Movatterモバイル変換

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

<May 7	May 9>

May 8

[edit]

for deletion/Log/2005 May 8?action=purge Purge the cache

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below.This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate wasdelete. —Xezbeth 20:08, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Roman Baska

[edit]

This was originally created as a link page by the same IP address that added the name to a list of "Notable Cinematographers" on thecinematographer page. A vanity page? A quick search of Google reveals little exceptional work, nor would the IMDb indicate otherwise - in fact, not a single one of his works is even available at Amazon. I have no idea which Oscar or what category the last bit refers to. In any case, I don't believe that the body of work at all has justified a 'pedia entry; there are thousands of DPs working around the world, most without any mention here. The entry to the "notable" list, admittedly, ticks me off - virtually all of those names are widely recognizable and respected among the cinematographic community. --User:Girolamo Savonarola

Weak delete. IMDb entry has a few credits, but the current content is wildly over-enthusiastic. Second choice, send to Cleanup and delete if it doesn't more accurately reflect reality within a reasonable time.

Delete unless it'scleaned up by acleanup taskforce member (or anyone else) in, say, a month. This version is overenthusiastic, unwikified and generally unencyclopedic.Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

ttt

Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic.Megan1967 11:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable cinematographer with plenty of verifiable credits and awards. I wasn't able to verify the Oscar claim, but one of the films he shot did win an Emmy. I have since cleaned up the article, which sadly needed a complete rewrite to remove the unverifiable stuff.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 12:45, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
- A London Film Festival Emmy...not quite the same thing. The problem is that Baska is not really an exceptional artist within his field, nor has he worked on anything terribly high profile. Virtually any working cinematographer can list various awards the films he's worked on have garnered. His ownsite only lists one cinematographynomination. I'm sorry, but I have difficulty believing this is not complete vanity - he's not even listed on theCinematographer's Encyclopedia, which has many many names listed that we don't. --Girolamo Savonarola 15:43, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
Delete. I am convinced byGirolamo Savonarola's research. This person does not appear notable enough for inclusion.Indrian 16:01, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable.Jayjg ^(talk)21:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable three years ago when his last film was made, not notable now (if you go to his site, his current work is wedding (etc.) photographer. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 23:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --Silversmith 16:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Berfontaine

[edit]

Something smells fishy about this one. According to the page history, it seems to be a place in Andorra. BUT: Google gets ONE hit for Berfontaine, and it ain't a place in Andorra. No Andorran official website I've found seems to mention any of the communes listed, and several of them have names which don't look French, Spanish, Catalan or even Basque or Occitan. I suspect a hoax. Please prove me wrong. Grutness|^hello?00:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked hard for anything that would back this up and found nothing. The commune names seem to be from Bulgarian, Catalan, German and other languages, but I'm no expert. None of them came up as a commune or village, but a few are islands, hotels or just everyday words. It just doesn't seem like a hoax though, and googledoesn't know everything.No vote —Teknic^Talk/Mail05:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't even contain a single sentence in it, just a list of names labelled "communes." Worthless even if there actually is a Berfontaine. It really should be speedy deleted for having no context.Postdlf 09:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a list of red-links. Not verifiable either.Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable.Megan1967 11:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable. --Infrogmation 05:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete, unless verified. --Simon Cursitor 08:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no content.Whig 06:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per above reasons. --Silversmith 16:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old Testament prophecies

[edit]

User:Happyfeet10 nominated this - but forgot to follow through - but I'm very happy to second it - indeed it prophesies its own demise - a soapbox job --Doc Glasgow 00:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though I suggest a speedy delete by an admin.--MikeJ9919 01:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What in the hell IS this?Delete. --Whimemsz 01:24, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, we are not a theosophical society, and we certainly do not allow pages to be used for the sole purpose of theological debates/arguments.MikeJ9919 put it up for Speedy but didn't add the tag. I've done that now.Master Thief Garrett01:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- original speedy was rejected by admin--Doc Glasgow02:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh? It's still there though... that, or he re-added it...Master Thief Garrett 04:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't contain any useful information at all.StuTheSheep 02:43, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, garbled and asinine. A legitimate article could be written under this title, but this isn't it.Firebug 02:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bumperstickerism

[edit]

The term "bumperstickerism" does not seem to be in widespread use, and is not an appropriate article title. The content may be more at home in thebumper sticker article if appearing on bumper stickers is the defining feature, otherwiseepigram,aphorism and the like may be more appropriate --Tabor 00:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if "Bumperstickerism" is an emerging slang term, perhaps wiktionary would be appropriate --Tabor00:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree that if it's an emerging term, it should be a Wikitionary entry. Aside from that, it's nothing more than a nuisance page.--Mitsukai 01:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too obscure —Teknic^Talk/Mail05:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. Only 19 unique google hits.Postdlf 09:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge intobumper sticker where it belongs.Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism.Megan1967 11:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass theWha test.hydnjo talk 23:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge withbumper stickerStancel 23:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirecting to "bumper sticker" would be ok, but with so few web hits IMO is unnecessary. --Infrogmation 05:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect/merge toBumper Sticker.Whig 06:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge withbumper sticker. --Silversmith 16:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zip day

[edit]

Non-notable, dead-end and semi-original research.Linuxbeak 00:47, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - non-notable. --Mariocki^TALK03:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a joke? NN anyway.K1Bond007 04:06, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete the model of NN. —Teknic^Talk/Mail05:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lots of communities have marked (in some small way) "ZIP Code Day"; inWorthington, Ohio we had it on April 30, 1985 (ZIP: 43085). Apparently, it wasn't just us:[1]. Minor holiday marked by post offices and elementary school children. Not sure if we should move this toZIP Code Day or just have a section ofZIP Code on it.Chris Johnson 07:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge withZIP Code Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 12:51, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I'm gonna sue the guvnmnt cuz I got a crappy ZIP an' thats just disincriminationing. Plane an' simple. If sumbuddy has a speshul ZIP then weall shul'd too. Thats theAmerican way anyway aint it? ;-)hydnjo talk 23:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A hypothetical holiday for one place that the article says isn't observed?Delete. --Infrogmation 05:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"As a holiday it is not currently observed" -- so why do we need to know about it?Delete --Simon Cursitor 08:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even "original research". Looks to me like somebody is trying to promote their pet idea for a new holiday. ---Isaac R 22:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - until there is a Zap Day -Tεx τ urε 21:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To quote the article, "As a holiday it is not currently observed." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 23:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to see here, move along.Whig 06:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Silversmith 16:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Unity

[edit]

The group this individual is a part of,The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, looks to me to be of only borderline notability. Therefore, I do not think that any specific individual of the group who has not done anything particularly distinguished belongs in wikipedia. There is nothing in the article to indicate that she is notable for any of her activities.Delete.Indrian 00:59, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Looking for the final evidence that this should be deleted? We need read no further than the first line of her bio: "Sister Unity was born when the radioactive remnants of a comet passing through Earth's path around the sun filtered through our atmosphere and struck a vat of orange mylar in a Massachusetts glitter factory." --Stan

Has bio from website which hasCopyright punkk.com entertainment. 2001-2002 mentioned.Copyvio. I would also be willing to delete for non-notability.Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, copyvio, complete load, etc.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 12:52, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, expand, and clean-up the article. Or merge withSisters of Perpetual Indulgence.Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence is notable because I have seen the group's name in several Wikipedia articles.Stancel 23:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup and expand.Megan1967 04:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Concur w.Megan --Simon Cursitor 08:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mergewith those Sisters.R adiant _* 12:10, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep non-copyvio information; clarify what is fiction/role playing, possibly merge based on the judgement of editors as to her importance in her own right.Samaritan 15:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Spinboy 19:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge withSisters of Perpetual Indulgence.Whig 06:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge if any info is worth merging. --Silversmith 16:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (I can't say "merge" because there's nothing worth merging...) as per Starblind.RussBlau 19:26, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Berkshire Hills-Ryu Aikido

[edit]

This page is nothing more than advertising for the center. If there was any value to it, the article would have been made longer or stubbed, or at least merged into the article on Aikido or somehow related to. --Mitsukai 00:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Center, or hara"? Center of what? Meanwhile,hara is Japanese for "belly". Er, where was I?Delete. --Hoary 08:10, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, advert.Megan1967 08:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, advert.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 12:55, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Lots ofwe andour stuff here. If they can't even figure that out well then .... buh-bye ;-)hydnjo talk 23:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.Jayjg ^(talk)21:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable -Tεx τ urε 21:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nuthin' there. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 23:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Empty.Whig 06:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I count 11 clear "delete" votes forThirteenth grade, 6 "keep" votes (but two discounted - one anon user and one probable troll) and one "redirect". I count 13 clear "delete" votes forFourteenth grade against one "keep" by a probable troll. I count three votes as too ambiguous to call though their tone is skeptical. I note that many people continued to vote to deleteThirteenth grade even after the rewrite, leading me to believe that the early voters deliberately chose not to change their votes.Rossami (talk)05:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteenth grade,Fourteenth Grade

[edit]

Are these term common in theUnited States?? I always thought the standard terms werecollege freshman andcollege sophomore.Georgia guy 01:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...never heard of this. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--MikeJ991901:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reiterate mydelete vote for 13, and add my delete vote for 14.--MikeJ9919 15:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We used to have a grade 13 in Ontario (otherwise known asOntario Academic Credit), but as far as I know it doesn't exist at all in the US.Adam Bishop 01:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Grade 13 used to exist in several Canadian provinces. An article on its gradual elimination would be great, but this current page is not of much use. -SimonP 01:20, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. No, they are not common terms in the United States.Zzyzx11 (Talk)01:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thirteenth grade certainly exists in some European nations like Germany, but in its present state this is a pointless article.Harro5 02:02, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Thirteenth grade does exist in the US, but it's almost entirely at private schools, and is rare there as well. --Mitsukai 02:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Until recently there was a "Grade 13" inOntario. In the mid 1980s it was renamedOAC and was abolished altogether a few years ago.70.50.112.188 02:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As mentioned above, there's a lot of past and present examples of a thirteenth grade. However, they do call it "Grade 13" not "13th Grade" in Canada. --Madchester 02:52, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
Keepthirteenth grade now, rewritten. The article nominated was "Thirteenth grade is the first year of college in most countries. Students are 18-19 years old and are called college freshmen." The article now is a helpful disambiguation page. No vote yet on fourteenth grade.Samaritan03:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No one uses "Thirteenth grade" when speaking of a College Freshman - at all. That kills that one. A disambig that states "a year of study at some private schools" doesn't say much to me at all either. I mean I can pick that possibility up from the name. Thirteenth grade should beredirected toOntario Academic Credit or "Grade 13". And "Fourteenth grade" should bedeleted.K1Bond007 04:05, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep 13, Delete 14, new DAB page looks good, "fourteenth grade" only gets couple hundred hits. —Teknic^Talk/Mail05:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Not many hits, and among them, many are forums and/or other uses.Niteowlneils 07:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both' or redirect them tocollege freshman andcollege sophomoreStancel 23:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up terms.Rick K 23:41, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete both. "An uncommon term in the United States for a College freshman's year of study" should really be "a completely nonexistent term in the United States for a College freshman, except for the odd third-grader who's aghast to learn that he still has to go to school after twelfth grade", and neither of the other meanings remotely justifies an article. Fourteenth grade doesn't have even that much usage. —Korath (Talk) 00:18, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or replace with redirects per Stancel.R adiant _* 12:10, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
keep please thirteenth grade is usedYuckfoo 17:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, no vote: I know my friends and I have used terms like "thirteenth grade" to refer to university or college that is neither prestigious nor particularly difficult (University of West Florida comes to mind for me).Mike H 02:12, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Maybe there's an article somewhere about 13th grade, but this isn't it.Jayjg ^(talk)21:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Made up references combined with Grade 13 in Canada. If necessary redirect toOntario Academic Credit -Tεx τ urε 21:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Possibly Redirect toCollege Freshman,College Sophomore.Whig 06:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thirteenth,Delete Fourteenth. "13th Grade" is a sarcastic or derogatory reference to a college that's not academically rigorous; the rewritten page is all that's needed on this topic.RussBlau 19:29, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Partial Sums (band)

[edit]

Article offers no information about this band that gains no relevant google hits (serch term: "partial sums" band "South Carolina" -math).Thryduulf 01:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Couldn't verify and I wouldn't expect this article to ever grow a second sentence. —Teknic^Talk/Mail06:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable - no Google hits, garage band vanity.Megan1967 08:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bandvanity.Postdlf 09:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notableAndrew Lenahan -Starblind 12:56, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ad.Whig 06:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wah Game

[edit]

A game that this group of people have made up to play while drunk. Not notable in the slightest.Thryduulf 01:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it incorporates the idea of meme theory. If there is an entry on Rock, Paper, Scissors then there is no reason not to have an entry on this as well. --Sludge 01:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plus there is whole fact thathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_game exists, but that is another story...

Delete. Google retuns 115 pages, and most of those are not actually about this game. And to respond to Sludge, "Rock, Paper, Scissors" is a game played world-wide; the first page that comes up on Google is the 2004 Rock Paper Scissors International Championship.StuTheSheep 03:00, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. You can't initiate ameme on Wikipedia. —Teknic^Talk/Mail08:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable.Megan1967 08:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not known outside circle of friends of author. Hence, not notable. It should be known at least on a national level before being entered into Wikipedia.Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
DeleteAndrew Lenahan -Starblind 13:03, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
WAH! Er... I mean,delete.Nestea 22:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as possibly offensive toNative Americans, non-notable, and it's a stupid idea for a game anyway. Now if it was a good game I'd probably vote keep but not today.Stancel 23:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not feeling that its OK for anyone to edit as they please and then leave a mess like this for others to clean up. Maybe I'm just going through a stage. :-(hydnjo talk 00:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 23:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hey, I just made up a game! Let's put it on the Wikipedia! Not.Whig 06:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rareexception.com

[edit]

With an Alexa rank of ~300,000 andOverture inventory count of only 30 this site does not appear to arise to Wikipedia's standards of notability. From other edits by user, it appears to also be self promotional.Lotsofissues 01:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that other edits make this highly suspicious. Also, the website itself doesn't seem very popular. It didn't work in Firefox, but after visiting in IE, the forum appears to have something like 18 members.Aerion //talk 06:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, website promo.Megan1967 08:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete website promotion. Can anyone actually search the page? All I get is a logo and some error and deadlinks.Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete.I'd like to be under the sea In an octopus' garden in the shade He'd let us in, knows where we've been, In his octopus' garden in the shade.
See, I can copy too.hydnjo talk 00:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Did anyone look at the site? they don't just copy songs, the forum appears to be broken (not unpopular with only 18 members), I didn't have any problem searching, and they've been online since 94 which alone makes them notable. 2:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not every web site deserves an entry. Being around for 11 years doesn't make them notable. They need to have more traffic, make the news, be discussed or linked on other web sites, or otherwise notabilize themselves before we should give them space. ---Isaac R 22:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.Jayjg ^(talk)21:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Rareexception.com has been referenced countless times in university publications and received recognition from royalty, children, professors, and students." Wow. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 23:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ad.Whig 06:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mezangelle

[edit]

