Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 16 May 18 >

May 17

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 - deleted - SimonP 01:44, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Salvi

Non-encyclopedic. If anything, belongs on list of ethnic slurs. -- Laura Scudder | Talk 00:10, 17 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 - kept - SimonP 01:45, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Dabur

Looks like advertising spam. None of the information is particularly encyclopedic. -- Laura Scudder | Talk 00:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Last entry by Guptadeepak at 16:25, 17 May 2005
  • Keep, notable. Eixo 15:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, notable, and at its current state after cleanup, certainly it can be kept. Should be expanded though. -- Ragib 15:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but improve. There are many articles on here about companies, so why delete this article and keep the others? The content needs to be improved, but I think the topic belongs on Wikipedia. Aecis 22:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, companies with a turnover of $300M are notable. Googling on "Dabur India" returns 35k pages, of which the first 20 refer to this company. -- Jitse Niesen 22:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep big company. needs to be expanded -- 152.78.254.131 22:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Yeah, I've never heard of them, but is that really a surprise? Kelly Martin 00:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and to be developed suitably by persons who may be aware of such things. As regards the size of the article - several articles were stubs - A P J Abdul Kalam, the present president of India was hardly 40 words, Dhirubhai Ambani who laid foundation for the largest industrial house in India (when he died 2 years before it was worth 12 bn US$) was less than 60 words, and the last week's WP:COTW, Culture of Ancient Rome was less than 100 words. As such, size of Dabur in words should not determine one's vote to keep or delete. As regards "not notable" and "advert" - after a level, a corporate house rises above these levels and sets its own standard, and is not dependent on wikepedia for notability and advertisement: do anyone feels that an article on Bill Gates and Microsoft would be vanity / advertisement and so on. Dabur is a corporate house, which does not require an article on wikepedia to promote itself - it is in existence for about 100 years and the medicines it produces and sells have been in India for several thousand years. Before any vote for deletion, one should please understand wikepedia's guideleins in this respect and not vote for deletion without any familiarity with the topic. We all are here to make wikepedia "sum total of human knowledge" and not to reduce it. I am sorry for the lecture. -- Bhadani 03:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I actually think people marked it for vfd not for any prejudice, because it sounded just like an advert in its first draft. The edits following that have improved it to its current state, which is good, but in its first few drafts, it really looked like an ad. -- Ragib 03:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -I don't know what do people mean to say by calling the first few articles on Dabur an Ad . Even the present revised article looks like an AD in that case ,just that it is a bit more informative . Think people love to argue on this site . -- IncMan 12:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Please look, sometimes, my strong reactions to some issues upset the puople around, they upset me equally - today, I was feeling bad for a greater part of the day. I promise to be more careful in my comments and reactions. Now, coming to the present issue, yes, Dabur may be a good topic for an article, but the present contents do require modifications: actually, I am not able to plan on this topic otherwise I would have attempted to do this myself, as earlier, I had done with a few articles under VfD like Awasthi, RURAL MARKETS and Family traditions. In any case, I am sorry for my strong reactions. -- Bhadani 17:47, 18 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 - deleted - SimonP 01:51, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Greenhaven Drive

  • Does anyone think it is logical for Wikipedia to have articles on local roads that are not designated as higways with numbers?? I say this article should be deleted if no one can prove that this road merits an article. Georgia guy 00:57, 17 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 - kept - SimonP 02:00, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Saddleback_High

Vanity page

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - keep for now as it is evidence in an arbitration, should probably be dumped when that process is finished. - SimonP 02:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Death Penalty

Utter, utter bullshit. Neutrality talk 01:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've voted 'delete', but I'd like it kept around for the duration of the ArbCom case. If it gets "delete", please don't delete straight away but mark it as to be deleted at the end of the case - David Gerard 16:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • An archive, meaning "a preserved page that is impossible to edit" and with a notice saying that this policy is just a "bill" and is not official. → JarlaxleArtemis 03:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • A bill is a proposal that has not yet (or ever will be, as is the case here) been turned into a policy or law. → JarlaxleArtemis 01:37, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Trying hard to ignore sexist and idiotic comment.... → JarlaxleArtemis 01:39, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • That would mean that this is not a Wikipedia project and that it applies to the "real world." → JarlaxleArtemis 02:47, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Do not move - That would make this "real world" article an original research and not regarding an existing concept such as Usenet Death Penalty since it (a Wikipedia version) does not exist. - Tεx τ urε 17:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Pefect reason for moving it. Since it's not a WP policy, it can go into the article space. Then we can bring it up for vfd again as original research. Grutness... wha? 08:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
I never knew you had such a diabolical streak in you... but yes that would get rid of it. hehehe... Master Thief Garrett Talk 09:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete. If you don't like Wikipedia, go back to your goatse. That's my two cents. Harro5 10:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Either pityful attempt at humour (not even remotely funny), or just plainly neurotic. Utterly useless in any case. Rama 22:01, 19 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 - deleted - SimonP 14:46, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Carson nimmo

vfd added by User: Samw, who did not create a subpage or give any explanation. Doesn't look notable though - possibly a vanity. Grutness... wha? 03:24, 17 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 - no consensus, unquestionably should be confined to only "notable" victims. - SimonP 02:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

List of Holocaust victims

This would seem to be a rather ambitious list. - Banyan Tree 02:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Six million people? Yeah, that list is gonna be complete. Delete. Mike H 02:24, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." No kidding. Delete. Eric119 02:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • As much as I'd like to see this.... this article would be finished sometime in the next century. Delete. -- Chanting Fox 02:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Even if it is never complete, it will still be a list of Holocaust victims. And who knows perhaps it will be completed eventually. If there were only ten victims wouldn't we keep it? Does the fact that there are millions make it less worthy of keeping or more?-- Heathcliff 03:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    I oppose changing the title of this article to List of famous Holocaust victims because then we'd have fights over who was famous enough to be listed among the Holocaust victims and that would just be sad. If the name is changed, change my vote to delete.-- Heathcliff 23:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    You should probably strike out your vote above, then. In any case, if you apply the simple criterion of only listing those people with Wikipedia articles, then you've got a simple yardstick right there. -- Calton | Talk 04:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    My vote is still keep (as it is). My vote only changes to delete if the title is changed to List of notable Holocaust victims. However, I don't mind changing the title to List of Holocaust victims with articles on Wikipedia which is why I suggested it as a compromise further down. I don't think that we should call it list of List of notable Holocaust victims and say that inclusion in Wikipedia is the test for inclusion because without it clearly spelled out in the articles title it will be imposible to enforce the standard.-- Heathcliff 12:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Just a tad ambitious. Seems to me this would be better off in m:Wikimorial, if it ever starts, or its own Wiki. android↔ talk 03:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just a tad ambitious. Seems to me this would be better off in m:Wikimorial, if it ever starts, or its own Wiki. android↔ talk 03:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, assuming that the list (like many others on Wikipedia) will be limited to notable cases. --  BD2412 thimk act 03:44, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
    • This sounds like a good alternative to deletion, though a rename would be in order to reflect the fact that it isn't a complete list. android↔ talk 03:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Not necessarily, if the condition is spelled out atop the page. See List of slave owners. --  BD2412 thimk act 04:17, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
        • The criteria on that page is "This list includes notable individuals for which there is a consensus of evidence of slave ownership." The first part of which "This list includes notable individuals" merely restates what the title of article already says, and the second of which "for which there is a consensus of evidence of slave ownership" results as a natural consequence of the Wikipedia process (in there's no conscenss it's probally going to be edited out.) If the standard "List of Holocaust victims with articles in Wikipedia" was put at the top of the page it would likely be ignored or even more likely edited out by those who did not like the standard. That is, the question of what the standard is will be left to future editors if it is not in the title. Which is no different than changing the name to "List of Holocaust victims" and not adding a standard to the top of the page.-- Heathcliff 12:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Verifying every entry on a list this large would be an endless task, and it would never be accurate. I'm not even talking about completeness. I mean the list would contain entries that are wrong, and WP would not be able fix them. False information that can't be fixed is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. If this information is desired, create a category for it and use it on the bio pages of notable victims. Quale 04:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I'd rather have the link changed to List of famous Holocaust victims SYSS Mouse 04:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, unmaintainable list. Megan1967 04:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for the reasons listed by Quale. JeremyA 04:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Perhaps it should be list of notable Holocaust victims.Keep and rename. Capitalistroadster 04:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
I'd prefer doing this, and keeping. Nateji77 11:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unless all the Holocaust Victims are mentioned .
an attempt at a complete list of holocaust victims and survivors, rather than simply the notable individuals amongst them, sounds like it belongs in wikisource. Nateji77 11:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but ONLY if changed to "List of notable Holocaust victims". Wikipedia is not paper, but attempting to list 60 million people simply is unattainable. However a list of famous people who died in the Holocaust would be of interest. Perhaps this might work better as a category. Question: assuming that Holocaust victims were primarily Jewish, what's a Catholic saint doing listed here? I think an introduction needs to be added to explain this for those who think only Jews died in the Holocaust. 23skidoo 13:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
either you're off by an order of magnitude, or the article at The Holocaust is. it says 6 million (admittedly, still a lot, but look at pi entries in wikisource). Nateji77 13:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete- no way to ensure that it is accurate (exact number of Holocaust victims is not known, and varies wildly between sources). Creating a list of 'notable' Holocaust victims would be abhorrent- it would imply that some victims were more important (ie others deserved to die more) just because of their 'celebrity' status-- Cynical 13:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Agree with above that a article named "notable Holocaust victims" is a bad idea. However, a category for Holocaust Victims would serve the same purpouse and not have any ugly connotations (if a bio exists, it's pretty obvious and verifiable if it belongs) same logic should probably apply to other possible "lists" (9/11 victims, WWII Veterans, etc.) 66.94.94.154 14:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, WP:NOT a memorial. R adiant _* 14:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete When Stalin said a million deaths is a statistic, I don't think this is what he meant. Extremely difficult to verify, problematic notability (the event was notable, does that mean every person involved was?) -- InShaneee 14:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As noble as the idea is, I think we'd be stepping on a landmine on this one. I don't see a problem with a list of notable victims, but an outright list is best left to other organizations that can do a better job of it. -- Mitsukai 15:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: First, on of the things that Wikipedia Is Not is a memorial site. We have Wikimemorial for lists of this nature (all the 9/11 victims, e.g.), and we must reject, out of hand and a priori, any eulogy/elegy. Secondly, because the list is impossible to verify, the list fails on that score. Third, because the list cannot be completed, any inclusion is inherently POV (e.g. the list may bias toward ethnic victims as opposed to political ones, or sexual ones opposed to nationalist ones). The main reason, however, is simply that we are not a memorial. Geogre 15:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rename. I think the word 'notable' is unfortunate - weren't they all? 'Famous' is much more neutral. The criterion for inclusion is simple: if someone has a Wikipedia entry (or should have one), they ought to be included, otherwise not. Eixo 16:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial; the existing Category:Holocaust victims and subcategories should suffice for those victims that otherwise merit an article. CDC (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Stancel 19:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is what categories are for. - R. fiend 20:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a list of famous holocaust victims in conjunction with the above-mentioned categories. Only mention people who'd be famous/notable enough for an article of their own. Mgm| (talk) 21:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Separate into smaller lists: Dutch Holocaust victims, German Holocaust victims, French, Danish, Polish, etc. One massive list of all Holocaust victims would be impossible and unworkable. Aecis 22:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Attempting to determine who "deserves" to be on this list is POV. Rick K 22:50, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
No, but it is POV if you deem some Holocaust victims notable and therefore Wikipediable and others unnotable and therefore not Wikipediable. There should be no distinguishing between notable Holocaust victims and unnotable Holocaust victims. If you make a list of Holocaust victims, you should include all Holocaust victims. And if some Holocaust victims are indeed notable, they should be on Wikipedia because they're notable, not because they're notable Holocaust victims. Aecis 08:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • That's exactly why I made the point that the word 'notable' should be avoided in the namespace; because it might seem offensive. However, there are already criteria in Wikipedia on who are notable and who are not, and there are innumerable lists based on these criteria. There is no reason why information on well-known people who were killed by the Nazis during the war should be suppressed. Eixo 03:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not maintainable; Wikipedia is not a memorial -- Carnildo 23:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I am tired of seeing lists which cover such large scopes of mostly uninteresting things or people that will almost certainly never been completed. Kelly Martin 00:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Yad Vashem is compliling such a list. We should have one also. Klonimus 02:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, maintainable as long as we limit it to victims notable for other reasons than being murder victims. I don't think the creators intended this to be a list of 6 million + names. Perhaps a retitling, per MacGyverMagic, is in order. Sjakkalle 08:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as list of notable victims, i.e. only include those who are notable enough to have a Wikipedia page about them. Darksun 11:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Another un-maintainable list. If you want to group all people who were Holocaust victims and have a Wikipedia page about them, that's what Categories are for. Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I strongly oppose having an aticle called "List of notable Holocaust victims". As someone else said they are all notable. I also think it would lead to very sensitive disputes over who was notable and who was not. So I propose that if the list is kept but the name is changed that it should be change to "List of Holocaust victims with articles in Wikipedia", and that it should provide links to all of those articles.-- Heathcliff 23:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: With all due respect, I think this discussion is getting silly. There's a page called List of Norwegians. This is not a list of all 4,5 million of them. This was never meant to be a list of all 4,5 million of them! It's implicit in the title that the list only covers notable individuals. As I said, the word 'notable' ought to be avoided, but apart from that the list is completely viable. Eixo 02:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • With its current title, it's by definition a list that is impractical to the extreme. Change to List of notable Holocaust victims -- and no, I don't buy for one second the claim that attaching a notability limitation would give rise to unresolvable disputes, because the criterion should be simple - whether the person has an article on Wikipedia. What WOULD give rise to disputes would be restricting entry to those who have articles on Wikipedia BUT leaving the title alone, since that would likely confuse new editors trying to add names and leave others with the unpleasant chore of deleting the names of some user's grandmother or great-uncle who fail to met the non-explicit criterion. -- Calton | Talk 04:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep if limited to notable figures. Delete otherwise. Gamaliel 04:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. Sholtar 04:48, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A noble aim, but this would be a project that would be impossible to verify and maintain. Harro5 10:26, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Doesn't belong here even if it was possible to Complete. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 14:45, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not viable. I have bad experience with such open-ended lists - they grow and grow and grow until they get unusable. Pavel Vozenilek 01:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but confine it to victims with and deserving of articles. - SimonP 02:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Colonization of Europa

Not encyclopedic. According to official policy, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball ( Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not). "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Unless someone can provide a valid reason why this article merits inclusion, I think it should be deleted.-- DannyZ

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 - kept, article substantially rewritten and deletion request withdrawn by nominator. - SimonP 02:16, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

D-Company

  • Delete. Even if this is true, by its very nature it is not verifiable. ESkog 03:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Even if it is not a corporate entity, the gang is popularly known. However the article should say it is not a corporate entity. AnkA 03:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It's true that D-Company is not a real company. But, the term is used by many Indian newspapers to describe Dawood and associates. Maybe redirect to Dawood Ibrahim. utcursch | talk 05:21, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Usage of the term is verifiable on Google. — Tokek 05:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notorious Gang. Well known for terrorist activities in India 24.126.17.155
  • Keep I think the article shouldn't state D-Company as a corporate enterprise .Otherwise the facts given about D-Company and Dawood Ibrahim's operations seem to be true .
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 - SimonP 02:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Charles Michael Spencer Medley

Vanity bio; not notable. Samw 03:14, 17 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 - kept - SimonP 02:19, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Horse paradox

The Horse Paradox page does not explain a real paradox, but rather lays out a smattering of word plays and jokes. However, if that assessment is wrong and it does have value in its discussion of logic, it might stay with a little cleanup help. Thus, I put it to a vote.

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 - SimonP 02:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hydrophonica

Band with no recordings: does not meet the significance test for musical groups. Kelly Martin 03:37, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep, they are a struggling pair of young artists and need all the help that they can get

I have no real opinion on whether or not this page is deleted, even though I am one of the said members of this band. However, I want to say something to Kelly Martin, who started the deletion of this page. I read your definition of "Band", but I think you have band confused with "Notable Music Group". The difference is, a band is a group of performers that play music, no matter how many people know about them. I think that you shouldn't be allowed to vote for the deletion of band pages, because, obviously, if they aren't big (which we won't get, and are not hoping to) they don't matter, and, in response to you other comment on your profile, I think that you are the one being a dick.

