Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 7

[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.

Mark McHenry

[edit]

Normal closing date was end of 2005 Jan 02; further entries resulting from re-nomination would not affect outcome in any case.

(The deletion is being carried out immediately, but the closed listing is being left on VfD to reduce confusion among those aware of the re-nom.)

This should not have been re-nom-ed; rather the remedy is to request action from an admin, if it is perceived as urgent, and wait it out otherwise. This removal would have been done without the special attention i have given it, once the holiday backlog was reduced. --Jerzy(t) 06:49, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Reformating for clarity, and Tally, by Jerzy(t) 06:49, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC).

I'm renominating this here because for some reason this VfD slipped past the nets and hasn't been deleted even though the concensus is definitely in favour of deletion. Enochlau 23:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I dont see why this has to be deleted, it IS the chacarter's bio. --James 02:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you are using a sock puppet account to write this doesn't make your claim credible. Enochlau 10:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok one, get off the sock puppet thing, I mean you sound like you're critizing Punch and Judy. This charcater is ONE:a supporting character from the books series. TWO: The orgin given is correct, if you want to correct the orgin then do so, but why delete what someone but time into, when the infromation is correct and the character is in fact a major player in the last 2 New Frontier books. --James 12:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some odd mix of f*ncr*ft and fanfic I think. --fvw* 12:33, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

  • Also a possible copyvio from http://www.geocities.com/jorathalan/mchenry.html P Ingerson 15:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rje 18:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as silly vandalism. Wyss 19:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Enochlau 00:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is NOT fanfic. If you don't believe me, check out Peter David's Star Trek New Frontier novels, and his Starfleet Acadamy Books. The only thing that I belive should be changed is that the author should mention that this is a character created by Peter David. Also, this article was brought up on Peter David's site, peterdavid.net . For the exact post, see http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/002349.html So I say keep this article. - Darrik
    • Anonymous posting. Does not count -- but if this is true, can someone knowledgeable on this subject reflect that in the article please? Enochlau 02:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Is the information wrong ? I read all those books and they are sighting events as they occured. Keep Dec 30, 2004
    • Anonymous posting. Same as above. Enochlau 02:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a reasonably accurate profile of one of the characters from a published series by author Peter_David. See author entry as well. LenSpelling
  • Cmt. It is accurate....it should state where the character is from.--James 08:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable character. DreamGuy 02:23, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • (But he is a chacrater from a book series we have a listing for. Non notable or not he is a crew member and it his history.--James 02:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patent nonsense. Edeans 05:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok I am confused then...why is this nonsense ? --James 18:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well I can confirm that its a true character from the New Frontier series of books, but then I'm an unregistered user and you've no reason to believe me, but you might want to check out this page on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671042408/103-8114724-6335051?v=glance and read the summary. The fact that the character appears on the cover of said book would also suggest he's more than non-notable. It worries me that someone can just write 'Patent nonsense' when it's clear that they've not done any research to support they're arguement whatsover, and egotistically assuming that just because they've never heard of a character then that character can't possibly exist. A simple search of the name on Google will throw up references to the book series, a check for the books on Amazon prooves thier existance. Enochlau you should stop wasting my time and yours. -- 16:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 : OK, fair enough. However, the copyvio claim made above still stands - although was the user who posted up the article the copyright owner? Enochlau 05:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tally As of 06:49, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

  • Delete
    1. fvw* 12:33, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC) (nominator)
    2. Rje 18:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    3. Wyss 19:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) ["Speedy"]
    4. Enochlau 00:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    5. DreamGuy 02:23, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    6. Edeans 05:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep (Anons - treated as comments)
    1. Darrik
    2. Dec 30, 2004


Outcome

  • D 6
  • K 0 or 1 (with 3 needed to keep; judging the sock-accusations would not affect outcome)
  • Decision is to DELETE.


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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:42, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Cracky-chan

[edit]

Content probably not noteworthy and non-enyclopaedic. I wrote the page, but only to stop the constant "vandalism" (is it even possible to vandalize a page with no content?) and reverts/undeletes. But then, it wasn't really a candidate for speedy deletion anymore, so now I'm listing it here. Grm wnr 23:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Totally non-encyclopaedic. Delete.Zantastik 23:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability is given in article. Tuf-Kat 23:48, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not remotely notable, magnet for vandalism. This "meme" has existed for approximately 48 hours, if that long, and is only of interest to the denizens of 4chan's /b/ (random images) forum, all of whom already know all there is to know about it (which isn't much). As they say on /b/, kill it with fire! — Gwalla | Talk 23:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete once the hype cools down. In the extremely unlikely event of this becoming noteworthy, merge with imageboard#4chan --Grm wnr 23:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete again (this thing has been speedy deleted at least 4 times in it's previous versions)Geni 00:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Just keep speedying it as a recreate amd be done with it. I'm sure they'll forget about it in a few...days, perhaps hours. hfool/Roast me 03:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Prior speedy deletes may not be used as a justification to "speedy delete as recreated content". Let it go through the full VfD discussion. (no vote) Rossami (talk) 05:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Hi, I'm a 4chan administrator. I'm sorry these silly kids have been messing around with Wikipedia again. I thought they would learn their lesson when 4chan was merged->Imageboard... oh, well. Ashibaka tlk 06:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • One does not simply meme their way into deletion -- Bobdoe (Talk) 08:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, then flog, hang, quarter, immolate and desecrate the article's remains even further. :: DarkLordSeth 17:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Edeans 05:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable and delete requested by the author. Keeping it won't add value to WP. --Deathphoenix 03:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. —tregoweth 03:16, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Delete the article but append it to the main 4chan article, where the information should be in the first place. Kitsune Sniper

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete, apparently as a speedy at 08:38, 10 Jan 2005 by User:Zanimum who wrote unviersity sex club

Port Island F.G. Group

[edit]

looks like a vanity page to me! Aaronbrick 20:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete RoySmith 00:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no google hits. --foobaz·✎ 00:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:49, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. The page has been tagged for merging with Something Awful. Joyous 17:52, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Terrible Secret of Space

[edit]

Goons, this kind of content is what we have the SAcyclopaedia is for. I recommend deleting it and redirecting this writeup to Something Awful.

  • delete. Unintelligible gibberish. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:06, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article about a joke. Gazpacho 08:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Something Awful and let the editors over there decide whether its important enough to keep. Keep the redirect to avoid recreation. Mgm|(talk) 08:46, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I quite like SA, but even I consider this not nearly notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Besides, the basics are wrong: "Terrible Secret of Space" is the title of the Flash music video. "Space Robot Bonanza!" is the name of the prank/meme it was based on. Starblind 10:23, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Something Awful and then add redirect. Megan1967 01:48, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. It's an article about a joke, but then again, Something Awful is all about jokes. --Deathphoenix 03:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:47, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Top 10 Archive

[edit]

Not really a well-defined topic.. not encyclopedic. Also misnamed. Rhobite 00:06, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No encyclopedic content. RickK 00:09, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not needed, information is already in other articles. Somebody in the WWW 00:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some sections are subjective, some are meaningless without date. Some sections, like tall buildings may live on their own, however without this stupid "top 10". Does 11th not worth mentioning? Mikkalai 00:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as trivia with no context. Wyss 03:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A brief list of informative, verifiable sourced lists. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:08, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Some lists like "Best Earning Actresses" need to have dates added (what year are we talking about), but most lists are verifiable and interesting. I'm pretty sure the tallest building list is a duplicate, though. Merge lists where appropriate and delete redirect. Mgm|(talk) 08:55, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Wikipedia articles are not: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The individual lists may have homes within other articles, and should be copied over if appropriate, but this collection is not encyclopedic. iMeowbot~Mw 10:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:46, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, lists are encyclopedic and oh so cool. Salazar 02:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • User joined Jan 9 2005.
  • Delete, collections of trivia are not encyclopaedic. --fvw* 03:19, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Copyvio and lists aren't good subject matter anyway. --Deathphoenix 03:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Enough lists. —Ben Brockert (42) 06:04, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- DCEdwards1966 20:33, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is WP, not David Letterman. Carrp 00:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete, apparently as a speedy at 18:50, 8 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality

APL-forums

[edit]

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 00:06, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. I can think of many larger message boards which don't even deserve a spot in Wikipedia. Any "company" whose "website" is hosted on free web hosts is not notable. Somebody in the WWW 00:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, as the article says itself, quite 'unknown' . Mikkalai 00:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a few nearly empty forums on a free host. iMeowbot~Mw 01:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete easy one. Starblind 02:41, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Small unregistered corporation" and "quite unknown forums" point to this being not notable. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 08:57, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable Ashibaka tlk 07:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. This has been done. Joyous 17:57, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Juvenile Diabetes

[edit]

Delete until someone writes a better article. Ground 00:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, list on Cleanup. RickK 00:20, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, or redirect to Diabetes mellitus, although Juvenile diabetes (without the caps) would be a better choice, and probably should be a redirect anyway. I'll go ahead and create that now, in fact. In any case, the material is already well-covered at Diabetes mellitus#Type 1 diabetes mellitus. If that section is expanded significantly it could be spun off into a new article but for now I think it's fine where it is. Type 1 diabetes mellitus is the currently-accepted name (at least in the U.S.) for what was formerly called juvenile or juvenile-onset diabetes, as especially in Western countries as obesity rises, increasing numbers of children are developing type 2 diabetes (formerly adult-onset diabetes). — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 00:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Knowledge Seeker covered it. iMeowbot~Mw 00:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Made into redirect . Mikkalai 01:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useful to Diabetes mellitus and then add redirect. Megan1967 01:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect works. DCEdwards1966 02:52, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the redirect Knowledge seeker made. Works for me. Mgm|(talk) 08:58, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • To clarify, since I was a bit unclear: I just now created the article Juvenile diabetes as a redirect after seeing this VFD nomination, but I hesitated to modify this article (Juvenile Diabetes) without a bit of consensus, as I'm still new here. Mikkalai made the redirect—I don't want to take credit for anothers' work. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 09:50, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the redirect. --foobaz·✎ 22:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The redirect seems to work well. Greaser 06:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. It's what type 1 diabetes used to be called, after all. --Deathphoenix 03:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep/cleanup. Article has been moved to Verus (gladiator) and tagged for cleanup. Joyous 18:00, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Gladiator Verus

[edit]

Context-free, presumably about the character in Gladiator (2000 movie), but nothing worth keeping or rerdirecting. RickK 00:41, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep notable gladiator. Kappa 01:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ...but needs major cleanup. Verus was a real person. In fact, at least two real people could be subjects of an article under this title: Verus, a slave/gladiator circa 80AD, and Lucius Verus, an emperor who trained recreationally as both a gladiator and bestiarus about a century later. The article fails to make this clear or much else for that matter, but either of them are encyclopedia-worthy. Strong keep. (oops, forgot to sign this originally) Starblind 09:42, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Poorly written article, but a real and noteworthy subject. Stick a {{cleanup}} on it, but keep it around. RoySmith 02:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Definitely needs to be cleaned up. DCEdwards1966 02:46, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup for reasons mentioned above Mgm|(talk) 09:01, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Not anything to do with the film Gladiator (2000 movie), which was set about a century later, but is one of two Gladiators named in texts referring to the opening of the Flavian Amphitheater. There was a BBC/Discovery Channel co-production based around this character a year or two ago, I believe. Average Earthman 13:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Correct. It was called "Colosseum: A Gladiator's Story". It's also been put out on DVD. Starblind 13:40, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real documented historical figure. --Centauri 13:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment: If it's to be kept, it should be at Verus or Verus (gladiator). RickK 21:36, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, but needs a cleanup. Megan1967 01:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete, apparently as a speedy at 18:41, 8 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality who wrote "Per VfD"

KillrXr5

[edit]

My guess is that this is fancruft for some game, but the writer hasn't bothered to say which. -- Hoary 02:30, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

  • Delete -- nothing from Google DCEdwards1966 02:54, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, might be from Deus Ex, but I really have no clue. hfool/Wazzup? 03:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:04, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ritz 11:05 PM, Jan 6, 2005
  • Delete. Subtrivial fancruft. Let a proper section be created on the page for the game it fits under if it's really notable. Mgm|(talk) 09:02, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete at 18:51, 8 Jan 2005 by user:Neutrality who wrote "Blanked by user (vanity)."

Falar

[edit]

Article in full: Falar is a member of the ROC (Redwall Online Community). He is a staffer at Terrouge Magazine and the Vulpine Imperium. He is also quite cool and a sexy beast. Need I say more? Oh, OK. Notability not established. -- Hoary 02:23, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

  • Delete RoySmith 02:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably ought to just send it to speedy delete. --DMG413 02:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- The original author has blanked the article. It can probably be speedied now. DCEdwards1966 02:57, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as silly vandalism, blanked by user. Wyss 03:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Mgm|(talk) 09:06, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted at 18:40, 8 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality who wrote "Copied to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social Sciences."

