This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.
Joyous 16:59, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
This "household name" gets only 19 Google hits, none of which look immediately relevant to her fields. Delete or userfy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY.
jni 18:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense page, plain and simple -- PopUpPirate 00:43, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to
Axis and Allies. —
Korath (
Talk) 23:21, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
A game that is still in the design stage. Unreleased products are not encyclopedic. -- Lee Hunter 00:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
Joyous 16:58, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
I ran into this page through a link which is creator made on Enabling Act. It looks like someone is using the Wikipedia for his power struggle in some student club. Not that no page is linked to this entry. eman 00:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Enough said. -- BD2412 02:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The pages are also linked in a horrible way (one guys name is linked to the article on Hitler, a girls name to the article on "Dog")... Delete! And yes, there is a junkyard for interesting deleted articles somewhere. Houshuang 05:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Of course, this article contradicts Wikipedia's mission. Deletion is the correct way of handling it. However, apart from the above "message", it is quite a humourous way to vent one's anger. Do we have a graveyard for such pages? I feel it's an interesting bit of Wikipedia history. Sebastian 03:38, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 17:09, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
I see nothing to distinguish this from the masses of marginal webcomics out there. It doesn't even have an Alexa rank. (I am rather familiar with the world of webcomics. I wish this on e lots of luck, but I don't think it's significant enough for an article. The original article, before someone else wikified it, was a blatant ad.) - Aranel ("Sarah") 01:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep as rewritten. —
Korath (
Talk) 23:25, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Website promo. No evidence of notability. Googling for "theoniondome.+com" yields about 100 hits. Delete, or maybe redirect? "Onion dome" is a term used in English for an architectural feature of Orthodox churches, but we don't have an article on that topic, apparently.
Wile E. Heresiarch 02:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) Update: The article has been rewritten. Vfd withdrawn. Thanks a lot to TenOfAllTrades for stepping in!
Wile E. Heresiarch 03:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 17:11, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Found this listed for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure why so I'm relisting it here. No vote at this time. Postdlf 02:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"Keep. Theo (Talk) 23:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE.
dbenbenn |
talk 23:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This seems like mere advertising, the text looks like it was pasted from a promotion flyer, and the user does not have a user page. Book does not seem noteworthy (at least yet). Houshuang 03:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to
Sunpadh.
Death
phoenix 01:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Saw this up for speedy and thought I'd list it here just to be sly. It's at least prima facie valid, but 0 google hits for Sinbad + Magean. I refrain from voting at this time. Postdlf 03:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
Rossami
(talk) 03:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, i could see if he was national, but he is not, or in a major market, not, or notible in the industry, not, or some kinda other news maker, not. -- User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Redirect to
Special:Random page. Note: this has already been done, and is currently listed at
Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. --
Death
phoenix 01:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A prior VfD originally submitted by BmacD at 07:00, 28 Jan 2005. Possible speedy perhaps? -- Longhair 03:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
Joyous 16:57, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this webcomic consists of exactly four panels. Which falls just a little short of any sort of standard eligibility criteria -- Ray Radlein 04:52, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep.
Death
phoenix 01:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This article is problematic in many superficial ways and in one deep way.
The superficial failings of this article could be corrected. The very name of the article, "vanavsos", is incorrect -- the Greek term has a standard English equivalent, "banausic" (see OED). The meaning given for the term is incorrect -- in fact, inconsistent with the quotes the article itself gives. The transliterations and etymology aren't quite right. The discussion of the sense-development in Greek isn't quite right. There are anachronistic references to modern fields, which could be removed. There is a connection to the constitutions of the Doric states which is not justified in the article, which could be removed. Etc. etc.
If those were the only problems, the solution would be to either edit the article, or to list it in Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention.
But there is a more basic problem: it is not about an important, recognized concept. It is taking a common Ancient Greek word which Aristotle uses in its ordinary meaning and elevating it into some sort of technical term in political philosophy. At best, this constitutes original research, an essay on the relationship of the Greek concepts of virtue (arete) and how it is incompatible with banausic occupation.-- Macrakis 05:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In the spirit of Wikipedia:WikiLove, I'm ignoring some of the provocative things that have been said, and will try for a constructive, positive, egoless resolution, taking advantage of everyone's contributions.
The core of this article as it currently stands seems to be the political role of the artisan class in ancient greece (the βάναυσοι). That is an encyclopedic subject, there is accepted non-original research on the topic (which it would be nice to cite at some point), and in fact it's not a bad name for it.
That seems like an awfully specialized subject, though, and I'd hope that we could come up with a more general article on the Artisan Class in Ancient Greece, with more content on its economic role, its relations with other parts of the population ( citizens, metics, slaves, etc.), well-known members ( Phidias?, Socrates?), patron gods/demigods ( Daedalus?), and all that.