The abovegoing anonymous editor has engaged in an extensive discussion of this article and my deletion policy for bands on my user talk page. It is perhaps vaguely relevant. Kelly Martin 22:25, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this band now has a garage band site and i would bet that they have mp3s on the way
The second Keep vote is from the same anonymous user, 159.191.12.26, as the first Keep vote. — Dan Johnson
      In a small comuinity news travels fast it probably was two difrent people in a library
  • No Opinion I have to say that me and my friends retract any previous insulting comments about kelly martin or any other wiki editor. I apoligize for any harm we may have done, and will post no further. However, I would like to ask one question, is the only acceptable music group to have a page on wikipedia a "notable" one under Kelly's definition?
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 - kept - SimonP 02:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nadir

This is a dictionary definition only, and I don't see how it can be expanded to a proper encyclopedia article. Wikitionary already has an entry for this.-- DannyZ 03:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep so astronomy articles can link to it. Gazpacho 04:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand. Has both astronomy and astrological articles linking to it so should be expanded to explain its significance in a science and longstanding body of belief respectively. Capitalistroadster 05:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand. Valid topic. Megan1967 06:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but if there isn't much more to add, move content to Wiktionary, leaving only {{wi}} on the Wikipedia page. AFAIK that is the closest available approximation to a cross-wiki redirect. (If I'm wrong I'd love to hear it.) DanielCristofani 10:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • You're wrong inasmuch as Wiktionary already has nadir, which has no need of this content, which answers the question posed on Talk:Nadir, which covers the word in three languages, and which also includes its use as a proper noun. ☺ Uncle G 18:37, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
      • When I said "move content to Wiktionary", I meant to add it to the Wiktionary article, not to replace what was already there. When I wrote my comment, the Wiktionary article looked like this and certainly could have used such an addition, which I notice you have performed since my comment. Anyway, when I said I would love to hear I was wrong, I meant I would love to hear that there was a smooth way to turn Wikipedia entries into redirects to Wiktionary entries. DanielCristofani 22:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
        • And that version of the page answered the question posed on Talk:Nadir and covered the word in three languages, as I said. I didn't "move content to Wiktionary". This article (until I rewrote it) didn't cover people named with the proper noun "Nadir" (a point that I obviously made too subtly) and didn't include any etymological information, so my additions of etymologies and proper noun senses to Wiktionary (with my hat on as a Wiktionarian whose attention was drawn to the article by this discussion) could not possibly have been moved content. As my edit history comment tells you, I added content from Webster 1913, not from Wikipedia. It has been my experiences that:
          • moving individual meanings from Wikipedia to Wiktionary is largely pointless — Wiktionary usually improves when Wiktionarians notice that an article needs cleanup or expansion. This very case is an example. I, with my Wiktionarian hat on, was prodded, by this debate, into looking at nadir, and noticed that it needed expansion, so I added some Webster 1913 content into it.
          • Wikipedia is generally bad at writing dictionary content — I've seen Wiktionary come up with better dictionary articles on words in a handful of days than Wikipedia was able to grow organically in years. Quite a lot of those turned up when we were cleaning out the 1200-or-so article backlog in the transwiki queue.
        • This was yet another case of Wikipedians saying "move to Wiktionary" meaning moving an individual meaning of a word into an existing Wiktionary article. (It has been said before.) And as I said, Wiktionary is simply not in need of such content. Uncle G 14:04, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
          • I am not concerned to deny most of this. When I said "such an addition", I did not mean necessarily an addition of content transferred from Wikipedia, but an addition that would convey the same information the Wikipedia article conveyed. My point has been that:
            • If a Wikipedia article can never be more than a dictionary definition, in some cases the best move is to turn it into a cross-reference to Wiktionary, rather than a redirect to some vaguely related Wikipedia article; and
            • before doing this, it would be wise to make sure the relevant Wiktionary article has all the information the Wikipedia article did.
          • Maybe I was not clear enough about this. In any case I seem to have elicited responses appropriate to something I was not trying to say. DanielCristofani 22:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, there would be plenty of ways to expand this, such as how it is used in astronomy for starters. -- bainer 12:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Its a dictionary definition of a term therefore it belongs on Wiktionary, not WP -- Cynical 13:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Can be expanded -- 152.78.254.131 13:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, very notable astronomy term, can be expanded. — JIP | Talk 13:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with zenith. One can't discuss one without mentioning the other. R adiant _* 15:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't it be nice if we had a horizontal coordinate system article that could discuss both the zenith and the nadir without having to pick either as the primary title? ☺ Uncle G 18:37, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Rewritten article as disambiguation. Uncle G 18:37, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep. Disambiguation pages a great help in WP, especially in sorting out common words with various uses, such as this one. - Acjelen 21:18, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 02:23, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Aurelanii Wars

Completely historically inacurate and totally unverifiable. Appears to be either original research or fan fiction. Zero Google hits, the title of the article itself appears to be completely made up. When ask to explain the article its author provided no sources nor explination and defended the artcile merely by challenging anyone to prove it was false.-- Heathcliff 03:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, unverifiable. Gazpacho 04:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, complete nonsense with not a shred of accuracy, even for the parts that are verifiable. Kuralyov 10:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete says it 'brought devastation to the Scots and the Picts' which I know to be complete garbage- the area that became Scotland was never successfully attacked during that era, either before or after the Romans left -- Cynical 13:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete hoax Stancel 19:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I, the author, with a PHD in History have asked in my last comment for you to delete the article and yet you still rail on and on and on and on. Have any of you ever been to these places? Read first hand accounts on the pages they first were written? As i've said before, i saw a void in your little web page and tried to fill it. As i see now, this is not a place for knowledge, but for the same old Roman record keeping garbage that has stifled our knowledge of history for centuries. I suppose i could wait until the book is released and then cite it as "proof". Would that make you morons feel better? While i was in the second world war, there was no proof of genocide taking place. For years afterward, there was no proof that FDR suppressed this proof. Now there is no proof that the Jews have any historical claim to Israel. Have fun on your flat-empirical world, young fellows. I will soon be in Switzerland beginning my next book (of lies i suppose) on the Gallic War. Keep in mind that they pay me to research and write this stuff. How much do you earn to blindly dispute it? unsigned comment by 68.59.230.134
    Well, color me Nazi. I hope that isn't how you defended your dissertation. Gazpacho
  • Delete. Nothing wrong with a new idea, but it doesn't belong here unless it's got proper support, which this doesn't. If it gains traction after publication, feel free to resubmit. Colin Kimbrell
  • Delete due to lack of references and rudeness of the author. Gamaliel 20:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Somebody with a PhD should know to give references. Jitse Niesen 22:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No original research ought to say it all, but the anonymous & alleged author's comments above & below call for a something. If someone claims to have a Ph.D. in history can't remember that "A.D." properly goes before the date -- or check his spelling -- just how likely are we to trust the material in the article? -- llywrch 00:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • hi. I'm a long time user and a first time poster. Maybe i'm a little "green", but didn't the author request that his post be deleted? Do you guys just like to run things into the ground? I'm not trying to be snotty or rude but haven't you got better things to do than wave your intellectual cocks in the air? I was writing a paper on Britain during the dark ages and wound up side tracked by this stupid argument. True: a few things in the article aren't credible, but this is far from the first page i've seen here that ignore facts or create new theories. Also i have read many books on the subject of King Arthur that support the idea that Magnus was the father of Constantine III. I cannot cite the sources-don't have time-and don't really care. Whenever i look something up on Wikidpedia, i always double check it. Maybe you guys should do your own homework or take the advice of the old guy who wrote this entry and delete it without further discussion. Surely you all have something better to do. Or maybe not. unsigned comment by 68.59.230.134
    • Nice try, but did you notice the article history preserves the IP address of everyone who edits an article? Surely you have better things to do than attempt to fake messages to Wikipedia. Gamaliel 00:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    I would guess that the article isn't gone yet because some of us are still hoping for you-know-what. Because we can be patient like that. Gazpacho 01:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • If this is fiction, it needs deleting. On the other hand, if it is verifiable original research (ie a proper radical redaction of established sources) then surely it deserves a place, albeit marked in some way as theory-not-absolute-fact. Otherwise, havign read the article, I am moved to take issue with Kuralyov's comment about "Not a shred of accuracy" since quite an amount of this is generally-accepted fact in England, and much of the rest accords with one among a number of radical re-readings of Dark Age history which relocate Arthur to Scotland and make the people in the northern part of ther island substantially more civilized than Caesar and his kith were willing to give credit for. Sorry for rant. -- Simon Cursitor 06:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)-- reply
    • Any attempts to relocate Arthur to the north of England/Scotland is merely an attempt at aggrandizement for the people of those areas. There is simply too much evidence putting him in the south, and not enough for him to be in the north. An Arthur-like person, or one of the bases for Arthur, maybe, but not the Arthur, if he existed.

And as for the Picts being more civilized than was thought: they did not have centralized government, standardized religion or language, or codified law; they did not scult, paint murals, write down their legends; they did not try to build lasting cities on purpose. I think the Romans had them beat.

"Radical re-readings" are interesting, but there is a reason they're called "radical." Kuralyov 10:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Delete. Hoax. Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Delete Although I haven't the time to check every point here, as far as I can judge this is not a complete invention by the author, it appears to be an uncritical regurgitation of some accounts of the time of King Arthur written centuries after the event, mainly by Geoffrey of Monmouth, but regarded by historians as extremely unreliable. (I know this because among other things I read a couple of 20th century historical novels about Merlin by Mary Stewart loosely based on Geoffrey of Monmouth, and the recent film Merlin with Helena Bonham Carter as Morgan Le Fay also incorporates elements from Geoffrey.) However the article is not salvagable, so delete, and anything useful should be put in the articles on Geoffrey of Monmouth or some of the characters mentioned in the article. PatGallacher 11:32, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

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

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 - SimonP 02:24, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Worse Invention Convention

{{{text}}} Suggest deletion as non-notable, if even real. Denni ☯ 03:59, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

  • My middle school had an annual invention convention and the phrase gets 39800 Yahoo! hits. Since we don't have invention convention, move this article there to start it. Gazpacho 04:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete doesn't give any WP-worthy information, even if the convention does exist -- Cynical 13:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless it can be verified as a national or beyond-local event. That's the problem, to me: we're dealing with multiple individual acts, rather than one, and each independently is not notable. A new article on HS or PS invention contests (that remains general) might be ok, if it were to discuss when these things began happening and differentiated them from the extant Science fair. Geogre 15:13, 17 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per Vfd). Master Thief Garrett 12:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Aneska (band)

Doesn't seem to fit WP:MUSIC criteria. Made a CD, with a circulation of 300, and existed for about a year. Golbez 04:26, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per VfD). Master Thief Garrett 12:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply

More to Burn

Only album by Aneska (band), now on VfD as well. 300 copies, nn. Golbez 04:26, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:25, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cypress Falls High School

Content is "Cypress Falls High School is a high school located in the suburbs of Houston, Texas. About 3,000 students attend this school, which was created in 1990. It handles grades nine through twelve. It is part of the Cypress Fairbanks Independent School District. Its current principal is Dr. Robert Worthy, Ph.D." In other words, there is absolutely nothing to distinguish it from the tens of thousands of other high schools. Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 04:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:26, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cy-Fair High School

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 04:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:27, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cupertino High School

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 04:20, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn by nominator after notability was established. Neutrality talk 02:23, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Compton High School

Notability not established. Establish notability by the end of the five-day period or delete. Withdrawn. Neutrality talk 04:25, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Collingwood School

Still non-notable despite attempts to disguise its non-notability through an uninformative infobox. Wikipedia is not a school guide, and there is absolutely nothing to distinguish this school from thousands of others like it. Delete. Neutrality talk 04:29, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Claude Watson School for the Arts

Magnet elementary/middle school. Can't we merge this into education in Toronto or something? In any case delete the article/redirect. Neutrality talk 04:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:30, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Clairemont High School

Non-notable, no context. Delete. Neutrality talk 04:34, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:31, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Chung Ling High School, Butterworth

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 04:37, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:32, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Christian Liberty Academy

Non-notable school, less than 1000 students. Delete. Neutrality talk 04:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:34, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Centennial High School

Non-notable high school substub, and most likely one of five dozen schools with the same name. Neutrality talk 04:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:37, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Charleston County School of the Arts

Non-notable magnet school, like thousands of others. Establish notability or delete. Neutrality talk 04:42, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yuckfoo 18:20, 20 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 - kept - SimonP 02:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cathedral High School

Notability not established. Establish notability by the end of the five-day period or delete. Neutrality talk 04:47, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Carmel High School (Carmel, California)

Non-notable high school of 750 people and no special significance. Delete. Neutrality talk 04:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Canyon Crest Academy 2

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 04:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Calvin Christian School

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 04:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:43, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cairns Christian College

Non-notable. Delete. Neutrality talk 04:55, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:44, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Davenies School, Beaconsfield moved to Davenies (its common name)

Single-sentence substub. Establish notability by the end of the five-day period or delete. Neutrality talk 05:04, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:45, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

De Shalit high school

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 05:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:46, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Deerfield Beach High School

One sentence substub on non-notable high school. Delete. Neutrality talk 05:07, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Detroit Catholic Central High School

One notable alumnus and that's it as far as notability. Delete. Neutrality talk 05:09, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Every one of them? Really? Should there be a little stub for every school on the planet, then?
Why yes, apparently, excuse me while I go write about Cabri primary school with its total roll of 50 and declining... Master Thief Garrett 07:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Note that I said "secondary" school. -- BaronLarf 11:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Note that Cabri has a secondary school too, with a roll of ~60 and declining. Master Thief Garrett 12:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Please create one for both, I would be interested in seeing these articles. Part of the most fascinating thing about culture is how it decays, and what springs up to replace it. -- Unfocused 13:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
A fascinating thing about Wikipedia deletion voting policy is how it decays, and what springs up to replace it. (Not any one editor's, just the crowd's.) Barno 19:03, 17 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 - kept - SimonP 02:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Dwight-Englewood School

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 05:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Duveneck School

Non-notable elementary school, delete. Neutrality talk 05:13, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:52, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Dr Challoner's High School

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 05:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:55, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Durham Academy

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 05:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:56, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Evergreen High School

Non-notable, delete. And, incidently, probably one of dozens of schools with the same name. Neutrality talk 13:36, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Essex High School

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 13:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:58, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Elk Grove High School

Content is: "Elk Grove High School is a public, four-year high school serving students in grades 9-12 in Elk Grove and Des Plaines, Illinois. Its colors are green and gold. The school mascot is the Grenadier." Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 13:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Substub with no content. A fact is not an article. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. This particular piece of mud has been on the site for about a year now. It inspired a vaccuous yelling match last time, and the usual suspects showed up, without reading it, voting automatcally, "Keep: All School Articles Must Be Kept No Matter What." It got kept. Well, it hasn't been improved in all that time. So what, exactly, is the eventualist and schoolfanboi position again? Schools should be kept because they're inherently significant (but the articles that show no significance must not be judged) and eventually someone will make it full? N.b. none of the "keep all schools" people seem to actually want to improve any of the articles, and the eventualists defer the obligation eternally onto the imagined Other. Meanwhile, we have pollution. Geogre 02:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or transwiki to wikischools then delete. Wikipedia is not a triviabase Gmaxwell 05:10, 18 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 - kept - SimonP 02:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Episcopal School of Dallas

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 13:43, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 03:00, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Emmanuel christian academy

Non-notable school of 500 students. Delete. Neutrality talk 13:47, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 03:02, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Francis Tuttle

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 21:38, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 03:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Fox Lane High School 2

Non-notable; delete. Neutrality talk 21:37, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 03:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Fairmeadow School

Tiny, non-notable elementary school of 379 students. Delete. Neutrality talk

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 03:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Forcey Christian Middle School

Tiny, non-notable middle school. Delete. Neutrality talk 21:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 03:06, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

George S. Parker High School

Non-notable high school of either 1600 or 2000 students—depending on which of the conflicting figures in the article you believe. Delete. Neutrality talk 21:22, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 03:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Grace Christian Academy

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 21:25, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 03:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Grosse Pointe North High School

Orphaned, unlinked, non-notable. Delete. Neutrality talk 21:28, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 03:09, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Guilford Young College

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 21:30, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - SimonP 03:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Atlas ensemble

