Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 18
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Radiant! (talk | contribs) at 11:25, 18 February 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
February 18
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. —Korath (Talk) 14:55, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
What is it about this 10-word neglected sub-stub that makes it noteworthy, or worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? Does this have any potential for organic growth and expansion, or will it continue to stagnate? GRider\talk 00:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- keep good lord man, it's only 2 months old. If you'd like to expand it, have a look here. Or check out the 1500 google hits. Wolfman 00:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable, just neglected. Someone will get around to it eventually. – flamurai (t) 01:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Another neglected stub. Zzyzx11 07:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 08:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I have expanded this substantially. She was active in the civil rights movement working with Martin Luther King in the SLSC marking at Selma and moving to Chicago to organise for King's efforts to improve housing and education in Chicago. As well as her work as an alderman, Tillman is a leader in the reparations movement. Capitalistroadster 09:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Good work Capitalistroadster. It would appear from the article that she's more notable than the average local politician. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems pretty good now. May have been a stub at one time, but its pretty lengthy now. — butt_monkey
- Forged comment from 141.150.221.216 (talk • contribs). No such user butt_monkey (talk • contribs). – flamurai (t) 19:36, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - notability established. DS 21:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep with great thanks to Capitalistroadster. —RaD Man (talk) 02:46, 25 Feb 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. —Korath (Talk) 00:35, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Yet another teenager vanity article. On the edge of speediness, but not quite there. Szyslak 00:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- A pretty blatant and obvious delete. Why does this not qualify as a speedy candidate? GRider\talk 00:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I wish it counted as speedy, but it's a borderline case. This is what the old "preliminary deletion" proposal was made for. Szyslak 02:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete under criteria #1 for articles: "Very short articles with little or no context". – flamurai (t) 02:00, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- 04:57, Feb 18, 2005 Geogre deleted Zack barnes (Obvious vanity & an ad for his website)
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. —Korath (Talk) 14:54, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Caroline St John-Brooks, who sadly passed away almost a year and a half ago, was a "British journalist and academic." I've just refactored in real-time all there is to read within this substub. Does this alone meet the "requirements" for inclusion on Wikipedia? Do the 321 google hits [1] help? GRider\talk 00:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- keep seems notable enough.Wolfman 00:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Author of at least four books. Notable academic in the field of education. – flamurai (t) 02:04, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, and expand. Notable. Megan1967 08:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:41, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Former editor of the Times Educational Supplement which together with her record of publications suggests that she is notable in the field of British education. Capitalistroadster 14:25, 18 Feb 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. —Korath (Talk) 14:54, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Is this a case of vanity or notability? Does once holding the title of president of the American Mathematical Society make all the difference? 113 unique google hits (see page 12). [2] GRider\talk 00:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- keep yes, you don't get that title without already being a notable mathematician (note the National Medal of Science) but, the title is sufficiently notable in itself. i think many of your recent nominations are very poor candidates for vfd, GRider. Wolfman 00:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You are most certainly entitled to your own opinions so long as they're not veiled personal attacks. Please specify which nominations you found poor -- if I agree with you they will be withdrawn. GRider\talk 00:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- there was nothing at all personal about my comment above. go read it again. the only thing thin around here is your skin. i think for example that Carol Alt, Cathleen Synge Morawetz, Dorothy Tillman, Tod Maffin are all poor vfd candidates; some of your other nominations are fine. Wolfman 00:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I have recategorized several hundred articles in the past 72 hours. As a result, several dozen of a questionable nature have been posted to VfD for discussion. In hindsight it does appear that Carol Alt should be de-listed from VfD even though the article is in dire need of improvement in order to prevent a future relisting; it is premature to cast judgement on the other three you mention and I firmly stand behind all my other nominations. GRider\talk 00:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- thank you for your hard work. it was not my intent to insult. having voted keep on 3 of your nominations in a row seemed a bit unusual, that's all. Wolfman 00:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Concur with GRider. I am equally guilty of posting a large number of VfDs over the last couple of days, but both of us are working on heavy categorization (he in bio-stub, me in dead ends) and as a result, sometimes poorly written pages fall through to VfD even if their subjects would be worthy of inclusion. Sometimes deleting a bad article is best because a good article with the same name can then be started anew. Radiant! 11:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I have recategorized several hundred articles in the past 72 hours. As a result, several dozen of a questionable nature have been posted to VfD for discussion. In hindsight it does appear that Carol Alt should be de-listed from VfD even though the article is in dire need of improvement in order to prevent a future relisting; it is premature to cast judgement on the other three you mention and I firmly stand behind all my other nominations. GRider\talk 00:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- there was nothing at all personal about my comment above. go read it again. the only thing thin around here is your skin. i think for example that Carol Alt, Cathleen Synge Morawetz, Dorothy Tillman, Tod Maffin are all poor vfd candidates; some of your other nominations are fine. Wolfman 00:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You are most certainly entitled to your own opinions so long as they're not veiled personal attacks. Please specify which nominations you found poor -- if I agree with you they will be withdrawn. GRider\talk 00:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Yes. The AMS is a major organization... that presidency alone merits inclusion. This is obviously not vanity. Please don't nominate things for VfD you're not sure of yourself... i.e., don't ask questions in your nomination. A nomination is an implied "delete" vote, so you need to justify your nomination just as you'd justify a delete vote. Also, do a bit better research. Your 113 hits number is misleading. You should've also searched for "Cathleen Morawetz", which yields another 560 hits. – flamurai (t) 02:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, and expand. Notable. Megan1967 08:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. AMS president and National Medal of Science are notable. Easily clears the average professor bar. --BM 12:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. National Medal of Science is not handed out like confetti (only 409 so far in over 40 years). Note also that "CS Morawetz" produces another 380 google hits, and pretty good ones at that too. Average Earthman 13:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable musician. Capitalistroadster 08:58, 19 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
note: has now been redirected per Flamurai's work below, keep as redir Wolfman 03:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