Its very difficult to make out what this article is saying, but from what I gather its about a language made up by two people through online communication. The rest of the article seems to be trying to define several neologisms related to it.Thryduulf 01:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article perhaps doesn't make sense to the user voting for deletion because of a lack of context re:net.art. Maybe more work needs to be done on the Net.Art article and surrounding area of internet art / new media to help bring this article into context? -Arcae03:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This users only contributions[2] are to this VfD.Thryduulf09:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dude, editing other people's votes isunacceptable. And posting comments against other users in a VfD discussion is offtopic and rather rude. Trust the admin to evaluate the votes properly, and talk about the content, not the user.---Isaac R 22:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ and cleanup. I've never heard of any of this stuff before and I doubt any of you have either, but don't just vote based on that. From what I could tell it's not so much a language but a form of artistic composition. It's definitely not mainstream and never will be, but it's real and just interesting enough to deserve an article. —Teknic^Talk/Mail06:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind,~~Delete~~ as original research/invention in light of Mez's comment below (sorry Mez, give it some time then let somebody else write the article) —Teknic^Talk/Mail08:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, last time, I promise.Keep in light of Mez'snew comments. Established artform. —Teknic^Talk/Mail21:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thryduulf - agreed re: difficulty level of the original article edit [I'm the writer, so hello]. I've made several changes to the 1st draft, including relevant links and cues as to the context of thenet.art genre, where mezangelle slots within this, some historical foregrounding, and links to other/potential wikipedia articles. This article is my first wikipedia foray, and is the testing ground for subsequentnet.art-based/satellite articles [I'm especially keen to flesh out the article oncodework and assume merging several of the articles could be a option]? I also assumed that edits were essentially an integral part of the wikipedia policy, and constructing the article through various rewrites was acceptable, rather than establishing from the get-go a polished, cohesive write. I intend to rewrite aspects of it given the overlap within the intended article-set devoted to the net.art field, with a comprehensive list of citations to accompany it/them [there is a mammoth amount of critical theory surrounding this genre]. If you require current validation of the genre/language/citations listed in the article, please feel free to google relevant terms such asmezangelle,Mary-anne Breeze,netwurker,codework,net.art and judge their historical/educational value?Mez 06:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 100 hits forMezangelle "net.art"--doesn't seem to have gained sufficient traction. To compare, invented language Tavo (tavo language) gets 6,000 hits.Niteowlneils 07:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.Postdlf 09:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, sockpuppet-supported.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 13:04, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep: Please reconsider the article and your votes. I rewrote it to match Wikipedia's style and editorial policy. It should now be better understandable to a general readership. This is a useful entry that explains an important, recognized part ofcodework andInternet art. If the article will stay, the articles on codework and Portmanteau words should link to it.Cantsin, 14:51, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
- User's 19th edit, and only the second edit since July of 2004 (the first being to the nominated article itself).[3]
  - In fact, I wrote most of the articlesStewart Home,Istvan Kantor,Henry Flynt,Luther Blissett, including the recent edits, but wasn't logged on when I edited them.
Delete, non-notable vanity conlang. —Korath (Talk) 00:21, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Deletishago. I better start an article to translate my vote. Gotta go.hydnjo talk 00:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Pertinent to the article aboutnet.art, also ties intovisual poetry,codework and really the article is most interesting as documentation and example of a style of artistic technique. I don't understand why others in this thread are equating Mez's work with code poetry with a conlang. If one took a few minutes to read some of her work, the connections to conlang are almost non-existent. —Memexikon
- User has no edits before this VFD was made. —Teknic^Talk/Mail05:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do not edit other users comments. See above.
- Not true. I've been adding small edits to a few entries for some time now. Did just create an account, however if that's what you meant to say.
Keep, Obscurity is not a valid reason for deletion; consider a bird-watching guide with only the most common birds listed. I am an independent researcher at Indiana University and have been studying Mezangelle as a legitimate artistic style in the context of network formation. The style is referenced by multiple users across several locations in blogs and discussion boards and has the valuable qualities of distinctive form, unique name, and traceable dissemination across multiple internet locations. Unique, small, distinctive, labeled artistic styles have the benefit of allowing easy mapping of known (i.e. searchable in Google) links. Mapping searchable references to unique words is an effective tool for studying the dissemination of knowledge through the Internet and has value to research. Mezangelle is a genuine style used by multiple parties over a considerable period of time. Please leave the entry as a key means of communicating the definition of mezangelle to other researchers.68.22.241.11808:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)John Burgoon[reply]
- User's first edit.Thryduulf 11:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Kill the socks~~deleteR adiant _* 12:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete~~all articles that give me a headache from excessive use of jargon~~ I mean, no original research, and we are not here to serve as a forum for communicating with whatever other researchersmight actually exist.Soundguy99 02:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, never heard of it. They can't all be Verdurian . . .Wiwaxia 04:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's pretentious crap, but a lot of people take it seriously. Which is a good description of most of what gets called "Art" these days. If a form of expression has a big following, then it rates an article, no matter how stupid you think it is. ---Isaac R 22:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, not notable, sockpuppet supported.Jayjg ^(talk)21:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research -Tεxτurε21:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Again, mez here, the initial writer of the article under question. I'm resisting responding to any relevant comments or votes that do not adhere to officially stated Wikipedia Policy e.g. please do not bite the newcomers,wikiquette,no personal attacks, andcivility. I'm also unkeen to respond to opinions or comments that aren't stated as recognised policy, such as referring to the content of the article as "not notable" or those votes based on material that could be considered spurious, speculative, or unsubstantiated eg "sock-puppet supported". I'm assuming those votes/actions/opinions that trangress those policies will be automatically discounted in the admin's final appraisal. What I am keen to address, however, is those comments and votes that do correspond to offical wikipedia policy and manage to successfully address the article without flippancy, sarcasm, or personal attacks. One of these comments/reasons is "original research", which is listed as a reason to support deletion votes. I'd like to suggest a reassessment of all votes based on this after considering the following information, which includes citations of relevant articles from 2003-2005 that list [at minimum] one peer-based review journal. I've also listed selected publications from this 2 year period [rather than a more comprehensive list from the decade preceding this] that have analysed or included mezangelle projects or exhibitions. The citations are not APA formatted, and include one of three New York Times articles involving mezangelle. Based on the citation-checking behaviour of the editors involved, I'm citing this evidence here for ease-of-access as it appears that they have not examined this material previous to voting:
- Source texts used and analysis of mezangelle inThe Writing Experiment: strategies for innovative creative writing by Hazel Smith, Allen & Unwin, March 2005 ISBN 1741140153.
- Mezangelle analysed by Stephanie Strickland inFirst Person New Media as Story, Performance, and Game. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan (Eds.) January 2004.
- "Inappropriate Format][ing][: Craft-Orientation vs. Networked Content[s"] in the Journal of Digital Information, Volume 3 Issue 3Hypertext Criticism: Writing about Hypertext.
- Mezangelled Texts in _the >wartime< project_ which press included the following: Cornwall24, UK, January 22nd 2003. Graziarosa Villani, L'espresso, Italia, January 25th 2003. Tiscale Art, Italia, January 28th 2003. CTarkus, Tijuana Indymedia, México, February 1st 2003. R. Bosco / S. Caldana, CyberP@is, El Pais, Espagne, January 30th 2003. Matthew Mirapaul, New York Times, US, February 3rd 2003. der Standard, Österreich, February 3rd 2003. Graziarosa Villani, Liberazione, Italia, February 15th 2003. Antonio Riello, Dolce & Gabbana (art & web), Italia, February 2003. Euia, Espagne, February 2003. Repeat, Star Tribune, Minneapolis, US, February 9th 2003. Corriere della Sera, Italia, Febuary 14th 2003. TAZ, Berlin, Deutschland, February 18th 2003. Centre International d'Art Contemporian De Montréal, CA, March 2003. kopenhagen.DK, March 19th 2003. Liberation FR, March 29th 2003. Neural.it, June 29th 2003.
- Mezangelle described/analysed in"Interferences: (Net.Writing) and the Practice of Codework" by Rita Raley in the Electronic Book Review.
- The Language system mezangelle and mez works discussed in Culture Machine,"Deeper Into the Machine: The Future of Electronic Literature" by Katherine Hayles, Edition 5, 2003. Also in the Electronic Literature Organisation"State of the Arts" Symposium 2002 Book.Mez 15:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gibberish. While we're at it, someone should do a VFD onmez as equally non-notable vanity. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 23:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this article were actually expanded to provide information to the reader on the subject, rather than just pointing a bunch of links to other places, it might be interesting. As it is, there's not much content there now, and ought to be deleted if not improved.Whig 06:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mez is thoughtful and creative. Mezangelle is poetic, unsettling, intriguing, and thought-provoking ... as the cited documentation reveals. I am not impressed by critics who seem like mere Yahoos, unable to make a coherent argument. I think Wikipedia should be open to creative investigations ... such as Mezangelle. Don't we have enough stifling institutions and processes in the world as it is? --[[User:Séamas Cain131.212.109.27 15:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)|Séamas Cain]][4][reply]
Keep. Not my cup of tea, but might stimulate organic (cyborganic?) growth of related articles.FreplySpang (talk)16:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quinta

[edit]

DicDef.Quinta is portuguese forfarm. --Nabla 01:49, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Comment. Does this have legitimate use as a geographical term?Aerion//talk06:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, in PortugalQuinta usually means eitherfarm (land) orfarmhouse, exactly as the article states. Other not so commonly used meanings area set of five... (playing cards/musical notes) and afencing position. --Nabla 21:16, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
Delete, foreign dictionary definition.Megan1967 08:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect toLa Quinta, California (seeclusty results).Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect perMgm's suggestion.hydnjo talk 00:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for comments seeTalk:QuintaJavier Jelovcan 18:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Randall L. Smith

[edit]

Entire article content is: "Randall L. Smith ,(b.1959), is an Oklahoma City CPA and Peace Activist." This smells like vanity to me.Thryduulf 01:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't agree more. It's definitely vanity. --Mitsukai 02:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No inbound links.Samaritan 06:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, vanity.Megan1967 08:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, vanity.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 13:05, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Randall L. Smi... er, I meanhydnjo talk 00:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable -Tεx τ urε 21:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - oh vanity.Whig 06:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your honest assessment. Yes, please delete this. I now know that awful people like Ann Coulter deserve to be in the Wiki because...?? well just because they are on TV. They have never contributed anything to our society. Rather, they have taken massive salaries for nothing, similar to Rock Stars. Randall Smith

Flintstep

[edit]

Is this true?Svest 01:58, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

delete - its a neoglogism at best.Thryduulf 02:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary, it is apparently not a neologism (e.g.[5]), but I don't see how this can be expanded into an encyclopedia article.Sietse 06:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable.Megan1967 08:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
merge into our Flintstones article, one sentence should be enough.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 13:08, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, minor trivia. The sparse google hits do not indicate that this term is in widespread use.Martg76 13:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like, was this an earlier version of MJ'smoonwalk?hydnjo talk 00:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality and morality

[edit]

A needless article. All of the information should be moved and often is just duplicated from these articles. This is just an un-needed article with the entitlement of "morals", which by definition is philosophy and religion.

*Causes of sexual orientation

Apollomelos 23:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is needed only if an article on "Heterosexuality and morality" is also needed. But I don't see what use it would be to discuss either matter in such a context. Perhaps we could consider an article on the morality of sexuality instead. I vote "delete" if not ammended as indicated.Haiduc 04:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think that's a little reductive? The fact is that homosexuality is a distinct issue, and there are moral concerns associated with it. Saying "this article is needed only if an article on 'heterosexuality and morality' is also needed" is ridiculous. Should we also have one on "heterophobia," "anti-hetero slogan," "societal attitudes towards heterosexuality," "heterosexuality and religion," "hetero rights?" Though I agree the article is poorly written, especially the "reactions" section which needs some serious editing in the name of neutrality, and personally I don't think it would be missed if it were deleted, but if it were heavily revised instead, it would serve a valid encyclopedic function.Archaist 18:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Improperly nominated. I'm just finishing the submission. No vote. —Mar ka ci2005-05-8 T 01:59 Z
Delete. Inherently POV. Invites articles with "{anything} and morality"--just random original research. What's next,Lamb and morality?Leather and morality?Oral sex and morality?Science and morality?Ego and morality?Niteowlneils 07:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We already haveSocietal attitudes towards homosexuality. Merge it there. I agree with Niteowlneils that it should be renamed.Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Also deletePie and morality,Bassoons and morality andJigglypuff and morality if they should ever be created.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 13:17, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Merge withSocietal attitudes towards homosexuality.DeweyQ 19:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Exploding Boy 23:06, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
DeleteStancel 00:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh sure, someone is apt to type thisarticlename into a searchbox,not.hydnjo talk 00:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Regarding POV of content: This type of article is not designed to report whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. It is intended to collectwhat various parties think and say about the subject. It can easily be NPOV in that a variety of viewpoints are covered, and no one in particular is favored by the article. Regarding the need for a "heterosexual foo" for every "homosexual foo": Such parallelism is makes for significant redundancy and a very short "heterosexual foo". It's much more useful, I've found, just to make "sexual orientation foo", and cover all aspects. I should note that we also haveSexual morality,Sexual norm.Causes of sexual orientation is no longer its own article, by the way; I merged it intoSexual orientation. Pies and bassoons are different from sexuality, in that whatever moral implications their use may have, they are not the subject of raging national cultural and political controversies. --Beland 02:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if you must.Sexual morality andSexual norm split discussion along a religion/rest-of-society line. It's fine with me ifHomosexuality_and_morality is merged withReligion and homosexuality andSocietal attitudes towards homosexuality along the same divide. Though if I had my pick of articles to merge and purge, it'd beAnti-gay slogan, which seems a little one-sided. --Beland 02:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. -Sean Curtin 04:54, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Move information to other articles as appropriate. There is also a case formoving some information to a new article:Homosexuality and ethics, since there have been specific ethical positions consistently used to both condemn and justify homosexuality (natural law theory, divine command theory, and Kantianism on the one hand, and utilitarianism as a good example of the other). I suspect an explanation of this may have been the original intent of the article. -Seth Mahoney 08:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - this article has always been an attractor for POV regarding homosexuality, with its implicit and biased assumption that morality and homosexuality are somehow fundamentally interlinked - we don't have a page forWoman and Morality for example? This VfD is long overdue. Much of the content is repeated elsewhere so a merge would be redundant here, IMHO. --Axon 08:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. --Spinboy 19:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an encyclopedic topic. Morality is not religion. Merge withSocietal attitudes towards homosexualityKlonimus 22:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork. There is nothing really here that is already in existing articles on homosexuality.Megan1967 01:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge orMove to the obvious entries, with appropriate links.Peter Ellis 02:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge withSocietal attitudes towards homosexuality. POV fork.Jonathunder 13:31, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Delete. POV magnet.Sheldrake 04:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge withSocietal attitudes towards homosexuality. Nothing wrong with having a decent article on this topic, only this isn't it. --AlexR 17:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible wheel

[edit]

I don't think this is an encyclopaedic article, or that it has potential to become any more than a (joke?) dicdef.66.245.206.230 00:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I found it somewhat informative when I stumbled on it, besides I never knew what to call it, so might as wellKEEP it is my vote.Gzuckier 04:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Improperly nominated. I'm just finishing the submission. No vote. —Mar ka ci2005-05-8 T 01:59 Z
merge intounicycle. The article is informative, but I don't think the topic is worthy of an article on its own.Thryduulf 02:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toB.C. (comic). Does the concept exist outside of this comic strip?StuTheSheep 02:54, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wow, this thingactually exists. People need to do research before VFD'ing. —Teknic^Talk/Mail06:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, actually exists.Kappa 07:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it does indeed appear impossible to use.Suggestion: add a graphic of some kind, either a photo or sketch. —FREAK OF NUR_xTURE(TALK) 07:42, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Merge tounicycle.Niteowlneils07:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why?, do you think there is a limit on how many articles wikipedia can hold? —Teknic^Talk/Mail08:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, it exists. I guess it's akeep then.Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and I actually learned something today. Cool.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 13:16, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep.Here are some pictures of a guy riding the wheel.Upp land 18:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real thing, though not very practical. :)Rick K 23:47, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep: illustrate & contextify --Simon Cursitor 08:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Made me laugh. Very well,keep, but let the article demonstrate that it exists outside the comic.R adiant _* 12:13, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, worth it for the external link, but there should be more content here.

Traduki

[edit]

Delete, merging some contents with specific articles (see talk page).tresoldi 19:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FromTalk:Traduki,

I am the author/mantainer of this project and I'm suggesting this article to be deleted, possibly moving some parts of it to specific articles (such as tokenization, etc.). This article page was set up by one developer a long time ago and probably isn't very useful nowadays. The project is not actually "dead", the development has moved to an active project on computational linguistics (at[6]) that, one day, could result in a "new" Traduki. However, at this time, Traduki is almost inexistent and certainly is useless - thus this article can be quite confusing. As the author, it would be really good to have an article on it, but only when the software actually cames into existence. What do you people think?

tresoldi 19:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Improperly nominated. I'm just finishing the submission. No vote. —Mar ka ci2005-05-8 T 02:00 Z
Delete because of author's request for it to be deleted and the fact that the project does not exist yet. It does sound like a good project and the article is well developed but I have to votedelete because of what the author/mantainer of the project askedStancel 23:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, this article is a mess. At first I was leaning towards keep and cleanup, however considering, as noted, the project is incomplete and the author wants to ditch it, delete it is. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 23:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IfUser:Markaci is working on the submission, and given that this is an open-source project, the original author's intentions do not control whether this project is actually unmaintained.Whig 06:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CoyoteVille

[edit]

This page has no encylopaedic content. VFD.

Unsigned nomination. From the page history: 23:24, 2005 Apr 28Marc omorain (talk ·contribs)

Comment: Improperly nominated. I'm just finishing the submission. No vote. —Mar ka ci2005-05-8 T 01:59 Z
Keep, 22,800 google hits[7]Kappa 05:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but Google hits may not be the best criterion for a webcomic. There are also some real places called Coyoteville which are inflating that hit count.Aerion//talk06:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point.Kappa 06:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alexa rank of 3,975,783--doesn't meetwebcomic project inclusion guidelines by a long shot.Niteowlneils 07:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable.Megan1967 08:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable -Tεx τ urε 21:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable indeed...Go ahead and delete it..see if I care..Your weapons are innefective against me!!!!!- Steven Graziano

insidious

[edit]

For the prior VFD discussion of this article seeWikipedia:Votes for deletion/Insidious/2005 May 8.

