Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 24

[edit]

Soft redirect to:Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 23:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Raymond Millones

[edit]

Delete as a teacher who is known mainly for humorous comments to his classes. Joyous 00:36, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. Postdlf 00:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep This man is a legend, soon he's gonna be in all encyclopedias in the world. 00:45, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Postdlf 00:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) Fraudulent entry by User:65.93.69.91. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Just some teacher. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.Sorry I have to do this, but I don't know any other way of communicating to people reading this. How is this man so different from some dead person or some random low budget film star? He won a TDSB Teacher Excellence award for being a great business teacher.
    • Another fraudulent entry by User:65.93.69.91. --Chill Pill Bill 02:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • No, addressing your concern here is fine, that is the very purpose of this discussion page, to discuss validity. Compared to low-budget film stars or dead famous people, there are no Google results, and he is known mainly for his joking... sorry, but, no, he is not notable. And here at Wikipedia we don't care how notable someone *might* possibly become given time, only about how notable they are right NOW. Please see Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for details. Master Thief Garrett 02:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, please sign your responses in a discussion so we can tell who said what. As it is, some users (such as Chill Pill Bill) have taken this as malicious/fraudulent commenting, and I do not necessarily blame them. EDIT: and don't think we can't tell from the history who *really* wrote what, because (as demonstrated) we can. Master Thief Garrett 02:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. non-notable, vanity, teachercruft. Master Thief Garrett 02:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, can think of a half-dozen Toronto educators with better credentials and funnier comments who still aren't notable enough to be on wikipedia. --Veritol 12:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Probably a homage from a well meaning student - but non-notable. TigerShark 13:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 13:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, NOW i get it.. You're all racists and hate black and hispanic people like this wonderful man. Damn, another blatant example of a hate crime in progress. It's all clear to me now, especially after searching for ANY black/hispanic teachers on Wikipedia, and finding none. By guyman that made dis fine retarded article. (unsigned, Millonesisgay)
    • PLEASE sign your posts so we know who says what. You may not find any black/hispanic teachers on here, but you will NOT find many "whiteys" either. Teachers are, as a rule, not important enough.
    • We are NOT racists, don't gimme that bull, that's the oldest trick in the book, someone non-white is to be dealt with by the law or whatnot and there are cries of "racism, racism!" in the background. Now understand this, if this article was about my own father I'd have it mercilessly culled! This man is NOT important enough to be here. Please understand this... and don't word your statement in an inciteful way, or people may take offence and bite back. Master Thief Garrett 22:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • We can assume that last anonymous posting was pure trollage. (Besides, even if it wasn't, how could we tell the subject of the article was anything other than albino? The article doesn't indicate anything about race, creed, color, shoe size, or blood type.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The person who wrote the comment about racism can't possibly be serious. By that logic, all black and hispanic people would be inherently notable. — JIP | Talk 11:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And please remember to not feed the trolls. Rossami (talk) 05:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for potential defamation, lack of encyclopedic nature, etc.--TPB 03:36, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible spanking. -- 8^D gab 05:26, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing more really need be said. Binabik80 05:41, 29 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:31, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Concept theory

[edit]

Delete as original research.--Henrygb 01:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect moink 11:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raccoon Forest

[edit]

This stub seems unnecessary as there is already a Raccoon City article. I would suggest merging but there's really nothing to merge. --Feitclub 03:34, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge into Raccoon City, which itself needs to be cleaned up and wikified. There's a tiny amount of usable information in Raccoon Forest. android↔talk 04:25, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Raccoon City. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Raccoon City, unless somebody can flesh this article out with more substantial information. It has not been edited since the beginning of February, so it seems unlikely that this will happen. TigerShark 13:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Raccoon City, same reasons as above. KickAir8P~ 06:04, 2005 Apr 25 (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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battery explosion

[edit]

this is basically what I could get off the back of a box, isn't it? Or is it a dicdef? Regardless, I'd say Merge with Battery (electricity). 03:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • If you want it merged, be bold and do it. android↔talk 03:49, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this is an important subject. Much possible room for growth. Exploding Lead acid batteries (Gas accumulation), overheating Li-ion batteries(Steam explosion), etc Klonimus 04:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • See, Android? This is exactly why I wasn't sure. It sure is a grey area... Master Thief Garrett 04:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, I agree this is probably important enough for its own article but it needs serious expansion if it stays. Megan1967 05:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Atlant 12:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Possibility for expansion, let's see if it happens. TigerShark 14:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Important topic. —Markaci 2005-04-24 T 16:11 Z
  • Ke-BOOM! Soundguy99 04:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) (slightly singed)
  • Keep and expand. KTC 15:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep seems like a useful topic to me 69.136.234.155
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge with battery explosion and redirect. moink 11:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overcharging

[edit]

back-of-the-box stuff; merge with Battery (electricity)? Master Thief Garrett 03:44, 24 Apr 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mangateparu

[edit]

Makes no sense. Where is this place? A2Kafir 04:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Makes perfect sense to me, and a simple Google search would have told you that this is a place in New Zealand. It gets 89 unique hits. However, I can't tell if it's a town, neighborhood, or something else. Tentative Keep until we can get a New Zealander in here that knows more. android↔talk 04:54, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and wikify real places. Kappa 11:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep TigerShark 14:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It's a rural district, a locality, and I think it's rather marginal for an article, but the article does no harm. Now that the school has closed, there's probably not much there. Google gives me 552 hits.-gadfium 20:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. it is a small place, but no less deserving of an article than many others I've seen on WP. Marginal, as Gadfium said, but I don't see much wrong in that. I've added a little bit more info about it. Grutness|hello? 00:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep since you guys figured out where it was and improved it. Can I vote against my own VfD? A2Kafir 18:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 'keep since its a real place Yuckfoo 00:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real place with community of interest. Capitalistroadster 04:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asarim

[edit]

Asarim + Vallejo gets zero Google hits. Not listed on amazon. RickK 04:45, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, obviously... Master Thief Garrett 04:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. Undelete when millionth copy sold :) - TigerShark 14:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable Dsmdgold 18:23, Apr 25, 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. —Xezbeth 09:55, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Terinom

[edit]

I don't see any evidence that this is real, nothing comes up when I search. Ad at best. Delete Rx StrangeLove 04:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • According to Whois, terinom.com does indeed belong to someone named Eric Brown, and it contains a Flash application with two broken links. No idea what this is supposed to be. Delete. android↔talk 05:06, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, some sort of, um, ad? Something. Yeah. Master Thief Garrett 05:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transvergence

[edit]

A link to someone's original research/deep thoughts. Gazpacho 05:03, 24 Apr 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Killer

[edit]

Just plain useless Squash 05:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Master Thief Garrett 05:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep, clean up, etc. as per Isaac R. Master Thief Garrett 07:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. The band mentioned is pretty major, judging from Google and Amazon. I don't know whether "virgin killer" means what he thinks it means, but that's a {{disputed}} issue, not a {{vfd}}. The opinions about validity have to be removed or NPOVed, of course. ---Isaac R 06:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I have removed the content relating to the disputed meaning of "Virgin Killer" (I can't find any information that supports this meaning) and have made the Scorpions album the focus of the page instead). The only non-musical reference that I can find to "Virgin Killer" is a term relating to somebody committing their first murder. TigerShark 14:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I would have just deleted the editorial comments, leaving the definition in place. If you're not convinced the definition is accurate, you can add a template indicating the material is disputed or controversial. ---Isaac R 17:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup —Wahoofive (Talk) 21:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand from substub. Capitalistroadster 04:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep why would this be useless Yuckfoo 16:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely keep, but also expand to make the article worth existing. --BDD 14:47, 29 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:54, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Kadan kingdom

[edit]
  • Delete - I am the major author of the entry and I vote for deletion because although every single line of the article is right it is not a real encyclopaedia entry. I will try to correct my reputation with some real entries. I was just inspired by the Conch Republic that reminded me of our student country that still recalls good memories in several minds. Thank you all for the care and do not hesitate to delete it.Aloysius
  • Delete all micronations. RickK 05:51, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all micronations. Master Thief Garrett 06:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 06:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete TigerShark 14:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The existence of this supposed kingdom is completely unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 20:07, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
  • Delete all micronations, as vanity. José San Martin 20:25, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • hm, maybe we should start a DeleteAllMicronationsist movement, and call in the heavies to merciless Delete-vote any and all that come up...! Master Thief Garrett 22:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Whether or not micronations are notable, encyclopedic, etc, this article is nonsense:
"The exact day is not given but it is usually celebrated today. There is, however, a numerous group of authorities who claim tomorrow to be the most feazible day of independence", "Dad Language" is an official language and its currency is "All the money of the world."
Hmmm. So, delete as nonsense. SteveW | Talk 22:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep unless Delete Micronations is declared policy, or better reasons can be given. Delete Better reasons have been given. Septentrionalis 23:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • What reasons could be better than a lack of notability and doubts about it being a real micronation in the first place? Master Thief Garrett 01:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • An I failing to follow something? Whatis the difference between a real micronation and a fake micronation? Septentrionalis 04:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • One exists...and the other doesn't? As this seems to be the latter, delete. A Man In Black 10:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Micronation for the most part exist only on paper, on the Internet, or in the minds of their creators. The article cites micronations down to a "two-decade old political simulation with several dozen members" and '"a two-person kingdom "ruled" by "His Imperial Most Gracious, Glorious and Holy Majesty, King/Emperor Edgard II"'.
So I repeat
what's the line? Why does the "Kadan Kingdom" not "exist"? Septentrionalis 22
40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable micronation. Sjakkalle 09:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you; this is the sort of real argument I was looking for. Septentrionalis 22:40, 29 Apr 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. moink 11:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alan de Jardin

[edit]

His only claim to fame appears to be a horribly unsuccessful bid for head of his provincial party. You need more achievements than that to be considered "notable." ---Isaac R 06:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as above. --Veritol 12:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I was wondering when this issue would come up. We've already clarified that party leaders are notable in all (or almost all) cases. I suppose this is as good a time as any to clarify the rules for leadership candidates as well.

The Manitoba Liberal Party is a significant force in Manitoba politics -- it doesn't have many seats in the provincial legislature now, but it was the official opposition party less than twenty years ago. Its history dates back to 1882.

A credible case can be made that anyone who runs for the leadership of this party is automatically "notable". I grant, however, that de Jardin's situation is borderline. If the general consensus is to delete, I could easily move these three sentences to the page on Manitoba Liberal Party leadership conventions. CJCurrie 18:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep of course. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Spinboy 19:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to MPL page. José San Martin 20:35, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • The MPL page currently lists party leaders, but not the people who ran against them. So you're proposing a really big change. ---Isaac R 20:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • It would be, yes. I could, however, move this information to the page for MPL leadership conventions (which is a separate page). CJCurrie 20:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not elected = not notable. Delete. Radiant_* 11:12, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Samaritan 14:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think that canidates for internal party offices are notable, especially at a provincial level. Dsmdgold 14:40, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Ground Zero 14:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That policy is not relevent. We're debating whether Alan is notable, not whether there's room for him. ---Isaac R 17:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Since notability is os so very subjective, I vote Keep on the basis that Wikipedia is an appropriate place to gather information on political figures, including those who are not elected. He's notable to me, even if he's not notable to you. Also, the leadership of a party is not "internal", like, say the position of membership secretary. The leader is the public face iof the party. Ground Zero 17:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I think we can all agree that the leader of a Canadian provincial party is notable. But this guy was never a party leader, nor did he ever hold another party office. He made a single run at party leader, in which he garnered only 6% of the vote. ---Isaac R 18:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I agree with Kappa below that 6% in this party leadership race does make him a serious candidate. Knowing that he ran against Sharon Carstairs, the iconic figure of the modern Manitoba Liberal Party, I want to know more about why the heck he did, what policy and/or presentation differences he offered against Carstairs, etc. Keep, and expand a bit if possible. Samaritan 17:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Indeed, Sam, it seems that quite a few of us are interested in learning more about this guy. It would be a shame if those who are not interested decide to delete the article and prevent it from ever gathering more information about him. But I guess there are always the endless Wikipedia articles about video game characters to keep us amused. Many people believe that they are notable enough to keep, but not real world political characters. <Sigh.> Ground Zero 21:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep he seems important - why not Yuckfoo 01:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zero evidence of notability. Indrian 04:55, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, 6% makes him a serious candidate. Kappa 05:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Though my comments have been somewhat equivocal, my vote is to Keep. CJCurrie 23:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I have to draw the line higher than 6% for a local politician running for an internal position. Delete unless there is evidence that he has done more than this. Rossami (talk) 05:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • As Ground Zero says above, this isn't an internal position. The leader of a political party in a Westminster system is both the head of that party's caucus and its candidate for the executive office. Calling it "local" is also doubtful; Manitoba is about the size of Afghanistan, and is a senior level of government. The closest American counterpart would be somebody who did similarly running for Democratic or Republican nomination for governor of Hawaii, which has about the same population. Alan de Jardin ran for Premier of Manitoba, by seeking leadership of a major party, and he did find a non-trivial base of support in that party. I'd like to know more. Samaritan 06:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) (corrected Samaritan 06:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC))
      • I'll say it again -- nobody's saying that the office Jardin ran for is unimportant or unnotable. But running for that office by itself does not make you notable, any more than every person who ever ran for Governor of Hawaii is notable. (Or even Governor of California!) So yeah, we need to know more. The person to address that point is CJCurrie, who created the article. (And who has shown commendable detachment in discussing its proposed deletion!) So how about it? Do you have anything more on the guy, or should we assume that the article is more or less in its final form? ---Isaac R 06:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I wish I remember whose comment I got this from, but... it's a core principle of Wikipedia that its contributors only do what they want to do. And all in all, this works pretty well. Undoubtedly, CJCurrie is our house authority on Manitoba politics, but we shouldn't put him in the hot seat for expansions to any given article. Anyone with access to a newspaper microfilm collection with any Manitoba daily could surely find out more about de Jardin's candidacy. I should have access to an Ontario reference library soon enough and can see what they have. Samaritan 06:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notably unsuccessful candidate. —RaD Man (talk) 06:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Article content is verifiable. - SimonP 19:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Verifiability of the content isn't an issue. We only care about the notability of the subject. The fact that I'm a certified expert in Microsoft Word is verifiable (I can point you at the web site), but doesn't make me notable enough for a Wikipedia article. ---Isaac R 17:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • There is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. Kappa 17:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Very true, I essentially believe in Jimbo's view, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. - SimonP 19:54, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: comparison to U.S. politicians. If I understand the Canadian system, a provincial premier is pretty much the equivalent of a U.S. state governor. And when a party comes to power, its party leader becomes premier. So in effect, somebody who runs for party leader is trying to become premier. ¶ I know, I know, there are factors that don't apply to U.S. politics -- coalition governments, party leaders have other responsibilities, etc. But it's a close approximation. ¶ So the nearest U.S. equivalent to would be somebody who once ran for Governor, lost by a big margin, and never did anything else to make the news. There are plenty of people like that. How many of them are notable? I'd argue that the answer is zero, or close to it. ---Isaac R 23:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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. CDC (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Tidyman