just silly. Wolfman 00:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this so-called principle of theirs is meaningless without a proof. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:28, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't understand these higher mathematics, so delete. Carrp | Talk 00:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I thought this was going to be about the poker book publisher, actually. – flamurai (t) 01:46, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- hmmm, that might make a reasonable replacement article. any poker fans out there? Wolfman 01:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think the publishing company is officially Two Plus Two Publishing rather than 2 plus 2, but if someone ever writes that article, this could be a redirect. – flamurai (t) 02:14, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- hmmm, that might make a reasonable replacement article. any poker fans out there? Wolfman 01:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, no redirect. Megan1967 09:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep redirect to prevent recreation. Grue 11:59, 19 Feb 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. 6 solid deletes, 4 solid keeps, and a 2-2 weak keeps and weak deletes. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
With 12 unique google hits [3], does this person pass "the test"? If so, why? GRider\talk 00:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This is really borderline. The reason I'm voting "keep" is because I can't find a reason under Wikipedia:Importance to object to this article. Honestly, I don't think it's that important myself, but she's been a producer of a popular network television program for a long time. – flamurai (t) 02:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- weak keep marginally notable, but has worked on some well known shows. don't see any harm in keeping it. Wolfman 05:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 09:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with Megan, delete. Lots of people are associated with big shows, simply because the shows are big. Radiant! 09:24, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Weak delete. 2 IMDB producing credits in shows I, as a European never heard of, isn't my idea of notable, not even by association. 131.211.210.32 09:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I've heard of those shows, and writers make a significant impact on them. Wikipedia isn't doing it's job properly if it ignores the "behind the scenes" people who actually contribute most of the material. It's not just about famous faces Kappa 10:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:44, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) long-term writer on at least two VERY famous shows. Above the bar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:44, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I believe US shows tend to have large teams of writers and producers (not having seen either of these, I have no idea how long their credits are). I'd need evidence that she was more than just one of the team. Average Earthman 13:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep Not sure how much of an article can be made out of this, but her work is more than a little notable. --InShaneee 16:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Just brushing the top of the bar for notability as supervising producer for recent show. HyperZonktalk 16:47, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete if that's all there is. Just another name in the credits. Shows like Letterman have teams of writers (and considering its a talk show most of the show is taken up with "unscripted" chat between host and guests (not totally impromptu, but usually not scripted by a separate writer)). And being "a producer" in itself isn;t terribly notable; it seems every show has about a thousand people who hold the title of some form of "producer". -R. fiend 18:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. There are millions of people who work "behind the scenes" and making important contribution to civilization. It is not wikipedia's role to establish someone's notability: it is to record the proven notability. Mikkalai 20:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Half delete this. —RaD Man (talk) 11:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The evidence presented so far does not meet my understanding of the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Delete unless further evidence of notability can be established. Rossami (talk) 04:41, 20 Feb 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. jni 16:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable vanity article, even if she is a genius. Carrp | Talk 00:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Agree, delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:11, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Apparently her parents didn't teach her the value of humility. – flamurai (t) 01:52, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Ditto. Zzyzx11 07:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 09:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if she's a genius, she didn't do anything to warrant an encyclopedic article. Mgm|(talk) 09:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- Smart kid, wonder what she'll do next? ;) -- Longhair 03:38, 21 Feb 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. Per the deletion log:
Page has no useful content... and looking back through all its edits, none of them appear to be very much better. Talk page also looks like a sandbox. -Goldom 02:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as joke/attack page. It's actually a Brazillian video-games forum, if anybody cares. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:00, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, delete.HowardB 06:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible prank/joke. Megan1967 07:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete, silly vandalism. Wyss 20:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- delete (the guy is creating this insistingly also in wiki.pt) muriel@pt 00:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I speedy deleted it as a vandal sandbox. Every revision was either a CSD #3 (General class) or a CSD #1 (Article class) case. Given that also this VfD-page was (successfully) vandalized, there is not much point in voting any more. Move along, move along... jni 07:17, 18 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Blatant advertisement. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- delete agree, ad. Wolfman 01:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the ad. – flamurai (t) 01:51, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Obviously an ad. Zzyzx11 07:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Ad. Mgm|(talk) 09:59, Feb 18, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This reads more like a analytical essay for a college class than an encyclopedia article. Not what I expected when I visited the article. – flamurai (t) 01:39, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It looks like it is only a personal essay. Zzyzx11 07:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Tag it with {{Attention}} and list it on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. some of the material could probably be re-used in a rewrite. Wolfman 07:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, POV original essay/research, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 09:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- While the subject would be worthy of inclusion, this essay isn't. Delete and start from scratch imho. Radiant! 09:24, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. A cleanup would require rewriting from scratch anyway. What is salvageable, is well-known to anyone who would endeavor the job. Mikkalai 20:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I concur with Mikkalai. And if cleaning up means rewriting from scratch, the article should be deleted. I still believe the proper way to suggest a subject for inclusion in Wikipedia is not writing a bad article about it and expecting others to improve it. vlad_mv 04:32, 19 Feb 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. —Korath (Talk) 15:04, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable. Unless I did this wrong, I see 0 Google hits. --Woohookitty 02:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I found a few relevant pages: [4] [5] [6]. The band meets the standards laid out at Notability and Music Guidelines, even though this article is poorly written and not very informative. – flamurai (t) 03:00, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, defunct band. Article does not establish notability. Megan1967 09:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per flamurai Kappa 09:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability is a POV, therefore invalid reason to delete. Norman Rogers\talk 12:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: "Notability", as we use the word on this page, is not a statement of Point of View. It is, rather, a proxy for a judgment call about the community's ability to maintain this particular article - to keep it NPOV and verifiable and to protect it for all time against subtle vandalism. Articles on extremely obscure topics of popular culture are unlikely to draw the necessary critical mass of informed reader/editors to protect the article. This is, of course, a judgment call. However once that judgment has been made, it is a very valid reason to delete an article. (no vote) Rossami (talk) 04:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Per guidelines for musical notability. But just barely. HyperZonktalk 16:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per flamurai. GRider\talk 00:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The article in question does not establish that the band meets the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. The external links provided by flamurai also do not establish notability (unless I'm missing something everyone else saw).