This three-word article about a word was nominated for deletion on2005-05-08.SimonP closed the discussion asWiktionary withoutchecking Wiktionary first, where he would have seen that as the Wikipedia discussion had trundled along, completely independently a Wiktionarian had created a proper Wiktionary article atinsidious. Much as I dislike immediate re-nominations, this discussion needs to be re-opened because the choice made at closure had actually disappeared as a valid option almost a week earlier (a day beforeTexture said "if it isn't already there", moreover). Wiktionary has no need of this three word article. No adjective→noun redirects come to mind. And there's no concept/place/person/event/thing for an encyclopaedia article to be about.Uncle G 15:26, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Delete or speedy delete as duplicate material. If it already exists at Wiktionary, then I believe this is CSD, and not even VfD. If it cannot stand as an encyclopedia article (and it sure as shootin' can't), then there isn't any debate.162.39.237.201 18:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Buffet

[edit]

Non-notable band vanity.Fawcett5 02:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE article was previously deleted following Vfd:Wikipedia:Deletion log archive/November 2004 (2)

Keep - it's a legit alt/indie-rap band, it links to other notable bands associated with (Cex and Sage Francis), has a nearly ten-year track record. They're not selling out arenas, but they're an important and active East Coast/Pittsburgh band connected to a genre of rising prominence. Full disclosure: I did edit this article, but I didn't originate it (original was written on "Grand buffet", not "Grand Buffet" - check history), and no, I am not a member of the band. Just because they're not mainstream doesn't mean they shouldn't be here. --Girolamo Savonarola 03:43, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
- Also looking atWP:MUSIC section, they have clearly qualified under criterion number 2 (seeOfficial site) as they are currently touring in Europe; they have done this before, as well as going on several US nationwide tours and at least one tour of Canada (see article). I'd also argue criterion 6, although that is of course not as objectively verifiable as number 2. They also have representation via the Kork Agency, which handles many significant indie music acts; they've played SXSW; and toured with Wesley Willis. --Girolamo Savonarola 04:04, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
Keep. Well written article about notable band.Buy tickets. Previous VFD is irrelevant because the content of that article was "the most awesome duo ever!". —Teknic^Talk/Mail07:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable band--claims of European tour unsubstantiated by their website. Amazon.com hasn't heard of them--allmusic barely has--lists one album--doesn't meetWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines criteria. Zero hits for"Grand Buffet" rap swsx--above claims highly suspect. Both Keep votes by users with very few edits. Anybody can cut CDs in their garage nowadays--doesn't mean they should have articles.Niteowlneils08:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Girolamo Savonarola has over 150 edits going back to July, 2004.User:Teknic has over 200 edits dating back to February, 2005. That's nowhere near "few" enough to discount them.Postdlf 10:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12 city European touris substantiated by their website. Please familiarize yourself with the music notability criteria.
Wow, I got zero hits for"Grand Buffet" rap swsx too. Don't see how that's relevant though as it's "sxsw", not "swsx"
LikePostdlf said, bothGirolamo Savonarola and I have far more edits than the minimum for voting. —Teknic^Talk/Mail14:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- SXSW page,See "Sage Francis" entry under Tour Dates link, andExtensive European and US tours go back to February 2003. I am happy to show verifiable information to back up all sections brought into question. --Girolamo Savonarola 14:45, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, sections of this article are unverifiable.Megan196708:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as? --Girolamo Savonarola 15:18, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
Keep. Not a bad article, band has AMG entry (however brief it is). Previous vfd not binding on this completely different article.Postdlf 09:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Allmusic and a European tour for a U.S. band clearly indicate notability and passWP:MUSIC.Meelar (talk) 22:10, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Allmusic.com shows two albums albeit on small indy labels. Tour shows that they meet at least 1 of the Wikimusic guidelines.Capitalistroadster 23:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two albums and a tour is good enough for me.Kappa 20:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep since it meets wp:musicYuckfoo 17:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neticide

[edit]

No, it isn't. The onlyweb hits in English are a student story from the 1980s and a Linux mailing list post, neither using the word in this sense, one expired URL, and a Wikipedia mirror. 20Usenet hits show it might be a bit of an in-joke on rec.music.makers.percussion; no serious hits even fromalt.suicide.holiday, and no inbound links.Samaritan 03:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Geez. less than 30 hits--non-notable neologism. Orphan status indicates not in common use.Niteowlneils 08:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I remember hearing about the phenomenon (apparently it is a problem at some Japanese beauty spots) and it probably deserves a mention somewhere (suicide perhaps? There is already a link fromInternet). This neologism wouldn't be any use as a redirect based on the above.Thryduulf 10:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. If it ever does become a word, I doubt it'll have this definition. It would seem to be the most logical term for the destruction of sentient neural networks.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 18:42, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Clearly a neologism. (Incidentally, Miriam-Webster starts publishing their 2005 list the day after tomorrow.)DeweyQ 19:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. But if internet suicide pacts get out of hand (such as it being a major concern on news and media) and they coin that word, then it would probably be legitimate here.Nestea 22:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chainsaw (computer program)

[edit]

AlthoughChainsaw might be a fabulous piece of software, the term "chainsaw" is not widely used as this article contends. Also, this is not really encyclopedic in nature.

Delete - *sniff* smells like vanity. I can't tell if it actually is or not, but it's certainly not notable. (Especially as most good compression software provides this functionality.)Aerion //talk 06:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smacks of vanity.DeweyQ 19:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Aerion said, most good compression software provide this functionality. Those are notable. This is not.Nestea 22:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term isdata striping and that article could mention some examples. This, however, is an advert for a non-notable program.Gazpacho 05:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People in alt.comp.freeware voted it asPricelessware in2004 and several other years, so it is somewhat notable. -Hapsiainen 22:58, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Continental Flight 11

[edit]

Not encyclopædic. --W(t) 03:21, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Delete, just some nonsense.DariuszT 03:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not encyclopaedic. --Mariocki^TALK03:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --FCYTravis 03:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At best an attempt to learn English by posting patent nonsense to Wikipedia. (For the record, entire text since creation: "Going to the limit in transcontinental flight try Flight 11. When boarding talk to the stewardess or the cabin crew to determine their impact on your flight. Ask for a window seat so as to observe best what is going on outside the plane. There is no better way to observe large continental experiments than from the air. Have you seen Chicago from the air? How about San Francisco? Air views are different. Try one!") But as the talk page points out,this Continental Flight 11 was extremely notable.Speedy the nonsense, request and keep the bombed plane.Samaritan 04:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As noted by Samaritan, there ought to be a legitimate article about Continental Flight 11. Unfortunately, the current content is totally irrelevant.Delete, possibly speedily.Aerion //talk 05:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete andForward toBJAODN. —FREAK OF NUR_xTURE(TALK) 07:48, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Miles Glaspole

[edit]

Doesn't establish notability. --W(t) 03:30, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Delete - non notable vanity page. --Mariocki^TALK03:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity.Sietse 06:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, vanity.Megan1967 08:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity, non-notable.Stancel 23:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable -Tεx τ urε 21:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iawtc

[edit]

This should go to Wiktionary.Svest 03:45, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary. --Mariocki^TALK03:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.101 google hits for an internet slang acronym does not merit a transwiki. Comparelol (5,800,000),iirc (945,000),ianal (90,800),yhbt (11,100). —Korath (Talk) 02:47, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Pube Muppit

[edit]

Delete. I don't think this meets the criteria for webcomics. Also, I can't see the old page but this may be a re-creation of the VFDPube Muppet article. Can anyone see if it's the same subject matter or anon user even?? --Ricky81682 (talk) 03:56, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, this one was previously deletedWikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pube Muppet. Also note a redirect to the target that was deleted earlier,Pube Fozzy, is on RFD.K1Bond007 04:11, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable.Megan1967 08:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted as a repost of a vfd'd article. Same subject matter, almost identical text.Postdlf 09:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Verduzco Flores

[edit]

Vanity. --W(t) 04:01, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Delete - oh dear! vanity. --Mariocki^TALK04:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Little Cranberry Lake

[edit]

~~non encyclopaedic. --Mariocki^TALK04:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete, though it'd be nicer if someone could write someone coherent about this lake. --W(t) 04:06, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
Delete, garbageK1Bond007 05:41, May 8, 2005 (UTC),Keep per revision.K1Bond007 03:59, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't even pretend to be legitimate.Aerion //talk 05:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Content gets created. Content gets refined. If your only possible contribution to the "encyclopaedic" quality of this topic is to suggest its deletion within minutes of its creation, I suggest you acquaint or reacqaint yourself with theWikiWay.

Public WikiWay(){ If(live) { LetLive() } Else { WriteLine ("The WikiWay is twofold: pen and sword, in accord.") }}

BTW, for my information, how does one create a "stub" topic on wikipedia?--Korby parnell 07:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think what Korby is trying to say is thatthe article has been rewritten. It is now much better than it's former self. And to Korby, I don't know what's up your ass but you can't expect anybody to wait around for that bad of an article to be rewritten. It should never been written like that in the first place. —Teknic^Talk/Mail07:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm adding the "higher standard of quality" template. —FREAK OF NUR_xTURE(TALK) 07:55, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup the rewrite.Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep the rewritten article.Martg76 13:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real place, I suppose, but I amhighly dubious of much of the info in the rewrite. I removed the prattle about 'no fish' as a quick google search proved that incorrect. In addition, on a lake that small, it's hard to imagine a human-made dam involved, and neither google nor a topo map of the area had any evidence of such a dam (altho' there is a "Little Cranberry Dam" on nearbyCypress Island). Also, if you go to this topo map[8], click the "Large" radio button and select 1:100,000 scale in the dropdown and look at the legend, you will see that there isno way in hell tinyFidalgo Island could have a '10 mile morain' there--2-3 miles, tops. There's at least four other "Little Cranberry Lake"s in the US alone--I wonder if someone is getting them mixed up.Niteowlneils 19:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Real lake. Possible opportunity for disambiguation given Niteowlneils comments.Capitalistroadster 23:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Its an interesting, encyclopedic article on a notable lake. :) -CunningLinguist 23:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rela place, though I can understand slapping a VfD notice onI know this lake like nobody else and live right down the street. To access Little Cranberry, which is a secret Gem in the Anacortes City Parks system, drive up 32nd Street to the very, very end, park your car, walk one block north along the swamp, take a left onto the trail, and then walk 1.25 miles in a west, northwest direction..Rick K 23:51, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, now the article has been re-written I'm happy to change to keep but the disambiguation, as noted by Niteowlneils, should be cleared up. --Mariocki^TALK01:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leon del Muerte

[edit]

I believe this is not notable.Svest 04:15, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - non notable vanity. --Mariocki^TALK04:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NNK1Bond007 05:45, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable.Megan1967 08:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable vanity. Leon del Muerte doesn't sound like a real name anyway, it's spanish for "lion of death". I think this is what this person calls themselves but it's definitely not their real name.Stancel 23:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable -Tεx τ urε 21:49, 12 May 2005 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Fern Green-Lowe

[edit]

Delete - Thanks for hosting my Mother's Day e-card. I'm done with it now. (Jason Green-Lowe)

Nothing says VFD like nonexistant ISBNs. --W(t) 04:19, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Delete - vanity (despite the fact she may be 'one of the most fantastic mothers ever to set foot on the face of the earth'). --Mariocki^TALK04:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly vanity, however it is kinda funny. "Evan is only available in his forteenth, or MAYBE if you're lucky his fifteenth edition, due to concerns by the author about inconceivably rapid evolution." Heh.K1Bond007 05:50, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - vanity. To the author: unless you have adminship, you won't be able to delete the page yourself, although you can blank it. Considering that you're not logged in, I bet you don't have adminship. Relax, it'll take five days for this to go through, so your mother can still enjoy your gift.Aerion //talk 05:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Patterson

[edit]

Please Delete. My daughter was kind enough to make this for me, but I'd prefer it to be deleted, (she can't use my account any more). Sorry. --User:koshnaranek0 10:50, 9 May 2005

non-notable vanity page. --Mariocki^TALK04:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe it's vanity too.Svest 05:05, May 8, 2005 (UTC)^{Wiki me up}
Delete. Non-notable vanity.Zzyzx11 (Talk)05:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanityK1Bond007 05:37, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Archbishop Williams High School

[edit]

Not notable, school vanity.Jonathunder 05:43, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Keep, non-notability not established. —RaD Man (talk)06:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason for deletion mentioned by nominator.CalJW06:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Vanity' is a valid reason for deletion.Radiant_* 12:16, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  - Only if there is evidence, which there isn't.Gillian Tipson 06:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded it to include sexual abuse allegations, a major labor dispute and lawsuit, and details of the organizational change to the school, all as reported in the media and sourced. Also information on a $12-14 million capital expansion from the school's website.Samaritan06:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All that is very notable.Klonimus 08:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SamaritanR Calvete 07:01, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
Keep, schools arewikipedia:important.Kappa 07:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passess theBEEFSTEW guidlines admirably. Although having said that the contrast between the first section and the lists in the second section is a little jaring.Thryduulf 09:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contains more info than the average school article and passes BEEFSTEW.Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep.Zzyzx11 (Talk)11:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable school. It failsBEEFSTEW as it does not establish any of the points E-I (apart from G for regional news, and only very weakly passes J). There is nothing that establishes this school as any different to similar schools. --G Rutter13:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: BEEFSTEW doesn't require the article to contain ALL points. It's content on the abuse distinguishes it from numerous other schools.Mgm|^(talk) 14:40, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
  - And it has no validity anyway.Gillian Tipson 06:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please remember thatnotability is not a deletion criterion.James F.(talk)16:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's simply not true. Notability is an established and widely used shorthand that well captures many deletion criteria. Please see myearlier explanation on this point. See also theguide to VFD shorthands. A strict formalism doesn't accomplish anything here.Postdlf21:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the working reference given above is a clear demonstration of the fact that "non-notability" isnot a valid deletion criterion. A mere personal shorthand used bysome editors is not a policy consensus - as the immediately adjacent reference to "unencyclopedic" even more clearly shows. --Gene_poole23:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed. Postdlf, what you 'understand' to be policy may just possibly not actuallybe policy. :-) I would agree, however, that it is indeed erroneously becoming "established" - this is exactly what I'm trying to fix.James F.(talk)00:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since when did we need a policy consensus on what words we could use to express ourselves on VfD pages? It's the substance that matters, and the substance of "not notable" is not only always tied to specific deletion criteria, it often overlaps more than one. I went into quite a bit of detailed explanation to show how notability is at the heart of at least most of the deletion criteria—can you elaborate on "no, you're wrong," or "no, we never approved that word for expressive usage"?Postdlf 04:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Umm, whut? Where on Earth did you get the impression that I was objecting to the word? I'm pointing out that notability - the concept, not the word - is not a ground for deletion. You can bend over backwards to show that other people have been using it as such, and indeed this is helpful to show where people have erred, but they are using it wrongly. There are many occassions when things that are unnotablealso aren't suitable for the encyclopædia, but this isnot a causal link.James F.(talk)12:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you're still missing the whole thrust of what I was saying, but let's drop it here. If you want to take the time to explain to me what specifically you disagree with as to how nonnotable thingsalways fall under one or more of the stated deletion criteria, please do so on my talk page.Postdlf 17:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic instutional vanity-page. --Gmaxwell 18:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Admirable job of expansion. --FCYTravis 19:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it is well written and passes beefstewYuckfoo 20:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-written schools article thanks to Samaritan.Capitalistroadster 23:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All schools are enduring physical and social institutions worthy of record in a truly encyclopedic encyclopedia. --Gene_poole 23:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, troll-supported. —Korath (Talk) 23:51, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Which of us are you personally attacking and calling "troll"s, exactly?James F.(talk)00:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here you go. —Korath (Talk) 02:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    - I noticed all schools on VfD were eventually posted there and onWikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch, so if I saw a new school and didn't post it to both, I would just be leaving more work for someone else. Is there a reason why I shouldn't?My talk.Samaritan 16:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge intoBraintree (town), Massachusetts anddelete -Skysmith 10:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Skysmith.R adiant _* 12:16, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and refine policy to prevent future VfD nominations of school articles. In my opinion, schools with more than a few students should automatically be considered "encyclopedic"/wikipedia-worthy. Wikipedia will not be improved by the deletion of this article.~leif ☺_(talk) 20:45, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Is it just me, or is there a certain kneejerk quality to recent school deletion listings? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High schools should not have notability requirements, and this article now has a considerable amount of verifiable information.--BaronLarf 12:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This article has a near-perfectBEEFSTEW of 9. Pending the response from the school's development director it may just become a 10.Bahn Mi 21:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIntrigue 18:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Singlespeak

[edit]

Non-notable blog: notability of writer not established, no new entries for half a year, two google hits for "Andrew Summers singlespeak".Sietse 06:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Sholtar 06:10, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. (Insert deletion sound effect here.)Aerion //talk 06:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Zzyzx11 (Talk)11:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity/advert -Tεx τ urε 21:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Loganberry 01:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dan O'Connor

[edit]

Not notable. Hasn't done anything notable since Idol, was not a top ten finalist, and the stub has remained relatively unchanged as a result. Last VfD back in September resulted in no consensus.JamesBurns 06:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is now my standardIdol contestant vote:Keep. By the policy that each episode of a major television series merits an article, we could recast all the losing contestant articles intoAustralian Idol season 2 episode (Dan O'Connor eliminated), etc., or however we'd title them. Or we could just accept short individual articles on the singers themselves. That makes more sense.Samaritan06:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? That would be similar to giving all losing contestants on game shows their own articles.JamesBurns07:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Idols are limited series with far fewer episodes than most game shows, and top 10 or 12 contestants are subject to a mass public vote based on their appeal in a field, singing, in which Wikipedia otherwise legitimately has articles on thousands and merits articles on hundreds of thousands of artists.Samaritan 13:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, top 12 is nearly top 10.Kappa 07:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And top 15 is nearly top 12, and top 20 is nearly top 15, and top 30 is nearly top 20, and top 112 is nearly top 100, and "close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.Delete.Soundguy9908:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- IIRC, depending on the season and country, it's either the top 10 or 12 who go through the main public voting and elimination process. See the table and inbound link to O'Connor fromAustralian Idol...Samaritan
Delete, hasnt produced any recorded material since Idol, no allmusic.com entry - fails notability test.Megan1967 08:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please note the bias against non US artists in the allmusic.com website - it also fails to mention Casey Donovan who won Australian Idol in 2004 and has recorded. I do not think reference to this web site is a valid test for non US musicians.--AYArktos 01:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as reasoned by Megan1967. --Feydey 10:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Soundguy and Megan. Hasn't done anything notable since losing Idols. Article also lacks content. Merge into an article on the show and delete it.Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect toAustralian Idol.Zzyzx11 (Talk)11:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect toAustralian Idol. --G Rutter 13:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect toAustralian Idol. --ScottDavis 15:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)Keep - it seems he's going to do something else notable, so his own article will be able to tie his activities together. --ScottDavis 01:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect --Gmaxwell 18:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't support a redirect because there are other notable Dan O'Connors. A quick Google turned up a novelist, a 19th-century baseball player, a graphic artist, a researcher, and a comedian... and that's just on the first two pages!Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 20:54, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Keep this person has ongoing notability - Dan O'Connor is now starring in a soap opera in Australia, but quite a different one as it will feature on mobile phones (please see updated article and associated link toSydney Morning Herald article). The proposal to delete this article was too soon (only just over 6 months after the chap was eliminated from Ausralian Idol). It seems that in Australia an Idol finalist is likely to have a career break into the entertainment industry. A search on Australian google (it is a common name after all) indicates that he has been employed in bits and pieces since the television show. There are plenty less notable biographies on Wikipedia. --AYArktos23:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bits and pieces".. that is an argument for notability? There is nothing on imdb or tvtome to indicate otherwise.JamesBurns 03:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both imdb and tvtome like the allmusic.com website are US web sites. It seems to have escaped some people's notice that he is an Australian. Like other Australians he is under-represented in such US web sites. Reference to representation on these web sites is a fine criteria for evaluating a US actor or musician - it is not OK for other places in the world. Australian soaps are extremely popular in the UK and Europe and thus it is quite an export industry for our nation. Hence in Wikipedia there are a lot of minor soap stars with wiki biographies - eg the entire cast ofNeighbours past and present seems to score their own individual entry. This person is at least as notable as the others.--AYArktos 08:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think O'Connor being an actor in the mobile phone soap - a 'first' in Australia - makes him notable enough. I think the article needs editing to put more weight on this, with the Australian Idol info as background. --Takver 02:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above.R adiant _* 12:18, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, notability not established.Leanne 05:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn.Iam 06:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Twelfth place. Yeah. --24.34.45.235 01:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, other than an ad for some supposedly forthcoming thingamabob.Whig 06:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Street Cafe