[edit]

A police constable who died in a car accident. Not notable. Xezbeth 06:23, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Thryduulf 20:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, same reasons as above. Adm58 07:02, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge to Dubbo, New South Wales (already done). CDC (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher International Abattoir

[edit]

Not a notable business. Roger Fletcher, the owner, has already been deleted. 11 google hits. Xezbeth 06:25, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete below the bar of notability. Oliver Keenan 10:03, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abattoirs employ alot of people, and as such are important to their local communities, merge to Dubbo, New South Wales--nixie 10:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Week Keep Could possibly be expanded TigerShark 14:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable meat processor. Klonimus 23:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --Centauri 06:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing special about this particular abattoir. Radiant_* 11:12, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Dubbo as Peta suggests. Capitalistroadster 04:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Dubbo. If Dubbo were to grow, it could be broken out.Grace Note 04:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This company is listed as the "largest employer in Dubbo, South Wales" (population 38,000). According to this report in 2003, it was major news when they laid off 110 workers. Those two data points suggest that this is still a pretty small, family run business. We usually have a great deal of difficulty finding enough verifiable information to write a non-sub-stub article. For publicly-held businesses, the Fortune 1000 is a reasonable guide (with lots of exceptions if they've done something truly innovative or scandalous). That translates to revenues right around $1 Billion and 2-3000 employees. Do we have any verifiable evidence about this company's size or relevance? If not, I have to lean toward delete for now. Rossami (talk) 05:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Assuming that 110 is a 20% RIF that suggest that the pant had about 400-500 workers prelayoff. That makes it good sized regional plant probably capable of processing at a minimum 150 sheep/hr (Probably more depending on automation and what not). IMHO every company listed on a national (NYSE,NASDAQ,AMEX) or major regional stock exchange (Pacific Stock Exchange, Philadelphia/Boston Stock Exchange) is definatly worthy of inclusion. Remember Wiki aint Paper. Klonimus 05:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge, certainly important in its region, WP should cover it as best it can. Kappa 17:43, 29 Apr 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, therefore keep. moink 08:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic fascism

[edit]

Delete or Merge into list of political ephithets. See Votes for Deletion-Islamofascism This seems to be just a way to bypass that vote. He also includes a picture of a beheading and does not relate it to fascism in any way.Yuber 06:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note 1: Image:Islamic fascism100.gif MUST BE DELETED alongside this article or it will become an orphan. Master Thief Garrett 06:39, 24 Apr 2005

(UTC)

  • I'm not going to vote because I'm obviously conflicted as the author but I think this is a litle heavy-handed in the circumstances. I don't know whether to finish writing the article. I have offered to have a dialog with Yuber but have not got a response. This article may cover some of the same ground as Islamofascism, but I assume much of that debate is whether it's a legitimate word or not. No such issue arises here. As for bypassing a vote, that is absolutely not my plan, I'll respect whatever is decided, I just wonder how a judgement can be formed 1) before the article is really seriously started, 2) without discussing it with me at all and 3) based on suspicions and enmities which have nothing to do with me. Walkingeagles 07:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • the point is NOT whether it is finished or not! The Vfd rules DON'T CARE!!!. OK? Got that? Sorry, but please understand. If someone is writing something that is not fitting for Wikipedia we do not wait for them to finish it as they will be "wasting their time" once we delete it. Master Thief Garrett 07:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • However, the real question is what are you presenting in Islamic fascism, and how is it different from Islamofascism? Please, if you can, explain to us how what you have presented is different from the existing page. If they are the same, then you should make your contributions to the other page, and this will become a redirect. If not, tell us why, and we may vote to keep it and let you finish your work. Master Thief Garrett 07:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Please don't bite the newbies. I think that User:Walkingeagles can be a valuable contributor; he just needs to learn his way around Wikipedia policy. I don't believe that shouting at him is the most productive way to accomplish this. Firebug 07:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Islamofascism, NOT list of political epithets. Meelar (talk) 06:01, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Before the VFD posting, I had redirected the article to List of political epithets. That was later reversed by the article's creator, User:Walkingeagles. I decided not to press the issue because the user is a newbie. Unfortunately, User:Klonimus has already attempted to recruit this user as a soldier in the edit war on the main Islamofascism article. In my opinion, this action is ill-advised. Firebug 06:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah hello. I am not even 10% into completing the article so I'm not sure why you want to even consider deleting it before then. I can write and even research pretty well and I think it's a good topic. Have I missed something? Walkingeagles 06:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Um, well, most of the articles we Vfd are at an unfinished state! What were are assessing is its viability for remaining here, and that is only in part based off its current content. Master Thief Garrett 06:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Islamofascism, NOT List of political epithets, as per Meelar. Master Thief Garrett 06:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep And allow for organic growth. He;s just started writing the article, let it develop . Supressing Islamofascism and Islamic fascism reeks of obscurantism and Political Correctness . Klonimus 07:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • nonono, how are those two articles different? Aren't they pseudonyms? If not then the article is very very valid, if not then it should be a redirect. Do you understand? I hope so. And, technically, Wikipedia isn't supposed to give a damn about being PC, we have all sorts of contentious content here. Master Thief Garrett 07:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • My understanding of what he is trying to do, is thay Islamic fascism is about Islamic Fascist's, I.e muslim units fighting for the Axis, Grand Mufti and friends etc. Islamofascism is about post 9/11 use of that term to describe totalitiarian islamism. The current edit wars and acrimony from the Pro Islamic side are just clouding things. Klonimus 07:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with Islamofascism and redirect to it. ObsidianOrder 11:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Islamic Fascism and Islamofascism are distinct subjects deserving of separate articles. And please people - try to keep your comments coherent and to the point. --Centauri 12:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Please, someone, please WHY ARE THEY DIFFERENT?!? Come on, no-one has yet clearly said the difference. Can you say it in like 50 words or less? Is it like what Klonimus said, or something different??? Master Thief Garrett 12:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete. Starting by calling Al Qaeda fascist, as a given, begs all the questions. The current article is hardly retrievable as encyclopedic, even though it is not otherwise without interest. Charles Matthews 13:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Childish, strongly PoV nonsense. We're an encyclopædia, not a soapbox for anti-Islamic propagandists. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Strong delete - very POV and somehow I am not sure if it could get NPOV DeirYassin 13:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Good for AntiMuslimopedia but should be deleted from Wikipedia. I mean, really, would we write articles with titles like X is a fuckhead (insert your own X) just because somebody calls them a fuckhead in a screed? There is no "Islamic fascism". Al Qaeda don't identify as fascists and they don't pursue anything like a fascist ideology. Perhaps the editors who are so intent on pushing this anti-Muslim bollocks should try finding out what they do believe in?Grace Note 13:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Do whatever is done with Islamofascism, which looks like it will be a merge and redirect. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV fork of Islamofascism. - Mustafaa 21:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • As I'm not voting, I'll take some liberty and comment on the above if that's OK. This is a sensitive area. Anything to do with religion, the Middle East etc. generally is. But my conern is the vitriolic approach of a few people who've commented above. I don't mind which way the vote goes, although I think it will end up being a good article incorporating many different perspectives and bringing together much information. But look at some of the words used above and ask whether insults and attacks actually achieve anything.

"fuckhead" "bollocks" "editors who are so intent on pushing this anti-Muslim bollocks" "childish" "soapbox for anti-Islamic propagandists" "WRITING IN CAPS" and IN BOLD, in asking and re-asking answered questions...

It seems to me that language like this will - whether intended to or not - exclude people who either don't like profanity or aren't as aggressive. I know I don't appreciate it, I may have asked for it by being bold enough to write an article on such a topic but I think anyone familiar with dispute resolution knows that screaming (or its virtual equiv.) and profanity and aggressive language generally only inflames disputes beyond what they originally were. Because of that, I believe comments of the kind I've listed are really unhelpful and unproductive. Just my opinion but I hope someone listens. Walkingeagles 17:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Just to let you know, writing in bold is the common procedure for distinguishing a vote (not that I'm excusing the other behavior). So I'm voting give this article the same treatment as Islamofascism whatever it may be. --Dmcdevit 20:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with Centauri for once. Megan1967 03:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. As long as Walkingeagles and Centauri couldn't come up with a formal explanation about the difference between Islamofascism and Islamic Fascism, this article should definetly be merged with Islamofascism. The distinction, if it exists, must also be mentionned clearly at the top of this article. Otherwise, I will be voting for a Delete. --Svest 03:40, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete *SIGH* This is just an attempt by people who dont think that Islamofascism is an epiteth to express their political views. If Islamofascism survives the VfD then redirect to there, otherwise kill it. Dalf | Talk 07:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or at the very least merge with Islamofascism. Bad enough that there's one article. Two is simply redundant - i.e. it covers exactly the same ground.--Lee Hunter 15:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

[edit]

Do not vote in this section!

  • I've just removed a section that's clearly inappropriate (consisting of claims about what U.S. white supremacists think of Islamic groups, and a long quotation from a journalist about one person who's Muslim and a fascist), together with a couple of other unsubstantiated claims. I've also reordered the text to flow more smoothly, and corrected a number of internal links. If the article could stay like this, or develop along these lines (though it's difficult to know what else there is to be said), it would at least be NPoV; I could even bring myself to vote for its retention. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I was kinda attached to the CNN reference because it was Sat night's show that got me thinking about the topic but you make a good argument and others have made too about it being separate so am persuaded to agree. The issue of Aryan nation lusting after al Qaeda might deserve another article although I can promise this much, it won't be me writing it! I am going to write about quieter subjects, haven't had one edit, revert, attack, bollock or fuckhead reference over at my Anti-Cruelty Society article. Much more my speed. Walkingeagles 11:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just so people are clear on what it being voted upon.

[edit]
  • Islamofascism Term used to describe totalitarian Islamism. (Survivied VfD)
  • Islamic fascism Term used to describe actual muslim fascists. I.e Bosnian SS Units, Grand Mufti, etc.

Klonimus 05:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since one of the claims about Islamofascism is that its article attempted to make connections between Islam and Fascism that some editors thought to be non factual. How ever no intelectually honest person denies that that Bosnian SS Units and the Grand Mufti existed. Hence the need for an article on Islamic Fascism.

I urge people to think about the encyclopedic nature of the topic of historical and current Islamist alliences with fascists. I the 'article in its current form needs serious work to address this issue, but that does not detract from its encyclopedic character and worthyness of inclusion in a great encyclopaedia. Klonimus 05:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


    • Thank you. That is exactly what I was wanting to know three days ago. Finally someone has answered it clearly and concisely. I will reconsider my vote. Thank you! Master Thief Garrett 22:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Great job Klonimus. Does anybody else agree about the definitions? Walkingeagles, do you agree or disagree about that? I would agree about the definition given to Islamic fascism though I remember the picture of the Grand Mufti shinning on Islamofascism instead. Do we remember that Klonimus?
I totally disagree about the one defining Islamofascism. Does it mean that every totalitarian regime or doctrine would be considered fascist? Does it imply that the Soviet Union under Stalin would have been called Fascist Soviet Union??!
Whatever the answer is, why not than have the Islamofascism article renamed Totalitarian Islam instead? It is really confusing!
After all, from where have we got the definitions? --Svest 00:06, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
I would support renaming this article Totalitarian Islam or perhaps Totalitarianism in Islam would be a more neutral name. I just really really think that the word fascism and its deratives have been made so ambiguous through constant misuse that they are not at all encyclopedic unless the article is about the term. As this article is not about the term and is not really about fascism but rather several flavors of Totalitarianism some of which might contain some aspects which may relate to fascism. In any event a name change would increase its chances of surviving this VfD (I think). Dalf | Talk 07:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's quite confusing, Dalf. You voted delete on Americofascism. You haven't suggested to redirect it or rename it to American Fascism or something else as you are preaching for this article. If we follow your reasoning above talking about the misuse of the term fascism, we would assume that we will be ending having 100 plus articles of Islam. What would be a difference between Islamofascism and Totalitarian Islam? IMHO, this article is just a mirror of Islamofascism. Why not merge them? Or do you agree about the classification of klominus? Cheers and respect Svest 07:29, May 3, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up
You could be right. The truth is I think all of these articles are problematic. I voted delete on Americofascism because I did/do not think it is a real term. That and it was an obvious WP:POINT violation. Also note that I voted delete here as well ... I am just sort of thinking out loud down here in the comments. As to the confusion you mention, redirecting any article to a title with the word fascism is IMHO a bad idea. Other the word inflames emotions, and even when used correctly it is ambiguous because of the cultural and vernacular history associated with it. My comments here about moving things should be seen as saying "if there is appropriate content for any of these article I think a better title can be chosen". That goes for articles about criticism of or reactions to American foreign policy as well. All in all I still stand my my original statement that I made in my vote *SIGH* Dalf | Talk 09:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see an agreement with what you explained. I think, if someone wants to denote a fascist, he should simply use "fascist" and then if needed stipulate the religion or the nationality. The vast majority of Muslims are not fascists. Any religion, creed or philosophy can be perverted and twisted to meet extreme aims. Therefore, the term Islamic Fascism can be used as Italian Fascism, Spanish Fascism, American Facsisms, etc... As replied to Klonimus about his ignorant and personal definitions, I disagree totally about the term Islamofascism. The term 'Islamofascism' will need a book length theorisation by somebody who knows the subject inside out before it can be used in serious political discourse, rather than knockabout polemic.
For instance, Klonimus wants to reserve it for a specific strand of Wahabbism. Yet the parallel between reactionary Islam and fascism is to my mind best illustrated by the Iranian revolution. Those events met many of the classical criteria that differentiate fascism proper from other types of authoritarianism, such as military dictatorship or peronism. It was - and still is - a regime of crisis, built on the mass mobilisation of the middle class to crush an insurgent workers' movement. Yet it is, of course, 100% shiite.
But even though I'm picking Klonimus up on this point, I'm not claiming deep enough knowledge to pontificate with authority. Until a useful definition can be established - assuming that it can be - the term should be used with utmost care. Especially by jobbing hacks who lack any expert perspective. Cheers and respect Svest 13:43, May 3, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up

Wasn't this deleted a few days ago?