List of Economics terms not in WP

[edit]

This belongs in Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social Sciences and Philosophy, where the content has been copied over to. --DMG413 02:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as a fork then. Wyss 03:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as fork. Mgm|(talk) 09:03, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as fork. Megan1967 01:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete instantly Pedant 22:22, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:34, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

BFE

[edit]

non-encyclopedic DCEdwards1966 03:14, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Hoary 03:39, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. To me it looks like a very bad hoax. Mgm|(talk) 09:05, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary. Real term, especially in the military. RickK 22:20, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, badly written, hardly any content, dictionary definition. Megan1967 01:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this vandalism. --Deathphoenix 03:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's a real term, so this isn't vandalism, however unencyclopedic it might be. Szyslak 05:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Vandalism, plain and simple. Carrp 00:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • MERGE! to List of U.S. Army acronyms and expressions as it seems to have its origin there, it is at least common in all branches of service, though, and has a proper home and context there. ...on it's own it seems anti-Egypt 'pejoration'. Pedant 22:27, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:07, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Pajaka, Udupi

[edit]

non-encyclopedic non-article DCEdwards1966 03:30, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • It's only a plan. Delete Hoary 03:38, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • Delete Paul August ☎ 03:39, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:04, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe someone can try again if it's actually built. Delete Mgm|(talk) 09:07, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very Informative article. Helps the decendants of Madhvacharya to know more about their Guru. --Venu, Hyderabad, India [reformatted by Jerzy(t) 15:49, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)]
  • Is Padapa a town or a city? If so, send to Cleanup for somebody to write an article about the place, not this plan. RickK 22:21, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Come back when it's done. 23skidoo 06:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --Deathphoenix 03:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Carrp 00:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Ambivalent Delete. Too stubby and uninformative, this might be better expanded and merged into an appropriate article, where it would be more easily found, have more use and a be set in a context. Deleting it wouldn't hurt, since there's about 20 seconds of typing there at best. In context this might be suitable information if someone not familiar with the subject could be helped - by context and more information - to understand what it means. Pedant 22:35, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:36, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

New Page

[edit]

This looks like it was copied from somewhere. No potential to become encyclopedic, original research. Paul August ☎ 03:34, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:04, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A merge with an appropriately titled article would be ok policy-wise, but the article has a lot of POV and inaccuracies. Gazpacho 09:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it's an essay, couldn't find source. Merge useful info in either Keynes or Reagan articles and delete. Mgm|(talk) 09:10, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • With "Get a Print-Friendly Version" as the first line, this HAS to be copied from somewhere. Delete as a copyvio. RickK 22:23, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Megan1967 01:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons given by RickK. 23skidoo 20:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, definitely sounds like copyvio. At the very least, it's original research. --Deathphoenix 03:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Carrp 00:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Joyous 18:10, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Miss Mowz

[edit]

Miss Mowz is a thieving mouse in Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door. . . . etc. Since she's a character in only one of these games, I thought she should be merged there. But no, this material is already there, so it would hardly be a merge. Moreover, somebody (not me!) might claim that Wikipedia needs eight kilobytes or more of detailed exegesis, so I leave the matter to the (moderately) democratic process of VfD.

Incidentally, we read that Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door is the current Gaming Collaboration of the week! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia computer or video game article -- which may perhaps give rise to a certain enthusiasm for spin-off articles of arguable encyclopedia-worthiness. -- Hoary 03:36, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • Delete like Hoary says. Wyss 06:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Since it's already merged. Delete. Unless a great deal more can be said of the character, there's no need to make a seperate article. Mgm|(talk) 09:11, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with making it a redirect? RickK 22:26, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I personally think it's non-notable, but several characters in the Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door have their own articles. Unless the purpose of deleting this is to make it a red-link article to encourage writing, I'd stick a {{stub}} tag on it.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Joyous 18:12, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Grunt (Halo)

[edit]

Halo-cruft. If any of it is usable it can be merged with Halo. DCEdwards1966 03:53, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm inclined to say keep. It needs a cleanup, but I don't really see why it can't stay. The article Grunt Rebellion, however, should be merged with this one after perhaps getting a cleanup of it's own. K1Bond007 07:37, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless duplication, everything worth saying about these characters is already included in the article The Covenant(Halo), which is arguably overlong fancruft in itself. Average Earthman 12:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, anything useable to Halo, then add redirect. Megan1967 01:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with The Covenant. --Deathphoenix 03:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge. Cookiecaper 08:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:14, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Nate alcantara

[edit]

Top gamer in the OC. 16 Google hits. non-notable DCEdwards1966 04:04, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:01, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, pimple puff, v. Wyss 06:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Did this guy get any press attention? What tournament did he play in to rank #1? Mgm|(talk) 09:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity. --Deathphoenix 03:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so the article defaults to "keep". Joyous 18:21, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Michelle Marsh

[edit]

She really is a lovely girl with some nice topless photos on her website. I don't think that makes her notable. DCEdwards1966 04:12, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete RoySmith 04:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Wyss 06:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The resume on her website [1] shows quite some notable modelling jobs (with notable papers and magazines and numerous appearances in notable British TV shows). I tend to say keep here, but it does need desperate expansion. Mgm|(talk) 09:18, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete In the case of nudie-magazine models, I would think that only a few at the very top of that field deserve inclusion in an encyclopedia. Marilyn Monroe: yes. Bettie Page: maybe. This gal: not a chance. Starblind 10:37, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • "Betty Page: maybe"!? What planet are you from? GRider\talk 22:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 10:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, borderline notability, needs expansion though (no pun intended). Megan1967 01:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. She is clearly notable. Listing shows US-centric bias.Dr Zen 06:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I am from the US. That has nothing to do with the listing. I would not list Jordan/Katie Price for VfD. I would list most of the thousands of US models were they to have their own articles. DCEdwards1966 20:44, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable model and just as worthy of an article as the numerous big-bust pornstars who have their own pages. Needs expansion (the article, not the model... ;-) ). 23skidoo 18:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, appearing on television and newspapers is enough. Alfio 22:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have no problem with this. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 22:47, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. She is a model. That means: (a) she is paid to pose for photographers; (b) the photographs are published. If not both of these are true, she is either an aspiring model, or a very unsuccessful model, Are we all saying that if one's occupation is "model", and one isn't a failure at it, one is notable enough for the Wikipedia? Or do we want to say that if your claim to notability is success in your profession, that you have to be well-known and very successful at it? My opinion is that we should have articles about "top" models, "super-models", etc, those whose names are known to the public. And not Miss Marsh. --BM 19:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 04:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Michelle who? Weaponofmassinstruction 08:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. --Deathphoenix 03:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I echo "Who?", and I'm definitely not US-centric. The article fails to demonstrate notability. Having blonde hair and blue eyes are hardly notable characteristics. Remove that, and the only other facts left are her place and date of birth and that she's one of the many page 3 models that there have been over the years. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a modelling directory. Uncle G 16:07, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth/expansion. GRider\talk 22:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Into what? If there's anything to be said about the woman apart from date and place of birth, hair and eye colour, and occupation, please tell us what it is. If there isn't, why should Wikipedia have an article on her just in case she becomes notable in the future? Or are you just voting that way merely in order to have the opportunity to make an "organic expansion" joke? Uncle G 17:27, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't need articles for every model, page 3 girl, or playboy bunny. Not encyclopedic. Gamaliel 00:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Porn is mainstream now. And even softporn. Salazar 00:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • You're confused as to the nature of the debate here. No-one has proposed deletion on the grounds of pornography. The issue is whether, as one of thousands of such page 3 models, there is anything notable about this particular one. Samantha Fox is notable, for example. Michelle Marsh simply ... isn't. Uncle G 17:27, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cute but not notable. Carrp 15:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. This has been carried out. Joyous 00:37, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Medialab arts

[edit]

A course offered at a university. The article doesn't establish notability. DCEdwards1966 04:17, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Lyla

[edit]

I didn't even know that America had a goddess of beauty. DCEdwards1966 04:23, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete RoySmith 04:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 05:58, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified. Smells like a hoax. Mgm|(talk) 09:21, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Megan1967 01:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, probably some sort of tribute. Wyss 03:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, surely there are better ways to impress your girlfriend or inflate your own ego... - Greaser 06:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted. Neutralitytalk 22:42, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:33, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Freeing Money Constraints

[edit]

Looks like original research. DCEdwards1966 04:26, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

This was just posted in the article by the original author.
I see a number of "delete" entries suggesting scam. I assure the world there is no scam. But one opposing "looks like orginal reseach." The material contains fresh economic and philosiphical perspectives of great value to humanitarianism. On the question is the material Wikipedia, I offer no comment. I'll submit(soon) this entry, "Making Fuller Use Of Money" that will further enhance economic knowledge. Bruce Alton McGillis
DCEdwards1966 20:54, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks more like a Nigerian spam/scam to me. Delete RoySmith 04:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, scam. Mgm|(talk) 09:23, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advocacy, not Nigerian scam Gazpacho 09:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as highly unencyclopedic, though I must say I bet this guy is great fun at parties. Starblind 10:59, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - political advocacy, some variant of Omega Trust?- Skysmith 11:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Let's see. POV, scam, spam, vanity, original research. Any other touchstones we can mention? Oh, yeah, delete this, any future article he writes on the subject, and the article he writes about the person named at the bottom. RickK 22:29, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic possible original research. Megan1967 01:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this rant (original research). Wyss 03:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur. Edeans 05:22, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research at best, self-improvement scam/spam at worst. --Deathphoenix 03:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:37, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Quiz system election method

[edit]

Original research DCEdwards1966 04:30, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete RoySmith 04:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. Gazpacho 09:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Modified article. I have cleaned it up, rendered a more neutral point of view, and ameliorated the copyright infringement problems. Please re-vote. This is still arguably hardly a noteworthy topic though, given the vague and unfinished nature of the proposal, and its lack of adherents. Abstain. Uncle G 16:13, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • Interesting concept. Can't say I've heard of it, and it gets 14 google hits, most unrelated. Doesn't seem notable, but please keep contributing. A respectful delete. Meelar (talk) 18:10, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • <snicker>Does anybody in their right mind really think this would fly?</snicker>Delete. Original research. RickK 22:33, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • As I was doing the cleanup, I was quite tempted to add a section with all of the questions that immediately came to mind about items that were glossed over or simply wholly absent from the proposal. I didn't, of course, because that would be secondary source material. The article as it stands now isn't original research, however. It's not the proposal, nor is it an analysis of the proposal. It is a description of the proposal, as published elsewhere. What the article as it stands now is, and what you should be judging it on is, is unimportant. It only has potential interest to a handful of people. (Were the proposal actually put forward as a constitutional amendment, or even widely discussed in the political arena, this would be different.) Uncle G 23:06, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Megan1967 01:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, or if it isn't, no important politician, group, journalist, political theorist, etc has actually proposed this. --BM 12:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:37, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mark Bason

[edit]

clear vanity DCEdwards1966 04:43, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Could probably be speedied. Xezbeth 05:57, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, little or no content, zero context. Wyss 03:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete: Very short article with little or no context. If an article is listed in VfD but is a CSD, can it be tagged as such? --Deathphoenix 03:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:38, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Spartan II

[edit]

Another Halo spinoff article. Maybe merge. DCEdwards1966 04:46, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Joyous 18:41, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Guestbook spamming

[edit]

Neologism. Google shows 887 hits. Not very many for an internet only topic. DCEdwards1966 04:57, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: not only a neologism, also very much a fact of life. (I've had to delete the bloody things from my own guestbook.) I don't have anything to say about them that's worthwhile and interesting, but suspect that others do. I'd say "keep", but this might give rise to a largely overlapping article on "BBS spamming"; perhaps somebody can think of an omnibus term for spamming those website that optimistically invite [intelligent] comments, one that would include spamming guestbooks, BBSes, and [oh dear!] Wikis, and suggest a move for this article. -- Hoary 08:49, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC) PS redirect to spam (electronic) -- Hoary 03:55, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
Keep "Guestbook spam" has 3,500 hits Bogdan | Talk 10:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Dpbsmith

Double roller Swiss anchor escapement

[edit]

The Double roller Swiss anchor escapement appears to have something to do with watches. This article, however, appears to be a hoax. DCEdwards1966 05:23, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • The double roller Swiss anchor escapement is by far the most common escapement in use today, and thus could use a decent article. This one is someone's idea of a joke. Thus, cleanup rather than delete. Starblind 09:55, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anchor escapement and Escapement#Anchor_escapement are the real articles on this subject. iMeowbot~Mw 11:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I just speedy deleted it as patent nonsense. Content was as shown below. The comment about it being invented 200 years after Hooke popularized it and people being "prescient enough to realize what the invention would have been called" clearly shows it is either a) nonsense, or b) a prank, therefore vandalism. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Double roller Swiss anchor escapement is an invention popularized by Robert Hooke, although it was in fact invented by Alfred Nobel some 200 years after Hooke's death. For some reason, the majority of people were prescient enough to realize what the invention would have been called, and thus popularized it as described above.
The Machine:
THe Double roller Swiss anchor escapement is a type of spring machine that is very potent and has very high tensile action. It was often used for French guillotine murders in the 19th century. However, since the death of Robespierre, the double roller Swiss anchor escapment (oft-acronymed the DRE - in reference to great enginner Dr. Dre (Ph.D. MIT)), it has not be used, because all of them have since rusted.
P. S. And to further point out the obvious: French guillotines did not use precision Swiss watch moments, and DRE in capitals is a common initialism for "Digital Rectal Exam," and Dr. Dre is the name of a rap musician. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:34, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, could do with expansion. Megan1967 01:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Vote withdrawn as above. Megan1967 01:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:52, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Byzantas

[edit]

Byzantas should be Byzas. I updated the Byzas page, and now am requesting Byzantas be deleted. Venice 05:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I think that it should be made a redirecrt. As far as I understand it wouldn't harm having Byzantas redirect to Byzas. - Jeltz talk 10:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If it's left as a redirect, you'll have people thinking it could be spelled either way. In fact, that's what I thought until I found the only place it was spelled Byzantas on the internet was this article. Venice 13:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • If it's true that this name isn't used anywhere else then it should be deleted- - Jeltz talk 20:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • No, we have lots of redirects that are misspelled. We keep redirects 1) because it preserves the attribution history - a requirement under GFDL, 2) because somebody already made the mistake - it's reasonable to assume that someone else might make the same mistake in the future and 3) redirects are cheap. Keeping it as a redirect in no way endorses the redirected title. Keep harmless redirect. Rossami (talk) 05:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Common misspellings should be kept as redirects, not ones that are apparantly one-off mistakes. If content from Byzantas was used in Byzas, Byzantas should be moved to the talk page for Byzantas or a subpage of the talk page. --fvw* 00:38, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
  • Can't find any non-wikipedia Byzantas references either, delete. --fvw* 23:17, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • Byzantium is a real place, and Byzas is a real person. Byzantas isn't real and should be deleteed. --Deathphoenix 04:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:55, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sombrero's