As for the name of the article: In the academic literature on this class, it is referred to either using the English term 'artisan', or with the Greek name in Greek letters, or the Greek name transliterated as 'banausoi' (the plural of 'banausos'). Liddell & Scott (the standard dictionary of Ancient Greek) translates it as 'artisan' (noun); as an adjective, it started out as the adjective 'of the class of handicraftsmen or artisans' and later developed into 'vulgar' etc. (in Modern Greek, it means something like 'uncouth', but that is not really relevant here). Of course, it doesn't have precisely the same denotation or connotations as the English word 'artisan', but there doesn't seem to be any danger of confusion by using that term. The printed index of the 1911 Britannica doesn't use the term banausos/banausic, and, to the extent one can trust the scanned version at 1911encyclopedia.org, they don't appear in its text, either (even though it does use the term 'metic'). Hence the recommendation to use the term 'artisan class'. -- Macrakis 23:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A truly inspired suggestion, Macrakis. I do hope that this takes some of the heat out of this debate. -- Theo (Talk) 01:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is the importance of the term: This ancient Greek term delineates the ethos of the commercial class from the ethos of the warrior class. It shows the bias of the warrior ethos and established, in the Greek republics, a "psycological distance" between the citizens and the traders. "Artisans" in the Greek language is "texnitai". This word "vanavsos" is to show that they created a term to describe their "bias" against the trader classes and to seperate the warrior ethos from the commercial ethos. This article is very necessary for understanding ancient Greek republicansim! WHEELER 15:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On the title, the title needs to capture the essence of the material in question. I am all up for a better title, but "Artisan Class in Ancient Greece" is not one of them. This title is misleading because it is not about the "Artisan Class". It deals with virtue and how money is destructive of virtue and the warrior ethos. WHEELER 14:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
To Theo, we just start a new line. Look, the word in Greek is a noun not an adjective. It may be an adjective in English, but it is a noun in Greek. One just says "vanavsos" and one means the working class. One can say of the perioci of Lacedæmonia, that they are vanavsos. The vanavsoi don't have political rights. The vanavsoi are in rebellion. The vanavsoi are not literate enough to do politics. It is a noun in Greek texts. WHEELER 21:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
SimonP is an anonymous user. What's his qualifications for voting? Anything? There is nothing on his page!
JonathanThunder, another practically anonymous user.
Macrakis, a software engineer. I don't go to the software section and edit there do I?
Von Teighon shows no expertise in either philosophy, Greek philosophy, or classics.
Nick04, what's his expertise? I can't find none on his user page either.
Rbellion is a Marxist and an advocate of the Frankfurt school. Of course, he will vote against this material.
Slimvirgin edits articles like these [Bernard Williams], [Rat Park], [Rihab Rashid Taha], [Jeremiah Duggan], [Steven Emerson], [John Cooley], [Kenneth Bigley] etc. What's his expertise to vote on something classical?
Other than Mel Etits and Stan Shebs who has done extensive editing in the Classical field. I find noone qualified to judge anything in the classical world. WHEELER 19:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sir R. W. Livingstone was the President of Corpus Christi College in Oxford. These people claim to be bigger than this scholarly gentleman? WHEELER 19:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sir Livingstone writes: In some states these theories were actually applied. Sparta excluded the industrial, commercial and farming class from citizenship. In Thebes no retail trader of artisan was eligible for office till ten years after he had retired from business." This is footnoted as follows: "See the admirable discussions in Newman's edition of the Politics, vol. i, p. 98f., which I have used in what follows."
He continues on pg 113:
"The aim of a journalist may either be to enlarge the circulation of a paper or to give his readers a true and intelligent picture of the world; of a lawyer either to extend his practice or to help justice be done; of a business man either to grow rich or to play his part as a 'nurse' of the community. These alternatives are not exclusive. But where the former predominates, the amount of
arete generated will be small, and journalists, lawyers and industrialists will be banausoi rather than men."
WHEELER 19:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I ask that all read User:Mirv. WHEELER 20:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A wikipedia entry (including a part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas, that is:
However all of the above may be acceptable content once they have become, a permanent feature of the public landscape. A few examples of this include:
What the real problem is
The real problem is this: " a permanent feature of the public landscape". Because of the loss of classical learning, reading and schooling in the classics, many are ignorant of this fact. This information is strange to the 21st century man but in Victorian England, 1920's America and England, this was a common knowledge. The word entered the English language and was understood to be such. It is in the
OED. This meets none of the criterial of
Wikipedia:No original research.
WHEELER 20:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please add votes above the "More information" mark so that they can be counted
I've started this in order to avoid cluttering up the voting any further. I'm not arguing for the retention of this article (my vote, above, stands), but a number of people have raised and argued about an issue that's of more general importance.