[edit]

I thought the vote for this article was already closed and it was to be deleted, why is it back again?Yuber 02:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing it with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Islamofascism. Or maybe not. Master Thief Garrett 03:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You really have to organise your X-rated fascism articles' database. Or maybe you need a wikivacation Yuber. Think about it! ;-) Svest 04:05, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
LOL, no, I distinctly remember this article being deleted. Check the edit history, there were no edits for 4 days. Is it possible that there was some furtive action to reinstate this article after deletion? Perhaps someone had relocated it to a subpage and then moved it here after it was deleted. After all, when you move a page, no history of it being moved is recorded. Yuber 06:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That may be right. I think that people are still busy with the other one; the one by one rule, I suppose. One of the reasons that there has been no edit for 4 days might be that this article is being forgotten on the basis that it is being clear that this one is just a mirror for Islamofascism. Cheers -Svest 06:43, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

It might be partly the result of the article (and Islamofascism having been blanked, and a "pendingdeletion" template added. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. —Xezbeth 09:32, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Adedapo Macaulay

[edit]

It's on VFD for vanity. Zzyzx11 | Talk 07:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a high-school yearbook, nor is it a crystal ball. Oh, and before I forget, yes it's vanity too. Master Thief Garrett 07:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity? Oh, no! Don't say! José San Martin 20:22, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - he can have an NPOV article if he becomes president or becomes otherwise notable. Thryduulf 20:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Future presidents of Nigeria are not notable. Dsmdgold 14:35, Apr 25, 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. —Xezbeth 09:53, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Nation of Celestial Space

[edit]

41 Google hits is not notable; sets a precedent for the authenticity of adding other such vague micronations. Master Thief Garrett 07:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all micronations. Master Thief Garrett 07:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Firebug 07:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting, well-written article with cited references and pix. 20,000 members is what I'd call "notable". Eccentric, but a definite keep. --Centauri 08:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep somewhat notable maybe, coins, that thing with flag being raised near UN, and article itself is ok so maybe it can stayDeirYassin 09:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I've heard of this before, and I find the whole thing rather interesting. Just above the bar of notability for inclusion on Wikipedia imho. Oliver Keenan 09:58, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. as per DeirYassin. --Veritol 12:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User has ~25 edits.
  • Keep - interesting, informative, referenced article. Tonderai 13:06, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Week Keep Can the number of members be verified with any accuracy? TigerShark 15:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all micronations. RickK 19:11, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as grandson vanity. José San Martin 20:17, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm a leading citizen. Klonimus 23:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - interesting, well referenced article. It seems it was far more notable than the average micronation. Thryduulf 20:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • You'd be surprised, the other ones were not quite so well written but had more Google hits than this one! Master Thief Garrett 21:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Hardly surprising for something that became defunct in the 1960s. Unbelievable as it may seem to those aged 30 or under, Google is not the sum total of reality. --Centauri 06:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • No, I'd say Google is the librarian of reality, but you still have a point... Master Thief Garrett 08:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, normally I would vote delete for micronations, however this "cosmonation" and James Thomas Mangan seems to have garnered some notoriety, appearing on national television in 1958 to claim space and in front of the UN. I dont know too many micronation creators that would go to the trouble he has in promoting his claim. Megan1967 03:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gets "I've heard of it" comments from Wikipedia regulars not affiliated with the micronation. Wiwaxia 07:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the kooks behind these one-person "micronations" have actually gotten enough attention to be notable, then write an article about that person and describe their pet project within it, but don't pretend like these things have any independent existence. I don't even know what that crap about the flag being seen by millions and being "formally raised" at the UN is referring to—it seems patently false on its face, and is at best overblown hyperbole of what was probably one kook waving a painted bedsheet on the corner of 1st and 43rd. I'm surprised at the lax critical thought in some of the above votes in assessing the veracity of the article's claims, especially considering how three of the four "sources cited to are nothing more than collectors' references (so the kook did make his own stamps and coins) and the fourth was obviously self-promotional material. Postdlf 08:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wrote the article, so I'm biased, but I see no reason why Wikipedia should not document historic eccentrics, non-conformists and oddities of this type; Mangan's particular obsession clearly had a resonance for the times, and the references are all perfectly valid sources documenting that - Postdlf's rant notwithstanding.--Gene_poole 23:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Rant? Yes. I was tired. But I still stand by the substance of my comments, and dispute that the NCS flag was "formally raised" at the UN Building—who exactly was it raised by? The article right now makes it sound like the UN did it as an official action. And what are the details of this supposed television broadcast? Postdlf 23:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't have the time nor the inclination to address the many inconsistencies, false assumptions and factual errors in your rant, however the article is based entirely on the cited sources, which of course is why they are cited in the first place. If details are lacking it is because the sources available don't provide that data. There are probably other sources that do clarify those details, and when and if they come to hand the article will be modified accordingly. --Gene_poole 00:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I have to say that I don't care for the particular sentence in question. Your wording suggests that the flag raising was an official UN ceremony, or at least approved by the UN. Common sense suggests that this was unlikely, and that they simply staged the flag raising while the UN guards weren't looking. Of course, you can't insert your own inferences, but if your sources our incomplete, your language should reflect the fact. ---Isaac R 00:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC).
          • I agree - I've removed the word "formally", as it implies a degree of recognition on which the sources are silent. Having said that we shouldn't automatically be dismissive of the idea that someone at the UN facilitated a flag-raising ceremony - after all the fellow who founded the World Service Authority and Prince Philippe of Araucania and Patagonia have both given addresses to the General Assembly at various times. --Gene_poole 01:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Felipe has renounced his claim to the Kingdom of A&P, but continues as an advocate of indiginous rights. Presumably he spoke to the UN in the latter capacity. As the WSA, I'm a little suprised that anybody at the UN would give them the time of day -- aren't they sort of in competition? ---Isaac R 01:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What's vague about it? The guy claimed to own all of outer space. Simple enough. Wonky of course, but so what? Notability is the only issue. On that score, compare the NCS with Emperor Norton, who considered himself the sole ruler of much of North America -- and had much less documentation to back himself up! ---Isaac R 00:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this please - well written and many people have heard of it Yuckfoo 01:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep although I tend towards deletionism on micronations.Capitalistroadster 04:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, this one is a close exception. (\/)OO(\/) 21:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. National TV coverage, solid gold currency and having their flag raised over the UN establishes a great deal of notability AFAIC. There is also a host of external references. Most short articles on any subject should be so concise. - Lucky 6.9 21:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-written and fauirly prominent for a micronation. Secretcurse 01:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Stop debating! We must keep it forever!--Ed Telerionus 01:16, 30 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:33, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Weak sauce

[edit]

This is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article; also, it's not in very common usage--5600 google hits, but none of the top 10 are relevant to this usage. Delete. Meelar (talk) 07:23, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, a dicdef, a semi-neologism at that, and one I've never even heard of. Master Thief Garrett 07:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism below the bar of notability. It's use is questionable. Oliver Keenan 09:59, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've heard the phrase, and most of the top Google hits do refer to the definition listed in the article. The first person whom I heard use it was a Texan, and one of the UrbanDictionary entries claims that the phrase originated at Baylor University, so it may be relatively regional. However, it's still a dicdef, and I don't think it can really be expanded beyond stub level.NatusRoma 20:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, dictionary definition. Megan1967 03:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dictdef. It may have a place on the Wiktionary, though; it's found itself out of Texas and into online gaming. A Man In Black 07:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. ... Kidding, kidding. Regular Delete. Dicdef. Nestea 00:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. I googled for the phrase in quotes, and found a number of sites using that usage. Delete here. Notthe9 04:51, 29 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:52, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Rennaisance of islam

[edit]

Link farm for Islam related websites. Promotion of and towards sites. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) WITHDRAWN

Delete. Link farm? Well, that, or possibly advertising affiliated websites. Either way, this is not Google Directory. Master Thief Garrett 12:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-encyclopedic TigerShark 15:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Megan1967 03:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Renaissance" isn't even spelled correctly in the article title. Firebug 04:39, 25 Apr 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. CDC (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Costs of the internet

[edit]

Looks like an op-ed piece. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) WITHDRAWN

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 as a redirect to the disambiguation page. moink 11:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A.F.I

[edit]

This article is redundant. TerraFrost 09:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to AFI (band), unless there is a need for disambiguating these three initials. Dsmdgold 10:45, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to AFI (band) Master Thief Garrett 12:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • as for the initials, here's a quick and lazy Google rip... "AFI—Air Force Instruction. AFIWC—Air Force Information Warfare Center." So I doubt there's much crossover. Master Thief Garrett 12:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to make it a disambig.--Samuel J. Howard 18:30, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Correction, I've made it a redirect to the already existing disambiguation page at AFI.--Samuel J. Howard 18:34, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • Um, you're probably not "supposed" to do that until the Vfd ends, but heck, we've had a consensus from the very beginning, so who cares? Master Thief Garrett 22:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: grammar-wise, since we're using this as a redirect, shouldn't there be a "." on the end? As in "A.F.I."? Master Thief Garrett 22:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, A.F.I. has existed since 06:18, 24 Aug 2003. Oh, and keep A.F.I as redir to disamb. Niteowlneils 23:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as dab page. Most Australians will know AFI to mean the film institute and the annual awards that go with them, not a US band. Megan1967 03:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect to the AFI dab page. 23skidoo 21:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep the disambiguation please Yuckfoo 01:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As Megan notes, well-known film awards. Capitalistroadster 04:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Capitalistroadster 04:54, 26 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:51, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Mike Magee (poker player)

[edit]

Poker player, not even a world champion poker player, not encyclopedic, delete --nixie 10:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Seems to be notable within the Poker world (which is itself substantial) TigerShark 14:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Just under the bar of notability IMHO. I'm inclinded to think that all winners of WSOP/WPO events, and any poker tournament with an entry fee >= $10,000 (or EUR 5000) are intrinsicly notable. Ditto for any winners of prize >= $1,000,000 in any poker tournament. I will give Mr Magee, credit as PL Hold'em is much much harder than NL Hold'em. Klonimus 23:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Peta on this, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Megan. Radiant_* 11:14, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please because he is notable within his field Yuckfoo 01:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I wrote almost all of the poker player articles we have (not this one, obviously), and I agree this guy is non-notable. Only in England could he be considered well-known, and even then probably only moderately so. The number of players who have a tournament history like him number easily in the thousands, so I don't think there's anything special about him. CryptoDerk 01:22, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: while I have no idea myself of the notability of this particular player, I must note that the phrase "not even world champion" is out of line: even the legend T. J. Cloutier has yet to win the World Series of Poker. - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:41, 29 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:33, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Sergio Seijo

[edit]

I don't think it is a real article. (unsigned, nominated by Bass)

  • Speedy if possible, seems like someone made a new page to try to rectify an article here...?!? You should probably have speedy'd this, I'm fairly confident we don't need to vote on this... do we? I can't think straight at 11:30... Master Thief Garrett 11:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, and please sign your vote proposals. Just a thought. Master Thief Garrett 11:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Martg76 13:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no context, nonsense. Megan1967 03:40, 25 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:50, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Toretto

[edit]

Appears to be vanity, made by a vandal nonetheless --Clngre 13:55, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, vanity, site promo. Megan1967 03:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, not notable. Tobycat 03:01, 28 Apr 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 moink 11:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_Sucks

[edit]

Sure buddy, sure.

  • Speedy Offensive nonsense (not the "Wikipedia Sucks" bit, but the comments on Americans) TigerShark 14:53, 24 Apr 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 already deleted as a copyvio. moink 11:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proffessional wrestlers

[edit]
  • unwikified data dump. Rmhermen 14:49, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep that it is not wikified it does not mean sit is worthless. I wikified the first part just to show that it looks pretty normal once wikified, and it is not hard to wikify, just you need to put * or < br > because in the edit they are written each wrestler in seprate line anyways.DeirYassin 15:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of professional wrestlers (which at least is spelled correctly) and delete RussBlau 15:42, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of professional wrestlers and delete --Headisdead 15:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of professional wrestlers and delete. Megan1967 03:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - it will be hard to merge because this list is by name and that list is by organisations, I doubt there'd be a person who'd know to which organisation/league every of hundreds of those wrestlers in this list belongs/belonged. In that way creating a new article List of professional wrestlers by name might be a better idea.DeirYassin 08:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If no one wants to take ownership of this and perform the merge, it should be deleted. As a side-note, I have to express my suspicions about this article. Based on the format and scope of the original version, I worry that this data dump is also a copyvio. Can anyone confirm or allay that concern? Rossami (talk) 05:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Copyvio.Tobycat 03:03, 28 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:34, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Gil Martinez

[edit]

Delete Not notable, no sources, offensive. RussBlau 15:13, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, speedily if possible, for reasons given by nominator. Thryduulf 20:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, personal attack. Megan1967 03:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm Portuguese and I have never heard about such thing. Martinez, Samuele de Gaunt and Deanes do Flutos are not Portuguese names, and I've never heard about them, sound like Spanish, but I don't know. Afonso Silva 20:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even if this were a real person, the article doesn't explain why he would deserve an article. RickK 19:49, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and all related articles, speedily if possible as possible personal attacks. For Afonso's benefit, "Martinez" is a legitimate Spanish name, "do Flutos" sounds to me like butchered Portuguese or really rude English (how does one "do flutos," anyway?) and "de Gaunt" sounds French but is likely bogus. I love how the vote of a genuine Portuguese leftist caused a sockpuppet panic! Good catch, Afonso! - Lucky 6.9 07:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, probable hoax.-gadfium 08:11, 29 Apr 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. moink 00:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DPPP

[edit]

Summary: (this is to help me and other admins sort out this vote, please correct if I missed your vote).

  • Delete: 11 (Russblau, Uncle G, Megan1967, Wetman, Scuriger, Radiant, Master Thief Garrett, Tobycat, Adun, Blank Verse, DO'Neil.
  • Transwiki: 4 (Jeltz, Tuf-Kat, JIP, Xiong)
  • Keep: 3 (Zaphood, Zscout, Zwilson).

Article when it was first nominated for deletion:[2] Compared to article now: [3]. Only major change is addition of chemical box.

Ok, that's enough info now. Consensus is to delete.