[edit]

non-notable "taco selling place" DCEdwards1966 05:31, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - although it rocks his socks. Ha K1Bond007 07:07, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to sombrero. -Sean Curtin 02:56, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, no redirect, please. Wyss 03:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even if it rocks your socks, it's non-notable. --Deathphoenix 04:08, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and sneak it into Blink182 in some way that it seems notable in that conntext. Not notable "in a vacuum" Pedant 22:38, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep/move to Going commando. Joyous 19:01, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Going Commando

[edit]

dicdef expanded to essay length. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • No vote yet, but if it stays there should be a mention of Seinfeld. "I'm out there Jerry, and I'm lovin' it." DCEdwards1966 06:08, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weakish keep . This is on the borderline, but I'm glad the author chose to approach the topic as a societal phenomenon/trend rather than just something to snicker at. I could also reasonably imagine this being looked up by someone unfamiliar with the term (more than one can say for a goodly amount of VfD candidates. Let's be on the cautious side and keep this one. Starblind 09:32, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Who would think of deleting this? They even got the earliest known mention of the phrase in print, which is just great research. A definite keep. Everyking 10:43, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • NOTE: Earliest mentions in print are standard in dictionaries. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or possibly move to Wiktionary, definitely don't just delete. Well written, good historical citation. Probably a definition. I agree with Starblind -- above par for the course. RoySmith 18:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is more than a dicdef and approaches the topic in an encyclopedic manner. — Ливай | ☺ 23:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move to lowercase title since it's not a proper noun. -Sean Curtin 02:54, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's very well written but it is still only a discussion of meaning, origin and usage. That makes is a very good dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. Transwiki to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 05:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • comment: there's clearly an article to be written about the topic. This should be copied to wiktionary yes, but then someone should write more about it; what proportion of the population has done it? who finds it a turn on? where, if anywhere, is it illegal? etc.etc. a dictdef is at least a good stub.
  • Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's much more than a Wiktionary article. I agree with Everyking on this one. --Deathphoenix 04:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is by far teh most encyclopedic wrtiting on the subject I've seen. Thryduulf 19:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a wonderful article, worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. GRider\talk 19:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename to Going commando. Psychonaut 01:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --BesigedB (talk) 19:43, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree it should move to Going commando. Jonathunder 20:05, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:03, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sean Boyle

[edit]

probably vanity; non-notable DCEdwards1966 06:00, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:47, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN K1Bond007 07:41, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN Jayjg | (Talk) 17:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete GRider\talk 19:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:38, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, even for a winner of a highly-contested school election. --Deathphoenix 04:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:06, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Lonewacko

[edit]

Boasts that it is one of the least widely-read blogs in the world. --Zarquon 06:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • well, it's convinced me that it's not notable. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article was speedied on 7 Jan 2005. Does not meet any of the specific criteria for speedy deletion. Restored in order to allow VfD to continue. No vote. Rossami (talk) 05:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Josh Cherry 15:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --fvw* 02:36, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. --Deathphoenix 04:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so the article defaults to "keep" Tagged for cleanup. Joyous 19:11, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Y. L. Chin

[edit]

This guy has got a lot of letters after his name. But it's still vanity. --Zarquon 06:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Um, this guy is the head of department and only professor in the CS department at the best university in Hong Kong (and one of the best in Asia). While the current article should be deleted, this person is probably sufficiently notable to have an article written about him. (Disclaimer: I have friends who work in the HKU CS department, though I have never met Prof. Chin).--Robert Merkel 06:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. RoySmith 18:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity CV. Wyss 03:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. --Deathphoenix 04:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Now stubified. Original seems to be a copyvio from the HKU site, but this guy seems quite a notable figure. Andrewa 13:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Still seems like pretty much just an average college professor. Didn't we already VfD this guy? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:09, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also "Taikoo Professor of Engineering" - a professor holding an endowed chair at a uni of the importance of HKU (and for language namespace purists, it teaches in English) is well above average. Keep. Samaritan 15:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep He's a full professor, at a major university. Why exactly is it that Professors need to be up to Steven Hawking levels of fame to get articles, while characters that appear for ten seconds in a badly animated Japanese cartoon get an article just like that? Average Earthman 16:49, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Because then we'd have to keep articles on schools, and then where would we be? Huh? Huh? - David Gerard 17:53, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep - David Gerard 17:53, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: an edowed professor at a major university, who has been published in various academic journals, is certainly as encyclopedic as things like Darth Revan. --Rje 18:06, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. This is a valid stub on a noteworthy individual. GRider\talk 18:41, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "Full professor", "endowed chair", "major university" - none are sufficient for me to assume automatic notability. We would not keep a business person with equivalent seniority. Delete unless further evidence of achievements are presented. To answer Average Earthman's concern, I agree that we set the bar too low for many topics from popular culture. However, we have to take each VfD decision on a case-by-case basis and do the best we can. We don't need every academic to reach the level of Steven Hawking but they ought to reach the level of, say, Michelson. Rossami (talk) 06:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Michelson won a Nobel Prize. That's definitely too high a bar to set for inclusion. Average Earthman 21:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmmm... Perhaps. But merely being an endowed chair is still too low for me. Rossami (talk)
        • If it was any old university, yes you may be right, but I don't think we're talking about any old university here. The University of Hong Kong was rated as one of the best 50 universities in the world by the Times Higher Education Supplement in 2004, and computer science is one of the areas that their website emphasises as one of their strengths. So this is a key player in a key world university. Average Earthman 17:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's room for every endowed chair in the world. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless information about some noteworthiness is forthcoming. I agree with Rossami. Academics are teachers and researchers. They can be notable as either, or both. A teacher can become notable through contributions to teaching methods or through being the teacher of other notable people, and perhaps in other ways. A researcher/investigator can become notable for his discoveries, writings, and other notable people he has influenced. In my opinion, an academic does not automatically inherit the notability of his school, even if he is a full professor, has an endowed chair, etc. Given these things, there is a good chance he is notable, though. Somebody should do their homework. --BM 14:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • That's like suggesting a sportsman doesn't automatically inherit the notability of his team, so playing for Manchester United for ten years doesn't make someone worthy of an article. The fact that one of the best universities in the world has put him in charge of a large section of an important faculty does tend to suggest someone with more knowledge of these things than the average Wikipedian deems Prof Chin to be more than the average professor. Average Earthman 17:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have enough to justify a keep. I have added more info especially about his Governmentwork including on Hong kong airport. Still needs a cleanup. Capitalistroadster 06:33, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Potential bias: I've met the actual guy once or twice. --JuntungWu 10:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (carried out by User:Joy Stovall)

Revival Of Buddhism In India

[edit]

Some history: This article was originally marked as a speedy (I don't think it was by me, but I'm not sure). The author then recreated it but added more content. I marked it with an NPOV dispute, as it appeared extremely biased to me (and I had been watching the editor from doing some RC patrol, as he was making some questionable edits). Shortly afterwards, it was marked as a copyright violation. The author removed most of the page, leaving a section with Buddhism-related quotes. They copyrighted version was recently deleted and this version put in its place. The page as it now stands is poorly-titled at best, but I do not believe there is any material in this article which can be expanded. Nevertheless, given my past involvement, I recuse myself from voting. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 08:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment (sticking this in front): I originally flagged it as a copyvio. It included portions of a speech, and list of quotes. The two sections may have been submitted by different authors (one was unregistered), and both were verbatim copies from different sources. The speech didn't survive the copyvio, but the list of quotes is still just a copy of [2]. 68.81.231.127 16:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations". Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Many of the quotations have nothing to do with buddhism. Any relevant material that would fit the title would be more suitable inclusion to buddhism - Skysmith 11:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. The suggestion that this is not a legitimate topic is ridiculous. (If Buddhism only merits one all-embracing article, the same should apply to Christianity.) But this article isn't the start of a proper article on this subject. Philip 17:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • It is a legitimate topic all right but not in this format. Any suggestions for a better transfer? - Skysmith 08:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a quote repository. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Wyss 03:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, already covered in Neo-Buddhism. Zora 08:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, looks POV to me on top of everything else. --Deathphoenix 04:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

END JANUARY VFD DISCUSSION


This discussion was moved from the article's talk page. begin moved material

Hi,

It is my request to administrator to please restore this page. I am collecting material and useful links for this topic. India, the birth of Buddhism is struggeling for revival of buddhism. Caste and untouchablity has reduced indian society even basic human rights are also denied to millions of people under name of caste.

I would like to give information about Mahabodhi Vihar ,Bodhgaya activity, current situation about social work and propagation of buddhism which has been started on Indian soil. Its my request to Admin, please don't remove this article from wikipedia. The information posted will be well researched, with auhors permission and useful for mankind. If you find any contect which is violating the wikipedia policy then you can delete at any time. I am an admirer of wikipedia work so would like to volunteer for some articles.

Metta, Dhammafriend, India

Copyvio

[edit]
Sorry, but I blanked the page. If you can document that you have permission from all the copyright holders, please leave that information on this page. (Note that the "restore" comment above predated both the NPOV and copyvio actions). 68.81.231.127 11:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Confirm, above "restore" comment is in response to the speedy deletion of the first incarnation of this article. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 12:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As requested in the copyright violation notice, I am placing a note that the temporary page has been created. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 12:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
User:Dhammafriend Please read my comments below in NPOV dispute so that the article Revival Of Buddhism In India can be restored. I've made it clear what is aim and intention of the this article, the required link are also given so there should not be NPOV here.
Hi Dhammafriend, I'm sorry if you're confused over the copyright issue. Below in the NPOV section, you said "there is no copyright violation as I've given the links". (I'm replying up here because the NPOV issue and the potential copyright violation are separate, and I don't want to mix them up too much.) Now just because something is on the web, doesn't mean we have permission to use it. Please see Wikipedia:Copyrights. There is some good basic information there, and a ton of links at the bottom that might help clarify things. And remember, there are two potential violations: the speech [3], yes, but also the verbatim list of quotes [4] entered by 203.199.120.7 before you started editing the article. Hope this isn't too frustrating, 68.81.231.127 17:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

[edit]

[This text largely copied from my Women In Hinduism comment.] I am adding a NPOV dispute template to this article, as it appears to exist solely to disparage a religion, and can hardly be considered to have a neutral point of view.

I User:Dhammafriend, have already given clarification about Women In Hinduism article. Here talk about the article Revival Of Buddhism In India
I User:Dhammafriend Now about the article Revival Of Buddhism In India. I am creating a information article with proper information about the current situation of Buddhism. In the article Revival Of Buddhism In India I not disparaging Hinduism or Brahmnism but talking about Buddhism and its current state only.

In addition, this user (203.199.120.7) appears to have a history of writing articles which attack Hinduism (see Women in Hinduism, Manavantara, and Veda Facts),

User:Dhammafriend Veda, Kali Yuga etc. are not relevant to my article about Revival Of Buddhism In India

adding large amounts of non-neutral text to articles about Hinduism (see [Hinduism, Kali Yuga, and Rama), and adding anti-Hinduism links to articles about Hinduism (Hinduism and Krishna). While I would like to see this article become neutral, I cannot see how that will be given its premise. If neither the original author nor another user can propose ways to make this article a useful (and neutral) part of the Wikipedia, I will recommend it for deletion. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 10:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:DhammafriendPlease restore the article Revival Of Buddhism In India. Its aim is not disparaging Hinduism Or Brahmnism. It is aimed to give information about Buddhism In india in 21st Century. There is already material available about old history. This article is about current developments.
User:Dhammafriend Why conversion? is a clarification given by great social reformer of India 20th century Dr. B. R. Ambedkar that is why buddhism is coming back in its land on origin.
User:Dhammafriend Administrator can see the article on this link it is not copied from other sources. There is no violation of copyright.

There is another same article on columbia universityWhat Path to Salvation

User:Dhammafriend Dr. Ambedkar converted from Untouchable caste Hindu to Buddhism. It is a common phenomenon that because of social oppression many people convert from one religion to another. Many have converted to Christianity an other faiths. So it is natural that Brahmins and there partners are feeling that the article is agaisnt them even if it is based truth and facts.


User:Dhammafriend Mahabodhi Vihar a Holy Buddhist shrine is under Hindu Caste Brahmin Control.Latest news can be seen at [link (http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=1,252,0,0,1,0)] This what I posted on my article as an external links.

Please restore the article Revival Of Buddhism In India. There is no copyright violation as I've given the links and the contents are also telling the current situation only.

As Wikipedia is a source of knowledge about past and present subject. This is an important article. Because there are many people who want to know about Current Buddhism in India.

In Revival Of Buddhism In India I dont want to discuss what happened in past because Indian History is a conflict betwen Brahmnism and Buddhism; but here I am giving information what is happening in present so [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ should not have any objection on article Revival Of Buddhism In India.

