This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Penis party

Page claims a candidate in Woking, but [1] claims the candidates there are Eleanor Blagbrough (Labour), Matthew Davies (UKIP), Anne Lee (Lib Dem), Humfrey Malins (Conservative), and Michael Osman (UK Community Issues Party) -- bjh21 00:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• I'd say delete as a hoax, but we all know it's because the title of the article is decieving. >_> ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 02:09, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Megan1967 04:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- possibly a hoax, in any event, one member does not a "party" make -- Simon Cursitor 07:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Please explain that to the people voting keep at Prince Edward Island Draft Beer Party. RickK 66.60.159.190 18:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • They stood in an election. This one hasn't. Average Earthman 22:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, what this has to do with penis(es) I can't tell, and 99% of Google hits are of the orgastic (is that even a word?) type. Seems to be similar to the McGillicuddy Serious Party... hehehe... I miss them... Master Thief Garrett 09:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as unverifiable. Samaritan 13:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as hoax. You are not a political party in the UK unless you are registered with the Electoral Commission to stand in an election. This in itself isn't that hard if you enjoy wasting money (you need at least two party officers, a party constitution, a financial scheme showing how the party will comply with the financial controls and a fee of £150). No Penis Party is registered (unless this is the most almighty of typos and they meant pensioners), no Michael Hale stood in any seat in the UK. Average Earthman 22:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Delete looks very like a hoax anyway, but I've just checked the election results in today's Guardian, no such candidate stood in Woking. PatGallacher 16:44, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

• Comment. I too checked the erection results, and there was clearly no Penis Party. I'll leave it to the Brits to toss this one, tho. --  BDAbramson ^thimk 04:18, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

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

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

Shimph

Word not in dictionary, few Google hits are names

• Delete: Word not in dictionary. Samw 00:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Nonsense. -- Nabla 00:57, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
• Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 04:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• WTF? ...nonsense... Master Thief Garrett 09:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete and why not Speedy? hydnjo talk 18:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete...dictdef of a word I think barely anyone has ever heard of. -- Whimemsz 19:48, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete They mean schimpfen, a German verb meaning to whine or complain. In any case I can't imagine it being more than a dicdef under any spelling. Demi ^T/ _C 22:39, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
• Delete Word belongs in Wiktionary if anything. -- BDD 23:45, 6 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The Most

Non notable. Vanity? See: http://www.angelfire.com/punk4/themost/schwark.html -- Nabla 00:53, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 04:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - vanity - Tεx τ urε 16:32, 11 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Distractress

Neologism (only four unique google hits). The original content ("see mattress") suggests that it was intended as a joke. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 00:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Del but is neologism a CSD criterion? — msh210 02:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 04:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Neologisms aren't CSD, but extremely short, uninformative articles with no context are. Speedy delete. Gazpacho 05:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- zero in-links; if neologism, poor one, implies gender, but defintion 'skirts' the issue -- Simon Cursitor 07:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - original work - Tεx τ urε 16:32, 11 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 14:58, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Janine Denni

"Families of famous people, unless famous in their own right..."? Grutness| ^hello? 01:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Should all be merged? Kappa 02:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• delete, or redirect... Info already included at Lloyd Alexander-- Nabla 11:54, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable in itself - Tεx τ urε 16:33, 11 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Zema Mirza

Vanity page, albeit better-written than most. -- bjh21 01:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, vanity. Well, at least she wrote about the VfD in her blog. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 02:18, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity, not notable. In fact, the article actually goes on and on about how she isn't notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:37, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• That's cute. Delete it. Zema, if you happen to read this, register on Wikipedia and you can keep this around on your personal page. -- BDD 23:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Zema's article shows quite well why she isn't notorious... yet. -- Nabla 00:18, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
• Delete. Page says that she's 17, but also says she was born in 1977 (which would make her 27). Such sloppiness will not be tolerated!!! Also, too many 7's in this vote. -- B7D7A7b7r7a7m7s7o7n ^thimk 04:22, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεx τ urε 16:33, 11 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 14:59, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Nitrohackerx

Vanity page, but not quite patent nonsense, delete

Delete. Lordthees 01:12, 6 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 15:00, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Blogictionary and Blork

Same user Blogictionary: 8 Google hits Blork and dork: 310 hits

Lotsofissues 01:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete and delete -- nixie 06:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete both Neologistic dicdefs. Sjakkalle 07:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Tεx τ urε 16:33, 11 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 15:01, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Define:nifty

You guessed it: Nifty means very good. E.g. "It sounds nifty" simply means "It sounds very good". Oh I see. Attempted dicdef, delete. -- Hoary 02:15, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 04:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Wiktionary, only because I checked and they don't have it. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 06:01, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nifty has a certain connotation "very good" just doesn't convey. Wiktionarians can do better. Mgm| ^(talk) 20:02, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Adam_Cath

Vanity Page

• So wrote User:Paul Hope. And he's right. Blatant vanity - even says it is. Grutness| ^hello? 02:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Hopeless vanity. From the article: "The creator of this article intends it both as a medium for a simultaneous biography and autobiography. Feel free to fill in the details of Adam's life - hopefully, it will self-regulate." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:44, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Ironically, the art currently on the page is probably more notable than Cath himself. -- Mitsukai 19:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Self-Delete. --  BDAbramson ^thimk 04:52, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεx τ urε 16:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• speedy delete but it did make me laugh. Sensation002 23:32, 11 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Cassandra Chen