Thus, I vote weak delete. Tuf-Kat 02:26, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)- Keep Tuf-Kat 02:02, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Band did a German tour according to [7] which meets point 2 of Notability and Music Guidelines. I tried to flesh out the article a bit. Tradnor 09:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The external link you provided crashed my browser (after the ad), so I can't verify it. But I'll assume good faith and change my vote. Tuf-Kat 02:02, Feb 24, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Rambling from a student. POV, no real information. – flamurai (t) 03:08, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It reads like a personal essay. Zzyzx11 07:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, POV original research, school vanity. Megan1967 09:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, joke style; little of notable and verifiable facts. Mikkalai 20:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, POV. Audrey 02:28, 19 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm stuck as to whether or not Brian should be in here. On one hand, he is one of the more famous Jeopardy! champions (and one of the favourites in the Ultimate Tournament); however, this page is solely a "guy that held the record before Ken Jennings" page -- and it's currently his only claim to notability. --OntarioQuizzer 03:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Jeopardy!. Incidentally, see the history of this page. -- Hoary 03:26, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
- I saw. But we can't exactly go blanking pages and redirecting things willy-nilly. There's a process... --OntarioQuizzer 03:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. There's nothing about the guy on Jeopardy!. Unless something is added, there's no point in a redirect. – flamurai (t) 03:39, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable outside of a game show. Megan1967 09:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect, it can be broken out again if the article gets enough meat to it. I would like to see a list of champions (and some info about them) in the actual gameshow article. Mgm|(talk) 10:03, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with merge and redirect. -- KneeLess 07:14, 26 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Longwinded whimsy about a non-notable 17-year-old. -- Hoary 03:17, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Note: 62.252.128.25 removed this comment of mine and the votes below by flamurai, Zzyzx11, Megan1967, and Andrew Lenahan, replacing these with pseudonymous keep votes. -- Hoary 03:08, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity. – flamurai (t) 03:36, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable and reads like a personal essay. Zzyzx11 07:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 09:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:23, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I think its quite good, and to say its a non notable person is a little rude , especially when you can't read properly to get his age wrong - Larsson ...added between 00:13 and 00:33, 2005 Feb 20 by 62.252.128.25 (who deleted all preceding comments and votes)
- Agree with the sentiments shown above. To discard this person as non notable just because you yourself dont know anything about them is ignorant. - Maggie ...added between 00:13 and 00:33, 2005 Feb 20 by 62.252.128.25
- Delete. Rhobite 04:35, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, possibly as a speedy (contextless nonsense contributed by an anon IP whose other edits are being reverted or challenged as vandalism) Rossami (talk) 05:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Possibly the very person is posting from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=62.252.128.25 (see his change to the Irn Bru page for example Richard W.M. Jones 10:13, 20 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Seems to be completely fabricated. No Google hits on the name or the title of the "legendary" song. – flamurai (t) 03:34, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- This person does actually exist I think, but the content itself appears to be pure lies because theres no record of the artist or song ever making number one in Jamaica, as is claimed. Also note how the persons name is spelt differently in the article itself so its probably completely made up anyway, delete. -- Hedley 03:56, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 09:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Busby Babe 15:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) (Yes, I am aware of how many posts I have made)
- Can you provide any evidence that this is actually a real, notable person (or fictional character)? – flamurai (t) 16:02, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- There's a webpage here: [8] Busby Babe 16:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Hoax. This is an old wikipedia version. Mikkalai 20:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There's a webpage here: [8] Busby Babe 16:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: User's only edits are to this vote. — Gwalla | Talk 01:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Can you provide any evidence that this is actually a real, notable person (or fictional character)? – flamurai (t) 16:02, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. the hoaxy intention is now 100% clear. Mikkalai 20:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, a further look on Google shows that there is a similiar figure called 'Tito J' but has no connection to any of the information given in the article. -- Hedley 17:21, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
- Delete. Hoax. — Gwalla | Talk 01:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless the subject's existence can be verified. Tuf-Kat 02:27, Feb 23, 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 NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 16:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As with Brian Weikle above, Tom Walsh lost a great deal of notability when Ken Jennings shattered his records. Currently, I'd say he has limited notability outside of the Jeopardy! world -- but I'm still on the fence. So I figured I'd let the community decide. --OntarioQuizzer 03:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable outside of a game show. Megan1967 09:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Jeopardy! and create a list of champions within the article. Mgm|(talk) 10:04, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge or keep. Sounds extremely notable within jeopardy. Did he make the news? Kappa 10:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Go hard or go home. Call Ken Jennings and see if he'll let you have your notability back. --InShaneee 16:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. For our purposes, a thing cannot be notable one minute and non-notable the next. Encyclopedic once is encyclopedic forever. Everyking 07:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Concur with Inshaneeee. Delete'. Radiant! 10:14, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Is Bob Cousy not notable because he is now second behind John Stockton (as an example of many who are were once 1st but have been eclipsed) He was a trailblazer being the first contenstant who made significant $ after the 5-day limit was removed. Although I don't agree that once notable always notable (though I would say once notable - we should give strong deference to their notability) Trödel|talk 16:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge somewhere. Not sure where. Maybe to an article that hasn't been created yet, in which case this article might as well be kept until a new page for champions or records for game shows in general or something is made. -R. fiend 08:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Weak delete or Merge and WEAK redirect with either Jeopardy! or a Jeopardy! Champions and Record Holders future breakout. But I concur with InShanee more strongly than with Kappa and Everyking. Trödel|talk's "trailblazer" justification above is the only reason I see for keeping Mr. Walsh (or was that for Mr. Cousy?) anywhere. Even Jeopardy is (and was always) JUST a TV game show, for which I feel the criteria for WP encyclopedicity should be very high. And I'm a fan of the show and a supporter of all kinds of strategy and knowledge games. Keep everything J!-related in one or two articles, with enough sections for everything that the editors find to be sufficiently verifiable, NPOV, outstandingly influential, long-term contributions to the field, and otherwise policy-worthy. Not everything that fans of a particular hobby or performer or institution could possibly want. Jeopardy former recordholders and champions barely clear that line for me enough to go in the parent article, and not enough for their own articles. Barno 23:45, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. In 10000 years, when the United States no longer exists, will William Henry Harrison no longer be sufficiently notable for an article? Once encyclopedic, always encyclopedic. dbenbenn | talk 16:43, 4 Mar 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Have a notion that this article is about a person who is not notable, based on low number of Google hits when this person (actually an alias) and his supposed real name are searched together. Also consider the story itself--doesn't sound kosher. I had edited the article as part of a series of systematic NPOV edits, but that doesn't constitute an endorsement. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 04:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 09:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Smells like hoax and/or vanity. delete Radiant! 09:24, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Richard Simonton + hollywood googles [[9]] to some 30 hits. This guy seems to have been particularly interested, amongst other things, in steamboats. I found three webpages ([[10]], [[11]] and [[12]]) indicating a hollywood businessman called Richard Simonton used to go by the name Doug Malloy (one page has even photos) and was involved with piercing. Note that 2 of these pages are actually from a "body modification" website. The third claims to reproduce an article originally published in the LA Magazine. I'm still not completely convinced this is not hoax. Even if it is not, I tend to be conservative about notability, and he does seem below the bar to me. I'll wait further discussion to express my vote. vlad_mv 04:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment People involved with body modification do tend to have personality quirks that are hard to forgive, however in talking about the surge of popularity of body piercing in modern times the influence of Doug Malloy was pivotal. It is deeply regrettable that distortions and outright lies can be traced to people integral to the evolution of the industry, if that is reason enough to ignore their positive influence then there is nothing left to say about the people who created the modern body piercing movement. Rafti Institute
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. dbenbenn | talk 16:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Created by same user as Pat Healy. Also not notable enough as a Jeopardy! player (even though he won a Tournament of Champions). Individual articles are not required for 99% of players in Jeopardy's Ultimate Tournament. This constant article creation may be bordering on vandalism from the user. --OntarioQuizzer 04:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Megan1967 09:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect into Jeopardy!. Mgm|(talk) 10:05, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:21, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Weak delete or Merge and (weak) redirect, for the same reasons I cited in an earlier Jeopardy-champ VfD. Barno 00:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I disagree with OntarioQuizzer about the articles' creation "bordering on vandalism", although I haven't researched the edit histories and talk pages to verify more. It appears that a well-intentioned editor thinks (not unreasonably) that a Jeopardy! ToC winner is notable enough. (Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith; Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers.) My opinion is that there's barely notability enough for one line in a Jeopardy! article's Former Champions section, below a Former Record Holders section. Not enough for a biography article unless there's some much more significant noteworthiness for some other reason. But the article's anonymous creator was probably being reasonable in finding these people "noteworthy in their field"... much more reasonable than if he or she insisted on posting the scores of every week's show for however many years the scores were available. Barno 00:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment Thank You!! Someone understands that people who are knew aren't vandilizers.