From Talk:Revival Of Buddhism In India/Temp

[edit]

It appears that this text refers to Buddhism in general, and not to the revival of Buddhism in India. Furthermore, the entire article consists of quotations about Buddhism. How would you feel about moving this to Wiktionary? — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 12:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) Er, that should have been Wikiquote — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 08:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wondered about that :). It might be better to submit it to VfD or even copyvio it again... the quotes are still copied verbatim from [5], though I'm not sure the copyright status of quote compilations... Oops... I guess you already did. :) 68.81.231.127 16:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems

[edit]
  • Revival Of Buddhism In India. An unregistered and a registered user have been adding quotes from [6], and large parts of a (specific translation) of a speech by a Dr. Ambedkar [7]. There doesn't seem to be any original content. On the talk page, the registered user asks that the page not be deleted, but provides no concrete details. I'll leave a note on the user's page. 68.81.231.127 10:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC). Decided not to leave a note. For reference, the article was marked with a NPOV dispute before I blanked it (see also: Women In Hinduism). 68.81.231.127 11:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

End moved section

I've deleted the copyvioed page and moved in the /Temp page. As the "rewrite" consists solely of quotes, I'd suggest any party still interested list it on VfD. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

End moved material

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Retropolis

[edit]

This looks like Patent Nonsense to me - but I could be wrong. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 08:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • The end of the article says it all "There is no real life retropolis. If anyone discovers one, expand this article." Delete. Mgm|(talk) 09:26, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Believe it or not, "retropolis" gets an astounding 38,800 Google hits! But none of them seem to be about what's being referred to in this article. I'd say delete as likely neologism unless more evidence is presented. Starblind 09:41, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism Gazpacho 09:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: neologism not in circulation. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "Alot of locals are sedimental". Does that mean they stack up on top of each other? Delete as nonsense, as well as a neologism. RickK 22:36, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Megan1967 01:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I wish I could make up a word. --Deathphoenix 04:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There you have your real life retroplis. Vasco

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:25, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

V.i.S.d.U.R.

[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
German. About an abbreviation of a (job) title, as I understand it. I think it's VfD material, but I'm not completely sure. Sietse 19:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • No, its not a job title; it very roughly translates as 'person responsible in regard to copyrigt laws', and is allegedly only used at the university of Erfurt; i fail to see the noticeability Lectonar 08:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<end moved text>

  • An obscure German dicdef. Maybe German Wiktionary, certainly not English-language Wikipedia. Delete, possible transwiki. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:13, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; after thinking it over, even the abbreviation used for the german meaning is weird Lectonar 08:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not an article. Wyss 03:13, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for many reasons. --Deathphoenix 04:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:51, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

List of male sopranos

[edit]

This article may have been listed before, but I could not find anything in the archives, so I am listing it again. The article is so bad that I am tempted to call it patent nonsense. The few male pop music singers in this list sang with either a falsetto or a pre-puberty vocal range and were not true sopranos (and even if it was a list of pop falsetto singers, it would be incomplete without Neil Sedaka). There is no mention of castrati or the few natural male soprano opera singers (or perhaps more accurately, countertenors who sing in the soprano range, or sopranista) such as Bejun Mehta, nephew of Zubin Mehta. This list needs to be either drastically revised, or deleted. The fact that the article hasn't changed since March 2004 says that there is not much interest in improving it. gK ¿? 08:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Needs major cleanup or else Delete . If not, someone should add Klaus Nomi. Starblind 10:09, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Falsetto is not soprano. Either rewrite the article from scratch or delete. RickK 22:37, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • No useful content, cleanup would be a rewrite, so delete. (You seem to be knowledgeable on the subject though gK, a rewrite would be much appreciated). --fvw* 23:12, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
    • If I made a list to match the current title, I would have to dump everything in the current list and start over, but then it would be duplicating what was already in the castrati, countertenor, and sopranista articles, so that would be a big waste of time. Changing it to a List of pop falsetto singers might be interesting, just to bring some attention to some neglected Doo-wop groups and pop singers like Frankie Valli. On the other hand, there are many more important articles that I would rather be working on, so unless someone else wants to take up the task (and then I'll help a little), my vote is still for delete. gK ¿? 02:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, another useless list. Megan1967 01:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article premise based on the user's evident misunderstanding of this sort of terminology. A useless list based on a dubious classification that will inevitably mislead. Wyss 03:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete yet another useless list (then I see that Megan1967 wrote the same thing!). --Deathphoenix 04:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:51, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thomas-Jung Type Indicator

[edit]

I'm not demanding or even asking for deletion; rather, I'm asking for opinions on deletion. Although this is an unusual use of Vfd I hope it's a legitimate one. Of necessity, it's somewhat timewasting, and for this I apologize at the outset.

In order not further to burden the always immense VfD page, I've put a longer question on this article's discussion page. Very briefly, though: should Wikipedia include NPOV (and thence debunking) about fishy-seeming spammed phenomena that aren't particularly notable? Might such attempts be subverted, or anyway end up wasting a lot of time? -- Hoary 08:28, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

  • Delete based on lack of notability (I'd be happy to change my vote if anyone can find some evidence of notability for this though). --fvw* 23:10, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn scammy recruiting cruft. Wyss 03:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Ooh, 'scamcruft'. I like. --fvw* 03:12, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Greaser 06:34, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I a lot of spam and I've never come accross this before, nor have I heard of others receiving it. In any case there are plenty of websites out there that analyse this sort of stuff. Thryduulf 23:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:55, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Imperial Post

[edit]

It's the postal service of a micronation. No google hits excluding wikipedia for the "The Empire of Upper and Lower" micronation. Bogdan | Talk 08:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Whatcha up to today?" - "Not much, you?" - "Not much." - "Reckon we should start ourselves up a fake soverign nation up on that there Internet?" - "I reckon." - I reckon we should delete this nonsense. Starblind 10:04, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • On the Internet? In 1982? --65.174.34.14 20:46, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - It seems like advertising. Certainly not notable. Venice 17:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all micronations and anything associated with them. RickK 22:38, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe this article should be deleted, but your suggestion is facially absurd. Some micronations, such as Sealand, the Republic of Texas, &c. are obviously notable. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this nn ad. Wyss 03:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fantasy issues are only of interest to a small minority of philatelists-- mostly those who create them. Edeans 05:40, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, but I wouldn't mind buying one of their digital stamps! --Deathphoenix 04:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete—there's no way anyone designing stamps makes them look this bad. Stombs 10:38, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, obviously someone did design them, and obviously you think they "look this bad". So it's difficult to understand what you're getting at. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: It is a rather common practice for local artists and printers to develop stamps, souvenir sheets and pictorial cancellations to be sold or given away at philatelic bourses. These typically have some topical theme, usually not involving micronations. I am unaware of any philatelic encyclopedia that would carry an article devoted to one particular fantasy issue, or set of issues, so why should it be expected that a general interest encyclopedia should? Edeans 03:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • This may be true as far as it goes, but you seem not to have noticed that it says in the article that Imperial Post issues are not merely confined to these, but have also used for what is de facto local post (as well as airmail) deliveries. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:58, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Duchy of Natatoria

[edit]

No google hits excepting wikipedia clones. [8] Bogdan | Talk 08:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Just like that Imperial Post topic, this seems like non-notable advertising too.Venice 17:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all micronations. RickK 22:46, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:34, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this nn ad. Wyss 02:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Wasn't this listed before? -- Cyrius|✎ 03:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, and it survived VfD. Why are we doing this again? --Daniel C. Boyer 13:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn fictional sovereignty. Edeans 05:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Number one, it does not even claim to be soverign, which you would know if you bothered to read the article. Number two, do you even know what a micronation is? --Daniel C. Boyer 13:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. But what about those stamps! --Deathphoenix 04:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fabrication, self-promotion. Sandover 06:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Is it a fabrication as a component part of a micronation, taking into account what a micronation is? And I am not the Duke of Natatoria. So how is it self-promotion? --Daniel C. Boyer 13:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless references provided. Google returns no hits that aren't this article, and the local university library's catalog lists no books on artistamps or any reasonable variation thereof (although their catalog search isn't the best). I have no way of verifying this, and Mr. Boyer would rather question people's understanding of "what a micronation is" than provide some reasonable evidence that this has any intersection with reality. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: Does anyone have any information on the lawsuit; can they get confirmation on details/documentation? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:52, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 02:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes I count are: 5 keep, 26 merge, 17 delete, and 2 delete or merge.

Note there were a number of "delete and merge" votes. The GFDL doesn't allow a merge followed by a delete, so these were counted as "merge".

Autobiography promotion and publicity

[edit]