Character in a book. We don't have an article on the book, so redirect is not viable. An there's so little here that keeping it is a dubious option. Grutness| ^hello? 02:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete or Speedy (under speedy criteria #1 and #3) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:43, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, microstub, notability not established. Megan1967 04:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete unless notability established -- Simon Cursitor 07:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete — character is a fictional news reporter in a novel about a UFO coverup. Current article is pretty much worthless. — 16:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

PTFO

Not notable outside campus of origin and is not something that can really be researched or expanded. If the term is popular enough maybe it can be given a section in the UC Riverside entry. — oo64eva (Alex) ^{( U | T | C)} @ 03:07, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable acronym. Megan1967 04:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Local slang. If important, merge into the appropriate article. Mirror Vax 11:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. At best a dicdef. ESkog 18:08, 6 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Krassimir Penev

Being someone's favorite teacher doesn't make you notable. Kelly Martin 03:20, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity and not notable. Svest 04:51, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Google search confirms info. Verifiable, notable. Mirror Vax 10:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• No, it doesn't. Search, relevant hit. It confirms he is a high school math teacher who works with the math team, and his degree. Most of the article is obviously false and a classroom in-joke, maybe vanity on behalf of Aaron Cohen. The nickname part is also silly. Delete as a joke. Samaritan 13:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

If you look at the history, the Aaron Cohen thing was not part of the original article. That is not the only relevant Google hit. See [2] and [3] which further confirms the accuracy of the article. As for the nonsense, instead of unproductive complaining, why not fix it? Mirror Vax 15:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, pretty clear vanity. He was put on trial by his math students for liking physics? Um, I don't really think that makes a person encyclopedic (now if the state had put him on trial...), nor does intending to pursue a PhD. - R. fiend 15:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - mostly not notable. While the bit about authoring for notable math competitions may justify this individual getting some kind of article, it doesn't look much like this one IMHO. ESkog 18:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not significantly famous or influential to be likely to be maintained as an article, no evidence of exceptional achievement. Average Earthman 22:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, variable is not notable. Rick K 05:04, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Daniel Tsekhman

I believe this is not notable Svest 03:27, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I believe this is a credible source

Keep, This is Daniel Tsekhman and currently my biographer is making this site for me, it is not complete and still needs to be worked on. I can assure you all the information is accurate.-- Daniel51a 04:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

It seems alright to me - Bubba

65.92.191.246 or Bubba, tell us why you believe so and what the sources are! Svest 04:17, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, the only google hits for Daniel Tsekhman appear to be for a student at Vaughan Road Academy. Not notable. Megan1967 05:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, let your biographer Bubba contact our biographers Mr. Daniel51a, and make sure you relax. No worries. ;-) Svest 05:49, May 6, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}
• Delete hoax/vanity/injokruft. Ben-w 07:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Obvious nonsense. Mirror Vax 11:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per everything above. Samaritan 13:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Vanity nonsense - Rjo 19:13, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεx τ urε 16:41, 11 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 15:01, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Baldy

(vfd posted by Solver; placed here by BD2412)

Non-encyclopedic at best. Solver 21:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC) reply

What the hell are people messing with this for? There are plenty of people called "baldy." (and ol' baldy). Can you pleeeease leave my space alone.

(The above was added by User:Brjatlick)

Wikipedia is not a place for word definitions, and definitely not slang. Also, please do not remove deletion notices from your articles and do not add nonsense. Consult Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Solver 21:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Note - Brjatlick seems to have learned his lesson (or just gone away) - he's done nothing since posting a handful of articles earlier. As for this one, Redirect to baldness (or put in BJAODN). --  BDAbramson ^thimk 04:21, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
• Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 05:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete — I went ahead and added a one-liner to the nickname page for "Baldy". — RJH 16:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Sorry for my angry post above, I did not understand how this process works, but this is a real term in use, and should be kept. But I did not know there was an article of nicknames, so I guess it could just go there, too. -- Brjatlick 16:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Redirect -- to Baldness - Longhair | Talk 18:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to baldness, a redirect to nickname would be a acceptable second option. Mgm| ^(talk) 20:06, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to nickname. -- USFJESUS 20:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to baldness. I have heardy (and used) the term myself, but I do not think the article can stand on its own, quite yet. Zscout370 (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• BJAODN. "Baldy" is a real nickname, but largely a colloquial one. I do not know of any well-known people who have that nickname. So make this a redirect to Nickname. NatusRoma 07:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, For wiktionary at most. -- Marianocecowski 10:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• I have added to the article now, I think it is much better than it was. -- Brjatlick 17:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Still a Delete. Maybe could move it to Wiktionary, but not Wikipedia material. -- Marianocecowski 09:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC) reply

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete — Xezbeth 09:29, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Jai Gill

Same story as Rajiv Singh Svest 04:25, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- There's better things to do and see in India than to write this nonsense. - Longhair | Talk 18:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• He's in Canada, so, umm... you may argue that point. :) But delete these Walter Mitty articles. Samaritan
• Delete. -- Spinboy 21:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, non-notable vanity. -- Death phoenix 03:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC) reply

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep -- SPUI ( talk) 03:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Gingerbread (Buffy episode)