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 proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was VFD nomination withdrawn. sjorford →•← 22:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is an album by Underground Resistance. Group appears on Google enough times but I don't see how the artist warrants a page just for an 90s album. Not sure some of the description of the album does the genre justice either, it doesn't appear to 'define further developments' as stated.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 00:38, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Public love letter to the writer's inamorata, who's no doubt delightful but doesn't seem notable. (I initially speedied this, but on reflection couldn't come up with a reason -- other than gut feeling, common sense, etc. etc. -- for doing so. So I regret that it must instead go through the VfD process, and other people have to waste their time over it too.) -- Hoary 04:53, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
- Delete. Obvious vanity. (Note: I proposed adding a speedy criterion for articles written in the first person here.) – flamurai (t) 04:59, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. A vanity filled personal essay. Zzyzx11 07:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Btw there is an Australian child actress by that name. Megan1967 09:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Userfy and inform user of policy. Mgm|(talk) 10:08, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)- The IP number that created the page has now deleted it, which I think qualifies it as speedyable after all. -- Hoary 11:44, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
- 21:28, Feb 18, 2005 Dante Alighieri deleted Hayley phillips (creator blanked page)
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. jni 16:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. Somebody's description of the way they and their friends play V & V. RickK 05:38, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Roleplaying fancruft. jni 07:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I wish a superhero would make this vanity-filled, unencyclopedic entry disappear ASAP. Zzyzx11 07:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Group vanity. – flamurai (t) 17:26, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Does "V&V" stands for Vanity and Verifiable-deletability? Barno 00:18, 23 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Page should be deleted. It is a shopping center, not notable. I am in favor of large notable malls that are famous. But suburban malls? They almost read like spam. I would never expect to find this information in an encyclopedia. 67.41.179.191 10:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- FYI: This was put on Vfd by 67.41.179.191. Zzyzx11 07:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment -- Then what do we do with the ones on the List of shopping malls?Zzyzx11 07:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- -- Get rid of them all as far as I'm concerned HowardB 18:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- -- Oh, delete, by the way. HowardB 18:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Strong delete. I believe there's nothing notable about shopping malls, as every town has at least three of them. I see little point in the list, either. Note that 95% of all links on there are red. There's probably some shopping malls worldwide that are notable for some reason, those should be listed. But the current list is as pointless as the List of dog names (because there's no feasible limit to it, and its members are inherently unencyclopedic). Radiant! 09:27, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, non notable suburban mall. Megan1967 09:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with the town or keep. Malls are large and significant in their local area. Kappa 09:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Most shopping malls are not notable. List of shopping malls should go, too. --BM 12:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This isn't the West Edmonton Mall. (Merging a brief note into the city's article would probably be harmless, though.) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Strong delete. IMHO, way below the bar of notability as a mall. Please note the List of shopping malls is also listed in the VfD (just below). vlad_mv 04:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The Mall of America, West Edmonton Mall and the King of Prussia complex are all suburban malls which are famous because of their size. The latter two malls were once a lot smaller, about the size of a typical surburban mall, which were eventually expanded and remodeled to their present size today. As the author of the Westmoreland Mall article, I feel that you are making a mistake by wanting to delete my article because you feel that it has no importance to the general public. There is a growing number of mall historians today that study the history of shopping malls and how they affect the nature of the community and the businesses surrounding a mall. While the Westmoreland Mall may not be very notable, it is the largest mall outside of the Laurel Highlands region of Pennsylvania, plus the mall site has an historical significance, and you can read about that by checking the article. My question is why are you attempting to delete my article and only this one? I've checked the other articles and they don't have the same notice on them. (this post by anon 64.12.117.9 - ClockworkSoul)
- Delete - There are "mall historians?" They must have very proud parents. – ClockworkSoul 06:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. As pathetic as it sounds, yeah there is. A mall wasn't just invented to drive everyone's minds into the world of consumerism that we find in America today. When inventor Victor Gruen talked about his plan for a shopping mall, it wasn't just going to be a retail building surrounded by parking lots, he was talking about creating a turn of the century community, a place with houses, schools, parks, and smack dab in the center--a shopping mall. The mall was supposed to be the centerpiece of the community, like an indoor downtown. But his remarkable concept turned disasterous. It didn't go as planned, and he realized that the shopping mall was driving all the mom and pop businesses out of business, and he died regretting that. 64.12.117.9 07:36, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Notable only because of something that happened there before the mall existed. RickK 07:54, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 08:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. One mall. Not important. Hell, half the stores don't even have article themselves. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. And does that make it a second rate mall? Those anchors are native to this region plus they are just as good as Macy's or Bloomingdales, although the latter two are way beyond my budget. 64.12.117.9 08:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Please refer to the article on the Laurel Highlands. This mall plays an important economic role for the entire region.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Dictdef. Additionally, there are problems with the content ("used half-jokingly"?). BenSamples 05:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree, it is a dicdef. I also have a problem with it saying "Today, the term is often used half-jokingly." Zzyzx11 07:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Wiktionary, rewrite. It's a common enough cross-over word into the English language. Google gets around 250,000 pages with English filter. Megan1967 09:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki as above. Radiant! 12:35, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki. – flamurai (t) 17:28, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Not yet in Wiktionary. Transwiki Rossami (talk) 05:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This is one of the ridiculous things I come across in Wikipedia from time to time: First the article is shortened beyond recognition so that only one sentence remains, and then it is claimed it's a "dicdef". Restore and keep. <KF> 00:28, Feb 21, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It links to nowhere. it links from nowhere. It clarifies nothing.