Just not notable. Autobiography (album) really doesn't need this spinoff. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's thoroughly researched information, notable detail that was moved to a subarticle due to the considerable length of Autobiography (album). If it's moved back, Autobiography will swell to near 50KB, with no room left for future expansion. If it's simply deleted, a great deal of perfectly good information will be lost. Everyking 12:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sure that re-merging this content would make the Autobiography article quite long. However, would it be that long because it's jam-packed with encyclopedic information, or because it's bloated far beyond anything reasonable regarding its subject? Even a brief glance reveals quite a lot that could be cut, reworded, or re-organised for more reasonable size. I bet that, given an hour or two, I could make it less than half its current size with virtually no information loss. I will not do so, however (nor would any sane individual) because you would immediately revert it back to what you undoubtedly consider to be your version. I will not doubt that there are certain albums fully deserving of 50K articles. However, there are a dozen or so of them at most since the beginning of recorded sound, and Autobiography just ain't one of them. We're trying to create an encyclopedia here, not the ultimate Ashlee Simpson fansite... which is what you really should consider making instead, or a fan book of some sort. It would probably be great. Starblind 16:50, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • You haven't even made 50 edits as of now, and you're lecturing me about building an encyclopedia and telling me I need to take my work elsewhere? Everyking 18:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Agree with Starblind. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 22:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Agree with Starblind. -Gtabary 17:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Agree with Starblind. Whatever his posting history, when he's right, he's right. --Calton 07:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fancraft. I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in this stuff, but due to the amount of work that has been put into it, and due to the thoroughness and evidence of serious purpose by multiple editors, this article will be useful and interesting to its target audience, which is substantially nonzero. (I wish we had a) a page hit counter that b) tracked only viewings by IP's who have never edited...) The fact that the article was not broken out until the length of the main article approached 32K shows the article was created for a valid, good-faith reason. Some articles in the Britannica 11th clock out at about one megabyte, showing that "Wikipedia is not paper" is not always a good thing. Paradoxically, Wikipedia has "unlimited" space for the encyclopedia as a whole, yet severely limited space for individual articles! Oh, well, who has the attention span to read anything more than twenty pages long? (Last sentence ironic). Dpbsmith (talk) 12:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote. Retracting above vote. Unaware of issues cited by others below. IMHO the real issues here cannot be resolved in VfD. In any case, I'm not qualified to judge them. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep concur with Everyking Kappa 12:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • While I would say that the information itself deserves to be kept, it really should be merged into the Autobiography article. Individual albums themselves having articles are borderline, aspects of individual albums having articles is one step too far. What's next, a seperate article about the cover art? A seperate article with the track times? A seperate article with the BPMs? Starblind 12:53, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. There was a separate article about the cover art. It was deleted. JRM 13:08, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge and redirect (no preference; count this as a vote for both). Not encyclopedic. In addition, this article was created purely because Everyking has been unable to resolve a dispute in the main article. When people complain there's too much fancruft whenever he requests peer review, instead of removing it or tolerating attempts to condense it, Everyking calls their efforts, among other things, nonsense (full edit summary: "(→About the songs - fix the most outrageous problem with this paragraph. i may only get three reverts, but i get to make endless little tweaks to your nonsense in the meantime)") and when reverting gives outrageous excuses (i.e. "A paragraph placement got moved and therefore a whole bunch of paragraphs were red, making it difficult for me to determine what was changed. So I erred on the side of caution and restored my version"). While this is not a reason for deletion, it's just the icing on the cake of this comedy of errors. The article is already borderline unencyclopedic, and the fact that it was created to run away from a dispute is just another reason to avoid keeping this article for now. Lest anyone claim that editing Autobiography (or its related articles) have been a community effort... As of 03:08, 13 Dec 2004, of the 552 edits, 496 (or 89%) have been by Everyking; of the 56 edits not belonging to him, 29 were reverted (25 fully and 4 partially) even though at least one of them received strong backing on Talk:Autobiography (album)/Archive3. Everyking has refused to co-operate with other editors, including two current arbitrators (then mediators). I would have strong reservations about voting to keep this article normally, and would probably abstain, but under these circumstances I find that keeping this would only exacerbate this problem by allowing Everyking to continue his rampage of ignoring community consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 13:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Informative sums up what all these various subpages (except for the singles) are not — actionable or interesting (for definitions see the page; interesting in particular is used with a very different meaning). Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • If John would put half the effort into working on the articles that he does into criticizing me...I can't count how many times I've heard the same thing from you, but it has hardly a shred of truth in it. This subarticle was created for two reasons: A) because the main article was massive, at about 45KB long, and I was beginning to feel that further expansion would be impossible without subarticles, B) and because people like you were complaining that there was unimportant info in the article, while I was saying it was important, so I figured moving it into a subarticle would be a reasonable compromise. Obviously I was wrong about the second, but the first alone is more than enough reason to keep this. And please don't try to make the dispute personal; I've apologized for any unreasonable things I've said before, but we should be dealing with the content here and the validity of the subject, not me or you. Everyking 14:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • CommentExactly. And this is why encyclopedic articles should not be written by super-fans of the article subject: they themselves are too close to the subject to write objectively and respond normally to fair and reasonable criticism. For example, I note that the article we're currently discussing mentions Ashlee's Orange Bowl performance but NOT the fact that she was resoundly booed by the audience and criticised by the press for being off-key. This was a national news story and covered by nearly every media outlet, and one would expect an even slightly objective article to mention it. This one, of course, does not. We all have a responsibility to prevent fandom on WP from getting out of hand (it would be fine on a fan site, of course) because WP will never be taken seriously as an encyclopedic information source if the public and academic community assumes we're all carbon copies of Comic Book Guy from "The Simpsons". Starblind 14:31, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
      See also the end of La La (song) and its edit history. JRM 14:42, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
      • The Orange Bowl thing just happened, man. I have over 5,000 pages on my watchlist, and checking them takes up most of my wiki-time; I don't always get a chance to write content as quickly as I'd like. Since you pointed it out, I've added a bit more about it, and I'll try to add more later. My question is, if you noticed a problem, why didn't you just fix it? Everyking 14:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Only to have you revert it, as you revert practically every edit anyone else does? Why would anyone bother? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • merge If Everyking continues to squat over Autobiography (album), resisting all attempts by others to edit it to a reasonable standard, I predict that it will continue to bud off unnecessary daughter articles like this on quite trivial aspects of an album release by a single artist. Vote merge to persuade Everyking that enough is enough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm resisting attempts to remove the content, but not absolutely. I've told you time and time again I'm willing to compromise with you, but it seems to get me nowhere. Everyking 14:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • You're not just resisting removal of content, you're resisting any editing that replaces the existing wording with more compact wording. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I am not. I sometimes restore my wording if I think it's better, but plenty of things in the article have been changed from what I wrote and I've happily accepted it. Everyking 14:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Did you just happen to ignore your quotes above? You called one effort nonsense, and reverted because of laziness instead of any substantial problem with the edit. I don't think that's acceptance of change. At least not change recently. You don't seem to accept many (if any) changes beyond a few bytes in size. Johnleemk | Talk 15:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • The article is too long. Five paragraphs on reviews? Come on! We should be working on substantially reducing the size of this monstrosity. At best, you replace any attempt to contract the sprawling mess with an edit of your own that is just as long and sprawling as the original. It's extremely frustrating. You just don't seem to understand what editing is about. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge it back into Autobiography (album). Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. iMeowbot~Mw 14:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • What? You think I wrote all that just to illustrate a point? And what point would I be illustrating, anyway? The article will be over 45KB if we merge it back, with no room for future expansion. That's contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Everyking 14:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes. These sub-articles are obvious examples of gaming the VfD system in order to gain the upper hand in a long-running edit dispute over Autobiography (album). iMeowbot~Mw 15:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • That's absurd. The three singles were split off into subarticles before the dispute even started. Everyking 15:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Nice diversion attempt. The relevant articles would be Autobiography album design, Autobiography sales and chart positions Autobiography promotion and publicity. Two of the three song articles are of questionable notability, but that's a separate issue. iMeowbot~Mw 16:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • The song articles exist for the same reason: to provide for greater detail and free up space. Everyking 16:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
              • No, because they are encyclopedic in their own right. This article is not encyclopedic in its own right. World War II and the Battle of Stalingrad are encyclopedic in their own right. This article is not. Johnleemk | Talk 16:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • Of course you think that, but the question here is my motive, and my motive for creating singles articles was as given above; it had nothing to do with your definition of what is "encyclopedic in its own right". Everyking 16:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                  • There was considerable precedent for creating the singles articles. There are a quite a few single articles on WP, such as many different New Order songs, for example. BUT there is no precedent for such an enormous article about an album as the Autobiography one, nor are there multiple articles about one album. The Beatles' The White Album for example, one of the very few albums in music history that might potentially warrent such treatment, has less than half the page size of the Autobiography article, and that isn't even counting the two Autobiography sub-articles! It's madness! Starblind 17:20, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Condense and merge back into the original article. DCEdwards1966 15:07, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Condense and merge as above. Paul August ☎ 16:22, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • What everyone but Everyking said. Condense and merge. Please give up ownership of your edits, no matter how much better and more informative they may be than those of non-Ashlee devotees. I'm not good at weeding, but to those who want to try it, I say let them. I am not at all convinced a reasonable effort has been made to reach consensus — and no, I don't much care who is "responsible" for that on this vote. Try to see to it that it does happen. Please let nobody pretend objective standards are applied here; I haven't seen any spelled out yet. Consensus should be reached on the subjective parts. JRM 17:19, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • Condense and merge. No one person "owns" an article. It's often been said here that if you submit something, be prepared to have your work severely edited. -- Deathphoenix 17:32, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • ...You're voting that way because of false claims about me? Everyking 17:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • While you may deny it, Everyking, your obsessive reverting and following the letter instead of spirit of our agreement has done nothing to create an impression of compromise. I find it hard to believe someone who has edit summaries like "(what on earth are you people thinking? i'll revert you till doomsday, i recorded that data week by week as it happened)", "(no, no. make your changes one at a time if you want to do this, and you must do what i said and discuss things on talk before acting. i can't deal with all this at once.)", "(→About the songs - fix the most outrageous problem with this paragraph. i may only get three reverts, but i get to make endless little tweaks to your nonsense in the meantime)", "(rv, john can make his changes one at a time and discuss them)" and "(ok, there was one useful change i found in there, but rv the rest, i don't like it)" can even pretend he is looking for compromise and has always been looking for compromise. Your comments on the talk pages related in particular have made it crystal clear you believe you have some kind of authority over these articles because you know more about Ashlee Simpson than anybody else. Johnleemk | Talk 17:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I'll always be willing to talk with you about content, John, but I see no point in responding to your personal criticisms. Everyking 18:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Says the one who criticised people's "nonsense" and that he would "revert you till doomsday". You argued the claims that you obsessively guarded your article were false; I provided evidence otherwise, and you went ahead and ignored it. Meh, not my problem. Johnleemk | Talk 18:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • They are false. I have in the past reacted angrily when I saw edits that I regarded as destructive, of course. I'm only human. However, I do not guard the article from others' contributions; I have always just wanted people to work gradually and focus on discussion instead of making massive, controversial revisions. But since then I have moderated even that stance, and I no longer insist on working gradually and with a focus on point-by-point discussion, although I greatly prefer it. Everyking 18:21, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • It was just yesterday, or the day before, that someone introduced a small change, highly localized. In the course of successive edits you completely erased it. When the editor complained about your revert, you openly accused him of lying until I provided evidence that you had reverted. The change in question had been discussed on the talk page, yours had not. I find it amazing that you cannot see that what you are doing is slowing any kind of editing down to a snail's pace and is directly responsible for the growth in size of the article, which would be easily avoidable if normal editing were possible. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
              • See my response to Paul below. Johnleemk | Talk 19:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Well in defense of some of those edit summaries, it is not unreasonable to ask people to make changes "one at a time" and to "discuss them". Paul August ☎ 18:16, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
          • Of course, reverts for other than vandalism would be included in edits that should be discussed first. iMeowbot~Mw 18:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Okay, some background here; 95% of all rewrites (and thus close to 90% of all reverts) were caused by the article's listing on FAC and Peer review. People there recommended the article be condensed. When Reene and a few other editors tried to do this, Everyking reverted them, going against consensus. Reene brought it to the talk and a very bitter discussion followed with neither side giving ground. Reene then rewrote the article again and asked for comments. Several people remarked it was good, but unsurprisingly, Everyking reverted it, again going against community consensus. This pattern has continued up till now. When the article was renominated on FAC, surprise, surprise, it was the same complaints all over again. When I tried to fix them, Everyking reverted me. When Tony reverted Everyking, he reverted back. After another bitter discussion, we dropped the issue. Then I tried going for broke with arbitration. Everyking agreed to sign an agreement at User:Everyking/Agreement. It was originally meant to have contained a clause forbidding us from reverting to any old revision more than once (although I'm sure Everyking would have found a lot of ways around that), but he apparently dropped it. Anyway, I signed it in hopes of getting to work on the article. Again my edits were reverted and again Tony complained, this time joined by iMeowbot (if I'm not mistaken; perhaps iMeowbot was involved earlier). After a wikibreak, I decided to give up on the article. Then Worldtraveller came along, made the exact same complaint about the article, and went on to declare he would not be editing it as long as Everyking made comments in his edit summaries as above. Vague Rant then attempted a rewrite and was reverted by Everyking, whose excuse was that he was too lazy to properly compare the diffs. After a long tirade from Vague Rant, Everyking made some concessions. In the meantime,Tony continued berating Everyking, and that's where we stand now. Does anyone else see the same pattern here? Everyking has a history of reverting edits that have consensual agreement from the community. While Everyking has a right to his opinion, the fact is that the community overwhelmingly favours an article with less focus on minor, superficial, details and more focus on other aspects of the album. Everyking continues to revert despite the attempts of many editors to alter the article to suit community consensus. 95% of edits "removing information" were made after, and not before, prolonged discussion. And since when have we needed permission to mercilessly edit anyway? If it alters the presentation of the article's content drastically, maybe, but Everyking seems to think it's the crime of the century to trim some quotes. 19:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not voting based on any claims about you, but based on what I've seen on the articles in question (especially the histories). Once you've submitted an article (or edits to that article) to Wikipedia, it is no longer your article. --Deathphoenix 19:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Condense and merge. K1Bond007 17:46, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Condense and merge. A single new pop album doesn't need more than 50K of coverage in Wikipedia, particularly when its singles also have their own extensive articles. Revisit this question when Autobiography (album) attains equal acclaim to The White Album. --TenOfAllTrades 18:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think this is notable and encyclopedic because the Saturday Night Live incident that it documents was significant. It's not every day when something so embarrassing to a pop icon is revealed in such an obvious and public light. Venice 19:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Freem. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 22:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Condense vigorously using Sawzall and merge. 2 separate issues: (1) Artist and album are barely encyclopedic at best. Far too much information of minimal significance; most fansites would edit this down to half the length. Promo of any album is not worth a separate WP article, and this musical work is quite unimportant and unworthy even compared to most of its lame pop competition. (2) Everyking has been reverting most edits and claiming rights equivalent to ownership for this group of articles. I wasted an hour reading talk pages for the relevant articles and their editors, and this user does a disproportionate amount of whining, rejecting WP consensus processes, insisting on his own ideas of process, and threatening to go away. User is clearly overinvested emotionally. Barno 20:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and condense. This isn't The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars, The Black Album or a similar famous album. There is nothing wrong with a quite long article about this album but it should be of reasonable lenght and on one page. I don't think that even the most famous alums with a lot of history and intersting trivia would need more than one article. - Jeltz talk 20:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Way too long. There's no way we need all this. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 22:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Merge and condense. Way too long and no need for another entry about the mediocre cd. IMO, Ashley getting booed at the Orange Bowl Halftime show is more noteworthy than a huge article on a mediocre album, let alone its promotion. CiaraBeth 22:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this further attempt by Everyking to turn this into his own, nolo me tangere, all-Simpsonsopedia. RickK 22:48, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete. --fvw* 23:07, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete. Drastically condense both articles. The authors have obviously put a lot of work into this, but if i wanted information on the album, i'd drown in this volume of data. --foobaz·✎ 23:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Condense, merge and Delete, as dreadful cruft. Wyss 02:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Condense, NPOV, merge, redirect. -Sean Curtin 03:09, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Who cares? I can't be bothered even to read half the comments here. It's cruft, but it's not worth this attention. Stop arguing and write an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:31, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Who wants to write an article if it's just going to be deleted? Everyking 09:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Gawd. Let it be kept if Everyking promises not to edit it again after January 15 (a week from today). If he won't, bin it.Dr Zen 06:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • James has promised not to edit the article after Jan. 15, so I vote keep. He can suggest changes on talk. Why not let him write about this if he really wants to? So long as he's not guarding it, what's the problem?Dr Zen 00:31, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. This level of detail for one mildly significant album is appalling and goes against nearly everything an encyclopedia is supposed to be. Encyclopedias synthesize and highlight; they tell the reader the importantance or significance of a subject, the most important background, concepts, or events that shaped that importance, and perhaps a few pieces of trivia or a few strange facts and then sends the reader somewhere else for the in-depth treatment. Even if notability is discarded and every verifiable object, fact, or event in the known universe and every fictional universe ever created is included, that only expands the breadth of coverage and does not change the way such objects should be presented, i.e. with an eye towards synthesizing previous research and sources and highlighting the essential facts contained therein. In a project such as wikipedia, one can cram in more details and examples to further clarify the big picture and can include information on things that just would not fit in a paper encyclopedia, but that does not mean that the articles should become a confusing mishmash bereft of perspective or thesis. If all of this information cannot fit on a single album page, it is because the article has degenerated into a pointless hodge-podge of minutae and needs to be refocused to convey its major points with a brevity, clarity, and thrust that are clearly lacking at the moment. Indrian 04:38, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It may be the bestest album in the whole damn world, but that doesn't mean it deserves more than one article in a general-knowlege encyclopedia. --Carnildo 05:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur. Edeans 06:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, trim drastically, merge what's left. Dbenbenn 08:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I entirely concur with Indrian's summary of the situation. Worldtraveller 13:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Autobiography promotion and publicity and Autobiography sales and chart positions into Autobiography (album) and then condense that bloated article. I'm normally supportive of having well-written articles about pop-culture (what some derisively label fancruft), but this is excessive and far too detailed a treatment. older≠wiser 17:14, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • If this VfD succeeds, will it set some kind of precedent? I can't think of a precedent. It's not an excessively detailed treatment. Excessive would be documenting what she wore at each performance and appearance, what questions she was asked in interviews and how she responded, whether she concluded a performance with a sweet comment like "Thank you, Top of the Pops Saturday!", etc., etc. That would be fan site stuff, and I wouldn't include such things under ordinary circumstances. But this here is just an overview of a subject that has, one way or another, affected millions of people. I don't believe in getting to the level of absolute triviality, but it seems I disagree with some people about what it means for something to be trivial. I suppose I set the bar for inclusion a bit lower. If you'd told me a year ago Wikipedia treated hard work on notable subjects this way, I'd have laughed and wondered what kind of person would devote his volunteer efforts to such a project, if all one got back from it was deletion and scorn. Come on, people, I've been trying to create a featured article here. I've been trying to construct it according to summary style, with information broken out at reasonable dividing points when the main article grows too long, just as Wikipedia guidelines suggest. But I can't do anything if the stuff I write just gets deleted. Everyking 19:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Re: But this here is just an overview and I don't believe in getting to the level of absolute triviality -- obviously there is considerable difference of opinion as to what constitutes an "overview" and what level is "absolute triviality". older≠wiser 20:59, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • James, you probably know by now that I am a deletionist by nature and believe in notability as being fundamental to the encyclopedic nature of an article, but I want to put that aside for a second. Let's assume for now that I am an inclusionist that believes in documenting everything that is verifiable on this earth. Under these circumstances, I would still vote to have this information removed. I, and most everyone else, have not questioned whether the album deserves an article, that is not why we are here today. We are here because the article is out of control in the opinion of many users, users I might add who span both sides of the deletion/inclusion debate. I have read up on the history of this article here and elsewhere and realize that you are not trolling or trying to run your own agenda on this site, and I have no desire to see such a diligent user chased away form the project, but the crusade for this album is bordering on obsession. To be well-written (as in FAC-worthy), an article must demonstrate its relevance to the topic. This is not a question of notability, but rather one of good style. An endless recitation of quotes and appearances does very little to enhance a reader's understanding of the album or its worth, instead it obfuscates the main point of the article by leaving a reader confused about what is truly important. It may be possible to save most, if not all, of the information that you have currently placed in the article, but to do so will take a COMMUNITY effort to organize the information in a way that conveys why the album and the events surrounding it are interesting. An encyclopedia, no matter how expansive, is a scholarly work of articles. An article has a thesis and points supporting that thesis. This "article" is a summary of appearances that does not enhance the reader's understanding of the artist or her work. That is why many of us feel it needs to be put to rest. Indrian 23:11, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is now a RfC pending regarding this and related articles. This thing has some legs, apparently. Edeans 18:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • A clarification: Since a lot of people here seem to have done background research into this dispute, it would not hurt if they endorsed one or more of the viewpoints presented in the RfC. Although those involved deeply can certify the RfC, there's nothing stopping outsiders from endorsing it. Johnleemk | Talk 14:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why should we have tons of child articles about various aspects of one Album of one pop star? PaulHammond 20:12, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Trim and merge. The subject is not notable, nor interesting, on its own. - Vague | Rant 03:56, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and all articles on the album other than the main one. Condense the main article on the album to a few paragraphs. --BM 13:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • You remember the days when stubs were a bad thing? Everyking 17:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fancruft. Mackensen (talk) 04:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And somebody do something with the big mamma article, too. It's puffier than a 1911 dump. Madame Sosostris 04:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) Merge, then take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Madame Sosostris 17:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and condense Everyking seems a wee bit overprotective on this subject The Steve 08:49, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete. --G Rutter 10:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this was a subject of similar notability—millions of people affected—in, say, the fields of math or science, do you think this would be deleted, or even nominated? I don't think so. Wikipedia has a typical bias against cultural subjects in favor of the aforementioned fields because of the kinds of people who tend to be drawn to an Internet project such as this. However, I ask people to be objective in voting and consider the real notability of this subject. This is about the promotion of a number one album that has sold millions of copies across many countries, includes material on a popular reality TV show and discusses TV performances and interviews also seen by millions. I don't ask people to like the subject matter, but we need to be objective in considering that this stuff is obviously quite famous—considerably moreso than many uncontroversial topics in Wikipedia. Everyking 10:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • And there is no reason why an article on the album, and indeed its singles, cannot be lengthy. My central problem is that the ratio of informative content to meaningless padding is very poor. The article is a huge, indiscriminate collection of facts, quotes, sales figures and so forth. — Ashley Pomeroy, from the RfC. Johnleemk | Talk 10:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that the nomination for deletion was inappropriate. The article does not meet any deletion policy criteria, as far as I can see, and no consensus had been reached in any way on what information should go where, and how. I do hope you recognize that you have no small role to play in that — more than one contributor has used the word "obsessive" to describe your attitudes to the articles. Your revert-happy behaviour, whether right or wrong in content, left people in a great enough state of despair to take it so far as a VfD nomination on an "innocent" article. Don't make this nomination out for more than what it is — a vote of no-confidence from other contributors that you are capable of not acting like you own the articles. As such, quoting "objectivity" doesn't seem appropriate to me. Even if you are objective as to the content, you do not strike me as particularly objective when it comes to judging the worth of other contributor's edits. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is built on collaboration. Collaboration does not mean you can edifice out your own cathedrals and have others add a few gargoyles here and there to make it look nicer. You must in principle allow for them to tear down your gothic cathedral and build a simple brick house in its stead, and if you do not agree, getting agreement first is what has the priority, not getting the article "right" — by whatever standard that may be. JRM 10:50, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
      • Well, that raises a philosophical question: should the person replacing the cathedral with a brick house justify himself before doing so, or should the person rebuilding the cathedral justify himself before doing so? I believe in erring on the side of the cathedral, personally. Anyway, you misinterpret my actions, as much as I like your analogy about the gargoyles. I don't care if people knock down my cathedral to replace it with a better cathedral (I'd like that, actually), and maybe I wouldn't even care if they knocked it down to replace it with a different but equally good cathedral. It fundamentally has nothing to do with the fact that I wrote the article, and little to do with the subject matter; it has to do with aggressively rewriting an article in such a way that half the information—verifiable and notable—is removed. A person ought to object to that being done to any article. Perhaps I object more vociferously because I wrote it to begin with, but in that case the sin would not that I objected, but rather a sin of omission in failing to do so with the same passion elsewhere. (Presuming there is an elsewhere—can you think of a precedent?) Everyking 11:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        Verifiable is not easy, but it's a much easier concept than notability (despite what some deletionists may think :-). If information you consider notable is deleted, are you then simply justified in reinstating it? Is a cathedral by definition better than a brick house to live in, because it's "bigger" and "more extensive" and you can hold masses in it to boot? No, not necessarily.
        Establish why the information is notable first. Don't expect others to obviously agree, as I don't think notability is something we can all agree on on obvious, objective criteria. You will have your opinion, others will have theirs, but ultimately they must converge. No one person is allowed to claim that their notion of what matters (be it nothing at all, as with those who wish to see this article deleted altogether, or everything you think warrants inclusion) is what should determine the article content. You once said you would stop at mentioning the color of the dress she wore — why, if it can be verified? Why is that not notable while any "you know, like" quote from miss Simpson on the album seems to be?
        Furthermore, even if we have agreed on notability, there's still the matter of presentation. Do we need a storytelling article, or are tables more suitable? There are still leagues to go here. You state your opinions frankly, which is admirable, but have them reflect in behaviour which is not so admirable, regardless of whether you only have the encyclopedia's best interests in mind. You seem to insist that, unless someone proves first that the brick house is more appropriate (and do so by not touching the cathedral) your cathedral should be given preference because it's bigger. Well, quantity and quality are different things. But the discussion definitely isn't over, and perhaps this VfD nomination is not the best place to hold it. JRM 11:44, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
    JRM, I did not nominate this article for VfD, but I think you misread the primary reason why such articles are frequently nominated for deletion--that the VfD mechanism is the only way to obtain wide consensus for a merge. Few people commenting on this article are saying that the information in this article should not be covered in Wikipedia (although some undoubtedly are saying this). Many are saying that this should be covered at more appropriate length within the album article. Everyking openly proposed this extra article, calling it a "compromise", after he repeatedly stonewalled all attempts to condense this and other sections of the article to a briefer and, in my view, more readable form. VfD cannot in my opinion be considered an inappropriate place for this kind of nomination; it is the only forum empowered to mandate a merge. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Well, in any case, I doubt Everyking would have let us go quietly if we had merged and redirected the article by ourselves. Johnleemk | Talk 11:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Guessing what is behind a nomination is not productive anyway, and I should not take it upon myself to ascribe motives to people they haven't explicitly stated themselves. Hereby stricken from the record. My other comments stand anyway, even though they may not apply to the nomination itself. I do think we should have more explicit policy on VfD being a merge forum, besides simply document "Merge" as a possible vote. It's obviously de facto so, let's write it down explicitly. JRM 11:19, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fancruft explosion. Gamaliel 07:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I have never heard Ashlee Simpson and had not heard of her until recently. I have to ask: is she taken seriously as a popular artist? Is she in the same category as, say, Britney Spears (whom I have never heard, either?) What are the publications that cover popular artists in a serious, non-promotional way and what do they say? I was startled by an article in today's Boston Globe, here for two days by one Renée Graham, which seems to take for granted that she is a sort of joke, referring to the "alarmingly untalented Ashlee Simpson" and saying "the pop star wannabe has been a perpetual punch line, and the disparaging words grew even more ferocious after her screechy, off-key performance at the recent Orange Bowl halftime show. By the end of her song, 'La La,' a spectacular chorus of boos rained from what sounded like a good portion of the 70,000 people in attendance." She presents Simpson as the creation of a out-of-control stage father, whose comments about Ashlee's sister Jessica Simpson seem unbelievably exploitative ("Jessica never tries to be sexy. She just is sexy. If you put her in a T-shirt or you put her in a bustier, she's sexy in both. She's got double D's! You can't cover those suckers up!"). But "at least Jessica, when she isn't delivering songs with all the nuance and subtlety of a fog horn, can carry a tune. Ashlee jumps and screams, and couldn't find a key with a global positioning system." If Ashlee Simpson is in the same league as Britney Spears, then more than 32K of material might be reasonable. Even allowing for dismissive bias on the part of the Globe's writer, I wonder whether her present coverage in WIkipedia is excessive, and unduly laudatory. What do publications such as Billboard say about Simpson?Dpbsmith (talk) 13:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, if there's been negative publicity, isn't that what this article is for? Good or bad, famous is famous and notable is notable. Everyking 13:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whilst clearly not encyclopedic in a conventional sense, Wikipedia is not a conventional encyclopedia, and I think it fits fine into Wikipedia - albeit on the fringes of sanity, never mind usefulness. It may never make Featured or a Best of Wikipedia CD, but there's nothing wrong with it per se, IMO. Rd232 16:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Er... maybe that's only one immature fan user doing one too detailed, non legitime, article ? All that talk for that ? Looks to me rather overdone. Let author read the hint about what WP is not. (IMO speedy in terms a value) Gtabary 17:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete. — Dan | Talk 17:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete. Postdlf 00:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge. --Conti|✉ 00:54, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge. ElBenevolente 01:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Autobiography (album). There is not enough notable information to support two articles; once the non-notable information can be released from the two articles by anybody without Everyking unilaterally stuffing it back in they would shrink like balloons anyway. silsor 02:22, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Condense, Merge, and Delete. Indrian summarizes quite neatly what an encyclopedia is -- and why this isn't encyclopedic. --Calton 07:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Another goddamn breakout from Autobiography? This is well beyond the point of ridiculousness and firmly within the bounds of straight neurosis. Just because something is a fact does not in and of itself mean it goes in an encyclopedia. We have articles here, not multi-volume tomes, which is exactly what we would have if we went into this level of detail on subjects of actual importance. Delete this, post haste. I won't even dignify it with a merge. -R. fiend 08:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • All right already. You're the one who said the fall of the Roman Empire deserves nothing more than a section in a general article on the Roman Empire, right? Everyking 06:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Condense, Merge, and Delete. We do not need an article on the promotion and publicity of every major album. —Lowellian (talk) 21:13, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete after move to user page by Rick