I seriously doubt episodes of a television B-series deserve their own articles. Even if this episode is more significant than other episodes (example: Buffy dies or something), I'd still say merge with the main article. Waste of bandwidth as is.-- 67.142.129.10 05:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep, cleanup. Everyking 05:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep but it needs work a lot of work. Having episode pages is not uncommon and BtVS is certainly notable by WP standards. Ben-w 06:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Buffy is not a B series. Kappa 07:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, there's clear consensus about articles about major television series. Is there consensus about anon VfD nominations? Samaritan 13:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep per strong precedent toward keeping TV episodes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep episodes from notable TV series. — Xezbeth 17:37, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if WikiProject: Buffy are informed and do something with it -- TimPope 18:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep and give the Buffy WikiProject some time to clean it up. We can still delete it if there's no improvement in 2 months. Buffy is certainly notable enough to have episodes listed. Mgm| ^(talk) 20:11, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - wait until I write my article "Joss Whedon is God" and you can delete that instead. -- Mothperson 21:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. If Star Trek and Doctor Who episodes are worthy of articles, so too is Buffy. I'm not even a fan and I consider the rationale behind this nomination to be very POV. Remember Wikipedia is not paper. 23skidoo 23:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete There is no comparison between Buffy and shows such as Star Trek or Doctor Who. I'm sure there are places online to find this sort of information - and it's not like this vote will really matter anyway. -- BDD 23:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment You're under no obligation to explain your vote, of course, but I'm wondering just why you say there's no comparison between Buffy and Trek or Dr. Who. They're all long-running cult TV shows with plenty of spinoffs, movies, mechandise, books, conventions, and strong fan communities. It seems there's a lot that's comparable between the 3 series as far as notability is concerned. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:18, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I second Andrew's statement. I don't even like Buffy but I agree that there is enough notability to warrant episode articles. Likewise other major cult shows like X-Files. Wikipedia is not paper and if someone is willing to go through the effort to create and maintain such articles, hey that's fine by me. 23skidoo 03:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge into one article summarizing episodes per season, like X-files and Futurama (TV series - season 1)Futurama. Split later, if needed- LtNOWIS 02:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge. I agree with suggestions made by LtNOWIS above. If, someday, we get more relevant content than 2 vague lines, then the episode might deserve its own article. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE ( TALK) 04:52, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Changed vote to keep after seeing the elaborate nature of other "(Buffy episode)" articles. Is there a {{ Buffy sub-stub}}? If so, apply it here. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE ( TALK) 09:11, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

• As the Buffy-stub notice is now in place, Strong keep. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE ( TALK) 04:22, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge as LtNOWIS suggests. The length of the other episode-articles is too much, in my opinion, it also starts to get into copyright problems - Andre Engels 10:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There is absolutely a premise for episode articles, like Dr. Who and Star Trek. Buffys writing is so rich and complex, and it is such a long-running show, that the character pages fill up with dizzying amounts of information; episode articles limit this. In response to the "get more relevant content" criticism, that is being addressed. I am the creating member of WikiProject Buffy; one of our goals is to increase the quality and accuracy of stubs. Our stub-notice has been placed on the article linking back to our project. We are taking on an awful lot of articles, so it may be a while before the article is worked on, but it will be brought up to standards. Anyone who would like to help on this or any other article is welcome to -- just visit our project page (above). Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 19:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I am slowly but surely working on episode writeups for Buffy. I hope to get to this episode and fix it up. Pseudovector 13:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, given the custodianship undertaken. James F. (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• keep please this should not have been removed Yuckfoo 20:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Not liking a TV show is a bad reason to VfD its articles.--- Isaac R 03:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Buffy's a cult show that deserves detailed articles as much as something like Star Trek or Simpsons does. Vashti 06:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep or Merge to a list of episodes, since it's very short. Break out as needed. 14:45, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Fix. I made some notes -- jenlight 07:14, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep and fix caps. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Tinker to evers to chance

It's about a group of players for the Chicago Cubs. Add the facts to the players' aricles and the Cubs article, but delete this one. Gazpacho 05:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep and clean it up. Notable and encyclopedic. They got 803 hits on google. This is what I found: Chicago Cubs double play combination from 1903-10; immortalized in poem by New York sportswriter Franklin P. Adams—SS Joe Tinker (1880-1948), 2B Johnny Evers (1883-1947) and 1B Frank Chance (1877-1924); all 3 managed the Cubs and made the Hall of Fame. Svest 05:53, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. I'm from Australia and I've heard of this. Notable part of baseball culture. Capitalistroadster 07:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, rename to the properly capitalized title, and expand. This is notable, but the article needs a lot of work. Currently, the properly capitalized version, Tinker to Evers to Chance, redirects to Chicago Cubs, and the information contained there is far more complete than that presented on the page about the trio. NatusRoma 12:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC) (whoops, forgot to sign) reply
• I've just rewritten it completely and therefore think it should be Kept now. If it survives, it should go to the capitalized version and this one redirected, or vice versa. But I didn't want to redirect without the vfd procedure, etc. Ben-w 07:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, seems like a good enough article. — JIP | Talk 07:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep and rename. Postdlf 09:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, notable saying from baseball. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It is considered an important piece of baseball lore. -- Mitsukai 16:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Baseball's Sad Lexicon (the actual title of the poem) with Tinker to Evers to Chance as a redirect. Virtually everyone with even a passing interest in baseball knows of this quote. (It's unlikely that Joe Tinker would have made it into the Hall of Fame had the poem not been written.) Firebug 20:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep and Rename as directed by Firebug. I knew it was a line from a poem, now I know which. Demi ^T/ _C 22:49, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
• Keep, notable saying. I know it, and the poem, and I'm not much of a baseball fan. (Not completely sure about Firebug's suggestion because "Tinkers to Evers to Chance" is in fact much better known than "Baseball's Sad Lexicon," i.e. I think the latter should redirect to the former, not the other way around, but...) Dpbsmith (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Right now, Tinker to Evers to Chance is redirected to Chicago Cubs. Remove the redirect, and move this article there. Don't name it Baseball's Sad Lexicon because, as dpbsmith said, nobody knows it as that. Rick K 05:10, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Capitalise title -- Henrygb 14:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Baseball's Sad Lexicon (the poem's title), make both this and Tinker to Evers to Chance redirects to it. Grutness... wha? 07:43, 13 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 merge/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Business Capability Specification