Noit 06:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Article does not establish notability. No context. jni 07:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, article does not establish notability. Megan1967 09:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Make it a redirect to Mexican artist José Guadalupe Posada.(Although this one is apparently a real person, but all Google hits seem to be in Spanish or Galician.) [13] / u p p l a n d 13:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)- Changing to keep with the present minimal rewrite. But perhaps a disambiguation page is more appropriate in this place? / u p p l a n d 06:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: former EU deputy, head of a minority-nationalist party? Sounds notable. The fact that there isn't much on line about him in English doesn't change that. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:48, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to imply that, only that I couldn't yet judge the notablity based on what I could find. / u p p l a n d 10:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Reasonably notable Spanish politician. Capitalistroadster 09:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- Darwinek 13:15, 23 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is nonsense. RickK 06:40, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This article does have an element of truth. If it weren't for deletion, there could be a lot more than the humongous 746,146 articles on Wikipedia - possibly one and a half million. Scott Gall 06:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless verification is provided. Gazpacho 07:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. There are no notable references. The phrase "Many theorize that cats possess magical powers unknown to the rest of the world" lowers its credibility. Zzyzx11 07:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, neologism, speculation. Strange the way their legs do that though. Kappa 09:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Remove that catastrophe. Megan1967 09:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Suggest merge at Talk:Cat. While the name and the magic bit are obviously hoaxy, I heard about such a thing too. Let the people at the cat article sort it out and add it if it's verified and notable. No need for a seperate article. Mgm|(talk) 10:13, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Zero hits at Google for "missing leg syndrome" cats, and there are a godzillion cat lover pages out there. If one hasn't picked this one up yet, it's a neologism. HyperZonktalk 16:57, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as above. – flamurai (t) 17:29, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Hello, this should be speedily deleted as patent nonsense / disruption of Wikipedia. Even listing it on VfD is a colossal waste of time. DreamGuy 02:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete, blatant nonsense. And, yes, this deserves a BJAODN mention. Meow. vlad_mv 04:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Rossami (talk) 05:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to phantom limb. --Carnildo 06:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete No verification -- Longhair 14:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or maybe redirect to phantom limb. -Sean Curtin 17:23, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Patent nonsense, a BJAODN candidate. Delete. - 195.113.20.20 17:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This shouldn't redirect to phantom limb because it's not related to phantom limb . —Brim 05:01, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. ComCat 08:32, 25 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hoax. Rhobite 06:49, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, unless there are notable, credible references. Zzyzx11 07:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a hoax-alicious delete berry. HyperZonktalk 16:59, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems hoaxy to me. – flamurai (t) 17:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This may seem hoaxy, but this fruit actually does exist. I saw it on a visit to Chile 2 years ago. There are plenty of strange fruits out there (dragon fruit comes to mind), so I don't think we should delete it.
- Reads like a hoax, and the bogus signature (grounds for banning, by the way) only makes me think more so. Delete, barring credible citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:51, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
simple vanity Noit 06:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The phrase "gets drunk off of one beer. He is a loser" makes me think that either he wrote this vanity-filled entry himself, or that someone he knows did this as a prank. Zzyzx11 07:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Potential personal attack/libel page. Unencyclopedic for sure. jni 08:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as above. – flamurai (t) 17:34, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Rhobite 04:00, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
This was apparently deleted and recreated. Its current contents don't look like it's the same article as above, but it's still egregious vanity. 35 hits for "Boris Babenko", none for "blue through red" (boris OR babenko), and none for "let go phobia". The book mentioned is published by iuniverse, a vanity press. —Korath (Talk) 03:13, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as re-creation of a deleted article. --Carnildo 06:28, 20 Feb 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. —Korath (Talk) 00:44, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
A karaoke singer. Zero Google hits for "Sexy DH" "Irene Kim". RickK 07:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- He did the same thing yesterday and I moved the content to his then-username User:Danny196 as a gesture before the article was deleted.--Pharos 07:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Megan1967 09:44, 18 Feb 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. jni 16:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Prometheism article is non-notable, unencyclopedic original research. It was created on February 4 by an anon IP, believed to be User:Dnagod contribs, who has been banned indefinitely for making anti-Semitic attacks on other editors, and who is an associate of User:Paul Vogel, who has also been banned indefinitely for similar reasons. Prometheism seems to be a set of ideas, invented by Dnagod or his associates, promoting white supremacism, racial separatism, anti-Semitism, and eugenics. Dnagod is the webmaster of a number of websites that promote prometheism, including http://www.prometheism.net, http://neoeugenics.home.comcast.net, and http://www.cosmotheism.net . There apppears to be no evidence outside these websites that prometheism exists as a religion (as the article claimed). A Google search for "prometheism" returns 710 entries [14], which resolve to 191 unique ones [15], which are either from the Dnagod websites, or are mentions of prometheism on discussion sites.
The original text inserted by the anon IP was plagiarized from Dnagod's prometheism website and was blanked because of copyvio. It has now been rewritten by User:Dariodario contribs, a new user who may be Dnagod. The article cites Matt Neunke, called Dr. Matt Neunke by Dariodario, as being the leader of the prometheist religion. A Google search returns 1,760 entries for this name, [16] resolving to 127 unique ones. [17] Nuenke seems to write a lot of book reviews for amazon.com, but I've found nothing that would justify a Wikipedia entry. He's mentioned in glowing terms on the Stormfront discussion group, [http://forum.stormfront.org/showthread.php?p=65596#post65596] and has published a book review on the Vanguard site. [18] Dnagod spent his time at Wikipedia posting links to his websites into articles and talk pages, and this article seems like another attempt to promote them. SlimVirgin 08:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete SlimVirgin 08:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, abuse. Szyslak 08:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, original research about non-notable pseudo-movement. -Willmcw 09:05, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge content to Cosmotheism, Matt Nuenke, or White nationalist religious movements. -Willmcw 01:04, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research. --Viriditas | Talk 10:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. As it stands, the article is little more than an advertisement for a small group of kooks and racists (who seem to be stuck in early childhood — swearing lifelong oaths and the rest, very Enid Blyton), the only criticisms mentioned being those from other kooks and racists who have infinitesimally different views. On the other hand, if the group exists, it should probably be mentioned somewhere. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:19, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Self-promotion for a non-notable organization. Conscious evolution was recently VfD-ed as original research --BM 11:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable mico-religion; original research. AndyL 13:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Original research and non-notable Trödel|talk 14:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Not-notable, original research, advertisement. Jayjg (talk) 16:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- not because it's Nazi nutcase drivel, but because it's drivel. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable, self-promotion. – flamurai (t) 17:36, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: the current state of the article seems to have resolved the original kookiness. But whether it is notable or not, I'm not sure. But I just wanted to point that out. --Fastfission 21:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It's shorter which is an improvement. But it still calls itself a "religion" and claims to be aiming for "godhood." However, it's the lack notability that's the main issue. SlimVirgin 21:28, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I cleaned it up, but I didn't alter the basic content, which would require more research. The connection to cosmotheism suggests to me that it isn't unreasonable to characterize it as a religion, and their aim of "Godhood" fits into that context also. (If I were trying to rack up the edit count, I should stop editing these doomed articles.) --BM 21:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I could start the slimvirginist religion today and create my own websites, but that wouldn't mean I'd be using the word "religion" as it's generally understood, and more importantly, wouldn't mean slimvirginism should have a Wikipedia entry. This is more of a non-notability than a content issue, as I see it. SlimVirgin 21:55, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, yes — and the peculiar and unexplained use of 'godhood' as something that a group of human beings can achieve puts it pretty firmly in the kookiness bracket, whatever other changes are made. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Whenever I hear that word, I think of the British man, former Green Party leader or activist, I believe, and former television sports presenter, who became a godhead, but I forget his name . . . Got it. David Icke. Pronounced Ike, but I always think of it as "Icky". Ended up with two wives, or a wife and live-in mistress. It's interesting how godheads often end up with several devoted women followers. Perhaps that's Dnagod's goal. SlimVirgin 22:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I know of him; sort of a D.Icke-head. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- LOL, yes, and wouldn't you know it, he's got his own Wikipedia page: David Icke. Regarding the Dnagit notion of "godhood", there are some statements here on a related website, where I think what they mean is that they're atheists, or perhaps with a belief in God as Gaia. Teilhard de Chardin seems to be mentioned a lot. I also just noticed that the main prometheism website is asking for a $100 donation on its front page. Another reason we shouldn't let it use Wikipedia to advertise. SlimVirgin 22:25, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Ack! I'd forgotten about that lizards-are-among-us stuff. You don't think that he is Dnagit do you? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It's superb. I wasn't aware of the reptile update, and that the Queen Mother was involved. He's a cross between Dnagit and Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin 22:38, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Manages to be simultaneously both insignificant and uninformative, with great, unlearnable skill. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable, uninformative, un-encyclopediac. -CunningLinguist 09:17, 20 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 20:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Um, what? RickK 08:02, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete both the article and the referenced PDF file. WP is not a repository of ethics guidelines. jni 08:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Likely copyvio or advertisement to distribute this, but I think it could be reworked into Body modification. Suggest merge on Talk:Body modification, but delete if it's not used within a considerable amount of time. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. So many things wrong with this. For one thing, I don't believe that a list of good marketing tips, proper hygiene procedures, and restatements of general legal obligations constitutes a "Code of Ethics" (if it was actually a code, I'd suggest merge o body modification, but it's not). For another thing, I'm not sure I buy the "gpl" in combo with the copyright ... call me paranoid. Finally, the contents of the PDF file would have actually been easier to format as a wikified article, but for some reason it's a PDF. I could go on, but my grumpy pill is wearing off. HyperZonktalk 17:07, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete under criterion 3 for Articles: "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, or interwiki link." – flamurai (t) 17:43, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Speedy doesn't apply to uploaded pdf files as they aren't articles as defined by Wikipedia. Mgm|(talk) 23:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete this "article" since it is a mere link. Transwiki the actual .pdf to Wikisource. Rossami (talk) 06:12, 20 Feb 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. jni 16:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Even if it weren't an unsalvageable how-to, I'd support deleting this article just because of its title. Szyslak 08:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to Load balancing or delete. Gazpacho 08:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge anything useable to Load balancing, no redirect. Megan1967 09:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see anything merge-able, but if someone else does and wants to take the time be bold, I guess. HyperZonktalk 17:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with Zonk. – flamurai (t) 17:44, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing mergable, and a redirect would be pointless. --Carnildo 06:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Do not merge or redirect. No meaningful content. jni 13:06, 20 Feb 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. jni 16:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It is a the combed word play of the words: naurto and retarded (sprinkle sic to taste). Terminally trivial. Absolutely unnotable. -- Hoary 08:18, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable, poorly written, and I can even detect a POV against Naruto fans. 193.167.132.66 08:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Rewritten. I've run into some of these 'narutards' and I think I understand the author's intent here. 147.11.37.11 09:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Neologistic insult. Scores about 1700 on google, but it seems too limited in scope to put on WP. I'd suggest merge with Naruto. Radiant! 12:12, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I can't imagine why a neologism insult deserves a merge. --InShaneee 16:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism, may deserve wiktionary entry if the series gets big. I've never heard of Naruto, but then again I prefer Futurama to anime. Why doesn't Fox bring that back? :) HyperZonktalk 17:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Agreed. – flamurai (t) 17:45, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Gamaliel 17:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Naruto is a kids' series that is expected to be the next Dragonball; Narutard has already been submitted many times to urbandictionary. 147.11.37.11 23:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, then the article should come back once they actually become the next Dragonball. Radiant! 10:13, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. just a slam against people who like naruto. it's not that everyone who likes naruto is a retard, it's just that a lot of people are stupid, and a lot of people like naruto, thus ensuring that many of them are "narutards". might be better as part of the naruto page (if rewritten properly). --gb 03:10, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I suggest that the article be rewritten, though. But this is a word that is openly used on the internet, regardless of it being an insult or not. 201.130.174.64 03:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Edited. Reason: I was not logged in, my apologies. I'm editing this comment to make my opinion a bit more believable. David Silva 03:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- -Keep its all true ...05:12, 2005 Feb 20 144.133.99.95 forgot to hit the twiddle key
- Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 06:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It only contains disputed information and requires cleanup. It is still an informative article, and once it is properly amended, will formalize and prevent further corruption of the term among its relevant contexts. ...at 07:07, 2005 Feb 20 64.180.8.148 refrained from hitting the twiddle key
- Delete, neologism. And I'm diddling my twiddle button Ashibaka tlk 07:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Its a real term, and they exist. The only people who want it to be deleted are who it applies too unsigned attack from 82.34.89.143
- Delete--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This might make more sense in Wiktionary -- with a lot of cleanup. Yipdw 09:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. IMO, not really of any cultural significance (then again, I don't care for Naruto either). It does not belong on Wikipedia. Wikitonary, maybe. Urbandictionary, most definitely. Ghost Freeman 17:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Term is being widely used throughout internet forums and is likely to be found in Anime-related discussions. Although "Narutard" clearly shows relation to Naruto anime, this phenomenon was evident in the times Dragon Ball series were popular. "Narutard" might be considered as descriptive term for a certain type of fans of Anime series that grew extremely popular, yet are not necessarily very sophisticated. Fans, who are fully devoted to the fandom yet completely lacking skills to express their devotion in an intelligent way, thus reverting to pointless discussions, trolling, lame cosplay and intolerant points of view.unsigned vote from 84.188.255.127
- Delete. Shanes 19:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. While the term exists, the article is completely uncalled for. It should be deleted, or at the very least, completely rewritten by someone with a neutral stance on the series. at 20:26, 2005 Feb 20 67.82.228.189 refrained from hitting the twiddle key
- Keep * This term has significance in the anime fan subtitling subculture. Have a wikipedia.org entry allows users of the term to just paste a link the explain their insult. at 22:11, 2005 Feb 20 128.220.43.225 added this to the top but failed to hit the twiddle key
- Keep I say keep it. It's insulting to plenty of people. Sure, it should be rewritten somewhat, but some on. Anyone can see the HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS of name remakes from Naruto. If you have a problem with it, stop being one then. at 23:26, 2005 Feb 20 68.230.161.229 refrained from hitting the twiddle key
- Comment: if you want your vote to count, you have to log in -- and your username had better have some history of contributions elsewhere to Wikipedia. Also, please add your vote to the foot of this list, not the top. Thank you. -- Hoary 23:50, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
- Delete -- Longhair 01:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Naruto or delete. Wikipedia is not UrbanDictionary. — Gwalla | Talk 01:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Urban or otherwise. Redxiv 06:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect -- Definitely a notable term, but how this is applied outside of Naruto fandom is beyond me. The article is accurate, but could definitely be shortened and rewritten from a more 'Naruto friendly' perspective. SnowPuma 6:28, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Total number of contributions, including that directly above, by SnowPuma: zero. The edit above was actually made at 07:31, 2005 Feb 21 by 69.41.97.173, who also changed "naurto" (sic) in what I quoted at the very top to "naruto" (I've changed it back). -- Hoary 07:53, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
- Keep I'm sure this article can be saved to be made less POV. Aknorals 08:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep The word is used all the time in the manga anime community. --Elvisrules 07:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note: This is Elvisrules' only edit. --InShaneee 15:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see anything wrong with the definition, it's all perfectly accurate. Although I would add that one of the steps of Purists in the wake of the liscensing of Naruto is that they're begging ShoPro to 'unliscense it'.