Non-notable Austalian band. Google search for "atlas ensemble" Australian yields 9 hits, mostly WP mirrors. Bad website.— Wahoofive ( talk) 06:16, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Necro music

Another imaginary music genre, this one is "post- Black metal". Nothing links here; let's kill it before anything does — Wahoofive ( talk) 06:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: It's like Vegetarian Literary Theory: folks'll do most anything to invent importance for themselves and say, "We're not like all the rest." Yes, well, they are. Fictitious music genre. Geogre 11:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per Geogre. Bratsche talk random 03:51, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Necro is a notable sub-genre in black metal, for those who are into that sort of music. Harp Heaven 12:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Why is it that Techno and Metal seem to both be experts at developing phantom genres of music? This article doesn't even distinguish it from the collected works of a garage band of twelve-year-olds, never mind establish notability. Delete unless someone can expand the article in such a way as to show what makes this particular "genre" special. Haikupoet 04:42, 19 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:11, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cora-bora

NN neologism invented by some college students. Rl 06:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • The criteria is rather how wide-spread the use of such a term is. But even if this term was notable, it would be hardly worth an entry in WP and would likely be merged or tagged for a move to the wiktionary. Rl 08:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
The issue is usage. If a word is used only in a small area (Rochester, MN), it is a regionalism when it has been in use for a while. If a word is used only in a class/profession, it is jargon or slang, but it has to live for a while, and it has to have quite a few speakers. The reason it has to live for a while is that lexicons are always behind the usage (even Wiktionary). Linguistic atlases try to explain and catalog what's happening now, but all lexicons are attempting to explain to someone else what a word means; they are all translations. There can be no someone else if the word is used for a season or a month. However, all of this is kind of irrelevant, because Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Geogre 11:19, 18 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Barstooling

Non-notable drinking game. Google gives 51 hits for "barstooling" and most are not in reference to this game. SWAdair | Talk 10:27, 17 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 - all deleted - SimonP 03:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

James Lockwood, King's College Conservatives, 2001club

According to personal bio - a local student association organizer. This does not meet notability criteria. Vote for delete

Lotsofissues 10:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

additional notes, user has also created King's College Conservatives 2001club mentioning vfd candidate and email so these entries are likely vanity/self promotion. What does everyone want to do with those two contributions? Lotsofissues 11:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

is there a way to modify the vfd template so we could put it on multiple pages (eg, a vanity page about a band, then the vanity pages about its members and albums) but have them all link to the same discussion? so we dont have to vote three (or more) times. Nateji77 11:33, 17 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 - kept - SimonP 03:14, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Karuna Institute

No potential to become encyopedic appears to be an add anyway Geni 12:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I think you've misread this. This institute offers professional qualifications in psychotherapy accredited by the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (which is one of two independent national accreditation bodies recognised for psychotherapists used by the UK National Health Service) and masters degrees accredited by Middlesex University. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 14:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I created the article. While I am an ex Karuna student (91-95), it can in no way be considered an ad as I have completely lost connection with them, and they are, anyway, a charitable institute, which is one of the reasons I had no hesitation in starting the article. The Institute is clearly notable, it is a nationally recognised training institute for psychotherapy (one of only 2 for transpersonal psychology) and craniosacral therapy as well. Both Maura Sills and Franklyn Sills clearly each deserve an article (perhaps now is the time to start). While I have felt it is a shame that no-one else (ex students etc) has added to this article it clearly has a vast potential as an article. The buddhist psychotherapy work they are doing is certainly unique in the UK and possibly the world. Why would anyone think this article is not encyclopedic. There must be thousands of articles more deserving of a Vfd than this one, -- SqueakBox 14:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 18:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep tertiary institutions. Capitalistroadster 19:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Edumacation. --  BD2412 talk 22:59, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep all tertiary educational institutions. Kelly Martin 02:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Notable institute. Megan1967 06:01, 18 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:15, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Darththeo and KazII

Chat-room-cruft, not notable. Delete. — JIP | Talk 13:37, 17 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 - copyvio - SimonP 03:16, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Fred Piper

A Ctrl+v CV. not notable. Nateji77 13:39, 17 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 - kept - SimonP 03:17, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hugh O'Connor

Seems to be a somewhat pointless page Barneyboo 14:44, 17 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 - kept - SimonP 03:19, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Digital Mars

Wikispam. All this page does is tell you that they give out the software for free, and a link to their page. No reason for notability or impact on computing. Alexa rates them at 121,554, so they do get some traffic. However, if this were more than just an add, it would have been stubbed (which it's not), there would have been some information on the founder people, and stuff like that. This page, as it exists, is nothing more than an ad. Delete. -- Mitsukai 14:52, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article messages

This page was created as part of a non-discussed change to Wikipedia:Template messages (see the talk page). The change has been reverted, so this page no longer serves a purpose. Delete. -- Ciaran H 14:55, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree, delete as fork. R adiant _* 08:57, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not against the splitting idea per se, as long as it's properly transcluded so as not to break anything or cause unnecessary redundancy. This was just not the way to do it (and not the best title, either). - dcljr ( talk) 10:23, 19 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia messages

This page was created as part of a non-discussed change to Wikipedia:Template messages (see the talk page). The change has been reverted, so this page no longer serves a purpose. Delete. -- Ciaran H 15:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree, delete. R adiant _* 08:57, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not against the splitting idea per se, as long as it's properly transcluded so as not to break anything or cause unnecessary redundancy. This was just not the way to do it (and not a good title, either). - dcljr ( talk) 10:25, 19 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Data drawing

Something between a joke and original research. Maybe appropriate for BJAODN. Sietse 15:01, 17 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per VfD). Master Thief Garrett 12:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Jewish Renegades

This is an article by an anonymous user. It is a concoction of part "original research" part selective biographies, and part deceptive "self-adulation" (then again, maybe "self-hate"), about some personalities that will surely be offensive to people of all stripes. Religious Jews will wonder how their VIPs get lumped with secular ones and secular people will wonder why their VIPs are the same as ancient rabbis. Then everyone else is bound to wonder what's next? Christian Renegades? Islamic Renegades? etc, etc, Since when is "renegades" an acceptable title for an encyclopedia article? This is too contentious and hopelessly POV. This article should be deleted ASAP. IZAK 15:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, see above. IZAK 15:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Maybe I'm missing something - but I don't get this article. Define 'renegade'? No vote for now, but strongly tending towards delete. -- Doc Glasgow 15:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC) OK, delete-- Doc Glasgow 16:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, inherently POV, and duplicative of biographies found in other articles. In the unlikely event that there's anything on this page not found on the individual pages, merge. RussBlau 15:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - inflammatory at worst, silly at best. -- Leifern 16:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unbelievably POV. The term "renegade" is loaded in itself, unless the person has declared "I am a Jewish renegade and proud of it". This cannot be said about Maimonides; like with any visionary there were initial difficulties with the acceptance of his views, but today you will not find a serious Jew who is anti-Maimonides; quite the opposite - every group has tried to colonise Maimonides to gain legitimacy (yes that is POV as well). The article is also selective - there are plenty of Jews who have had profound influence on Jewish religion, people and history. What about the Maharal, the Baal Shem Tov, the Vilna Gaon and Samson Raphael Hirsch? JFW |  T@lk 16:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, possibly opening can of forks--uh, worms. Master Thief Garrett 16:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC) (?!? link doesn't work?!?) reply
  • Delete. I don't think the author of this article knows what the definition of "renegade" is; I suspect he thinks it means "hero," but it actually means "deserter" (among other meanings). I don't think an NPOV article under this title is possible anyway. -- Metropolitan90 16:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No clear criteria for membership, so the collection is useless. --  BD2412 thimk act 16:46, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. I laughed, but then again, it's kinda hard to actually offend me. The article is badly named, and it does nothing whatsoever to enhance WP. Plus, the name is just wrong.  :-p Tomer TALK 19:54, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why don't we all just write wikipedia articles lumping together all our favorite people (especially if they already all have individual articles)? (I think my new article will feature: Batman, Superman, Fulgencio Batista, Brian "Kato" Kaelin...) :-) HKT 20:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Nicely done, inherently POV. Delete, but if there is anything useful in the article it could be merged with the individual biographies first. Jayjg (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'd say Merge, but most of the text appears to have been copied wholesale from other articles. Also, The Jewish Renegades would be a kickass name for a neo-klezmer band. Colin Kimbrell
  • Delete. "No clear criteria for membership, so the collection is useless." El_C 20:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete.-- Heathcliff 23:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete.-- Eliezer 02:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:21, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Confuseable

This seems to be original research, a neologism, and hopelessly POV about the use of English to describe the computer industry. Best to delete it. AlexTiefling 15:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • delete neologistic rant -- Doc Glasgow 15:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, vanity neologism, article content begins "Confuseable is a word that I created to fill a semantic void." No indication of widespread use to merit transwikification to Wiktionary. However, it's a good word in a non-lexical usage: I have often admitted to being confuseable in the early morning. Barno 19:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • The best bit is where the author (writing in the first person, by the way) mis-spells xyr own protologism and accidentally uses the word confusable. The irony is that "confuseable" has been a mis-spelling of confusable for a long while before this author "invented" it. The word that the author is groping for is ambiguous. Adjective→noun Redirect to ambiguity. Uncle G 19:16, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete admitted vanity neologism. Gazpacho 20:14, 17 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. Golbez 17:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

insidious

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

This three-word article about a word was nominated for deletion on 2005-05-08. SimonP closed the discussion as Wiktionary without checking Wiktionary first, where he would have seen that as the Wikipedia discussion had trundled along, completely independently a Wiktionarian had created a proper Wiktionary article at insidious. Much as I dislike immediate re-nominations, this discussion needs to be re-opened because the choice made at closure had actually disappeared as a valid option almost a week earlier (a day before Texture said "if it isn't already there", moreover). Wiktionary has no need of this three word article. No adjective→noun redirects come to mind. And there's no concept/place/person/event/thing for an encyclopaedia article to be about. Uncle G 15:26, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

  • Delete or speedy delete as duplicate material. If it already exists at Wiktionary, then I believe this is CSD, and not even VfD. If it cannot stand as an encyclopedia article (and it sure as shootin' can't), then there isn't any debate. 162.39.237.201 18:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 - SimonP 03:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Redstar 2000

Vanity, thy name is Redstar (2000, that is). RussBlau 15:37, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - SimonP 03:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

CodingIRC

As the network has only 10 to 14 users, there aren't many people interested in it. Besides, there have not been any links to CodingIRC since the link from Internet Relay Chat was removed. Delete. -- Betterworld 15:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

(Edit: Ahh, I know what you mean now.)

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 - copyvio - SimonP 03:23, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Autopsychognosia

Apparently has had copyright issues, with no text it is entirely useles. I doubt it could be expanded.

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- kept - SimonP 03:25, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Juliet (artist)

vanity. If she's a one-hit wonder, would she rate a page in a regular encyclopedia; if she was an up and coming artist, there would be more about her here in which case the page would still be vanity. Delete. -- Mitsukai 16:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Delete. Aside from being non-notable it is questionable if she is an "artist" or only a "vocalist". Its also a bad stub. -- Modi 16:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Keep. Ridiculous VfD for a released artist. Amongst the 43,500 results on Google for "Juliet - Avalon" ( [2]) are the page on HMV.co.uk: [3], the page on CDUniverse [4] and a lot of lyrics sites, reviews and forums mentioning the song. If required I have the music video as featured on First Play in the UK a couple of months ago. I think that a simple visit to Google would have prevented this - Also, how is it vanity unless I am connected to the artist? Hedley 16:50, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:26, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Digg

Promotional. Delete unless rewritten. Previously, the article received 6:3 vote in favour of deletion (discounting sockpuppets and anonymous votes). Could be marked for speedy deletion, but I prefered to err on the side of caution. - Mike Rosoft 16:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

And the reason you want it deleted it what? -Danzik

  • Delete, redirect to Dig as possible misspelling, protect. R adiant _* 08:56, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cabrini College

While we're at it, can we see the pictures from the brochure, too? This reads so much like advertising copy, it's not even funny. Delete. -- Mitsukai 16:25, 17 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 - kept - SimonP 03:27, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I Like Pumpkins

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 - kept - SimonP 03:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ate my balls

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 - SimonP 03:30, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Robert Thompson (cartoonist)

Unverifiable. A Google search on "Zen of Smurf" returns zero hits. A Google search on the name (which is common) doesn't return anything apparently related to cartooning or children's shows. An IMDB search on the name returns several individuals, but none who appear to have been writers on children's shows. Most likely a hoax. RussBlau 17:17, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

(Addendum -- before others jump on this:) There apparently is a Robert Thompson who is an editorial cartoonist for the Observer, a British newspaper. This article, however, clearly is not about him! RussBlau 17:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Never heard of him, agree it's a hoax. Hiding 20:07, 17 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 - kept, could be merged. Copyirght status still unresolved - SimonP 03:33, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Definitions of capitalism and Definitions of socialism

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. No useful content, delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Dude, you're dead wrong about the page not being helpful. Being a participant in a now-resolved lengthy edit war over getting a definition of capitalism in the capitalism article, I know that the creation and editing of the definitions of capitalism article was essential and instrumental. If it's deleted, I predict more unnecessary edit-warring from people who have no clue how capitalism is commonly defined and who are unwilling to go research tons of dictionaries, encyclopedia, and works of thinkers to find out. The article serves to consolidate all of that research in one place to avoid unnecessary battling in the capitalism article. The claim that's it's not useful is definitely wrong. RJII 04:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge respectively into capitalism and socialism. Forks. Megan1967 06:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The content or even parts of it cannot be moved to the alreday much too long capitalism article. Deleting the page will only start the very intense and long-lasting previous edit war about the correct definition of capitalism again. This article was cited in a case before the arbcom as part of the resolution to this previous edit war, so it should be kept. Ultramarine 09:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • One possiblity would be to move the material to Wikiquote. Ultramarine 10:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Wikiquote has the same copyright policy as Wikipedia, and the same command not to submit copyrighted work beneath every edit box. Uncle G 11:56, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
        • It is certainly Fair use to quote one paragraph from a dictionary. Please give source if claiming otherwise. Ultramarine 12:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
          • Your argument is a false characterization. This article is exactly copying entries from twenty-six dictionaries (and three encyclopaedias), rather than "quoting one paragraph from a dictionary". If you think that copying copyrighted dictionaries and encyclopaedias into WikiMedia project articles is acceptable, then you should discuss this with the WikiMedia Foundation, and on the talk pages of the various copyright policies for all of the WikiMedia projects, which all say otherwise. (You'll have a have a hard time of it. The GFDL is a foundation issue, and non-negotiable.) Why did you think that Wiktionarians and Wikipedians are specifically pointed in the directions of Webster 1913 and Britannica 1911? There's plenty of explanation, of why Wiktionary and Wikipedia must not copy (non-GFDL licenced) copyrighted dictionaries and encyclopaedias, linked to from our copyright policy, a link to which is on this and every page, and no need for us to spoon-feed it to you in this discussion. Please go and read it all. Uncle G 15:53, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
            • Your reasoningis strange. So what if it's "twenty-six" dictionaries? If it's not a copyright violation to provide a quote from one dictionary, then it's not a violation to quote a definition from a hundred different dictionaries. RJII 19:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve. There is potential here for good articles illustrating important debates. FreplySpang (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as per Megan1967 — RJH 15:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I have written a notification on Wikipedia:Copyvio so that it can be decided if the content is appropriate. - Mike Rosoft 16:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Very useful information, keep and improve. Short sourced quotes within a context are not copyvios.-- Fenice 08:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- very useful, in that it allows editors to get beyond unresolvable definitional disputes in the capitalism and socialism article. Also, I'm not buying the copyright claim. These defs are all within the meaning of fair use SFAIK. -- Christofurio 03:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep -- yes, wiktionary is indeed for definitions, but also for pronunciations, etc, as long as it is an aid for use in language. Wiktionary is also for the simple definitions of words. However, these articles address the definitions is the context of the idea or philosophy, which can never be dictionary-like, for it is no longer a guide for language use but rather another body of knowledge. I suggest though, one, to restore the articles but edit it according to the definitions of notable people, rather than dictionaries, and two, to discuss the history of how those definitions began, developed, and evolved. Making the articles like that will resolve all standing issues. -- Humble Guy 15:37, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- integrate content into capitalism and socialism articles, respectively. If a consensus cannot be reached on how to define socialism and capitalism, simple give multiple definitions in the introductions to their two articles and explain which group uses which definition (although I really can't see why it's so hard to reach a consensus, especially on capitalism - in general, both supporters and opponents of capitalism define it in the same way). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Not true. I just, a minute ago, had to revert a change in the definition. Somebody tried to assert that it's commonly defined as an economy where "capitalists" dictate prices, etc, rather than the market. This is probably because the definitions of capitalism article is unavailable right now. The definitions article helps prevent useless battles over how capitalism is commonly defined. Apparently a lot of people have no clue. RJII 21:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - SimonP 03:33, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:36, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