An article on, for example, graves should start with the origins of the term and associated concept (in fact the Wikipedia article is a stub, but the principle holds); nevertheless, the article is given the modern English spelling, not 'græf', and the modern spelling is used when talking about ancient grave mounds, etc. Why then, when we're talking about a word that exists and is used in modern Greek should we use a transliteration alien to the modern pronunciation? It's not even as if such transliterations are accurate representations of how Aristotle or Euripedes, for example, would have pronounced the language. Is it, at least in part, that non-Greek Westerners feel that they own the ancient language and culture, and that modern Greeks are merely its degraded descendants who can be ignored? I'm sure that such an approach is usually unconscious, but I suspect that it's widely prevalent. (There's a G. K. Chesterton essay on this sort of topic, but I don't have the reference to hand.)
If there's an English word derived from the Greek, then of course it should be used in an English-language encyclopædia, but where the word is solely Greek, then surely good practice (not to mention good manners) dictates that the Greek pronunciation be used to transliterate it — not a transliteration of the conjectural (at best) pronunciation of people dead for 2,500 years, but of the pronunciation of the living, breathing users of the language. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 12:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
But that's for an English word with a Greek root; it's not relevant to the question of transliteration. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 19:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
Joyous 16:57, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Original research. Rick K 06:41, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE.
jni 18:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Appears to be a neologism. May be, uh, original research. Or hoax. Google search is complicated by many occurrences of "scropt" as a typo for "script". However, the same author created a redir for scroptaru (now deleted) — this gets zero google hits. -- Curps 06:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE.
Cool Hand
Luke 07:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A page that was created from copyrighted content. That describes something in an unusual way that was specific to the original article (doesn't really make sense out of context). That is linked by nothing. Should be deleted. AlistairMcMillan 07:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE.
Cool Hand
Luke 07:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A page that was created from copyrighted content. That describes something in an unusual way that was specific to the original article (doesn't really make sense out of context). That is linked by nothing. Should be deleted. AlistairMcMillan 07:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (with a recommendation that it be included in BJAODN).
Rossami
(talk) 01:20, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Non-encyclopedic. Delete. utcursch | talk 09:47, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to
Runaways (comics). Note: this has already been done.
Death
phoenix 01:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is a page about a character from the Runaways comic book series. However, the information on the Sister Grimm page is duplicated from her entry in the Runaways page. The series is a minor cult hit and I don't feel there's the need, at this moment, to either expand on Sister Grimm or even to turn it into a redirect for Runaways. Both pages were created by the same anonymous user, who has a bad grasp of English and has a tendency to do lists instead of coherent sentences and paragraphs. Delete -- Pc13 10:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Transwiki to WikiSource.
Death
phoenix 01:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete or transwiki to wikisource (if it is not a copyvio and not already there). This is the text of the document described under X Article. But under a title of Long telegram it is pointless. -- RHaworth 10:44, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 17:18, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Resume of a military guy. Radiant! 11:52, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 17:21, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Chem professor at UCLA. Article fails to establish notability, and he gets a couple hundred google hits.
Radiant! 11:56, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP.
Cool Hand
Luke 07:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Callsign for a radio transmitter. However according to Google, the TLA is used a lot more in other contexts. Radiant! 12:00, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 23:29, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Professor that fails the professor test. Radiant! 12:41, Feb 28, 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. (I count 2 delete, 1 keep with no reason given and one too ambiguous to interpret. Reviewing the article, I concur that there has been no evidence presented that this person yet meets the recommended
criteria for inclusion of biographies.)
Rossami
(talk) 01:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Professor that fails the professor test. (The books listed are those he contributed to, not those he wrote). Radiant! 12:58, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 23:33, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
While the word does google, none of the hits are related to this article. Neologism? Obscure techtalk? Radiant! 13:04, Feb 28, 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 N/A.
jni 18:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Copyvio. Text even carries the copyright notice. See [12]. Inter\ Echo 13:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 17:27, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
While I understand the use of articles on interstate highways, I fail to see why we should have an article on a street in a city somewhere. Maybe WikiTravel wants it. Radiant! 14:08, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Very well known major high street in an historic area of inner Sydney. Easily the basis of an excellent article. Strong Keep.-- Gene_poole 21:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS (so keep).
Cool Hand
Luke 07:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Small mall in Australia. Belongs in WikiTravel but not here. Radiant! 14:08, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to
James Stewart. Note: this has already been done.
Death
phoenix 01:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Former model whose son died in 'nam. Article doesn't establish notability, but does google a little (about 150). Radiant! 14:14, Feb 28, 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.