Delete, unencyclopedic Svest 06:08, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into the Accenture page, as it describes part of their business processes. — RJH 16:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge. Very unlikely for someone searching for this to be unfamilar with the fact that it's Accenture, so no redirect. -- Unfocused 17:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep -- SPUI ( talk) 03:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Hiro Motorcycle

Advertising stuff! Svest 06:13, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. I've started by cleaning up the article. Please remember that advertising can frequently be converted to a real article with a few moments of time.-- Unfocused 06:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep the rewrite by Unfocused. The way to avoid having such articles wind up on VfD is to not start by creating advertising articles, but to start by creating valid, encyclopedic stubs. Sjakkalle 07:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • But people don't realise that when they come along and try to promote their business. Kappa 09:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep the rewrite. Kappa 09:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep -- SPUI ( talk) 03:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Xianfeng motor

Another advertising motor stuff! Svest 06:15, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. VfD abuse. Notable Asian manufacturing company. (Cleanup and wikify, as the nominator had originally tagged 11 minutes prior changing it to VfD nomination)-- Unfocused 15:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC). reply

Xianfeng disambiguation page needed, as there is a Chinese emperor with the name Xianfeng.-- Unfocused 15:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep and cleanup - Andre Engels 10:14, 7 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Asian Ghetto

Derogatroy name for a food court, not notable even if as claimed people have been calling it that since 1999, unencyclopedic, delete -- nixie 06:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• DEL Length of time used is irrelevant, beings its demeaning in nature, nor is it notable. Who 06:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, non-notable bigoted slang dicdef. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 09:47, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no citations, no evidence that this slur is notable. Firebug 10:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Silly, slurish, weak article worthless to anyone not from the area. -- BDD 23:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not notable, slang. Megan1967 03:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- not notable, not interesting, and POV. Haikupoet 00:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, I stayed in Berkely last summer, and I can confirm that this is actually what the locals called the food market, in fact I never learnt it's real name. That said the article does have to be cleaned up.
  • Unsigned contribution by User:Brianreddy. It is his 7th edit. Firebug 00:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not notable, possibly original - Tεx τ urε 16:44, 11 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 15:35, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Gene Wilkes

2780 Google hits... but over 80% of them are for a different Gene Wilkes (a preacher, not an illustrator). In fact, Gene Wilkes, illustrator, doesn't seem to warrant more than about 100 hits. Grutness| ^hello? 07:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete unless expanded. Content has been changed to "Gene Wilkes is a preacher" but this is hardly a valid stub. Sjakkalle 11:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. One of the many in the X is an illustrator series of articles. Original author has received a number of requests to provide additional information. Notability and verifiability not established. -- Allen3  ^talk 11:30, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not notable - Tεx τ urε 16:45, 11 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 15:36, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Peccability

Original research or random musings. jni 07:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete as original research. Martg76 09:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to impeccability, about the same thing. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete POV sermon. Not that I don't agree. -- BDD 00:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, POV, original research, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Megan1967 03:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• IMHO this belongs not here/in this form, but as a part of a braoder artice/debate on the entire doctrine of sinlessness & infallibility. This is just one aspect of the broader phenomenon -- Enoch, the Marys, sundry saints and pseudo-saints, and other figures outside the Judeo-Christian span I don't even know well enough to name.-- Simon Cursitor 07:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC) reply

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep -- SPUI ( talk) 03:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Chris Green

DEL While wikifying this Wikipedia:Deadend pages article, I attempted to do research. Found little to nothing on subject. Original poster only made one entry, this one. Subject is an ordinary editor for various publications, no notable contributions or original ideas. Vanity article. An everyday job is not a notable encyclopedic entry. Who 04:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• He meets the current Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. I'm not sure. Samaritan 13:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC) Keep. Samaritan 19:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Only problem is that Chris Green is a fairly common name. Likely to collide with another Chris Green at some point. Mirror Vax 16:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, for meeting the guidelines, disambiguate as necessary. Kappa 17:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Notable journalist. If someone else notable with the name comes along, we can deal with it then. Capitalistroadster 23:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep -- SPUI ( talk) 03:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Albinoblacksheep.com