List of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs)

Too broad. will become unmaintainable and perhaps too lengthy. -- Longhair | Talk 17:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

How often would the list change? There must be millions of CEO's out there. -- Longhair | Talk 18:02, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:37, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Channing Jones

Student vanity -- Longhair | Talk 17:57, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Atah

As it stands, it's a dicdef. See its history, though; and see its talk page. — msh210 18:03, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Postmodern Tractor

One of the many things created by Special:Contributions/207.215.247.1, which all seem to be nonsense...mostly they can be cleaned up, but this doesn't appear on Google, even though it appears to be copied from somewhere. This user is also "Serapion" on IRC and is being pretty nonsensical there too. Adam Bishop 18:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete -- nonsense - Longhair | Talk 18:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Salvage -- Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia - any ideological opposition to the understanding that the human condition is presently one which persistently references a certain limited degree of _incompletely analyzed_ uncertainty... People who can't explicate an understanding of Quantum Superposition should be barred from this discussion, as should any categorical generalizations which appeal to already understood List of Cognitive Biases (e.g. anthrocentrism, etc...). Every claim in the article can be falsified, so, attack it on its _merits_. Serapion | Talk 18:33, 17 May 2005 (PST)
  • Patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 19:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not quite patent nonsense for a speedy delete. Policy reasons: Original research, source material from elsewhere, title has no objectively perceptible connection to content. Non-policy reason: Rant from a tripping grad student, apparently. Quotes from article, more telling than the author realizes: "The purpose of this paper is to delve into this uncertainty, examine it, and see if meaningful distinctions can be made between the two categories I have parceled out as segments of the identities cited by the thing which creates meaningfulness for each person who experiences a perception of reality."; "it would be appropriate for us to do without thinking. That is the new writing style people are employing on message boards on the internet, ..." Or at least the one which this person seems to be employing. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Barno 19:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nonsense, almost gibberish. Even if sense could somehow be made of it (and I feel sorry for whoever tries) it would still be original research, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be about using GIT to advocate anti-realism. That is an interesting idea. I notice that Barno makes assumptions to explain the identity of the author, and Starblind cites a feeling as a reason to destroy this creation, which I grok as worthwhile, salvagable art. Reminds me of Sartre's Dirty Hands Play... Mythrandia - 16:17, May 17, 2005 (PST ) http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
  • Delete original research/deep thoughts. Gazpacho 01:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Deep Thoughts, and Wikipedia is not your gallery. Geogre 02:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, original research. Megan1967 06:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - original research, and doesn't exaplain what it has to do with the article title anyway. Loganberry 18:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nonsense masquerading as deep thought. DJ Clayworth 20:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Postmodernism for the Dadaist -- this stuff would give Alan Sokal a headache. Haikupoet 04:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Would you like some cheese with your whine, Serapion? This is not the place for philosophical writings. If what you've written is so important, then surely there are philosophical journals that would be happy to publish them. Haikupoet 03:01, 21 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:39, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Steelcube

non-notable shopping site. -- Sgkay 16:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Site may be useful to some people -- jxs97s 19:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Above is in reality User:81.1.69.25, the creator of the page Rick K 23:10, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia and was looking for an article to write that hasn't been written yet. With well over half a million articles, that isn't so easy. I'm a customer of this website and think they do a great job, so wanted to write about it. If Wikipedia is to be the sum of human knowledge, why shouldn't my knowledge of this web store be here? Besides, I thought there was a policy of not biting newcomers!! -- jxs97s 23:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Site has some great looking products and a cool feel to it -- Daveeeeeed 19:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

User's only edits. Rick K 23:10, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Votes once again removed by Jxs97s -- Longhair | Talk 09:57, 19 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 speedy deleted by RickK (recreation of Vfd'd article) -- cesarb 00:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Kernaxion

A new language spoken by 14 people in Texas! Delete -- Svest 18:24, May 17, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

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 - kept - SimonP 03:40, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Classic Response

Non-notable one time event. -- YUL89YYZ 18:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - SimonP 03:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

UtDD

Not notable; see also blatant ad on Flo from the same user.-- Tabor 19:01, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:42, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Bob and Fred

Ad for non-notable website. -- W( t) 19:05, 2005 May 17 (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 - SimonP 03:43, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Austin Utley

Not notable -- plans for an upcoming album and spamvertisement, see UtDD entry above. -- Tabor 19:05, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:44, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wwcarpen and Aghost

More examples of the "I can't be bothered..." kind of articles. Two articles weighing in at a total of 3 (three) sentences. "See also" indicates that they are related, text doesn't explain how. Neither article makes an attempt to establish notability. FWIW, there used to be a musician from Baltimore who went under the name WWCarpen; according to the article, "In 2005, wwcarpen died as a logical extension of his initial starting conditions.". Whatever that means. Rl 19:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • I'm guessing it was a way of referring to the fact that all which is born is born temporarily. Jeez, I didn't phrase that in a way much less unusual than Rl's way. Barno 19:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. EvilPhoenix 00:49, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wwcarpen per my musical group article policy and delete Aghost as vanity. Kelly Martin 03:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I'd like to propose that since wikipedia is defined by reality, wikipedia can also define reality, thus giving an artist a chance to shape their own destiny. perhaps my argument is standard fare here, but i feel that no harm is done by wikipedia growing beyond where people feel it should naturally go. why would you cut all the flowers off a beautiful tree?
  • Wwcarpen "has released" something, so he's alive. No, wait, he's dead. But how many people would notice the difference? Delete. I'm aghast at the WP activities of our friend aghost. -- Hoary 04:15, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete both and ban the author as a vandal if he tries this sort of thing again. -- Cyrius| ✎ 01:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • i plan on making more wiki pages for my other projects. im not interested in the world catching up to my ideas, they deserve to be in the wikipedia, when i feel they are ready. i think some serious consideration needs to be given to whether im a vandal or some kind of creationist before my account is deleted. Aghost 15:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: You're already making your mark, Aghost. No need to throw " creationism" into the mix. -- Hoary 15:53, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
it seems to me that you have thrown creationism into the mix. Aghost 18:24, 22 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:44, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nmac

Not notable, vanity, see UtDD and Austin Utley entried above. -- Tabor 19:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

'Delete All. (you forgot Neil McMahon). Vanity/Spam. Joe D (t) 19:21, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:45, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Browne of Beechworth Castle

WP is not a genealogical database; Despite the knighthood, this lists his major accomplishment as having married someone. Dunc| ☺ 19:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Don't underestimate it, it's harder than you think. Delete though. -- W( t) 20:01, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Hmm, since he seems not to have attained his knighthood through marriage nor had it awarded for service to the Crown, it was apparently harder to marry his wife (the only accomplishment mentioned in the story) than to inherit his title. Delete unless more indication of notability is provided and verified. Barno 20:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • He had four sons and a daughter, which is more than Thomas Fitzalan and Elizabeth le Despenser, apparently. Eleanor Maltravers outdoes all three by inheriting something from her step-grandmother and her sister, though. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. This is not an important historical figure, according to the article. This is a distant relative of an important historical figure. Delete. Uncle G 20:54, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete: Bertel the Fecund (or "Bertel the Fertile") in Njal's Saga probably out-produced them all. There are all sorts of neat and significant Thomas Brownes in history. I cannot find this one tying to any of them, alas. Geogre 02:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Geneaology. Gamaliel 02:23, 18 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:46, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Good_life

Article has no encyclopedic potential and cannot be NPOV Eugene Medynskiy 19:55, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:49, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Used-rental-cars

An ad, though not for a specific company, not sure what its goal is. I doubt an appropriate article can be made of it though. -- W( t) 19:59, 2005 May 17 (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 - SimonP 03:49, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Lombax

Part fancruft for the Ratchet and Clank game series, but also questionable copyright from [7], a source of information that is entirely of the author's creation. If the article is rewritten for accurate and factual content, it will have virtually no content. Recommend deletion. Mr Bound 20:29, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree with Mr Bound. -- Trogga 18:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Recommendation accepted, Delete. Master Thief Garrett 10:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I disagree with the deletion request. While the questionable copyright should certainly be investigated and, if necessary, repaired, there are numerous articles on fictitious species (such as " Bugs (Starship Troopers)") which have virtually no information, speculative or otherwise, yet are not under consideration. While this article could be improved with additional links to factual information (perhaps such as marsupial biology/development), but such changes would be better made with small modifications rather than deletion. Mithlas 21 May 2005
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 - SimonP 03:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

"Joseph Howley"

Vanity. -- W( t) 20:35, 2005 May 17 (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 - SimonP 03:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Steven L. Woyach

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 - SimonP 03:51, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Jigyasubalak's Law

Law-vanity. -- W( t) 20:39, 2005 May 17 (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 - kept - SimonP 03:53, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nam Fung Sun Chuen

An apartment block is not encyclopedic even if there is a picture.-- metta, The Sunborn 20:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per Kelly Martin. -- Unfocused 14:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Even if expanded, I find it ridiculous to have an article about a collection of apartment buildings. Sarg 15:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: In your opinion in what way will an entry of tower blocks be notable? What about a collection with ~100 blocks and ~50 000 residents? — Insta ntnood 15:24, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. I'll put it this way: I live in a 4 million inhabitants city. Do you realize how many 50.000 resident complexes can be found here? Quite some. Do they need Wikipedia articles? Nope, I don't think so. I'd put an exception if the complex /district / whatever had some historical, political or educational relevance. I don't see that here. It is just 9.000 people living in a zone. Wow, big deal :) But that is just my opinion, of course Sarg 19:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Thank you. Sounds logical, but this entry is not the only one of the same kind, and there was little objection towards these similar entries. Somehow I can't really tell where the line of notability should be drawn. :-) — Insta ntnood 19:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some architecture is notable, but this article doesn't establish that. Quale 20:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all real districts. Isn't Nam Fung Sun Chuen the chinese pronunciation of General Gau's Chicken ? Klonimus 03:39, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, "notable" enough. -- SPUI ( talk) 10:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as encyclopedic as any other neighbourhood. - SimonP 03:53, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 03:54, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Coby Archa

Vanity. -- W( t) 20:54, 2005 May 17 (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 - SimonP 03:58, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yuriy Hychun

Non-notable athlete-- metta, The Sunborn 20:57, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Litton, Chris

Badly written vanity page / joke / test edit with the wrong title. Possible speedy but then the threashold for speedy tends to be different for everybody who cleans out the speedy category ;) Joe D (t) 20:58, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

ESH by ESH

Ad for a comic; it does score a reasonable amount of google hits, but they are all either false positives or promotion of the comic by the author by the looks of it. I can't find any evidence of notability. -- W( t) 21:03, 2005 May 17 (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 - SimonP 03:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Uroš Eršte

No evidence of notability. -- W( t) 21:03, 2005 May 17 (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 - SimonP 04:01, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

The Yeti

"Cult phenomenon vanity"? Not notable anyway. -- W( t) 21:07, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Tried to speedy it as entirely not notable (I may have been a little bit off on that one, it seemed like part user test and part incomprehensible gibberish with no clear mention of a band when I first speedied it), repeatedly reinserted the "delete" tag after the user kept removing it. Also dealt with that same user's vandalism of my page. Strong delete. I applaud you, Weyes. Mr Bound 21:10, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as the vainest of nonencyclopedic vanities. Postdlf 21:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as vanity, possibly redirect to yeti Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:18, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. PERIOD. -- Fitful 22:55, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 04:01, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Multiscale calculus

Original research. See also Talk:Multiscale calculus and findings at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Evaluation_operator. -- Pjacobi 21:20, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

  1. An algebra of A operators on functions defined on R generated by the integral translation operators and a single scaling operator. This group of operators is isomorphic to the group a x+b for a, b rational numbers acting on functions
  2. a linear functional, eg. point evaluation at 0. It follows that evaluation at any point is determined by continuoity and application of a x+b transformations.
However, as noted previously, the commutation relations for the action of the a x+b group are wrong.-- CSTAR 00:29, 21 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 - deleted - SimonP 04:01, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Breck Wilmot

No google hits for "Breck Wilmot" Marlboro, I'm guessing hoax. -- W( t) 21:54, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

I dunno, Google has no hits for "Bill Gates" and Microsoft.... oh, wait...

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 - SimonP 04:02, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

"Finding Really Cheap Airfares"

Delete. Not encyclopedic; how-to article that links to a blog. android↔ talk 21:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - SimonP 04:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

11111

Delete. An article on an individual integer with no particular significance. The only piece of non-trivial information contained in the article is that 11111 is not prime. android↔ talk 21:43, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I vote to not delete. It's really amusing!

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 - SimonP 04:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Alex Tyler

Delete. Not notable, potential hoax or joke article. Google for "alex tyler" "blatantly obvious" returns 0 hits. Google for "alex tyler" "video game" returns 6 unique hits, all of which are not relevant. android↔ talk 21:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - SimonP 04:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Leeroy

Delete. Not notable. Apparently a WoW player who did something particularly brave/stupid within the game. android↔ talk 21:47, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - SimonP 04:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Oggum

Delete. Apparently a record label, but it also appears to be the name of a musical act. I believe WP:MUSIC applies here, and article does not establish that its subject meets any one criterion therein. 117 unique Googles for "oggum music". android↔ talk 21:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - SimonP 04:05, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Searchius

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.

Searchius

Non-notable freeware, <300 Google hits, <1000 downloads from download.com and at least one reviewer complains of massive maware issues (in a P2P program? Who'd have thought it!); no evidence of importance or notability, apparently spam for bog-standard non-notable freeware. Anon user's sole contribution. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 14:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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 - should be moved to wiktionary - SimonP 04:06, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Winter rat

Delete. Slang dicdef, probably a neologism. android↔ talk 21:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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- SimonP 04:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Theta calculus

Original research by User:Dirnstorfer alias User:Dadim. The article establishes a notation, which uses function composition in the opposite way, without explaining why it is useful. As far as I can see, nobody but the author uses this notation. Mathematical Reviews has not heard about it. Related articles by the same author are Evaluation operator (now deleted, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Evaluation operator) and Multiscale calculus (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Multiscale calculus). Jitse Niesen 22:11, 17 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 - redirected - SimonP 04:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

May There Always be Sunshine

Typo in the name. Redirected to May There Always Be Sunshine. Cmapm 22:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep the redirect. No real reason to delete it. - Doozer ( Talk) 22:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Unless we also want pages called May there Always Be Sunshine, May There Always Be sunshine, May There Always Be SunshinE, etc.-- Heathcliff 23:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Since the edit history shows that Cmapm created the article and then immediately tagged it for deletion, I'm guessing that this is a leftover after a page move. If that is the case, there are several reasons to leave it as a redirect. 1) It points the other contributors to the new location. 2) It catches any missed inbound links. (Even if you clean out "What links here", a revert can restore an old link.) 3) Redirects are cheap. We don't go out of our way to create new redirects for every conceivable misspelling but once one exists, we generally keep the redirect. (By the way, this really should have been nominated at Redirects for deletion.) Rossami (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
You are absolutely right, it was my mistake and I moved it to one with correct name. Your second point is very interesting. I didn't create any links to it myself, but there IS non-zero probability that such link may be found in the history of at least one page in Wikipedia. It seems to me that it is very close to zero, though. Therefore, I don't change my vote delete for it, although I promise to place such things under Redirects for deletion next time :-) Cmapm 16:04, 18 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 - deleted - SimonP 04:09, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

XAR Salon and Spa

Vanity advert, along with duplicates XAR and XAR Salon. Delete Gazpacho 23:04, 17 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 - kept - SimonP 04:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cao Yang Middle School

Non-notable, delete zellin 23:58, May 17, 2005 (UTC) vote changed see below

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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_17&oldid=1234127056"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 16 May 18 >