[edit]

Paraphrasing entire article: "The Bridge Street Cafe is a small Cafe on Bridge Steet, in Sackville, New Brunswick, Canada". Not notable.Sietse 06:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable.Megan1967 08:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I spoke with a friend who knowns Sackville and she reported that while the cafe has good tzatziki dip it is in no way noteworthy. -SimonP 22:27, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Spinboy 04:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, unless my old wings and beer place (Morty's) is written and kept. If it is, then.... still delete. --Death phoenix03:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and the Bloomfield Bridge Tavern is a tavern just off of the Bloomfield Bridge in Pittsburgh. So what?Whig 07:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKingturtle 02:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Westlink M7

[edit]

Notability not established. A freeway that hasn't even been built.JamesBurns 06:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep urban freeways, even while under construction.Kappa 07:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the largest road infrastructure project in Australia, costing $2bn and the missing link in Sydney's road network deserves to have a page. It will be complete in next year ahead of schedule.
Delete, wikipedia is not a crystal ball, cruft.Megan196708:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no crystal ball involved - the road is under construction!Thryduulf 10:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all significant motorways and motorway construction projects - the significance is established by the article.Thryduulf 10:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major road construction projects are significant and noteworthy.Zzyzx11 (Talk)11:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- large road infrastructure projects are notable -Longhair |Talk 13:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a major infrastructure project. Deletionism gone mad.Ambi 13:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong strong keep. TheLower Manhattan Expressway was never built but is very notable; this is very notable because it's being built, and even if it wasn't it would be notable. --SPUI (talk)21:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a major project resolving traffic issues in Sydney (Australia's largest city) but causing controversy for out of towners because of the new toll system.--AYArktos 21:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major construction project, is being built. Article is quite detailed.Slac speak up!22:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable Sydney roadwork.Capitalistroadster 23:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for any vehicle driver wanting a direct route from theHume Highway to thePacific Highway (Australia)--Takver 01:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - either it will be built, on schedule and under budget, or you will have the basis for an(other) article on porkbarrelling in 21st century politics. --Simon Cursitor 08:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Other freeways and highways have articles. --ScottDavis 08:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCyberjunkie 15:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buxton University

[edit]

Wikipedia is frequently being targeted bydiploma mill spammers trying to legitimize their products and the few articles on diploma mills we have (seeList of unaccredited institutions of higher learning) need occasional reverting from anonymous contributors attempting to remove incriminating information. Buxton appears non-notable even for a diploma mill. (The poster has on a previous occasion fraudulently added Buxton to theList of British universities and removed it fromList of unaccredited institutions of higher learning.)

Nothing in the original article was verifiable and even the website of this "university" has no useful information, at least not without a password.I have tried to completely rewrite it (please see thediff) with whatever little information I have found elsewhere, but I am uncertain whether it is keepable. Beware, though, that if it is deleted, it will probably reappear at some point, so a NPOV article may be better and will to some extent defeat the original purpose of the spammer posting it.up land 06:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weakkeep asanti-advertisement. I will put it on my list. —Teknic^Talk/Mail08:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not every semi-legal organization needs its own article. Notability not established.Martg76 13:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No vote I'm a bit torn on this one. I think we have a certain responsibility to debunk, but the very VERY low Google count (275 hits, mostly unrelated) might suggest that this is too minor to be worth debunking. I also shudder at the thought that even a critical article might lead to them advertising their "school" to be "as seen on Wikipedia" or similar. You're right that it might be recreated though if we delete. No vote, not sure, rather uncomfortable either way actually. Of course, there's alwaysthis...Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 13:48, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Debunking hoaxes is fun, in a perverse sort of way, but the average diploma mill is even less notable than the average high school, and nothing in either the original ad nor the~~writeup~~ rewrite suggests that this one stands out. Keeping an article around on a non-subject just to prevent another spammish advertisement is self-defeating. I'll put this on my watchlist too, just in case. —Korath (Talk) 23:56, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Could you please state why you think the subject is NN? What policy are you basing this on? —Teknic^Talk/Mail01:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notable, as in "Worthy of notice; remarkable; memorable; noted or distinguished." There's nothing here to distinguish it from any other diploma mill. —Korath (Talk) 02:55, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    - You don't find it "worthy of notice" that an institution isselling fake diplomas and degrees and trying to pass themselves off as legit? To me, that kind of thing demands notice. —Teknic^Talk/Mail05:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thekind of thing demands notice, butthis particular instance does not (e.g.Burglary is informative, butMy neighbor's house was broken into last week is not).Delete as NN.R adiant _* 12:20, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
        Your example is not relevant as you are comparing an establishment to anevent (news). When deciding whether or not to annihilate the product of somebody's time and work, please consider the pros and cons of your actions. In this casekeeping could provide valuable info for someone who might have otherwise made a big mistake, even if just one person is helped it's worth the cost, which in this case is one more article to be maintained by the 7,000 active editors who are presently capable of handling half a million of them. Are you worried that we don't have enough ink for 500,001 articles? —Teknic^Talk/Mail18:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like nn.Grue 05:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Will keeping this warn off some unsuspecting would-be graduate from wasting their money ? --Simon Cursitor08:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I'm afraid not, because they are unlikely to look here. A fool and his money...R adiant _* 12:20, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete but merge content as appropriate to an article on, sayDiploma Mills.
- (If such an article doesn't exist (as that particular link doesn't work), perhaps it would be a good one, with a list, and then redirect this article there.Whig 07:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Diploma mill.Gamaliel 05:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Streets in Darien

[edit]

A list of streets in the town ofDarien (I don't know which one). I think that this is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia: too specific.Sietse 07:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only does the article fail to establish where the town is. A list of streets without their location in relation to each other mentioned is useless. Especially, when the majority of the streets don't deserve articles themselves.Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
It's in Connecticut (givenBoston Post Road). The list is also rather incomplete.Weak keep and hope it expands to something better. --SPUI (talk)21:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedic.Rick K 23:55, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Has wikipedia actually come to this? Not encyclopedic; another stupid list. -R. fiend 02:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge intoDarien, Fairfield County, Connecticut anddelete -Skysmith 10:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we have such lists for several other towns, e.g.List of Hoboken streets -SimonP 14:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Transitionist

[edit]

Unencyclopedic!Svest 07:59, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ow. My head hurts.Delete.Bearcat 08:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some kind'a essay or somethin'. I'm not really sure what the point was. But it's not an encyclopedia article, that's fer damn sure.Postdlf 10:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original somethin'.jni 13:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Unless this is something massively profound that I just don't get, it seems to be patent nonsense.A Man In Black 06:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like it.Yes, I agree that it's not encyclopedic, but that's because it's new. Feels like a cutting edge concept to me.Thseamon
- Then when it's cohesive enough a concept to be encyclopedic, then it can be added. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE. Patent nonsense, indeed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - belongs on someone's personal blog, perhaps, but not here.Whig 07:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Small penis humiliation

[edit]

Penises come in different sizes (though not as differently as some people appear to enjoy thinking). Sometimes they're "small". It might be a bit "humiliating" (or embarrassing or discomforting or whatever) to be a postpubertal male and have one that's small (or bent over, or bifurcated, or green, or decorated with the "Louis Vuitton" monogram, or whatever). Thereupon you'd have "small penis humiliation". It's a string of words that appears to be used by sellers of snake-oil, or perhaps I should say trouser-snake-oil, to the gullible and nervous; and also perhaps by easily amused teenagers, etc. It's too trivial, a mere arbitrary string of words to be giggled at.

But perhaps I'm wrong. Could somebody with medical or psychotherapeutic knowledge set us straight? Then I might change my vote fromdelete. --Hoary 08:05, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

PS OK, OK, the phrase isn't arbitrary. But I still see no reason to think that it involves more than a tiny number of people. --Hoary 09:50, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Why delete?? This term, SPH, is increasingly popular. Some people might come to Wikipedia to find out what it means.... anonymously posted at 07:58, 2005 May 8 by213.7.215.29
- Few people would otherwise guess that it meant, say, "humiliation for having a large right ear". --Hoary 08:05, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
Delete. Crap.Postdlf 08:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic, and just plain useless. The quicker it's gone, the better for everyone.Harro5 08:18, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
It's crap, but it's slightly different crap than Hoary's description; it's not about run-of-the-mill embarrassment at having a small penis, but about a form of sex play that involves actually beingsubjected to a partner's verbal humiliation regarding one's penis size, and could conceivably be engaged in even if one were hung likeJohn Holmes. People really will get off on just aboutanything. (And it might actually help explain why there was such mixed "he's big" vs. "he's tiny" reaction to theFred Durst sex tape, come to think of it...)Vote changed;m/r toerotic humiliation as per suggestion below sounds like a good idea.Bearcat 18:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete It is a paraphilia, analagous to exhibitionism or cuckoldry or some other oddity of human sexuality. Don't shoot the messenger. The paraphilia is a fact, exists , especially in porn and on the internet. It seems like people are opposed simply because they don't like the practice. I think it is becoming a bigger factor now as the media draws more attention to the size issue. See the BBC's new autobiographical documentary called "My penis and I" about a man with a small penis. No joke....posted anonymously at 09:03, 2005 May 8 by213.7.214.181

Keep The people opposed to this seem to just not like it, so they call it unecyclopedic. But much of what's in Wikipedia is not in the Britannica, and that's it's charm. It's more open, less censored, less stuffy. The delete people are just being prudes. Probably all Americans no doubt....posted anonymously at 13:12, 2005 May 8 by213.7.216.40
- Am I probably American, or am I American no doubt? If you're going to makead hominem attacks, then do at least try to make them internally consistent. --Hoary 15:02, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect toErotic humiliation. We have a pretty good precident for keeping various sexual fetishes and techniques.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 13:57, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
4890 web hits.Merge and redirect sounds good.Samaritan 14:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect toErotic humiliation. Seems to be a notable sexual technique, but I currently think there is not enough content out there yet to warrant a separate article.Zzyzx11 (Talk)15:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, per google results.Kappa 21:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteViajero 21:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It could be transwikied to WikiAfterDark, but I see no reason to remove it from here. Paraphilias are encyclopedic.Haikupoet 23:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopaedick.Megan1967 04:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I haven't heard any actual arguments for deleting other than some people don't like it. Also merging toerotic humiliation won't work because Erotic humiliation itself redirects now. There is a page for CFNM, for instance, so there is a precendent. Google search shows 4,790 hits for "small penis humiliation" in quotes, so clearly it is not an arbitrary word phrase as someone suggested. Unless people have a legitimate and convincing argument for deleting, there's no reason to....anonymously added at 06:27, 2005 May 9 bySoda80
- Well, Soda80,your list of contributions suggests that you may be a specialist so I hesitate before arguing with you, but Google gives 410 hits for "small penis embarrassment"; it may well provide hundreds of other hits for phrases involving worries about the size of mankind's most amusing appendage, but since I'm now at work I don't care to look. Any guesses about the size of the population interested in such matters? (Henry Cow is a band that "enjoyed" low sales for a few years till it broke up in in 1978; it manages to get over 70,000 hits.) --Hoary 07:45, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
410 hits? My Faggoth article was rejected because it only had 409 hits... Is this a fucking joke, I couldn't imagine an intelligent person ever using the term 'small penis humiliation'. The entry on penis size, discusses size stereotypes and misconceptions and surveys determining the average penis size. Until next time...grow the hell up. - Rift14
- Er, is that a vote; and if so, which way? I suggest you make it a clear vote. You'll have to sign it ("~~~~"). --Hoary 08:04, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
Merge withVerbal humiliation. I am sure there are plenty of things to say that would humiliate someone. SPH may well be a documented form of paraphilia, but (asZzyzx11 pointed out) it doesn't seem to warrant an article of its own yet. (BTW,Megan1967, that was seriously funny.) –DeweyQ 05:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, first you claim the phrase was entirely arbitrary. I pointed out that the phrase has 4000+ hits using quotes (not 400--why don't you correct your misinformation for Rift?)--and even has it's own forums and communities. Hell, the BBC has a documentary on the phenomenon! How many BBC doumentaries did that band get? Furthermore, the merging right away doesn't make much sense. Is it better to have smaller articles specialized for a topic and linked to related ones, or really long articles which contain everything -- a single page for all human paraphilias? All of the merge pages suggested were empty, redirects or lack content, ie. there is no big list of paraphilias. I suggest that since there is no hurry to delete this (again no real reason why has come forward, only that it is 'trivial' or 'not my thing' which is purely subjective) why not just leave it as a stub, see how it goes, and then keep it or merge it based upon the results. By the way, just reading the Wikipedia guide for deletion policy, it mentions this:"All Wikipedians, however, should try not to appear terse, gruff, and abrupt in their VFD postings. All Wikipedians should do their best to treat contributors with respect and good will." So does "grow the hell up" and "not encyclopedick" qualify? Thanks....added anonymously at 07:03 (and about 20 minutes later) 2005 May 10 by62.180.212.222
- Comment:User:62.180.212.222, I didn't give a number of hits for this phrase, I merely pointed out that (i) a similar one had 400 or so hits, and (ii) the (unrelated) band Henry Cow had very more hits. Sorry, I don't know about BBC documentaries about Henry Cow. Incidentally, I do know that Channel 4 once had a (rather amusing) "documentary" titled "The Sex Shogun of Shinjuku": it was about a porn actor/producer called Muranishi who wasn't at all like a shōgun and had nothing to do with Shinjuku (merely chosen for alliterative effect). But all right, the phrase isn't arbitrary. And I think I've treated people with good will. (Incidentally, I'm opposed to any warning against terseness. Terseness is a Good Thing: it saves time.) --Hoary 09:50, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  - Okay, so now you admit it is not arbitrary or random, but claim it is only a tiny number of people. Well how do you know? You don't have to answer that if you don't want to. :-) I checked Google Groups, and it gave 2000 plus pages in discussions. The phrase Wikipedia gets 60,000 there. That's only 30 times more. I'm not sure what that says about the people who frequent Google Groups (LOL) but it shows that it is a topic being discussed. Also, the terseness was not objectionable, but the rudeness (not by you but by people like Rift, who also kindly vandalized the main page before slinking off)....added at 18:42 (and three minutes later), 2005 May 10 bySoda80
    - I don't know that it's a tiny number of people; I was wondering if there was evidence that it was more than a tiny number of people. Google (the search engine, not the groups bit) suggests to me that this phrase is used by spammers (among others); if this is indeed so, I'm not surprised that it pops up in talk forums. --Hoary 04:35, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
      - But Spammers appeal to what sells, whether you like it or not. If ads for SPH chat lines are common, it must be because people are secretly calling them, somewhat similar to dubious penis enlargement. By the way, without quotes SPH gets 355,000 hits. Overall this shows a preoccupation with penis size, yet a taboo on talking about it. SPH certainly does exist, on the internet, in adult videos, and phone sex lines, and amateur communities. I wonder why it is so bad to actually talk about it here?... added at 08:45, 2005 May 11 bySoda80
        I haven't encountered ads for "SPH chat lines". I have encountered spam in which companies claim to increase dick size in order to avoid possible humiliation. That looks like the attempted inculcation of dangers that the potential customer hadn't even imagined -- a very old sales technique. Spammers also make great use of the phrase "horny 18-year-old sluts", but of itself this doesn't show (to me, at least) that WP need have an article onHorny 18-year-old sluts. 355,000 hits does sound quite a lot, but since it's not for the phrase but merely the cooccurrence of the three words this proves nothing. And I'm left wondering whether you're talking about the prevalence of this humiliation or the prevalence of talking about it. Lastly, please sign your entries with four twiddles: ~~~~. Thank you. --Hoary 09:28, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Delete. Contains links to patent pornography rather than educational material. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Possibly merge, but it's undoubtedly a real issue for some people.Whig 07:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Conti|✉ 02:00, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's a valid article about an existing phenomenon (porn, not psychology). The name's not that cute, but if that's what it's called...Zocky 09:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

09:04, 8 May 2005Postdlf deleted "Passage (album)" (no context; content was: 'This is the album where they changed from raw satanism to Nietszchean directions.{{album-stub}}')