Rossami
(talk) 01:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Very localized club, relevant only if you live in a certain neighborhood of Atlanta. Radiant! 15:33, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect.
Comment: The lack of civility demonstrated by a few members in this discussion thread is disturbing. Please remember to assume good faith. Rossami (talk) 01:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Small-time localized political party that never amounted to anything much. Now defunct. Since the word googles a lot, this article might be better spent discussing something else entirely. Radiant! 15:34, Feb 28, 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 ambiguous.
I count 4 clear "deletes", 2 clear "keeps" (one from a user who created an account the day this VfD opened) and 3 "redirects" (none of which really argued for an actual merge). When investigating the article myself, I found that there was an unresolved copyright violation still in the history. As such, I am going to call this one as a delete (which is pending because of a block-compress error) with a recommendation that it be recreated after deletion as a redirect. Rossami (talk) 01:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ok, we've extensively discussed pokemon professors... now how do you feel about lesser-known enemies of the power rangers? Radiant! 15:36, Feb 28, 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.
Having deleted the content, I am not going to create this as a redirect, though I have no objections if any other reader/editor is bold and does so. Rossami (talk) 00:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We've seen pokemon, now what about yu-gi-oh? "From Doma saga, it appeared as Orcahalos Kyutora, stopped by the power of Timatus, Critias and Hermos after destruction of Alantis. Dartz steals the Egyptian God cards so the beast could appear in it's Kyutora, but Yugi with the Timatus hindered it." Radiant! 15:40, Feb 28, 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 ambiguous. I count 5 clear "delete" votes and 7 clear "keep" votes (but 2 of them were from anon or very new users and are discounted). Even after discounting the anon votes, this discussion fails to reach a clear concensus to delete. The decision defaults to keep.
Rossami
(talk) 00:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hoax / not verifiable. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Eyre Empire. Rhobite 21:04, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The author clearly states that the subject of the article is mythological and openly acknowledges that many sources have it to be pure legend. While wikipedia may have no room for a man who was never born, we certainly do record myths and folklore that achieve particular popularity. This one has obviously circulated for hundreds of years (see, Eyre Empire). Also, keep in mind, while there is no clear historical precedent to prove his existence, there is also nothing with which to disprove it. No premise for deletion. Maybe relist as, "Legend of Truelove Eyre." History 21
Nick04, google has no hits for Truelove Eyre, but yahoo does (quite a few actually). You should always try BOTH engines when doing a search, especially if you can't find anything on google at first. Secondly, Truelove Eyre's existence or nonexistence is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Only the legend ITSELF is relevant, as it is widely well known tale in Britain. If there was a widely known "Legend of the Bat Boy," I expect that wikipedia would have an article on it. "In 19th Century Romania, a false but highly believable story circulated...blah blah blah...this folklore has become a part of Romanian history and lives on to this day." You get the picture. The story itself is famous, that's what matters. But just as an aside, the Gaelic name for Ireland is, "Eire." That's no coincidence. Go to yahoo. History21
Keep thank you, Nick04, but I'm serious about what I said.
I know that I don't get to vote twice, I was just emphasizing what I had said before. You all don't seem to understand what I'm saying here: nothing about Truelove Eyre is verifiable. But the fact that a legend surrounds him IS verifiable. It is the LEGEND that we are reporting. For all I know, William the Conqueror could have falled from his horse because he saw a shiny coin on the ground--I DON'T CARE. The story, however, is a significant part of folklore and should be shown on wikipedia. It is made perfectly clear in the article that the story is largely thought to be myth. History21
I just read the link provided by 168.184.90.11, and i'm starting to think it sounds like Truelove was the man's old surname, i.e. his name was Bob Truelove, and he was rechristened Bob Eyre. This would explain why "Truelove Eyre" gets no Google hits. Does this sound reasonable to anyone else? Foobaz· ✐ 06:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
One cannot verify the Truelove Eyre legend without thus verifying the Eyre Empire itself, as it is said to have stemmed from him. Therefore, I counsel patience and caution before recklessly acquiescing to the validity of either article. 168.184.90.11 ( talk · contributions)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.
I count 4 clear "delete" votes, 5 clear "keep" votes (but 2 are either anons or very new users) and 4 "keep as redirect" votes. Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to keep.
Personally, I am inclined to agree with the "keep as redirect" group. Noting that a redirect does not require the same degree of overwhelming concensus as deletion, I am going to be bold. Rossami (talk) 00:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Speculative opinion piece. Rhobite 21:15, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
http://ensign.ftlcomm.com/desantisArticles/2002_600/desantis606/bushistrightism.html The truth hurts
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.