Delete The introduction to this page reads "Please note that this information is presented here in an attempt to stop it from exiting public domain. So from my local copy:" which strongly suggests a copyvio, but without any indication of the source. This is a recipe for concocting an explosive. If it is not a copyvio, then it would appear to be original research. In any event, it is not encyclopedic. RussBlau 15:34, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Don't delete, no copyright was reserved by the author and the whole scheme (I clearly remeber that no copyright was reserved) is based on german patent 1951660 which I will upload a copy shortly. Other similar but not as detailed writeups on explosive synthesis are abound, look at the article acetone peroxide under explosive materials. Allso all the originals are gone from www.sciforums.com And I feel that this is important knowlidge that should be conserved. Sort of like an algorithm for sorting out problems post haste. DPPP patent Zaphood 16:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • You are mistaken in that one never needs to 'reserve' copyright in order for it to apply. Radiant_* 11:15, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transkwiki, shouldn't howtos and recipes be in wikibooks? Jeltz talk 16:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikibooks Tuf-Kat 16:50, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain KeepThis is encyclopedic, but I might add that attempting to make organic peroxides is extremely dangerious. The article needs to be cleaned up, though. I'd like to see the synthesis instructions rewriteen to be a bit more serious though. Klonimus 23:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • No it isn't. It's a how-to. It's not an encyclopaedia article about diphorone pentaperoxide. Uncle G 23:58, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
      • True! It's not an encyclopedic article about DPPP it an encyclopedic article about the synthesis of DPPP, or does it need more scope? It's all there! Zaphood 13:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • No it isn't. It's a how-to. It's not an encyclopaedia article about synthesis. It's a recipe, plain and simple. Uncle G 16:45, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia articles are not source material. Nor is Wikipedia a means for ensuring that knowledge does not become lost. If Zaphood doesn't want knowledge to be lost, xe should publish xyr "local copy" on xyr own web-site. Wikipedia is not a free hosting service. Moreover, the claim that Wikipedia has a similar detailed writeup for the synthesis of acetone peroxide is simply false, as reading that article will attest. This is not an encyclopaedia article. Moreover, don't burden the transwiki system with this when the original author and sole editor is clearly around, and should be encouraged to publish the article in the correct place xemself, directly. Delete. Uncle G 23:58, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
  • Well Nobody has asked for your opinion. Your vote maybe but your drivel about xat and ur is tiresome at best to read. Nobody is begging you to transwiki anything or to even exist. Yes, my world would be a slightly better place without you uncle g, and it eludes me why you took an extended interest in the first place. If you feel your connection with wiki a burden, you are doing the wrong thing with your time, I can only wish that you find a more soothing task to preoccupy your time.Zaphood
  • Comment: I don't think that Wikipedia should become a repository for explosive-making recipes if only because it would open up legal issues in many countries, especially in relation to anti-terrorism laws. If someone is interested in the patent, then there are a number of patent libraries on the internet. SteveW | Talk 00:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: The original authour seems interested in nothing other that keeping explosives information availible to the public (possiblly against legal threats i'm not sure) by using our rescources. I DO NOT oppose us having an article on this substance if it has sufficiant signficance. I do oppose us having bomb making instructions here for no good reason. 01:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a free hosting service. Megan1967 03:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you have something against keeping explosive information in the public know? Why is that? Ever heard the phrase 'if we outlaw guns only outlaws will have them' It has certaint connections to this here. I'm explicitly saying that knowlidge about explosives is vital to anybody who has contact in some form of the other to them. Be it professional, hobby or michevious. I truely believe in the freedom of information, the freedom to learn and know. There are no boundries and no exclusions to this, be it how suspicious or otherwise. And no, I have not recieved any cease and desist letters, I have just noticed as an avid collector of high energy information that this particular gem was exiting the 'know' at lim. lightspeed. And kind of went 'wow this should be accessible to all, it's right down and dirty brilliant knowlidge' wikipedia was a kind of a natural continuation of that thought process. Information in itself is as far as I know legal. What would constitute as a good reason for having bomb making instructions. Well, the need for a bomb obviously. But it's a different thing to say 'here's how to make DPPP' than it is to say 'Psst! take this bomb and kill someone' See my point? There are articles of all kinds of things.. Poisons for example, Just doing an article on deadly nightshade (orsth.) does not imply 'here's the vial, slip it into his lordship's wine before dinner' NPOV. Zaphood 13:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • If you have not received any letters, what is the reason for your apparent unwillingness to publish your own article on your own web site? Uncle G 16:45, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Delete if a private hosting place can be found, otherwise Transwiki to Wikibooks. — JIP | Talk 04:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-encyclopedic. --Wetman 05:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, delete. -- Securiger 10:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Radiant_* 11:15, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, what we have here is a failure to communicate (maily mine) I see your points and will try and make a sort of a forward escape.
  • Zeroth point: cake muffin <- compare
  • Yes one can do thease magical things here in wikipedia, like add stuff to other stuff, Did you discover this by my example ? Well then, consider the wage naught, and I see you went straight away and effected this newly-found ability (it is called editing, now say with me ee-di-ting) to add the 'transfer to the recpie wiki' (orsth) stub to muffin and then had the ultimate grace to come and whine about it on my goddamn VfD? what's up uncle G ? didn't sleep well ? on crack ?Zaphood

the section of the cookbook containing muffin recipes, and it is tagged as such. Uncle G 16:45, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

  • But wasn't till i pointed it out to you Zaphood
  • First, I feel that transwiki would be the smart thing to do. There are allready synthesis for thermite and cyclonite under chemistry there. But I really feel that I do not have the competence to write a textbook or a manual on synthesis or any subgategory thereof. I just happen to have first hand knowlidge that this synthesis works and has been sort of a status quo way of obtaining DPPP.
    • Transwiki would be the lazy thing to do. Please stop attempting to burden other editors with a complex transwikification task when you, as the original author, are right here, apparently perfectly capable of submitting text to a wiki, and can submit your own original article yourself. Uncle G 16:45, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Please accept this uncle g I would consider it an insult if you were to transwiki anything of mine. I trust your ability not and even you dount your resolve and energyZaphood
  • Second (not a hosting service): Point 2 states that material not used in a encyclopedic article are bad. Well I looked up encyclopedic and I really can't see the basis on which you state that this wiki entry does not have the qualities. It is educational, it is how should I put this, part of the circle of learning if you are looking for information on organic peroxides. All the uploaded pictures are used and the patent is on this VfD page, so I'm not hosting bull per se.
    • It's a how-to, a recipe indeed, not an encyclopaedia article, as explained. The articles at Wikibooks, such as the cocktail mixing instructions in the Bartending book, are "educational", too (intentionally so, indeed, as part of Wikibooks' remit to hold "instructional materials"). But they aren't encyclopaedia articles either. Uncle G 16:45, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Article being trivial: Well DPPP is considered the 'holy grail' of organic peroxides. It outstands in many ways compared to other 'easy' synthesis of similar material. First of all it's safe compared to the others, It's not too sensitive if stored right and is probably the fastest explosive around outrunning C4, TNT, RDX and just about anything except a few exotic compounds that have no use except as curios.
  • The copyright again. I'm saying it is in the public domain. If the original author who worded the synthesis came around he would not mind at all. And if he did I find it strange considering that this was released on the sciforums forum and discussed there extensivly untill someone desided it's too simple and too effective to be let sit where anyone can learn it.
  • Hosting it on my webserv: Well how would that help someone relying on wikipedia for knowlidge. I can't very well put a link to my homepage on wikipedia now can I ? wikipedia is not a linkfarm (pun)
    • Wikipedia is not the only way to publish stuff. Funnily enough, the World Wide Web contains more than just Wikipedia. It also contains your own web site, just as it contains my web sites, where I publish knowledge that I don't want to be lost. Uncle G 16:45, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Yeah uncle g spare me the rethoric, I'm not like you and you do what you see best, I do what I see best but I really could not care less about your practices uncle g.Zaphood
  • Legal issues other than copyright: I know it's a bum having your twin towers blown up but frankly, this has nothing to do with that or the laws that followed. If some country want's to orwellianalize the world, that's the shortcoming of the people who let that goverment do that, not the fault of the internet, not the fault of free information exchange, not the fault of learning interesting stuff and certainly not the fault of my finnish ass. Fine your homeland security act says that your MiB's can come here and put a slug in my head (read it it really gives the right to go on foregin soil and kill 'terrorists' (ie. anybody who is not playing on team america) without scrutiny) But after me, someone is bound to find this or similar in a book, and think 'wow this is great, why isn't it in the f*cking encyclopedia' Well if all the books aren't burnt and his emotion controll chip let's him have emotions such as 'wow'
    • Assuming that all Wikipedians are United States citizens isn't going to convince people that your arguments have merit. Uncle G 16:45, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Well I used the term 'your' in the sence that they weren't MINE. Tell me uncle g where are you from?

I'd bet a cup of stale coffe and a napkin you are from U.S. or her former colonial master the brits, which pretty much merits 'scum of the earth' in my book but what have you..?Zaphood

  • Bomb making instructions: There isn't a way around this 'm afraid. If you put yeast and sugar in water, put that in a bottle and close the cap, what do you have? An improvised explosive device with a built in timer. It's all in the perspective, I think NPOV states that you should not assume that something is used for bad, when valid causes can easily be found. That pesky tree stump in the field, the warm fuzzy feeling of having a couple of kilos of high explosives under the bed, that painfull tooth, etc... And if your 12yr old son without your knowlidge should want to make explosives, which would you choose: Poor info that ends your kid in a grave OR Good info that keeps him safe ? Think about it.. Because of good info I still can type (a mishap with ammonia and iodine, but i was lucky because I knew it's gonna make a bang, just had no proportion, but I was afraid of the stuff and that's because of good info and that's what saved my fingers)
  • The patent: This synthesis is superior to the patent 1) It has pictures 2)German patents are only accessible to german speaking people 3)If you are looking for information on ketchup, would you rather a)google the recepie b)work on a tomato farm ? I'm willing to bet a pack of cigarettes that you can't find this german patent because of a) you are lazy enough to weigh a pack of cigarettes lower than a trip to the public (patent) library b) You need a german patent library. (will send 1 pack of ciggies upon proof of discovery and a mailing address, offer valid if I have a spare pack of ciggies) Zaphood 13:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well that was exactly not the point i were trying to demonstrate, but close. The point is that there are easy ways of doing things and hard ways. And i am trying to facilitate a easy way for people who have the interest, to find out about this particular organic peroxide. Zaphood
  • Delete, non-encyclopedic. And, if anything, someone who can read German will blow themselves up or something crazy like that. And we don't want a lawsuit on our hands. Although no doubt many Wikipedians are lawyers, that doesn't mean we'd win... Master Thief Garrett 21:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete: Wikipedia should not have bomb recipies listed as articles, even moreso if they are non encyclapedic, I really hope this is deleted as Wikipedia could get in a lot of legal trouble for this.Deathawk 03:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:193.229.219.152 is vandalising other people's votes and comments. — JIP | Talk 06:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I was most certaintly not vandalizing anything. I just choose to format my comment a bit differentlty. I used one vote which I Bolded and learn to use the diff button if something is unclear. I did not change anyone's vote. What I did was Editing boldly, not vandalizing anything. please stand corrected. My vote is still keep And I'm sorry if you find my honest and pointy commentary too much 193.229.219.152 12:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • And you don't call this vandalism?
        *Delete Execllent work. Plese don't delete if a private hosting place can be found, otherwise Transwiki to Wikibooks. — JIP | Talk 04:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        You inserted the words "Execllent work. Plese don't delete" [sic] in the middle of my vote, making it look like I voted "please don't delete if a private hosting place can be found". That sure meets my criteria for vandalism. — JIP | Talk 12:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Well. I figured that in the spirit of wiki, only the bolded part is the actual vote and the rest is just commentary. And since I signed in the middle of the whole discussion I thought that just maybe if someone get's confused on what is actually happening they would diff the 'suspect'
          But, I am really sorry if anyone thought that I was JIP or anyone else I inserted something into. Like the 'why' after someones commentless DELvote
          pardon JIP, others. 193.229.219.152 12:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • OK, thanks for the explanation, I can live with that. But please, next time write your comments underneath the text, not in the middle of it, to make it stand out from others' work. — JIP | Talk 13:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • nono, that was me, sorry I accidentally logged out before saving the page. Master Thief Garrett 06:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)Nope, I'm wrong again, that was a different page where I was logged out. Master Thief Garrett 06:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I thought it was weird when you said it was you, as the anonymous user's editing style is different from yours, and you voted "delete" when the anonymous user wrote supportive comments. — JIP | Talk 07:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and cleanup. I personally think a chemical like this will stay, since we have other chemicals. Though, the way this is set up, it is more of a how-to instead of knowledge. Wikibooks is more of a how-to type area. As for the legal things, if we can have detailed information about a GLOCK, I am sure we can keep this somewhere on Wikimedia servers. However, if people really think this should be hosted on a private server, I will try to host it on mine or I will clean up the article at my home, work and school. Science is not my best subject, but let's see what I can do to this. Zscout370 (talk) 02:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I think I will have a go at making the synthesis more formal.
  1. Charge a 600ml flask with 200mL 35% HCL and 200 mL Reagent Acetone in a cooled vessel.
    Heat under reflux for 3hr at 50*C.
    When swirled around the beaker, it the solution should leave an orange glaze on the glass.

(Colors will follow this pattern: Clear, light yellow, orange, dark orange, wine red, black-orange, and black-red.)