Sjakkalle 07:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Passage (album)

[edit]

Meaningless unless someone manages to work out who the album is by! Grutness|^hello?08:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable album.Megan1967 08:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted underarticle criteria #1. It contains even less identifying information than the example given there. Whoever posted this didn't waste any time on it; neither should we.Postdlf 09:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Osborn

[edit]

23 Google hits Possible vanity

Lotsofissues 08:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I currently get zero Google hits forToby Osborn Ut.HAX. And I cannot find any other third party credible, notable references.Zzyzx11 (Talk)11:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity -Tεx τ urε 21:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN V.--Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Ut.HAX doesn't have a Wikipedia entry, its 'inventor' shouldn't.Whig 07:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freeph

[edit]

A "movement" barely a week old to free some guy we don't have an article on from a country I can't even identify from the article, which is written like a first-person call to action.Delete.Postdlf 09:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,Wikipedia is not a soapbox.sɪzlæk [+t,+c ] 11:40, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Comment, Perhaps the article need to be moved to titleIsmail Faiz, as he is highly credited for doing all the technical work required to start Internet in theMaldives, back in1996. meanwhile I have suggested the same thing ontalk page --Oblivious 13:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete political tract.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 13:59, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be better to move this to page toIsmail Faiz with a few modificationsN3m6 03:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wikipedia is not a soapbox.Megan1967 04:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. "FREE PH! Why? Because innocent people need to be out there, living their lives, walking free, unhumiliated." Soapbox gibberish. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jiwang

[edit]

Slang dictionary definition, website advert/promo.JamesBurns 09:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this nomination would seem to run against the efforts of some to counter the systemicWP:Bias of wikipedia.I disagree with the nominator's dismissal of the article as merely defining a slang term and that it is a web site promotion.--AYArktos21:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You have no evidence to back up your claims of a conspiracy - just because the article comes from an Islamic background does not mean it should be exempt from VfD, to do so would make this encyclopaedia biased. Your reasons for keeping it are thus invalid.JamesBurns 03:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No opinion on the slang half; the website mentioned has an Alexa rank of 49,711, so it's just barely tolerable (in that they probably don't hugely benefit from us hosting an ad for them). With that abominable animated gif, though, I can't blame the nominator for bringing the article here. —Korath (Talk) 00:31, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- The editor who added the website has since removed it from the article - all that is left is the slang defintion.JamesBurns 01:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisment.Megan1967 04:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of Alexa rank + addresses systematic underrepresentation.Kappa07:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The editor who added the website has since removed it from the article - all that is left is the slang defintion.JamesBurns 01:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ad. There are zillions of such sites on the web.Radiant_* 12:22, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Not zillions, less than 50,000.Kappa 20:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, slang definition.Leanne 05:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Ong Eng Wai 17:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable slang.Iam 06:12, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete dic def --nixie 06:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Tεx τ urε 21:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wiktionary? Maybe. Here? No.Whig 07:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the website now ranked 7000 on Alexa .. and been since 1999, does'nt it deserve to be on wikipedia? and the meaning is not advertising.. its a malaysian slang ...—Precedingunsigned comment added by218.208.244.161 (talk)01:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Trencheny andUser talk:Robbie Trencheny

[edit]

NN, vanity.Rl 10:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity of non-notableBrookie:the wind in the grass 11:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
UserifyRobbie Trencheny toUser:Robbie Trencheny. As forUser talk:Robbie Trencheny, I do not think it really matters what the user puts on his/her talk page as long as we can leave messages on it.Zzyzx11 (Talk)18:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy.Megan1967 04:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user namespace, delete redirect.James F.(talk)11:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This needed abe bold. Nothing could be more obvious that this one. - Userify'd by me -Tεx τ urε 21:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gayed

[edit]

Spurious/offensive/badly written content created by serial vandal

Unsigned nomination byUser:Dave.Dunford,11:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone credible and/or sourced rewrites this about a legitimate use.Samaritan 13:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even legitimate uses of the word (whichdoes exist, butdoesn't mean this) could only ever be Wiktionary entries.Bearcat 17:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice.Exploding Boy 23:05, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - not legit. -CunningLinguist 23:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this seems to be some kind of jokeStancel 23:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense.Megan1967 03:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Leekage?" Are we talking about anal sex or shopping for vegetables? -Seth Mahoney 08:57, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, quickly. This is an embarassment.Ec5618 17:35, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Spinboy 19:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism.Jonathunder 13:09, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Delete now. I need a shower.Whig 07:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Homophobic idiocy.Pacian 07:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn cotton

[edit]

Unfortunately non-notable to the world at large --Rjstott 10:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, is also users first edit.Feydey 11:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Wikipedia is not a memorial.sɪzlæk [+t,+c ] 11:37, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. WP != memorial.jni 13:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but it is an obituary of a non-notable person.Zzyzx11 (Talk)18:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sad but not notableBrookie:the wind in the grass 19:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable -Tεx τ urε 21:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The text of this discussion has been removed. It is available in full from thepage history. See alsotalk --sannse (talk)21:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jordyn Blum

[edit]

Wife ofDave Grohl. Not notable in her own right.Tradnor 12:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect.Mgm|^(talk) 14:44, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect.Zzyzx11 (Talk)18:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable...that's putting it mildly.

NIJJ

[edit]

Hoax.Rl 11:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One hit on the killed and supposedly vocal activist "Gervair Mycheck", none on "Gervais Mycheck".Delete.Mgm|^(talk) 14:50, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable.Megan1967 04:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the creator was trying to illustrate it withthis picture ofLiberace.Delete.Samaritan 15:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Spinboy 19:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since when do the Boy Scouts of America offer rewards in cases of murders of gay men, who are banned from the organization?Exploding Boy 22:26, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We are supposed to believe a Washington, D.C. city council member was indicted for murder but it didn't make the news? Beyond unverifiable, it's patent nonsense.Jonathunder 13:25, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Delete. Obvious. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magic wheel generator

[edit]

Describes aperpetual motion device that violates the laws of physics, probably spam. "The magic wheel generator is a free energy device in the sense that the electricity is zero cost ($0), except for the cost of buying the device."DeleteUltramarine 12:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The author added after the Vfd started "The magic wheel generator is not a perpetual motion machine. Eventually, the magnets lose their magnetism, and the wheel slows down. However, this takes over a hundred years to happen. The magnetism can be renewed by shocking the magnets with electricity. Also, it is not solid state. Because of it's moving part, it can break down." The usual perpetual motion machine claims of energy at zero cost still remain with statements like " If every home has private magic wheel generators in them, then no one would have to pay electric bills and home heating bills."Ultramarine 13:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is rubbish. Nothing like this could exist, as indicated by the articleHistory of perpetual motion machines - and I quote:

The lead allegedly blocked attraction as each magnet passes by it, so the wheel would keep moving for a time beforefriction stopped it.

How could energy be got from such a 'magic wheel'? It couldn't. The author has spent too much time reading his socialist hippy propoganda magazine, 'The Free-Energy Device Handbook'. Almost a speedy, i vote with astrong delete.THE KING 12:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one (unrelated) hit on Google. --Lee Hunter 13:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This article is completely incorrect. Because of the lack of gravity in space, this wheel would stop moving in the right direction. And the magnets would make the wheel stop moving once they were located across their opposite pole. Even changing the polarization of the electric magnet in this thing wouldn't make the wheel move further.

I've seen such a machine in Science class years ago and it didn't work then, so it won't now. Besides, if free energy is possible, wouldn't universities and corporations and loads of other people use it by now?Mgm|^(talk) 14:57, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, the U.S. Patent Office no longer bothers even examining patents for perpetual motion machines since they (all together now)violate basic laws of physics.Merge what little useful info is in this andRedirect toMagic wheel.Soundguy99 18:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clarify. While it clearly does not work as a real-world item, it does have some basis in fiction and legend. If the article is cleaned up, it would then be worthy of mention. --Mitsukai 20:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nonsense. Any mention in fiction or legend is better addressed atMagic wheel. --Tabor 20:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect tomagic wheel.R adiant _* 12:22, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but clean up. Not working is not a valid deletion criterion, else we'd have to delete all articles on religions. The article as it stands has too high a density of nonsense, but a more historical rather than promotional approach could make this an interesting article. --Zero12:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why cannot any historical or fictional content, if any, be in themagic wheel article? Why must there be two articles?Ultramarine 15:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unless proof of notability either in reality or science-fiction is provided.dab(ᛏ)17:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge withmagic wheel, at least in the interim. OTOH, that article needs looked at; the source given is "Source : The Free-Energy Device Handbook," which sounds to me like a source for moonshine. Other sources as to its historicity and notability would be appreciated. --Smerdis of Tlön 18:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a perpetual motion machine that has recieved widespread notability. --Carnildo 19:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Total nonsense: the device simply does not (and can not) exist. Show me aworking prototype and I'll reconsider. Until then, this page is nothing more than vanity: advertising for a crank.
Delete; utterly silly - seems like a prank -Ec5618 20:33, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - hoax -Tεx τ urε 22:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pseudoscience at best.Whig 07:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense,delete --nixie 07:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gunbold

[edit]

Vanity. --Longhair |Talk 12:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Vanity -Longhair |Talk 12:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a letter of recommendation.Delete.Martg76 13:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity and Wikipedia is not a place to post letters of recommendation.Zzyzx11 (Talk)19:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur vanityFawcett5 19:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, vanity.Megan1967 04:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity -Tεx τ urε 22:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Estel

[edit]

Grad student resume cruft,delete --nixie 13:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No links to any personal website though, even though he does have one.

Now blanked by the IP that created it;history.Speedy as new user test.Samaritan 15:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, vanity.Megan1967 04:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity -Tεx τ urε 22:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5th Finger

[edit]

Self promotional article --Longhair |Talk 13:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Longhair |Talk 13:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is nothing more than a vanity advertisement for a non-notable company. --Stan.
Delete, not notable, advert.Megan1967 04:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity/advert -Tεx τ urε 22:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgon Brown

[edit]

Attack page. Phrase barely registers on Google and even if it was in common use it would probably not be worthy of an article. Nothing links to it but it appears to have sat around for two months. —Trilobite (Talk)13:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A politician is "less-than-stunningly-beautiful?" Call the encyclopedia!Delete.Samaritan 13:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete political satire should at least be funny --Doc Glasgow 14:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whoever wrote this and considers that lumpy guy the epitome of ugly should have a look at some of our political figures here in the States.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 14:40, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. First time I've ever heard of it, and I'm one of those weird people who are interested in politics. Not widely used, has no influence.Average Earthman 19:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is nothing more than a juvenile personal attack. --Stan
Delete Agreed with all of the above.Alai 21:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, attack page.Megan1967 04:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - factually inaccurance to the best of my K--Simon Cursitor 08:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - personal attack bordering on patent nonsense - possible speedy?Qwghlm 23:16, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - political POV at bestWhig 07:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asscone

[edit]

Neologism.Fawcett5 15:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.71 web hits, many unrelated, don't merit a redirect toasshat, which should possibly be transwikied itself.Samaritan 15:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It basically claims to be a synonym for love, like the article states (and I quote) "I asscone you". I cracked up hard when I read that. —Teknic^Talk/Mail02:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism.Megan1967 04:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crap.Postdlf 04:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I have made references to this page, but agree it is more of something for wordspy.com than wikipedia. (Also, if i messed up the wiki-code for a weak delete, could somebody help me?)Klhuillier
Deleticon. Neologism; I am an expert at detecting smilies, and I have never heard this term used as a synonym for the Emoticon. --SuperDude 09:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, smartass trying toinvent a word. --Marianocecowski 10:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, while it's not that important, and is a silly word, the last two voters are wrong, as I have seen this in circulation for several months. It was new to me at the time, as well, but DOES exist. Even "experts" have to learn something new now and again. --Freakybomb 14:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC) <---This isFreakybomb's only editFawcett5 16:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism.Jayjg ^(talk)21:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fah. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I chuckled. Maybe merge/redirect toEmoticons article.Whig 07:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pearl Jam songs covered by others

[edit]

Probably the least notable song list i've seen so far. Short, not much worth expanding, and should bemerged intoPearl Jam or mercilesslydeleted.Hedley 15:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ormerge or else every band article will want a covers subarticle.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 19:13, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete ormerge for all the above reasons. --Silversmith 21:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, extremely useful list showing the influence of the band.Kappa 22:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge preferably, if notKeep. Useful list, but should be merged with mainPearl Jam article to prevent a million of these from popping up. -CunningLinguist 23:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge andredirect toPearl Jam.Rick K 23:59, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep ormerge; keep the information. I concur with Kappa that it shows the influence of the band, and traces connections to other notable acts covered in Wikipedia (it doesn't, and obviously shouldn't, include covers by obscure bar bands, Pearl Jam tribute acts, etc.) Short enough at present that it could be merged into Pearl Jam if that were necessary.Samaritan 01:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bands are always covering other bands songs - none of these covers are inherently notable.Megan1967 04:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above.R adiant _* 12:23, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Merge toPearl Jam without redirecting this long and unlikely search term, or simplydelete. Agree with Megan1967 and others: there's nothing inherently notable about this subtopic. Virtually all high-selling bands have some of their songs, especially hits, covered by other bands, usually wannabees, regardless of whether the material is high-quality or notable. It's also not very maintainable as new covers continue to be released.List of Pearl Jam songs covered by Johnny Cash would at least evince some notability, if there were enough examples for a list, but this topic hardly involves any significance at all.Barno 17:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listy list.Klonimus 17:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orMerge if delete fails.Jayjg ^(talk)21:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Too short to keep; EasyMERGE. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge.Whig 07:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft. --Carnildo 18:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infranet

[edit]

There are two different definitions here. The one refers to a concept and product that does not actually exist at this time, and the other is a non-notable internet billing service.Indrian 15:57, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Keep From its beginnings as a Juniper buzzword the Infranet initiative has become a real industry group with participation from almost every major player in telecom. See[9]. --Gmaxwell 18:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After discovering this article via VFD I have extensively updated it and would be glad to continue updating it to keep it up to wikipedia standards. --Gmaxwell 20:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at Gmaxwell's expansion, this appears notable and interesting--for example, several major telecom companies appear to be involved in this effort, at least peripherally, proving it's not just vaporware made up by some small-time group.Keep.Meelar (talk) 21:59, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep-Interesting and very encyclopedic. Hopefully it will continue to be expanded. -CunningLinguist 23:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup and expand. Notable.Megan1967 04:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vaporware at the moment. Might be worth adding once there's a there there.Whig 07:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ERF TV Tower

[edit]

Just a TV tower that does not appear to have any special qualities. Just like anything else in the world, some TV towers are no doubt worthy of inclusion in wikipedia, but this one appears unremarkable.Indrian 16:12, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This issue should be put on hold until after the discussion onWikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts has been resolved.Zzyzx11 (Talk)19:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Defer.Gazpacho 05:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/deferKappa 20:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - regardless the policy outcome I don't see this as a valid article -Tεx τ urε 22:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending larger discussion on these masts. -SimonP 14:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Weinberg

[edit]

A non-notable corporate executive.Indrian 16:16, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable.Megan1967 04:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable -Tεx τ urε 22:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit and soul index

[edit]

It's not really an article, it's a list of internal links to articles that have a sometimes tenuous relationship to the topic of "spirit and soul." It's almost more of a category, rather than an article.Joyous 17:19, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Not an encyclopedia article.Delete.Rick K 04:03, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopaedic.Megan1967 04:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's sat for almost a year with only its initial edit, so it isn't any sort of "work in progress" - no attempts to make anything coherent out of it (and for good reason). --Dcfleck 20:29, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Delete - no actual content -Tεx τ urε 22:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Altar Q

[edit]

Earlier deletion debate atWikipedia:Votes for deletion/Altar Q/Archive. It has been restored after VFU listing, because it seems that this band wasn't as local as originally thought.Abstain.R adiant _* 07:22, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. allmusic has a page for them at[10], but all it says is "genre rock", with no albums listed. artistdirect also has a page for them at[11], but it's empty. A Google search for "Altar Q" band -wikipedia -copan comes up with84 hits. Their website athttp://www.altarq.net/ is closed.Rick K
Delete band vanity. --Etacar11 01:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: band promo, nobody in particular.Wile E. Heresiarch 04:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete band vanity.JamesBurns 05:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I voted to undelete this on the grounds that there might have been more notability than came forward at the last debate. After googling around with this I have found that it apparently has been played on a number of local radio stations, and this appears to be a bit more than just band vanity. However, Altar Q comes up a little short when I'm measuring it up againstWP:MUSIC.Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete pretty much a textbook example of band vanity. Anybody can get a couple of plays on local radio with just a small amount of effort, so that's no big deal.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 15:08, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, band vanity.Dpbsmith (talk) 00:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Leesa and Laura Andrew

[edit]

An email has been sent to the OTRS from the twins' mother, complaining about the veracity of this page (they never wen to that school, they never had a company etc.). E-mail is available on request. Google search does not come up with much about these two girls anyway. I therefore request its deletion.notafish }<';>17:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC). I have in the meantime blanked the page, pleasesee here for last version of the page.[reply]