May 17

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 - deleted - SimonP 01:44, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Salvi

Non-encyclopedic. If anything, belongs on list of ethnic slurs. -- Laura Scudder | Talk 00:10, 17 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 - kept - SimonP 01:45, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Dabur

Looks like advertising spam. None of the information is particularly encyclopedic. -- Laura Scudder | Talk 00:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Last entry by Guptadeepak at 16:25, 17 May 2005
  • Keep, notable. Eixo 15:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, notable, and at its current state after cleanup, certainly it can be kept. Should be expanded though. -- Ragib 15:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but improve. There are many articles on here about companies, so why delete this article and keep the others? The content needs to be improved, but I think the topic belongs on Wikipedia. Aecis 22:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, companies with a turnover of $300M are notable. Googling on "Dabur India" returns 35k pages, of which the first 20 refer to this company. -- Jitse Niesen 22:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep big company. needs to be expanded -- 152.78.254.131 22:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Yeah, I've never heard of them, but is that really a surprise? Kelly Martin 00:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and to be developed suitably by persons who may be aware of such things. As regards the size of the article - several articles were stubs - A P J Abdul Kalam, the present president of India was hardly 40 words, Dhirubhai Ambani who laid foundation for the largest industrial house in India (when he died 2 years before it was worth 12 bn US$) was less than 60 words, and the last week's WP:COTW, Culture of Ancient Rome was less than 100 words. As such, size of Dabur in words should not determine one's vote to keep or delete. As regards "not notable" and "advert" - after a level, a corporate house rises above these levels and sets its own standard, and is not dependent on wikepedia for notability and advertisement: do anyone feels that an article on Bill Gates and Microsoft would be vanity / advertisement and so on. Dabur is a corporate house, which does not require an article on wikepedia to promote itself - it is in existence for about 100 years and the medicines it produces and sells have been in India for several thousand years. Before any vote for deletion, one should please understand wikepedia's guideleins in this respect and not vote for deletion without any familiarity with the topic. We all are here to make wikepedia "sum total of human knowledge" and not to reduce it. I am sorry for the lecture. -- Bhadani 03:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I actually think people marked it for vfd not for any prejudice, because it sounded just like an advert in its first draft. The edits following that have improved it to its current state, which is good, but in its first few drafts, it really looked like an ad. -- Ragib 03:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -I don't know what do people mean to say by calling the first few articles on Dabur an Ad . Even the present revised article looks like an AD in that case ,just that it is a bit more informative . Think people love to argue on this site . -- IncMan 12:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Please look, sometimes, my strong reactions to some issues upset the puople around, they upset me equally - today, I was feeling bad for a greater part of the day. I promise to be more careful in my comments and reactions. Now, coming to the present issue, yes, Dabur may be a good topic for an article, but the present contents do require modifications: actually, I am not able to plan on this topic otherwise I would have attempted to do this myself, as earlier, I had done with a few articles under VfD like Awasthi, RURAL MARKETS and Family traditions. In any case, I am sorry for my strong reactions. -- Bhadani 17:47, 18 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 - deleted - SimonP 01:51, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Greenhaven Drive

  • Does anyone think it is logical for Wikipedia to have articles on local roads that are not designated as higways with numbers?? I say this article should be deleted if no one can prove that this road merits an article. Georgia guy 00:57, 17 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 - kept - SimonP 02:00, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Saddleback_High

Vanity page

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - keep for now as it is evidence in an arbitration, should probably be dumped when that process is finished. - SimonP 02:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Death Penalty

Utter, utter bullshit. Neutrality talk 01:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've voted 'delete', but I'd like it kept around for the duration of the ArbCom case. If it gets "delete", please don't delete straight away but mark it as to be deleted at the end of the case - David Gerard 16:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • An archive, meaning "a preserved page that is impossible to edit" and with a notice saying that this policy is just a "bill" and is not official. → JarlaxleArtemis 03:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • A bill is a proposal that has not yet (or ever will be, as is the case here) been turned into a policy or law. → JarlaxleArtemis 01:37, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Trying hard to ignore sexist and idiotic comment.... → JarlaxleArtemis 01:39, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • That would mean that this is not a Wikipedia project and that it applies to the "real world." → JarlaxleArtemis 02:47, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Do not move - That would make this "real world" article an original research and not regarding an existing concept such as Usenet Death Penalty since it (a Wikipedia version) does not exist. - Tεx τ urε 17:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Pefect reason for moving it. Since it's not a WP policy, it can go into the article space. Then we can bring it up for vfd again as original research. Grutness... wha? 08:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
I never knew you had such a diabolical streak in you... but yes that would get rid of it. hehehe... Master Thief Garrett Talk 09:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete. If you don't like Wikipedia, go back to your goatse. That's my two cents. Harro5 10:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Either pityful attempt at humour (not even remotely funny), or just plainly neurotic. Utterly useless in any case. Rama 22:01, 19 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 - deleted - SimonP 14:46, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Carson nimmo

vfd added by User: Samw, who did not create a subpage or give any explanation. Doesn't look notable though - possibly a vanity. Grutness... wha? 03:24, 17 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 - no consensus, unquestionably should be confined to only "notable" victims. - SimonP 02:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

List of Holocaust victims

This would seem to be a rather ambitious list. - Banyan Tree 02:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Six million people? Yeah, that list is gonna be complete. Delete. Mike H 02:24, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." No kidding. Delete. Eric119 02:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • As much as I'd like to see this.... this article would be finished sometime in the next century. Delete. -- Chanting Fox 02:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Even if it is never complete, it will still be a list of Holocaust victims. And who knows perhaps it will be completed eventually. If there were only ten victims wouldn't we keep it? Does the fact that there are millions make it less worthy of keeping or more?-- Heathcliff 03:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    I oppose changing the title of this article to List of famous Holocaust victims because then we'd have fights over who was famous enough to be listed among the Holocaust victims and that would just be sad. If the name is changed, change my vote to delete.-- Heathcliff 23:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    You should probably strike out your vote above, then. In any case, if you apply the simple criterion of only listing those people with Wikipedia articles, then you've got a simple yardstick right there. -- Calton | Talk 04:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    My vote is still keep (as it is). My vote only changes to delete if the title is changed to List of notable Holocaust victims. However, I don't mind changing the title to List of Holocaust victims with articles on Wikipedia which is why I suggested it as a compromise further down. I don't think that we should call it list of List of notable Holocaust victims and say that inclusion in Wikipedia is the test for inclusion because without it clearly spelled out in the articles title it will be imposible to enforce the standard.-- Heathcliff 12:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Just a tad ambitious. Seems to me this would be better off in m:Wikimorial, if it ever starts, or its own Wiki. android↔ talk 03:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just a tad ambitious. Seems to me this would be better off in m:Wikimorial, if it ever starts, or its own Wiki. android↔ talk 03:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, assuming that the list (like many others on Wikipedia) will be limited to notable cases. --  BD2412 thimk act 03:44, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
    • This sounds like a good alternative to deletion, though a rename would be in order to reflect the fact that it isn't a complete list. android↔ talk 03:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Not necessarily, if the condition is spelled out atop the page. See List of slave owners. --  BD2412 thimk act 04:17, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
        • The criteria on that page is "This list includes notable individuals for which there is a consensus of evidence of slave ownership." The first part of which "This list includes notable individuals" merely restates what the title of article already says, and the second of which "for which there is a consensus of evidence of slave ownership" results as a natural consequence of the Wikipedia process (in there's no conscenss it's probally going to be edited out.) If the standard "List of Holocaust victims with articles in Wikipedia" was put at the top of the page it would likely be ignored or even more likely edited out by those who did not like the standard. That is, the question of what the standard is will be left to future editors if it is not in the title. Which is no different than changing the name to "List of Holocaust victims" and not adding a standard to the top of the page.-- Heathcliff 12:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Verifying every entry on a list this large would be an endless task, and it would never be accurate. I'm not even talking about completeness. I mean the list would contain entries that are wrong, and WP would not be able fix them. False information that can't be fixed is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. If this information is desired, create a category for it and use it on the bio pages of notable victims. Quale 04:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I'd rather have the link changed to List of famous Holocaust victims SYSS Mouse 04:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, unmaintainable list. Megan1967 04:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for the reasons listed by Quale. JeremyA 04:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Perhaps it should be list of notable Holocaust victims.Keep and rename. Capitalistroadster 04:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
I'd prefer doing this, and keeping. Nateji77 11:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unless all the Holocaust Victims are mentioned .
an attempt at a complete list of holocaust victims and survivors, rather than simply the notable individuals amongst them, sounds like it belongs in wikisource. Nateji77 11:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but ONLY if changed to "List of notable Holocaust victims". Wikipedia is not paper, but attempting to list 60 million people simply is unattainable. However a list of famous people who died in the Holocaust would be of interest. Perhaps this might work better as a category. Question: assuming that Holocaust victims were primarily Jewish, what's a Catholic saint doing listed here? I think an introduction needs to be added to explain this for those who think only Jews died in the Holocaust. 23skidoo 13:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
either you're off by an order of magnitude, or the article at The Holocaust is. it says 6 million (admittedly, still a lot, but look at pi entries in wikisource). Nateji77 13:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete- no way to ensure that it is accurate (exact number of Holocaust victims is not known, and varies wildly between sources). Creating a list of 'notable' Holocaust victims would be abhorrent- it would imply that some victims were more important (ie others deserved to die more) just because of their 'celebrity' status-- Cynical 13:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Agree with above that a article named "notable Holocaust victims" is a bad idea. However, a category for Holocaust Victims would serve the same purpouse and not have any ugly connotations (if a bio exists, it's pretty obvious and verifiable if it belongs) same logic should probably apply to other possible "lists" (9/11 victims, WWII Veterans, etc.) 66.94.94.154 14:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, WP:NOT a memorial. R adiant _* 14:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete When Stalin said a million deaths is a statistic, I don't think this is what he meant. Extremely difficult to verify, problematic notability (the event was notable, does that mean every person involved was?) -- InShaneee 14:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As noble as the idea is, I think we'd be stepping on a landmine on this one. I don't see a problem with a list of notable victims, but an outright list is best left to other organizations that can do a better job of it. -- Mitsukai 15:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: First, on of the things that Wikipedia Is Not is a memorial site. We have Wikimemorial for lists of this nature (all the 9/11 victims, e.g.), and we must reject, out of hand and a priori, any eulogy/elegy. Secondly, because the list is impossible to verify, the list fails on that score. Third, because the list cannot be completed, any inclusion is inherently POV (e.g. the list may bias toward ethnic victims as opposed to political ones, or sexual ones opposed to nationalist ones). The main reason, however, is simply that we are not a memorial. Geogre 15:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rename. I think the word 'notable' is unfortunate - weren't they all? 'Famous' is much more neutral. The criterion for inclusion is simple: if someone has a Wikipedia entry (or should have one), they ought to be included, otherwise not. Eixo 16:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial; the existing Category:Holocaust victims and subcategories should suffice for those victims that otherwise merit an article. CDC (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Stancel 19:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is what categories are for. - R. fiend 20:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a list of famous holocaust victims in conjunction with the above-mentioned categories. Only mention people who'd be famous/notable enough for an article of their own. Mgm| (talk) 21:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Separate into smaller lists: Dutch Holocaust victims, German Holocaust victims, French, Danish, Polish, etc. One massive list of all Holocaust victims would be impossible and unworkable. Aecis 22:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Attempting to determine who "deserves" to be on this list is POV. Rick K 22:50, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
No, but it is POV if you deem some Holocaust victims notable and therefore Wikipediable and others unnotable and therefore not Wikipediable. There should be no distinguishing between notable Holocaust victims and unnotable Holocaust victims. If you make a list of Holocaust victims, you should include all Holocaust victims. And if some Holocaust victims are indeed notable, they should be on Wikipedia because they're notable, not because they're notable Holocaust victims. Aecis 08:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • That's exactly why I made the point that the word 'notable' should be avoided in the namespace; because it might seem offensive. However, there are already criteria in Wikipedia on who are notable and who are not, and there are innumerable lists based on these criteria. There is no reason why information on well-known people who were killed by the Nazis during the war should be suppressed. Eixo 03:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not maintainable; Wikipedia is not a memorial -- Carnildo 23:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I am tired of seeing lists which cover such large scopes of mostly uninteresting things or people that will almost certainly never been completed. Kelly Martin 00:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Yad Vashem is compliling such a list. We should have one also. Klonimus 02:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, maintainable as long as we limit it to victims notable for other reasons than being murder victims. I don't think the creators intended this to be a list of 6 million + names. Perhaps a retitling, per MacGyverMagic, is in order. Sjakkalle 08:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as list of notable victims, i.e. only include those who are notable enough to have a Wikipedia page about them. Darksun 11:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Another un-maintainable list. If you want to group all people who were Holocaust victims and have a Wikipedia page about them, that's what Categories are for. Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I strongly oppose having an aticle called "List of notable Holocaust victims". As someone else said they are all notable. I also think it would lead to very sensitive disputes over who was notable and who was not. So I propose that if the list is kept but the name is changed that it should be change to "List of Holocaust victims with articles in Wikipedia", and that it should provide links to all of those articles.-- Heathcliff 23:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: With all due respect, I think this discussion is getting silly. There's a page called List of Norwegians. This is not a list of all 4,5 million of them. This was never meant to be a list of all 4,5 million of them! It's implicit in the title that the list only covers notable individuals. As I said, the word 'notable' ought to be avoided, but apart from that the list is completely viable. Eixo 02:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • With its current title, it's by definition a list that is impractical to the extreme. Change to List of notable Holocaust victims -- and no, I don't buy for one second the claim that attaching a notability limitation would give rise to unresolvable disputes, because the criterion should be simple - whether the person has an article on Wikipedia. What WOULD give rise to disputes would be restricting entry to those who have articles on Wikipedia BUT leaving the title alone, since that would likely confuse new editors trying to add names and leave others with the unpleasant chore of deleting the names of some user's grandmother or great-uncle who fail to met the non-explicit criterion. -- Calton | Talk 04:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep if limited to notable figures. Delete otherwise. Gamaliel 04:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. Sholtar 04:48, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A noble aim, but this would be a project that would be impossible to verify and maintain. Harro5 10:26, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Doesn't belong here even if it was possible to Complete. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 14:45, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not viable. I have bad experience with such open-ended lists - they grow and grow and grow until they get unusable. Pavel Vozenilek 01:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but confine it to victims with and deserving of articles. - SimonP 02:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Colonization of Europa

Not encyclopedic. According to official policy, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball ( Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not). "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Unless someone can provide a valid reason why this article merits inclusion, I think it should be deleted.-- DannyZ

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 - kept, article substantially rewritten and deletion request withdrawn by nominator. - SimonP 02:16, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

D-Company

  • Delete. Even if this is true, by its very nature it is not verifiable. ESkog 03:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Even if it is not a corporate entity, the gang is popularly known. However the article should say it is not a corporate entity. AnkA 03:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It's true that D-Company is not a real company. But, the term is used by many Indian newspapers to describe Dawood and associates. Maybe redirect to Dawood Ibrahim. utcursch | talk 05:21, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Usage of the term is verifiable on Google. — Tokek 05:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notorious Gang. Well known for terrorist activities in India 24.126.17.155
  • Keep I think the article shouldn't state D-Company as a corporate enterprise .Otherwise the facts given about D-Company and Dawood Ibrahim's operations seem to be true .
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 - SimonP 02:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Charles Michael Spencer Medley

Vanity bio; not notable. Samw 03:14, 17 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 - kept - SimonP 02:19, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Horse paradox

The Horse Paradox page does not explain a real paradox, but rather lays out a smattering of word plays and jokes. However, if that assessment is wrong and it does have value in its discussion of logic, it might stay with a little cleanup help. Thus, I put it to a vote.

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 - SimonP 02:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hydrophonica

Band with no recordings: does not meet the significance test for musical groups. Kelly Martin 03:37, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep, they are a struggling pair of young artists and need all the help that they can get

I have no real opinion on whether or not this page is deleted, even though I am one of the said members of this band. However, I want to say something to Kelly Martin, who started the deletion of this page. I read your definition of "Band", but I think you have band confused with "Notable Music Group". The difference is, a band is a group of performers that play music, no matter how many people know about them. I think that you shouldn't be allowed to vote for the deletion of band pages, because, obviously, if they aren't big (which we won't get, and are not hoping to) they don't matter, and, in response to you other comment on your profile, I think that you are the one being a dick.

