Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 13: Difference between revisions

June 13

Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 (20:10, 13 Jun 2005 Geogre deleted "Nutrocity" (Libel page)). - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nutrocity

No google hits; appears to be a made up word Samw 00:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism, blatant POV ("wack job"), seems to basically be spam for its attached link. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:18, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this "wack job" of an article. Mr Bound 02:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't know if there is a speedy delete for a page that seeks to libel a whole class of people rather than just one, but I guess not. This is just the usual petulance. Geogre 03:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn neologism POV. Speedy as unencyclopedic insult fine by me. -- Infrogmation 03:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: This is a biased article; even if the word exists, the article could be rewritten for a NPOV. --Rschen7754 04:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this ridiculous article. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be more of an attack on Christian apologetics, and this article has no place here, even if I do agree with the author to a degree. Jamyskis 07:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-encyclopedic -CunningLinguist 07:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as attack page. the wub (talk) 08:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Yup, it's gone. - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 03:10, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Reitsma

Non-notable researcher. Google finds about 6 relevant hits. --InShaneee 00:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, notability not established. Mr Bound 02:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Page rank boosting and advertising for his blog. Vanity. (N.b. I didn't nowiki the websites, but someone should while the thing is on VfD.) Geogre 03:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Jamyskis 07:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable and probably vanity. (I nowikified the links btw) the wub (talk) 08:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Reitsma spelled backwards: Amstier. ~Mbsp
• Delete vanity Epolk 18:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete (11:06, 13 Jun 2005 Geogre deleted "Mike Wasdin" (Prank/libel)) - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mike Wasdin

Notability not established Samw 00:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:18, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity, speedy if possible. I wish pure vanity was a clearly defined speedy. Mr Bound 02:10, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Gone. Speedied. - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete (11:05, 13 Jun 2005 Geogre deleted "Bikehelmet" (Libel page)) - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bikehelmet

• Delete. Non-notable. One google hit for real name. Rmhermen 01:22, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as either attack page or nonsense. Actually, probably a mixture of both. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity/non-notable, I'd say speedy as attack as well due to the "road head" thing. Mr Bound 02:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• It's gone. Speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge to Dance Dance Revolution 4thMIX. -- Jonel | Speak 05:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

B4U

This song, although *somewhat* popular in Bemani circle, does not warrant an article. DELETE SYSS Mouse 01:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or merge if we have an article on DDR songs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:53, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: As per Lenahan's comment, is there a large article on DDR songs? Can someone provide? Mr Bound 02:13, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am afraid not. SYSS Mouse 04:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Unreleased, non-charting, not producing lines of influence, not the first or only. If it's some kind of game's music, then it's not going to be investigated outside of that game. Geogre 03:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not the case here: B4U was licensed to EMI in Dancemania albums, but stil... SYSS Mouse 04:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep, Wikipedia is not paper. Could be merged with Dance Dance Revolution 4thMIX, although it probably belongs in Beatmania IIDX 4th Style, not sure which it appears on first. This song appears in at least 3 separate series of games, DDR, Beatmania IIDX and Dance Maniax and has been released on various soundtrack albums. Kappa 04:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The article is unclear, is this a song or a style of song? As the article is quite poor it seems it could be merged somewhere. The sheer amount of Dance Dance Revolution crap that wikipedia seems to have become a dumping ground for makes me wonder what people are thinking. -R. fiend 05:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe they think information on Dance Dance Revolution is part of the sum of human knowledge. Kappa 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Dance Dance Revolution if someone can be bothered to get a list of all the songs from the games (I've only played the first one) Jamyskis 07:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge per what others have said. -CunningLinguist 07:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, althpugh I have no idea where... the wub (talk) 08:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge it into a big DDR article and forget about it.--EatAlbertaBeef 15:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Dance Dance Revolution 4thMIX, as that's where User:Poiuytman has been merging songs (example: Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME#Music). --SPUI (talk) 22:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and remember it. —RaD Man (talk) 09:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, I've already included the sparse information (minus the POV and plus a reference) in Dance Dance Revolution 4thMIX#Music. This is how other DDR song articles have been handled in the past, see Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME#Music and DDRMAX: Dance Dance Revolution 6thMIX#Music, which have content that once existed at MAX 300 and PARANOiA Survivor MAX. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 04:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete with the Naoki page, or a DDR music page. B4U most certainly doesn't deserve its own entry. "Dumping ground for DDR crap?" surely Wikipedia has worse problems than this.. Ameltzer 00:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - content should be kept, but might best be merged - SimonP 23:42, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of Canada

page is redundant and created for a purely POV purposeAndyL 02:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Please provide page that this is a redundancy of. Mr Bound 02:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep is my vote. This has nothing to do with redundancy or POV. Mr Bound 02:21, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • To answer your question, the article is redundant of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Monarchy in Canada. Elizabeth II of the UK and Elizabeth II of Canada are both, in fact, one and the same. Some parts of this article can be relocated to the first, others to the second. AndyL 02:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • If someone's functioning as the monarch of two separate nations, I think it's unusual enough to warrant a pair of articles. Mr Bound 02:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
        • She's acting as the monarch for over a dozen countries, by your argument we should also have Elizabeth II of Australia, Elizabeth II of New Zealand, Elizabeth II of Jamaica, Elizabeth II of Grenada etc as seperate articles (I suggest you click on those articles and see where they all point). And it's actually not "unusual", in all other cases where a monarch has been monarch of more than one country (including the cases of previous British monarchs), we've had a single biographical article. See, for instance James VI of Scotland and I of England. AndyL 02:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Please also see Elizabeth II of Antigua and Barbuda, Elizabeth II of the Bahamas, Elizabeth II of Barbados, Elizabeth II of Belize, , Elizabeth II of Papua New Guinea, ]], Elizabeth II of Saint Kitts and Nevis, Elizabeth II of Saint Lucia, Elizabeth II of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Elizabeth II of the Solomon Islands, Elizabeth II of Tuvalu all of which redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. AndyL 02:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Changing my vote to abstain on this basis. You made your case, it just took a little while to get me to realize this issue extends past one article. Good research. Mr Bound 02:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
        • Just to note "someone functioning as the monarch of two separate nations" is an extraordinarily common phenomenon in European history. The Spanish thrones were run separately, but ruled by a common monarch, from 1516 to 1713 or so; the English and Scottish thrones had the same deal from 1603-1707, and the English (and then Great British) and Irish thrones from 1539 to 1801. The crowns of France and Navarre were united from 1589 to 1620; the Holy Roman Emperor also held all the various Spanish thrones, the various thrones of the provinces of the Netherlands, the Free County of Burgundy, the Kingdom of Naples, the Kingdom of Sicily, and the Duchy of Milan form 1519 to 1556; the King of Poland was also Grand Duke of Lithuania for most of the period between 1386 and 1569...do I have to go on? 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • True. However, the Commonwealth is unlike any other legal entity in history. It combines personal constitutional sovereignty of a Monarch over 16 nations, without any nation claiming privilege over any other, and with an extensive legal framework governing each nation aimed at protecting it from any pretense of forming an Empire. I don't think your point is a bad one altogether, but the Commonwealth Sovereign today is unprecedented in some meaningful ways. Xoloz 06:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Queen of Australia and Queen of New Zealand has existed for some time. However, these, nor Queen of Canada is appropriate either-- see my post below. gbambino

The article is not redundant as it covers only information which is specifically attached to Elizabeth II in her separate role as Queen of Canada. This information is not (and should not be) covered on the page Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, nor is it appropriate for Monarchy in Canada as that page is specifically for the institution of the Crown in Canada, rather than any specific Canadian Monarch. "Queen of Canada" has been suggested, however this will not work either as it is too ambiguous and does not differentiate between monarchs (ie. The future King Charles III of Canada would not be differentiated from the past King George VI of Canada with a page simply titled as "King of Canada.")