  1. Allow the mixture to cool to room temperature, and wait 10-12hr to allow any unreacted acetone to evaporate
    Place the room tempearture mixture in a cold freezer (-10*C) to precipitate the Phorone DiHydrogen Chloride.
    Chill 250 Ml of 35% H2O2 in a refigerator. Do not allow to freeze, as this can result in the formation of unstable reagions of superconcentrated H2O2.
    Prepare a salt-ice bath, and transfer the Phorone DiHydrogen Chloride solution to a beaker in the Ice Bath.. Add 5 mL of chilled H2O2 at a time to the flask with the phorone DiHCL. This is an exothermic reaction. Do not let the reaction temperature rise above 5*C or the reactancts may start to decompose in a violent explosion.
    After all the H2O2 has been added, allow the mixture react in a freezer for 5 hrs.
    When the reaction is complete, there will be a pasty lemon yellow precipitate.
    Decant and collect the precipiate.
    Wash the precipiated with Sodium Bicarbonate solution, and rinse with deionized water.
    • I say it again, with my hat on as one of the people who transwikifies articles: Don't burden the transwiki system with this when the original author is clearly around right now, and should be encouraged to publish the article in the correct place xemself, directly, right now. Wikibooks is a wiki. Anyone who can (demonstrably) write an article here can write the same article there. Putting this through the transwiki system is burdening other editors such as me with a lot of complex edits; whereas it's very simple for the original author to submit the original article directly. As one of the editors who shoulders that burden, I object to it being placed upon me in completely unnecessary situations such as this one. Uncle G 16:45, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. potentially dangerous...can a neutral party (a chemist) validate that this 'recipe' is even correct and that the instructions won't result in someone blowing their arm off or passing out from fumes? This is high risk content if we leave it in. Tobycat 03:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't know much about that reaction but nothing stands out as a real no no (other than the product). I mean sure I would only do this in a fume cuboard. Persoanly I suspect anyone caperble of produceing a decent yield from that reaction is going to be a good enough chemist not to be relying on wikipeidia for thier recipies.Geni 21:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really dont like the idea of mixing 35% H2O2 with anything organic. It's an excellent way to create an explosion. Acetone peroxides are just plain unsafe. Klonimus 03:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well yes, it releases some chlorine fumes. In this scale hardly enough to 'choke' someone but I have intimate knowlidge about this synthesis and the once wide discussions about it on chemistry webforums. But dangerous fumes do occur. This is covered by the risk disclaimer. As for the blowing arms off: It is not all that sensitive while wet of either acetone or water, nor does it explode if the synthesis is followed and temperatures in excess of boiling are not allowed to happen in the cool bit of the synthesis, even so I doubt it very much it would actually explode, just spoil the process. Well in thease levels of confinement and scale. And yes, some rephrasing would be in order for it to remain in the actual cyclopedic part of wiki. As for the legal entanglements, I very much doubt that anyone outside the brainwash scheme of the media actually doubts terrorists ability to get hold of high explosives. So for the rest of the world it's just information like any other. I really have to wonder why goverments should be to only ones with the ability to release joule in a short period. After all commoners like everybody actually do the inventing. The know how should not escape the public know. I agree with Zaphood, wont vote again, but i will say again: keep.193.229.219.152 22:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, Delete, unless validated. Adun 23:38, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just want due process, and at the end of that process if the admin desides the article has to go, i would like the opportunity to transwiki it myself. And please be noted that I will try to pursue all avenues availiable to keep this article in wikipedia where it belongs IMHO. Such as the undelete route. AND why is the risk disclaimer taken off (by uncle G again I suspect) I feel that it was in the right place there. I would very much like to see it re-instated. And yet another thing, why is the phorone patent under copyvio flags (by uncle G again)? It's so much bullshit uncle g, your opinion is clear, I request that you voluntarily stay away from anything that could be considered 'works' of mine. just because I don't like you and I'm willing to ask you to quit getting on my case voluntarily. I feel that wikipedia is not a mud wrestling pit

Zaphood 12:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - not encyclopedic, needs validation, possibly dangerous, possible copyright violation....--62.253.128.13 21:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Dear 62,253.128.13 please see guns drugs rock and roll and for the possibly dangerous bit please see knifeZaphood 14:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the numerous reasons listed above. Also, from a quick check on the internet, this looks to be a fairly powerful explosive that can be created from easily obtainable ingredients. I would suggest that an admin blank the page and then protect it while this vote is going on. If someone want to create an article about the substance, but NOT the making of it, then they should do it at diphorone pentaperoxide or diphoronepentaperoxide. BlankVerse ∅ 02:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's unencyclopædic (Wikipedia is not a sourcebook), and there are too many potential legal entanglements. DO'Иeil 07:39, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • C4 explosive 265 words vs. DPPP 302 words (with pictures and the Votes for Deletion Template) Should they both be here then? as far as encyclopedidness goes.. or shelf life???.193.229.219.152 23:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is that, as Blank Verse said, any crackpot with a credit card can acquire the ingredients for DPPP, whereas C4 is more "refined". It's a plastic explosive, you can't just brew that stuff up with zero training and a garden shed. Sure someone could in theory collect its ingredients and work out how to make it, but if they really wanna make something that goes boom there are much easier ways. And THIS is one of them! Master Thief Garrett 00:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Keep phat phaggots


Abstain I feel the need to put in my two cents worth; May I draw your attention to the exhaustive (but still amateur) discussion of diPhoro-Penta-peroxide on the sciencemadness.org pages: http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=179 . You have to remember that many of the members there have no formal chemical education (and although many do, including myself, there is a lot of dilly-dallying). A few things become clear during the long discussion; After three native German speakers with formal chemical educations examined the patent, in addition to the review of literal and non-literal translations into English: it was determined that the patent is very vague on the process, and key steps and methods are [opinion: deliberately] omitted. Basically, the patent does not provide a formal method of synthesis.

The synthesis here is also very unscientific, irresponsible and possibly a copy violation. That being said, I would like to change the article so it can be kept. From a chemistry major, this kind of thing is pretty interesting [strange to you probably!] I am suggesting collaboration between aforementioned proper scientists and Wiki to create an encyclopaedic article, with as little reference to synthesis as possible. Would you all be prepared to keep the article if it were changed from a backyard syth. page to an article discussing the actual compound? Keeping in mind that all information was researched independently, and often factually verified by many people at university facilities - if you were worrying about verisimilitude.

Sincerely ‘Ramiel’, sciencemadness.org moderator, Chemistry Major.

post sans Master Thief Garret: Unless performed correctly (and I will reiterate that this is not a correct method for the preparation of pure DPPP) the synthesis will only result in acetone peroxide. To actually produce DPPP you need a proper understanding of some fairly advanced laboratory method, some expensive glassware, or failing those two – the ability to buy in restricted chemicals. Please don’t shoot your mouth off ;) Furthermore, a number of lead block tests for sensitivity have been independently performed on pure DPPP, and found that it has a surprisingly high tolerance to shock when compared to other complex organic peroxides... just so you know.

Definetly needs to go to wikibooks see wikibooks:Chemical synthesis:Cyclonite synthesisGeni 01:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Wikibooks, yes. Once it is there, it is the concern of the Wikibooksians. (Purely as a side note, I agree that such information needs to be preserved, but then I come from the land of the Second Amendment.) — Xiong熊talk*

Keep but edit to make this a proper encyclopedia article about the compound, and move the instructions to Wikibooks. Zwilson 18:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. moink 11:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Centauran

[edit]

The entire article is non-canonical Fanon, later completely disproved by Star Trek: Enterprise

Delete - The entire Centauran concept was started as a fan theory based on one line in the Original Series episode "Metamorphosis" where Zephram Cochrane, the inventor of Warp Drive was referred to as "Zephram Cochrane of Alpha Centauri". For three decades of Star Trek, that was the only official reference to Alpha Centauri and its inhabitants. Star Trek: First Contact in 1998 established that Mr. Cochrane was originally from Earth, and presumably moved to Alpha Centauri after inventing Warp Drive, since the entire plot of the movie was about his first warp flight, launched from Earth, and he'd never been in space before.

Then, Star Trek: Enterprise comes along, as a series set only a century after Cochrane's flight, and spaceflight takes place much closer to the worlds of the Original Series, and even focuses on the founding of the Federation. Presumably the Centauran race would show up even once, instead they are never mentioned. Instead the episode "Twilight" it is explicitly stated that Alpha Centauri was one of the few Earth colony worlds that existed in the Enterprise era. "Terra Nova" established that the more distant Terra Nova colony was the first Earth colony to be built on an inhabitable world (instead of presumably having pressure domes), so at least originally and in the Enterprise era all the worlds of Alpha Centauri cannot sustain native humanoid life (without later terraforming). In the episode "Zero Hour" where we actually see the founding of the United Federation of Planets, the founding worlds were explictly stated to be Earth, Tellar, Andor and Vulcan. By this point the Centaurans have been explictly shown not to exist.

The Centauran race was a popular matter of Fanon, and typically used widely in the FASA and Last Unicorn Games Role Playing Games, and in many of the novels, but they don't have a shred of evidence making them anything canonical, instead evidence points very strongly to their nonexistence.

  • Keep, as per unsigned nominator: "The Centauran race was a popular matter of Fanon, and typically used widely in the FASA and Last Unicorn Games Role Playing Games, and in many of the novels...." Add a section to the article about how it's fanon-only. FreplySpang (talk) 16:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As this race has appeared in non-canonical published sources, they are a legitimate subject. However, I do feel that someone with some knowledge of the subject should separate out fan speculation from published fact. Despite how the Star Trek wikiproject may feel, fanon does not belong in wikipedia as it is bereft of actual, verifiable facts. If pruning such material would render the article too small to stand on its own, the remaining material should be merged someplace else. Indrian 19:31, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Indrian. Anilocra 23:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Give it a rest guys, no non-Trekkie cares whether an imaginary race is "canonical" or not. If there's a lot of fan fiction and other unauthorized stuff about the Centaurans, then they're notable. For accuracy's sake, the fact that they were invented by fans instead of by a Paramount studio hack needs to be mentioned. But that's a pretty minor detail. ---Isaac R 23:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as long as it has been in published works however I think the article needs to mention what those works are and that it's not actually ST canon. I suppose what I mean is that it's canon for various novels and RPGs, just not Star Trek itself. -- Lochaber 00:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Legitimate entry. Megan1967 03:50, 25 Apr 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 skinhead moink 11:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan Skinheads

[edit]

Duplicates info on Skinhead and Two Tone. The first paragraph is merely a dicdef and is similar to what is given for the "traditional skinheads" category on Skinhead, which category explicitly includes Trojan Skinheads. The terms are essentially synonymous, and any difference is individual interpretation. The remainder of this article gives "Trojan Skinheads" a weakly related and unverifiable definition (no supporting hits on Google) as a "music style" and movement or period subculture in the UK, but the same author used identical text to define Two Tone and the latter term is widely used for the music. If the vote is to keep, with the idea that there may be more to say about Trojan Skinheads as a distinct group (doubtful), then all but the first paragraph should be deleted, the page should be marked as a stub, and it should be renamed to the singular. - Unconventional 17:16, 24 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:35, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Reversed

[edit]

Non-notable band. Motion to delete Linuxbeak 17:09, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - they fall way below the relevant notability criteria if they haven't even finished a demo yet. Thryduulf 20:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Anilocra 22:58, 24 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:36, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Cool bounce

[edit]

Non notable neologism. Delete. - Marcika 17:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Note: this VfD page was then blanked by User:65.82.170.79, the creator of the "cool bounce" article, who also removed the VfD notice from the article itself.) -- The Anome 20:06, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
The same user has come back, and replaced the whole text with the message "Not worth this. Delete it. -- Author". Then somebody (possibly the same person, but using a different IP) came back and changed it twice, first to blank out the previous message, then to link WP:bite. I think somebody's feelings have been hurt! ---Isaac R 04:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not notable. Delete. -- The Anome 20:06, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I mean, duh, it's a word coined in the last 4 months by a 5-year-old (according to the article). Isn't this a candidate for speedy deletion? ---Isaac R 22:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 03:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Master Thief Garrett 11:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism Dsmdgold 14:45, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Zscout370 22:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It may be cool, but it's really neologism. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article has been tagged as speedy since the original author has now requested it to be deleted. [4] Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:58, 25 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:36, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Labelle

[edit]

Non-notable and absolutely inaccurate: it's not even likely to be in the top 20. Circeus 18:06, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to LaBelle. Thryduulf 20:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Labelle. As family name this one-phrase-article can be deleted.
  • Redirect to LaBelle. Tobycat 23:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to LaBelle since the "b" is lowercase. --SuperDude 04:50, 25 Apr 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. moink 11:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Friendly level

[edit]

I'm not sure what this is, but it does not appear to be an encyclopedia article: appears to be idiosyncratic / original research. -- The Anome 18:18, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)]

  • Bizarre - google search returns 0 hits. I think someone made this up... delete. quiffhanger
  • Please wait a bit. A newcomer user:80.53.83.194 is doing some global development in good faith. It looks like this is going to be kind of legend for his tables. Please see his contibutions and give him an advice how to proceed according to wiippedia rules. Mikkalai 20:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • He must state his source. If he has created the table himself it must be considered original research, and be deleted. Eixo 21:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • You seem to not understand what I am saying. It is not a "research". It is a "legend". AFAIK the guy intends to write a series of articles about gay rights in many countries. Please look at Gay Rights in Poland for example. It has an entry: "Gay Friendly level: 4.0". IMO this way is much clear than he would write in every article one and the same text:
      ... exists some antidiscrimination law or recognition of cohabiting same sex couples. Gay scene is good, and community is tolerant. But there are some prejudices. There is no discrimination in law. (this corresponds to level 4; the same for other levels).
    • I repeat, the editor needs help, not a mere deletion. Mikkalai 02:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't know, Mikkalai--if it's a Level assigned by some organization, then he should cite a source. If it's a shorthand he's developed himself, then it does seem to come pretty close to original research. Trying to evaluate the quality of the local "gay scene" (as "great", "good", "small", with various qualifiers) is something that's awfully difficult to NPOV. For the political and civil rights categories in the series of articles, he might be better off just adopting one or more of the measures from List of Indices of Freedom. I've gotta go with delete here. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreeing with TenOfAllTrades here; this scale of "LGBT friendliness" is the creation of the user user:80.53.83.194 and not any kind of more widely used definition. It does not belong to mainspace. If s/he wants to preserve it, s/he should register and place it under hir own user page. As far as I am concerned, it seems interesting althought overtly generalistic - Skysmith 09:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm sticking to my story here. This “legend” constitutes a table of categorisation, and must as such necessarily be considered a piece of original scholarship by its creator. The information involved here is far too complex and ambiguous to be rated on a simple scale. I appreciate what the creator is trying to do, but either an external source should be quoted, or each entry should be treated separately. Eixo 12:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to call this original research, or neologism, or something like that. Weak delete unless a source is provided. Radiant_* 15:39, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, I say. Aris Katsaris 00:21, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even as a categorisation scheme it is still original research. The categorization scheme is not encyclopedic in and of itself. It doesn't represent a body of knowledge. Kudos to the guy attempting this, though...looks like a valiant, of not well thought out, start of an ambitious project. If reframed and carefully researched something similar to this could work, but this isn't it.Tobycat 03:33, 28 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:37, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Andy Carrico

[edit]

Delete as a journal entry (?) of some kid, I think. Certainly not an encyclopedic entry. Joyous 18:50, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. As Joyous states, this reads like someone's blog entry. Average Earthman 19:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personal essay more suited for a journal. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a blog. Dsmdgold 15:06, Apr 25, 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 moink 08:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Invigilator

[edit]