Cool Hand
Luke 07:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Source text, not an article. Probably copyrighted too. Should be delete. Thue | talk 21:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 17:39, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Bescause this is silly. -- NewAtair α 22:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
Joyous 16:59, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
This "household name" gets only 19 Google hits, none of which look immediately relevant to her fields. Delete or userfy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY.
jni 18:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense page, plain and simple -- PopUpPirate 00:43, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to
Axis and Allies. —
Korath (
Talk) 23:21, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
A game that is still in the design stage. Unreleased products are not encyclopedic. -- Lee Hunter 00:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
Joyous 16:58, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
I ran into this page through a link which is creator made on Enabling Act. It looks like someone is using the Wikipedia for his power struggle in some student club. Not that no page is linked to this entry. eman 00:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Enough said. -- BD2412 02:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The pages are also linked in a horrible way (one guys name is linked to the article on Hitler, a girls name to the article on "Dog")... Delete! And yes, there is a junkyard for interesting deleted articles somewhere. Houshuang 05:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Of course, this article contradicts Wikipedia's mission. Deletion is the correct way of handling it. However, apart from the above "message", it is quite a humourous way to vent one's anger. Do we have a graveyard for such pages? I feel it's an interesting bit of Wikipedia history. Sebastian 03:38, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 17:09, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
I see nothing to distinguish this from the masses of marginal webcomics out there. It doesn't even have an Alexa rank. (I am rather familiar with the world of webcomics. I wish this on e lots of luck, but I don't think it's significant enough for an article. The original article, before someone else wikified it, was a blatant ad.) - Aranel ("Sarah") 01:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep as rewritten. —
Korath (
Talk) 23:25, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Website promo. No evidence of notability. Googling for "theoniondome.+com" yields about 100 hits. Delete, or maybe redirect? "Onion dome" is a term used in English for an architectural feature of Orthodox churches, but we don't have an article on that topic, apparently.
Wile E. Heresiarch 02:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) Update: The article has been rewritten. Vfd withdrawn. Thanks a lot to TenOfAllTrades for stepping in!
Wile E. Heresiarch 03:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 17:11, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Found this listed for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure why so I'm relisting it here. No vote at this time. Postdlf 02:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"Keep. Theo (Talk) 23:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE.
dbenbenn |
talk 23:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This seems like mere advertising, the text looks like it was pasted from a promotion flyer, and the user does not have a user page. Book does not seem noteworthy (at least yet). Houshuang 03:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to
Sunpadh.
Death
phoenix 01:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Saw this up for speedy and thought I'd list it here just to be sly. It's at least prima facie valid, but 0 google hits for Sinbad + Magean. I refrain from voting at this time. Postdlf 03:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
Rossami
(talk) 03:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, i could see if he was national, but he is not, or in a major market, not, or notible in the industry, not, or some kinda other news maker, not. -- User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Redirect to
Special:Random page. Note: this has already been done, and is currently listed at
Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. --
Death
phoenix 01:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A prior VfD originally submitted by BmacD at 07:00, 28 Jan 2005. Possible speedy perhaps? -- Longhair 03:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
Joyous 16:57, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this webcomic consists of exactly four panels. Which falls just a little short of any sort of standard eligibility criteria -- Ray Radlein 04:52, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep.
Death
phoenix 01:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This article is problematic in many superficial ways and in one deep way.
The superficial failings of this article could be corrected. The very name of the article, "vanavsos", is incorrect -- the Greek term has a standard English equivalent, "banausic" (see OED). The meaning given for the term is incorrect -- in fact, inconsistent with the quotes the article itself gives. The transliterations and etymology aren't quite right. The discussion of the sense-development in Greek isn't quite right. There are anachronistic references to modern fields, which could be removed. There is a connection to the constitutions of the Doric states which is not justified in the article, which could be removed. Etc. etc.
If those were the only problems, the solution would be to either edit the article, or to list it in Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention.
But there is a more basic problem: it is not about an important, recognized concept. It is taking a common Ancient Greek word which Aristotle uses in its ordinary meaning and elevating it into some sort of technical term in political philosophy. At best, this constitutes original research, an essay on the relationship of the Greek concepts of virtue (arete) and how it is incompatible with banausic occupation.-- Macrakis 05:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In the spirit of Wikipedia:WikiLove, I'm ignoring some of the provocative things that have been said, and will try for a constructive, positive, egoless resolution, taking advantage of everyone's contributions.
The core of this article as it currently stands seems to be the political role of the artisan class in ancient greece (the βάναυσοι). That is an encyclopedic subject, there is accepted non-original research on the topic (which it would be nice to cite at some point), and in fact it's not a bad name for it.
That seems like an awfully specialized subject, though, and I'd hope that we could come up with a more general article on the Artisan Class in Ancient Greece, with more content on its economic role, its relations with other parts of the population ( citizens, metics, slaves, etc.), well-known members ( Phidias?, Socrates?), patron gods/demigods ( Daedalus?), and all that.