Unencyclopedic; vanity; non-informative; low shelf life. Its a dot com, when the author tires of editing it will disappear. It started with little to no content, grew, and is back to little to no content, as is most personal websites. Pure vanity, non-notable for encylcopedic purposes. Who 20:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• • Comment: It's not technically a vanity article unless it's written and maintained mostly by the owner of (and/or people with great personal involvement in) the site, which it isn't. [[User:Premeditated Chaos| User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 22:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Point taken, thank you. Who 22:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Unencyclopaedic -- Neigel von Teighen 22:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I agree. CoolGuy 04:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Quackbaa - it's fairly popular for those stupid flash things. It gets a mention in List of shock sites. No vote. -- SPUI ( talk) 08:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, notable. Kappa 09:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. A number of the most famous Flash movies originated here; certainly a familiar name to me. It ranks 2,285 on Alexa, which is kinda up there, and has doubled in popularity this year alone. Deco 09:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This is a well-known source of a lot of Internet memes. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 09:44, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. History log shows plenty of activity. Obviously not vanity. Mirror Vax 10:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, notable site. — Xezbeth 17:34, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopaedic -- TimPope 18:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- notable site - Longhair | Talk 18:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Fairly well-known among some Internet communities. Also mirrors several other Flash-humor things. ESkog 18:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, well-known web site. -- Carnildo 22:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Emphatic keep Not vanity, indeed a well known site, but I certainly agree that it is unencyclopedic and hope this attention causes someone to fix it. -- BDD 00:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep - 65.500 Google hits on "albinoblacksheep com" (with the "'s) must mean it's a quite well known website. - Andre Engels 10:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep - It's a large and fairly important website. Maybe not massively influential, but certainly not vanity. -Inebriatedonkey
• Keep. Worth keeping, but probably needs some work. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep - The site is quite well known in most Internet communities and is well known for the incredibly lame "french military victories" joke. - Aaron Hill 13:55, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Keep! A lot of websites have pages on this site, why can't this one?

• Keep - Notable site. -- Jonel 23:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Popular site that has existed for some time, certainly not a personal site, though the article needs improvement. Looking at the article importance article ( Wikipedia:Importance) it seems to meet all necessary criterea. 68.238.131.50 05:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep none of the accusations are true -- Leopard 17:04, 11 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 15:38, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Jason hayet

Supposedly 29th richest man in United States. Google gives 8 hits and he cannot be found from the Forbes-1000 list of billionaires. jni 07:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Sound of laughter--uh, I mean, Delete Master Thief Garrett 09:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Wikipedia is not a vehicle for fantasies. Delete. Samaritan 13:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- I'll consider changing my vote to keep for $100 :) Longhair | Talk 18:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• If he's not on the list, it's a hoax. Delete. Mgm| ^(talk) 20:14, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a hoax. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not even an entertaining delusional hoax. Could at least have claimed to be the inventor of a genetically engineered self-watering aspidistra. Average Earthman 22:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, hoax. Megan1967 03:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, and I'll change my vote for $50. Leithp 09:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Hell, if he's as rich as he says he is he could buy us a new server or two... keep us in hardware until 2020... Master Thief Garrett 12:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - vanity - Tεx τ urε 16:46, 11 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 15:39, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

How Do I Shot Web

WTF?!? This isn't exactly All your base are belong to us, I only get 618 Google hits. Is this just SomethingAwful.com vanity? I think so. Master Thief Garrett 09:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Note to Vfd processor: if this is deleted Image:P-Funk.jpg will become an orphan; I do intend to list it, but you could do it for me if you feel generous! Master Thief Garrett 09:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, forum vanity, not notable. — JIP | Talk 09:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not a notable frase. Thue | talk 09:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Something awful. Sjakkalle 11:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• I remember that! And it was actually pretty damn funny, although probably in a you-had-to-be-there sense. Even so, it's still too obscure for Wikipedia at present. Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Pretty much every forum has an in-joke at some point, like ZFGC after TRM's "that train has sailed" fumble, which wasn't noticed until someone illustrated the mixed metaphors. Actually I'd say the TRM joke would be more easily understood to non-"in"s than this one would be, but even so that doesn't make it notable. Master Thief Garrett 13:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• How do I delete page?!? -- Bobdoe ( Talk) 20:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not notable, forum promo. Megan1967 03:28, 7 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 15:40, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Miia Lempinen

Seems like a vanity article, written by someone who thinks playing The Sims is all it takes to make you notable enough for an encyclopedia. Delete. — JIP | Talk 09:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• I'm sure she's a "fantatic" Sims player, but delete. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 09:38, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably a joke at this person's expense, by an anon with no other contributions. The name may possibly be of Finnish origin, BTW. Andrewa 12:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • The name is of Finnish origin. Heck, Lempinen might even be Finnish herself. — JIP | Talk 12:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: OK. I just wanted to make the point that this is quite possibly a real person. In the past VfD contributors have often assumed that non-English sounding names were pure jokes rather than real people. Just guarding against this. Sorry if that wasn't clear, and no change of vote. Andrewa 20:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• If she really makes "a real life simhouse, where u can order people what to do with your mobile phone," she will probably become notable. Delete for now. Samaritan 13:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Maybe she can create Simpedia, the encyclopedia that any Sim can edit. --  BDAbramson ^thimk 19:06, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete -- SPUI ( talk) 03:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC) reply

200 chickens

Looks like a joke. "200 chickens is the term most commonly used to describe the higher functions of the human brain...". Kappa 09:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete as nonsense. Sjakkalle 11:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Joke by anon whose other contributions have all been tests which they have immediately reverted, except in two cases in which someone else has reverted within a few seconds so they couldn't. Possibly inspired by this paper, by word association; There is no logical connection. Not a speedy candidate as far as I can see. Andrewa 12:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete those clucking few. — RJH 15:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Speedy deleted, twice now, a little under 19 hours apart by different admins, dealing with completely different joke content created by the same IP (but as they have been deleted they no longer show on their user contribs page of course). While I'm quite confident that deletion was in order, ISTM that this violates our current policies and procedures. Maybe they need updating? Or maybe there are other issues? Andrewa 20:34, 6 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 delete -- SPUI ( talk) 03:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Nederland 1

