • Using the default increment the next line number after 100 is 110, not 200, by the way. Uncle G 18:38, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Merge with GOTO. An article based on a command should be in that command, anything else is plain stupid. I'll happily do the merge myself Proto 15:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not an article based on a command. Kappa 17:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, if the focus of the article is the line of code "20 GOTO 10", which it is purported to be, it is. The description of this line of code given in the article "repeats the PRINT command in the program without stopping", is, simply, false. (I've linked to two examples above where "20 GOTO 10" doesn't "repeat PRINT commands" at all.) If the focus is not "20 GOTO 10", then this isn't about the line of code, but about a specific program containing that and another line of code, and the article is at the very least mistitled because the line of code is not the name of the program, as already explained. Uncle G 18:38, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 18:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to GOTO or BASIC programming language or even Infinite loop if we have to keep something, or just delete, but either way, do not redirect this title. I've been a programmer since 1977 starting with BASIC, and I can confirm the arguments made by JIP, Doc, and Uncle G. Kappa's logic completely escapes me (a statement which itself should be in an unterminated loop). Barno 19:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If redirected, it should goto Infinite loop, not Goto. "Merge" doesn't make sense because there is nothing in the text worth preserving. Google stats are very slippery here: There are 63,800 hits for "GOTO 10", of which only 11,700 are for "10 GOTO 20", 4590 for "10 GOTO 10", 1260 for "20 GOTO 20", etc. -R. S. Shaw 20:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I revise my vote to delete or merge into Infinite loop. The infinite loop article could use a simpler example (after all, the reader doesn't know too much about programming). The 20 GOTO 10 program would do nicely, and from what I gather has been used as a such a teaching exercise. -R. S. Shaw 02:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. for(;;) and while(1) are even more common programming constructs, but we don't have (and don't need) articles on them. --Carnildo 21:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Infinite loop or Goto. Flawiki 23:45, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
  • Revising my vote to Delete due to Carnildo's comments, and also because the 20 GOTO 10 seems a poor index for one seeking information about either infinite loops or BASIC's GOTO. Even in classic BASIC there might be nineteen lines of instructions before it, some of them terminating with STOPs or containing other infinite loops (the possibilities are, shall I dare say, infinite?). Flawiki 22:27, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
    • I challenge you to find a single mention of this with more than one other line Kappa 22:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • In google? I don't know if I can. If that's the criterion then I'd concede the point, but I don't believe it is. Flawiki 22:58, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
      • easy. From the first page of Google Web results, even. This is not the name of the program, nor is it an article title that programmers will look for, nor is the occurrence or meaning of this line of code as specific as this article erroneously says it to be. The thing that this is the name of is an album. Uncle G 03:44, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
        • I believe that this album is indeed named after the program. The fact that someone would choose this particular line as an album name proves it has more significance than the sum of its parts. Kappa 04:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • It proves nothing of the sort. Musicians will name albums, bands, and songs after all sorts of things, including error messages, bus routes, and code to access non-existent memory addresses on the Sinclair Spectrum. And the album isn't named after the program for the simple reason that this isn't the name of the program for it to be named after, any more than the several example lines of code already given by me and others are names of programs. Uncle G 14:12, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to GOTO or infinite loop. -Sean Curtin 06:54, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Goto - even if this is a meme, '20 goto 10' is not the usual title thereof. Radiant_>|< 09:23, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Do not redirect concur with Barno - or else why not redirects from evey other imaginable program line number? Either merge or delete (I don't really care which) --Doc (?) 09:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it could be restricted to redirects from titles with over 1,000 relevant google hits. Kappa 09:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• merge and redirect seems fair to me Yuckfoo 20:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a decent article, far better than school ones.  Grue  18:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • An article on the album might be decent. This article is actually a pretty poor one, containing factual errors. Uncle G 03:44, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
• Delete nad replace with an article on the album. There are so many ways to make trivial programs (like while 1). Karol 08:01, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with goto  Celestianpower 27 April 2024

• Keep. This is a legitimate example of an infinite loop, or amusing example of use of goto. Could therefore belong in either Goto or Infinite Loop and be legitimately referenced in either. In itself it is not a very sensible article. Good programming style is never to write the same thing twice, so should be in a form where it can be referenced from either of the others. How else do you reference an item relevant to two articles on distinct subjects except to make it an article itself?Sandpiper 10:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then why did you vote keep not merge? Superm401 | Talk 20:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

because if I was writing a database I would reference information where it was needed and store it in one place only. So I would make two references to the goto example, one in each place where it was relevant, and keep it separately. Perhaps wiki does not do things like that?Sandpiper 15:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Very strong delete. Dancing around useless code snippet that is not even funny. Should we also have articles while (true); or while (*s++ = *t++);? This should be encyclopedia and not garbage bin. Pavel Vozenilek 18:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with goto and redirect. However, I am skeptical of some of the assertions in the article. I.E. ""20 GOTO 10" is a program that is well known to BASIC programmers" and "the first program many of them have ever learned." They need references. I don't think it should be kept as its own article because it is not comprehensive enough on its own. That doesn't mean the topic isn't interesting. It just means it should be discussed as part of a greater context, in this case goto. Superm401 | Talk 20:17, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Not keep. Merge, redirect, delete... not sure, but not keep. DS 12:07, 20 Jun 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. Golbez 08:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Table of all cities in the United States

I personally do not see a use for this article, nor do I think it is encyclopedic. It is also very, very long (it took me :30-:45 to load the page on a broadband connection). I nominated this article, and thus I abstain from voting. Sincerely, Short Verses 04:01, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. First, it is too big. Second, this is basically a text dump: it is essentially an abridged copy of a large data text file from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. I suggest we have a link to this data instead. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless. --Xcali 04:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Zzyzx11 - too big, and we can link to it; also repetitive of the even more gargantuan List of all cities in the United States, which is itself repetitive of listings by individual states. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:45, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete, we already have List of all cities in the United States (which could be tabelized itself - I don't dare checking for fear of a browser crash) and we could link to the cencus data. "Table of..." isn't standard naming policy either. Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• I Vote to KEEP it! Patricknoddy 8:42 June 9, 2005 (EDT)
• Keep and subdivide. Kappa 13:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: 1. Duplicate material. 2. Unwieldly and therefore unusable. 3. Unnecessary even if it weren't duplicate. Geogre 14:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant. Unwieldy (271k--anything over 90k gets impractical even on 'modern' browsers). Not a table--format is bullet-list line items as "SN:Cityname", which I can't think of any practical use for. (And, at 721k, incomplete, List of all cities in the United States needs to be broken up, as well.) In managable chunks, I suppose Wikisource might be better for List of all cities in the United States, but this doesn't seem useful anywhere. Niteowlneils 15:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Update. I didn't notice List of all cities in the United States is also on VFD. Suggest refactor List of all cities in the United States into an index of the List of cities in {{{state}}} lists, and make this redir to the new index at List of all cities in the United States. Niteowlneils 15:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the misnamed and duplicative and oversize and incomplete table, refactor the list as suggested by Niteowlneils. Barno 19:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant. --Carnildo 21:55, 9 Jun 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 Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alt.slack

This was tagged as speedy, but it does not qualify since this usenet newsgroup does in fact exist -- it pertains to The Church of the SubGenius, its members, and its members' activities. I abstain. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, few usenet groups are encyclopedia material --nixie 04:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nixie's wisdom. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:43, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to either Church of the SubGenius or (perhaps more appropriately Alt.binaries.slack. 23skidoo 05:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 10:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Church of the SubGenius already contains an external link to alt.slack, and this article contains no further material to merge. No need to redirect. Real newsgroup, verifiable but with no potential for encyclopedic expansion. Barno 19:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Church of the SubGenius. alt.binaries.slack should probably do the same as well. -Sean Curtin 06:56, Jun 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. Golbez 08:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Kill on Site

Wikipedia is not an MMPORG slang dictionary. Denni☯ 04:23, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

• Delete. Maybe it could go on a list of MMPORG slang, but its own article? That just makes me chortle. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:42, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Keep. Otherwise, I feel like entries such as Slashdotting or LOL should be nominated for deletion based on the same reasoning (slang) --Mysidia 07:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I don't think much more can be said about this apart from the dic def. Delete as dictionary definition. Of course, Slashdotting and LOL have much more meat to them and actually tell us about the phenomenon in question. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Could be added to MMORPG#MMORPG Terms, but isn't it Kill on sight anyway? It's rather pointless to kill someone "on site" which would be the place they are standing as opposed to sight "the moment they are seen". Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete And yes, I'm pretty sure "site" is a misspelling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:46, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Oneliner 12:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. MMORPG#MMORPG Terms already has an entry for KoS, Kill on Sight. No need for this ignorant misspelling to be propagated. No need to transwiki to Wiktionary. Barno 19:45, 9 Jun 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 — Gwalla | Talk 19:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Republican Babe

Blog neologism. Delete, especially since the list includes Barbara Bush. Denni☯ 04:33, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism, not a "commonly used term". If we were to let this in, we'd eventually have to let in every "Foo-political-orientation Babe". -- BD2412 ^talk 04:41, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete For the love of God, I hope that's George W. Bush's daughter, not his mother, they're referring to. --Xcali 04:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's his wife; not Barbara Bush, but Laura Bush that they reference. jglc | t | c 18:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Basically just a combination dicdef of Republican and babe, along with some unverifiable and/or POV stuff. Delete. --Metropolitan90 06:05, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Same reasons already cited. Kaibabsquirrel 06:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, not to mention oxymoron. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 10:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - POV silly stuff. Blackcats 20:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Biased partisan political nonsense! Hohokus 23:31, 10 Jun 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. Golbez 08:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Corey lehman

Can't find evidence of this person or his accomplishments on Google. "corey lehman" returns hits for a golfer and a table tennis player, but no teenage armwrestlers. --Xcali 04:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 07:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete obvious vanity. JamesBurns 11:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Geogre's Law failure and an outright joke article. I'm sure Corey has gotten more than enough humor out of his time at Wikipedia. Geogre 14:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:47, 2005 Jun 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 KEEP. JeremyA 20:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SPUD (game)

I have been a child for several decades and have yet to hear of this game. Denni☯ 04:39, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