As for the name of the article: In the academic literature on this class, it is referred to either using the English term 'artisan', or with the Greek name in Greek letters, or the Greek name transliterated as 'banausoi' (the plural of 'banausos'). Liddell & Scott (the standard dictionary of Ancient Greek) translates it as 'artisan' (noun); as an adjective, it started out as the adjective 'of the class of handicraftsmen or artisans' and later developed into 'vulgar' etc. (in Modern Greek, it means something like 'uncouth', but that is not really relevant here). Of course, it doesn't have precisely the same denotation or connotations as the English word 'artisan', but there doesn't seem to be any danger of confusion by using that term. The printed index of the 1911 Britannica doesn't use the term banausos/banausic, and, to the extent one can trust the scanned version at 1911encyclopedia.org, they don't appear in its text, either (even though it does use the term 'metic'). Hence the recommendation to use the term 'artisan class'. -- Macrakis 23:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A truly inspired suggestion, Macrakis. I do hope that this takes some of the heat out of this debate. -- Theo (Talk) 01:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is the importance of the term: This ancient Greek term delineates the ethos of the commercial class from the ethos of the warrior class. It shows the bias of the warrior ethos and established, in the Greek republics, a "psycological distance" between the citizens and the traders. "Artisans" in the Greek language is "texnitai". This word "vanavsos" is to show that they created a term to describe their "bias" against the trader classes and to seperate the warrior ethos from the commercial ethos. This article is very necessary for understanding ancient Greek republicansim! WHEELER 15:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On the title, the title needs to capture the essence of the material in question. I am all up for a better title, but "Artisan Class in Ancient Greece" is not one of them. This title is misleading because it is not about the "Artisan Class". It deals with virtue and how money is destructive of virtue and the warrior ethos. WHEELER 14:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
To Theo, we just start a new line. Look, the word in Greek is a noun not an adjective. It may be an adjective in English, but it is a noun in Greek. One just says "vanavsos" and one means the working class. One can say of the perioci of Lacedæmonia, that they are vanavsos. The vanavsoi don't have political rights. The vanavsoi are in rebellion. The vanavsoi are not literate enough to do politics. It is a noun in Greek texts. WHEELER 21:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
SimonP is an anonymous user. What's his qualifications for voting? Anything? There is nothing on his page!
JonathanThunder, another practically anonymous user.
Macrakis, a software engineer. I don't go to the software section and edit there do I?
Von Teighon shows no expertise in either philosophy, Greek philosophy, or classics.
Nick04, what's his expertise? I can't find none on his user page either.
Rbellion is a Marxist and an advocate of the Frankfurt school. Of course, he will vote against this material.
Slimvirgin edits articles like these [Bernard Williams], [Rat Park], [Rihab Rashid Taha], [Jeremiah Duggan], [Steven Emerson], [John Cooley], [Kenneth Bigley] etc. What's his expertise to vote on something classical?
Other than Mel Etits and Stan Shebs who has done extensive editing in the Classical field. I find noone qualified to judge anything in the classical world. WHEELER 19:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sir R. W. Livingstone was the President of Corpus Christi College in Oxford. These people claim to be bigger than this scholarly gentleman? WHEELER 19:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sir Livingstone writes: In some states these theories were actually applied. Sparta excluded the industrial, commercial and farming class from citizenship. In Thebes no retail trader of artisan was eligible for office till ten years after he had retired from business." This is footnoted as follows: "See the admirable discussions in Newman's edition of the Politics, vol. i, p. 98f., which I have used in what follows."
He continues on pg 113:
"The aim of a journalist may either be to enlarge the circulation of a paper or to give his readers a true and intelligent picture of the world; of a lawyer either to extend his practice or to help justice be done; of a business man either to grow rich or to play his part as a 'nurse' of the community. These alternatives are not exclusive. But where the former predominates, the amount of
arete generated will be small, and journalists, lawyers and industrialists will be banausoi rather than men."
WHEELER 19:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I ask that all read User:Mirv. WHEELER 20:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A wikipedia entry (including a part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas, that is:
However all of the above may be acceptable content once they have become, a permanent feature of the public landscape. A few examples of this include:
What the real problem is
The real problem is this: " a permanent feature of the public landscape". Because of the loss of classical learning, reading and schooling in the classics, many are ignorant of this fact. This information is strange to the 21st century man but in Victorian England, 1920's America and England, this was a common knowledge. The word entered the English language and was understood to be such. It is in the
OED. This meets none of the criterial of
Wikipedia:No original research.
WHEELER 20:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please add votes above the "More information" mark so that they can be counted
I've started this in order to avoid cluttering up the voting any further. I'm not arguing for the retention of this article (my vote, above, stands), but a number of people have raised and argued about an issue that's of more general importance.