The abovegoing anonymous editor has engaged in an extensive discussion of this article and my deletion policy for bands on my user talk page. It is perhaps vaguely relevant. Kelly Martin 22:25, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this band now has a garage band site and i would bet that they have mp3s on the way
The second Keep vote is from the same anonymous user, 159.191.12.26, as the first Keep vote. — Dan Johnson
      In a small comuinity news travels fast it probably was two difrent people in a library
  • No Opinion I have to say that me and my friends retract any previous insulting comments about kelly martin or any other wiki editor. I apoligize for any harm we may have done, and will post no further. However, I would like to ask one question, is the only acceptable music group to have a page on wikipedia a "notable" one under Kelly's definition?
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 - kept - SimonP 02:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nadir

This is a dictionary definition only, and I don't see how it can be expanded to a proper encyclopedia article. Wikitionary already has an entry for this.-- DannyZ 03:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep so astronomy articles can link to it. Gazpacho 04:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand. Has both astronomy and astrological articles linking to it so should be expanded to explain its significance in a science and longstanding body of belief respectively. Capitalistroadster 05:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand. Valid topic. Megan1967 06:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but if there isn't much more to add, move content to Wiktionary, leaving only {{wi}} on the Wikipedia page. AFAIK that is the closest available approximation to a cross-wiki redirect. (If I'm wrong I'd love to hear it.) DanielCristofani 10:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • You're wrong inasmuch as Wiktionary already has nadir, which has no need of this content, which answers the question posed on Talk:Nadir, which covers the word in three languages, and which also includes its use as a proper noun. ☺ Uncle G 18:37, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
      • When I said "move content to Wiktionary", I meant to add it to the Wiktionary article, not to replace what was already there. When I wrote my comment, the Wiktionary article looked like this and certainly could have used such an addition, which I notice you have performed since my comment. Anyway, when I said I would love to hear I was wrong, I meant I would love to hear that there was a smooth way to turn Wikipedia entries into redirects to Wiktionary entries. DanielCristofani 22:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
        • And that version of the page answered the question posed on Talk:Nadir and covered the word in three languages, as I said. I didn't "move content to Wiktionary". This article (until I rewrote it) didn't cover people named with the proper noun "Nadir" (a point that I obviously made too subtly) and didn't include any etymological information, so my additions of etymologies and proper noun senses to Wiktionary (with my hat on as a Wiktionarian whose attention was drawn to the article by this discussion) could not possibly have been moved content. As my edit history comment tells you, I added content from Webster 1913, not from Wikipedia. It has been my experiences that:
          • moving individual meanings from Wikipedia to Wiktionary is largely pointless — Wiktionary usually improves when Wiktionarians notice that an article needs cleanup or expansion. This very case is an example. I, with my Wiktionarian hat on, was prodded, by this debate, into looking at nadir, and noticed that it needed expansion, so I added some Webster 1913 content into it.
          • Wikipedia is generally bad at writing dictionary content — I've seen Wiktionary come up with better dictionary articles on words in a handful of days than Wikipedia was able to grow organically in years. Quite a lot of those turned up when we were cleaning out the 1200-or-so article backlog in the transwiki queue.
        • This was yet another case of Wikipedians saying "move to Wiktionary" meaning moving an individual meaning of a word into an existing Wiktionary article. (It has been said before.) And as I said, Wiktionary is simply not in need of such content. Uncle G 14:04, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
          • I am not concerned to deny most of this. When I said "such an addition", I did not mean necessarily an addition of content transferred from Wikipedia, but an addition that would convey the same information the Wikipedia article conveyed. My point has been that:
            • If a Wikipedia article can never be more than a dictionary definition, in some cases the best move is to turn it into a cross-reference to Wiktionary, rather than a redirect to some vaguely related Wikipedia article; and
            • before doing this, it would be wise to make sure the relevant Wiktionary article has all the information the Wikipedia article did.
          • Maybe I was not clear enough about this. In any case I seem to have elicited responses appropriate to something I was not trying to say. DanielCristofani 22:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, there would be plenty of ways to expand this, such as how it is used in astronomy for starters. -- bainer 12:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Its a dictionary definition of a term therefore it belongs on Wiktionary, not WP -- Cynical 13:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Can be expanded -- 152.78.254.131 13:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, very notable astronomy term, can be expanded. — JIP | Talk 13:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with zenith. One can't discuss one without mentioning the other. R adiant _* 15:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't it be nice if we had a horizontal coordinate system article that could discuss both the zenith and the nadir without having to pick either as the primary title? ☺ Uncle G 18:37, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Rewritten article as disambiguation. Uncle G 18:37, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep. Disambiguation pages a great help in WP, especially in sorting out common words with various uses, such as this one. - Acjelen 21:18, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 02:23, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Aurelanii Wars

Completely historically inacurate and totally unverifiable. Appears to be either original research or fan fiction. Zero Google hits, the title of the article itself appears to be completely made up. When ask to explain the article its author provided no sources nor explination and defended the artcile merely by challenging anyone to prove it was false.-- Heathcliff 03:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, unverifiable. Gazpacho 04:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, complete nonsense with not a shred of accuracy, even for the parts that are verifiable. Kuralyov 10:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete says it 'brought devastation to the Scots and the Picts' which I know to be complete garbage- the area that became Scotland was never successfully attacked during that era, either before or after the Romans left -- Cynical 13:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete hoax Stancel 19:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I, the author, with a PHD in History have asked in my last comment for you to delete the article and yet you still rail on and on and on and on. Have any of you ever been to these places? Read first hand accounts on the pages they first were written? As i've said before, i saw a void in your little web page and tried to fill it. As i see now, this is not a place for knowledge, but for the same old Roman record keeping garbage that has stifled our knowledge of history for centuries. I suppose i could wait until the book is released and then cite it as "proof". Would that make you morons feel better? While i was in the second world war, there was no proof of genocide taking place. For years afterward, there was no proof that FDR suppressed this proof. Now there is no proof that the Jews have any historical claim to Israel. Have fun on your flat-empirical world, young fellows. I will soon be in Switzerland beginning my next book (of lies i suppose) on the Gallic War. Keep in mind that they pay me to research and write this stuff. How much do you earn to blindly dispute it? unsigned comment by 68.59.230.134
    Well, color me Nazi. I hope that isn't how you defended your dissertation. Gazpacho
  • Delete. Nothing wrong with a new idea, but it doesn't belong here unless it's got proper support, which this doesn't. If it gains traction after publication, feel free to resubmit. Colin Kimbrell
  • Delete due to lack of references and rudeness of the author. Gamaliel 20:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Somebody with a PhD should know to give references. Jitse Niesen 22:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No original research ought to say it all, but the anonymous & alleged author's comments above & below call for a something. If someone claims to have a Ph.D. in history can't remember that "A.D." properly goes before the date -- or check his spelling -- just how likely are we to trust the material in the article? -- llywrch 00:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • hi. I'm a long time user and a first time poster. Maybe i'm a little "green", but didn't the author request that his post be deleted? Do you guys just like to run things into the ground? I'm not trying to be snotty or rude but haven't you got better things to do than wave your intellectual cocks in the air? I was writing a paper on Britain during the dark ages and wound up side tracked by this stupid argument. True: a few things in the article aren't credible, but this is far from the first page i've seen here that ignore facts or create new theories. Also i have read many books on the subject of King Arthur that support the idea that Magnus was the father of Constantine III. I cannot cite the sources-don't have time-and don't really care. Whenever i look something up on Wikidpedia, i always double check it. Maybe you guys should do your own homework or take the advice of the old guy who wrote this entry and delete it without further discussion. Surely you all have something better to do. Or maybe not. unsigned comment by 68.59.230.134
    • Nice try, but did you notice the article history preserves the IP address of everyone who edits an article? Surely you have better things to do than attempt to fake messages to Wikipedia. Gamaliel 00:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    I would guess that the article isn't gone yet because some of us are still hoping for you-know-what. Because we can be patient like that. Gazpacho 01:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • If this is fiction, it needs deleting. On the other hand, if it is verifiable original research (ie a proper radical redaction of established sources) then surely it deserves a place, albeit marked in some way as theory-not-absolute-fact. Otherwise, havign read the article, I am moved to take issue with Kuralyov's comment about "Not a shred of accuracy" since quite an amount of this is generally-accepted fact in England, and much of the rest accords with one among a number of radical re-readings of Dark Age history which relocate Arthur to Scotland and make the people in the northern part of ther island substantially more civilized than Caesar and his kith were willing to give credit for. Sorry for rant. -- Simon Cursitor 06:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)-- reply
    • Any attempts to relocate Arthur to the north of England/Scotland is merely an attempt at aggrandizement for the people of those areas. There is simply too much evidence putting him in the south, and not enough for him to be in the north. An Arthur-like person, or one of the bases for Arthur, maybe, but not the Arthur, if he existed.

And as for the Picts being more civilized than was thought: they did not have centralized government, standardized religion or language, or codified law; they did not scult, paint murals, write down their legends; they did not try to build lasting cities on purpose. I think the Romans had them beat.

"Radical re-readings" are interesting, but there is a reason they're called "radical." Kuralyov 10:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Delete. Hoax. Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Delete Although I haven't the time to check every point here, as far as I can judge this is not a complete invention by the author, it appears to be an uncritical regurgitation of some accounts of the time of King Arthur written centuries after the event, mainly by Geoffrey of Monmouth, but regarded by historians as extremely unreliable. (I know this because among other things I read a couple of 20th century historical novels about Merlin by Mary Stewart loosely based on Geoffrey of Monmouth, and the recent film Merlin with Helena Bonham Carter as Morgan Le Fay also incorporates elements from Geoffrey.) However the article is not salvagable, so delete, and anything useful should be put in the articles on Geoffrey of Monmouth or some of the characters mentioned in the article. PatGallacher 11:32, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

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

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 - SimonP 02:24, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Worse Invention Convention

{{{text}}} Suggest deletion as non-notable, if even real. Denni ☯ 03:59, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

  • My middle school had an annual invention convention and the phrase gets 39800 Yahoo! hits. Since we don't have invention convention, move this article there to start it. Gazpacho 04:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete doesn't give any WP-worthy information, even if the convention does exist -- Cynical 13:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless it can be verified as a national or beyond-local event. That's the problem, to me: we're dealing with multiple individual acts, rather than one, and each independently is not notable. A new article on HS or PS invention contests (that remains general) might be ok, if it were to discuss when these things began happening and differentiated them from the extant Science fair. Geogre 15:13, 17 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per Vfd). Master Thief Garrett 12:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Aneska (band)

Doesn't seem to fit WP:MUSIC criteria. Made a CD, with a circulation of 300, and existed for about a year. Golbez 04:26, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per VfD). Master Thief Garrett 12:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply

More to Burn

Only album by Aneska (band), now on VfD as well. 300 copies, nn. Golbez 04:26, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:25, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cypress Falls High School

Content is "Cypress Falls High School is a high school located in the suburbs of Houston, Texas. About 3,000 students attend this school, which was created in 1990. It handles grades nine through twelve. It is part of the Cypress Fairbanks Independent School District. Its current principal is Dr. Robert Worthy, Ph.D." In other words, there is absolutely nothing to distinguish it from the tens of thousands of other high schools. Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 04:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:26, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cy-Fair High School

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 04:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:27, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cupertino High School

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 04:20, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn by nominator after notability was established. Neutrality talk 02:23, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Compton High School

Notability not established. Establish notability by the end of the five-day period or delete. Withdrawn. Neutrality talk 04:25, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Collingwood School

Still non-notable despite attempts to disguise its non-notability through an uninformative infobox. Wikipedia is not a school guide, and there is absolutely nothing to distinguish this school from thousands of others like it. Delete. Neutrality talk 04:29, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Claude Watson School for the Arts

Magnet elementary/middle school. Can't we merge this into education in Toronto or something? In any case delete the article/redirect. Neutrality talk 04:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:30, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Clairemont High School

Non-notable, no context. Delete. Neutrality talk 04:34, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:31, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Chung Ling High School, Butterworth

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 04:37, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:32, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Christian Liberty Academy

Non-notable school, less than 1000 students. Delete. Neutrality talk 04:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:34, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Centennial High School

Non-notable high school substub, and most likely one of five dozen schools with the same name. Neutrality talk 04:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:37, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Charleston County School of the Arts

Non-notable magnet school, like thousands of others. Establish notability or delete. Neutrality talk 04:42, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yuckfoo 18:20, 20 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 - kept - SimonP 02:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cathedral High School

Notability not established. Establish notability by the end of the five-day period or delete. Neutrality talk 04:47, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Carmel High School (Carmel, California)

Non-notable high school of 750 people and no special significance. Delete. Neutrality talk 04:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Canyon Crest Academy 2

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 04:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Calvin Christian School

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 04:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:43, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cairns Christian College

Non-notable. Delete. Neutrality talk 04:55, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:44, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Davenies School, Beaconsfield moved to Davenies (its common name)

Single-sentence substub. Establish notability by the end of the five-day period or delete. Neutrality talk 05:04, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:45, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

De Shalit high school

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 05:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:46, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Deerfield Beach High School

One sentence substub on non-notable high school. Delete. Neutrality talk 05:07, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Detroit Catholic Central High School

One notable alumnus and that's it as far as notability. Delete. Neutrality talk 05:09, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Every one of them? Really? Should there be a little stub for every school on the planet, then?
Why yes, apparently, excuse me while I go write about Cabri primary school with its total roll of 50 and declining... Master Thief Garrett 07:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Note that I said "secondary" school. -- BaronLarf 11:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Note that Cabri has a secondary school too, with a roll of ~60 and declining. Master Thief Garrett 12:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Please create one for both, I would be interested in seeing these articles. Part of the most fascinating thing about culture is how it decays, and what springs up to replace it. -- Unfocused 13:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
A fascinating thing about Wikipedia deletion voting policy is how it decays, and what springs up to replace it. (Not any one editor's, just the crowd's.) Barno 19:03, 17 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 - kept - SimonP 02:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Dwight-Englewood School

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 05:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Duveneck School

Non-notable elementary school, delete. Neutrality talk 05:13, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:52, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Dr Challoner's High School

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 05:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:55, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Durham Academy

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 05:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:56, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Evergreen High School

Non-notable, delete. And, incidently, probably one of dozens of schools with the same name. Neutrality talk 13:36, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Essex High School

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 13:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 02:58, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Elk Grove High School

Content is: "Elk Grove High School is a public, four-year high school serving students in grades 9-12 in Elk Grove and Des Plaines, Illinois. Its colors are green and gold. The school mascot is the Grenadier." Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 13:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Substub with no content. A fact is not an article. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. This particular piece of mud has been on the site for about a year now. It inspired a vaccuous yelling match last time, and the usual suspects showed up, without reading it, voting automatcally, "Keep: All School Articles Must Be Kept No Matter What." It got kept. Well, it hasn't been improved in all that time. So what, exactly, is the eventualist and schoolfanboi position again? Schools should be kept because they're inherently significant (but the articles that show no significance must not be judged) and eventually someone will make it full? N.b. none of the "keep all schools" people seem to actually want to improve any of the articles, and the eventualists defer the obligation eternally onto the imagined Other. Meanwhile, we have pollution. Geogre 02:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or transwiki to wikischools then delete. Wikipedia is not a triviabase Gmaxwell 05:10, 18 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 - kept - SimonP 02:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Episcopal School of Dallas

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 13:43, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 03:00, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Emmanuel christian academy

Non-notable school of 500 students. Delete. Neutrality talk 13:47, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 03:02, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Francis Tuttle

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 21:38, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 03:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Fox Lane High School 2

Non-notable; delete. Neutrality talk 21:37, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 03:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Fairmeadow School

Tiny, non-notable elementary school of 379 students. Delete. Neutrality talk

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 03:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Forcey Christian Middle School

Tiny, non-notable middle school. Delete. Neutrality talk 21:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 03:06, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

George S. Parker High School

Non-notable high school of either 1600 or 2000 students—depending on which of the conflicting figures in the article you believe. Delete. Neutrality talk 21:22, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 03:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Grace Christian Academy

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 21:25, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 03:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Grosse Pointe North High School

Orphaned, unlinked, non-notable. Delete. Neutrality talk 21:28, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - kept - SimonP 03:09, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Guilford Young College

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 21:30, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - SimonP 03:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Atlas ensemble