Dictdef. The page has already been transwikied to wiktionary. RickK 19:07, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless someone can think of a useful place to redirect it (Standardized testing?). I admit when I transwikied it I was surprised to find that it was a word :) --Dmcdevit 19:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) (vote changed --Dmcdevit 20:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC))
  • redirect to Test (student assessment) or Standardized test/Standardized testing (they have merge tags, but it's not obvious which will be kept). It is a word that I became all too familiar with from the first exams I had to sit when I was about 11 or 12, right through to univesity. Thryduulf 20:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I was unsure of the redirect as I had no idea how common the term was. I'll go by your experience and change my vote. --Dmcdevit 20:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • We use redirects a lot, even for uncommon terms :) Radiant_* 15:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
        • Ah, true... But not usually for words I hadn't heard of until I looked them up in the dictionary to make sure it's not a hoax before putting it in Wiktionary. But I guess I'm just dumb. :) --Dmcdevit 22:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Perhaps its a term peculiar to the UK? Thryduulf 22:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • I think so now. In fact, just today I came upon it's usage in International Baccalaureate papers talking about the May tests. They go by all British spelling/wording, so that explains my (American) non-understanding. Definitely redirect. I've heard the same position referred to as a "proctor" over here. --Dmcdevit 00:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • Now I would have had no idea what a "proctor" was before reading your message! Perhaps its one for the article about UK/USA English differences? Thryduulf 08:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • Wow! Are you really speaking the same language? :) --Dmcdevit 22:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                  • Somebody once said that "England and America are two nations divded by a common language"! (I don't know who though, a web search shows attributions to one of Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw and Oscar Wilde). Thryduulf 23:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                    • Well, at least we both use pounds! (yours are for weight too, right?) --Dmcdevit 23:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                      • We use pounds for weight and currency. And if that isn't confusing enough, we also use kilograms for weight (but not yet Euros for currency!). Thryduulf 23:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                        • Bet you didn't know we use kilos (shortened like that),too, but only for narcotics. I don't know why... --Dmcdevit 23:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a dicdef. It's already in Wiktionary. The suggestion to redirect does not make sense to me in this case. First, the term can apply to examiners of all tests, not merely standardized tests. Second, none of the recommended pages actually use the term "invigilator" (or "proctor"). If I followed such a link, I would be more confused than helped. Based on the current state of the articles, I have to recommend a straight delete. Rossami (talk) 05:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Lack of mention in the recommended redirect does not mean we should delete it. It just means we should merge and redirect, and it will be there. --Dmcdevit 21:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • A fair comment if you can find a way to do it that fits with the flow, content and topic of the current articles. I tried briefly last night and decided not to save my change. I felt I was making the article worse, not better. Rossami (talk) 00:17, 28 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:38, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Pootron bomb

[edit]

Has only four hits on a google search, therefore unable to establish notability. I'm sure I've heard of such a weapon somewhere before, but never heard it referred to as the "Pootron". Oliver Keenan 20:12, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, very likely hoax or joke. The "inventor"'s name "A. Johnson" is most likely intentionally chosen to frustrate any Google searching. If it existed at all, the article would need to be created under its real name, because Google hits show that it is not known at all under the current title. -- Curps 21:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's further evidence of a hoax, since... well, see Things called Johnson.
  • Delete, probably hoax or joke. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. Megan1967 03:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. Oliver, you're probably thinking of brown note. Gazpacho 11:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary moink 08:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kjetil

[edit]

This is a dictionary definition of a Norwegian personal name (apparently it means "Kettle" or "War-like spirit"). The external image linked is graph with virtually no titleing, it shows "Kjetil" as a percentage (of what I don't know) over time since about 1800.
I don't know if either the English or Norwegian Wikitionaries would be interested in this? Thryduulf 20:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary and then delete here. --Angr/comhrá 21:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. Megan1967 03:57, 25 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:38, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

List of conservative catchphrases

[edit]

POV article. Includes in the list of "conservative catchphrases" statements such as "Make the rich richer" and "Jesus loves everyone, except if your (sic) gay, or black". LevelCheck 20:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox --Allen3 talk 21:20, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Could be conceivably non-POVed, but this isn't really a topic for an encyclopedia. Meelar (talk) 22:11, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Meelar said. Josh Cherry 03:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Conservative, perhaps in a "criticism" section. Doesn't merit its own article. — JIP | Talk 04:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is crap. Firebug 04:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some of those phrases are liberal, not conservative, used by liberals when describing the conservative mind. Completely POV. Sjakkalle 07:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yeah, this is a hacked together list of steriotypes, things people would very rarely say seriously. J.S. Nelson 07:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've only heard six of these used genuinely by conservatives; the rest are concocted POV. —Seselwa 15:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rossami (talk) 05:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV. Secretcurse 01:35, 29 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 18:32, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hollywood English

[edit]

Summary to help me and other admins: Votes broke down as follows:

  • Delete 9: Angr, RickK, Calton, Uncle G, Megan1967, Postdlf, Lucky 6.9, Kevin Rector, Rossami
  • Keep 4: Zzyzx11, Charles Matthews, Lotsofissues, adamsan
  • Master Thief Garrett's vote appears to be a delete as the article has not improved much.

10/14=71%.

Page when it was first nominated for deletion: [5] which is different from now in these ways: [6], that is, with very little added material.

Delete as a neologism. It's certainly true that most American actors don't do British accents well (vice versa is true as well; remember Emma Thompson in Primary Colors?), but "Hollywood English" is not a well-known term for the phenomenon. The claim that the accent in question has a "distinct Australian undertone" is POV, as it probably only sounds Australian to Brits, but not to Australians. The claim that the accent involves "tension on vowels" is meaningless without a definition of "tension"; if tenseness is what's meant, well, probably all accents of English use tenseness as a vowel feature. --Angr/comhrá 20:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No credible third party references. Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep and tag it as {{cleanup}}. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The content is all true enough. Charles Matthews 20:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • But, this article currently does not cite its references or sources. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Then tag it as {{cleanup}}. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • OK, [7] calls this 'Fake Brit', which would be a good title (Spike from Buffy - also nice example since he's closer than DvD ever was - no cigar, though).Charles Matthews
  • This is not a neologism entry - but an observation of Hollywood portrayed English accents. Your further reasons are suggestions for improvement of the article. keep, fix what you want - it seems you have opinions. And a lack of citations is most certainly not a reason to delete in a largely unsupported encyclopedia. Lotsofissues 21:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course it's a neologism: can you point me to four places it's being used? And lack of citations = lack of verifiability = non-encyclopedic = a very good reason to delete. --Calton | Talk 00:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep if expanded/improved, Delete if not. Master Thief Garrett 21:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, neologism, POV. RickK 23:15, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, POV. Smells of a British movie fan's peculiar obsession - kind of like the firm belief among some British movie fans that British character roles are exclusively used for villians in Hollywood movies. --Calton | Talk 00:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not persuaded that a concept of Hollywood English actually exists. There are a wide range of individual actors, of varying degrees of ability at imitating foreign accents, and a wide range of characters with different English accents to be portrayed. There's no single overarching Hollywood English pronunciation standard that they all adhere to. (Indeed, for the better actors, quite the opposite.) Zzyzx11 has struck out xyr rationale above, but I echo it for the article as a whole. I'd like to see sources for this being an actual recognized linguistic concept, on a par with Indian English, Australian English, Scottish English, Irish English, American English, Received pronunciation and others (all of which cite at least one source using the term). None have as yet been provided, so my vote is currently Delete. Uncle G 00:35, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV, neologism, original research. Megan1967 03:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for all above reasons. Postdlf 06:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the Dick van Dyke accent phenomenon alone shows this is not original research. Although there is no single type of Hollywood English accent, the universal awfulness of Americans' attempts to sound 'Briddish' is well known in the UK even if the Yanks are oblivious to it. adamsan 18:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Your provincialism is showing. I've seen my fair share of British domestic entertainment (the kind that normally doesn't get to a wide American audience) to know about the near-universal awfulness of British actors attempting American accents. Hint for British actors: Bronx/Brooklyn and Hillbilly are not the only two speech modes available to Americans, even if the Brits are oblivious to it. --Calton | Talk 01:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • My point is that this is a known phenomenon and therefore could be a valid article. Your problems with RADA American are for another time. adamsan 09:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • My point is that this is a neologism, a pile of original research carrying a load of narrow provincialist axe-grinding with no citeable basis. Clear enough? --Calton | Talk 15:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I didn't ask for clarification of your assumptions but thank you for providing it anyway. If it's the limited cite-ability of the term you object to, then perhaps we can arrive at a more acceptable name whence it can be moved. I have already demonstrated the meme value of Mr Van Dyke's Cockney accent and see potential for a valid article. Best wishes adamsan 15:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I really need to stop visiting this page anonymously while on Wikivacation.  :^) Anyway, the phenomenon is real enough. I just don't know what the proper term is, if any. I was in a stage production of A Christmas Carol about four years ago. One of the cast members was from London and he absolutely cringed at some of the accents. Patsy Garrett was in the cast and her Cockney was on the nose. With a bit of help, I was able to cultivate a pretty good London accent, but it wasn't easy. Anyway, I'm going delete for the time being because this comes off as original but well-stated research. - Lucky 6.9 03:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Kevin Rector (talk) 03:42, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • A Google search on the exact phrase "Hollywood English" returns a fair number of hits but of the first 100, only three refer to an accent and none of the three use the term in the way described in this article. Without an authoritative source, this is a neologism/original research. Delete. Rossami (talk) 06:06, 27 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Magic Society of the White Flame

[edit]

0 Google hits the former name yields 19 hits - nonnotable/advertising in my judgement - also added org to list of occultists Lotsofissues 21:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, as above. And yes, probably an ad. Master Thief Garrett 21:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable coven. RickK 23:17, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 04:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, not advertising. The only organization in the Western world that teaches Arabic magic in English.Soror IAM 20:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Soror IAM (talk · contribs) has two edits, both to this VfD.
  • Keep, notable. I have known of the Organization for quite a few years. I have seen their presence on discussion groups, and even in a couple of books. thesenior 22:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) thesenior (talk · contribs) has three edits, all to this VfD.
  • Delete. Notability issues. jni 08:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete wikispam--nixie 03:37, 29 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hardz

[edit]

Currently a company advertisement. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, Wikipedia is not your free billboard. Whoah, looks like an "our mission" whitepaper. Master Thief Garrett 21:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising; not encyclopedic. Tobycat 03:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete wikispam--nixie 03:38, 29 Apr 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 moink 01:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asian witchcraft

[edit]

I'm finding this slightly confusing as some of the votes seem ambiguous. It appears to me to be:

  • Delete: 0? Ok...
  • Keep: Master Thief Garrett, Meelar, Eiko, Tim Rhymeless
  • Merge: Megan1967

That's a pretty clear consensus to keep, then.

Delete. This should be covered sufficiently by other articles. The example is random and unscientific. Eixo 21:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. As above. Master Thief Garrett 21:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep if Expanded. Master Thief Garrett 23:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What other articles would this be covered by? If you guys give a good example of where this coverage is, merge and redirect, but until then, keep and tag for cleanup. Meelar (talk) 22:10, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Witchcraft. Stubby article could be merged there. Witchcraft already lists European and African but no Asian so it can be perfectly slotted in there provided the information can be verified. Megan1967 04:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You're right. It has a right to live, I've put up a tag for attention instead. The article should deal seperately with each of the major cultural spheres of the continent. I've tried to give some structure to it, but I haven't written anything yet. Eixo 13:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Eixo. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:09, 29 Apr 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 same result as the original vote (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of the Great Boners of all time): no consensus --cesarb 22:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of incidents famously considered great blunders, formerly List of the Great Boners of all time

[edit]