H136eV Working page

[edit]

This looks like an unnecessary fork which paraphrases the much more thorough New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad with a name that looks like the author intends to use this as a Sandbox-esque page in the article namespace. — Ливай | ☺ 12:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep at new title. Joyous 20:13, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

British Library, Add. MS 5111. 7th century Gospel Book fragment

[edit]

What I object to, is the title of the article - it is more or less the British Library catalogue reference, not a description of the book.

Also, I can't actually find it in the British Library's online catalogue (but it is not too easy to use). Jeff Knaggs|Talk 15:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep on condition that it is categorised, as at the moment it's just floating in the ether. There is no point in making up a name if it doesn't have a title or a familiar name. Philip 17:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wrote this article, so I won't vote. (Although I would obviously vote Keep). This manuscript does not have a commonly accepted name, like the Book of Kells. I came up with this name by analogy with the naming conventions for organisms, with the catalog number acting in place of the binomial name. If a common name does not exist for an organism it ends up with an article under the binomial name. (See, for example Escherichia coli.) If some one has a better idea for a name I am open to it, however I think that this manuscript is important enough to warrant an article. You can find this manuscripts entry in the LDAB here. Dsmdgold 17:34, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Article contributors are definitely entitled to vote. Not that it matters much as the decision is based on rough consensus and not a vote count. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Dsmdgold, the link you gave doesn't seem to link to anything. The article also says 511 rather than 5111 - but, like Jeff, I can't find either number in the British Library's online catalogue. Adam Bishop 21:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh, his link has an obvious typo in it. I should have said something. It has an extraneous pipe character. He thought external links worked like internal links. It should have been this, Dpbsmith (talk) 22:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. And 5111 is correct. 511 was the result of a clumsy cut and paste. Dsmdgold
Also, if I go to http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/search2.asp and type in 5111 into the title field, I get a search with this first result and this second one. It looks as if I can even see images of the page, or something, but they don't make much sense to me. Are these the relevant links? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
These are indeed relevant links. So much so that I have incorporated information from them into the page, and as a result of this information I have renamed the article British Library, Add. MS 5111. 7th century Gospel Book fragment. An even uglier title, I realize, but the old one turned out not to be specific enough. Dsmdgold 03:26, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Prolix Comments by Dpbsmith (talk) 20:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC):

Jeff Knaggs|Talk, If the only problem is the title, then it shouldn't have nominated for VfD. Anyone can Move an article, and anyone can create a redirect to an article. If you know a better title for the article, you could create a redirect from that title... or if you feel strongly that your better title is the best title, you could move it.
You should have brought the matter up on the article's Talk page and discussed possibilities there... and/or with Dsmdgold if it's only the two of you who are interested... or you could enter a Request for Comment and try to get others involved.
And it's not a very urgent matter. It's only important to get the name right if a lot of articles are linking to it.
It's all a question of how people are likelyt to look for the article. In this case, it's not very likely that anybody is going to be looking for it by its name, as it doesn't really have one. Most likely they'll find it by linking from List of Late Antique, Medieval, and Renaissance illuminated manuscripts or just possibly by text search. So the name isn't all that important.
What Dsmdgold has done is to invent a reasonable naming convention for referring to manuscripts that don't have names that guarantees no duplications and makes it easy to figure out the proper name for a new manuscript in the same category. Personally I see no problem with it.
Speaking of categories, the List of Late Antique, Medieval, and Renaissance illuminated manuscripts should probably be one... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a VfD matter, if only issue is the title. Nobody has yet suggested a problem with the article itself. Sysop intervention is not required to create redirects and move articles. Jeff Knaggs|Talk, Dsmdgold should attempt to involve anyone else interested in defining naming conventions for medieval manuscripts, hash this out themselves, and take any appropriate actions themselves. Personally I think an appropriate action would be "do nothing, fine as it is."Dpbsmith (talk) 20:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It does need a better title, the only purpose for this VfD process I imagine. Unless this is a joke to keep Wikipedians running around in circles. --Wetman 21:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Megan1967 01:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why? It would be helpful to give a reason. I could guess at one, but I don't want to guess. Note that nominator only objected to the article's title, (but expressed a mild concern about verifying the manuscript's existence). Dpbsmith (talk) 02:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. But what a miserable title. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:45, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. OK, the original article's author has been able to find it in the BL online catalogue (well done!), so I am now happy that it exists. But I still think it needs a snappier title. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 08:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not to get too snarky, but I supplied a reference: Kitzinger Early Medieval Art. I would think that a trip to the library would not have been too much to ask before you raise questions about veracity. Not all informaton is on-line. Dsmdgold 14:32, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
Dsmdgold, I don't know whether you follow VfD or Special:newpages, but in Jeff Knaggs defense, Wikipedia really does get a significant number of junk entries, pranks, vandalism, bad jokes, obvious hoaxes, and, worst of all, subtle hoaxes. Furthermore, as Wikipedia gains fame, we've had journalists inserting bad information in order to see how quickly it gets detected.
What this means is that most VfD nominations are and must be made by people who are not experts in the subject matter. You glance at an article, and if it sort of smells fishy, the right thing to do is to nominate it and have a discussion about it. A VfD nomination is supposed to mean nothing much more than "Hey, what about this one?"
Now, as for questioning sources, to tell the truth, we honor Wikipedia:Cite your sources more in the breach than in the observance, which is a Bad Thing. Most stuff goes into Wikipedia on the basis of the assumed good faith of the contributor and doesn't get challenged. Ideally if it's wrong, someone just fixes it. Jeff Knaggs did try to verify the existence of the MS quickly, online. His failure to find verification was worth mentioning. But really, once the question has been raised, the burden to Wikipedia:Cite your sources falls on the contributor.
I don't think this should have been nominated for VfD. It should have been worked out on the article's Talk page and/or user Talk pages. But I don't think the nomination was such a terrible thing, nor was a little carefully phrased skepticism given the problems with the links, etc.
Unfortunately, VfD has a tendency to bring the latent snarkiness in even the best of us and I am glad that we've all managed to stay clear of it so far. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - the new title is ideal, and the article is now both informative and verifiable. Warofdreams 11:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was list on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. I have listed it there. Joyous 20:35, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Blanket on stretcher.png

[edit]

Deletion of Image:Blanket on stretcher.png

Reason: uploaded on commons (commons:Image:Couverture sur brancard.png) Cdang 15:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Deb

Fluffy bunny gets lonley

[edit]

NOTE: I have redeleted this page according to the speedy deletion guidelines. Deb 17:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Prior discussion

Fluffy bunny gets lonley was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedily delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zero Google hits (even with right spelling). It's been put on Category:Hoaxes, but surely that's for hoaxes in the real world, not on Wikipedia. sjorford 10:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • BJAODN. — David Remahl 10:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • This bad joke/hoax page has been speedy-deleted. Kappa 11:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Wasn't strictly speediable, but I'm not going to complain. — David Remahl 11:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I didn't to it, but it looked like a speedy candidate under criterion 2, though with a stretched interpretation. Geogre 16:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Case 2 is "test page". Did you mean case 3 (vandalism)? Either way, this was not a speedy. Please let the VfD process work. Rossami (talk) 19:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • If it was vandalism, why woudn't it be a speedy? The only alternative would be BJAODN, right? Kappa 23:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • If it were obvious vandalism, it would be a speedy. I disagree with the characterization of any hoax as obvious vandalism. This one seems obvious but there have been many others that seemed obvious but weren't. Hoaxes are currently being discussed as a separate CSD category. I believe hoaxes should suffer the full VfD. Rossami (talk)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:12, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Gold-plated water cooler effect

[edit]

This is either a neologism or a hoax - I can't find any mention of it. "Water cooler effect" is a term used occasionally in economics, apparently, but it refers to something different. Cdc 17:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete The water-cooler effect refers to the more honest (and, by extension, supposedly productive and better) discussion that occurs among employees in informal settings. For example, employees would never bad-mouth customers or products at a formal meeting with the bosses present and the minutes being recorded, but they might do so among themselves at the water cooler. This, on the other hand, is a quite different neologism, and the definition given doesn't even really seem to make sense. Starblind 17:48, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless good sources cited prior to expiration of VfD period. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A grand total of zero Google hits. — Asbestos | Talk 21:50, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity neologism, original research. Wyss 02:49, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't even understand what the author is attempting to explain. Thryduulf 23:36, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:13, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Gohotelrooms

[edit]

Advertising - a web company founded only two months ago. Cdc 17:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, advertising, nothing present that would make it noteworthy or distinguish it from a dozen similar services. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, blatant ad, practically spam. Wyss 02:48, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • DeleteCiaraBeth 17:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spam. Cleduc 08:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. --Deathphoenix 04:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep what is the difference with this page and that of similar pages of their competitors Expedia or Orbitz 08:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ad Carrp 15:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:29, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Destroy All Robots

[edit]

Small-town band. No evidence of notability. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • delete i play guitar too, where's my wikipedia article? no evidence of notability beyond ten-thousand other unsigned bands. vanity/promo piece. Michael Ward 20:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Blatant avertisement --AmeenDausha 20:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity (and naming "influences" is one of the most common symptoms of it). Wyss 02:47, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, really nn. Cleduc 08:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. --Deathphoenix 04:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:32, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sean McCarron

[edit]

Cartoonist/vocalist but no evidence of notability in either context. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, probable vanity. Wyss 02:46, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Cleduc 08:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reason as destroying Destroy All Robots. --Deathphoenix 04:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:33, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hot Cross Rappers

[edit]

As for Destroy_All_Robots above. Self-promotion. RHaworth 19:37, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, spam. 郵便箱 01:34, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Wyss 02:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, spam. Cleduc 08:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. --Deathphoenix 04:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS dbenbenn | talk 04:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1 vote to keep, 1 vote to delete.

Eyes only

[edit]

Self-promoting vandal. RHaworth 19:35, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

  • I doubt that it is self-promoting. The Eyes Only referred to here is a character out of Dark Angel. If that character has managed to change Wikipedia from the comfort of his own fictional universe, then that's a heck of a hack that probably deserves mention in Wikipedia. I'd suggest Merge with Dark Angel, were it not that there is no actual content worth keeping on this page. Delete. Uncle G 23:17, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • I've made it a redirect to classified information.--Samuel J. Howard 23:28, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep SJH's redirect --foobaz·✎ 23:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the page has already been changed to a redirect there's little point in voting, however if the original article was about the character Eyes Only from Dark Angel I hope any useful content was merged with that show's article. 23skidoo 06:31, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • As I said, there wasn't any to merge. History is your friend. (-: Uncle G 06:11, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:35, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ohjelmointiputka

[edit]

spam. just a weblink to a finnish programming site. Michael Ward 20:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - I don't even see English translations on that finnish programming site. Venice 00:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, platform for a link. Wyss 02:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spam. --Deathphoenix 04:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just a link to a non-notable site. jni 09:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:38, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ohjelmointi-plaza

[edit]

spam for Finnish web site, link is dead. Michael Ward 20:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, platform for a link, bordering on spam, a speedy. Wyss 02:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "Platform for a link" would be a new criterion for speedy. By all means propose it and watch it get heavily voted down. Let's delete this in process as advertising.Dr Zen 06:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Dr Zen, dude, you might try reading my votes before bitchi, er... commenting on them. You also might try actually reading the criteria for speedy deletion (which this article does not seem to fall under). Wyss 18:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spam. --Deathphoenix 04:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just a link to someone's homepage. jni 09:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 20:37, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

What is the difference between recreational and illegal drugs

[edit]

This topic should be on a discussion page somewhere but isn't a valid Wikipedia entry? Haremail 21:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Non-encyclopedic, delete. --foobaz·✎ 23:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Wyss 02:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mini-easay. Josh Cherry 14:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete though some elements of this can possibly be included in one of the drugs articles at Wikipedia, assuming the subject matter hasn't already been covered. Needs spellchecking. 23skidoo 18:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete Mind-alteringly non-notable. RoySmith 21:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think the content is all covered elsewhere, but probably worth checking. Thryduulf 23:40, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Essay, original research, and already covered elsewhere. --Deathphoenix 04:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 20:39, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Holy chocolate starfish

[edit]

Rather uncommon slang expression (about 50 Google hits, and most of these are due to the fact that it was once uttered by Clark kent on the Smallville TV series) -- Ferkelparade π 21:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've heard it said though...

  • del. Mikkalai 22:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete RoySmith 00:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn slang. Wyss 02:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Very solid delete. The box at the bottom makes it sound as though it is merely an undermine made by the reverse-culture. Other than that, the fact it was said once on Smallville doesn't give it any claim to be worthy of an entry. - Greaser 06:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, non-meritable article that poorly written and formatted even worse. Thryduulf 23:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Only the first is a relevant criterion here. poorly written merits {{cleanup}} or {{subst:cleanup-copyedit}}. formatted even worse merits {{wikify}}. It is {{vfd}} that we are discussing here. Uncle G 15:58, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. The prank "keep" by 68.162.213.160 and the anonymous vote were not counted in the tallying process. Joyous 20:46, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Millbrook High School

[edit]

Fictional school which I can find zero Google hits for. 4XC +Millbrook returns nothing. "Millbrook High" gets several thousand hits, but most of them are for real schools. How many people would watch a cable access show, and how many people care about a school at that cable access show? RickK 21:42, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete, because... there is a real, operational Millbrook High School in Raleigh, North Carolina. Google gives over 1000 hits, it's listed on the state's website and is mentioned in many news articles. This WP article appears to be a hoax. The school is apparently having some problems, and this hoax seems to satirize them. Bad-faith, stealthy vandalism, possible libel. Wyss 02:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • None of which are justifications for speedy deletion. Speedy deletes must be non-controversial. Anything that you have to characterize as "stealthy vandalism" can not be considered that way. Hoaxes are explicitly not speedy candidates because we do not as individuals have a very good track record for identifying them. RickK did the right thing by listing it here. Rossami (talk) 05:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no controversy, the school exists, the article says it doesn't. Patent hoaxes can qualify as speedies. The criteria specifically reads, Silly vandalism - Users will sometimes create joke articles or replace existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense (example), or add silly jokes to existing articles. Sneaky vandalism - Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos. The criteria also mentions bad-faith. Wyss 05:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All fictional schools are inherently notable. This fictional school has probably influenced the lives of tens of thousands of fictional people. Just because you are not interested in fictional schools does not mean that you should remove good, verifiable information. Even if nobody has actually verified any of it. That's not a fair criterion, because if you delete it, nobody can ever verify it. Besides, it just occurred to me that—Wikipedia is not paper.
    • Note, the above prank vote was contributed by anon 68.162.213.160 who has exactly one other edit. Wyss 03:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • You should have read the whole article. It needs cleanup not deletion, because it is clearly about the real school. Keep it.Dr Zen 06:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I read it. I'm wondering if you did. I quote (from near the end of the article), Even so, the administration intends to hire "happiness enforcers," or heavily- armed ex-KGB agents to monitor the Academy and the activities of its students. This is parody. Wyss 06:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    It just needs NPOVing, Wyss. You could simply delete elements such as that. It would take you less time than bitching about them here.Dr Zen 06:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Remove the PoV and parody/satire, and there's nothing left. There is no hard, gleanable information in this article (except perhaps the principal's name). It's noise. Wyss 07:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Then filter it to the signal, dude. Dr Zen 07:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That would be a speedy, then ;) Wyss 09:11, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Looking at the history, it starts out as a very POV article about a real school, which doesn't really strike me as notable, especially from an anon user. It either suffered elaborate vandalism or was a hoax to begin with. Anyway you slice it, it's not worth keeping RoySmith 20:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless greatly improved. (High Schools tend to have littl interest except to those who went to them, and if no caretakers are forthcoming, it ought to be deleted.) Cool Hand Luke 22:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur. Edeans 08:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. --JuntungWu 10:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm a fan of both Wikipedia and the show 4XC. It isn't a very big show - it's mainly run by a couple of students from the high school in question. I assume one of the creators of the show wrote the article. It is true to the substance of the show and acts as a way for others at our school to become informed of what 4XC is about and like. The show is a parody, hence the quotation marks around "is" in the article; however, that doesn't mean that the show simply does not exist. Perhaps the creators felt that the up-keep of a website dedicated to the show would be too heavy of a responsibility and instead sought simply an article on Wikipedia that would serve the same purpose. I read some of the cases advocating deletion posted on the corresponding forum and found them to be heavily discriminatory towards something of specialised relevancy. Just because the show has a very specialized fan base does not necessarially make it pointless.