Delete unless verified.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 18:57, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
~~A Google for+Lessa +Laura +Andrew doesn't seem to confirm any of this, as you'd think it would if they were noted New York socialites and all.Delete.Samaritan 19:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Not a vote, but you should have googled for Leesa, not Lessa, or "Andrew twins". Doing so doesn't reveal a huge amount online, but these pages stand out:[12],[13],[14] and[15] - the final one does point to some sort of presence in New York nightlife.Lupin23:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, *slaps forehead.* Change to no vote yet. Thank you Lupin and Alai for catching that.Samaritan 01:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question: Is this a "deletion for bad content", or for lack of notability? On the latter, some google-grade research seems to suggest they're a couple of models that have appeared on Letterman, if that helps anyone calibrate.Alai 22:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the OTRS? And Ireally disagree wth deleting the content of an article while it's on VfD.Rick K 04:05, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Me too.Grue05:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A ticket system used to process incoming requests and user feedback from people who don't understand how to use wikis.+sj+
  - Is it public? If so, where can I read it?Lupin01:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not, but I have pasted the exchange of emails on thetalk page. As for deleting the article, I'll take full responsibility. You now have the full exchange of emails, it was my call, I stand by it. :-)notafish }<';>00:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Interesting. Why isn't it public, what is it's purpose and where is it described? How does one post to it and when is it appropriate?Lupin 01:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. These two are clearly notable in my book, but I'm an inclusionist. I also think they're notable by current community standards, which is why I'm voting to keep the article. Can we please restore the content of the article? It's not a copyvio...+sj+
- Hey Sj dear...(and others above) ;) this is a wiki. If you want to restore it, do so :)notafish }<';>00:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The mother of these girls is objecting to much of the article being wildly inaccurate, which I can well believe. I don't see why it should be deleted though. It simply needs to be corrected (or started from scratch if necessary).Lupin 01:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am an inclusionist too. The twins are public figures.Literally speaking, the Class of 2002 included identical twins Laura and Leesa Andrew, 21, of Blackwood [| Camden Community College Communique June 2002 |]. What did they study?. Most of the information can be traced back to the Internet. The links are even included with the article. I don't see why it should be deleted. It simply needs to be corrected. The girls or mother should fix the page. They have expressed an interest in doing so via their mailthe girls and I would be happy to post a "REAL & FACTUAL" page about them, ourselves, on your site.Liftoph 11:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no content at the moment, anyhow. If there is an article being worked on, and they are notable, re-add later. But there's not even a useful stub at present.Whig07:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I put the article back, removing facts I couldn't find a reference for and added a references section.Lupin 15:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Probably (minimally) notable, but article needs more information.Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:06, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Zhang Wuji

[edit]

Vote for deletion. "...is a male human born in 1337" Born in Leet? (that would be the translation). There should be more data than that. I think it's up more for a nuisance page than anything else, and it could be the real year 1337, but I doubt it. --Mitsukai 18:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surprise, surprise, it's real!Here's proof. Still, a character from a martial arts movie which doesn't even have its own article... I'm in no rush to keep this subsubsubstub. Could even be aSpeedy under criteria #1.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 19:02, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Normally, I would have listed it under a speedy, but considering I was unsure if it was real or not, I chose to take the cautious path. In any case, unless we've got an article we can merge this into, I still say we should kill it. --Mitsukai 20:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, probably very notable.Kappa22:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this notable for one line for a character in a movie that doesn't even have an entry yet? Yes, if we even had a stub for the movie, we might have a place to merge this into. But as Starblind says, there's no point to having subsubsubstubs. --Mitsukai 23:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think you misunderstood. It says "born in 1337" as in 1337THE YEAR! Also it says Zhang Wuji is a character in a book by the novelistJinyong, who is said to be one of China's most influential novelists. So I vote astrong keep.Stancel00:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Then some work is going to be done on it. Right now it reads exactly as I saw it, and a layman will think exactly as I did - it's a stupid prank. It's clear that this person/character does exist, and if so, the article will have to be expanded upon. But until then, it looks like a nuisance page, and until someone at least spruces it up a tad, my opinion is that it should be nuked. --Mitsukai00:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK I've spruced it up a tad.Kappa 01:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in light of the changes, and the addition of the other referring page, I've changing my vote toMerge withThe Heavenly Sword and the Dragon Saber. Neither article is large enough to stand on its own, and merging them will give us a better representation overall. --Mitsukai 01:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect, as per Mitsukai. -R. fiend 02:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable.Megan1967 04:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ormerge.Grue 05:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
merge per above (WP:FICT)R adiant _* 12:24, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Articles likeXiaolongnü,Guo Jing,Huang Rong are all separated, there is no reason to merge this one.Yaohua2000 00:27, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
Merge withThe Heavenly Sword and the Dragon Saber.Nateji77 05:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remote backup

[edit]

advertising. They are just trying to get you to go to their site. If it is worth keeping, then it at least needs to be cleared of any advertising.--Silversmith 18:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is worthkeeping, while improving the article and stripping advertising.Samaritan 19:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup and expand. Appears to have some notability.Megan1967 04:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep, encyclopedic topic, the current article is a reasonable start. I took out the external link.Kappa 07:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That is not remote backup, it's a biased view for one type of remote backup. I suspect that you could actually correct this article and then move to Wikionary since that should be all that's needed.Vegaswikian 08:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, replace with redirect tobackup.R adiant _* 12:24, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep subt type of backup.Klonimus 17:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirectbackup.Whig 07:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Niloak

[edit]

Vanity page

Delete.Lordthees 18:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity-Tεx τ urε 22:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ad.Whig 07:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Limecat

[edit]

Non-encyclopedic. Includes substantial amounts of orignal research. Limecat would not be pleased.--Gmaxwell 18:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN.Megan1967 04:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Funny...Keep. It'll keep some people happy... and it's a lot better than other pictures that are generally associated with it. (I'm a GameFAQs user, and Limecat was a favorite among the people who posted on LUE according to the site about LUE. Unfortunately, there were other favorites... like "The Pains." (Don't ask, I haven't seen them, and from their description we don't want them here.)) --Chanting Fox 04:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Limecat is not amused. (This is a GameFAQs injoke, and not really notable outside of GameFAQs and some other minor fan boards.)A Man In Black 06:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. —RadRafe |t 18:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. –ugen64 04:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ormerge withOolong (rabbit) and other animals who wear food on their heads, or create aCategory:Animals who wear food on their heads if there is too much there to make a proper merged article. --iMb~Meow 04:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the number of people using "Limecat is not amused" convinces me that this is a phenomenon which needs to be explained to people like me who have no clue what they are talking about.Kappa 07:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a joke.Whig 07:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.NSR 23:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why not? It is an internet phenomenon. I've seen it tons of times, people have mentioned it to me.

Thundertainment

[edit]

Non-notable / unverifiable, 0 google hits.Fawcett5 18:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

okay i'm starting this group, I just am working on it to put my idea here.Comment made byMc mustard

Let me get this straight, This ain't a company, It is a animation group. Just like the clock crew you would see on newgrounds, You can believe it's a fake crew, go ahead. I can't force you to believe but you can delete all you want it ain't going to matter since the page is already registered on your site way back machine stuff there meaning the word i create "Thundertainment" officially becomes my invention and there proof here, Thats all.Comment made byMc mustard

Give me time to establish, Rome wasn't built in a day and my group is not going to be build in a day.Comment made byMc mustard

delete: non-notable and unverifiable, maybe vanity68.163.242.38 19:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy toUser:Mc mustard or a subpage, no redirect from article space.Samaritan 19:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dizzlete with extreme prejudice. I think we need a new law - Any "company" whose Web site is hosted on Geocities is, by definition, non-notable. Mc Mustard, no offense, but Wikipedia isn't the place to "establish" anything.--FCYTravis 20:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy.Megan1967 04:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy; if McMustard manages to make this notable someone can resurrect it to article space then (and only then).Kelly Martin 17:43, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - vanity -Tεx τ urε 22:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/userfyWhig 07:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soundquality laboratory

[edit]

Linked fromThundertainment, also NN/unverifiableFawcett5 18:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable.Megan1967 04:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Founded on May 8, 2005, and it won't be notable for quite a while (if ever).Sheldrake 23:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable -Tεx τ urε 22:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hey, I'm starting a company, that's encyclopedic! not.Whig 07:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Gallagher

[edit]

Obvious vanity.José San Martin 19:12, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand to discuss the circumstances and what happened to him, or move and refactor atI have not yet gone to college orBut I have not yet gone to college, and keep a redirect. This was a famous and widely circulated meme in North America even yearsbefore the Internet was widely used.1130 web hits and152 Usenet (dating to 1990!) for but-i-have-not-yet-gone-to-college.Samaritan 19:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename toBut I have not yet gone to college, which is a valid meme.R adiant _* 12:25, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Are you joking? Delete - vanity -Tεx τ urε 22:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough (let alone any more).Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No vote. This could be vanity; make sure. --SuperDude 04:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black Ruthenian language

[edit]

As noted ontalk:Black Ruthenian language this does not nets any Google hits except Wiki and mirrors, and looks like an anon mistake/joke/invention. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus^Talk19:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Query Have you looked at the entries onNavahradak andBlack Ruthenia? I am not that familiar with the history of that part of eastern Europe, some of the claims in these articles are new to me, but if this is a hoax then it's a fairly elaborate one. However there is such a place as Navahradak, under its Russian name there is references to the massacres of the Jews there in WW2.PatGallacher 00:11, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
- The term "Black Ruthenia" apeared in 17th century. There was definitely no "black ruthenian language" in 20th century. The sample text is 99% pure Polish. Either the article is badly mistaken or a hoax. In any case the article is to be deleted.Mikkalai 06:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most probably a joke, and quite a serious one since the same page (in English!) was added to almost all the wikis. Someone tries to promote his joke here.... Also, the text on that page is 99% Polish, not Belarusian.Halibu tt 01:20, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, hoax.Megan1967 04:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable.Mikkalai 06:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verified. Zero in-links. --Simon Cursitor 08:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be largely copied fromRuthenian language. --Angr/_comhrá 08:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move orMerge withRuthenian language.Delete may be too drastic.Peter Ellis 02:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable.Jayjg ^(talk)21:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Hall (singer)

[edit]

Not notable. If someone wants to have information on him, then it should be under an article on his band at the least. Very difficult to find on the net due to the zillions of James Halls out there.--Silversmith 19:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established.Megan1967 04:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has anallmusic.com entry and both his albums have entries as well. Perhaps this should be renamed as there are entries for a couple of James Halls.Gamaliel 04:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fulfils at least one of themusic notability guidelines: "Has gone on --- a national concert tour in a large or medium-sized country". Isn't touring as a support artist for Rage Against the Machine such? -Hapsiainen 22:33, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep There is enough there to keep it. Hopefully his career will continue and this can be expanded sometime in the future. --Glen Finney 22:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linuxism

[edit]

Programmers often use$platform +-ism to describe a non-portable characteristic, try a google forbsdism,aixism,osxism,solarisism,irixism, etc, etc (I'ld be surprised if you could find a popular platform where a programmer hasn't used this term). And even particular compilers, programming languages, libraries and standards (eg:gccism,posixism,glibcism,bashism). This topic is much wider than this one usage, a Statement to this effect could be added toportability if nescessary, afterDelete-ing this article. --taviso 20:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. wictionaryism, JargonFileism, nonnotableism. --Tokek 20:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dicdef, at best.Alai 21:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks notable to me.Stancel 22:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the paradigm word is "vaxism", which the Jargon File describes as a set of characteristics that can only be assumed true on a DEC VAX. The real problem is that while the subject is encyclopedic (I would recommend a category for "Portability Issues in Programming") the article doesn't say very much. I would recommend someone with multiple-platform programming experience do some work on this one, maybe add a few similar articles.Haikupoet 23:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and expand. Has some notability.Megan1967 04:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has the possibility to grow and be worthwhile --Freyr 04:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's not notable as anything apart from the aforementioned$platform +-ism. Linuxisms are different specifically but they are identical generally to any other platformism. If this is added toportability, the adding author should certainly expand onwhat exactly constitutes a Linuxism, or AIXism, or VAXism, etc ad infinitum. --Okto8 22:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly redirect to some sort ofPlatformism article, or put it in Wiktionary.Whig 07:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poweroid

[edit]

DELETE No content, link spam. "Company" is no more than a small .com retail outlet, no orignal products or ideas, doesn't manufacture, just resells. Non-encyclopedic, definately non-notable. (listed on deadend pages)Who 19:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I don't think reselling-as-opposed-to-manufacturing is much of a deletion reason (Amazon doesn't make most of their stuff either), their124,973 Alexa rank suggests this is an article we don't really need.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 20:33, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ad.Whig 07:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calling from the dark side of the nation

[edit]

DELETE first reason, the band pagePoxy has already been set for deletion, dont see the sense in keeping its one album listed as a vanity. SeeWikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Poxy.Who 20:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, orphaned page.Megan1967 04:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same as Megan.Whig 07:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sharvil Kirtikar

[edit]

Personal homepage stuff. No Google references.DeleteNaturenet 20:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another non-notable adolescent with an Internet connection. --Stan.

Delete particularly sad example of vanity. Non-notable.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 22:53, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Funny, but delete-worthy. -CunningLinguist 23:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Zzyzx11 (Talk)23:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, vanity.Megan1967 04:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity -Tεx τ urε 22:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, buh bye.Whig 07:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Penis reduction

[edit]

I started going through google for this but I'm not finding anything enclyclopedic. Most of the entries seem to be jokes (or preposterous bragging). The original entry may have involved using the term to derogatorilly describe circumcision. I did find a hit that used this terminology for circumcision, but that is not what the article is talking about. Could rewrite it to an article about how some people refer to circumcision as penis reduction surgery (if this is common enough to warrant it) but otherwise delete as non-sense (unless someone can find evidence this actually exists and documents it).RJFJR 21:05, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete I guess just about any body part could potentially have reduction/enlargement surgery procedures (i.e. ear enlargement, thumb reduction, etc.), but unless it's actually done, there's no need to have an article on it.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 22:46, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopaedick.Megan196704:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh, another cock-amamie pun.Barno 17:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - joke -Tεx τ urε 22:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Heh, but redirect toCircumcision if you like :)Whig 07:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newfoundland, New Jersey

[edit]

It is aneighborhood of West Milford, New Jersey. Non-incorporated.Delete as non-notable.RJFJR 21:23, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding comments below, the phrase "neighborhood" is probably not the best one here, although it may be what people locally use. It's definitely not the same thing in any way asBel-Air, Los Angeles, California, which is a district within an urban setting, or most "neighborhood" articles in Wikipedia. Although I haven't been to this particular New Jersey community, if it is like many unincorporated communities, then it is probably a stand-alone, recognizable unincorporated community, with its own post office and zip code. Here's the Google search[16], for example. I know for a fact that it appears on the map as would a real "town". The culprit here is the strange, somewhat archaic boundaries of New Jersey municipalities, which quite often diverge from the actual community structures which have emerged over the last 100 years. Some "towns" in New Jersey are almost like sub-counties, drawing together several distinct unincorporated communities into a common governmental structure. --Decumanus 23:30, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Merge and redirect toWest Milford, New Jersey. When and if neighborhood sections of that article grow too large, they can be split off.Meelar (talk) 21:52, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep real places or merge as above.Kappa 22:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.New Jersey has many communities with distinct identities that are not incorporated but which everyone recognizes and distinct and which are on most maps. --Decumanus 23:15, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
Keep. A Google search showed that this is a real place with a real community of interest.[17]Capitalistroadster 23:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move toNewfoundland, West Milford, New Jersey, in the spirit ofBel-Air, Los Angeles, California, et al.Zzyzx11 (Talk)00:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I always say keep real places, but as this is a neighborhood,move toNewfoundland, West Milford, New Jersey.Rick K 04:18, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Zzyzx and RickK.Move.Sjakkalle 07:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge intoWest Milford, New Jersey anddelete -Skysmith10:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and delete is a taboo vote, it is not in accordance with the GFDL license which requires the edit history kept if the content is used.Sjakkalle 12:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we havehundreds of articles on neighbourhoods. -SimonP 13:55, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Merge intoWest Milford, New Jersey. --ChrisRuvolo (t)16:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not really a neighborhood, more of its own settlement within the borders of West Newton. --SPUI (talk)02:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, orKeep as discussed above. I live in an area that hasneighbourhood identities that cover severalsuburbs within the 'towns' that form the city. It's quite real for us.Peter Ellis 02:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In it's present form, I'm inclined toMerge and Redirect to West Milford. It is a real place and has it's own ZIP code, so at the very least a redirect is appropriate. But if this is all there is to say about the place, it should be included in a Communities section in the West Milford article. If (or when) there is more to say about the place, then it can get broken out into it's own article. If it is merged, the content should be placed prominently in the West Milford article so people can understand the basis for the redirect.older≠wiser 12:31, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Colm O'Loughlin

[edit]

Appears to failWP:MUSIC guidelines. No notability apparent.Tuf-Kat 21:24, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, possible vanity.Megan1967 04:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable -Tεx τ urε 22:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Young

[edit]

Sad that she died young, but still not notable."toni young" bass "Red C" gets 14 Google hits. —Wahoofive (talk)21:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't even have an article onRed C, which AMG lists as having formed and disbanded in 1981 with no released albums (and a single on one compilation album, which AMG describes as "the extent of their exposure.") Even if Red C itself were notable enough for an article, Toni Young would just be merged there.Postdlf 22:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not inherently notable.Megan1967 04:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN.Whig 07:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse M. Zimmerman

[edit]

not notable

Delete - not notable; I had the cleanup-importance flag on and contacted the orginatorSamw 21:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--owner of a message board, has a website, but nothing indicates notability.Meelar (talk) 21:51, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable.Megan1967 04:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN.Whig 07:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tanvir Gopal

[edit]

Listed as a speedy candidate but obviously isn't one. Article does make a claim for notability. No vote from me.Dbiv 22:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally I'd say to keep Broadway actors but according toIBDB he's an understudy.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 23:03, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Currently an understudy.Zzyzx11 (Talk)00:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable (yet).Megan1967 04:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete: he was in all those productions.Actually he's not an understudy. He alternated with another boy named Neil Shastri so he did half of the performances and Neil did half of the peroformances. The Actor's Equity Union has a rule that any minor cannot perform more than 4 shows a week. Therefore I say Tanvir should not be deleted.