THIS IS A REVOTE of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of the Great Boners of all time. The article has been hugely rewritten, and two people have called for a revote. The conditions of the revote semi-policy have thus been fully met. Please recast your votes. Master Thief Garrett 21:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) There is NO such thing as a revote semi-policy, note that your votes here may or may not be counted when this mess is resolved. Master Thief Garrett 00:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as far as I know, there is no revote semi-policy. --cesarb 21:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Revotes on Vfd... orrr, wait, is that not semi-policy?!? ....uh-oh... ah well, what is done is done I guess... Master Thief Garrett 21:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Notice that page was created by your friend Pioneer-12... --cesarb 22:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm considering taking this whole thing to Requests for Comment. I haven't seen shenenigans like this since Florida in 2000. Moncrief 22:27, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
I have noticed that now, and I would have not done so had I known that... sigh... I just assumed he'd just happend to find a cool new idea that was being considered as policy that fitted our voting needs perfectly. As it is, many could claim he created that page just to get a revote... I don't really know... Master Thief Garrett 22:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am deeply sorry if I have inconvenienced people. Now while I won't exactly say Pioneer "decieved" me, as I could have checked the author(s) of the page, he did not say that he had only just created it himself. Again, I AM very sorry. Master Thief Garrett 22:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, what a mess this is. I never intended for this page to be created. See my statement here. MTG, thank you for trying. I thought that I had clearly indicated that "Revotes on Vfd" was just a proposal and that I did not intend it to be used, but clearly my wording was unclear. My bad. - Pioneer-12 03:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
nah, my bad too for actually acting on your ambiguities! But ultimately I think we should stop using this page, go back to the other one, continue the vote as if nothing had happened, and see what comes of it... Master Thief Garrett 04:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Would it be sensible to ask an admin to just put this page in an archive or something, since we're the ones responsible, and we both think it's a bad idea? - Pioneer-12 04:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't know how you go about getting an admin/sysop to help, but I think it's a good idea to. There are still people adding votes to this page, but most are probably angry revotes and a couple of new ones... Master Thief Garrett 04:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I considered putting this page itself on VfD, but I figured it would just make things worse. android↔talk 04:29, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
A voting for deletion about a vote for deleton about a revote on a vote for deletion?!?--I had to reread this line about three times to make sure it read right. That line alone makes it sound bad and confusing. Thank goodness you didn't! Master Thief Garrett 06:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think we should nominate this page for Vfd just for the inherent absurdity of the idea. :-) After all, this page IS unencyclopedic and inherently POV. - Pioneer-12 08:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inherently and unavoidably POV. Moncrief 21:50, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This list is far too widespread and all-encompassing--it will bloat like there's no tomorrow. Also, it will turn into a POV battleground--how many days do you think we have until someone inserts the Iraq war or the founding of Israel? This topic is loosely encyclopedic at best--there's no call for it, and the numerous problems of this article will just undermine the whole effort. Meelar (talk) 22:08, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Re: "bloat" - Why should a large potential for expansion be a negative thing? If the list ever gets too long, it can be divided by subtopic. Re: POV battleground - The topic is definitely a magnet for controversy. But I maintain that "controversial" is no reason to disqualify an article. Otherwise we could justify deleting abortion and the Iraq War and stem cell research and scores of other useful articles. So far, the list seems to be devloping nicely.... there have been several attempts at stupid additions to the blunders list, but these have been quickly fixed. And I'm amazed and impressed that a non-biased section on blunders in politics has already been added to the article. Wikipedia repeatedly impresses with with it's ability to find NPOV on the most controversial of topics, even if it can be, at times, a long hard road getting there. - Pioneer-12 17:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and note that I've now "had to" vote three times to delete this silly article. Rhobite 22:26, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. No policy exists for a revote, and there is no reason to peform one here. This page should be deleted. By spreading this discussion out across more than one page, we're just creating a huge headache for whomever closes the discussion out. It's bad enough on the original page. android↔talk 22:28, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. No policy for a revote. --Carnildo 22:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Now I'm really angry. There is no such thing as a "re-vote" on a VfD. If an article has changed, the right thing to do is simply to point out in a conspicuous comment that the article has been improved, and urge those who wish to change their votes do so. Given that the criterion for deletion is "rough consensus," the customary criterion is a 2/3 vote, and the acting sysop can exercise judgement, it is not at all hard to garner enough support to keep an improved article. It happens all the time. The VfD 5-day period is deliberately set long to to allow for this, and in practice the backlog these days is so long that even more time is available This "re-vote" is not much different from someone, without consensus, just deciding to delete all of the existing votes. It's easy enough to get an article kept. We don't need to add new policy to allow parliamentary maneuvering. If this "re-vote" is accepted as valid, count me as a "delete." (If, on the other hand, it is ignored and the previous, valid set of votes is considered, then my previous vote stands). Dpbsmith (talk) 22:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Should we put an RFC on Pioneer-12 for creating a policy proposal [8] and adding m:instruction creep in order to possibly circumvent VfD? Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'll vote "yes" to that. Moncrief 23:01, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Despite making me look like the biggest idiot I've been in quite a while, I'm not really sure if he had poor intentions behind it... sigh... I will have to also vote "yes"... Master Thief Garrett 23:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't feel an RfC is really necessary, but will certify if one is made. android↔talk 23:44, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
As of now, I am not at the point to write up a RfC yet, but if Pioneer-12 continues on this course... Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Note that he has as yet taken NO part in this new vote despite it all being his idea! ...then again, if he came here he'd probably be almost flamed to death... Master Thief Garrett 00:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Look at his contributions. It's quite clear that he's away from Wikipedia since 20:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC). --cesarb 00:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete to discourage vote tampering. RickK 23:18, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This vote is invalid, as there is no policy for a revote. If anyone feels like taking this to RfC I'll certify. Mackensen (talk) 23:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's a wiki, cesarb. You can change your statements if you want to. That statement was made in jest. Since many people don't have a sense of humor, I changed it.
Dpbsmith is right; it was unwise to create a policy proposal at the time. If I had merely waited two days and then made the proposal, then there wouldn't have been any misunderstanding.
Wikipedia has shown me that people have an unlimited capacity for misunderstanding. I see I have to be more careful about how I word things in the future. - Pioneer-12 04:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to "Great Boners of all time" or "All time Greatest boners". Sam Spade 23:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep List of incidents famously considered great blunders in current form (ie this title and with references and further reading &c). Precedent at List of movies that have been considered among the worst ever and greatest ever. -- Lochaber 23:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to "Greatest Boners of all time and redirect to Ron Jeremy. --Carnildo 01:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This is so flaccid it's not even funny. Delete any incarnation of this article, citing bloat reasons like above. Mike H 01:07, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bahahaha. I mean, get rid of this thing. The original title was laughable at best; it reminded me of an old and unintentionally hilarious Batman comic. Seriously, the word 'boner' meaning blunder isn't encyclopedic. Maybe in the 70s, or in England. I don't know. The list in its current form isn't much better, anyway. There isn't any hope for it to be complete, and there'd be inherently conflicts over what's considered a blunder. Like when the Mongols invaded Japan and were wiped out by a typhoon, is that really a blunder or just bad timing? A blunder would infer that there was a mistake made in strategy, do unexpected events count? And what would constitute an unexpected event? Also, death to coddled pet articles. RickGriffin 01:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • "The original title was laughable at best; it reminded me of an old and unintentionally hilarious Batman comic". The original title was actually based on that old and unintentionally funny Batman comic. :-) But, despite the silly title, even the first draft of the article was meant to be an encyclopedic, expandable stub. What's with the "death to coddled pet articles" attitide? That makes no sense. If you vote based on that then you are voting based on your opinion of the article's supporters and not on the article. That seems to be a form of personal attack rather then a legitimate reason to delete. - Pioneer-12 23:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • "death to coddled pet articles", without wanting to get into the issues here (this is controversial enough and confusing enough as it is) are you aware of the keep/delete schools issues? Thryduulf 01:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • See my user page for my thoughts on the keep/delete schools issues. If you think I'm not aware of something, please leave me a message there. I've been researching the keep/delete subject myself, and hearing other's viewpoints on the whole situation would be very welcome. - Pioneer-12 15:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Hardly. The refusal to let go bugs me. My legitimate reasons were in everything in my paragraph that you didn't quote. RickGriffin 20:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I will gladly change my mind if someone gives a convincing reason to. No one has. I'm sorry if my state of being unconvinced bugs you. You are welcome to try to convince me. I've already been convinced that having a stricter policy then usual regarding referencing and citing sources makes this article better. - Pioneer-12 20:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Or, you know, the subjects you didn't mention that were in my reply. What with all the Mongols and the invading of Japan. Above all that I'm just against lists that seem like they should be in a DID YOU KNOW?!?!?! book of some sort. Because also there has to be some cutoff limit about how 'great' a blunder would have to be before it's considered a great blunder. RickGriffin 20:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • The Mongols invading Japan and being taken out by a typhoon is a disaster, not a blunder. Is you look at the introdiction for list of military disasters it mentions bad weather as a possible cause of disaster. (It contributed to the French loss at Agincourt, among other battles.) On the introduction to the list of historical blunders page it indicates that, to be a blunder, something must have a bad result and be the result of bad decision making. The Mongal invasion could only be considered a blunder if they had a space-age, accurate typhoon prediction system and ignored it. The necessary technology did not exist, thus they had no reliable way of knowing that a typhoon would strike, thus it was not a blunder... but merely bad timing, as you suggested. - Pioneer-12 20:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in current form. --L33tminion (talk) 01:32, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per my previous vote on this. Megan1967 04:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in current form. Interesting historical topic that has references to books written by reputable historians. precedent as per Lochaber. --Veritol 04:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doomed to be both incorrigibly POV and unmanageably long. (Human history is pretty embarrassing.) If it is kept, the management of this VfD may belong on the list, however. :) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • nonono, we need that on its own page, Wikipedia:Wikipedians who screwed up big time! :) Master Thief Garrett 05:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I think that list might also be unmanageably long; I suspect we've all made some pretty mistakes on Wikipedia. Perhaps a category would be better? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 12:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • We need a Be thick-skinned policy to accompany Be bold. We effectively have a Be kind policy under the rubrics of Civility and Assume good faith. I recently nominated an article for VfD that I shouldn't have nominated. It is very unpleasant to watch a string of uniformly hostile comments coming, and coming, and coming... Dpbsmith (talk) 12:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, interesting and encyclopedic. Grue 07:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete still stands. Radiant_* 11:17, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per TenOfAllTrades--nixie 11:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yawn VfD will be dead, for all intents and purposes, if re-votes are allowed every time somebody edits an article, or redirects/moves it in violation of VfD policy. —Wahoofive (Talk) 17:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I am utterly confused, but Keep the article and redirect this "revote" to the original VfD. I think I can do both here and that is not too ambiguous. Is there a page similar to WP:LAME for deletion votes or a hall of shame for how not to conduct a debate? If there is then I vote to inlcude both VfDs there. Thryduulf 21:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are many incidents that are unarguably "great blunders". The title needs to be reworded, but it is encyclopedic. E=MC^2 T@lk 01:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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. —Xezbeth 09:48, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Alexa Davis

[edit]

Was nominated as a speedy, but doesn't fulfill the criteria. An adoration article, if there is such a thing. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. That's so cute... but not encyclopedic. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete of course. But can we see a picture first? ---Isaac R 21:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete if possible (see below) unless they provide a hot photo of her, in which case Very Strong Keep! Preferably in a red bathing suit please. Oh and with her hair down. I like that in a Playma--uh, girl. LOL! Master Thief Garrett 22:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Since a photo of Alexa isn't likely to be forthcoming, and since you seem so eager, I thought I would provide you with this. Dsmdgold 14:57, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • LOL! It's not nearly midnight any more y'know... LOL! Master Thief Garrett 21:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • If it is not a CSD, we could move the entry to BJAODN. --SuperDude 18:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looking through the page history, it apparently was speedily deleted (as an aside, I added the speedy delete tag to it). R Calvete 22:33, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as vanity, and a unencyclopedic, nonsensical microstub. --SuperDude 04:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Sjakkalle 10:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity Dsmdgold 14:47, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Moronism Minirich
  • For goodness' sake, be reasonable! This is a vanity article, and a stub with little or no meaning (from my point of view). May I cite § 2.1 in the Speedy criteria:
  1. Very short articles with little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great.")
This is a short article, isn't it? Speedy at once, and if you can't do this because it doesn't fit the criteria, then Delete As Fast As Possible. Rubbish like this article should not remain here for a long time. JMBell° 15:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This article won't last a long time. However, it does give context to a degree. While not being notable, it is not a speedy deletion candidate. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - sometimes love just ain't enough. Onlyemarie 15:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sure the guy has had plenty of time by now to take a screenshot so he can show it off to his girlfriend. Maybe Wikipedia could charge for this service? It could generate a few bucks. ;-) 23skidoo 21:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Gentle Delete. This is funny, but it has to go. BJAODN anyone? Zscout370 22:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I change my mind: Transwiki to the Comedy Wiki. Past BJAODN can be transferred there as well. --SuperDude 00:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete --nihil 22:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As the creator of this blathering article, I'm going to note that I use wikipedia for everything in the world. I did this to show her the way in which wikipedia functions, since she plainly did not believe me. I was expecting it to be pulled down without much fanfare. Harassment can be addressed to dmk2113@columbia.edu.

With all due respect, if you do use Wiki so often you should know that tests belong in the sandbox; thanks. Onlyemarie 18:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as user test based on the above note. Jonathunder 09:16, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
  • Awwww. Delete. Secretcurse 01:57, 29 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:41, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Muathe research group

[edit]

Apparently advertising copy; can't find anything else on this company (unsigned, written by 128.95.93.162)

  • Delete, ads, 32 Google hits. And please DO remember to sign all your nominations and votes. Master Thief Garrett 22:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 04:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. Sjakkalle 09:40, 29 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:41, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Snugglitis

[edit]

This page has to be a joke. "Snugglitis" turns up 1 google hit, "Snuggle Deficiency Syndrome" turns up 0. R Calvete 22:48, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

  • Delete, zero Google hits. RickK 22:46, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - nonsense. No hits for "Snuggle Deficiency Syndrome". I will admit to enjoying the odd snuggle, but I wouldn't say that it's a genetic disorder - someone has just written this as plausibly as possible to see how long it lasts. SteveW | Talk 22:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, that's a joke --Sylvain Mielot 22:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What a lot of effort to put into a hoax. Someone should thank the contributor by blocking him. Postdlf 22:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I thought this had too do with too much exposure to fabric softener Klonimus 23:37, 24 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:47, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Vapourbot

[edit]

60 unique hits on google for "vapourbot" or "vaporbot". Cruft? I don't understand...?!? I think it's fan fiction about Robot Wars. Delete. Anilocra 22:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete because I couldn't make head or foot of what a "vaporbot" is from reading the article. Fan fiction is also a red flag for deletion. Sjakkalle 09:33, 29 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:42, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Davis Fields

[edit]

Vanity and self-promotion. (And it's talk page is nonsense.) Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vain resumè. Adun 19:10, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity and self-promotion -Rune Welsh 15:21, Apr 29, 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 due to no consensus to delete. moink 01:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Revotes on Vfd

[edit]

Summary:

  • Delete 15: RickK, Mackensen, Zzyzx11, Carnildo, Mike H, Postdlf, Moncrief, Grace Note, Megan1967, Firebug, Skysmith, Radiant, Calton, Korath, Feco
  • Keep 10: Pioneer-12, Master Thief Garrett, cesarb, TenOfAllTrades, Dpbsmith, SPUI, JYolkowski, Stoph, SuperDude, BlankVerse

15/25=60%. No consensus to delete. (Note, I am not using just numerics, but I'm calculating them openly as a guide for myself).

Attempt to create policy out of whole cloth in order to get a revote on a pet article. RickK 23:20, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I was taken. He suggested it in the Vfd of his article as if something he'd found in passing, but he did NOT divulge that he had just invented it. He then begged me to use this new procedure in his stead since if he used it it would look like he was trying to save his article. So I read the rules, it said if two people changed their votes it could be used, so I dutifully started it in the hopes that it would solve the huge debate that had previously raged. I cannot say whether he was intentionally decieving me or not... Master Thief Garrett 23:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) it was all a misunderstanding... Master Thief Garrett 04:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Where did he do the begging? I looked at both your talk pages and don't see any conversation about this. android↔talk 23:51, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, nono, not "beg" in the actual sense, but he said "Yes, I call for a revote. You seem to know the proper procedure for doing that. Since you have more experience at this then I, could you please put the header in place or whatever needs to be done? If I do it, some people will perceive it as "founder of the article bias"." so it was basically like he wanted to do it but couldn't, so I did it instead... Master Thief Garrett 00:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Did he actually point you to Wikipedia:Revotes on Vfd at some point? android↔talk 00:03, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
          • He did mention Wikipedia:Revotes on Vfd before on the same discussion; probably Master Thief Garrett didn't notice his hint that he was the policy's creator. --cesarb 00:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Of course he did, otherwise I'd never have found the page. "How does this sound? Wikipedia:Revotes on Vfd. I would not propose a revote if I didn't think it was justified." I confess that I did not notice the hint (it was certainly no more than a hint) because he'd written like 5 paragraphs at once and I was trying to grasp the content of them. Master Thief Garrett 00:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hold. We don't delete policy proposals. We either accept them or reject them. If they are rejected then they go to "rejected policy proposals". I made this proposal in a good faith effort to make the system better. Was it inspired by problems I encountered on wikipedia? Yes. Isn't every proposal similarly inspired? However, don't disparage it just because it was made quickly.
MTG, you misunderstood what I wrote. I never intended for the proposal to be taken as anything other then a proposal. I was told that there was no revote policy, so I said in response "How does this sound?" and "Well, for what it's worth, there's the "how to do a revote" proposal for all to consider." On the proposal page, I clearly put "This is a proposed policy." on the top of the page, and listed it on the Wikipedia policy thinktank for proposed policy accordingly. (Look at the original version of the page and you will see this. [10].) I made every reasonable effort to indicate that this was a proposal and not official policy. Also, knowing that some people would take things the wrong way, a couple hours after I posted it, realizing that the proposal would just cause more controversy in the short term, I said forget about it; I said that I would not ask for a revote. Then Master Thief Garett said, that, it's alright, you can ask for a revote. So, I asked him to do the how and why or whatever needs to be done so that the revote procedure would be done in a regular and traditional way and be free of any perceived bias.
I did not intend for Master Thief Garret to use this proposal. The fact that it was used is about the worst possible thing that could happen. The whole point of asking MTG to initiate/supervise a revote was so that it would be unbiased and done in a verifiably unbiased way. There was no attempt to deceive. MTG, I'm sorry that you misunderstood my statements. - Pioneer-12 03:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hold. I second this vote. This has all been an unfortunate misunderstanding blown out of proportion, and we really need to wait until such time as this can be assessed correctly. We ideally need to wait some time for tempers to cool. Then, and only then, should we decide what to do with this. Master Thief Garrett 04:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment My perception is that it is all just an unfortunate misunderstanding, though Pioneer-12 might have been just a little bit to energetic in defending "boner->blunder" article. Unfortunately, this has all gotten a bit of a life of its own and I suspect the two of you will just have to sit there and watch things play out. I suggest not worrying too much about it, it will all die a natural death, and by the way I don't think anyone really thinks its a big deal. Just let it blow over and shrug it off. You might even consider taking all the relevant pages off your watchlists. Do not yield to the temptation to respond to everything. Some comments will be offbase or unfair or misunderstandings; don't try to correct all of them. We tell everyone to be bold. Well, the consequence of that is, when you're bold, you sometimes goof. And when others correct your goofs you sometimes you should just sit back and let it happen. A hundred years from now it'll be all the same, right? Cheers. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. He didn't even slap the {{notpolicy}} on it – CesarB ended up doing so. android↔talk 23:46, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • OH! You're right. I don't think that tag was even there when I saw it... Master Thief Garrett 23:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I was not aware that you had to use the {{notpolicy}} template. I put "This is a proposed policy." at the top of the page instead. What's wrong with that? I've seen a number of proposed policies which do the same thing. - Pioneer-12 03:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • It is a new template, created in the last month or so, to help reduce the constant confusions as to what was policy and what wasn't. Most semi-policy and policy thinktank pages have already had that added. Since I noticed yours didn't have it yet, I added it ☺. Notice that even on the edit box I said "add bright yellow box", which is almost the only real difference adding it made. --cesarb 12:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I accept that Master Thief Garrett was taken in by the article's author, and I bear no ill-will. I'm more concerned with clearing up the myriad redirects created by the constant page-moves. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Policy" created in bad faith, to try to save an article which ended up in VfD with such a high amount of people voting because he bragged about it on the Village Pump in the first place. --cesarb 00:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • ...ahhh... I wondered where they'd all come from!!! It's the biggest amount of voters I've seen outside of that Canada vs. New Zealand thing... Master Thief Garrett 00:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The original discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#List of the Great Boners of all time. --cesarb 00:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • ...AND HERE'S THE SMOKING GUN! Notice the "clever" attempt at rewriting history; he removed the key sentence, "Let's show those pesky deletionists who's boss.", which was in the original comment. "The only reason it even got listed on VfD is because some people misunderstood the original title.", eh? --cesarb 00:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • As noted below, I prefer to interpret this as evidence that he decided he ought to remove his foot from his mouth. That's a Good Thing. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Disagree. Saying that the only reason it was listed on VfD was because of the title, when it quite clearly was because of his dare, is a bit of stretch to believe was done on good faith. If it wasn't for that, I agree that there would be no problem in him removing that comment. --cesarb 00:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • Actually, it was on Vfd before I posted that on the commons. The article was on Vfd about 10 seconds after it was created because someone saw the name as inappropriate. I posted that bit in the commons in the hopes that the post would draw objective, open mined people into the discussion (of at least people who didn't want to see the article deleted)--people who would see the inherent usefulness of the article and help improve it, but the post clearly had the opposite effect. People seemed to take offense at being called "pesky deletionsts" (in retrospect, that's kind of obvious), and a few even seemed determined to delete the article at all costs. However, I must say that the majority of people have mellowed in the past day or so. The war drums have stopped. I actually have much more respect for the deletionist point of view now, thanks to the efforts of some very wise Wikipedians. See my home page for details. - Pioneer-12 03:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing to keep, since it looks like it will turn into a real policy proposal (and I'm convinced now it was all a big misunderstanding). --cesarb 22:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For all the reasons stated by RickK. Zzyzx11 | Talk 00:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, discuss at Wikipedia_talk:Revotes on Vfd, and delete when it is clear that there is no consensus on the policy. Yes, I think the proposal was made for the specific purpose of keeping a article and was not made fully in good faith. Yes, I think User_talk:Pioneer-12's conduct with Master Thief Garrett was not entirely honest. I oppose the proposal and have noted at Wikipedia_talk:Revotes on Vfd that I oppose it. Oppose oppose oppose. X-treme oppose. Double-plus-oppose. However, it is a well-articulated proposal that is entitled to a discussion on the merits. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) Hold everything while I check out what cesarb said. No vote yet. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm going to be perceived as a bit of a wingnut for that vote. For what it's worth, I don't support this policy. I think it should be allowed to live as a proposed policy for a little while so it can gather some sensible comments, then be archived as a failed policy proposal. It will save us from having to deal with this notion the next time someone wants a recount. Even if the policy proposal was created in bad faith, it's still an idea that is worth formally dismissing. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I choose to interpret Pioneer-12's removal of the "pesky deletionists" remark as a genuine attempt to remove his foot from his mouth. Too bad about the History. So, I reinstate my struck-out comment above: discuss at Wikipedia_talk:Revotes on Vfd, and delete move to rejected proposals when it is clear that there is no consensus on the policy. Yes, I think the proposal was made for the specific purpose of keeping a article and was not made fully in good faith. Yes, I think User_talk:Pioneer-12's conduct with Master Thief Garrett was not entirely honest. I oppose the proposal and have noted at Wikipedia_talk:Revotes on Vfd that I oppose it. Oppose oppose oppose. X-treme oppose. Double-plus-oppose. However, it is a well-articulated proposal that is entitled to a discussion on the merits. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as long as {{notpolicy}} stays up top. --SPUI (talk) 00:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bad-faith attempt to change policy. --Carnildo 00:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mike H 01:10, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Postdlf 01:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, leave the {{notpolicy}} tag on it, and get author to write a policy document on how to remove obsolete or unaccepted policy documents (-: JYolkowski // talk 01:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For many of the reasons above. Moncrief 01:32, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. not policy. - Stoph 01:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per RickK. Look, if the page changes, people can change their votes. You can message the delete voters on their talkpages and ask them to reconsider. It's often done. That route has been working quite well. Please use it rather than make up policy every time something doesn't go your way. Jeez, the one thing we are not short of here is policy!Grace Note 04:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, attempt to subvert the vfd process. If you have rewritten an article, you should leave a message on the voters Talk pages to argue why it should be kept. If you want an article to be recreated after being deleted you should make a request at votes for undeletion. This is the normal procedure for saving articles. Megan1967 04:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Subvert? There's a loaded word. It's an attempt to revise the vfd process. The current process is ridiculous. Leaving a message on every voter's talk page = cumbersome. Wrongly deleting and then having to undelete = absurd. There must be a better way.
The early votes were done before any discussion occured. That's like holding an election first and THEN having an official debate about the election. It makes no sense. Either some sort of process should exist to redo early votes, or voting shouldn't even happen until the relevant issues have been discussed. - Pioneer-12 09:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, process circumvention. Firebug 04:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, This is a good guideline for newcomers and dull-minded Wikipedians. --SuperDude 04:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - policy attempt created for a specific purpose in certain time, therefore questionable - Skysmith 08:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:POINT okay maybe not WP:POINT, but it certainly qualifies as needless instruction creep. Thus delete. Radiant_* 11:22, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Policy proposal with suspiciously convenient timing and suspicious provenance. --Calton | Talk 11:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, legitimizes trolling. —Korath (Talk) 11:27, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. policies on policies and meetings about meetings... yeehaw! Feco 12:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP! This article in the Wikipedia namespace is properly categorized as a thinktank article, and has the appropriate notpolicy template. A vote at WP:VFD is NOT the way to handle a proposed policy that you disagree with. BlankVerse ∅ 05:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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. —Xezbeth 09:43, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Dennison

[edit]

Non-notable rapper, appears to be vanity page. Google gives 900 hits for "Jeff-D" rapper, but all results seem to link to another rapper called Jeff D'Amico. --Alexs letterbox 23:28, 24 Apr 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. moink 01:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Green Alliance

[edit]

Ad for a California environmental group. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ad with list of external links. - Stoph 23:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google gives c.40,000 hits. I have written a substub, replacing the ad. --Alexs letterbox 23:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: How did your search? Many of the 32,700 hits I got were irrelevant, like this one. No vote as yet. Andrewa 03:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Give them a chance to respond to the {{explain-significance}}! --Isaac R 01:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Wait how much longer? The poster was an IP, we have no user talk page or email address, and little hope of them seeing an IP talk page. My last comment on the article talk page was almost a week ago, no reponse to it yet. No vote yet. Andrewa 03:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that there are various other groups with that or similar name, including the Green Alliance of the UK, New Green Alliance and Lavender and Green Alliance. The words may also refer to political alliances any green party may have with another party is just about any country. Maybe disambiguation page could be a good idea - Skysmith 10:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Disambigs-r-us. Good idea. Radiant_* 15:38, Apr 25, 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 as a disambiguation page moink 01:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White powder

[edit]

Summary to help with decision-making:

  • Delete 0
  • Keep 3 : Wahoofive, Mgm, Andrewa
  • Redirect 1: Firebug
  • Disambig 10: 8^D, Sjakkalle, N-Man, Radiant, Gmaxwell, Samaritan, Longhair, Barno, Carnildo, Yuckfoo

The consensus is clearly to make it a disambig page. I will remove the vfd tag and link the talk page here, but someone else will have to do the disambiguating. moink 01:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From talk page: "this is completely rediculous page and should be removed immediately -george bush"

This nomination was never followed through and put here. I'm not sure this nomination was made in good faith, but I wasn't about to remove the tag. No vote. --Dmcdevit 01:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


"Original research? Advocacy? I can only find two Google hits for "white powder" +Kutyavin, zero Google hits for "Alex Kutyavin" and three Google hits for "Alexander Kutyavin". RickK 23:28, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Not sure if it should be deleted or not but I know that the term "white powder" is used in fireworks for a number of Potassium Chlorate oxidized materials.. which is what the article appears to be describing. --Gmaxwell 23:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to cocaine. Firebug 04:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Disambig. I disagree with Firebug's proposed redirect. In the post-9/11 world, "white powder" is often the stuff found in boxes or envelopes sent to someone's office to scare them into thinking that they've been attacked by terrorists using anthrax. I believe it's also a skier's reference to fresh snow. That's at least 4 legit meanings which a user might look up with this term, so perhaps a disambig is in order? -- 8^D gab 06:49, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
  • Disambig, concur with BD2412. Sjakkalle 07:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Disambig, common term. N-Mantalk 10:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Disambig, I can think of several 'white powders' (in fact a common chem lab assignment is taking six white powders and finding out which is which, although we didn't use cocaine at school :) ) Radiant_* 11:19, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Rocket candy and replace with disambig.--Gmaxwell 05:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)"
  • Keep, disambig if needed, maybe to white powder (gunpowder) or similar. Never heard of rocket candy, and my experience with the stuff is you can't get a rocket to lift with only sugar and pot nitrate as described, effective rocket fuel needs at least some chlorate, a far more dangerous and effective oxidant. I see the pros now use perchlorate instead. Andrewa 03:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per BD2412, Radiant et al. Samaritan 04:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig -- Many uses. - Longhair | Talk 08:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that the article has an "Other meanings" section, but since "white powder" as an alternative explosive/propellant to "black powder" is not the phrase's meaning most often seen in the press in recent years, I vote to disambiguate. Cocaine, anthrax, and unknown-suspected-contraband are all at least as common uses of "white powder" as this one. This article should be kept, but I don't think this meaning should redirect to rocket candy. Maybe rocket candy should redirect to White powder (propellant) or whatever title this article gets after disambiguation. Barno 14:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disclosure - I added the other meanings section on the theory that anyone who looks up "white powder" will more likely be thinking of one of those meanings - but that underscores the propriety of a disambig. -- BDAbramson thimk 22:13, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  • Clean up, move to an appropriate title, and replace with a disambiguation page. --Carnildo 22:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please but disambiguate it Yuckfoo 20:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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. —Xezbeth 09:44, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Michael w. dean

[edit]

Currently, just self-promotion. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. I cleaned up this guy's page a little for him. - Stoph 23:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, self-promo, probably not any content to expand it beyond that purpose either. Master Thief Garrett 02:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. — JIP | Talk 04:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity, non-notable and general crapola. --Woohookitty 01:02, 29 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:45, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

AMP'D

[edit]

DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!! This is how people learn about them! Band page. No hits on google. --Asparagus 23:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No Google, no Wiki. Plain and simple. Master Thief Garrett 02:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 04:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Delete Band vanity Dsmdgold 14:27, Apr 25, 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. —Xezbeth 09:46, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Transcendence Galactic Archive

[edit]

Looks like the beginnings of an attempt to create a gaming manual. At best, transwiki to Wikibooks, assuming the information isn't a copyvio. RickK 23:35, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, since there's not really any content beyond section headings. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I see nothing there I can't get from the official site, and besides that most of the content they'll be adding will likely be copyvio'd from it. Master Thief Garrett 02:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gaming cruft. jni 06:51, 25 Apr 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. CDC (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snotex

[edit]

It is more of a promo for a non-notable textile company. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, as above. But shouldn't it be "Snowtext"? That's a brand we have here in New Zealand. Plus I don't think having "snot-ex" as your company name is a very promising choice... Master Thief Garrett 02:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article does not establish notability. Sjakkalle 09:34, 29 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 09:45, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Sosuave

[edit]

The only thing that you learn from this article is that it is a website that gives dating advice, period. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, if I want a date I'll go to a singles bar. Master Thief Garrett 02:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 04:28, 25 Apr 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 to delete, therefore keep moink 01:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Sect of Homokaasu

[edit]

Tagged as {{explain-significance}}, this is really only a promo for an online community of 100000+ members who oppose mind control. So what? Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, although, y'know, someone *could* have been controlling my mind to make me say that... maybe I'll sign up! (yes I am being sarcastic) Master Thief Garrett 02:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 04:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. — JIP | Talk 04:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Isn't 100000 members fairly significant? This Finnish site (only called The Sect of in English) seems to warrant inclusion. "Homokaasu" gets over 36000 google hits. I'm not a member or anything, but I might try to expand the page if it would get anyone to vote differently. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What is wrong with articles about online communities? 100K+ users seems to be fairly major. Maybe not as big as the readership of sites like Slashdot, and Fark.com, but possibly more than Something Awful and many other online communities/sites that all have wikipedia articles. If the article can be expanded to provide background info about the group then perhaps it can be useful like the above mentioned ones. --Vanchuck 05:25, Apr 29, 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. —Xezbeth 09:46, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Tali Waterman

[edit]

I do not think this ghostwriter is notable enough, especially writing books that I cannot seem to find on Amazon.com. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, as per above. Ghost writers will never be famous enough for mention here unless they're an alleged back for Jeffrey Archer. Master Thief Garrett 02:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:30, 25 Apr 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_April_24&oldid=1234126610"