An article on, for example, graves should start with the origins of the term and associated concept (in fact the Wikipedia article is a stub, but the principle holds); nevertheless, the article is given the modern English spelling, not 'græf', and the modern spelling is used when talking about ancient grave mounds, etc. Why then, when we're talking about a word that exists and is used in modern Greek should we use a transliteration alien to the modern pronunciation? It's not even as if such transliterations are accurate representations of how Aristotle or Euripedes, for example, would have pronounced the language. Is it, at least in part, that non-Greek Westerners feel that they own the ancient language and culture, and that modern Greeks are merely its degraded descendants who can be ignored? I'm sure that such an approach is usually unconscious, but I suspect that it's widely prevalent. (There's a G. K. Chesterton essay on this sort of topic, but I don't have the reference to hand.)
If there's an English word derived from the Greek, then of course it should be used in an English-language encyclopædia, but where the word is solely Greek, then surely good practice (not to mention good manners) dictates that the Greek pronunciation be used to transliterate it — not a transliteration of the conjectural (at best) pronunciation of people dead for 2,500 years, but of the pronunciation of the living, breathing users of the language. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 12:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
But that's for an English word with a Greek root; it's not relevant to the question of transliteration. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 19:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
Joyous 16:57, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Original research. Rick K 06:41, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE.
jni 18:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Appears to be a neologism. May be, uh, original research. Or hoax. Google search is complicated by many occurrences of "scropt" as a typo for "script". However, the same author created a redir for scroptaru (now deleted) — this gets zero google hits. -- Curps 06:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE.
Cool Hand
Luke 07:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A page that was created from copyrighted content. That describes something in an unusual way that was specific to the original article (doesn't really make sense out of context). That is linked by nothing. Should be deleted. AlistairMcMillan 07:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE.
Cool Hand
Luke 07:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A page that was created from copyrighted content. That describes something in an unusual way that was specific to the original article (doesn't really make sense out of context). That is linked by nothing. Should be deleted. AlistairMcMillan 07:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (with a recommendation that it be included in BJAODN).
Rossami
(talk) 01:20, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Non-encyclopedic. Delete. utcursch | talk 09:47, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to
Runaways (comics). Note: this has already been done.
Death
phoenix 01:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is a page about a character from the Runaways comic book series. However, the information on the Sister Grimm page is duplicated from her entry in the Runaways page. The series is a minor cult hit and I don't feel there's the need, at this moment, to either expand on Sister Grimm or even to turn it into a redirect for Runaways. Both pages were created by the same anonymous user, who has a bad grasp of English and has a tendency to do lists instead of coherent sentences and paragraphs. Delete -- Pc13 10:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Transwiki to WikiSource.
Death
phoenix 01:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete or transwiki to wikisource (if it is not a copyvio and not already there). This is the text of the document described under X Article. But under a title of Long telegram it is pointless. -- RHaworth 10:44, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 17:18, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Resume of a military guy. Radiant! 11:52, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 17:21, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Chem professor at UCLA. Article fails to establish notability, and he gets a couple hundred google hits.
Radiant! 11:56, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP.
Cool Hand
Luke 07:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Callsign for a radio transmitter. However according to Google, the TLA is used a lot more in other contexts. Radiant! 12:00, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 23:29, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Professor that fails the professor test. Radiant! 12:41, Feb 28, 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. (I count 2 delete, 1 keep with no reason given and one too ambiguous to interpret. Reviewing the article, I concur that there has been no evidence presented that this person yet meets the recommended
criteria for inclusion of biographies.)
Rossami
(talk) 01:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Professor that fails the professor test. (The books listed are those he contributed to, not those he wrote). Radiant! 12:58, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 23:33, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
While the word does google, none of the hits are related to this article. Neologism? Obscure techtalk? Radiant! 13:04, Feb 28, 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 N/A.
jni 18:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Copyvio. Text even carries the copyright notice. See [12]. Inter\ Echo 13:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 17:27, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
While I understand the use of articles on interstate highways, I fail to see why we should have an article on a street in a city somewhere. Maybe WikiTravel wants it. Radiant! 14:08, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Very well known major high street in an historic area of inner Sydney. Easily the basis of an excellent article. Strong Keep.-- Gene_poole 21:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS (so keep).
Cool Hand
Luke 07:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Small mall in Australia. Belongs in WikiTravel but not here. Radiant! 14:08, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to
James Stewart. Note: this has already been done.
Death
phoenix 01:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Former model whose son died in 'nam. Article doesn't establish notability, but does google a little (about 150). Radiant! 14:14, Feb 28, 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.
Rossami
(talk) 01:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Very localized club, relevant only if you live in a certain neighborhood of Atlanta. Radiant! 15:33, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect.