This looks like some bizarre piece of slander. I suspected copyright infringement at first, but it seems this poor contributor is just out to get his ex-wife's new husband. Since I can't figure out what significance this title has, I'm going to say delete. Deco 09:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete - not an encyclopedic article, not related to title. Thue | talk 09:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, likely hoax, non-encyclopedic, poorly named, probaby a (fake) chain email. Master Thief Garrett 09:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I have no idea what this is supposed to be but I'm fairly confident it contains no useful material. Probable attempt at a joke by an anon, or possibly a coded message from the advance party of a Martian invasion. Either way, delete. Andrewa 10:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • *gasp* What, and anger our future overlords? Never! :) Master Thief Garrett 12:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, joke or slander, no potential to become encyclopedic. Sietse 12:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy! Allegations someone is a "psychopath", a violent criminal, has threatened murder, etc. apparently in the context of a child custody case. It also includes, "I request the below information be totally secret till [target's name] is incapacitated because of fear of being harassed by him," so at least speedy because isn't licensed under GFDL. :p Samaritan 13:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Okay, delete. How did the meme attack pages were speediable start? Did they used to be? (If anyone knows, User talk:Samaritan? *curious; sorry*) Samaritan 00:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: And I see it has been speedied. But while these may both be good reasons for speedy delete, neither is mentioned in our current policies and procedures AFAIK. They aren't even listed as proposed. Have I missed something? Or, do they need an update? Andrewa 20:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • You should raise this matter on the Talk page, citing this mess as evidence, and then it can be written up in a useful manner and added in. Certainly we need a "psychopathic ramblings" clause. Master Thief Garrett 00:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I have undeleted this because it does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. In particular, no statement made in the body of the article can change the license that they have submitted the text under. It wouldn't hurt to propose amending the speedy delete policy to include articles solely created as threats though. Deco 00:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I redeleted it because it's slander and could be legally hinky. I love how the guy says we need to keep it secret by posting it to an encyclopedia with everybody's name involved. Rick K 05:15, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • And *I* think you two need to go off and discuss this on the Speedy talk page rather than contradicting each other's actions. The sooner we get a clause made for this, the better. Master Thief Garrett 05:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Comment: I'm fascinated. Those proposing this for speedy deletion seem to agree with me that it's not a valid candidate under the current policy. What is the policy for, if any admin is free to disregard it? Why bother to update it, or even discuss updating it, if it's not going to be followed anyway? Andrewa 13:25, 7 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 15:41, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sean Greenberg

• Delete. Not notable. Enochlau 10:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- not notable yet it seems. - Longhair | Talk 18:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Assisstant professor means first non-tenured job, I believe (equivalent non-US title is just 'lecturer'). So evidence of significant citation of published work indicating influence is required. Average Earthman 22:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Teaching faculty of well known universities merit an article, but needs to be more encyclopedic. -- BDD 00:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • This article isn't about a teaching faculty - it's about an academic. Enochlau 06:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep but in need of definite expansion. Megan1967 03:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Just another scientist, no books, remarkable articles or theories yet. The article is also copyright vio from http://www.jhu.edu/~phil/faculty/greenberg.html - Andre Engels 10:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Associate professors are not inherently notable. Quale 05:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, NN. R adiant _* 14:49, May 9, 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 15:42, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Derrick Ott

Vanity for one of Oklahoma's most "dynamic" political consultants and Principal of the Innovative Ideas Group. Searching for "Derrick Ott" and "Innovative Ideas" together turns up no hits whatever. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I really have no idea. Master Thief Garrett 13:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Yes, the page was obviously written by Mr. Ott himself. So what? If he's actually done the things he claims, he's a pretty important participant in Oklahoma politics. Somebody needs to work with him to NPOV his prose and document his accomplishments. If he shows no interest in doing these things, then we can assume he's blowing smoke, and VfD the article as a vanity page. --- Isaac R 18:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • If he's actually done the things he claims, it shouldn't be as hard as it is to verify that he's done the things he claims, hmmmm? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No mention who the candidates were. May all be long shots. -- user:zanimum
• Delete. Not notable. -- Canderson7 22:41, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. -- Carnildo 22:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. 'Put your advert on Wikipedia and we turn it into an article'? Rather not. - Andre Engels 10:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - vanity - Tεx τ urε 16:47, 11 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 15:43, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Tejan Vallabh

Captaining a school's 4th XI at cricket does not make you notable, jguk 12:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete until we lauch Wikiyearbooks. Master Thief Garrett 13:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Samaritan 13:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The 4th XI is his most notable achievement? Personal joke/vanity article. Average Earthman 22:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not notable - user test perhaps - Tεx τ urε 16:47, 11 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 15:43, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Pennyred

This group doesn't seem to meet the criteria for music notability: Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. -- Feydey 12:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete; their performance schedule is sparse and mostly smaller markets in the U.S. Northeast, and their album isn't available on Amazon. 0 plays today, 247 total plays on their purevolume page, 4053 page views on myspace. "Defining the Comfort Zone" would be pretty credible, radio-ready post-grunge if their lead singer only had the affectedly tortured voice we all know radio-ready post-grunge requires. Samaritan Cowell 13:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 03:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No allmusic.com entry. Gamaliel 18:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - vanity - Tεx τ urε 16:47, 11 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 15:44, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ilite