Non-notable Austalian band. Google search for "atlas ensemble" Australian yields 9 hits, mostly WP mirrors. Bad website.— Wahoofive ( talk) 06:16, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Necro music

Another imaginary music genre, this one is "post- Black metal". Nothing links here; let's kill it before anything does — Wahoofive ( talk) 06:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: It's like Vegetarian Literary Theory: folks'll do most anything to invent importance for themselves and say, "We're not like all the rest." Yes, well, they are. Fictitious music genre. Geogre 11:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per Geogre. Bratsche talk random 03:51, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Necro is a notable sub-genre in black metal, for those who are into that sort of music. Harp Heaven 12:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Why is it that Techno and Metal seem to both be experts at developing phantom genres of music? This article doesn't even distinguish it from the collected works of a garage band of twelve-year-olds, never mind establish notability. Delete unless someone can expand the article in such a way as to show what makes this particular "genre" special. Haikupoet 04:42, 19 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:11, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cora-bora

NN neologism invented by some college students. Rl 06:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • The criteria is rather how wide-spread the use of such a term is. But even if this term was notable, it would be hardly worth an entry in WP and would likely be merged or tagged for a move to the wiktionary. Rl 08:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
The issue is usage. If a word is used only in a small area (Rochester, MN), it is a regionalism when it has been in use for a while. If a word is used only in a class/profession, it is jargon or slang, but it has to live for a while, and it has to have quite a few speakers. The reason it has to live for a while is that lexicons are always behind the usage (even Wiktionary). Linguistic atlases try to explain and catalog what's happening now, but all lexicons are attempting to explain to someone else what a word means; they are all translations. There can be no someone else if the word is used for a season or a month. However, all of this is kind of irrelevant, because Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Geogre 11:19, 18 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Barstooling

Non-notable drinking game. Google gives 51 hits for "barstooling" and most are not in reference to this game. SWAdair | Talk 10:27, 17 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 - all deleted - SimonP 03:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

James Lockwood, King's College Conservatives, 2001club

According to personal bio - a local student association organizer. This does not meet notability criteria. Vote for delete

Lotsofissues 10:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

additional notes, user has also created King's College Conservatives 2001club mentioning vfd candidate and email so these entries are likely vanity/self promotion. What does everyone want to do with those two contributions? Lotsofissues 11:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

is there a way to modify the vfd template so we could put it on multiple pages (eg, a vanity page about a band, then the vanity pages about its members and albums) but have them all link to the same discussion? so we dont have to vote three (or more) times. Nateji77 11:33, 17 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 - kept - SimonP 03:14, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Karuna Institute

No potential to become encyopedic appears to be an add anyway Geni 12:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I think you've misread this. This institute offers professional qualifications in psychotherapy accredited by the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (which is one of two independent national accreditation bodies recognised for psychotherapists used by the UK National Health Service) and masters degrees accredited by Middlesex University. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 14:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I created the article. While I am an ex Karuna student (91-95), it can in no way be considered an ad as I have completely lost connection with them, and they are, anyway, a charitable institute, which is one of the reasons I had no hesitation in starting the article. The Institute is clearly notable, it is a nationally recognised training institute for psychotherapy (one of only 2 for transpersonal psychology) and craniosacral therapy as well. Both Maura Sills and Franklyn Sills clearly each deserve an article (perhaps now is the time to start). While I have felt it is a shame that no-one else (ex students etc) has added to this article it clearly has a vast potential as an article. The buddhist psychotherapy work they are doing is certainly unique in the UK and possibly the world. Why would anyone think this article is not encyclopedic. There must be thousands of articles more deserving of a Vfd than this one, -- SqueakBox 14:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 18:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep tertiary institutions. Capitalistroadster 19:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Edumacation. --  BD2412 talk 22:59, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep all tertiary educational institutions. Kelly Martin 02:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Notable institute. Megan1967 06:01, 18 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:15, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Darththeo and KazII

Chat-room-cruft, not notable. Delete. — JIP | Talk 13:37, 17 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 - copyvio - SimonP 03:16, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Fred Piper

A Ctrl+v CV. not notable. Nateji77 13:39, 17 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 - kept - SimonP 03:17, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hugh O'Connor

Seems to be a somewhat pointless page Barneyboo 14:44, 17 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 - kept - SimonP 03:19, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Digital Mars

Wikispam. All this page does is tell you that they give out the software for free, and a link to their page. No reason for notability or impact on computing. Alexa rates them at 121,554, so they do get some traffic. However, if this were more than just an add, it would have been stubbed (which it's not), there would have been some information on the founder people, and stuff like that. This page, as it exists, is nothing more than an ad. Delete. -- Mitsukai 14:52, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article messages

This page was created as part of a non-discussed change to Wikipedia:Template messages (see the talk page). The change has been reverted, so this page no longer serves a purpose. Delete. -- Ciaran H 14:55, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree, delete as fork. R adiant _* 08:57, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not against the splitting idea per se, as long as it's properly transcluded so as not to break anything or cause unnecessary redundancy. This was just not the way to do it (and not the best title, either). - dcljr ( talk) 10:23, 19 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia messages

This page was created as part of a non-discussed change to Wikipedia:Template messages (see the talk page). The change has been reverted, so this page no longer serves a purpose. Delete. -- Ciaran H 15:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree, delete. R adiant _* 08:57, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not against the splitting idea per se, as long as it's properly transcluded so as not to break anything or cause unnecessary redundancy. This was just not the way to do it (and not a good title, either). - dcljr ( talk) 10:25, 19 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Data drawing

Something between a joke and original research. Maybe appropriate for BJAODN. Sietse 15:01, 17 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per VfD). Master Thief Garrett 12:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Jewish Renegades

This is an article by an anonymous user. It is a concoction of part "original research" part selective biographies, and part deceptive "self-adulation" (then again, maybe "self-hate"), about some personalities that will surely be offensive to people of all stripes. Religious Jews will wonder how their VIPs get lumped with secular ones and secular people will wonder why their VIPs are the same as ancient rabbis. Then everyone else is bound to wonder what's next? Christian Renegades? Islamic Renegades? etc, etc, Since when is "renegades" an acceptable title for an encyclopedia article? This is too contentious and hopelessly POV. This article should be deleted ASAP. IZAK 15:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, see above. IZAK 15:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Maybe I'm missing something - but I don't get this article. Define 'renegade'? No vote for now, but strongly tending towards delete. -- Doc Glasgow 15:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC) OK, delete-- Doc Glasgow 16:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, inherently POV, and duplicative of biographies found in other articles. In the unlikely event that there's anything on this page not found on the individual pages, merge. RussBlau 15:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - inflammatory at worst, silly at best. -- Leifern 16:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unbelievably POV. The term "renegade" is loaded in itself, unless the person has declared "I am a Jewish renegade and proud of it". This cannot be said about Maimonides; like with any visionary there were initial difficulties with the acceptance of his views, but today you will not find a serious Jew who is anti-Maimonides; quite the opposite - every group has tried to colonise Maimonides to gain legitimacy (yes that is POV as well). The article is also selective - there are plenty of Jews who have had profound influence on Jewish religion, people and history. What about the Maharal, the Baal Shem Tov, the Vilna Gaon and Samson Raphael Hirsch? JFW |  T@lk 16:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, possibly opening can of forks--uh, worms. Master Thief Garrett 16:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC) (?!? link doesn't work?!?) reply
  • Delete. I don't think the author of this article knows what the definition of "renegade" is; I suspect he thinks it means "hero," but it actually means "deserter" (among other meanings). I don't think an NPOV article under this title is possible anyway. -- Metropolitan90 16:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No clear criteria for membership, so the collection is useless. --  BD2412 thimk act 16:46, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. I laughed, but then again, it's kinda hard to actually offend me. The article is badly named, and it does nothing whatsoever to enhance WP. Plus, the name is just wrong.  :-p Tomer TALK 19:54, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why don't we all just write wikipedia articles lumping together all our favorite people (especially if they already all have individual articles)? (I think my new article will feature: Batman, Superman, Fulgencio Batista, Brian "Kato" Kaelin...) :-) HKT 20:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Nicely done, inherently POV. Delete, but if there is anything useful in the article it could be merged with the individual biographies first. Jayjg (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'd say Merge, but most of the text appears to have been copied wholesale from other articles. Also, The Jewish Renegades would be a kickass name for a neo-klezmer band. Colin Kimbrell
  • Delete. "No clear criteria for membership, so the collection is useless." El_C 20:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete.-- Heathcliff 23:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete.-- Eliezer 02:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:21, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Confuseable

This seems to be original research, a neologism, and hopelessly POV about the use of English to describe the computer industry. Best to delete it. AlexTiefling 15:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • delete neologistic rant -- Doc Glasgow 15:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, vanity neologism, article content begins "Confuseable is a word that I created to fill a semantic void." No indication of widespread use to merit transwikification to Wiktionary. However, it's a good word in a non-lexical usage: I have often admitted to being confuseable in the early morning. Barno 19:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • The best bit is where the author (writing in the first person, by the way) mis-spells xyr own protologism and accidentally uses the word confusable. The irony is that "confuseable" has been a mis-spelling of confusable for a long while before this author "invented" it. The word that the author is groping for is ambiguous. Adjective→noun Redirect to ambiguity. Uncle G 19:16, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete admitted vanity neologism. Gazpacho 20:14, 17 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. Golbez 17:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

insidious

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

This three-word article about a word was nominated for deletion on 2005-05-08. SimonP closed the discussion as Wiktionary without checking Wiktionary first, where he would have seen that as the Wikipedia discussion had trundled along, completely independently a Wiktionarian had created a proper Wiktionary article at insidious. Much as I dislike immediate re-nominations, this discussion needs to be re-opened because the choice made at closure had actually disappeared as a valid option almost a week earlier (a day before Texture said "if it isn't already there", moreover). Wiktionary has no need of this three word article. No adjective→noun redirects come to mind. And there's no concept/place/person/event/thing for an encyclopaedia article to be about. Uncle G 15:26, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

  • Delete or speedy delete as duplicate material. If it already exists at Wiktionary, then I believe this is CSD, and not even VfD. If it cannot stand as an encyclopedia article (and it sure as shootin' can't), then there isn't any debate. 162.39.237.201 18:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 - SimonP 03:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Redstar 2000

Vanity, thy name is Redstar (2000, that is). RussBlau 15:37, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - SimonP 03:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

CodingIRC

As the network has only 10 to 14 users, there aren't many people interested in it. Besides, there have not been any links to CodingIRC since the link from Internet Relay Chat was removed. Delete. -- Betterworld 15:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

(Edit: Ahh, I know what you mean now.)

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 - copyvio - SimonP 03:23, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Autopsychognosia

Apparently has had copyright issues, with no text it is entirely useles. I doubt it could be expanded.

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- kept - SimonP 03:25, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Juliet (artist)

vanity. If she's a one-hit wonder, would she rate a page in a regular encyclopedia; if she was an up and coming artist, there would be more about her here in which case the page would still be vanity. Delete. -- Mitsukai 16:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Delete. Aside from being non-notable it is questionable if she is an "artist" or only a "vocalist". Its also a bad stub. -- Modi 16:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Keep. Ridiculous VfD for a released artist. Amongst the 43,500 results on Google for "Juliet - Avalon" ( [2]) are the page on HMV.co.uk: [3], the page on CDUniverse [4] and a lot of lyrics sites, reviews and forums mentioning the song. If required I have the music video as featured on First Play in the UK a couple of months ago. I think that a simple visit to Google would have prevented this - Also, how is it vanity unless I am connected to the artist? Hedley 16:50, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:26, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Digg

Promotional. Delete unless rewritten. Previously, the article received 6:3 vote in favour of deletion (discounting sockpuppets and anonymous votes). Could be marked for speedy deletion, but I prefered to err on the side of caution. - Mike Rosoft 16:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

And the reason you want it deleted it what? -Danzik

  • Delete, redirect to Dig as possible misspelling, protect. R adiant _* 08:56, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cabrini College

While we're at it, can we see the pictures from the brochure, too? This reads so much like advertising copy, it's not even funny. Delete. -- Mitsukai 16:25, 17 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 - kept - SimonP 03:27, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I Like Pumpkins

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 - kept - SimonP 03:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ate my balls

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 - SimonP 03:30, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Robert Thompson (cartoonist)

Unverifiable. A Google search on "Zen of Smurf" returns zero hits. A Google search on the name (which is common) doesn't return anything apparently related to cartooning or children's shows. An IMDB search on the name returns several individuals, but none who appear to have been writers on children's shows. Most likely a hoax. RussBlau 17:17, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

(Addendum -- before others jump on this:) There apparently is a Robert Thompson who is an editorial cartoonist for the Observer, a British newspaper. This article, however, clearly is not about him! RussBlau 17:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Never heard of him, agree it's a hoax. Hiding 20:07, 17 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 - kept, could be merged. Copyirght status still unresolved - SimonP 03:33, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Definitions of capitalism and Definitions of socialism

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. No useful content, delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Dude, you're dead wrong about the page not being helpful. Being a participant in a now-resolved lengthy edit war over getting a definition of capitalism in the capitalism article, I know that the creation and editing of the definitions of capitalism article was essential and instrumental. If it's deleted, I predict more unnecessary edit-warring from people who have no clue how capitalism is commonly defined and who are unwilling to go research tons of dictionaries, encyclopedia, and works of thinkers to find out. The article serves to consolidate all of that research in one place to avoid unnecessary battling in the capitalism article. The claim that's it's not useful is definitely wrong. RJII 04:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge respectively into capitalism and socialism. Forks. Megan1967 06:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The content or even parts of it cannot be moved to the alreday much too long capitalism article. Deleting the page will only start the very intense and long-lasting previous edit war about the correct definition of capitalism again. This article was cited in a case before the arbcom as part of the resolution to this previous edit war, so it should be kept. Ultramarine 09:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • One possiblity would be to move the material to Wikiquote. Ultramarine 10:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Wikiquote has the same copyright policy as Wikipedia, and the same command not to submit copyrighted work beneath every edit box. Uncle G 11:56, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
        • It is certainly Fair use to quote one paragraph from a dictionary. Please give source if claiming otherwise. Ultramarine 12:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
          • Your argument is a false characterization. This article is exactly copying entries from twenty-six dictionaries (and three encyclopaedias), rather than "quoting one paragraph from a dictionary". If you think that copying copyrighted dictionaries and encyclopaedias into WikiMedia project articles is acceptable, then you should discuss this with the WikiMedia Foundation, and on the talk pages of the various copyright policies for all of the WikiMedia projects, which all say otherwise. (You'll have a have a hard time of it. The GFDL is a foundation issue, and non-negotiable.) Why did you think that Wiktionarians and Wikipedians are specifically pointed in the directions of Webster 1913 and Britannica 1911? There's plenty of explanation, of why Wiktionary and Wikipedia must not copy (non-GFDL licenced) copyrighted dictionaries and encyclopaedias, linked to from our copyright policy, a link to which is on this and every page, and no need for us to spoon-feed it to you in this discussion. Please go and read it all. Uncle G 15:53, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
            • Your reasoningis strange. So what if it's "twenty-six" dictionaries? If it's not a copyright violation to provide a quote from one dictionary, then it's not a violation to quote a definition from a hundred different dictionaries. RJII 19:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve. There is potential here for good articles illustrating important debates. FreplySpang (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as per Megan1967 — RJH 15:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I have written a notification on Wikipedia:Copyvio so that it can be decided if the content is appropriate. - Mike Rosoft 16:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Very useful information, keep and improve. Short sourced quotes within a context are not copyvios.-- Fenice 08:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- very useful, in that it allows editors to get beyond unresolvable definitional disputes in the capitalism and socialism article. Also, I'm not buying the copyright claim. These defs are all within the meaning of fair use SFAIK. -- Christofurio 03:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep -- yes, wiktionary is indeed for definitions, but also for pronunciations, etc, as long as it is an aid for use in language. Wiktionary is also for the simple definitions of words. However, these articles address the definitions is the context of the idea or philosophy, which can never be dictionary-like, for it is no longer a guide for language use but rather another body of knowledge. I suggest though, one, to restore the articles but edit it according to the definitions of notable people, rather than dictionaries, and two, to discuss the history of how those definitions began, developed, and evolved. Making the articles like that will resolve all standing issues. -- Humble Guy 15:37, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- integrate content into capitalism and socialism articles, respectively. If a consensus cannot be reached on how to define socialism and capitalism, simple give multiple definitions in the introductions to their two articles and explain which group uses which definition (although I really can't see why it's so hard to reach a consensus, especially on capitalism - in general, both supporters and opponents of capitalism define it in the same way). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Not true. I just, a minute ago, had to revert a change in the definition. Somebody tried to assert that it's commonly defined as an economy where "capitalists" dictate prices, etc, rather than the market. This is probably because the definitions of capitalism article is unavailable right now. The definitions article helps prevent useless battles over how capitalism is commonly defined. Apparently a lot of people have no clue. RJII 21:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - SimonP 03:33, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:36, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