From my understanding the point of Wikipedia is to provide a compository of information of all things in the world, from the most important to the most obscure. Today, 9th January 2005, the front page of Wikipedia features an article about Pet Skunks. I don't want a Pet Skunk and previously did not even know that such an undesirable thing could exist. I think that the whole article about Pet Skunks then is irrelevant. But does that mean that I should advocate deletion of that article simply because of my preconceived biases against the topic? I believe that it doesn't - and before any action is taken towards the deletion or even editing of this article, people should ask themselves the following questions: "Who am I to deem one article irrelevant simply because it bears no obvious importance to me?" "Who am I to deny a group of people their right to add to the knowledge forum that is Wikipedia simply because their work is not famous?" --Anonymous, 16:41 GMT 9 Jan 05

Your understanding is incorrect. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a compilation of anything and everything that ever existed, ever might have existed, or ever will exist. Cable access shows are not encyclopedic when they have an audience of probably dozens. "Who am I to deem one article irrelevant simply because it bears no obvious importance to me?" A Wikipedia editor, that's who. RickK 21:55, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
Can you explain why an encyclopaedia, a compendium of "all human knowledge", is not in fact a "compilation of anything and everything that ever existed, ever might have existed, or ever will exist"?Dr Zen 23:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. RickK 23:17, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
The section you quote then lists what it thinks should not be included. How you extrapolate from that to "don't include what you think is not important enough" is beyond me.Dr Zen 00:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The list is not exhaustive. RickK 23:38, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete simply because it is unintelligible and no one has stepped forward to rewrite it and I very much doubt that anyone will. older≠wiser 17:19, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cable-access shows aren't inherently notable, so their settings certainly aren't. Niteowlneils 20:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Nicely said by User:RickK. Delete. Lacrimosus 08:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 07:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:08, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Making fuller Use of Money

[edit]

Nonsense, if not quite patent nonsense. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 21:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, if not quite a speedy delete: personal essay, original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Personal commentary, non-encyclopedic, original research. Binadot 23:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This isn't the first time he's done this, see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Freeing_Money_Constraints. --foobaz·✎ 00:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Make fuller use of the delete function. RickK 00:45, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Megan1967 01:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this inept original research ASAP. Wyss 02:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, probably should have been deleted. Tuf-Kat 07:14, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advocacy and consider any similar postings by Mr. McGillis as recreated deletia. Gazpacho 08:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Those "false fiscal indoctrinations" sound painful. As is this article. Delete. Edeans 07:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete essay, original research, spam, scam, and a partridge in a pear tree. --Deathphoenix 04:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:07, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Neocolours

[edit]

Advertising --BesigedB (talk) 22:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity/advertising. Sockatume, Talk 23:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, disgustingly saccharine page. Oh ya, it's non-notable too. --foobaz·✎ 00:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad. Wyss 02:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising, spam, not notable. Somebody in the WWW 02:56, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was speedy deleted by Ferkelparade right as BesigedB was adding the VfD header (which recreated the article). At 17:32, 8 Jan 2005, Jpgordon speedy deleted it as content previously deleted. Since prior speedy deletions may not be used as justification to "speedy as recreated content", it has to be evaluated on its own merits. While I see nothing in this article which justifies an encyclopedia article, I also see nothing that qualifies this as a candidate for speedy deletion according to our very specific criteria. I have temporarily restored it in order to allow the VfD discussion to continue. Rossami (talk) 05:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Added beaurocracy on a technicality of timing. Pfft :P --BesigedB (talk) 15:31, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Nope. I would have restored it regardless. An article must meet the strict and specific standards at WP:CSD before it can be speedy deleted. We deliberately set the bar high for speedy deletes. Vanity/advertising are judgment calls which belong here according to the current rules of CSD. Rossami (talk)
  • Delete ad. --Deathphoenix 04:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 20:51, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

PS9

[edit]

I posted this somewhat hastily originally. Apologies, however, : it's patent nonsense, from the PS2 advertising campaign; it's real in that sense, so it should probably be merged into the PS2 page. At the moment it's written too matter-of-factly as though it's about an actual system, and I wouldn't want to take up space for when the real PS9 article comes along in 30 years. Sockatume, Talk 23:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, fiction, not an article, prank, could be speedied as vandalism. Wyss 02:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, it's fiction, but it's fiction which was created for an advertising campaign as one of the external links rightly proves. I jumped to the same conclusion as you in error. Sockatume, Talk 02:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Somebody in the WWW 02:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not patent nonsense as we use that term. Nor is it vandalism. It is definitely not a candidate for speedy deletion (not under the current nor under any of the proposed criteria). It is, however, fiction presented as fact. I can't find any evidence that this particular advertising campaign is sufficiently encyclopedic to deserve its own article. Rossami (talk) 05:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and add information about the ad campaign to the PS2 page, if it's not already there. So merge too. Cookiecaper 18:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with PS2. 23skidoo 06:29, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The PS9 doesn't exist yet (and might never, and probably won't be like the commercial if it does) and the advertising campaign was not sufficiently notable. A link in Playstation 2's External links section would probably be plenty. —Triskaideka 15:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't even merge it. A non-notable, not particularly well done commercial, that seemed to have all of two airings. Terrapin 21:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Author-requested and doesn't add value to Wikipedia if kept. --Deathphoenix 05:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. There is a suggestion that merging would be appropriate. Joyous 20:54, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Melbourne Beer War

[edit]

Not notable. There is no such "beer war" in Melbourne or Australia, and a list of pubs owned by a specific company doesn't deserve to be in an encyclopedia. Delete. Somebody in the WWW 23:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. What a stupid article, there really is nothing interesting or useful about this article. The list of pubs that are "believed" to be in association with a certain organisation should not be included. -- AxSkov 01:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Factual, verifiable, useful and interesting. Very obvious keep - although the article should be renamed as Liquor industry competion in Victoria, and the list of hotels should be removed as speculation. --Centauri 01:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn beercruft. Wyss 02:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Ummmmmmmmmmm. Beercruft. *slobbers uncontrollably* Delete. Edeans 08:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't judge if this is true. If it is, it seems interesting enough. But I don't see why one episode in the competition in one market (beer) in one city (Melbourne) deserves such a long article in an encyclopedia -- yes, even in an encyclopedia that's not printed on paper. (It's hardly as dramatic as beer wars in Prohibition-era Chicago.) Make it a lot more concise, and add the result to Tooheys. In a word, merge. Hoary 05:49, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
  • I'm with Centauri. I found the article interesting and useful, too. I say, rename, get rid of the list of pubs, and it could use some trimming, as Hoary said. I think it's worthy of its own page. HWelles 07:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • the article does contain useful information, which should be merged into the appropriate page or re-writen. Xtra 12:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. The article was copied to a page in the userspace of Libertas prior to deletion. Joyous 17:21, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Republican Party(Temp)

[edit]

Fork of Republican Party (United States), created by Libertas, whose POV changes to that article are not being accepted to his satisfaction. RadicalSubversiv E 01:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this fork. Wyss 02:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, of course. What's with all these forks lately? If you have problems with the article as it stands, bring them up on the proper discussion page, where you can collaborate to help make the article acceptable to everybody. — Ливай | ☺ 02:47, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fork. Megan1967 02:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not sure what a fork is. Although I know a troll when I see one, Radicalsubversiv. I created a Temp page which I thought was perfectly OK to work through some changes without interruption. Is there a better place I should put it? I am not good at creating pages and wasn't sure exactly how to go about it, it certainly isn't intended to supplant the Republican Party article which I am actively working on. Any suggestions?Libertas
      • Libertas, please do it offline. Please stop the personal attacks (I refer to RadicalSubversiv). Please don't create articles which are PoV forks (new versions of an article, usually created by someone who has not been successful in asserting a PoV during the consensus editing process). Wyss 03:49, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I have no idea how to do it offline. When there were changes happening with the Soviet Union article, someone did that so I thought it was the right thing to do. Please note the current Republican Party article is identical to the draft I did on the Temp page. Libertas
          • Offline = try opening a text editor on your computer. :) Wyss 03:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • By all appearances, this is a valid attempt to follow one of our dispute resolution processes. The article is clearly titled as a temporary working page. Absent clear evidence of malicious intent, I assume that it was created with an intent to re-merge the versions after the dispute is resolved. (The normal naming convention would be /Temp rather than (Temp) but that's a minor point.) This is not a fork. Keep until it's served its purpose. By the way, offline can be good for some things but won't let you see formatting, wikification, links, etc. There is nothing in our policy or practice which requires users to try to make these edits offline nor should we begin to require it. Rossami (talk) 05:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if it qualifies as clear evidence of malicious intent, but user has twice inserted a link to this article at Republican Party, which looks like an intent to fork to me. RadicalSubversiv E 06:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, but that's a different issue.Dr Zen 06:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Rossami, wouldn't it ordinarily be a good idea for the editor to set up a scratchpad or temp off eir own user page? Unfortunately, a precedent was set with IndigoGenius that such pages could be deleted, but it doesn't seem particularly harmful to allow someone to work on an article in user space, so long as they don't link it from anywhere but their user page, or try to replace the article with it without consensus.Dr Zen 06:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Creating the temp page as a sub of your user page is becoming more preferred but using a sub of the article's page is also still common. Remember that most new users won't know how to create the sub in their user space until someone shows them. Radicalsubversiv's evidence makes this a harder call but I'm still inclined to assume good faith since the page was clearly titled. Rossami (talk)
  • Delete It wasn't a fork if that means like a fake page or something, but it has served its purpose now that the article is in a neutral form. This deletion was just another attempt by one user to act in an aggressive manner against others. I would happily have made this a sub user page but am not sure how to do that. Libertas
  • Delete. Work-in-progress articles/rewrites are one of the things your User space is for. Try moving it to your User space and nobody will have any comment at all. The main article space isn't for your work in progress, though. --BM 12:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to userspace with no redirect. Temporary pages don't belong in articlespace. - Jeltz talk 15:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to user namespace (ie User:Libertas/Republican Party (Temp)), then delete redirect. It's a POV fork, but there's nothing wrong with keeping one's own draft version of an article in one's namespace. -Sean Curtin 21:20, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and caution Libertas about her repeated attacks on RadicalSubversiv. RickK 01:00, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
    And not caution RS for his on her?Dr Zen 04:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Zen's got a point there. Maybe they'll both read this and face it that they each seem, uhm, a bit strident or whatever. Wyss 05:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd be happy to amend my behavior if people feel it inappropriate, but it would be helpful if you could say exactly you're proposing to warn me for. Anyone concerned about my behavior towards Libertas should probably read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Libertas for context. RadicalSubversiv E 10:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In your enthusiasm, you've attacked the personal character of that contributor, rather than limiting your comments to the contents of her posts. You might not realize that for many Wikipedians, this undermines your own credibility, partly because it indicates you may be reacting with your emotions rather than clear thoughts, partly because it makes people wary of engaging in discussion with you, in order to avoid being attacked similarly if there's some disagreement. This applies even if you are 100%, spot-on "correct" (you say 2+2=4, contrib says 2+2=22). Wyss 11:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, but I don't believe I've "attacked the personal character of [the] contributor." I believe I've specifically followed dispute resolution policy, as have others, in repeatedly asking her to stop specific behaviors, and opening an RFC when she failed to do so. In the past few days, having been repeatedly attacked personally and having some of my best work on Wikipedia called into question, I've certainly gotten very angry, but I don't think I've engaged in personal attacks. Once again, examples would be helpful in the interests of improving my behavior in the future. RadicalSubversiv E 02:33, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You called her a liar. Wyss 02:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I did not. I truthfully stated that a specific accusation she made about me was a lie. RadicalSubversiv E 20:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I quote you from my talk page... Libertas is lying -- I don't know how else to put it. You might want to consider enlarging your idea of what "personal attack" means on WP. Wyss 22:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My remarks on your talk page were in response to specific comments by Libertas accusing me of attempting to delete an article for ulterior political reasons, something which was untrue, which she had no evidence of, and which I had already denied in clear terms. I don't think that qualifies as a personal attack; you clearly do, for reasons I can't fathom, and we're probably not going to agree on the matter, so this discussion probably isn't going to be productive. RadicalSubversiv E 02:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Then I might say she was perhaps "mistaken", or "misinterpreting my motives"... if you don't grok why, to many people, saying someone "has told a lie" is a personal attack on their character, I'd agree we may not get much further discussing it. Wyss 04:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all POV forks. The user can move it to her own namespace if she wants, she's had plenty of advance warning. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fork Xtra 12:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For fork's sake. Carrp 23:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_January_7&oldid=1142222550"