AndyL is completely off base in stating this page was created for POV purposes, and throwing out such an accusation shows clearly his ignorance of the status of the Crown in Canada and the Canadian monarch's role. gbambino

I refer to your argument in Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom regarding naming of that article and also to your POV that Eliabeth II is Canadian. AndyL 02:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for directing people to my other points, however, this has nothing to do with The Queen being Canadian, but rather only to do with Elizabeth II in her role as the Queen of Canada. gbambino

• Redirect (to Queen of Canada). No reason not to have redirects for each of the nations in a Sovereign's realm, at least for the reigning Sovereign. Xoloz 02:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I add now, after lengthy consideration, a Move for this content to Queen of Canada as is the precedent with Australia and New Zealand. The content is quite good. Xoloz 09:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the Elizabeth II of Canada article you will notice that there is quite a lot of informaion pertaining to Elizabeth II and Canada only -- information which is not, nor really could be, contained on Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.

If you don't feel that listing Canadian information in the El. II of the UK article is appropriate (a feeling I do understand), use a Canadian Gov't page, or create a new page under Canadian Gov't. I agree this information is encyclopedic, but it can't be listed this way without establishing a precedent which will likely aid redundancy with respect to Her Majesty's other Realms. Xoloz 03:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Xoloz, there is already an article on Monarchy in Canada. Many of the commonwealth realms, I think, have similar articles (And those that don't should have them added). Any biographical information pertaining to her rule of the various commonwealth realms ought to be contained within the biographical article - we include information about Holy Roman Emperor Charles V's rule of Spain in his article, for instance, or about James I of England's rule over Scotland. john k 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First, as below, some consider "Monarchy" to refer to the Crown as distinct from the reigning invidual Sovereign. Second, the Commonwealth is a legal creature unlike any Empire before. El II is personal Sovereign of 16 nations. I oppose 16 articles on Elizabeth II. I wonder about adding a Queen of Canada article to discribe the Sovereign's role (as an invidual) in Canadian life. Monarchy in Canada might then refer to the legal concept of the Crown, and the complex web that binds Canada to the Commonwealth. On this question, I can't decide, but I have put some thought into it. Xoloz 06:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I've tried to point out several times, the fact that the queen is personal sovereign of 16 countries is not unique at all. Up until the French Revolution, most monarchs had multiple, completely separate titles. That said, I could see some value in separating Monarchy in Canada from Queen of Canada. But there would be a lot of overlap. john k 14:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I've said above, while multiple realms combined under one personal sovereign are not uncommon in history, El. II's position is unique legally. The Commonwealth is unprecedented post-imperisl legal construction, in which the personal sovereign absolutely disclaims any imperious intentions, and takes pain to cast herself as Queen of each land. It is also true that Elizabeth is special in that she is not an object of history yet, but a reigning sovereign. We offend the current form of the states presently existing if we do not do justice to her various roles. Xoloz 03:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect: It's foolish in the extreme to create an article like this, unless the same authors are going to make Queen Elizabeth II of Ireland, Queen Elizabeth II of Scotland, Queen Elizabeth II of Gibralter, Queen Elizabeth II of the Bahamas, Queen Elizabeth II of Jamaica, Queen Elizabeth II of the Falkland Islands, etc. Imagine how many more articles would be needed for Queen Victoria! Queen Victoria of India anyone? Geogre 03:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Comment - try removing the word "Queen" from those links and see what they do. At least for the separate sovereign nations (that is, the Bahamas but not Scotland) will get you a redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. -- Jonel 03:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth II is not Queen of the Falkland Islands, as the Falklands are a British Crown territory not an independent nation. Also, Queen Victoria would not need seperate pages, as during her reign all British colonies were under the one British Crown, and even British Parliament. Since 1931 the situation has been completely different as the Crown is now one body operating distinctly within 16 seperate independent countries, making Elizabeth II one Monarch who acts disctinctly as Sovereign of 16 nations. gbambino

Her Majesty is Queen of all Her Realms and Territories. The Style "Queen of the Falkland Islands," a territory, is merely disfavored, not incorrect. I'd suggest "The History of the Reigning Sovereign" as a subsection in Monarchy in Canada. The Crown and the Reigning Monarch are distinct, I agree, but are related enough to justify sharing an article if the distinction is made clear therein. My concern is that one or the other of Her Majesty's Realms should not receive privileged treatment before the rest. I dislike Queen El. II of the UK, for this reason, but that name is a necessary practical compromise with a basis in history. Xoloz 03:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, Victoria was Empress of India, and would have considered Queen of India, as a title, to be an insult. The title Empress of India warrants a separate article, because of its historical significance in Imperial politics. Xoloz 03:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Emperor of India john k 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, putting anything unique to her role as Queen of Canada in the Monarchy in Canada article. -- Jonel 03:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Reddirect as above. DJ Clayworth 03:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This still doesn't address the facts that a) Elizabeth II as Queen of Canada is a seperate role, with a seperate history, to hers as Queen of the UK, and b) by the Statute of Westminster, the UK is not a more important Realm than any of the others. Also, what happens to the previous King of Canada, George VI, and what will happen with the next monarch, Charles III? gbambino

So you are suggesting we have 16 different Elizabeth II articles then? AndyL 03:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, yes-- it may depend on whether there is enough information to warrant the creation of a page. Though some pages would be longer than others, New Zealand compared to Belize for example, there could indeed be 16 different pages relating to the Queen's 16 different roles and the history attached to each Realm. This would be accurate, and fair (as Xoloz points out, there is a problem with giving the UK a privileged position above the other Realms). The size of the Elizabeth II of Canada page alone confirms that Elizabeth II really does have a distinct history as Queen of Canada. There is no reason why it would not be the same for Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, and other Realms. gbambino

I understand your concerns, Gbambino. UK law states that none of Her Majesty's Realms is privileged. I wish I could rename the main article to simply "Her Majesty Elizabeth II," but this is not practical, given the Monarch's historical ties to England (and thus, the UK.) Sixteen articles, sadly, would risk discriminating against some of Her Majesty's Realms that are less powerful globally. I am afraid that the best solution is the one I suggested earlier. Xoloz 04:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, this area of policy is a mess. There is a page called Queen of New Zealand but not Queen of Canada. You could Rename this Queen of Canada, and have separate sections for Crown/Personal Monarch. This defeats the problem of 16 Elizabeth -- while she does have a distinct role in every Realm, too much information on her person would be redundant. However, since Queen of New Zealand is a precedent, make Queen of Canada.Xoloz 04:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Queen of Canada already exists, it redirects to Monarchy in Canada. AndyL 05:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • So it does. Using Queen of Canada for this is a possibility, however, given Queen of New Zealand and my hope that we wouldn't have sixteen articles about the same person. Sixteen articles about sixteen different roles that are held by the same person -- Queen of New Zealand, Queen of Canada -- that is a different matter. Xoloz 05:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe that there should be an article in Wikipedia about the role that Elizabeth II has played in Canada; it is important. If someone can suggest a better name for the article, I would be willing to change my vote to have Elizabeth II of Canada redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. But only if this content remained separate from Monarchy in Canada and her UK page. -- JamesTeterenko 04:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong with Monarchy in Canada? Any things specific to Elizabeth II's life ought to go into her biography article. john k 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This specific monarch's role in Canada is unique to the other monarchs. I believe this level of detail is too detailed for her biography article. -- JamesTeterenko 06:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a very good article on the role of the Queen in Canada. There is no reason why we can't cross-reference the articles. We could easily have an article on her role in Australia and other places where the Queen has a constitutional role. Capitalistroadster 04:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

God damn it! We have an article about her role as queen of Canada. It is called Monarchy in Canada. We also have Queen of Australia and Queen of New Zealand. As to the other commonwealth realms, I think it is mostly discussed in broader politics articles. john k 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No JohnK, Monarchy in Canada is not about Elizabeth II's role as Queen of Canada, it is, and rightly so, about the larger institution of the Crown in Right of Canada, and the/any Canadian Sovereign's role in it-- the page was renamed from "Queen of Canada" to "Monarchy in Canada" for that very reason! Compare the two pages, Monarchy in Canada to Elizabeth II of Canada, and I'm quite sure you'll see the difference I and others here are talking about. gbambino