Advert for non-notable gadget. Sietse 12:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- unless this product is overly notable in the USB lighting scene. Reads like a brochure too. - Longhair | Talk 19:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, advertising. -- Carnildo 22:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - advert - Tεx τ urε 16:48, 11 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 15:44, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Quadriad

obscure dicdef already on Wiktionary -- Doc Glasgow 14:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. dictdef. - Andre Engels 10:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep -- SPUI ( talk) 03:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Four, Isère

the 'four' sites saga continues - dicdef, non-notable?? (googles few and mainly mirrors), possible nonsense??-- Doc Glasgow 14:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC) article been totally re-written -- Doc Glasgow 22:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Heh, 'foursites saga'. Anyway, this is false, as the word is tetrad, thus delete. DS 19:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Now a real article about a real place. keep. ("Foursites saga" indeed! :) Grutness| ^hello? 02:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep rewrite. Rick K 05:18, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:46, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Motley Commune

High school student vanity Fawcett5 16:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Vanity of non-notable high school students. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Cute but delete. Enochlau 17:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Agree to delete both. Enochlau 06:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- student vanity - Longhair | Talk 19:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

From this point, I'm adding Status-Quo Man, for a member of the group, to this VfD. Samaritan 20:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• BJAODN for both; it is cute. Samaritan 20:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• BJAODN. Not bad for a bad article. Linuxbeak 22:54, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for both -- we don't merit an entry. I should probably note that I'm The Messiah noted in the article, although it isn't my creation. Edwards 22:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not notable, vanity. -- Spinboy 20:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - vanity - Tεx τ urε 16:48, 11 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 15:47, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

P Anandha Kumar

Appears to be a non-notable professor; consulting the edit history seems to confirm that this is meant to be a joke. ESkog 18:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all joke pages. Master Thief Garrett 00:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not notable- Tεx τ urε 16:49, 11 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 15:48, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Picket term

The premise of this article is that the phrases people chant while picketing or demonstrating are not slogans, but something different called "Picket terms". There's nothing in the article to establish that picket terms are different from slogans. And I can't find "picket term" being used anywhere outside Wikipedia. --- Isaac R 18:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to slogan, which is what they basically are. - R. fiend 18:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Ill-conceived neologism. I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect as suggested by R. fiend, but I don't really think it'd be all that useful. android↔ talk 19:33, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per android. Samaritan 21:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, neologism. -- Carnildo 22:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not that it isn't a useful term, but the article is trashy, insubstantial, and doesn't really contain any information not on some other page. -- BDD 00:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, POV, neologism. Megan1967 03:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, don't redirect neologisms. Rick K 05:19, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:49, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Musixzone

Non-notable website. 46 hits on google for Musixzone. Does not pass Alexa test either. The same user that created this page User:217.218.197.9 also spammed several articles for various artists claiming that musixzone was their "official site" -- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:05, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete abusive linkspam. Samaritan 19:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 03:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Wait , i am one of musixzone's team , this website start working about 2~3 month , this is a non commercial project , i believe you can help us to start open source music community . please Don't delete this article . :) An unsigned comment from new user User:Nendoke.
  • "Wait" is not a valid VFD vote. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy and familiarize yourself with the procedures for VFD. In the meantime, please stop adding links to this site into music articles until this debate is resolved. -- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:32, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We are not here to help you start an open music source community. Soundguy99 01:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• OK 1- we are not spammer , 2- open source music is legal , users just listen to music ( they can't save Or Burn Them ) , 3- I will stop add musixzone links to WikipediA ,

TNX & Excuse me for every thing , you can delete this article ,-- Nendoke 02:16, 10 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 - transwikied and deleted - SimonP 15:50, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Vurp

A (rather unpleasant) neologism. at best it should be moved to wiktionary. delete. -- TimPope 18:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Possibly transwiki and definitely delete from here. For whatever it's worth, I have heard this term used in the way described. Certainly doesn't belong here. ESkog 19:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Definitely transwiki; its use is widespread, and its been around long enough to do so. These Usenet posts including one from 1995 attribute it to Tim Allen's stand-up routine. Samaritan 19:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Okay, y'all, I just transwikied it for ya! -- Dmcdevit 03:42, 11 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 15:51, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

The dorkboard

Just another discussion group. As if there aren't enough of these. - R. fiend 18:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- not notable forum Longhair | Talk 18:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not notable, forum promo. Megan1967 03:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not notable - Tεx τ urε 16:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC) reply

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep -- SPUI ( talk) 03:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Betsy Devine

Vanity page created by the author. Not notable as well, -- SqueakBox 18:31, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, doesn't seem particularly vain, and her book "Longing for the Harmonies" has an amazon sales rank of 68,091 Kappa 19:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• ...and it's from 1987, and Absolute Zero Gravity is 63,687, and it's from 1992. Publisher's Weekly loved and Library Journal was okay with Longing. Meets Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Keep. Samaritan 19:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I just added the ISBN numbers to the article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Verifiable, notable. Mirror Vax 23:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Notable. Megan1967 03:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Either turn it into a decent article or delete, that is cleanup, and delete if it's still like this after a month or 2. - Andre Engels 10:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep and expand. Notable enough writer.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:52, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ellen Treanor