Comment: The lack of civility demonstrated by a few members in this discussion thread is disturbing. Please remember to assume good faith. Rossami (talk) 01:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Small-time localized political party that never amounted to anything much. Now defunct. Since the word googles a lot, this article might be better spent discussing something else entirely. Radiant! 15:34, Feb 28, 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 ambiguous.
I count 4 clear "deletes", 2 clear "keeps" (one from a user who created an account the day this VfD opened) and 3 "redirects" (none of which really argued for an actual merge). When investigating the article myself, I found that there was an unresolved copyright violation still in the history. As such, I am going to call this one as a delete (which is pending because of a block-compress error) with a recommendation that it be recreated after deletion as a redirect. Rossami (talk) 01:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ok, we've extensively discussed pokemon professors... now how do you feel about lesser-known enemies of the power rangers? Radiant! 15:36, Feb 28, 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.
Having deleted the content, I am not going to create this as a redirect, though I have no objections if any other reader/editor is bold and does so. Rossami (talk) 00:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We've seen pokemon, now what about yu-gi-oh? "From Doma saga, it appeared as Orcahalos Kyutora, stopped by the power of Timatus, Critias and Hermos after destruction of Alantis. Dartz steals the Egyptian God cards so the beast could appear in it's Kyutora, but Yugi with the Timatus hindered it." Radiant! 15:40, Feb 28, 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 ambiguous. I count 5 clear "delete" votes and 7 clear "keep" votes (but 2 of them were from anon or very new users and are discounted). Even after discounting the anon votes, this discussion fails to reach a clear concensus to delete. The decision defaults to keep.
Rossami
(talk) 00:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hoax / not verifiable. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Eyre Empire. Rhobite 21:04, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The author clearly states that the subject of the article is mythological and openly acknowledges that many sources have it to be pure legend. While wikipedia may have no room for a man who was never born, we certainly do record myths and folklore that achieve particular popularity. This one has obviously circulated for hundreds of years (see, Eyre Empire). Also, keep in mind, while there is no clear historical precedent to prove his existence, there is also nothing with which to disprove it. No premise for deletion. Maybe relist as, "Legend of Truelove Eyre." History 21
Nick04, google has no hits for Truelove Eyre, but yahoo does (quite a few actually). You should always try BOTH engines when doing a search, especially if you can't find anything on google at first. Secondly, Truelove Eyre's existence or nonexistence is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Only the legend ITSELF is relevant, as it is widely well known tale in Britain. If there was a widely known "Legend of the Bat Boy," I expect that wikipedia would have an article on it. "In 19th Century Romania, a false but highly believable story circulated...blah blah blah...this folklore has become a part of Romanian history and lives on to this day." You get the picture. The story itself is famous, that's what matters. But just as an aside, the Gaelic name for Ireland is, "Eire." That's no coincidence. Go to yahoo. History21
Keep thank you, Nick04, but I'm serious about what I said.
I know that I don't get to vote twice, I was just emphasizing what I had said before. You all don't seem to understand what I'm saying here: nothing about Truelove Eyre is verifiable. But the fact that a legend surrounds him IS verifiable. It is the LEGEND that we are reporting. For all I know, William the Conqueror could have falled from his horse because he saw a shiny coin on the ground--I DON'T CARE. The story, however, is a significant part of folklore and should be shown on wikipedia. It is made perfectly clear in the article that the story is largely thought to be myth. History21
I just read the link provided by 168.184.90.11, and i'm starting to think it sounds like Truelove was the man's old surname, i.e. his name was Bob Truelove, and he was rechristened Bob Eyre. This would explain why "Truelove Eyre" gets no Google hits. Does this sound reasonable to anyone else? Foobaz· ✐ 06:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
One cannot verify the Truelove Eyre legend without thus verifying the Eyre Empire itself, as it is said to have stemmed from him. Therefore, I counsel patience and caution before recklessly acquiescing to the validity of either article. 168.184.90.11 ( talk · contributions)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.
I count 4 clear "delete" votes, 5 clear "keep" votes (but 2 are either anons or very new users) and 4 "keep as redirect" votes. Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to keep.
Personally, I am inclined to agree with the "keep as redirect" group. Noting that a redirect does not require the same degree of overwhelming concensus as deletion, I am going to be bold. Rossami (talk) 00:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Speculative opinion piece. Rhobite 21:15, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
http://ensign.ftlcomm.com/desantisArticles/2002_600/desantis606/bushistrightism.html The truth hurts
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.
Cool Hand
Luke 07:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Source text, not an article. Probably copyrighted too. Should be delete. Thue | talk 21:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 17:39, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Bescause this is silly. -- NewAtair α 22:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.