John K, some might consider "Monarchy" to refer to the Crown which, as you probably know, is a distinct concept from the reigning sovereign as a particular individual. Xoloz 05:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. This is completely ridiculous. The precedent this would set would be to have dozens of articles about half of all European monarchs. James I of England and James VI of Scotland and James I of Ireland would all have to be separate articles. For his contemporaries, we'd have to have Henry IV of France and Henry III of Navarre. And then Philip III of Spain (although, since Spain was still formally various separate crowns, this is technically inaccurate), Philip II of Portugal, Philip II of Naples, Philip II of Sicily, Philip II of Sardinia, Philip II, Duke of Milan. And then Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor, Rudolf II of Bohemia, Rudolf of Hungary, Rudolf VI, Archduke of Austria. And then Christian IV of Denmark and Christian IV of Norway. Plus Henry III of France and Henry Valois, King of Poland. And Johann Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg and Johann Sigismund, Duke of Prussia. I'm sure I can think of others if you give me half a chance. This idea would set an awful precedent. john k 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge info into Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and appropriate article on the government and/or recent history of Canada; Redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom; Delete redundant/useless information. Also, as Elizabeth I of England was never (as far as I know) Queen of Canada, isn't this Elizabeth technically I of Canada? -R. fiend 05:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Current UK law, and law in each of Her Realms, addresses this problem. Her regnal number is determined by English order. In Scotland, however, there has been much controversy over this question. Xoloz 05:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Rather dubiously. Nobody complained about William IV or Edward VII, did they? john k 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree that the concern is slightly spurious, but some Scots have been seriously making objections since James I, the VI. I am sure somebody was in 1830 and 1901, although they may have been in the Highlands, in hiding. Xoloz 05:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, with useful and uniquely Canadian information going into Monarchy in Canada where it belongs. Lord Bob 05:23, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. The two are the same person, just acting in a different capacity. Aside from that, this is an excellent article. Falcon 05:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you like to put this under Queen of Canada, as with Queen of New Zealand then? Xoloz 05:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and move this page to Queen of Canada and use the standard redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. That makes the most sense. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ditto. -Sean Curtin 07:35, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not wholly opposed to "Queen of Canada", but it seems to be a convenient yet temporary solution only as there has so far been only one King of Canada (George VI) and one Queen of Canada (Elizabeth II). When thinking ahead I wonder what will happen when Charles III (should he choose that name) ascends to the Throne-- there will then be two Kings of Canada in history; George VI and Charles III. Which will the "King of Canada" article be assigned to? Of course, this situation is some years off, but none-the-less is something to consider.

Also, if there is already a "Queen of Australia" article, a "Queen of New Zealand" article, and there is to be a "Queen of Canada" article, will there then be a "Queen of the United Kingdom" article as well? gbambino

This exists as a redirect to British Monarchy. Xoloz 09:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge & Redirect to her main article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and redirect - Queen's different legal positions in different regions can be included in the article about her and mentioned about the articles about the regions. They do not need separate articles. Would she be the first Elizabeth reigning in every territory UK acquired after the 17th century? Skysmith 09:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Skysmith 09:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) edit after consideration)

Unfortunately, this does not address the point that if the information on her role as Queen of Canada is included on the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article, then the UK is therefore being given priority over the other 15 Realms, which is not a legal reality, only an opinion. As well, the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article will eventually become immense! gbambino

• Rename. No objection to the content here - is useful. However, we when we have biographical articles which are named for the person, they are about people, not about their holdings of particular offices. Lots of people hold offices that might want to have main articles about that office-holding-period, not just monarchs. We wouldn't expect to see George W. Bush, Governor of Texas or George W. Bush, President of the United States be different articles, instead we have George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States. If no consensus to rename would support merge with Monarchy in Canada. Morwen - Talk 14:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect into Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. An article for all positions are not needed, just separate sections in one, larger, article. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 14:35, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Anonymous comment (doesn't count towards consensus):

We should keep it in. It is an excellent page about the "Canadian Monarcy" And it is THE page to inform about the Elizabeth's role as Queen of Canada. User: Allard (the Netherlands) posted 13th June 2005

• I don't think it is anonymous, since Allard tried to sign it. I do think it is a comment, not a vote, because it wasn't signed properly. Xoloz 08:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - information relating to her role as Queen of Canada should be transferred to Monrachy in Canada so that that article covers the evolution of the institution, including any future monarchs. Information relating to her as a person should go into the main article Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, which does note that she is Queen of other countries as well. Ground Zero 15:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect. Most of the article should be merged with Monarchy in Canada, and then redirect the article to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. I can see the need in having an article specifically about this monarch's relation/visits/influence to Canada, but this title is too confusing to accomplish that. --NormanEinstein 15:21, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've changed my mind a bit on this one. I'd like to see the article kept and Renamed to Elizabeth II and Canada. Some of the information in the article, royal visits etc, is pretty good and would be lost in a merged article. With a little rewriting, this article should be focused specifically on this particular queen's relationship with Canada. --NormanEinstein 14:54, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Who was Elizabeth I of Canada? Gdr 15:30, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • There wasn't one. Designating her as Elizabeth II in all realms avoids the confusion of James I of England and James IV of Scotland, who were the same person. Ground Zero 15:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Who was Victor Emmanuel I of Italy? Monarchical ordinals do not have to correspond to reality. john k 00:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (no merging). An admittedly quick scan of the contents of Monarchy in Canada and Elizabeth II of Canada shows me that there is nothing useful in the latter to merge to the former. It's already stated on many fronts how she is also the Queen of Canada, and most of the content in this VfDed article can already be seen in all of these articles. --Deathphoenix 17:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)\
  • My suggestion, if the final consensus is to Merge with Monarchy in Canada, is to create a new heading in that article (something like Elizabeth II) to address any concerns people have about including information specific to her. --Deathphoenix 14:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Notwithstanding anyone's views on the monarchy, it seems counterproductive to have two (or more) biography pages on the same person. CJCurrie 18:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. For the same reasons as listed above. Along with the fact that the GG is the final step in any Federal legislation, Elizabeth II's relationship to Canada is merely symbolic. Destinova1 20:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per john k. Martg76 22:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• BTW, isn't she actually Elisabeth I of Canada? Who would be the first Elisabeth other than her? Martg76 22:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No, because her name is Elizabeth, not Elisabeth. And, as noted above, there is not Elizabeth I of Canada. Designating her as Elizabeth II in all realms avoids the confusion of James I of England and James IV of Scotland, who were the same person. Ground Zero 23:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This argument serves as another illustration of the fallacy of this article. This kind of "confusion" is common practice in the numbering of monarchs in European history. Just consider one of the examples given above: Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor = Rudolf II of Bohemia = Rudolf of Hungary = Rudolf VI, Archduke of Austria. It's always the same person. Redirects and, if necessary, disambiguation pages easily solve the "confusion" problem. Martg76 22:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • If you wish, see my extensive comments on why Elizabeth the II is not quite like historical figures. In sum: The Commonwealth is a unique legal creation, a product of post-imperial thought. Though many rulers have had multiple domains, none has ruled under a constitutional system that so thoroughly disclaims imperial pretention, and has extensive codified laws aimed at making sure no one Sovereign realm takes precedent over any others. Also, Elizabeth lives, and is not a dusty historical figure; she has many subjects who cherish her, and who care deeply about her role in their countries. At the same, I think 16 articles on one person is redundant. As above, I have voted to move this to Queen of Canada. Each country deserves an article on their Queen, and her position, but Elizabeth needs only one article in her name, with her personal bio, etc. Xoloz 04:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Monarchy in Canada, redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. James F. (talk) 23:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Although by design the distinction between the separate legal persons of the Crown in the Commonwealth Realms is blurry, the Head of State of Canada certainly merits an article. It might help to work out a policy on how the different roles should be split between Wikipedia articles, and apply that consistently across the different Commonwealth Realms. The statement "page is redundant and created for a purely POV purpose" is clearly incorrect. User:Peter Grey
  • In VFDs we only consider comments votes by editors with more than 100 edits. AndyL 11:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • From Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion "Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion" 13:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "but their votes may be discounted" AndyL 13:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That decision whether to discount rests with the admin., who renders a judgment at debate close, not with anyone else. As always, "may" is not "must," so the decision to discount is an administrative choice. Xoloz 04:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes but it's routine on VfDs to point point out when a poster has made fewer than a dozen edits and has only been editing for two daysprior to joining a VfD and it is routine to discount such votes, particularly if, as in this case, the person has voted in response to a plea for votes on the Monarchist League of Canada message board.AndyL 15:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • With reference to this comment and others like it by AndyL, I would like to cite the guideline of not biting the newcomers. Please don't! We need them to keep wikipedia running, and their opinions are just as valid. These votes you so badly want to discount are clearly not made in bad faith, and your desire to discount them seems channelled entirely towards furthering your opinion of delete. If anything is in bad faith, it is that. Don't be a WikiSnob, please. Falcon 22:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge specifics to Monarchy in Canada, redirect article to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. -- Elisson | Talk 00:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• As a Cdn. Citizen. Elizabeth II of Canada works for me. She is my Queen.