List of Top 40 singles in 2005 (UK)

[edit]

Not updated since February and no reason to think it will be.Previously nominated with the following rationale:Not encyclopedic (leave it to theofficialcharts website) and not up to date. Can't see it being updated any time soon either as it's going to be a pain to do so. Important info covered by2005 in music (UK). Keep votes were aimed at the theory that it wasn't given enough time and may be kept up to date – it hasn't.

Delete.violet/riga (t)22:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC) (submitter)[reply]
Delete per previous reasoning (I voted keep last time). We don't need a list of top 40 UK singles in January to mid-February 2005. Even if we did, it would be better off at Wikisource, and they'd probably reject it. —Korath (Talk) 22:46, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopaedic.Megan1967 04:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can I say I told you so?Rick K 04:19, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I count 18 "delete" votes, 6 "keep as is" votes, 3 "keep but move" or "merge" votes and 3 votes too ambiguous to call. Most of the delete votes very clearly objected to the early content. The article was extensively rewritten on 12 May. Voters after the rewrite remained split with (my count) 3 "deletes" to 2 "keeps". Only one person appeared to return to change his/her vote. (I'm not sure whether this was because they reviewed the revised article and were unswayed by the changes or whether this is a result of the recent decision to chop up the VfD page, making it more cumbersome to review previous discussions.)

I am going to call this one as a "no concensus" (which defaults to keep for now). If, after a reasonable period of time (and potentially a name change), this article still has not fully resolved the issues discussed below, it may become appropriate to renominate this article for deletion.

As a side note,Ec5618 and others new to the VfD process are encouraged to review theGuide to Votes for Deletion andother pages which discuss what we mean here by "rough concensus.Rossami (talk)23:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia and homosexuality

[edit]

POV article that tries to link disgusting child abuse with homosexuality, which is a real sexual orientation. I'm sick of homophobes trying to connect the gay community to these criminals. So pleaseDELETE this.Stancel 22:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete POVStancel 22:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Exploding Boy 23:04, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
~~Keep~~. Yes, it's POV. But it could be made NPOV. Certainly pedophilia and homosexuality have been linked both by homophobes and pedophiles often enough so that it's a reasonable topic of research. I'd like to read an article on this topic that wasn't POV. In the meantime, I've tossed up the pov template.TreyHarris 23:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on the name.Rename to "Pedophilia and sexual orientation".TreyHarris 06:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thisconsists entirely of material deleted fromhomosexuality and morality, which is also up for VfD. Except for the attribution of one "controversial study" to authors, it's full of dramatic statements that are entirely unreferenced. This is not salvageable.Samaritan 23:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Metaphysically, morality is much more susceptible to POV-only speech than pedophilia is. You can point to "pedophilia", out there in the real world, and talk about it in NPOV terms (even though, I'll admit, it's hard to do so and it's very easy to switch into POV language). It's much harder to point to "morality" in the real world and talk about it in the same way. (Pragmatically, it's probablyeasier to talk about "morality" without getting tempers flaring, but that's not my point—my point is that pedophiliacan be discussed in an NPOV way.)TreyHarris 23:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant the material currently in the article isn't salvageable. I can't speak to a possible total rewrite.Samaritan 23:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I addeddelete to your vote so you didn't have to add it later on, if that's okay with you. I'll remove it it's not.Stancel 00:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, conditionally: Delete unless this vote transmorgifies into a vote about a complete rewrite, then I would reconsider. Per TreyHarris and BD2412, I think there's room for an article carefully addressing the myths, but this rejected material from another article isn't the start.Samaritan 01:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Horrible attempt to tie homosexuality to pedophilia. -CunningLinguist 23:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Known bad science mixed with a false account of history. Perhaps there should be an article debunking such myths, but start with a clean slate. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 00:04, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
If this article stays, there should be one forPedophilia and heterosexuality since most pedophiles are men who choose girls as victims.CDThieme
Keep pending re-write - While, doubtlessly, this article would become as controversial/argued over/vandalized as much as the NAMBLA article (ick *shudder*), there is a fair handful of information that could be put here... though ensuring it is NPOV would take significant effort on the behalf of several individuals. If nothing more, it could look at (as already included) the history of pedophilia advocates trying to piggyback upon LGBT organizations back during the fledgling stages of the gay pride/rights movement, as well as address more current events, such as Texas' most recent legislation preventing GLBT Americans from adopting children - even to the point of allowing the state to investigate foster parent hopefuls to make sure they aren't hiding their sexual orientation - due to the legislator's reliance upon the trumped up "research" of Dr. Cameron. This page is useful.. just not as it is now.Arcuras 02:37, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. A lot of people who haven't paid much attention to the subject wonder if there is a link between pedophilia & homosexuality, and Wikipedia should provide an article to straighten them out (so to speak). Censoring the topic from Wikipedia just means that people will get their questions answered elsewhere. Sure, Wikipedia handles controversial topics poorly, but refusing to address controversial topics isn't the way to go. --Kevin Myers 03:15, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, hopeless POV fork, inclue a section on pedophilia and its relationship to homosexuality in the homosexuality or pedophilia article if you really think the subject should be addressed.--nixie 03:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is a comparablePedophilia and heterosexuality article.Rick K 04:21, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV fork.Megan1967 04:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No vote. I disagree with the nominators attitude of equating pedophilia with child abuse; take a look atpedophilia. In particular, "pedophilia can be diagnosed solely in the presence of fantasies or sexual urges on the subject's part — it need not involve sexual acts with children". It also discusses the media's misuse of the term. This article isn't terrible, and in fact it doesn't even appear to directly connect homosexuality to pedophilia (it only claims that certain activists act on behalf of both groups). However, unless verifiable references are given I'm not giving a keep.Deco 04:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless NPOVed, ideally with references. -Sean Curtin 05:17, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Also, the article would need to be renamed to something likePedophilia and sexual orientation; the current title is POV by omission. -Sean Curtin 05:17, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Merge toChildlove movement.Gazpacho 06:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there has been historically a strong tendency to validate pederasty as the only acceptable version of homosexuality. It is also just a political maneuver, albeit a common and useful one, to say, "people exclusively attracted to the same sex who are also primarily attracted to underage people aren't gay". The gay rights movement was also allied for a time with groups like NAMBLA. Finally, there is a strong tendency in modern society to connect homosexuality to pedophilia. These are all valid topics for an article with the titlePedophilia and homosexuality. The article as it stands reads to me not so much like an anti-gay POV as an anti-linking-pedophilia-with-homosexuality-in-any-way POV. It needs to be rewritten, but a useful article could have this title. -Seth Mahoney 08:46, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete What can I say: there are no pages forWoman and pedophillia, no page forheterosexuality and pedophillia. Most of this content is repeated elsewhere so a delete is appropriate here. Any topics discussed on this page are more appropriately and neutrally discussed elsewhere. --Axon 09:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Women and pedophilia aren't seen as connected in our society, and neither are heterosexuality and pedophilia.Men and pedophilia might be a valid article title, because there is a perceived connection. Look, the purpose of an article with a title likePedophilia and homosexuality doesn't have to be to reinforce that connection (though it would be POV to insist the two never intersect). It can just as well be used to dispel the myth of a necessary connection while at the same time noting that, like heterosexual relationships, throughout much of history the kind of gay relationships people were most likely to see were intergenerational. -Seth Mahoney 19:04, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I dispute that"Women and pedophilia aren't seen as connected in our society, and neither are heterosexuality and pedophilia": there are many incidents reported in the popular press of women pedophiles. Similarly, there are many incidents of "heterosexual" pedophillia. I agree in principal that the subject can be discussed neutrally with the above but I don't think this page title is the place to have such an article. Too many editors in Wikipedia use article titles as POV and make dubious connections between things explicit. The defence is always that it's just a title! A policy of neutrality should not only apply to article content, but also to article title's. --Axon 10:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference between knowing that something happens and believing that there is a connection between two things. Of course people know that straight people molest children. I don't think, though, that most people, on the news or not, believe that women molest children. Regardless, if you want to find out, go out and ask 50 people to rate in order who they would feel most comfortable leaving their child alone with: a straight woman they don't know, a straight man they don't know, a lesbian they don't know, or a gay man they don't know. Gay men will come out on the bottom, straight women on the top. Whether or not they're willing to admit it, a lot of people believe at some level that gay men are after children in one way or another. -Seth Mahoney 05:01, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yourargument from common consent is fallacious here - no-one disputes that some people link pedophillia with homosexuality (although I dispute your hypothetical example - evidence?). The point is irrelevant in a discussion on how to present such discussion neutrally without making explicit a controversial link and creating a non-neutral title for an article. This also does not negate my point that there have been high-profile cases of alleged straight-female pedophiles and yet this does not warrent a page onwomen and pedophillia, for example. --Axon 11:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is clearly of note, moreso than any other "foosexuality and pedophilia" (Google searches can easily confirm this). The article as it currently stands is not that bad, and has some useful information. I'm sure in time it will be even better. Yes it will be difficult to keep it NPOV, but that's no reason to delete it.LizardWizard 09:19, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- You're exactly right, IMO. AsSeth Mahoney said, "A useful article could have this title." The connection (if any) between pedophilia and homosexuality has been famously and heatedly debated in society; it's a natural (if contentious) topic for an article. I would urge people who vote to delete to consider two other points: 1) just because an article is POV is not a valid reason to delete it -- the preferred approach is to fix it (seeWikipedia:Deletion policy); and 2) if you google "pedophilia" and "homosexuality" you get about 85,000 hits. I don't think most of these hits get you to NPOV articles -- Wikipedia could provide one of the few. I would think that in particular those people interested in gay-related issues would want an accurate article widely available, rather than abandon the issue to polemicists on the Internet. --Kevin Myers 09:23, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Comment - If this article is to stay, it requires aheavy rewrite and/or maybe change of name likeclaims of connection between pedophilia and homosexuality orpolitics of pedophilia and sexual orientation groups. The article title seems too much like very common POV propaganda statement (although it would be very useful as a redirect). Otherwisedelete -Skysmith 11:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll vote too.If keep, then rewrite. Otherwise delete. -Seth Mahoney 19:04, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete. --Spinboy 19:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup/expand. This is an encyclopedic topic weather or not you agree with it. People need stop being so uptight aboutpedophilia.Klonimus22:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside: This points to an interesting issue. The topic of "Pedophilia and homosexuality" is an extremely well known one. If this article is deleted (or watered down via renaming and the like in order to palliate the actual issue), it automatically goes to the top of the list of "Well-known topics that aretaboo on Wikipedia." That's pretty fascinating, considering that Wikipedia covers (in theory) pretty much everything of significance; those interested in Wikipedia as a sociological/cultural phenomenon will want to take note. Are there are other well-known topics that are taboo as the subject of an article? Drop me a note onmy talk page if you know of any. --Kevin Myers 00:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  - Obvious slam dunk.Islamofascism and more broadlyIslam and anything negativeKlonimus 05:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me just take a quick look at thePedophilia and heterosexuality article. Woops. Seems there isn't one.Exploding Boy 02:38, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  - Go make one.Klonimus 05:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Astounding revelation. Not. Heterosexuality and pedophilia have not been historically linked in public opinion. Society does not have a NPOV. In covering what exists in the real, biased world we may seem biased if all you look at is parallelism of article titles, but we're not. If you insist we can make aPedophilia and heterosexuality article that says "there are no interesting intersections between pedophilia and heterosexuality."LizardWizard 04:22, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  - You're both very amusing. And you're both missing the point, which is that there's no need for a "paedophilia and homosexuality" or a "paedophilia and heterosexuality" article. The relevant information (if there is indeed any, which I highly doubt) can go in thepedophilia article.Exploding Boy 19:31, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    - I don't mean to be pedantic here, but saying something doesn't make it true. The factis that, whether or not they're true, there are popular links between pedophilia and especially gay male homosexuality. Discussion of these links, where they come from (there is some great literature on the topic), and so on, is important, and worthwhile. I, of course, think this article should stay, but if it is deleted, any relevant points should be moved toHomosexuality, not justPedophilia, since the focus of the beliefs is on whatgay people do, not what all pedophiles do. -Seth Mahoney 19:42, May 11, 2005 (UTC)'
      - There is no "link"Stancel 18:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think anyone arguing to keep actually believes that homosexuals are much more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. However, a large percentage of the general populace does hold that belief, and it must be addressed (corrected). The situation is comparable to theHolocaust denial article: we don't believe that the holocaust didn't happen, but we still report on the wacky beliefs of those who do.LizardWizard 20:38, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
        Yup.This anti-homophobia site, from the psychology department atUC Davis, has an article about the subject. Don't they know that writing articles about this subject is aWikicrime! --Kevin Myers 04:49, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as inherently POV. An NPOV article could be written from scratch at another title, but there's nothing worth saving here.sɪzlæk [+t,+c ] 02:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research.Jonathunder 13:16, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Delete. Original research.Jayjg ^(talk)21:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep; I had initialy voted for deletion, but am revising that vote. There are too few articles on this topic as is. Please expand this article. An article about this topic should exist. Also, I feel that many of the people voting for deletion are letting their POV get the better of them. This article does not need to link pedophilia and homosexuality in a negative way.

My original vote, and a reply fromSeth Mahoney:

Merge Pedophilia. It's true that pedophilia-advocates tried to piggyback on the 'wave of tolerance' of that time. While not flattering, it's true. This information is relevant only to people looking uppedophilia.Ec5618 15:24, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

That's not true at all. It is relevant for people looking for a continuous gay history, for people looking for information on the early gay liberation movement, and for people looking for information on the fact that (and perhaps some good explanations as to why) people tend to connect pedophilia and homosexuality. There are plenty of reasons someone might want to look up this article from the homosexuality end. -Seth Mahoney 19:04, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

~~Weak Keep~~ butStrong Rewrite. I think a good article could exist under this heading. The current article isn't it, to be sure.Whig 08:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Howabout justDelete and redirect to, say,NAMBLA.Whig 08:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article shouldn't be, or shouldn't just be, about NAMBLA. -Seth Mahoney 13:56, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - If this were rewritten it would be a stub because all it would say is "It used to be believed that there might be a link between pedophilia and homosexuality, but psychological study has determined that there is not; that they are patently unrelated and that it is harmful to the reputation of homosexuals to be associated with pedophiles."Pacian 08:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the actual article, it already contains more. Pedophiles should not have a reputation on Wikipedia; NPOV applies to articles about them as well.--Ec5618 08:52, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'll just cut and paste from a previous comment that covers this complaint as well:There is a huge difference between knowing that something happens and believing that there is a connection between two things. Of course people know that straight people molest children. I don't think, though, that most people, on the news or not, believe that women molest children. Regardless, if you want to find out, go out and ask 50 people to rate in order who they would feel most comfortable leaving their child alone with: a straight woman they don't know, a straight man they don't know, a lesbian they don't know, or a gay man they don't know. Gay men will come out on the bottom, straight women on the top. Whether or not they're willing to admit it, a lot of people believe at some level that gay men are after children in one way or another. -Seth Mahoney 03:45, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, original research.Leanne 03:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain how this is original research? It came out of the blue when Jonathunder claimed it, and now two others have concurred, though none offer any explanation. I mean, yes, the article only cites a few references, but that's better than most and surely isn't enough of a flaw to warrant deletion?LizardWizard 03:45, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

It isn't. On Wikipedia, "original research", though sometimes a useful distinction to make, is often used to mean "I don't like what the article is about." -Seth Mahoney 03:45, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

There are far too many statements that are put forth as fact (without reference) that are completely *FALSE* based on what (at least I) consider to be the definitive opinion - that of mental health professionals. It was unanimously declared by mental health professionals that homosexuality is not a disorder and that homosexuals can live normal, healthy lives; this has never been asserted about practicing pedophiles. Thus the comment "Of course, homosexuality was once considered (and is still considered by some) to be a psychological affliction" would seem to me to beoriginal research in that it states thecomplete opposite of what is believed by the world of mental health professionals. I don't care if those "some" that still believe it are millions of people worldwide; millions of people also believe that other people should be property based on skin color. This article is littered with non-factual comments and that is just so; my (or anyone's) opinion on the content is not relevant. So, in this vein, it has also been asserted that there is *NO* association between pedophilia and homosexuality by these same mental health professionals. Not *SOME*, not *MAYBE,* but *NONE.* To use analogy, saying there is a connection because SOME pedophiles are also homosexuals is like saying that because *SOME* heterosexuals practice S&M, there is a connection between S&M and heterosexuality. And this is quickly dissolving into a rant, so if you haven't gotten the point by now, you never will...Pacian 05:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Perhaps the problem here is that we're viewing the article in different ways. I see it as a sociology article, chronicalling why homosexuality and pedophilia have been historically linked despite the complete lack of scientific correlation. You seem concerned that it is a psychology/biology article that will condemn homosexuality as related to pedophilia. I would ask that you consider the article as sociology - not having it would be comparable to having no article explaining that "millions of people also believe that other people should be property based on skin color" (which is clearly of note).LizardWizard 08:46, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't state that somemental health professionals believe homosexuality is a disease. It states that somepeople do, which is undoubtedly true. And the simple fact that some people believe there is a link,proves there is a link. *MUCH* --Ec5618 11:28, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Erm, are you saying (I'm sure you're not, but I feel I should check) that the fact that some people believe there is a link proves that the link they believe is thereis actually there, or that the link that is proven to exist is something along the lines of "some people think homosexuality and pedophilia are connected"? -Seth Mahoney 17:21, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think that's right on target with what he/she is saying though. Just because some people think there is a link between pedephilia and homosexuality doesn't make it so. I don't know how I can stress this point more clearly than I did above. It is a false conclusion based on non-logic! Look at it analogously: All scissors are used for cutting. Some scissors are used to cut bananas. Therefore all scissors are used to cut bananas. Does that make sense? No! You're jumping to a conclusion that has not been proven. Just because SOME pedophiles happen toALSO BE HOMOSEXUALS does not link the two. If that was the case we would have an article called "Pedophilia and Blonde Hair" or "Pedophilia and Left-Handed-People", using the exact same kind of logic. Why not have an article called "Pedophilia and Molestation Survivors?"...since it far more likely that a pedophile was abused themself than it is that they are a genuine homosexual person.Pacian 21:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so with what you're saying, but I don't think that an article calledPedophilia and homosexuality has to posit that there is an actual connection. A discussion of the fact that people think there is a necessary connection, that at certain periods in the past pederasty, at least, has been thought to be the only acceptable form of homosexuality, and so on, would make for a perfectly acceptable article. -Seth Mahoney 21:47, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I meant the latter. Please listen. There is a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Read thearticle. Thereare historical links, there arepercieved links as well. And all of these deserve to be reported. Before thechildlove movement stood on its own, pedophilia advocates were part of thegay rights movement. Deal with it. --Ec5618 21:51, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