• Keep Strong. This game exists: Gameskidsplay.net JemeL talk 07:39, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Keep I can tell you the game certainly exists. The article as is may not do it justice, but it does exist: of that, I am positive. --Mysidia 07:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, game exists and I can remember playing a Dutch variation of it when I was younger. Mgm|^(talk) 09:25, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Being not-knowledgeable about something doesn't imply that it's unworthy of knowledge. Plus, now you've heard of it ;). jglc | t | c 17:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. I could not help but smile upon seeing some children playing this game at the school playground today. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to fix capitalization. Radiant_>|< 09:24, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I played it as a kid. --UsaSatsui 21:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It belongs here as much as kickball or tag. I just finished up a massive edit, so it should be up to standards now.--TLEberle 04:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Redirect; no information to merge, main article already contains it all. Golbez 19:04, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Flippy

I love the Happy Tree Friends as much as the next guy, honestly...but I really don't think individual characters deserve their own articles. Merge to main article? Bearcat 05:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, merge into main article...the HTF article is short enough as it is, and individual characters about which usually no more than two or three sentences can be written do not need their own articles -- Ferkelparade π 10:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Happy Tree Friends as per WP:FICT. -- Lochaber 10:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete minor character. JamesBurns 11:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge nearly all fictional characters. There is no need to put this through a VFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect only: I know merging is nice, but I'm not. Minor characters of ephemera really shouldn't be tossed into the 9 mile long merge queue, IMO. Redirect only. Geogre 14:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The merge could have been done by the nominator, and probably with less effort than vfd. Feel free to do so on your own recognizance in the future. Meelar (talk) 15:41, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've gotten into enough scraps with fancrufters who disagreed with me on that kind of thing that I will not merge without a VfD consensus unless an article actually duplicates an existing one. Just FYI. Bearcat 00:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge. Golbez 19:07, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Buddhist Monkey

I love the Happy Tree Friends as much as the next guy, honestly...but I really don't think individual characters deserve their own articles. Merge to main article? Bearcat 05:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Happy Tree Friends as per WP:FICT. -- Lochaber 11:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete minor character. JamesBurns 11:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect only, reasoning above. Geogre 14:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, not really worth worrying about. Kappa 14:04, 15 Jun 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. Golbez 08:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Doutel

Sub-stub about a French surname, probably unexpandable as it probably ought to go in a dictionary of names and their meanings. Transwiki (to Wiktionary?) or just delete. Jeeves 05:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Oneliner 08:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't provide origins of the name which wiktionary would want. Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless some showing of historical notability is made, or unless it is shown that there are enough notable persons sharing this name to require a disambig. I abide by the outcome of our earlier discussion of names/surnames. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:55, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Anyone who can tell us how this family name is pronounced, what its etymology is, what its meaning as a word is, alternative spellings, and translations, is welcome at Wiktionary:Doutel. Anyone who wants to construct family trees for people with the family name Doutel is welcome at Wikitree. Uncle G 18:56, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. RickK 21:15, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Kelly Martin 05:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Islamophilia

Read this first

It seems many people are voting here before even reading the article, or doing sufficient research on the subject. The article is not about justifiying a point of view. It DOES NOT, or atleast is not meant to justify islamophobia or attacking Islam. It just describes a term being used increasingly by certain European politicians, sociologists and journalists. Please read the article, help making it NPOV and reconsider your vote.

AGAIN, THE USE OF ISLAMOPHILIA BY PROPONENTS MIGHT BE UNJUSTIFIED. BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT HERE. WE CAN'T DELETE AN ARTICLE ON SLAVERY SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS A WRONG PRACTICE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.238.172 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: The initial vote to delete this article has been placed at the top of Votes: Delete for ease of vote counting.

Votes: Keep

1. Keep (BloodOfThePoet)Since "Islamophobic/Islamophobia" exists in the popular consciousness, the world press, and the educational establishment -and is gaining ground in the approved lexicon, there is a need to explore its conceptual antithesis, for a host of reasons: including the analytical, political, aesthetic, religious, philosophical, linguistic and even the counter-propagandistic. I commend the article writer, since, in contrast with at least 75% of what gets accepted in the Wikipedia 'canon', this submission is commendably researched, factually reinforced, literate, and, considering the comments for deleting it (a revealingly passionate compendium of reinforcing "interests" in something usually deadeningly dry and stultifyingly neutral like the discussion of a neologism), has hit such a nerve, that, for this reason alone, "Islamophila" deserves to remain. It will draw many new eyes to Wikipedi, and will allow scholars to fulfill their proper function of expanding the understanding of the human intellectual experiment. I find nothing offensive, anti-religious, biased, bigoted or improper with this article or this ingenious coinage. Keep it, and let it become enriched as the understanding of the word, and is roots, deepen in the interpenetration of cultures, "East" and "West". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.176.72 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 Jun 2005
2. Keep (sockpuppet) This is a useful article that would benefit from more editing and contributions rather than removal. Just look at the amount of blind islamophilia that is doing rounds these days. Do a google search if you think it is neologism.
   • Vote by User:130.203.202.156 -- 15:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Keep Of course my POV is biased as I am a major contributor to this page. Islamophilia is a neologism, as is islamophobia. I have rewritten the page to make it more NPOV. Critics are invited to improve the quality of the page as they seem fit. --Germen 15:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. Keep This is not an anti-islam propaganda article. It just describes people who try to atribute unreasonable characteristics to islam, and actually end up doing harm to Islam, for example, claiming that the Quran contains new scientific theories in a cryptic form, which, if decoded, can change the world, etc. I can understand that islamophiles would love to see such an article deleted, since they love to whitewash anything that THEY THINK reflects badly on Islam, or stops short of attributing to Islam all the best qualities possible. (Previous edit by User:70.105.179.96 -Blackcats 07:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC))
5. Keep (sockpuppet) Though it does certainly needs a cleanup. (Previous edit by User:128.118.126.8 -Blackcats 07:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) - User's two edits are both to this VFD page. --FCYTravis 08:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
6. Keep (sockpuppet) It is pretty basic and could be expanded. Keep it. (Previous edit by User:66.214.185.252 -Blackcats 07:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) - User's two edits are both to this VFD page. --FCYTravis 08:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
7. Keep and enlarge. (sockpuppet) You should defend free speach. The word suggested makes sense. Keep, keep, keep. (Previous edit by User:82.36.79.32 -Blackcats 07:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) - User's only edit is to this VFD page. --FCYTravis 08:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
8. Keep (sockpuppet) It is a good start and probably needs expanding. Keep it. (Previous edit by User:209.76.108.207 -Blackcats 07:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) - User's only edit is to this VFD page. --FCYTravis
9. Keep (sockpuppet) STOP ATTACHING SOCKPUPPET TO MY NAME, I only voted once! Either merge stub with related article or keep independent with expectation of expansion. Shouldn't be allowed to fall victim to PC reactionism.
   • Edit: Accusations of 'Sockpuppets' are underhanded attempts to negate votes. The reason the votes are in close proximity is because this Wiki entry has found its way onto a couple of forums. I removed 'sockpuppet' from my entry and included my wiki nickname. I find this tactic very cheap and not in the spirit of wiki. --UlulatingIdiota
     • If you read the Wikipedia:sockpuppet article you will see that any user with less than 100 edits, particularly a new user who immediately joins and starts making controversial edits or voting on VfDs, are generally considered to be sock puppets for the purposes of voting. Which forums has this page been listed on? Axon 07:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
   • (Previous edit by User:141.152.101.211 -Blackcats 07:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) - User's only edit is to this VFD page. --FCYTravis
   • The addition to this vote was UlulatingIdiota's first edit. --W(t) 03:09, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
10. Keep (sockpuppet) The vote of the Muslims about Islam is generally charged with emotions and subjectivity. It is not realistic to expect objective opinions from believers of any religion about their own faith. My vote is to keep it and expand on it. (Previous edit by User:72.21.32.122 -Blackcats 07:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) - User has four edits, one to this VFD page. --FCYTravis
11. keep (sockpuppet) and expand very topical if islamophobia is in so should be Islamophilia could do with expanding (Previous edit by User:172.188.217.175 -Blackcats 07:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) - User's only edit is to this VFD page. --FCYTravis
12. keep (sockpuppet) - This is not islampobia - it is rational and it is free speech — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.149.56 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 12 Jun 2005 (User's only edit is to this VFD page. Axon 13:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC))
13. Keep (sockpuppet)( - The article accurately describes the characteristics of a certain group of people from an objective POV. Deleting it would be the irrational thing to do. Definitely keep it and expand on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.42.126 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 12 Jun 2005
14. Keep I know some people myself that i could describe in the way this article describes islamophiles. But this article is in need of work. It does not yet catch the exact essence of its subject. I accept also rename, if a better name is found Tuohirulla 22:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
15. Keep - with overhaul (sockpuppet) The premise that the feeling of Islamophilia must inherently be irrational is incorrect. There are Sinophiles who love China and Chinese culture and Francophiles who love France and French culture. I have never heard these philes described as irrational.
16. Keep → JarlaxleArtemis 01:27, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
17. Keep but overhaul - The article is meant to describe a certain ideology, not to "target" it. Unfortunately, the article is defintely not NPOV in its present form, and was probably written as a reaction to the POV article on islamophobia. However, I don't see how it is "irrational." Semitophilia does not exist, so there is no article on it. This cannot be said about Islamophilia which is a reasonably popular ideology. A small example is here Although it needs to be overhauled, I am surprised that people want it (and islamophobia )to be deleted. There is no dearth of articles on wikipedia which produce less than 10 google results, and I checked on FAQs that low google hits is not a sufficient reason for deletion. The term has a very healthy web search to group search ratio on google, so it doesn't seem to be promoted by any one particular group. I don't think it is not a good idea to delete articles simply because in their present form they are POV. There's a POV tag for that. Also, google "Islamophilie" (French for Islamophilia) and you'll get many more hits, and some pages belong to the 90s, even before September 11, etc, so the term is not very new either. ~~deeptrivia
18. Keep (sockpuppet) As islamophobia ) exist so does Islamophilia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.80.16.39 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 13 Jun 2005
19. Keep (sockpuppet) The phenomenon is real, and deserves its own entry. Although I agree it needs to be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.145.153.163 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 13 Jun 2005
20. KEEP (sockpuppet) This article brings some balance to the POV given by islamic propaganda and twisting history represented on this site. But the article needs to be expanded upon and referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.129.122.1 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 13 Jun 2005
21. KEEP (sockpuppet) The phenomenon is not only real, it is a prevalent rhetorical paradigm among a number of influential commentators such as Karen Armstrong and Carly Fiorina. The article should be kept and is deserving of expansion. THHuxley 16:30, 2005 Jun 13
    • Important note: There is no User:THHuxley. The above comment was really posted by User:198.89.160.22.
22. KEEP (sockpuppet) Islamophobic is a much used (and even feared) accusation. Self censorship is an increasingly real problem. The article is not the most erudite and does need tidying up, but it adds to the debate, simply by being there. Nassar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.56.106 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 14 Jun 2005
23. KEEP (sockpuppet) Current form is OK, but expansion would only help. This a good term to explain the irrationality that goes along with the territory of making such claims as stated in the article. user:Fresca Scongili Butifara June 16, 2005
    • Does not appear to be a real user --Irishpunktom\^talk
24. KEEP (sockpuppet) This would be an introduction to islamophilia and should be expanded to be meaningful. For example, attributing the success of Spain to the occupation and colonialism of the Moors and Arabs who invaded is something to be explored. Attributing scientific achievements made by Assyrians, Persians, Copts and others to Islam should be expanded upon. Jsaid2009
    • Users first and Second edit[11] --Irishpunktom\^talk
25. Keep (sockpuppet) Otherwise delete Islamophobia, which is logically equally POV. Deleting this article would itself be an act of POV! Dragonlance 14:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Votes: Delete