(Unsigned comment by 172.154.199.22) Xoloz 08:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep she is a notable monarch. There is a Monarchy in Canada article however I believe Queen Liz II has done enough for Canada to merit an individual article on her own. JamesBurns 09:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • She has an article on her own, see Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. AndyL 11:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm only guessing that he means an article on her own for Canada on its own. Xoloz 17:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect This information can be placed elsewhere. User 142.110.227.32 14 June 2005
  • (Unsigned -- or rather, defectively signed -- Comment by 142.110.227.32) sign with four tildes please. Xoloz 17:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I've seen a lot of votes to merge contents to Monarchy in Canada while redirecting to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. I could be wrong, but I think this breaks the requirements of GFDL. You need to preserve the history of the content, so therefore, I believe if you merge anything from ArticleX to ArticleY, you must also redirect it to ArticleY, not to another article. --Deathphoenix 19:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - The history is preserved as long as the originating article isn't actually deleted. Redirecting to a different article than the one that the information was merged into might make the history more difficult to find (and whoever does the merging should include something to the effect of "merged from Elizabeth II of Canada" in the edit summary), but it's still there. Consider also the case of us merging information from one article into two or more others - the original can only redirect to one of them. That's not a problem for the GFDL. -- Jonel 19:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, the "history" of the article only goes back to June 10. It was orgiinally created as a redirect in 2004, but content was only added a few days ago. Not terribly important.

.Ground Zero 20:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Gotcha, thanks. --Deathphoenix 02:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, regardless of how many roles she has, and what the legal relationship of thse roles are, she is only one person. I think that one article (at most) per person is sufficient. Dsmdgold 22:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If someone deletes it, I shall just have to put it up again. I will not tolerate my monarch's page being just a part of another monarch's page. It clearly makes it seem as if her British realm is above all the rest (which, if you "delete" people would actually READ the statute of Westminster, could figure out is totally untrue). This is a real downplay to the Canadian throne, and sounds like pure republican propaganda to me.Maxwell C. 23:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Watch out. Though the consensus seems to be against it being deleted, if this (or some other VfDed article) were deleted, and you were to just put it up again, this would qualify as a speedy delete as a recreation of previously deleted content. --Deathphoenix 02:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Certainly true, but see my comments above. Unlike dusty historical figures, Her Majesty is an active head of state beloved by many subjects of many realms. I would expect it is likely some wll respond passionately if their concerns are not accomodated. I don't encourage such action, but I am not without some sympathy either. Xoloz 04:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Merging into an article which is alreay 37K long is exactly opposite to the ways of wikipedia to split articles when they grow. This article is clearly big enough to warrant independence. mikka (t) 02:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • In fact, there are only about two paragraphs of the article that aren't already present in other articles. AndyL 02:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What a joke. There's only about two paragraphs of the article that aren't already present in other articles because you moved those paragraphs from this page to those ones! gbambino

Yes, and I moved them before mikka made his comment so my point stands.AndyL 23:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's precisely my point-- your moving them affected people's opininon on the page.gbambino 15:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It evidently influence mikka to vote keep. Are you saying we should discount his vote? I don't think you've thought about the implications of your comments.AndyL 00:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Someone clicking on a link marked "Queen Elizabeth" in a Canadian article will expect to find a comprehensive biography of the Queen, not this article. Incidentally, even if the Queen was styled Queen Elizabeth I of Canada, she wouldn't be, as there hasn't been a Queen Elizabeth II of Canada using the same logic, and you only need numerals for differentiation between monarchs of the same name. Queen Victoria isn't called Queen Victoria I, though if there were to be another British Queen named Victoria at some future point, then both would need a number to distinguish them. Pete 04:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Merge biographical content there, and content related to the role of the monarch generally to Monarchy in Canada. --Michael Snow 05:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Vote interference, gbambino has been trolling for votes on the Monarchist League of Canada message board[1] (see Canadian Monarchial info on Wikipedia). AndyL 16:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another baseless accusation which is really, really beginning to reflect badly on you, Andy. I appealed to members of the Monarchist League for input into a discussion. It seems you are frightened by information coming from people who may know more about a particular subject than you do. gbambino

No, this is an attempt to interfere with the vote. You have appealed to people who hold a certain point of view (they belong to the Monarchist League, after all) who are not Wikipedia editors. That is clearly an attempt to sway the vote in your favour. The administrator who ersolves this VfD should take this into consideration when determining the outcome of the vote. Ground Zero 16:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Be careful to get your facts straight before making accusations. I never once appealed for a vote, and, in fact, never directed anyone specifically to this 'vote' page. I'm sure anyone reading my words will be aware of that. I asked for input and help regarding all the articles related to the Monarchy here, specifically stating that factual arguments were needed, and bias was to be avoided. Indeed, I asked for assistance because of the onslaught of Andy's edits, almost all goverened by his deeply republican POV. And lastly, anyone can be a Wikipedia editor, including members of the Monarchist League, whether that suits you or not. gbambino

Of course they can. There are numerous monarchist editors here. The issue is bringing in people who are not regular contributors to Wikipeida for the purpose of getting your way on a particular issue. Your characterization of Monarchist League members as being people who are knowledgeable about the monarchy, and republicans like AndyL as being ignorant of the monarchy are not helpful. Monarchists and republicans both have a point of view. Ground Zero 16:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What precisely is a "regular contributor"? How many times does one have to edit here before their points are respected? "Don't bite the newbies" but don't take them seriously either? This isn't an exclusive club. There are debates going on here which need input from people who are educated on the Crown. Certainly, republicans can also be educated on the Crown, and if they can provide factual arguments, then that is perfectly fine, regardless of whether I agree with republicanism or not. However, what is of concern is that AndyL is actively editing almost every page dealing with the Crown and Canada, and his arguments for a good number of his actions are guided by an ignorance of the institution, and a lot of baseless republican POV arguments which I've heard before. As is completely clear, POV holds no place here, only fact. I did not call on monarchists to bring their POV (in fact, I specifically discouraged it), but rather only to bring knowledge and facts to the debate. I only happen to know monarchists who are well educated on the Crown. If anyone would like the input of a knowledgable republican, please invite them over. gbambino

Gbambino, are you claiming that no votes on this page are the result of your intervention on the MLC board? There is evidence to the contrary, witness Peter Grey. AndyL 16:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't stop someone from 'voting' here, but I most certainly did not ask anyone to. As I said, I never even drew anyone's attention to this page. And again, what's wrong with outside opinion? It's already been established that 'newbie votes' hold less weight than those of regular contributors. But really, the votes here don't concern me. Whether this page stays or goes doesn't concern me. What is important is that Wikipedia deals with the Crown, the Sovereign, and her relationship in and with her Realms, in the most accurate and correct manner. That's what the debate about this page was supposed to deal with. gbambino