The above outburst indicates precisely why this article should be deleted: it will only ever attract individuals who have a point to prove and use Wikipedia to do so. These subjects can be discussed more neutrally on other pages --Axon 22:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, Ec5618 said nothing that isn't true. There are historical and perceived links, and pedophilia advocates were part of the gay rights movement. These true statements are part of a body of information that should be included in Wikipedia in the spirit of NPOV. To ignore them would be to present a POV slant. -Seth Mahoney 22:18, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Erm, no-one is suggesting that anyone ignore anything, but stating the above is "true" ignores the controversy of the statements made and the complexity. For example, the link you suggest is between pedophillia advocacy and gay rights, not homosexuality and pedophillia! My point is that I think anyone who side-steps the debate with a"deal with it" is not someone very committed to NPOV, and this article can only attract more such individuals. --Axon 22:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deal with it, as in, deal with the fact that such links exist. Some comments posted above have suggested that no such link exists. Notably, the person who first suggested this page for deletion, who said 'I'm sick of homophobes trying to connect the gay community to these criminals.' That statement is neither NPOV nor honest, as thereare undeniable connections. And I don't appreciate being called 'such an individual'. --Ec5618 22:46, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

You may not be suggesting that anyone ignore anything, but you actuallyare ignoring something in your above comment. You say that one of the links I pointed out is between gay rights movements and pedophilia, not homosexuality and pedophilia. I don't think you have a very strong case for making that distinction, but fine. Granted. There are still two more links which you don't address - that, in fact, you ignore. It seems that an article with this title (or at least the debate about its deletion) attracts people who aren't interested in NPOV on both sides. That's not a very good reason for deletion, though.Creation science,theodicy, andpostmodernism all have the same problem, but no one is suggesting that they be deleted. -Seth Mahoney 01:12, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Merge withPedophilia as part of a pair of sections, one dealing with the use of girl children and another with the use of boy children. I am reluctant to use the terms homo- and heterosexuality in this context since the practices predate by far the adoption of these concepts. The fact is that the practices predate themodern concept of pedophilia itself (though the term is encountered in antiquity). As a matter of fact, we should think about making some distinction between pedophilia as a psychological dysfunction, with its constellation of social and sexual disabilities, and pedophilia as a cultural practice engaged in by healthy members of societies with other standards than our own (see[18] on the Talmudic view of the betrothal of three-year-old girl children, and Gilbert Herdt on the Melanesian boy-insemination rites, for example.

Treat the slur on homosexuals there with one sentence and a link to theAnti-gay slogans article.Haiduc 11:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yeah. I'd still ratherkeep, but if a merge is gonna happen I'd rather see it merged toAnti-gay slogans. -Seth Mahoney 17:35, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Slogan? What slogan are we talking about? --Kevin Myers 18:09, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Its usually not put quite like this, but "gay men are pedophiles" or "gay men are a danger to children" or "gay people recruit young people into the homosexual lifestyle". -Seth Mahoney 18:34, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of those are actually slogans,per se, which is of course my point. ;-) The article in question is not about any slogan; putting it into a article about slogans is tantamount to sweeping it under the rug. --Kevin Myers 07:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

After some consideration,Keep. Has been rewriten, and while it still needs a lot of work and NPOVing, the subject is important enough to warrant and article. After all, we also haveHomosexuality and transgender, also initially mostly because many people confuse the two, although it has grown in the meantime beyond that. P+H needs information aboutEphebophilia added, though, among other things. --AlexR 17:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's the verdict?A lot of people have voted for deletion. To reach consensus, I'd like to try to summarize the points made so far:

The article is inherently POV, as its name is POV. At the least, the name should be changed. Proposed names: 1) 'Pedophilia and sexuality'
The article itself is inherently POV, as no link exists between homosexuality as a sexual orientation and pedophilia as a 'sexual orientation' or mental affliction. Deletion is the only remedy. The content of this article should be moved to other articles.
Though the article may be biased now, it could be edited to be NPOV. Criticism of the article should be put tp use, to remove bias.
This content should be merged withpedophilia
This content should be merged withchildlove movement
This content should be merged withanti-gay slogan; as the percieved link is often used as a slur.
The article shouldn't be removed, regardless of bias. Wikipedia needs an article like this, and removing it would be biased and would suggest ataboo.

I may have missed a few points.In my opinion, the article should remain. I would not object to a rename, provided the new name was fitting. This page should then become a redirect; peopl will try to find this page, and be directed to a NPOV name.--Ec5618 12:50, May 17, 2005 (UTC)\

The consensus isdeleteStancel 14:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure? Please define consensus as you see it. Also, your comments so far have suggested to me that you feel slighted by this article. Please explain how, and why that shouldever be grounds for deletion. --Ec5618 15:25, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

There have been alot of votes for deletion, about 15 or 16. There have been only 4 or 5 votes for keep, and the rest are merge/rename. I think that means we have reached a consensus for deletion.Stancel 16:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This process is not about voting, it is about discussion to reach concensus. Please define 'consensus' asyou see it. Also, your comments so far have suggested to me that you feel slighted by this article. Please explain how, and why that shouldever be grounds for deletion. --Ec5618 17:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Cuddled else

[edit]

Dicdef of a slang expression regarding computer programming typography style, with examples. No potential for expansion. —Wahoofive (talk)23:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, code layout conventions are encyclopedic.Kappa 07:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism (it gets only 150 googles, which is very little for a computer-related concept). And the information in the article is trivial.R adiant _* 12:33, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism not in widespread use, trivial content with no potential to become encyclopedic. Would Kappa also say that line-numbering conventions in BASIC are encyclopedic? Variable capitalization conventions in Visual C++? The convention for what column holds the continuation indicator for commands longer than 80 characters in FORTRAN? All are code layout conventions of at least as much significance as whether a THEN clause's end-brace and an ELSE clause's start-brace are on the same line as the "else" keyword between them. I could imagine finding them somewhere in Wikibooks, but as a programmer for over a quarter-century, I can say that none of these are significant enough for a WP article.Barno17:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not too sure about the FORTRAN one. The others are certainly part of the sum of human knowledge.Kappa 07:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Fitzgerald

[edit]

Obscure local sportsperson, not encyclopedic.Delete--nixie 23:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm "local" means "not American"?Kappa00:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No "local" means that I doubt that anyone anywhere else in the world would be interested--nixie01:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I take offence at that comment. I doubt most people in the world are interested in your user page. Brianreddy
I must agree with Kappa. Perhaps you misunderstand the importance of gaelic games in Irish society. SeeCroke Park or theGAA. Brianreddy
After reflection, I voteKeep. "Senior county" appears to be the highest, national level of the sport, andcamogie, which I'd never heard of before, appears to be a notable Gaelic sport.Kappa 09:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable.Gillian Tipson 06:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually study in Trinity and she certainly is a sporting icon there and within GAA circles.Otoolend 11:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, hey Im biased, I started the article, but I considered it notable then as I still do now. brianreddy
This could be vanity; I becha we should justdelete it. --SuperDude 02:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,Wonderful encylopaedic entry.—Precedingunsigned comment added by89.204.230.77 (talk)21:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strake Jesuit Educational Television (SJET)

[edit]

The content of this article is already mentioned verbatim in theStrake Jesuit College Preparatory article and provides nothing new. -CunningLinguist 23:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect toStrake Jesuit College Preparatory.Zzyzx11 (Talk)00:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article duplication.Megan1967 04:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danny

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a names database.Rick K 23:37, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This is a fact, not an article, and even the other entries atCategory:Given names are either disambigs or have unconnected encyclopedic meanings. —Korath (Talk) 00:10, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, concur with Rick.Megan1967 04:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real name.Grue06:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and?Rick K 06:16, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete perUser:RickK andUser:Korath. --Angr/_comhrá 09:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Daniel." Some of the articles on names are a little more than disambiguation pages, but the names are notable beyond just being names. It would seem to me that "Daniel" would be much more notable and encyclopedic than "Danny."sɪzlæk [+t,+c ] 02:25, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Daniel is about the book of the Bible. There is noDaniel (disambiguation) article.Rick K 19:50, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. See RickK and Korath.Jayjg ^(talk)21:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep History and usage of names does not make Wikipedia a names database.SchmuckyTheCat15:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is neither about the usage nor the history of this name.66.60.159.190 18:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedic. —Xezbeth 18:11, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect toDaniel, make that a disambig, move the Bible book toDaniel (Bible). Problem solved. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 21:17, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
Redirect to a dab.Kelly Martin 22:04, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

6,000 to 10,000 years old,

[edit]

VfD: Reason. which ever angle you may look at it, you just can't see a NPOV in it...

Project2501a 23:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indeed. I'm sure that any useful information in the article is already contained in one or more of thecreationism articles already on Wikipedia. Moreover, its name is not in accordance withWikipedia:Naming Conventions.Ben Babcock 23:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ill-conceived, badly named, POVCDC (talk)00:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT DELETE I do not see any reason to delete it -- other than that Wikipedia doesn't want to give Young Earth Creationists a chance to defend their beliefs -- from a logical and scientific viewpoint. Of course, if Wikipedia is full of bigots (who are afraid of any competing views then that would explain whey they wouldn't want to allow Creationists to defend their view here).

RSB

Good choise of words. Very, very subblte. Sorry, bubba, but you are not "defending" your possition. You are desimminating propaganda. Watch the road next time you try to cross a zebra crossing.[19]Project2501a 02:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a discussion or debate forum, it's an encyclopedia. Creationists' views have already been presented in the articleCreationism.Stancel 00:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is obviously a extremely non-NPOV. Aside from that, it is a space waster that should simply redirect toYoung Earth creationism. Read the article all you want, it is plaqued with a non-NPOV. Also, as stated, the name is not in accordance withWikipedia:Naming Conventions. It also has a slew of grammatical errors, and needs to be cleaned up generally. But I would not waste my time doing that. Simply put, it needs to be deleted. Also, the above post suggests the over-devotion of the creator and editor of this article, and this sort of attitude will only induce more NPOV's in the coming edits.

I do not see any reason to delete it -- other than that Wikipedia doesn't want to give Young Earth Creationists a chance to defend their beliefs -- from a logical and scientific viewpoint. Of course, if Wikipedia is full of bigots (who are afraid of any competing views then that would explain whey they wouldn't want to allow Creationists to defend their view here).

Ok, here's your chance to defend your article. One rule: you're not allowed to use the words "God" and "bible" or any synonyms. And you have to give evidence.Project2501a 02:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a place to defend or preach your beliefs, this is obviously your intent. There should be no competing here, and to create an article like this in response to what you believe to be an ongoing competition between creationists and evolutionists only encourages the problem.R Lee E 00:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete it's an essay not an article, alsoWikipedia is not a soapbox. It also has no neutral point of view.Stancel 00:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why NOT Leave it for a Week What are you all SO AFRAID OF???

Delete. I'm all for giving Creationists an opportunity to defend their beliefs from a logical and scientific viewpoint, but that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. --Whimemsz 00:23, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

If there is ANYTHING that is said in that Article that us False, then feel free to check it out and correct it. If however, it is all True, then why in the world would you want to keep that from the public???

(I just did. See bottom)

Also, if you are Really in favor of giving Creationists an opportunity to defend their beliefs, then why not allow them to do so Here and Now???

The two previous comments should only encourage a speedy deletion.R Lee E00:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, "Truthteller" clearly has no familiarity at all with Wikipedia rules and policy, and they are being rather obnoxious. I don't see how this falls under speedy-delete, though. Just because someone is being annoying or arrogant shouldn't mean you can speedy-delete their article that's on VFD... --Whimemsz 00:35, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - This is a polemic, not an encyclopedia article. We don't have aWikipolemic - maybe we should. --FCYTravis 00:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obviously NPOV. To the user defending the article, welcome to Wikipedia, however articles such as this which obviously present only one side of an issue are unwelcomed on Wikipedia regardless of which opinion they take, whether pro or anti creationism. The debate is not whether there is anything true or false within the article, the debate is over whether the article should exist in the first place in regards to Wikipedia's rules and policies on which pages should be kept and whcih deleted. -CunningLinguist 00:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV is screwed, at least the facts could be presented on Young Earth page, instead of a new article.Xen 03:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from POV, no one is going to search for this name.Capitalistroadster 03:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Material is already covered thoroughly (and with sound copyediting) inYoung Earth creationism. --TenOfAllTrades(talk/contrib)04:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Invalid article title, untenable arguments which can all be knocked down.Rick K 04:28, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Merge the very scant content here intoYoung Earth Creationism.A Man In Black 04:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's actually a bloodycomma at the end of the title. But since that's no reason for deletion: whatTenOfAllTrades said.Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Put content where it belongs; don't carve out a niche for yourself to present your POV.JRM ·Talk 04:51, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
Delete, POV, wikipedia is not a soapbox.Megan1967 04:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—POV, soapbox, comma, yadda yadda. All said above. Do not redirect.Postdlf 04:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV, propaganda, soapbox, etc.Antandrus 04:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV rant, title not useful.Gazpacho 05:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV, terrible title, subject already covered at other articles...and it's total bullshit.--Plainsong 06:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Someone might like to merge the various arguments intoYoung Earth creationism if they can be individually sourced.Delete the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crackpot article.Martg76 11:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Starting withthe Title of the Article, there's no reason to keep this separated from othercreationism articles. --Marianocecowski 10:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Challenged to delete false data I did. The article now reads

Young Earth Creationists base their beliefs on the evidence from Scripture, such as described in Genesis Chapters 1-3, clarified in Exodus 20:9-11, and alluded to by Christ, Himself, in Matthew 19:4

They also pick and choose from many different Geophysical, Astronomical, Bioligical, and Historical evidences to justify their prior held beliefs.

For example, the oldest living tree is between 4,000 and 5,000 years old, and yet it is still living. Perhaps it will live for another 10,000 (or more years). Using this as one evidence that something happened about 4,500 years ago that wiped out virtually all life on Planet Earth, such as the Flood of Noah is an example of that picking and choosing.4.250.201.207 12:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of content change, the name of the page itself does not lend itself for Wikipedia's purposes—it ends in a comma. And now that a lot of information has been removed, why should the page not be simply redirected toYoung Earth creationism? That article's name is more pertinent to the topic, and even though it has its own POV issues to sort through, it does it more thoroughly than this article will.Ben Babcock 13:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I voteDelete after considering this rewrite; don't redirect this title on which nobody will search. POV,Wikipedia is not a soapbox or discussion forum, and all verifiable sourced content exists in same or better form at the young-earth creationism article referenced above, so there's nothing needing to be merged. Any kind of superstition that garners this much controversy is noteworthy, but it's been better-documented before, and WP doesn't need poorly-presented and poorly-titled pieces rehashing the old unscientific claims. The only part of the article I agreed with was "They also pick and choose from many different ... evidences to justify their prior held beliefs."Barno 18:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Still a badly titled POV fork ofYoung Earth creationism. No change of vote. This article can't be fixed.Gazpacho 09:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see much encyclopedic value in this. —JIP |Talk 10:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm afraid of the truth.Jayjg ^(talk)21:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Painfully obviousDELETE. "Perhaps it will live for another 10,000 (or more years). Using this as one evidence that something happened about 4,500 years ago that wiped out virtually all life on Planet Earth, such as the Flood of Noah is an example of that picking and choosing." Hooey. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Whig 08:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no way to title an article; content belongs inYoung Earth Creationism. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 21:15, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice this biased, ill-named screed.Kelly Martin 23:44, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Vampire:_the_Eternal_Struggle

[edit]

Delete: Too short and biased against other ccgs. (nominated byUser:4.178.141.252)

Speedy delete short/no context/nonsense.Gazpacho 06:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't the article we're looking for. (Possible nn brings into doubt whether we want one at ALL, but regardless, this one is not it.)Marblespire 07:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page contains both the VfD and Speedy tags. I almost zapped it just now.Filiocht |Blarneyman 10:19, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Since it was deleted, I've replaced it with a redir toVampire: The Eternal Struggle, which is the correct capitalization.R adiant _* 12:29, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete the original text,keep the redirect to the good (and correctly titled) article.JamesMLane 02:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above (keep redirect that replaced article) -Tεx τ urε 22:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is indeed appropriate.Whig 08:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_8&oldid=1234127130"

[8]ページ先頭