"Actress" whose credits include only unnamed and/or nonspeaking roles. In addition the article is a substub devoid of information. - R. fiend 19:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Since Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, this actress does not have enough notable roles to be included in Wikipedia yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, Wikipedia is not the internet movie database. No more justification for listing as an actress than an undergraduate student has for being listed as a scientist. Average Earthman 22:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• She's presumably written up because of the inbound in List of Republican celebrities; she was a focus of this 1999 USA Today piece, "Republican actors hesitant to express views." if it says on Wikipedia. This suggests she may be a regular guest on America's Voices with Frank Luntz on MSNBC television. If she is a regular political talking head on a major cable network she probably passes the bar. (On another note, maybe List of Republican celebrities merits renaming...) Samaritan 00:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Pretty sure the person who wrote this article added her only as another person to have on the Republican celebs list, he obviously didn't care to add any content to the article. If she is some sort of talking head she should be listed as such, not as someone who played "reporter #1" in some movie no one saw. I'm pretty sure we're talkig a very minor person who was briefly quoted once. - R. fiend 03:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but needs expansion. Borderline notability. Megan1967 03:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Few roles, but no important supporting role between them. The article is also substub. - Andre Engels 10:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Non-notable actor. Quale 05:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Entire content is "Ellen Treanor is an American actress", that is not a valid stub, even if Treanor is notable enough. Sjakkalle 12:54, 9 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 15:54, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Temporal Maelstrom Scenario

Article states: The Temporal Maelstrom Scenario is futurological hypothesis proposed by Darran Mc Manus of the National University of Ireland, Maynooth. Wikipedia:No original research. Google returns one hit that is a Wikipedia mirror: [4] · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 20:17, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Since I cannot find enough credible third party evidence, it looks like original research and/or neologism. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete for original research per Katefan and Zzyzx. ESkog 21:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Tεx τ urε 16:51, 11 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

WorLD programming language

Non-notable, even for an esoteric programming language. Seems to be yet another " Brainfuck with more instructions" language. RSpeer 23:01, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a stillborn vanity project (I find no external links) that rips off BrainFuck without attribution. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 23:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Brainfuck is notable for being an attempt to create a language with the smallest possible compiler and for its colorful name; the author of this article seems to have missed both points entirely. — Korath ( Talk) 02:20, May 9, 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 15:54, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Daisy "Daisie" Presley

Pets of semi-famous people encyclopaedic? "Spoilers"??? Feydey 23:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. BJAODN. I find nothing to suggest it is factual. Also, note corresponding category ( Category:Historical_dogs) was created, with this as the sole child. -- Tabor 23:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Chuckle, BJODN Silly little piece. The alleged picture of Daisy is actually used on many other serious dog pages. Why would "Daisie" be a nickname for "Daisy" anyway? I doubt its skeleton was in any national museum. Having it birth and death categories is beyond absurd. ...everyone remembered her being in heaven with Jesus. Had the dog previously been in heaven with Jesus before it died? -- BDD 00:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Also it is misleading, THAT picture is not of THIS dog. (ah, the good old Edit conflict... great minds think alike!) Master Thief Garrett 00:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep this bitch! — RaD Man ( talk) 01:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Change of heart: transwiki to the [[Wikipedia:Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense/Encyclop%E6dia_BJAODNonica|Encyclopaedia BJAODNonica]]. — RaD Man ( talk) 18:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Send this article to heaven with Jesus. Gamaliel 02:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Spoiler warning indeed. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 04:20, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparently a joke. Sietse 18:33, 7 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 already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Braden mailloux

Vanity, non-notable. Google returns wikipedia mirrors and the other results which don't seem to be related. Delete. — Mar ka ci 2005-05-6 T 23:21 Z

• Delete, vanity. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 00:07, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to "Mailbox" because that's what I thought the second word was, and I can't fathom anyone looking for this page anyway. -- BDD 00:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Bad suggestion. Regardless of the merits of this particular article, "Mailloux" is a real surname. Bearcat 08:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Uh... certainly don't redirect. On the claim to have been the "been the subject, protagonist, and antagonist in numerous indepedent films," no personnel or character named Braden Mailloux on IMDB. If he's "the star of a plethora of flash cartoons and games by many artists nationwide" one of about 16 google hits might mention it. Delete. Samaritan 00:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, a redirect as suggested would be ludicrous. Rick K 05:22, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; I'm surprised this wasn't speedied, actually. List of nicknames? Star of Flash cartoons? Weaknesses include potato pellets? I think that's speedyable. Bearcat 08:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Humor -- BDD 17:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I think maybe you missed the part about humour actually invoking amusement in other people... Bearcat 18:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• (Invalid anon vote) Keep Hi I'm completely new to Wikipedia, however I came across this entry by legitimately searching from Google for this series of Flash cartoons. I know of the cartoon character and found the biographical stuff really interesting. I guess some of the entry isn't serious, but I think the article as a whole is useful. 2005-05-10 T 23:51 Z
• Delete - vanity - Tεx τ urε 16:52, 11 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 delete. – AB CD 00:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Toymax

No-content article Linuxbeak 23:38, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

• WTF? (Delete) I doubt this could ever form a useful article. Couldn't you have speedy'd it on the "no content" grounds? Then again I just tried that with something and no-one acted upon it... gah... Master Thief Garrett 23:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Really should have been speedied. -- BDD 00:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy deleted - no content. – AB CD 00:51, 7 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.