- Note: Comment by 67.183.120.178. This is his only edit. --InShaneee 15:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Sockpuppets and unregistered users may love it, but editors with a history here hold this encyclopedia to much, much higher standards than this insulting, pointless, nonnotable neologism. DreamGuy 09:27, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --nixie 09:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I am too a naruto-fan, and I think they should keep the word, but it was unnecessary for them to say that anime fans spend hundreds of dollars on cosplaying outfits, and that we camp out in front of offices.Lenna 04:14, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note: edit made by unregistered user 172.194.37.136. This is his only edit. --InShaneee 15:46, 23 Feb 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. —Korath (Talk) 15:18, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable reporter whose death, while sad, is not encyclopedic. RickK 09:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, tragic but not notable. Gazpacho 09:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Blanked by author - could be speedied.sjorford →•← 09:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)- Keep if article rewritten. Megan1967 10:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep if rewritten. Jane Dornacker may have been a non-notable reporter, but originally was well-known in the San Francisco Bay Area as a rock musician (toured with The Tubes and co-wrote their song "Don't Touch Me There", and led Leila and the Snakes before it morphed into Pearl Harbor and The Explosions) and stand-up comic. Not up to Ashlee Simpson level, maybe, but good enough for Wikipedia. --Calton 11:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to The Tubes then, and merge a summary of her other history in there. Radiant! 12:12, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep if rewritten. Capitalistroadster 14:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No vote. Interesting, even while googling for "Jane Dornacker" with a handicap of only matches that include the word helicopter this turns up 1140 google hits [19], and 2300 by name only. [20] She is listed as a "famous person" who died in an "aviation accident" on planecrashinfo.com. Thank you for spotting this Rick, if only I could have raised this issue myself. So the question here is: what is the existing precedent? Are we currently hosting articles on any other newscasters/reporters, living or deceased on Wikipedia? If so, why? Does the fact that her death happened live, while on the air, and then in turn received global press coverage, significantly increase her notability as a result in contrast to other reporters? Do the 1140 google matches for this individual become more meaningful after taking into consideration that this accident occured nearly 20 years ago in 1986? If you believe this is non-encyclopedic Rick, please explain why and what one must accomplish within their lifetime to "justify" an article on Wikipedia. GRider\talk 17:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep expanded and wikified. Just barely clears my notability bar due to additive effect of death on air and limited rock music fame. HyperZonktalk 17:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. GRider did some work in making it presentable. I think this belongs. – flamurai (t) 17:48, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep if expanded to include information discussed here. Gamaliel 17:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can dig up. --Calton 13:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Just about a keep for me, but it really needs some work doing on it HowardB 17:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep. None of the factors would be sufficient alone, but when you add the music career and the acting career (although the latter sounds like it must have been pretty minor) it's enough. Isomorphic 20:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the killed on the air is notable enough. Not like there have been many. --Woohookitty 00:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Jane Dornacker was also a rock musician and breifly a movie star. damicatz 20:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It's a stretch to call her a movie star, frankly, though it was a real Hollywood movie she was in. --Calton 13:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a borderline keep IMO even without the information above. When asking myself the question, "Is Wikipedia a better encyclopdia with this information or without it?" I find myself answering with the former and not the latter. I would like to see an expansion, however. BenSamples 21:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - David Gerard 23:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, cleanup. Legitimate subject, poor article. — Gwalla | Talk 01:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Well-known. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Duh, keep. —RaD Man (talk) 02:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Needville, Texas. —Korath (Talk) 15:27, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
It's a local festival. Since most every town has one of those, I fail to see why this one is notable. Radiant! 09:38, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge with Needville. Redirect to Needville, Texas. bbx 15:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)- Okay, redirect then.
Delete.I have just merged this into Needville, Texas. HyperZonktalk 17:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) - Redirect to Needville, Texas.
Delete.Merge with Needville, Texas. Too short in its current state to deserve its own article. – flamurai (t) 17:50, Feb 18, 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 no concensus according to user:DeathPheonix. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 06:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
While this person may be notable, that cannot be inferred from the article. Substantiate or delete please. Radiant! 09:45, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Tricky one - Balkan playwrights probably don't tend to make a big splash in English language google. Average Earthman 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, just under the bar of notability for me. Megan1967 22:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, looks probably notable enough, would be good to have someone who can read Serbian weigh in. Keep in mind that his native language is written in Cyrillic, which holds down the Google hits for any given transliteration. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:59, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 22:13, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Original essay with a neologistic name. I'd say merge if not for the fact that all content found here is already better explained in other sections. Radiant! 09:46, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- This nomination has too few votes. It is the belief of this particular administrator that this debate is still on-going. Due to the change in how votes for deletion is processed, it has been readded so that a consensus may be reached. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Nothing in this article distinguishes between neo-catastrophism and the traditional 19th-century concept of catastrophism. Re-write if it's a meaningful term, delete otherwise. - TB 12:42, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
- Delete. Not terribly well-written essay. Android79 17:01, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but a weak one. Appears to be attested to, including references in some college courses. Still only 571 Google hits, however. I would agree with both of the above that it is in need of a substantial rewrite. HyperZonktalk 18:00, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, POV original essay. Megan1967 23:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, original essay, neologism. The funny thing is that I think it's a valid and noteworthy observation. There really was a uniformitarian orthodoxy prior to Luis Alvarez' presentation of the asteroid impact theory. Some may remember Immanuel Velikovsky, a nutjob with who wrote a book or books in the 1950s, Worlds in Collision being the title of one of them, full of cockamamie theories about how all sorts of BIblical miracles were explained by planets randomly knocking other planets to leave their orbits at the right time so that they could part the Red Sea, cause the Flood, etc. I think the manna from heaven that fed the Israelites in the wilderness was supposed to be edible hydrocarbons from a comet's tail or something. Anyway, he was scorned by the scientific establishment, in part because it was just felt that the universe didn't work that way. Geological events were the results of slow, continuous processes. Then Alvarez came along, and my first thought was "Wow! Velikovsky stuff!" Now we live in a world where all sorts of things are thought be caused by asteroids smacking into planets. There really has been a change in our world view. But such comments probably belong in Uniformitarianism and/or Catastrophism and should be cautious and well-sourced. Well, there's my little original POV essay for the day. But at least I'm not spouting it into an article in the main namespace. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Josh Cherry 03:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with Dpbsmith. It might be nice to have an interesting article on modern catastopist theories, but this isn't it. Miss Pippa 10:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete' This is handled at Catastrophism, Immanuel Velikovsky, Tollmann's hypothetical bolide Tunguska Event etc. none of which are linked here. They are more in the nature of encyclopedia reports than essays. This ne is purely a pwrsinal essay. --Wetman 11:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, as per Dpbsmith (and frankly I'm amazed we don't have a Worlds in Collision article yet; Velikovsky is always good for a laugh) Antandrus 17:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this drivel. Please. Edeans 23:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete What makes it Neo? I don't see the relevance. Catastrophes happen. If this were supposed to be in contrast to Biblical catastrophes and in support of rare events that drive evolution, then it should be kept. I don't see any value to the current article. --Aranae 08:05, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Catastrophism to discourage recreation - David Gerard 15:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Vsmith 17:12, 11 Mar 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A 'new idea' for networking would be using chips. The information in this stub is already covered elsewhere in WP, and the term is rather pointless. Radiant! 09:51, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. "Network on Chip (NoC) is a new idea for designing such future SoCs" is more appropriate in an article's section, not an entirely new entry. Zzyzx11 20:23, 18 Feb 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. jni 16:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Mission statement for a religious movement, or so it seems. Can anyone substantiate the movement? Google indicates that there is a book of this title, but I haven't found an actual church. Radiant! 09:51, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I was unable to extract one iota of meaning from the article. Delete - TB 12:38, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable, not meaningful, mumbo jumbo. HowardB 17:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It also looks like it might be Copyvio. Zzyzx11 20:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, POV, not notable, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 22:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I'm reasonably familiar with new church movements, and I've never heard of this one. DJ Clayworth 04:38, 20 Feb 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. jni 16:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Church project. While well-intended, it seems very localized and it doesn't seem to have any unique goals. It does google, but most results are unrelated. Radiant! 09:56, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Newly formed religious sect. If they're around in five years give 'em an article. For now, delete - TB 12:39, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
- Delete. Non notable, parochial and incredibly unimaginatively named. HowardB 17:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable and it almost reads like a self-promotion. Zzyzx11 20:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, POV, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 22:43, 18 Feb 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. Deathphoenix 05:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
While the term has some economic significance, it is basically a circular dicdef. Radiant! 09:57, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I am considering this debate to be unresolved, and left open. Therefore, I am going to relist it through the VFD process to let it conclude. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This is a real and significant concept that needs to be covered. The examples make it somewhat more useful than a mere definition. Keep,
or put a short definion at NIE and redirect to Newly industrialized countries.Kappa 10:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Keepthough needs to be expanded. It is an important economic conceptand is seperate from NICs.-- Lochaber 15:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I apologise, after further investigation it would seem that these days the terms NIE and NIC are quite interchangeable, this had not been the case when I studied Economics. I would argue that industrialising and industrialised are different in that an article about NIE's would include discussion on how the economies change/industrialise, the concept if you will, while NIC would be giving cases where this has happened, However to avoid confusion I think it might be best to go with Kappa's suggestion - short def at NIE and redirect to NIC. Then expanded NIC article to include reference to indicators -- Lochaber 17:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Simpler, I would have thought, to delete and replace with redirect to NIC, and add "also known as Newly Industrializing Economy" somewhere in the first paragraph of NIC. HowardB 17:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I just think that it's a bit more complicated than that... the relationship is more that a "Newly Industrializing Economy / Country" becomes a "Newly Industrialized Economy / Countries". However I think the main problem is that the article at NIC is actually about Newly Industrializing Countries rather than Newly Industrialized Countries. However, realistically I don't know that anyone is going to correct this or that they even require seperate articles, especially given that both states are transitional. In my opinion the best situation would be if the two articles were merged under "Newly Industrializing Economy" (or Country) and the fact mentioned that "Country" and "Economy" are interchangable (add redirects), as far as I'm aware NIE was the original OECD term, though if anyone knows better then please say so. What does anyone think of that suggestion? --
Lochaber 10:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable economic term. Capitalistroadster 11:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep if it's an OECD definition - that means it's real and people might actually come looking for it - David Gerard 12:09, 9 Mar 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 as unresolved copyvio per findings below. No judgement yet made on whether a non-copyvio article would be encyclopedic. Rossami (talk) 06:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable horse race, or dicdef thereof. Radiant! 11:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Presumably a significant part of Nez Perce culture, since horses were very important to them, and a notable use of the Appaloosa breed of horse. Would you delete steeplechase if it was just a dicdef? Kappa 12:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Reference: The ApHC rulebook is available as a free pdf download from [21] (The Appaloosa Horse Club) but be aware that it is a 272 page pdf file at 2.91 Mb. The pdf handbook is indeed identified as © 2005 by The Appaloosa Horse Club, Inc. Nez Perce Stake Race (added by the same editor) is also copied from the same handbook. -DialUp 02:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) (Copied over from Wikipedia:Copyright problems re the discussion for Camas Prairie Stump Race and Camas Prairie Stump Race/Temp) DialUp 16:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- My preference would be for it to be merged, by someone who knows about, it into the "Nez Perce horse breeding program" section of the very good Nez Perce article. Probably worth a mention there, but otherwise unless it can be improved upon (means very little to me as it is written), delete. HowardB 17:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, dictionary definition, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 22:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note: The Stake race is affiliated with the Appaloosa Horse Club (not with the Nez Perce horse program) which has more than 150 local organizations and more than 33,000 members worldwide. Many of the local organization sponsor these gaming events and this event is one in which the parent organization ranks horses at the National Show each year (yes, I downloaded their handbook). I think a stub would be appropriate, but on a temp page. This page is a copy vio. DialUp 05:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note to Administrators. My vote was to keep but looks as if I wasn't clear. If the vote is not for a clear delete, perhaps you can delete anyway so it won't have to be listed on WP:CP. I'll go ahead and create a sports stub similar to the Stump Race stub to keep the link active until some one writes an article about all the gaming races. Then perhaps they can be merged together. Leave a message here or at User talk:DialUp letting me know your decision. DialUp 15:56, 26 Feb 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. —Korath (Talk) 16:26, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Co-author of three British political books. Doesn't seem to pass the professor test. Radiant! 11:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- A reasonably influential author on modern political thought. I've expanded the article slightly and now say keep - TB 12:18, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with TB, and at least one of Ashford's books is required reading for some UK university courses. HowardB 17:23, 18 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Indian IT company, but nothing is said about them except a bunch of standard buzzwords. Doesn't google much, 500-ish hits most of which are unrelated since it's also a girl name. Radiant! 11:24, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but clean up. Also a city in Guatemala. Nateji77 12:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- For a small company to be listed on Wikipedia, I feel there has to be something unique about it, or highly talked about in its field, or responsible for some significant innovation. I strongly suspect that this falls into none of those categories. Self-promotion. Delete HowardB 17:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Probably advertizing. Take it straight from the doormat to the kitchen wastebin like all the rest of the junk mail. Anthony Appleyard 20:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Currently, it is self-promotion. It needs more notable information than that. Zzyzx11 20:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, advertisement, possible vanity. Megan1967 22:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Advertisement, and not even a good one at that. -- Brhaspati 05:24, 2005 Feb 20 (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.