I thought we were just discussing and voting on what to do with this article. We're writing an encyclopedia, not honouring or dishonouring people. --Deathphoenix 18:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Just to clarify things for AndyL and anyone else here right now, I am a regular contributor to the Wikipedia AND a monarchist. I am NOT someone whom Gbambino has just "called up" from the monarchist board to vote here. And since when was the Wikipedia a democracy anyways? I thought the Wikipedia's goal was to provide the most factually correct information possible, NOT to allow people to come and "vote" on the content of articles, and which articles are to exist or not, depending upon their (possibly incorrect and often biased) opinions.Maxwell C. 21:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect Monarchy in Canada or King of Canada or Queen of Canada --Henrygb 18:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This article adds information that is specific to the role of Elizabeth II in Canada, how she conducts that role and reactions from Canadians. So there should be an article. If it were redirected to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom we would lose that info. A merge would unduly increase the size of the UK article (especially if other members of the Commonwealth also added similar info). So we'd better keep it. It could be renamed "Queen of Canada" if need be. Sunray 18:54, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Oh yes, and perhaps we could get a different picture! Sunray 20:23, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Why would we need another picture? The current one is a cropped version of Her Majesty's official Canadian portrait and looks quite nice.Maxwell C. 00:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The information in this article should be retained somewhere. The discussion of where it is retained and how to link all of the information about QEII should be taken to Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Chuck 21:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- The fine points of merging such an excellent body of writing into a single article is enough to make me shudder - the resulting document couldn't possibly have the easy flow and high style this exhibits, and would ignore the fact that such a monarch is indeed two rulers inhabiting the same body. I'd hazard a guess that they even disagree with one another on occasion. <G> The other fact I can't but help thinking over is the extreme effort that merging the two would require to do the task justice. If it's done too hastily, you end up with limping dijointed text. Chronology which intermixes key events for diff nationstates, and possibly repeats of things like the article battleship which commented no less than three times in the space of a screen page on the 21 kt speed of the new steam turbines for the original HMS Dreadnought — I'd be far better editing time fixing something like that, than picking on this excellent effort. [[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 01:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. CommentS: One strength of the Wikipedia is the luxury to keep such things; and more — To keep them well organized. Did you see the article in the Village Signpost Click_here quoting an editor of En. Brittanica that Wiki-articles were too long, and most readers don't want so much information to wade through?

2. A telling point on a merged output product. Another, similar but disparate arguement can be made for keeping a brief historical name article as many editors are careless and/or ignorant that many such have their own chapter of history. Take a look at Dalian and Lushun for instance -- each name there (and a host of redirected alternate spellings) represents an era in history that such an merged article obscures in the format.
3. This is not an exact parrallel, but I want a Wiki where one can type (or websearch) using a name in a published book, magazine or other critically edited work by an author of note to find the right information. e.g. Tsushima, Tsu-shima, Tsu Shima, Tsu-Shima are all alternative forms of the same islands/Battle, but which historian was I reading to finally stumble across Wikified Tsushima. It matters not, they are all equally valid, but many such names are being lost. Worse, Wikipedia is becoming gradually decoupled from the extant voluminous body of historical references that have their own contexts.Redirects are fine, but whose to say the Monarchy won't someday be split into seperate ruling Queens? Not I. My Crystal balls not that good.
4. More to the point, if someone on the web is searching for Freda the Queen of Canada, I suspect more than a little, they are searching from and concerning an interest in her August Majesty's Canadian History, and care not at all, or only a little about her other titles. [[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 01:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If there are separate monarchs for Canada and the UK in the future, we would, of course, have articles on each of them. but because they are different people. For instance, if Canada decided to make Prince Andrew King after Elizabeth dies, and then she dies, then we'd have Charles III of the United Kingdom and Andrew of Canada as separate articles. But we wouldn't keep articles on Andrew of Canada and Andrew, Duke of York. john k 20:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Postdlf 05:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful article. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 23:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Betsy Windsor. — Dan | Talk 02:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redir. Radiant_>|< 09:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful article, not to mention Wikipedia is not paper so why on earth not have separate articles on her from the viewpoint of each of her realms? Apart from which, the redirect to the UK article is demeaning to her non-UK realms (writes a UK-er). -- Arwel 13:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect. There's one person who has different rôles; I can see no reason for multiple articles on her (any more than, for example, we should have one article on Samuel Johnson (lexicographer), Samuel Johnson (wit), Samuel Johnson (poet), etc. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a substantial article in and of itself and if merged into Elizabeth II of the UK would either result in much lost content or an excessively long and unwieldy article. Whig 16:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename. -Frazzydee|✍ 19:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to what? john k 20:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as long as the other article keeps the "of the United Kingdom." --Ibagli 21:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: The above user has made fewer than 100 edits, and the vote should not be counted. (Mind you, *none* of these recent votes should count toward consensus -- the matter has already been decided.) CJCurrie 22:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The voting period has not officially ended since no final decision has been made. Just because it's beyond the normal VFD period, doesn't automatically close it. By the way, IMO "Queen of Canada" is merely symbolic and is a tremendous waste of Canadian taxpayer's money when she or any of the royal family visit. I think if the final decision is to keep, this will open a whole can of worms but I'm not going to vote due to my personal anti-Queen bias where I would say delete. RedWolf 06:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • • Actually, under the guidelines in Wikipedia:Consensus we have consensus to merge/redirect since more than 2/3 of voters have voted that way. Why this VFD is still open is beyond me.AndyL 15:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I hope that my vote above (for Delete Redirect, my mistake) counts for something, because I am actually a monarchist, and I believe in the Commonwealth. I vote delete redirect because I think this title is superfluous and its content is already covered in several other articles (among them Monarchy in Canada and Canadian politics). The article Queen of Canada, as a redirect, should be more than sufficient, and having an Elizabeth II of COUNTRY_NAME for every Commonwealth country, in my opinion, is superfluous, difficult to maintain, and utterly confusing to a reader wanting to simply learn about her. When we write an encyclopedia, we should also write with the user (reader) in mind, and I think having all these articles is just confusing, especially when you can have Monarchy in COUNTRY_NAME instead. What if, knock on wood, something were to happen to the Queen? Would we then have to create a whole bunch of new articles for George VII of COUNTRY_NAME (as the name Prince Charles will adopt when he becomes king), one for every article that currently exists for Elizabeth II? --Deathphoenix 14:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Indeed, we must keep in mind that this is not a vote on deleting the monarchy or on deleting the current monarch. This is only about whether or not this Wikipedia article should exist separately from other Wikipedia articles on the same person. Ground Zero 14:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge+Redirect, I'm all for having an article on her function as queen of canada, but this is a bio page. --W(t) 15:53, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• temporarily keep, and begin a discussion about elizabeth II. i just finished examining pages, talk pages, and edit histories in an attempt to get up to speed on this complicated debate about wpedia's treatment and titling of articles regarding elizabeth II . this Vfd is only part of the debate, and there are a lot of unresolved issues. closing this Vfd because of consensus will only intensify the problem, unless the closing, merging, and redirecting is accompanied by more discussion elsewhere. i dont think there are enough people who are both well educated on the wpedia history of the subject and participating in good faith/NPOV/for-the-good-of-the-wpedia. i dont mean to say there are none, but i think there is not enough as a ratio to the other noise here and elsewhere. for that reason i would support an Rfc over a survey, as vote numbers dont seem too meaningful right now. at the moment my opinion is that there should not be a page titled elizabeth II of Canada except as a redirect. however, i also feel there should not be a page titled elizabeth II of the United Kingdom except as a redirect. is there a reason why we cannot use elizabeth II? i saw it suggested at least once but did not see a response. within the biographical article about elizabeth II, there should be limited information about her relationships with her various regencies interspersed with general biographical data. where there is more detailed encyclopedic information about a given specific country, it should be summarized in a section on the bio page and linked as "main page at X". there is useful, NPOV data currently to be found at elizabeth II of Canada. i would classify elizabeth II of the United Kingdom as some combination of POV and deficient in quality and professional feel. with all that said, i fear that 'merge and redirect' will result in one party of this dispute claiming a victory where none was achieved; hence, my vote to keep until a policy can be forged. Burgher 19:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your points that this is a complex issue for many to deal with, let alone Wikipedia. That one crown operates as a legal institution distinctly yet completely equally in 16 separate countries, and that there is one sovereign who has a personal history in, and relationship with, those 16 nations, is a situation which is is unique to history, and a little difficult to understand at first. Add to this the points that the Crown over the Commonwealth Realms is no longer purely British, yet has no official name either, as well as Wikipedia's existing standards for the naming of monarchs, and it becomes clear that with no precedent it becomes a complex matter to organise and explain accurately in an encyclopaedia. 16 "Elizabeth II of (insert Realm)"s may not be a viable solution, but that eliminates Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Merging the information contained in Elizabeth II of Canada to Monarchy in Canada ignores the fact that there is a distinction between the institution of the Crown in Canada and the actual person who is Sovereign of the Crown, which is correctly handled in the split between Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and the British Monarchy articles.

NOTE This user, User:Burgher, has been on wikipedia for approximately two weeks and has made fewer than 50 edits.AndyL 21:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NOTE not only are you making my point for me, but you are wrong on both of those counts by a large margin. try "since january" and "fewer than 250" for more accurate versions of "approximately two weeks" and "fewer than 50". i personally see a great deal of content in my vote which could be responded to, would you care to do that? i have to go back a long way to find the last time user:AndyL has done something constructive in this debate. i do apologize for neglecting to sign my vote, i completely forgot. incidentally, none of my nearly 250 edits have had anything to do with this issue, and i learned everything i know about the dispute today, by taking about four hours to read everything i could find. i fail to see why my vote should not count in full without a note like this. Burgher 22:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, I misread your contributions list though I don't see how that "makes (your) point". If you made yourself even a rudimentary user page it might lead to people not assuming you're brand new. AndyL 23:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm personally not precisely sure how to handle this, yet. But the facts are out there, and, when one gets their head around it, the relationship of the Crown and Sovereign to the Commonwealth Realms is actually fairly straightforward. The problem arises when trying to fit it into Wikipedia. Though, I remain confident that it can be done. --gbambino 21:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge. -- Jonel | Speak 05:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Constance Hall

Un-notable Australian Big Brother contestant. The first one to be disqualified but otherwise not notable. MrHate 02:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect -- and merge to Big Brother (Australian TV series). I don't think we'll be hearing much more from her. - Longhair | Talk 02:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect is ok, but delete is ok, too. This is not the winner of the "competition," just some chick. Geogre 02:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Big Brother (Australian TV series)--AYArktos 03:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. Niteowlneils 03:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with redirect.--Cyberjunkie 03:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect.' (or alternatively, delete). Ambi 05:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Big Brother (Australian TV series). Keep on second thoughts she probably is notable/notorious enough for an entry. JamesBurns 05:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. The decision to expel her and the other housemate is an important part of the development of the show especially as the show's bid for more single housemates has led to a much raunchier program than previous years and hence more controversy. Capitalistroadster 07:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I hate Big Brother as much as the next man, but contestants usually end up having their fame extended beyond the house, which to me establishes notability. That said, this really only applies up to around the 3rd series in any country. Jamyskis 07:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The winner of the first Australian series, Ben Williams doesn't have an article. I didn't even know his name without checking. -- Longhair | Talk 07:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep per what Jamyskis said -CunningLinguist 07:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or delete game show contestant, and not even a winning one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, first one to be disqualified establishes notoriety. Kappa 10:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Big Brother (Australian TV series), even though I really see no harm in deleting. I feel that finalists in Idol are notable, they have shown some skill in getting there, but Big Brother? ...Sigh, if there are people interested in that TV-show I guess that a merge is better than a deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• redirect. Scimitars Law: as number of reality TV shows approach infinity, notability of reality TV show contestants approaches zero. --Scimitar 14:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. What else has she done? -- BD2412 ^talk 15:56, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
• Merge to the BB series, since it is easy to re-split on the off chance that she does something notable. Brighterorange 18:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't think we should have articles on everyone who has ever appeared on TV somewhere. KFP 18:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Radiant_>|< 09:27, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - no notability outside context of TV show. Alphax ^τεχ 06:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Kelly Martin 20:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

My Funny Valentine

These lyrics should not be there... Florilegist 02:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Check for copyvio. Mr Bound 02:45, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: First, copyrighted material. Second, incomplete, so no transwiki to source, even if the lyrics were free. Geogre 02:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand: It is one of the landmark songs, as it has been a bravura piece by crooners since its writing. I'm in favor of articles on very few and extremely important popular songs, and this qualifies, but we ought to discuss it as a landmark. Geogre 12:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I've put in a legit stub. It may be okay now. --Arcadian 03:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Arcadian's stub. RickK 04:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep new stub, but it really should be expanded; if we are going to have articles on songs they should have some real substance, not just a short list of facts. Also, the potential copyvio in the history could be a problem if this isn't in the public domain. -R. fiend 05:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with R. fiend that an article on a song should typically be more than a short list of facts, but I think there is certainly a legitmate interest in some songs (like this) that have a history beyond a single artist or medium. In some cases there may not be more than a few facts, or at least a few important facts. For example, if this particular song was performed by six other artists but their versions were never popular, I don't see that we add value here by mentioning the appropriately forgotten versions. DS1953 05:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Jamyskis 07:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable song with Allmusic.com stating that there are nearly 1300 versions of a song

titled "My Funny Valentine" most of which relate to this song. BTW, there is a Miles Davis live album of the same name which is considered by some to be one of the best versions of standards ever recorded. See [2]Capitalistroadster 08:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Apparently, Chet Baker had a big hit with it in the 1950's and the song was sung in Pal Joey by Kim Novak. I might have at expanding this myself.Capitalistroadster 08:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I'm in favour of keeping most songs, and one as famous as this definitely needs an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• I fleshed it out a little more, using Capitalistroadster's posting as a starting point. Question: is it copyvio to include the chords? I added those in because they're so familiar to jazz musicians. I think that including the chords is fair use, but I could also see the other side of the argument, and wouldn't object if they were removed. --Arcadian 12:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is definitely not a copyright violation to include the chords the way you have done. Copyright only covers the author's actual expression. For example, to quote a passage from a book you would need to rely on "fair use" because you are using the author's own words. If you briefly summarize the author's book in your own words, that simply does not violate his copyright. There are obviously areas in between, but your listing of the chords clearly is not even in the grey area. DS1953 14:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cool -- thanks. --Arcadian 01:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I can see some curious individual wondering what "my funny valentine" means or is a reference to; it sorta sounds like a common expression. --Robojames 18:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An important song from the period of unpopular music. FWIW, at least some brief quotation of the lyrics, perhaps illustrating the use of the title in the song, would certainly be fair use. Smerdis of Tlön 19:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep revised version. --FuriousFreddy 19:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 action needed. Golbez 21:53, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Lee harvey oswald

This page duplicates Lee Harvey Oswald, adds no material and ends with a POV on the current president. No need to merge into existing content. Bollar 03:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Never mind -- I guess it was a speedy deletion.

• Comment - The original contents of the article were speedily deleted and a redirect created pointing to Lee Harvey Oswald. -- Jonel 03:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 03:10, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

SPAM(forum)

No new info; unlikely redirect Samw 03:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete useless page. Information already covered in Spam. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:44, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - redundant. Redirect would be pointless, so nuke it. --FCYTravis 07:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jamyskis 07:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:41, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 03:10, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Lemuria as the Homeland of Dragons and Naga

Chock full of weasel words, original research, and pure, unsupported nonsense held by a vast minority. At most it should probably be deleted, and at the very least, completely rewritten. --brian0918&#153; 04:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --brian0918&#153; 04:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep --Atun There is no reason for this page to be deleted. It was created recently, and I am working to extensively revise it. It is being updated regularly, and growing into a more acceptable article. Remove it from the 'Deletion' page until it is finished. Then make your judgements. Perhaps after the page is finished, we can decide whether to break it up and move the information to other articles. At this time it is easier to upload this stuff to this article. The article can be fixed in more minor ways, such as the title, after it has been completed in some acceptable form.

• Delete. The material on Australian aborigines claiming to sight dinosaur-like creatures, however, should be transferred to a new article focusing on such sightings in the Australian region. What remains could be incorporated into Lemuria (continent) and Naga (mythology). Decius 04:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) The Lemuria (continent) article is very short and incomplete, and I've incorporated some elements from User:Atun's article into Lemuria (continent). There is no need for two Lemuria articles. Transfer what can be transferred to various articles. Decius 04:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Cryptozoology is not the place for detailing the Australian cases. The Australian cases should be collected in a new article. Decius 05:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, the Lemuria part of the title has nothing to do with the rest of the material, which could be better placed into Cryptozoology. RickK 04:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Rick. JamesBurns 05:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research bordering on patent nonsense. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Some of the "original research" may have value, in that it brings together *real* research from disparate sources. The author should be let complete his text (within reasonable time) and the totlaity can then be edited, or reshuffled into t=wherever people think it should be, with any stubs elided away. --Simon Cursitor 08:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kind of interesting, but definitely falls under original research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - tries to catch too much, making it an essay instead of an article - not unlike an article on The Pacific Ocean as the Home of Sea Serpants and Mermaids would be. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:06, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research that's questionable at best. -- Hadal 03:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and ruminate on meaning of vast minority. Dystopos 14:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 03:10, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ana Lita

Doesn't seem notable to me. 200 Google hits, 25% from one site (her organization), another 20% or so seem to be just lists of usernames for a dating site Weed all that out, and you've got less than 100 hits. --Xcali 04:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE Sounds like a resumè. --Rschen7754 04:53, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: A couple of facts, roughly an "about us" entry from an institutional web site, no discussion or context. No CV's. Geogre 12:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for above reasons. Postdlf 22:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/cv. --Etacar11 23:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete - No encyclopedic context. IHEU organization possibly notable, however. --FCYTravis 20:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 21:54, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

John Stear

Despite what Google claims in its estimate, if you browse through them, you'll find only about 150 hits, many of those from his own site(s). Not notable. --Xcali 04:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into No Answers in Genesis if this info is not there yet. -CunningLinguist 07:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: A skeptic. This article seems to be one of those "wikilink every proper noun" empty sets. Geogre 12:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, but if you're skeptical of Genesis, you are hardly alone. See atheist. Or Buddhist. Or many, many, other things, for that matter. --Scimitar 14:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable in himself, info is already in No Answers in Genesis (is that notable?) --Doc (?) 14:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as he would only be notable for founding No Answers in Genesis, and that itself is nonnotable (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/No Answers in Genesis. Postdlf 22:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into No Answers in Genesis, as per CunningLinguist. JamesBurns 06:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete & redirect, nothing much to merge here. Radiant_>|< 09:27, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Ondrejk 09:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with No Answers in Genesis. -- Zantastik talk 07:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 03:10, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Corporate-whorage

Dict def that probably doesn't even deserve to be moved to Wiktionary. DeleteSasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:00, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: barely beat me to this VfD. Neolgism. Dictdef. POV. Wikibofh 05:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Xcali 05:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 05:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef -CunningLinguist 07:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not even a dicdef. Jamyskis 07:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neo-nonsense. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:51, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
• Delete. --Eyeon 16:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like something somebody made up...--EatAlbertaBeef 22:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 03:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Pollocracy

neologism. Returns only 32 hits on google. Also see Pollocratic. I vote to delete them both. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:03, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Things "begining to evolve" do not belong in Wikipedia. We want only the highly evolved here. --Xcali 05:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, six Google hits. RickK 05:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 06:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. The sources using the neologism are notable enough for me, but it was only created to describe this political ideology as a temporary measure. Maybe good for rewriting as and when the term comes back. Jamyskis 07:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Further to my previous comment, most -ologies use Latin or Greek words as roots, meaning that this would be a society run by chickens. Oh dear. Jamyskis 09:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • We should write a BJAODN on that :) delete.
    • The world needs a form of government in which important issues are decided by alectryomancy. Smerdis of Tlön 19:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Radiant_>|< 09:28, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism -CunningLinguist 07:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although I do suspect that society is secretly being run by chickens. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:08, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
• Bockbockbock Bock bock bock bock bock! bock bock! BAAAWK! Eyeon 16:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Worst neologism ever: had to look to see whether it meant government by hoi polloi or government by chickens; turns out it's about public opinion polls. Smerdis of Tlön 19:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 21:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Tongrentang

Delete. Terrible ad about an insignificant Chinese company. It will never become a full article, and if we took out all of the self-promotion there would be nothing left. Falcon 05:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as the article has been given new life. Falcon 03:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete shameless advertising... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:35, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that it has been fixed up nicely. Good job to BD2412. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:06, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising -CunningLinguist 07:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep due to re-write -CunningLinguist 17:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Delete as spam. Jamyskis 07:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep in light of rewrite. Jamyskis 20:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep, cleanup. Real company, very big in China, really is centuries old. This comes from the Chinese gov't.. See also google: Results 1 - 10 of about 10,600 for "Tong Ren Tang" OR Tongrentang. As I said in another vfd once, you wouldn't vote to delete a total advertisement for Coca Cola, you'd fix it. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:12, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • I've added some info about their legal problems - it's definitely not an advert anymore! ;-) -- BD2412 ^talk 02:14, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
• Keep. Per BDAbramsom. Thanks CunningLinguist. DS1953 20:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and thanks BD2412. Kappa 22:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 21:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Andre dehon

Seems a little too much like vanity to me. I fail to see how it would meet conditions of Wikipedia:Importance so I'm putting it up on VfD. I abstain. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

User just added [[Andr%E9_DeHon]] which i am assuming is to be dealt with here as well as it is an exact replica of Andre dehon.

Nevermind that, that page got speedied. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity Daniel Case 05:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all articles on teachers so long as all articles on schools are kept, though move to proper capitalization. RickK 05:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I agree with RickK in a sense, but only notable teachers should be kept. Assistant profs don't fit this bill. Jamyskis 07:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I agree completely with Jamyskis -CunningLinguist 07:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesn't pass the Random J. Professor test. An assistant prof. Geogre 12:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anybody else think RickK is being a trifle sarcastic? As much as I like keeping academics, he really isn't exceptionally notable. --Scimitar 14:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no case for notability in the article. --Etacar11 23:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sad to see another case of unhelpful sarcasm from RickK. Obviously, if Schools are kept, that is less of a reason to keep even marginally notable personnel, who might be included in the school article. Xoloz 04:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, agree with Rick although this article is borderline at best. JamesBurns 06:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • When it comes to schools, I am neither a "deletionist" nor an "inclusionist" -- I may never vote on one. I think it'll be quite sad, though, if Wikipedia expands to include more articles of questionable notability because of a rise in sarcastic/"cutting-off-the-nose-to-spite-the-face" votes. I suspect this strategy will only result, eventually, in all teachers being included, because I'm sure many "inclusionists" would rather add teachers then delete schools. If some voters formerly inveterately opposed to schools honestly believe that school inclusion is logically irreconcilable with teacher deletion, then so be it. In all earnestness, however, and without personally impugning anybody, I have to wonder about about the sincerity of votes so cast. Are sarcastic votes bad-faith, and if so, may they be stricken? I only ask the question. Xoloz 07:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If it was your average school teacher yes I would have voted delete and I normally do. IMO associate professors and some professors are borderline at best - they are slightly above your average school teacher. I guess it raises the question of whether people who vote Keep for all schools are voting to make a point rather than voting on merit? JamesBurns 09:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • "Inclusionists" do vote to make a point. They think schools are notable. This is a debatable issue on which they have good-faith convictions. A sarcastic vote here is potentially different. If one really believes in a high bar of notability, but votes contrary to that belief for other reasons (eg. I don't like the guy who voted X, so I vote Y, even though I really believe X), one would be voting in bad faith. I am not saying this has been done, because I don't know anyone's motivations, but there is a prima facie case for wondering whether it might have happened here, so I raise the concern. I do understand your reasons, and was not wishing to question any specific vote. I only want to point out how counterproductive sarcastic votes might become if they rise in popularity. Xoloz 09:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • We need to be consistant, don't we? If every school is kept, then why aren't the teachers? They certainly have as much notability as the schools they teach at. RickK 22:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
          • That is an argument, and if you really believe that, vote away. I must say, though, I find it an extremely unwise argument. I think most agree that the US Mint is unquestionably notable; every employee is not. As below, the city of San Francisco is unquestionably notable, but not every city worker is. Also, see recent vote on Richard J. Doscher in which many, including yourself, felt an employee of Yuba City was not notable, yet Yuba City is. Xoloz 04:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, entirely disagree with RickK. Radiant_>|< 09:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Just because schools are by definition notable, doesn't mean the teachers are. For one, everyone in a town or city might know about a school (in a medium sized city that is around a quarter of a million people, notable enough for me), but they likely won't be able to name the headmaster or teachers. We have companies on here, but we don't list all of their employees. The same should apply to schools, unless the teacher is noted for something. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs, Me 23:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability of junior prof not at all established. carmeld1 16:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 03:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

RPGclassics

Looooooooooooong, POV article about non-notable web forum. RickK 06:10, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Vanity. You beat me to it. It's also copyvio from the forum's site. --Xcali 06:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy I edited a bit too fast, it's not encyclopedic in the least. --Vile Requiem 06:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As what I originally posted on the article itself was for it to be cleaned up, and it has, my vote is Keep. --Vile Requiem 04:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. Gamaliel 06:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable -CunningLinguist 07:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as vanity and copyvio. Jamyskis 07:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy if only for vanity. -Tadanisakari 07:45, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - FYI, "vanity" is not currently a speedy criteria; there is an ongoing discussion on the subject at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load.. Soundguy99 13:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as copyvio, though I would argue that RPGclassics.com *is* a notable site. I've certainly heard of it before. -- Jonel 02:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Author claims permission. If verified, my vote is Keep. -- Jonel 02:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup - Forum may be notable but we don't need the gory details of every forum drama that ever took place. --FCYTravis 08:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy, just a random webpage. Radiant_>|< 09:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 03:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Derek Alan Walker

He became a famous businessman in only two years. Then why haven't I heard of him? Why hasn't Google heard of his company? Why can't we speedy stuff like this?--Xcali 06:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete patent vanity, should be able to be speedied. --FCYTravis 07:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy, blatant and shameless vanity, apparently also exaggerating and/or lying about his own feats. Jamyskis 07:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Because two editors is not enough. As Jamyskis says, this appears to be exaggeration or falsehood. No cited sources. WP:BIO criteria not met. Delete. Uncle G 12:21, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
• Delete: It's vanity, of course, but I also think that "vanity" is the one charge where VfD nominators (and voters) are most likely to make a mistake. Consequently, "vanity" isn't a speedy. At the same time, I fully share everyone's frustration. Geogre 12:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Vanity isn't a reason for speedying, but patent nonsense is, and there is absolutely zilch proof that much of this article is correct. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs, Me 23:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, vanity, vanity. --Etacar11 23:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 21:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Tad Horino

An actor who's only scene was removed from the movie (whose name isn't even spelt right in the article)! Need I say more? Delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:22, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, needs expansion - stub was only created yesterday, he's a real actor and has been in a fair number of films/tv shows. [3]. -- Lochaber 12:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: He's still awfully minor. If the entry is expanded by the end of VfD voting, I'll reevaluate. Geogre 12:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep per imdb link provided by Lochaber. Kappa 22:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I still think he's has not gained enough noteriety, most of the roles listed don't seem to warrant an article. However, if this article can be expanded, i'll keep an open mind. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 00:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 06:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - expanded. DS1953 19:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 21:57, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Lily Safra

Article does not establish notability. RickK 06:22, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn. --FCYTravis 07:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. She was 6th on the Rich List 2002 [[4]] and by definition is notable simply by being married to a notable billionaire. She still is ranked at No. 71 of the richest people. Jamyskis 08:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Anybody worth £650,000,000 is pretty much notable by default; that's just such a humongous chunk of money that when she decides to make a move, she can't help but have an impact. That's a lotta oomph right there. -- Captain Disdain 10:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Her money makes her notable. Capitalistroadster 12:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep But she is notable nonetheless. CalJW 21:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I expanded the entry quite a bit. Unfortunately, Google has once again proven to be a pretty crappy research tool for things like this; Lily Safra certainly gets a lot of hits, but the results are often contradictory or vague. Thus, the stuff on her earlier marriages is nowhere near as detailed as I'd prefer, and I can only hope that it's accurate. Still, at least it puts her in the proper context now and establishes notability; hopefully someone who is actually familiar with the subject can fix anything I screwed up... -- Captain Disdain 00:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep also notable as heiress of famous murder victim, so not just a billionaire. Xoloz 04:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable heiress. JamesBurns 06:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. - n. —RaD Man (talk) 09:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable. carmeld1 16:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Click_here_for_more_info_about_venice.including_reasons_why_you_should_visit_here%21}}

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- Jonel | Speak 05:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pash Cracken

Seems like a minor minor minor minor character. Don't think it qualifies for it's own article. If anything, merge into the minor characters listing. Delete. Mergeafter a that nice rewrite. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:36, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into List of minor Star Wars characters. I get some 1500 goodle hits on this name, and the list will take just about any Star Wars related character. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Although I abstain from voting at the moment, I would like to point out that while there is a character named Pash Cracken in the Star Wars universe, I beleive the info in the article to be incorrect. I find nothing on any character named "Jason the Wise" and I dont beleive midi-chlorians were ever "created". -CunningLinguist 07:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as patent nonsense. Jamyskis 07:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A merge in light of the new changes would suit me fine. Jamyskis 14:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. I mean, c'mon, "cousin of Jason the Wise the original Jedi who created midi-chlorians"... that's all of the article, and it's just hoaxy nonsense. There's absolutely nothing salvageable here. -- Captain Disdain 10:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What with the changes and all, I'd be fine with a merge -- still not anywhere near notable enough for his own entry, though. -- Captain Disdain 15:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of minor Star Wars characters as per WP:FICT. Info does seem to be incorrect though so I'll clean up a little. -- Lochaber 12:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - info should be correct now, ready for merging if that's how it goes. -- Lochaber 12:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Rewritten again: yours was good, Lochaber, but some factual inaccuracies. (What can I say: I'm a huge nerd.) Everybody please re-vote, the article is no longer a hoax. (I say Merge.) ~ Marblespire 17:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a prank/hoax. (sigh) For the fan-defenders, there is no merge of lies, but Redirect Only would be a possible dispensation. Has anyone looked at the Minor Characters list to be sure that it doesn't contain a link (as if to a separate article) for this? I prefer to delete. Geogre 12:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The article has been rewritten Please reread and review your votes. Cracken is a minor canon character, so I vote merge. --Scimitar 14:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per WP:FICT --Carnildo 22:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the rewritten article. -- Jonel 02:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into List of minor Star Wars characters. JamesBurns 09:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 03:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Gareth Rose

Vanity? I can't find any hits for "Gareth Rose" +gay or "Gareth Rose" +proud which refer to this person. RickK 06:45, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Jamyskis 08:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails the Google test miserably. -Tadanisakari 07:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Mixedfolks

Appears to be an ad. Intresting site, though. ConeyCyclone 21:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - unless notability can be established beyond being yet another site for people to talk to one another. 3,000 Google hits, many of which are Wikimirrors. Mere forums are not of encyclopedic importance unless they've made some wider impact. --FCYTravis 22:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advertising but not spam. Jamyskis 07:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable and advertising Tobycat 00:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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