1. Initial deletion vote — Neologism. SWAdair | Talk 05:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. Delete. Short POV piece, no chance it will ever be encyclopedic. Kaibabsquirrel 06:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Delete per 'squirrel. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 07:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. Delete - un-notable POV slander piece. Blackcats 09:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. Delete POV attack page. JamesBurns 11:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
6. Delete. Islamophilia returns 248 hits. This article should be deleted and made a subsection of a different article, that might exist in the future, such as Islamophile, which returns a respectable 15,700 google hits. Wikibofh 15:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
7. Delete, neologism. - Mustafaa 17:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
8. Delete attack page. Nothing here worth keeping. carmeld1 10:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
9. Delete neologism. Axon 08:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
10. Delete - sockpuppet limit exceeded (apologies to RickK) --FCYTravis 08:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
11. Delete - The differences between the word "Islamophobia" and "Islamophilia": "Islamophobia" is actually used (Google search for Islamophilia: 215 results; for Islamophobia: 119,000 — obviously the latter is the real word); the article about it does not overflow with bias. As for the argument that an article about "Islamophilia" makes it "fair" to have an article about Islamophobia: I see no "Semitophilia" articles! No "homophilia" articles (simply redirection to the homosexuality page). An encyclopedia cannot contain this bias. No "Islamophilia" nonsense, please. What you define as being "Islamophilic" is simply following Islam. And to call Islam, or any religion, "irrational" is biased and stepping out of the role of an encyclopedia. Emiellaiendiay 10:36 a.m., 12 June 2005
12. Delete (sockpuppet) - This article is completely irrational and serves no useful purpose. It is inherently biased because it targets a specific ideology. As already said, there are no articles on "Semitophilia", "homophilia", etc. This article tries to pathologize the followers of Islam and non-Muslims who are tolerant of Islam and Muslims. Moreover, this article is unscholarly. It should be deleted.
13. Delete, neologism. --W(t) 02:22, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
14. Delete, lacks references. Alphax ^τεχ 10:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
15. Delete hopefully none of the sockpuppets here's votes will be taken seriouslyYuber^(talk) 22:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
16. Delete (sockpuppet)POV211.100.12.60 15:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
17. Delete (sockpuppet) Neologism 63.218.109.130 15:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
18. Delete (sockpuppet) ORIGINAL RESEARCH205.136.240.131 16:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The above IP-signed votes are discussed in "Sockpuppet comments" on the talk page. — Dan Johnson ^T_C
19. Delete hopelessly POV piece, not particularly well-established term, and vote rigging. Should the article be kept, it needs some really, really, really heavy NPOVing, and I doubt there would be that much left after that. -- AlexR 02:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
20. Delete Neologism with a hint of WP:POINT. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
21. Delete. Neologism, supported by a surplus of drive-by voters and sockpuppets. --Carnildo 19:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not a neologism. Search for 'islamophilie/islamophile'. --Germen 20:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • When a search for those two in English on google I get 40 and 926... and for islamophilie in English most were in French... gren 21:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I got over 200 in English for Islamophilia. This is more of a European word, so you get many more in French, Dutch, etc. For proving that the concept does exist, it suffices to show its use in any language. So, just because the results are in French/Dutch doesn't mean an article on it should not be in English Wikipedia. I don't know other European languages so haven't searched in other languages. User:deeptrivia
22. Delete - This is a neologism with no clear definition. Definitely would involve original research. Islamophile is a legitimate dict. def. about someone who tries to learn about Islam but to say Islamophilia is the attribution of positive qualities to Islam, Muslims or the Islamic civilization, beyond what can be rationally attributed is incredibly subjective and does not have to do with the suffix -phile. gren 03:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Explain why this is subjective. "Islamophobia" and "Prejudice" have a similar definition and both have a Wikipedia entry too. Be consequent. --Germen 22:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Islamophobia is fear of Islam, that can be of any kind of Islam. Islamophilia takes a specific definition of Islam and compares someone's views on Islam to that. Therefore there is a necessary definition of what Islam "truly is" and then you are complaiming that someone's view and interpretation of Islam is illegitimate. That is the subjectivity I speak of. gren 03:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Gren, 'Islamophobia' is partisan as well. Fear and hate are subjective. 'Phobia' generally is reserved to irrational and pathological fear which implies that all fears for islam are pathological, which is, of course, non-NPOV. --Germen 11:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Whether "Islamophobia" has an entry or not is irrevelant in this discussion. Why are you so intent on keeping this, Germen? Emiellaiendiay 22:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Because 'islamophilia' describes a real phenomenon which is worthy of study. Of course attempts to make the article more NPOV are welcomed. --Germen 11:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
23. Delete. Attack page. Postdlf 01:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Who is being attacked?
    • This article is certainly less POV and more objective than one on Islamophobia.
24. EXTERMINATE! Unsalvagable, unencyclopedic NOISE. The fact that many google hits exist makes it very LOUD noice. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
25. Delete - unencyclopedic POV piece. -- Joolz 10:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
26. Delete. Unencyclopedic attempt to discredit Islam. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
27. Delete. Totally POV, and unsalvageable neology. ~~~~ 18:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
28. Delete, not a real word. Rhobite 20:26, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
29. Delete. Neither this nor Islamophobia are worthy of encyclopdic entries; these are Wiktionary entries at best. Islamophobia and Islamophilia are neither recognized psychological conditions nor widespread pop culture buzzwords. Islamophobia is already represented on the encylopedia by it's entry at -phobia#I and Islamophilia can likewise be inserted into -philia#I. Fernando Rizo 20:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Votes: Conditional

1. Merge with Islamophobia - in the hope that they will somehow cancel each other out and implode. Failing that, delete. Grutness...wha? 13:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. Overhaul or DELETE (sockpuppet) The article needs to either be modified to state that the term is used primarily by hindu fundamentalists and conspiracy theorists or deleted altogether. As is the article doesn't even make any sense. I have no understanding of what the point is supposed to be. Also needs references. And why is it listed under "phobias"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben.waterhouse (talk • contribs) 17:30, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC), user's first edit.
3. Merge with Islamophobia, as per Grutness. — Dan Johnson ^T_C 19:43, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Comments

1. Point of order - I was of the understanding, indeed I was told as much, that only registered users votes' count. When I voted as an anon, way back when, I was told to reg-up and vote again, because my vote would not count. Was I mis-informed, do Un-regged vites by anon users count, or are there a fair amount of votes here not to be counted? --Irishpunktom\^talk
   • You are correct: the anonymous votes, as well as sockpupper votes, above will (hopefully) be ignored when tallying votes. Axon 17:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
   • He's wrong, and right. Anonymous editors can vote but if there is doubt about a vote by an anon it may be ignored. This is to allow regular people who only ever use fixed ip to participate in VfD and other surveys. Admins close these discussions manually and we're pretty good at spotting jiggery pokery. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. Jsaid2009 This request for a deletion is based on several logical fallacies. The first is called Argumentum ad Numerum - because more people share the opinion, it somehow must be right. Because Islamophobia garners more google hits than Islamophillia, it must be true. Before Copernicus, the earth was flat because more people believed it. The second argument is equally invalid. I see no Naziphobia or Naziphillia, therefore everyone has no interest in the idealogical system of Nazism? Given that the Nazi party is in power in Austria, this argument holds no water — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.195.104 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
   • The above statement appears to be a Chewbacca Defense. — Dan Johnson ^T_C 14:07, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
     • I believe that's what's known as argumentum ad chewbaccum. silsor 08:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Steomac

Appears to be a vanity page. Epolk 06:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 07:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree. --Mysidia 07:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 11:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. You're So Vain. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:23, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete; vanity, non-notable entry created by a fan of a messageboard. jglc | t | c 18:01, 9 Jun 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. Golbez 08:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Publish and be damned

Advert. Online print-on-demand company with an Alexa ranking of 973,226. SWAdair | Talk 06:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity press advert. Average Earthman 06:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, perfectly obvious vanity advert. Why are we voting? --07:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)(signing my vote --Wetman 16:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC))
• Delete Obvious advertisement attempt. --Mysidia 07:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 10:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or rewrite. — Instantnood 11:05, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Funny company name though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:49, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:22, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity piece on vanity press. jglc | t | c 17:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Freedom of the press or Delete.
• D to the ezzle, l to the ezzeet, this article is an advertizzeet! MC Rocker 00:23, Jun 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. Golbez 08:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keenan houser

When I first came upon this page, I assumed it referred to a real person and just needed some work. I did some small stuff, tacked on a npov tag, and watched it. Came back to find it in its present incarnation, so I took a bit more interest in it and went to Google. Google has nothing, really. I understand its not a definitive source, but unless someone can come up with something to put here, it isn't really encyclopedic. I leave the decision up to those wiser than I. Thray 00:42, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

• The page was tagged and the entry created by Thray, but he didn't get the entry linked on VfD, so I'm finishing it for him. Joyous 06:12, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE One hit on Google [12] some kid in some band, blah. No hits at the patent office for "Keenan Houser" for the inventions listed, however there his a Keenan who works at the patent office. Vanity, non-notable. Speedy. <>Who?¿? 07:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the colorful who. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 07:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 11:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Has yet to gain some fame besides via Wiki. --Oneliner 12:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Pure hoax. Combining rodeo and hai alai? Solar powered belt calculator? Please. Pranksterism that needs to be shown the door. Geogre 14:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Prankenstein. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:39, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• It made me laugh. BJAODN mayhaps? Otherwise definitely delete as nonsense. jglc | t | c 17:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keenan is a 14-year old boy. I know him. Delete this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.143.40 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 12 Jun 2005

This page is now preserved 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. JeremyA 20:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yara-ma-ya-hoo

Unverifiable, possible sneaky vandalism / hoax. SWAdair | Talk 06:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete without some outside verification. Joyous 06:59, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Zero google hits. Patent nonsense. Nuke it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 07:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• As far as I know it's impossible for a poison to cause a "slight weakening of the bones." before it kills you. Also, with this animal supposedly spread about several continents you would expect someone to have heard of it. Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• oops, forgot to vote. Strong delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy nonsense/hoax --Xcali 16:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Cryptozoological nonsense based on the myth of the yara-ma-yha-who. Delete and redirect. -Sean Curtin 07:07, Jun 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. Golbez 08:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Frequencies of Brilliance

It doesn't look like an encyclopedic topic. Very few Google hits and the article is a copy+paste job from the second link in the article.

• Delete as copy-pasted nonsense. Karol 06:48, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I saw was no Vfd message on the actual article when it was listed here I added that... is this correct? --Mysidia 07:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete, nonsense, copied from http://www.amanae.info/En/FoB/Frequencies_of_Brilliance_English.htm -- 790 09:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Put on your tin foil hat to protect yourself, and then delete. Geogre 14:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Whoo-hooo! -- BD2412 ^talk 15:40, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete "Weapons-grade bolognium"-Qubert Farnsworth, Futurama. jglc | t | c 17:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All_Request

Although the majority of television shows maybe notable, I dont consider this to be a show, nor notable. It plays music requests, and can barely fill more than one sentence in description. Unless its rambled on about VJ's and what they played or said, I see no encyclopedic content, at this time. <>Who?¿? 06:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 07:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with VH1 Classic or keep, national television show. Kappa 07:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable subtype of music program. Kappa 17:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It has been expanded somewhat and there is no reason it could not grow longer. As Kappa mentioned national television shows are certainly encyclopedic. - SimonP 15:54, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep. Just barely above the bar of notability. RickK 21:20, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

No homers

• Wikipedia is not a web directory. Delete. -- Karada 08:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One board among many, no universal relevance. At most it could be added to ext. links at the Simpsons page. Oneliner 08:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An external link at The Simpsons perhaps --Wetman 08:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete website advert. JamesBurns 11:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Heard of the web forum before but not notable to have an article. --Chill Pill Bill 20:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Stonecutters. It's an in-joke from the Simpsons. ("Homer's reign would ultimately lead the Stonecutters to break away and form a new society, "The Ancient Society of No-Homers,"") Radiant_>|< 09:27, Jun 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 KEEP. sjorford →•← 10:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jiri Cerovsky

I suggest deleting the whole article. The contents could be moved to cs:Wiki then. The article generally seems to be of the vanity type. The sport successes listed seem to have even factual errors. Person covered here is just a Czech regional politician. Mentioning him among the short list of other [Czech_politicians] on English Wiki doesn't fairly address his importance. Only politicians who have had either a non disputed role in the history of the country or who's international relevance is obvious should be covered here. Oneliner 08:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Mayor of a town of 45,000 people in the Czech Republic just as worthy as Mayors of towns of 45,000 people in Maine. Gently urge Oneliner to read WP policy on notability. David | Talk 10:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've first spotted this article a long time ago and from the editing history it was almost certain that created by the person itself as a vanity page. Maybe this knowledge made me biased since. Listing this particular person among the very sparse list of Czech politicians creates an unrealistic idea of his importance within the political scene. But let's look at the facts: there are 77 such towns within the country. Or from the other side, he is also a member of the regional council, that makes him one of approx. 700 peers and yet he is the only one noted on wiki. Add to it some 300 higher (Parliament, Government) level politicians, say exchanged fully every 12 years, that makes 3500+ of people just in the Czech Republic. Of all of these, there are 12 Czechs in the politicians category here on english Wiki. None of them being "just" a mayor or regional council member. See my point? The notability should be judged within the playground we're all playing at. Oneliner 11:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, if it belongs in the cs wiki it belongs here too. Kappa 12:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Oneliner, all your arguments seem to me to suggest that we should expand our coverage of Czech politicians, a sentiment I heartily endorse. Just because our coverage isn't complete yet doesn't mean we shouldn't have this article. Meelar (talk) 15:38, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Important Czech politicians like prime ministers are getting covered, although slowly. Members of EU parliament were all covered (quite easy since they must have Web page with detailed biography). Coverage of local Czech politicians should start on Czech Wiki, we here have not enough of means to do it, unfortunately. Pavel Vozenilek 17:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Certainly! A much wider coverage of Czech politicians would make the general reader's view of the Czech political sceme biased and sort out naturally most of the reasons I oppose this article for. But unfortunately the number of articles didn't get higher in last two months and there isn't much hope that it soon will. Mainly for the reasons Pavel Vozenilek has stated below. Oneliner 22:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per David, Kappa, Meelar. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:50, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

• Delete. Problems with verifiability.

The page was originally created by person who created Jablonec nad Nisou city article and added city template for US town. This template has line for mayor so short article was added. While mayor of quite big city is notable person reality of current English Wikipedia says such articles are not maintainablen now because:

• there are about dozen or few dozens of Czechs on English Wikipedia and they have usually better topics to work on than local Czech politicians (only Jiri Cerovsky and Pavel Bem, current mayor of Prague has been created, the second one being quite important political figure).
• local Czech politicians are not yet covered on Czech Wikipedia, for exactly the same reason
• these politicians do not have Web pages and finding any relevant information is every hard, lest you live in the place and carefully read local newspapers (w/o web archives). I had problem to find online biography on Cerovsky even when he's long term mayor. The only one available was one paragraph from his election materials, not something one would put high hope of validity and neutral point of view.

While in ideal world such politicians should get covered current state won't allow to maintain such articles in reasonable quality. Because of this I would prefere to delete this article and wait until coverage for local politicians gets established on Czech Wikipedia. Then this information can be translated here with higher assurance of its validity. Pavel Vozenilek 17:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep if verifiable. RickK 21:22, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems absolutely notable. Anglocentric bias should be avoided. Martg76 21:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not significant for an encyclopedia. Sandius 22:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While not amongst the top rank of Czech politicians, membership of a regional assembly and being mayor of a town makes him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We keep less notable American mayors. --Scimitar 16:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - for all reasons cited above. Expand English coverage of other Bohemian politicians and this one won't stand out as much. Blackcats 05:00, 11 Jun 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. Golbez 08:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Gendering the Period Eye

Note. This nomination should be considered in conjunction with a number that follow. They all the work of GenderStudies. -- RHaworth 12:54, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

Quasi-feminist, postmodernist (metadualistic postcolonial transhistorionical) mumbo-jumbo, and only 22 Google hits. [13] Blackcats 08:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. POV personal essay; not an encyclopedia article. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:39, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:52, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all this period eye cruft as personal essays. Non-notable, original "research" Wikibofh 14:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Original research. Another episteme from another theorist of the horizon of expectations. Inappropriately treated. Geogre 14:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete along the lines of everything else this user has listed below: it falls under original research, POV, bias. jglc | t | c 17:58, 9 Jun 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. Golbez 08:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Virgin Mary and bare-breasted

Completely un-notable postmodernist mini-essay with nonsensical title... Blackcats 08:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this and all other "period eye"-cruft. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:51, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:56, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• comment - this article could form part of an interesting topic such as Mary in art and religious iconography if someone was knowledgeable enough on the subject. --Doc (?) 12:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) Just realised where this originated - delete without further discussion --Doc (?) 00:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all this period eye cruft as personal essays. Non-notable, original "research" Wikibofh 14:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Original research. There are possibility for madonna articles, but that's unrelated to this nonsensical titling. Geogre 14:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• We should have an article on artistic depictions of the Virgin Mary. This ain't it. Delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:52, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Strong delete along the lines of everything else this user has done: Original research, POV, bias. jglc | t | c 17:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not the bias that bugs me, and I doubt it is really original research (poorly sourced, most likely), but in this form it is clearly unencyclopedic in nature and style. As other have noted, it would be interesting and useful to have an article on the iconography of the Virgin Mary, but this is not such an article -- it is not an encyclopedia article at all. --Fastfission 05:29, 10 Jun 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. Golbez 08:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Cognitive style

More un-notable "Period Eye" related mumbo jumbo. The article's text deffinately needs to be deleted IMO, maybe a brand new article or a redirect to cognition in its place?... Blackcats 08:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, agree with above regarding possible redirect after deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:00, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just repeats the unstructured facts from Period_eye. --Oneliner 12:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all this period eye cruft as personal essays. Non-notable, original "research" Wikibofh 14:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Original research. I'm not really in favor of a redirect, as "cognitive style," when not used by this author, seems to be a favorite term for the pot crackers out there who are trying to exist on the Astral plane. Geogre 14:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete along the lines of everything else this user has done: Original research, POV, bias. jglc | t | c 17:57, 9 Jun 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. Golbez 08:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Guilds and convents

A personal essay from the same folks who brought you "period eye" Blackcats 09:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete more "period eye" stuff Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all this period eye cruft as personal essays. Non-notable, original "research" Wikibofh 14:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Original research. Geogre 14:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, because I read this and go "what the...?" -- BD2412 ^talk 17:53, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Strong delete along the lines of everything else this user has done: Original research, POV, bias. jglc | t | c 17:57, 9 Jun 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. Golbez 08:17, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Portraiture and Biography

Poorly titled POV personal essay Blackcats 09:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:06, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all this period eye cruft as personal essays. Non-notable, original "research" Wikibofh 14:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Original research. Geogre 14:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete along the lines of everything else this user has done: Original research, POV, bias. jglc | t | c 17:57, 9 Jun 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. Golbez 08:17, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Virgin Mary as the Ideal Woman

POV personal essay - perhaps merge any salvagable content into Blessed Virgin Mary Blackcats 09:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nothing worth merging here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:06, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all this period eye cruft as personal essays. Non-notable, original "research" Wikibofh 14:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't see what's to be saved, really, that wouldn't still be original research. It's true that the BVM=ideal woman was a huge trope in the middle ages, but that stuff gets so overplayed these days as to be ridiculous. Geogre 14:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per my vote on Virgin Mary and bare-breasted. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:55, 2005 Jun 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. Golbez 08:17, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Dewian

Unsigned band, nothing on allmusic.com, fails WP:MUSIC criteria -- Ferkelparade π 10:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. For once, I agree with Ferkelparade on a VfD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bandity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:07, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band. jglc | t | c 17:19, 9 Jun 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. Golbez 08:17, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Swivel!

does this program even exist? Melaen 10:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I've never heard of it, can't find any info on it and afaik Terry Christian isn't dead. So I'd say this one is a hoax. -- Lochaber 11:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Terry Christian isnt dead, "The Swivel!" + "Terry Christian" gives Zero Google hits, [14]. JamesBurns 11:16, 9 Jun 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. Golbez 08:18, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Speed of monochromatic light

Not sure if this is original research, an attempt at communication, or something else entirely; but it's not an encyclopedia article. Delete Rlandmann 11:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Hopelessly misguided. A hint for the author: speed of light in vacuum is always constant, and doesn't depend on its frequency (or on the relative speed of the source and the observer; see theory of relativity). Delete. - Mike Rosoft
  • Response: I know. But I want to know how the constant speed of light squares with the Doppler effect between monochromatic light and white light. The Doppler effect shows a change of frequency which seems to imply a lower speed of approach. Arthur Hinks.
    • No, change of frequency does not imply a change in speed of light. (Once again, speed of light in vacuum is always constant.) It implies a change of its wave length. The following equation holds for the wave length of light (and any other wave):
      ${\displaystyle \lambda ={\frac {c}{f}}}$
      Where λ is the wave length, c is the speed of the wave's propagation, and f is frequency. - Mike Rosoft 17:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Mike but back again! If a fixed frequency approaches me with the speed of light and I am receding at half the speed of light its frequency will appear to be reduced. This makes me think that I must be receiving it more slowly and I am stuck on this point. It looks like simple logic and the fallacy is eluding me. Arthur Hinks.

• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:23, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:NOR. Kappa 12:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — "...clearly showing that the monochrome signal must have slowed down." Huh? Only true in a non-vacuum medium, per widely accepted physics principles. (C.f. special relativity.) Article appears to be personal research and opinion, with no references. Topic already covered by doppler shift article.

— RJH 15:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I DIDN'T MEAN SLOWED DOWN. Sorry I misled you! Please, please comment on this new summary;- IN A NUTSHELL: A red shifted hydrogen marker strikes us at a lower frequency, telling us that WE must be receding from it’s source (Hubble). The implication of that is that the light (COMING IN AT SPEED C) is hitting us more slowly! Arthur Hinks.

• Delete: I learned some physics! And at the university, they said it couldn't be done! (Original research and Deep Thoughts.) Geogre 18:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything salvageable with Group velocity and/or Phase velocity ~~~~
• Delete in agreement with Mike R. I already knew some physics. I see no indication that Doppler shift or any other article would gain (rather than lose) usefulness by merging any content from this article. Maybe the stretching of this finite (or perhaps infinitesimal) information over more not-paper would cause the knowledge to be accelerated. Barno 19:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Nothing there that can be merged. --Carnildo 22:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as (un)original (non)research. Mike is right: Einstein's theory shows that light does not ever, in a vacuum, change speed. This applies whether you are in motion or not - whether towards or away from the beam of light. The speed of light, ${\displaystyle c}$ is so denoted because it is The Universal Constant. Wikipedia is not really the place for asking questions - there are many websites out there that provide just such a service. -Splash 22:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion blanked as a courtesy to article's subject The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:18, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Open Enterprise System Virtualization

Blatant advertising for some IBM software package that's not really encyclopedic (surprisingly, it doesn't seem to be a copyvio from the project's website - either there's some hardcore IBM fans with too much time on their hands out there, or IBM's marketing department has just discovered Wikipedia) -- Ferkelparade π 11:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete spamvertisement. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete looks like professional marketing materials. It's advertising all right...right down to the "for more information contact blah blah blah". Tobycat 05:48, 11 Jun 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?) 17:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See the page history for the discussion that used to be here.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 20:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Connish

Hoax. We are being conned. -- RHaworth 12:18, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

• Delete. Oh dear, more pointless conlang wittering. This is no more notable than someone's fantasy football team, or their holiday travel pics. Average Earthman 12:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:39, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete non-notable, vanity, &c. jglc | t | c 17:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• BJODN. Blackcats 20:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• oh YAWN. Down the toiletatory with it. Anthony Appleyard 21:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non nontable conlang. JamesBurns 05:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete conlang, but non notable nevertheless. - Ar 15:02, 2005 Jun 12 (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. Golbez 08:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Verbum Vanum

Some kind of free online library. Tagged for speedy deletion but I've brought it here. 24 Google hits for Verbum Vanum, [15], 300 for VerbumVanum [16]. No vote from me. Kappa 12:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: It's not notable, and the current small article list makes it look like a collection of PD items and or original essays. If it becomes notable in the future, an article could then be created. Wikibofh 14:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. Even if it's a huge Internet library, it has to be truly significant to require an encyclopedia article to explain it. If it's not truly significant, then the resulting article, no matter how NPOV, is advertising. Geogre 18:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not-a-web-guide, no indication of any distinction or significance in its field. Barno 19:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - only 19 Google hits - completely unotable. Blackcats 20:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki to WikiBooks. That means that the article will stay until the transwiki is completed. I will submit this article to the Transwiki queue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Calculating Number Bases

• Delete unless WikiBooks wants it, then transwiki --Xcali 16:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I am sorry. I have been unable to finish my article, as I have been working on it at school. I will have the time to properly format it by Sunday, June 12, 2005. I was hoping that such an article would help the people who were struggling to do such math problems in my, and in other schools. Thank you. Sorry for the problems that this may have caused. - Lightning3006 19:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment; regardless of your good intentions, I think the issue is that the article is one which is nonencyclopaedic - it belongs in a math text. It looks great, and informative, it's just that wikipedia might not be the place for such an entry. jglc | t | c 19:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • help the people who were struggling to do such math problems in my, and in other schools — You want to write instructional textbooks to lead people step-by-step through exercises in mathematics? Get yourself over to the Wikibooks Mathematics bookshelf and Wikiversity, pronto! You're exactly the sort of contributor that they want. What you are writing is not an encyclopaedia article, however. Uncle G 16:39, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks. I'm sure they'd love to have it there. (Leave a note so the author can find it). Mgm|^(talk) 20:58, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Thank you for your advice. I think that it might fit in WikiBooks, as it a major part of Number Theory. However, I think that wikipedia would be a good place for it as there are multiple other pages on Number Theory and such. Wikipedia is somewhat lacking the mathemaitcal department, and should thus be a good addition to the (hopefully soon) all inclusive nature of WikipediaLightning3006
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a Big Book of Everything. For many things, one looks elsewhere than in an encyclopaedia. We have sibling projects covering some of those areas. Uncle G 16:39, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Wikibooks. JamesBurns 05:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it here. I looks great.
• A step-by-step instructional textbook, complete with author's signature. Wikibooks and delete. I would be happy to perform the transwikification, if help on that score is required. Uncle G 16:39, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • I left an introductory message on the user's talk page. I'm also working on cleaning up the HTML that was in the entry (it looks like it was copied straight from a personal site), and took the signature off the entry. The latter was just for my own fulfillment; whenever you're all ready, transwiki and delete from Wikipedia. jglc | t | c 19:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I believe an encyclopedic article could be written on this topic, as for "how-to" argument, well, every algorithm could be considered a how-to, yet we have pages on different algorithms (sorting, prime tests and other mathematical problems). I can't see why the algorithm on converting base of a number shold be given a different treatment.  Grue  20:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Qualifies as encyclopedic: number base calculation is both a notable and important activity in mathematics and computing. We have other articles describing strategy for reaching mathematical results, including statistics. Visitors reading about binary or base10 would benefit from seeing how these are calculated as part of understanding the concepts being described. Since Wikipedia is not paper, I think it makes sense to include it here. Tobycat 05:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a great article. However, with the whole issue on "encyclopedic material," i'll just tell the authour (lihtning3006) to edit it a bit and add some backround info etc. smarterkid --Smarterkid 17:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I would like to say thank you to jglc for cleaning up the HTML. I did copy it from an MS-Word made HTML page. I will add information on the background of the more important bases, namely Base-2, and Base-16, as they are the most used, in today's world, and after that, if it is still too un-encyclopedic, I will move it. --Lightning3006 17:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No problem. You seem to really want to contribute to making Wikipedia better, which is more than I can say for a lot of users. Keep up the good work, and thanks for being reasonable, whatever the outcome is. jglc | t | c 16:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry that i have been unable to edit. This is my final exams week at my school. I will edit it sometime next week , and finish it up. Thank you. --Lightning3006 01:18, 16 Jun 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. Golbez 08:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

La Réunion (Lot-et-Garonne)

Intriguing one, this one... the text reads La reunion is a small island on the outskirts of Africa in the indian ocean which, once you get over the sloppy writing, is correct. But that's Réunion, not La Réunion in the inland Aquitaine département of Lot-et-Garonne! If such a place exists, it may be worth someone writing such an article (it may do - Google can't help, since "La réunion" means "the meeting", which crops up on about 10% of French-language pages). The current content, though, is worthless, and unrelated to the title it's under. So this should probably be deleted. Grutness...wha? 13:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or speedy delete under criterion #1: There is no content here, and what word there are are incorrect. This is not sufficient to qualify as a geo-stub, since it's barely even a sentence. Geogre 18:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:46, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Delete little or no factual content. JamesBurns 05:58, 10 Jun 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. Golbez 08:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Complete List of all Kings and Queens of Narnia

This article is not factual, it is an invention by a fan and is an effort by this person to fill in gaps in an official author's timeline. There is already a proper timeline of the King and Queens of Narnia that is based on sources written by C.S Lewis. I consider this article to be mere conjecture and original research, which is not part of Wikipedia's policy.

• Delete: Original "research". Fanfic. Wikibofh 14:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless proof can be provided that Lewis confirmed the existence of these monarchs by name. There's already a page on List of the Kings and Queens of Narnia and one on Disputed Kings and Queens of Narnia. Mr Bound 14:12, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, my vote's solidified now. Derf. Delete mercilessly. Mr Bound 14:54, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as fan speculation - article states It is not based upon any text which has been written by C.S. Lewis. Average Earthman 14:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. --Ian Pitchford 14:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original "research" --Phroziac 14:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancrufty original research. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:43, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Edit to include only the canonical kings and queens of narnia (I think the ones with stars by their names right now, though this should be verified). This list is good, but the fancruft should be taken out - other than that, it seems quite useful. jglc | t | c 17:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • My bad. I didn't see the other extant lists. Definitely Strong Delete this sucker. jglc | t | c 17:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Silversmith Hewwo 19:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:FICT, CSLewisfancruft, non-canonical, duplicates more correctly sourced material at the pages Mr Bound cited. Barno 20:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete,original research and fancrufty speculation. Mgm|^(talk) 21:03, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. -Sean Curtin
• Delete as fanfic; the article admits as much. Firebug 03:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. fanfiction is notable only rarely. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 14 Jun 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. Golbez 08:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Boaisy

Dic def of neologism that doesn't seem to have gained any acceptance/usage--25 displayed hits, but all are for a forum user ID, and an odd spelling of "Boise" (as in Idaho)--none for this usage. Niteowlneils 14:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. --Phroziac 14:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, not notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:23, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete: Failed neologism, probably patterned on the US Navy's BOHICA ("Bend Over Here It Comes Again") for any inevitable misery inflicted by the chain of command. Geogre 18:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 05:59, 10 Jun 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. Golbez 08:20, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

YBP

Dictionary definition. Transwiki to Wiktionary. -- Pablo D. Flores 14:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Should this even be transwikied? -- BD2412 ^talk 15:46, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete: Simply a redundant TLA. You have to already know what it is to ask what it is. Geogre 18:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no reason to keep it. -Mariano 07:50, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
• Comment: Wikipedia has pages for Anno Domini and Common Era, with appropriate redirection at BC, AD, BCE, and CE. Also, the notation YBP appears in some Wikipedia articles, for example Population bottleneck, Laysan, and Bering land bridge. I suggest that if we allow its usage in our articles, we should have an article on it just like we do for related abbreviations. At the least, it should redirect to Common Era, which should then mention the term. Conversely, if we don't have an article on it, we shouldn't use it in other articles. So far, Wikipedia:Manual of Style doesn't take a position on this issue, that I can see. —Triskaideka 14:28, 17 Jun 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. JeremyA 20:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kevin kohn

Just some average business guy's resume/cv. No hint of notability. Niteowlneils 15:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• He went to DeVry University (you know those TV ads? Yeah...) for secondary education and attended MIT via an online course. I'm not going to cast any doubts on his CV, but I think that his work is silent for itself. jglc | t | c 17:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a resume service. Vanity. Non-notable. Ugly tie. :) Wikibofh 18:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy if at all possible, otherwise delete. Non-notable, vanity, personal advert. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:21, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Comment Whoever gets around to deleting this entry, please also take care of Interlync and Interlync Internet Services, inc., both of which this user created, are copies of each other, and are self-promotion/vanity. jglc | t | c 19:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mammy kate

personal essay

• delete Melaen 15:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--seems to be a school essay? Meelar (talk) 15:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If the subject of the essay is a historical figure, perhaps edit and wikify? jglc | t | c 17:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - it's just so meaningless out of context. Deb 17:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, edit and wikify. Kappa 17:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - verifiable and notable, though it does need significant re-write and cleanup. Blackcats 20:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable, there's a nice bio at http://www.rootsweb.com/~nwa/mammy.html. RickK 21:38, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be a copy of an essay. original submission. If copyright can be released, keep. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per DoubleBlue's research. JamesBurns 06:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable. Probably submitted by the author so no copyright concerns here.  Grue  19:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably but not verified so copyright concerns here. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:56, 11 Jun 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. Golbez 08:20, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Religion and Philosophy Society, Joanne Ho, Roydon Tang, Kit Lau, Fanny Yeh

student society and its president and former presidents non notable and vanity--Melaen 15:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

maybe i can consider keeping only Religion and Philosophy Society and deleting the others

• Delete. Delete them all. Non-notable. The society, at best, should be merged into a subsection of the university. Wikibofh 16:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all of them. NeoJustin 17:54, June 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them all, or give me an equivalent article. Your choice. :-D -- BD2412 ^talk 18:20, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete All Absolutely no attempt at encyclopedic notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:31, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • I guess that's a "no" for an article about me, eh? ;-) -- BD2412 ^talk 01:50, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Delete all. I was an officer in an undergrad student group too. That and a dollar won't even get you a cup of coffee these days. Postdlf 01:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Non notable. JamesBurns 06:02, 10 Jun 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. JeremyA 20:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uber Micro

Neologism, and whattheheck are they talking about? Denni☯

Reply: The article makes perfect sense and I do not see why it should be deleted pzoned

• Delete neologism. What's up with all of the portmanteaus lately? It seems like they're crawling out of the woodwork. --Xcali 16:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: School is out for the summer. Wikibofh 17:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Uber Delete --Plutor 16:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. wiki not a dictionary....certainly not a slang dictionary. Wikibofh 17:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --NeoJustin 17:39, June 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neoportmanteau. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:24, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Merge to Pure Pwnage.  Grue  19:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge to Pure Pwnage. -- PowerGamer6

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

JuliusThyssen

Vanity. Rhobite 16:12, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Worse than that. This User:JuliusThyssen is where it originated, and I note that this user is currently subject for a RfAr [17]. Actually speedy it as duplicate content. --Scimitar 18:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Vanity about an RfAr and vandalism. Geogre 18:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy. At the very most, this is a mediocre, self-important userpage. jglc | t | c 20:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy or delete. Mgm|^(talk) 21:08, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Deleted. RickK 21:41, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 21:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mike Bishop

This article has been up for an explain-significance for two weeks with no edits since. I vfd'd it because of this inactivity and also the dubious authorship of the first poster - it's an anonymous IP with a long history of vandalism. Googling for "Mike Bishop" + "Skatenstone" (his alleged skateboard ramp company) returns 0 hits. Googling "Mike Bishop" + "Route 215" (his alleged ex-band) returns 0 hits. For vanity, unverified info, and non-notability, I nominate this for deletion. jglc | t | c 16:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Jasonglchu. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 17:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ASAP. Deb 17:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: If every claim on it were true, it would make him just some dude. Geogre 18:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity. Blackcats 20:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• You should redirect to Michael Bishop after you delete it. Gdr 17:27, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. JeremyA 21:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Orthorexia nervosa

This article has very little hope of being made encyclopedic at present Whig 17:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: 1)There are 11,500 google hits, a medical paper, and a BBC article on the subject. 2)The user that nominated the VfD also put an NPOV tag on it, even though, IMO, there is little reason for it. The entry seems neutral to me (though in the past it has had problems, per the history), it's just that Whig (per the talk page) seems to vehemently disaggree with the assertations made by the scientist(s) noted (rather than the tone and language of the article). Vendetta? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 17:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, deletion is not the solution for whatever problems this article may have. Kappa 17:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough that the average person might well look to Wikipedia for an explanation of the term. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:58, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Whig, just because an article isn't encyclopaedic yet, doesn't mean it won't ever be. That's why we have Stubs. jglc | t | c 18:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Unneccesary new article attempting to pathologize healthy eating. Blackcats 18:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • First, it's not a "new article"- it's 25 months old. Second, it's not "unnecessary" by any known wikipedia standards. And third, the article is not attempting to pathologize healthy eating, it is simply reporting a phenomena that is both recognized in popular culture, and a legitamate object of scientific study. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• "The average vegan weighs 23 lbs. less than a non-vegetarian and 12 lbs. less than a dairy vegetarian according to the isocaloric research studies of Dr. Mervyn Hardinge." Yeah, and with as fat as Americans are these days, I think that's a good thing. I'd say merge anything salvagable into "criticisms" sections of Healthful eating, and/or Vegan, and/or Vegetarianism. If it does end up being kept it's going to need a major NPOV overhaul. Blackcats 18:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You mistake the article for a criticism of healthy eating when it is clearly not. That says almost as much as your statements immediately above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Regardless of whether we agree with the contents of the article, "orthorexia nervosa" has entered standard lexicons and encyclopedias of disease. It's supposed to refer not to proper eating, but to such anxiety about perfect eating that leads to malnutrition. Geogre 18:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it is about obsessive healthy eating, rather than healthy eating in general. ~~~~ 19:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep legitimate medical topic. JamesBurns 06:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep legitimate phenomenon. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. James F. (talk) 16:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Or move to wiktionary (and reference all links to this article to there) njaard 05:50, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was move to Talk:Volleyball/pagehistory to retain attribution, and content pasted to talk to let the volleyball editors figure out where to merge it in, because I don't know where to squeeze this in. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

6-2

I think this belongs in the Volleyball article rather than in an article of its own. 6-2 could mean anything. Deb 17:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge. Merge to Volleyball. Wikibofh 18:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge As above. Sonic Mew 18:38, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy delete via criterion #1: no content here. Further, a merge should have a redirect, and redirecting this means claiming that 6-2 means just one thing. This is just a sentence that could go somewhere in the Volleyball article. Geogre 18:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no merge nor redirect, in strong agreement with Geogre. Not significant in a volleyball context (yes, I play the sport). Barno 20:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge somewhere, useful information. Could be renamed to 6-2 (volleyball formation) or whatever. Geogre has a very interesting interpretation of "no meaningful content", worth recording for posterity. Kappa 21:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I'm an optimist and believe that posterity will be smart enough to know which sport they're interested in, and I'm a pessimist who believes that no one will go to 6-2 (volleyball formation) when they want to know about the 6-2 formation, that they'll just go to Volleyball, so the redirect would be misleading, and the merge is unnecessary. Geogre 12:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Move to 6-2 (volleyball) and delete the redirect. RickK 21:42, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to 6-2 (volleyball) and delete redirect, per Rick. I thought this was about St. Louis beating Boston the other day, but then I realized that would be 9-2. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:56, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Move to Volleyball and Delete the redirect. Vegaswikian 03:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete almost a speedy candidate due to lack of content. JamesBurns 06:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to 4 (number), or possibly to Backgammon. Merge as above, no redirect necessary imho. Radiant_>|< 09:28, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Volleyball and Delete the redirect. No need for its own article. carmeld1 16:11, 10 Jun 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. Golbez 08:20, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Àlvaro Algren

all google hits were either from wikipedia or some forum on MSN - not notable. StopTheFiling 17:56, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Notability not established, possible vanity. It was made by one annonymous user. Sonic Mew 18:43, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:07, 10 Jun 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 is REDIRECT, there's no concencus on the locations, so I'm redirecting to the List of Penthouse Pets. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:12, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Pet of the Month

Delete. This is a magazine poll. Time Magazine's Man of the Year poll is noteworthy; this is not.WAvegetarian 18:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete drini ☎ 18:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It's not a "magazine poll," it's simply the Penthouse featured model of the month—the parallel of the Playboy Playmate. It should just be redirected to List of Penthouse Pets, or to Penthouse magazine. Postdlf 18:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Penthouse magazine --Xcali 19:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect in agreement with Postdlf. "Pet of the Year" involves a reader poll, but "Pet of the Month" is simply an editor's selection each issue. No noteworthiness outside of the magazine's own niche notability. Barno 20:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Penthouse Pet - we have an article on Playboy Playmates. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:59, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Rename to Penthouse Pet and/or merge to list of Penthouse Pets. -Sean Curtin 07:27, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Penthouse magazine. carmeld1 16:05, 10 Jun 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. Golbez 08:20, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Anthony Huang

Not notable, attack page. Related to Sequanne McCargo (which is already on VfD). Just like the other article: delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 18:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete It seems very random. Definately not notable. Sonic Mew 18:48, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Probably could have been speedied.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:40, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Highly non-notable, potential attack page. jglc | t | c 19:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - per Ezhiki - either sarcastic or spoof of a vanity page. Blackcats 20:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Either vanity or attack page. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete attack page. JamesBurns 06:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Adds absolutely no useful information Anish7 05:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. It is now redirected, as there's no material to merge. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Golden Lion Throne

non notable Dune thing . deleteMelaen 18:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, notable Dune thing. jglc | t | c 19:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not important enough to be worth merging anywhere. --Carnildo 22:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable Dune thing but not important enough to be worth merging anywhere. Kappa 22:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment There is not enough here on which to base a vote. Would those arguing 'keep' like to expand it, to show notability and context? --Doc (?) 23:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Upon consideration of other like WP:FICT entries, merge and redirect to House Corrino jglc | t | c 15:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability CDC (talk) 00:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge somewhere. And I don't see how something too insignificant to merge warrants its own article. -R. fiend 00:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with House Corrino, WP:FICT. Radiant_>|< 09:29, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to House Corrino as per WP:FICT. -- Lochaber 10:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Fancruft. Items and settings in fiction need to be hugely important to the fiction to be worth recording, and, if they're hugely important, they're needed in the article on the fiction, not in solo locations. Geogre 13:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to House Corrino. carmeld1 16:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merga and redirect like mentioned above. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 21:27, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:21, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Km130

advertisment Lord Voldemort 18:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• spam deleteDunc|☺ 19:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it's been blanked anyhow. jglc | t | c 19:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete ~~~~ 19:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - see also User:Km130 A curate's egg 20:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete NeoJustin 00:12, June 9, 2005 (UTC)
• delete - see also User:Km130 VFD'd Josh Parris ✉ 02:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 05:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advertising, not entirely in English, not notable (I've never heard of them even after a few years of having read Cycling+) --Kiand 17:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Rehan

Vanity, hoax. The only Rehan mentioned on imdb is a Pakistani actor in a 1967 movie, several years before this one was supposedly born. The Raghu Romeo article has no mention of him. RickK 06:59, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity/hoax. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsense vanity. JamesBurns 07:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Apparently Mr. Vaid is the author. He's asking over at the Reference desk for the page to be deleted because he "FORGOT TO SAY THAT THIS PERSON WAS A CO-PRODUCER WITHIN THE USER NAME". Delete, unverifiable vanity hoax nonsense. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Toytoy 04:55, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehan article needs to be deleated asap, and people on top agree on this fact.delete article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehan from the wikipedia website.

This is the third time this has cropped up. Is somebody deleting it from the VfD page or what? RickK 21:45, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - un-notable, and for crying out loud, leave the page alone until this vote is over, so people can acutally see what they're voting on. Don't blank it or vandalize it with the copyright notice! Blackcats 22:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable/vanity/advert - Tεxτurε 22:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I nowiki'd the page rank booster in it while the thing sits here. It's just another piece of vanity. Geogre 13:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete; for all the reasons above. jglc | t | c 15:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Jbaber 20:30, 2005 Jun 11 (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 Consolidate with other pre-1925 years Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1900 in television

This page only lists one event. It is very unlikely that more events are going to be added. Also, see the List of years in television—years 1907, 1908, and 1923, which are also not rich with events, are listed there without a corresponding article. I do not see why 1900 should be different.Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:17, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I changed my vote. Consolidate per BD2412's compromise proposal below amended as per my comment (i.e., use 1925 as the cut date).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:28, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Objective and verifiable. It may be seen as trivial, but WINP. Blackcats 19:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  My main objection is that it breaks the flow of the years in television. All these articles are interlinked (e.g., 1988 would point to 1987 and 1989). 1900 cannot be interlinked this way. While Wikipedia is indeed not paper, I still don't see why 1900 should be kept, especially when 1907, 1908, and 1923 (not to mention all the years in between) are non-existent. I will have no objections to (re-)creating these articles when they have more content than current one-liners (remember, the information in the article will not be lost, but merely moved to the main list of years). I understand this reasoning of mine may still not be good enough for some voters to vote in favor of deletion, but I feel that I should let it be known. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:29, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Compromise proposal - how about making Before 1910 in television, and sticking everything pre-1910 in it. There's not much on the technology side, but should be plenty of births. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:38, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

  I like it, but I would rather like see the Before 1925 in television article, as there is not really much information (besides, obviously, births) to be added.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:41, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I thought about that, but my concern is that there would be too many births, as just about anyone who was significant on TV up to, say, the early 1960s was probably born before 1925. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:01, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Right now there are no births listed at all. When the list grows to the point of being unmanageable (if it ever does), we will deal with that problem separately.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This information is just a copy of what is already at list of 'years in television'#1900s. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Consolidate all pre-1925 years articles into one, as suggested by Ezhiki. 23skidoo 01:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Consolidate per Ezhiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 02:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as duplicate of information in another list. Vegaswikian 03:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Consolidate, again as per Ezhiki's Before 1925 in television suggestion. Angmering 10:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Consolidate per Ezhiki makes sense to me. — RJH 16:57, 10 Jun 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 to the existing and more complete Bob and George. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Bob And George

Delete. This is non-notable and probably self-promotion.WAvegetarian 19:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It's notable to me; it was one of the first webcomics that I started reading (though I no longer do). I don't think it's self-promotion (the author of the webcomic doesn't have to stoop that low), but it may be non-notable. For me, it's a weak keep. jglc | t | c 19:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - fairly notable - over 11,000 Google hits [18]. Blackcats 19:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Switch to redirect now that other article has been found) Blackcats 08:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It has under 5,000 true hits, include the artist's last name. It only gets 11,000 if you count Bob and George (insert family name here) WAvegetarian 21:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The Google search I did was for "Bob and George" (in quotes like that) along with the word "comics." I'm pretty sure the vast majority of those hits were about this comic strip, and that a lot of people talk about the comic strip without mentioning the last name of the artists. 5,000 is actually impressive for last name too, since that means there are five thousand more in depth discussions about it online. Blackcats 21:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. In addition, certain resources tout this as "the first sprite-based webcomic ever," which, imho, is a notable position in webcomic history. jglc | t | c 20:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I've heard of it, and it's actually pretty funny, but the Alexa rank of 64,745 doesn't speak volumes about its notability. Somebody's probably going to say that that's "pretty good for a web comic" or something along those lines, but I don't see why we need different standards for webcomics vs. websites in general. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:10, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the assertion that B&G is really "the first sprite webcomic ever," I would think that might be grounds for notability. Would you accept making an exception to the Alexa-ranking criteria for a less-well-known, but genre-creating or -altering entry? jglc | t | c 06:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Andrew mentioned that he's heard of it, but I don't know if he's really into comics or not. I'm not a comic aficionado at all, but I'd heard of it. For me that's a rule of thumb when judging notability - if the word's gotten around enough that someone like me, who's not into the overall genre has heard of it, then it must be notable. Of course the converse of that wouldn't neccesarily be true. But yeah - since I've heard of it, and I'm not a comics or web comics fan (and don't have any kind of personal connection with the authors and they don't live in my area) then it's notable. Blackcats 19:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: a long-time staple of the webcomics genre (6 years with very few breaks), possibly the first sprite comic ever created, and for some time was actually funny; definitely notable. However, article does not establish notability and definitely needs expansion. --Oh! Redirect Bob and George. No wonder this article sucks--we've already got a much better one! Marblespire 08:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect now that Marblespire's found Bob and George. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:26, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Curses! Capitalisation, mine foul enemy, thou hast struck me again! shakes fist. jglc | t | c 16:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redirect - I know of a few readers, and I'd argue it is notable. (Though personally I don't see the appeal) --John Kenneth Fisher 22:15, Jun 19, 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. Golbez 08:21, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Underground Anarchy Front

Non-verifiable and vanity. 8 google hits. func(talk) 19:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. func(talk) 19:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 06:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Spam. --FCYTravis 10:59, 10 Jun 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. Golbez 08:21, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Twilight Collective

Band vanity. No CDs, no awards, no national tour, no reviews other than webzines; ergo fails WP:MUSIC.—Wahoofive (talk) 19:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - yep. CDC (talk) 00:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP notabilty test. JamesBurns 06:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --FCYTravis 10:59, 10 Jun 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. Golbez 08:21, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Monkey Comeback Game

This Page refers to Game 6 of the 2002 World Series of Major League Baseball but includes information on Games 5 and 7. There already exists a page for the entire series. I as an Angels fan I have never personally heard this term used. --Da 'Sco Mon 19:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weep as a long-suffering Giants fan. Ben-w 20:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete even though I'm an Angels fan, this page is redundant and not very well put together. I have also never heard this name used for this game. Great game, though. --Plexust 02:17, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete redundant page. JamesBurns 06:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this page please. I am also a long-suffering Angels fan, and I personally consider this game to be the greatest World Series game ever played, bar none. I have thought from time to time about creating a page dedicated to Game Six, but haven't had the time. I was excited when I learned of this page but, frankly, it's a disappointment. Uncle Al 18:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if this page had any useful content (which it doesn't), the proper place for it would be under 2002 World Series. One of you Angels fans might write a bit about the comeback in that space. --BlueMoonlet 05:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The name "Monkey Comeback Game" is not appropriate, as others have noted. This game is no more closely associated with RM than any other come-from-behind Angels win this decade. --BlueMoonlet 06:02, 13 Jun 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. JeremyA 21:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sega daytona

This page is redundant, Daytona_USA is a better-formed version of the same.

(this from User:Kyouteki, who didn't sign)

• Delete. "Sega daytona" is nonsensical; Daytona USA is the title of the game. jglc | t | c 18:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete redundant article. JamesBurns 01:36, 11 Jun 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. Golbez 08:22, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Rich uncle theory

Prank and/or unverifiable neologism. 5 hits for "Rich uncle theory", most of which are from kiro5hin.org, most uses of which are only accessible thru the google cache. Also, the text is mostly word for word, so either the WP article is a copyvio, or the Kiroshin version is a mirror, making it useless as a verification of the term. Niteowlneils 19:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Ha ha ha ha ha... delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:30, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• not funny delete--Doc (?) 23:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, classist poppycock. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 02:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. JamesBurns 06:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for all the reasons above. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What kind of idiot would write an article like that? Alex Krupp 09:04, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

For those who haven't had their coffee yet, I'm the one who wrote the article. If you do a google search for "rich uncle" there are 40,600 hits, and there is even a site MyRichUncle.com. The name of the article is a neologism, I'll admit, but there really is a belief that in America everyone has a rich uncle. Rich Uncle Sam, Uncle Scrooge McDuck, Rich Uncle Pennybags, etc. On the Simpsons Monty Burns got his money from a rich uncle IIRC. Also, I'm the one who wrote the K5 post, so not it isn't a copyvio. Alex Krupp 02:19, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete dull. ~~~~ 19:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• "there really is a belief that in America everyone has a rich uncle." And your evidence for this is...? Note that the website you reference [19] and all those Google hits don't add up to your claim, any more than the 752,000 Google hits for "red dog" mean that everyone in the U.S. has a red dog. --Dcfleck 14:34, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
• Delete Original research. Unverifiable and thoroughly uninteresting for a hoax article -CunningLinguist 09:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rowf and Snitter

Two main characters from a book. I suggest to merge them to The Plague Dogs, so the information does not scatter all around in many different articles. --Conti|✉ 20:03, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge. -R. fiend 00:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, but shouldn't Rowf redirect to the Muppet Show? Radiant_>|< 09:32, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • That would be Rowlf. but you have a point; I'd be willing to bet that most people typing Rowf are looking for Rowlf. -R. fiend 14:01, 10 Jun 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. Golbez 08:22, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sabine Reeder

This article was marked as {{db}} by Melaen (talk · contributions) for vanity, but that is not a criterion for speedy. I myself abstain. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. Kappa 21:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redlands Christian Reformed Church

I really don't think this is encylopedic. aliceinlampyland 20:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting - I'd say this isn't a very notable Church - and this article doesn't give a lot of information - so I'd be inclined to say merge anything useful with Redland, Queensland. But then we don't seem to merge the average barely notable primary school, so ....--Doc (?) 22:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Link from the article about the location rather than merging. CalJW 00:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Close enough to be a copyvio from [20]. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - needs some rewriting to avoid being accused of copyvio, but the organisation is verifiable and encyclopedic!--Takver 06:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important social institutions are "encyclopaedic". Grace Note 06:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this should have been nominated on CP. JamesBurns 06:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this is an important social institution, then I'm Elvis. Ambi 06:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless proven to be notable Proto 11:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Cyberjunkie 09:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable, locally important. Kappa 21:34, 14 Jun 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. Golbez 08:22, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Pocketonline

This article was marked as {{db}} by Melaen (talk · contributions) for vanity, but that is not a criterion for speedy. I myself abstain. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• at the very least it is poorly written. I suspect that it is vanity. I haven't seen a page on Google matching this description. deleteWAvegetarian 21:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be some sort of forum in an asian language, possibly anime-related because all the avatars seem to be anime characters. Both low Google score and Alexa rank signify low notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:36, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Attack page on a non-English website. [21] DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. carmeld1 02:42, 11 Jun 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. Golbez 08:22, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Jeanwalesa

Vanity page for student, as near as I can tell. Demi ^T/_C 20:55, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

• Delete. Exactly the type of obvious vanity that makes no claim of notability that should be speediable. Though I suppose it must be written by someone else, as they are unsure of DOB and even sex. -R. fiend 00:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I should note that the article originally appeared in German, and I have done an incompetent translation of it in an effort to find out what it's about. It uses the male pronoun "er" but also talks about participating in women's volleyball (I think), thus the uncertainty over sex. Demi ^T/_C 00:24, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Delete. Patently unverifiable if not nonsense. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete read the german version, obviously a prank. -83.129.44.245 20:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence that the person is of notice. -- Poli 17:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. JeremyA 21:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

West Mersea Yacht Club

delete. self promotion, non notable, total content consists of link to page that has no contentWAvegetarian 21:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)WAvegetarian 07:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete - agreed with WAvegetarian... this isn't notable, there's insufficient content, and the page it links to is under construction too. UkPaolo 21:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep. The West Mersea Yacht Club is a notable UK yacht racing club having sponsored international yacht racing meetings. It is a properly constituted yacht club, founded in 1899 with a formal yacht club structure and a warrant from the UK Ministry of Defence for its members to fly an approved defaced ensign. It merits a mention in respected yacht racing handbooks. Its burgee is internationally recognised. The category 'Yacht Clubs' would look very odd if only certain clubs were allowed; I note that the New York Yacht Club and the Golden Gate Yacht Club and others are allowed a page. The fact that its own page is under construction (replacing a previous site) has nothing to do with it. --194.80.134.139 21:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sorry, I was too hasty and admit no knowledge yacht club structure or guidelines in the UK. I did not mean to be discriminatory against the UK in any way. At the time it looked like a throwaway self-promotion page for a website that was yet to be developed. Thank you for expanding it. Please continue. WAvegetarian 07:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If only there were somewhere other than VfD to contribute useful and pertinent information about the subject! Ben-w 22:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There is somewhere - the article! - or its talk page as appropriate. -- RHaworth 10:52, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Comment: I note that the VfD was posted two minutes after creation as the editor, User:194.80.134.139, was still writing it, as demonstrated by an addition one minute after VfD tag. This is apparently enough for the contributor to stop editing for fear of losing work he/she intends to put in. IMHO, this could be a good example of when to watch a page or tag it for Expansion, Cleanup-importance, Explain significance, Wikipedia:Requests for expansion, or simply Stub. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep will be OK when wikified and expanded. (A website that is not under construction is a dead website.) -- RHaworth 10:52, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Keep James F. (talk) 16:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Craigy (talk) 00:28, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep needs wikification and to be expanded, but has encyclopedic content IMHO. Poli 17:38, 14 Jun 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. Golbez 08:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Pirate Timeline

A mix of events from history and attempts to put dates on pirate-related fiction. Not encyclopedic DJ Clayworth 21:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oh boy! Delete. I was going to say as 'original research' - but I think better as bs --Doc (?) 22:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not usefull or needed. Tombride 00:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd give a reason, but I've just been struck speechless. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:37, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Delete. A pirate timeline could be a useful article but this confusing mess of fiction, fashion, music and movie settings, etc. is not. I don't believe there is enough worth saving here. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete shiver me timbers.. a POV mishmash of fact and fiction - not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; vanity, or original research, or outright bs. jglc | t | c 14:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see either a point or anything salvageable. The parrot on me shoulder agrees. Aaaarrr, matey! WCFrancis 20:00, 10 Jun 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. Golbez 08:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Nickapoop

As far as I can tell, I don't believe this word actually exists in any sort of common usage. Joyous 22:29, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If nothing else, fails the Google test. Caesura^(t) 22:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More silliness. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:34, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 06:23, 10 Jun 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. Golbez 08:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Examples of subtle vandalism

Is not suitable for Wikipedia & Completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Material that probably belongs on a help page or a user page. Voting to Delete. — RJH 22:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not particularly subtle either. Kappa 22:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Silliness. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:34, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Delete trvial content. JamesBurns 06:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; if anything, a meta-topic. jglc | t | c 14:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete rapidly. Offensivley stupid. --Ian Pitchford 14:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic for a hundred reasons. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Redirect to Super Mario RPG. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Super mario RPG

Supposedly a disambiguation page for the phrase "Super Mario RPG." But there is only one game by that name, and it's documented at Super Mario RPG. The other links on the disambiguation page dereference the sequels of this game, which are in fact not titled "Super Mario RPG," and are appropriately mentioned in the main article, Super Mario RPG. Caesura^(t) 22:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Super Mario RPG. When Paper Mario was first announced, it was claimed to be the sequel (I don't think it is considered to be "official" sequel even the Wikipedia "Super Mario RPG" stated, "No official sequel to Super Mario RPG was ever released...") of the original Super Mario RPG. However, it just doesn't make sense that the lowercase "mario" article is a disamb while the capitalized "Mario" article directs to the original game. --Chill Pill Bill 00:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Super Mario RPG. --Sn0wflake 03:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete erroneous dab page. JamesBurns 01:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Super Mario RPG.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Calchrn

The alias of some forum troll on a marginally notable website. Troll vanity? CDC (talk) 23:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• He is known on numerous sites and new members never know what people are talking about, and searching for Calchrn would point them to this site, Its better to have the article than to not have it. Who is it harming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.0.4 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 9 Jun 2005
• Delete. It's harming me. -R. fiend 23:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Fine then, just delete it already — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.0.4 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 10 Jun 2005
• Delete — Non-notable & non-encyclopedic. I reverted back to the version with the deletion notice. — RJH 21:40, 15 Jun 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. Golbez 08:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

AmericaIsFull

Non-notable website. Alexa ranking of 2,766,360. RickK 23:21, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. What a repugnant article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:29, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable, created by vandal --FCYTravis 02:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, distasteful and non-notable. --Sn0wflake 03:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. America Is Full Of Shit. -R. fiend 03:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but R. Fiend is full of shit. Seriously, do you think the U.S. is the only place this sort of thing happens? Meelar (talk) 14:09, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Dryazan 16:05, 10 Jun 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 SPEEDIED — Gwalla | Talk 22:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User talk talk:Filiocht/European toilet paper holder on wheels/Anti 'T' bias poll on a pogostick

This page is in the wrong namespace. Mr. Jones 13:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• delete the page was marked for deletion long ago but not listed here--Melaen 23:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied for patent nonsense/vandalism. — Gwalla | Talk 06:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: this page is in userspace, and the listing is invalid as neither the nominator nor anyone else has bothered to actually put a VfD-tag on the page. Uppland 22:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The header of this subpage was mistakenly "corrected" by RickK to User talk:Filiocht/European toilet paper holder on wheels/Anti 'T' bias poll on a pogostick. It in fact refers to User talk talk:Filiocht/European toilet paper holder on wheels/Anti 'T' bias poll on a pogostick, which was patent nonsense (content was: "Welcome to the talk page on the talk page of the anti 'T' bias poll of the European toilet paper holder article in BishonenFiliocht's user space. There is nothing here. Go back.") in the main article namespace and was speedied. — Gwalla | Talk 21:20, 12 Jun 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.