List of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs)

Too broad. will become unmaintainable and perhaps too lengthy. -- Longhair | Talk 17:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

How often would the list change? There must be millions of CEO's out there. -- Longhair | Talk 18:02, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:37, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Channing Jones

Student vanity -- Longhair | Talk 17:57, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Atah

As it stands, it's a dicdef. See its history, though; and see its talk page. — msh210 18:03, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Postmodern Tractor

One of the many things created by Special:Contributions/207.215.247.1, which all seem to be nonsense...mostly they can be cleaned up, but this doesn't appear on Google, even though it appears to be copied from somewhere. This user is also "Serapion" on IRC and is being pretty nonsensical there too. Adam Bishop 18:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete -- nonsense - Longhair | Talk 18:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Salvage -- Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia - any ideological opposition to the understanding that the human condition is presently one which persistently references a certain limited degree of _incompletely analyzed_ uncertainty... People who can't explicate an understanding of Quantum Superposition should be barred from this discussion, as should any categorical generalizations which appeal to already understood List of Cognitive Biases (e.g. anthrocentrism, etc...). Every claim in the article can be falsified, so, attack it on its _merits_. Serapion | Talk 18:33, 17 May 2005 (PST)
  • Patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 19:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not quite patent nonsense for a speedy delete. Policy reasons: Original research, source material from elsewhere, title has no objectively perceptible connection to content. Non-policy reason: Rant from a tripping grad student, apparently. Quotes from article, more telling than the author realizes: "The purpose of this paper is to delve into this uncertainty, examine it, and see if meaningful distinctions can be made between the two categories I have parceled out as segments of the identities cited by the thing which creates meaningfulness for each person who experiences a perception of reality."; "it would be appropriate for us to do without thinking. That is the new writing style people are employing on message boards on the internet, ..." Or at least the one which this person seems to be employing. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Barno 19:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nonsense, almost gibberish. Even if sense could somehow be made of it (and I feel sorry for whoever tries) it would still be original research, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be about using GIT to advocate anti-realism. That is an interesting idea. I notice that Barno makes assumptions to explain the identity of the author, and Starblind cites a feeling as a reason to destroy this creation, which I grok as worthwhile, salvagable art. Reminds me of Sartre's Dirty Hands Play... Mythrandia - 16:17, May 17, 2005 (PST ) http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
  • Delete original research/deep thoughts. Gazpacho 01:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Deep Thoughts, and Wikipedia is not your gallery. Geogre 02:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, original research. Megan1967 06:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - original research, and doesn't exaplain what it has to do with the article title anyway. Loganberry 18:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nonsense masquerading as deep thought. DJ Clayworth 20:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Postmodernism for the Dadaist -- this stuff would give Alan Sokal a headache. Haikupoet 04:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Would you like some cheese with your whine, Serapion? This is not the place for philosophical writings. If what you've written is so important, then surely there are philosophical journals that would be happy to publish them. Haikupoet 03:01, 21 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:39, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Steelcube

non-notable shopping site. -- Sgkay 16:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Site may be useful to some people -- jxs97s 19:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Above is in reality User:81.1.69.25, the creator of the page Rick K 23:10, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia and was looking for an article to write that hasn't been written yet. With well over half a million articles, that isn't so easy. I'm a customer of this website and think they do a great job, so wanted to write about it. If Wikipedia is to be the sum of human knowledge, why shouldn't my knowledge of this web store be here? Besides, I thought there was a policy of not biting newcomers!! -- jxs97s 23:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Site has some great looking products and a cool feel to it -- Daveeeeeed 19:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

User's only edits. Rick K 23:10, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Votes once again removed by Jxs97s -- Longhair | Talk 09:57, 19 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 speedy deleted by RickK (recreation of Vfd'd article) -- cesarb 00:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Kernaxion

A new language spoken by 14 people in Texas! Delete -- Svest 18:24, May 17, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

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 - kept - SimonP 03:40, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Classic Response

Non-notable one time event. -- YUL89YYZ 18:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - SimonP 03:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

UtDD

Not notable; see also blatant ad on Flo from the same user.-- Tabor 19:01, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:42, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Bob and Fred

Ad for non-notable website. -- W( t) 19:05, 2005 May 17 (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 - SimonP 03:43, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Austin Utley

Not notable -- plans for an upcoming album and spamvertisement, see UtDD entry above. -- Tabor 19:05, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:44, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wwcarpen and Aghost

More examples of the "I can't be bothered..." kind of articles. Two articles weighing in at a total of 3 (three) sentences. "See also" indicates that they are related, text doesn't explain how. Neither article makes an attempt to establish notability. FWIW, there used to be a musician from Baltimore who went under the name WWCarpen; according to the article, "In 2005, wwcarpen died as a logical extension of his initial starting conditions.". Whatever that means. Rl 19:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • I'm guessing it was a way of referring to the fact that all which is born is born temporarily. Jeez, I didn't phrase that in a way much less unusual than Rl's way. Barno 19:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. EvilPhoenix 00:49, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wwcarpen per my musical group article policy and delete Aghost as vanity. Kelly Martin 03:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I'd like to propose that since wikipedia is defined by reality, wikipedia can also define reality, thus giving an artist a chance to shape their own destiny. perhaps my argument is standard fare here, but i feel that no harm is done by wikipedia growing beyond where people feel it should naturally go. why would you cut all the flowers off a beautiful tree?
  • Wwcarpen "has released" something, so he's alive. No, wait, he's dead. But how many people would notice the difference? Delete. I'm aghast at the WP activities of our friend aghost. -- Hoary 04:15, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete both and ban the author as a vandal if he tries this sort of thing again. -- Cyrius| ✎ 01:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • i plan on making more wiki pages for my other projects. im not interested in the world catching up to my ideas, they deserve to be in the wikipedia, when i feel they are ready. i think some serious consideration needs to be given to whether im a vandal or some kind of creationist before my account is deleted. Aghost 15:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: You're already making your mark, Aghost. No need to throw " creationism" into the mix. -- Hoary 15:53, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
it seems to me that you have thrown creationism into the mix. Aghost 18:24, 22 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:44, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nmac

Not notable, vanity, see UtDD and Austin Utley entried above. -- Tabor 19:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

'Delete All. (you forgot Neil McMahon). Vanity/Spam. Joe D (t) 19:21, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:45, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Browne of Beechworth Castle

WP is not a genealogical database; Despite the knighthood, this lists his major accomplishment as having married someone. Dunc| ☺ 19:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Don't underestimate it, it's harder than you think. Delete though. -- W( t) 20:01, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Hmm, since he seems not to have attained his knighthood through marriage nor had it awarded for service to the Crown, it was apparently harder to marry his wife (the only accomplishment mentioned in the story) than to inherit his title. Delete unless more indication of notability is provided and verified. Barno 20:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • He had four sons and a daughter, which is more than Thomas Fitzalan and Elizabeth le Despenser, apparently. Eleanor Maltravers outdoes all three by inheriting something from her step-grandmother and her sister, though. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. This is not an important historical figure, according to the article. This is a distant relative of an important historical figure. Delete. Uncle G 20:54, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete: Bertel the Fecund (or "Bertel the Fertile") in Njal's Saga probably out-produced them all. There are all sorts of neat and significant Thomas Brownes in history. I cannot find this one tying to any of them, alas. Geogre 02:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Geneaology. Gamaliel 02:23, 18 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:46, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Good_life

Article has no encyclopedic potential and cannot be NPOV Eugene Medynskiy 19:55, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:49, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Used-rental-cars

An ad, though not for a specific company, not sure what its goal is. I doubt an appropriate article can be made of it though. -- W( t) 19:59, 2005 May 17 (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 - SimonP 03:49, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Lombax

Part fancruft for the Ratchet and Clank game series, but also questionable copyright from [7], a source of information that is entirely of the author's creation. If the article is rewritten for accurate and factual content, it will have virtually no content. Recommend deletion. Mr Bound 20:29, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree with Mr Bound. -- Trogga 18:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Recommendation accepted, Delete. Master Thief Garrett 10:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I disagree with the deletion request. While the questionable copyright should certainly be investigated and, if necessary, repaired, there are numerous articles on fictitious species (such as " Bugs (Starship Troopers)") which have virtually no information, speculative or otherwise, yet are not under consideration. While this article could be improved with additional links to factual information (perhaps such as marsupial biology/development), but such changes would be better made with small modifications rather than deletion. Mithlas 21 May 2005
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 - SimonP 03:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

"Joseph Howley"

Vanity. -- W( t) 20:35, 2005 May 17 (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 - SimonP 03:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Steven L. Woyach

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 - SimonP 03:51, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Jigyasubalak's Law

Law-vanity. -- W( t) 20:39, 2005 May 17 (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 - kept - SimonP 03:53, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nam Fung Sun Chuen

An apartment block is not encyclopedic even if there is a picture.-- metta, The Sunborn 20:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per Kelly Martin. -- Unfocused 14:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Even if expanded, I find it ridiculous to have an article about a collection of apartment buildings. Sarg 15:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: In your opinion in what way will an entry of tower blocks be notable? What about a collection with ~100 blocks and ~50 000 residents? — Insta ntnood 15:24, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. I'll put it this way: I live in a 4 million inhabitants city. Do you realize how many 50.000 resident complexes can be found here? Quite some. Do they need Wikipedia articles? Nope, I don't think so. I'd put an exception if the complex /district / whatever had some historical, political or educational relevance. I don't see that here. It is just 9.000 people living in a zone. Wow, big deal :) But that is just my opinion, of course Sarg 19:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Thank you. Sounds logical, but this entry is not the only one of the same kind, and there was little objection towards these similar entries. Somehow I can't really tell where the line of notability should be drawn. :-) — Insta ntnood 19:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some architecture is notable, but this article doesn't establish that. Quale 20:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all real districts. Isn't Nam Fung Sun Chuen the chinese pronunciation of General Gau's Chicken ? Klonimus 03:39, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, "notable" enough. -- SPUI ( talk) 10:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as encyclopedic as any other neighbourhood. - SimonP 03:53, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 03:54, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Coby Archa

Vanity. -- W( t) 20:54, 2005 May 17 (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 - SimonP 03:58, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yuriy Hychun

Non-notable athlete-- metta, The Sunborn 20:57, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Litton, Chris

Badly written vanity page / joke / test edit with the wrong title. Possible speedy but then the threashold for speedy tends to be different for everybody who cleans out the speedy category ;) Joe D (t) 20:58, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

ESH by ESH

Ad for a comic; it does score a reasonable amount of google hits, but they are all either false positives or promotion of the comic by the author by the looks of it. I can't find any evidence of notability. -- W( t) 21:03, 2005 May 17 (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 - SimonP 03:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Uroš Eršte

No evidence of notability. -- W( t) 21:03, 2005 May 17 (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 - SimonP 04:01, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

The Yeti

"Cult phenomenon vanity"? Not notable anyway. -- W( t) 21:07, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Tried to speedy it as entirely not notable (I may have been a little bit off on that one, it seemed like part user test and part incomprehensible gibberish with no clear mention of a band when I first speedied it), repeatedly reinserted the "delete" tag after the user kept removing it. Also dealt with that same user's vandalism of my page. Strong delete. I applaud you, Weyes. Mr Bound 21:10, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as the vainest of nonencyclopedic vanities. Postdlf 21:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as vanity, possibly redirect to yeti Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:18, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. PERIOD. -- Fitful 22:55, 17 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 - deleted - SimonP 04:01, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Multiscale calculus

Original research. See also Talk:Multiscale calculus and findings at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Evaluation_operator. -- Pjacobi 21:20, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

  1. An algebra of A operators on functions defined on R generated by the integral translation operators and a single scaling operator. This group of operators is isomorphic to the group a x+b for a, b rational numbers acting on functions
  2. a linear functional, eg. point evaluation at 0. It follows that evaluation at any point is determined by continuoity and application of a x+b transformations.
However, as noted previously, the commutation relations for the action of the a x+b group are wrong.-- CSTAR 00:29, 21 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 - deleted - SimonP 04:01, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Breck Wilmot

No google hits for "Breck Wilmot" Marlboro, I'm guessing hoax. -- W( t) 21:54, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

I dunno, Google has no hits for "Bill Gates" and Microsoft.... oh, wait...

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 - SimonP 04:02, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

"Finding Really Cheap Airfares"

Delete. Not encyclopedic; how-to article that links to a blog. android↔ talk 21:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - SimonP 04:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

11111

Delete. An article on an individual integer with no particular significance. The only piece of non-trivial information contained in the article is that 11111 is not prime. android↔ talk 21:43, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I vote to not delete. It's really amusing!

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 - SimonP 04:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Alex Tyler

Delete. Not notable, potential hoax or joke article. Google for "alex tyler" "blatantly obvious" returns 0 hits. Google for "alex tyler" "video game" returns 6 unique hits, all of which are not relevant. android↔ talk 21:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - SimonP 04:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Leeroy

Delete. Not notable. Apparently a WoW player who did something particularly brave/stupid within the game. android↔ talk 21:47, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - SimonP 04:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Oggum

Delete. Apparently a record label, but it also appears to be the name of a musical act. I believe WP:MUSIC applies here, and article does not establish that its subject meets any one criterion therein. 117 unique Googles for "oggum music". android↔ talk 21:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 - SimonP 04:05, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Searchius

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.

Searchius

Non-notable freeware, <300 Google hits, <1000 downloads from download.com and at least one reviewer complains of massive maware issues (in a P2P program? Who'd have thought it!); no evidence of importance or notability, apparently spam for bog-standard non-notable freeware. Anon user's sole contribution. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 14:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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 - should be moved to wiktionary - SimonP 04:06, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Winter rat

Delete. Slang dicdef, probably a neologism. android↔ talk 21:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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- SimonP 04:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Theta calculus

Original research by User:Dirnstorfer alias User:Dadim. The article establishes a notation, which uses function composition in the opposite way, without explaining why it is useful. As far as I can see, nobody but the author uses this notation. Mathematical Reviews has not heard about it. Related articles by the same author are Evaluation operator (now deleted, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Evaluation operator) and Multiscale calculus (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Multiscale calculus). Jitse Niesen 22:11, 17 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 - redirected - SimonP 04:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

May There Always be Sunshine

Typo in the name. Redirected to May There Always Be Sunshine. Cmapm 22:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep the redirect. No real reason to delete it. - Doozer ( Talk) 22:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Unless we also want pages called May there Always Be Sunshine, May There Always Be sunshine, May There Always Be SunshinE, etc.-- Heathcliff 23:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Since the edit history shows that Cmapm created the article and then immediately tagged it for deletion, I'm guessing that this is a leftover after a page move. If that is the case, there are several reasons to leave it as a redirect. 1) It points the other contributors to the new location. 2) It catches any missed inbound links. (Even if you clean out "What links here", a revert can restore an old link.) 3) Redirects are cheap. We don't go out of our way to create new redirects for every conceivable misspelling but once one exists, we generally keep the redirect. (By the way, this really should have been nominated at Redirects for deletion.) Rossami (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
You are absolutely right, it was my mistake and I moved it to one with correct name. Your second point is very interesting. I didn't create any links to it myself, but there IS non-zero probability that such link may be found in the history of at least one page in Wikipedia. It seems to me that it is very close to zero, though. Therefore, I don't change my vote delete for it, although I promise to place such things under Redirects for deletion next time :-) Cmapm 16:04, 18 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 - deleted - SimonP 04:09, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

XAR Salon and Spa

Vanity advert, along with duplicates XAR and XAR Salon. Delete Gazpacho 23:04, 17 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 - kept - SimonP 04:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cao Yang Middle School

Non-notable, delete zellin 23:58, May 17, 2005 (UTC) vote changed see below

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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_17&oldid=1234127056"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE