This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. However, 1) noting that redirects are cheap, 2) noting that there is no compelling reason why the history of this article must be eliminated from Wikipedia and 3) hoping that a redirect will make clear to all the users who contributed to this mistake, I am going to exercise my discretion and replace the article with a redirect instead. Rossami (talk) 08:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of music videos: A

I have no idea why this page was created. There already exists List of music videos by name: A. First the creator of this page removed links to the older page and similar alphabetical lists from List of music videos by year. Then he created new alphabetical lists, like this page, and added links to them.

List of music videos by name: A has now all the videos that this page has, so you can safely delete the newer one. By the way, does creating redundant articles like this qualify as vandalism? - Hapsiainen 16:21, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I wouldn't call it vandalism, but I support its deletion as redundancy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant/duplicate page. Megan1967 01:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. - Sean Curtin 01:57, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete redundancy. I don't think a redirect is very useful (what if someone wanted a list of music videos by publication date? Or some other category?). -- Death phoenix 04:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nothing else needed Smoddy | ειπετε 22:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As has previously been stated. Cerceole| (talk) 03:29, 28 Jan 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. dbenbenn | talk 22:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Avery Lund

Short vanity page, also an ad for a website. -- nixie 00:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Rje 01:09, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, publicity blurb. Wyss 07:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity ad. Fight the power and bring back SURGE soda! Just don't do it here. -- Death phoenix 04:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Smoddy | ειπετε 22:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, vanity. Secretcurse 01:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• delete vanity Carole a 09:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Definitely intended as a vanity page Alexs letterbox 09:36, 28 Jan 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. dbenbenn | talk 22:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ark and Kerrigan

Flash animation characters made by an animator that is not in wikipedia, not notable -- nixie 00:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this is a vanity ad. Wyss 07:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. -- Death phoenix 04:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although this "Legendary Frog" seems mildly notable (4,000 Google hits), I don't think he qualifies as encyclopedic. He seems to be in the spotlight now because of some flesh animations he made spoofing The Matrix. JoaoRicardo 04:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no notability established Smoddy | ειπετε 22:07, 27 Jan 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) 08:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fyoni Allais

This doesn't seem to make any sense, and it was created by someone who has apparently been adding nonsense to other articles. Adam Bishop 01:08, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - doesn't establish notability and doesn't look like it can. Smoddy | ειπετε 01:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Should be able to speedy delete-- nixie 01:17, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 02:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as silly vandalism. Wyss 07:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Xezbeth 07:55, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Looks like vandalism to me. -- Death phoenix 04:41, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable. JoaoRicardo 04:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I see no establishment of notability. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Secretcurse 01:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense, probably sounded funny at the time Carole a 09:16, 28 Jan 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) 08:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Palmer & Klug

Nonnotable band. Phrases "Palmer & Klug" and "Palmer and Klug" get zero google hits. Indrian 01:14, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, probable vanity of some sort. Wyss 07:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Xezbeth 07:55, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable vanity band. -- Death phoenix 04:44, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable. I'm also tagging for VfD Electrotards, the only article that links here (and to which no other link to). JoaoRicardo 04:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not patently vanity. Does not violate Wikipedia rules. Article is unbiased and informational. Would like to see more info, however. Keep and allow for growth zomb1

  Please note that the above vote was NOT by User:z0mb1. It was put in by User:63.171.166.140 -- Infrogmation 02:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  The aforementioned IP is apparantly User:z0mb1. [1] (the immature message was not left by me, read the current revision for an explanation) - Frazzydee| ✍ 03:39, 28 Jan 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) 08:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Francisco Dagohoy

Untranslated for more than 2 weeks. -- Jacottier 01:50, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since no one has bothered to translate it. JoaoRicardo 05:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it. Wyss 07:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Xezbeth 07:55, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what Jacottier said. Wikiacc 18:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since noone has translated it. Sietse 09:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless somebody is willing to translate it out of Filipino. — Ливай | ☺ 13:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A shame. Does appear to be notable. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:10, 27 Jan 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. Stormie 08:43, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Jews in USA

This page has no useful information that isn't contained in pages such as Jew, Jewish population, Jews by country or History of the Jews in the United States. It was created by User:Zain engineer, who may have created this page simply as a disruption. This page may be a candidate for speedy deletion. Carrp 01:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Title is NPOV. Content is NPOV. The article doesn't even have an POV banner. Encyclopedic and 'disturbance' issues are discussed below Zain 02:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicates content. Wyss 07:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If you think I have 'ever' did any thing incorrect. I'll highly encourage you for a request for explanation. I'll love to see one. That's why I 'never' use sock puppets! :))))

  Plus If I don't make some body else will make it is a very encyclopedic subjects. 36,000+ Google Hits So a lot of people are making such 'disturbance' too.

  You might say they are anti-Semitic, So here it is on jewishvirtuallibrary Page Titled 'Jews in America' on jewishvirtuallibrary.org. There are full fledged books on this topic http://www.ereads.com/book.asp?bookid=511. Let me quote about the author.

  Max I. Dimont’s JEWS, GOD AND HISTORY, with more than a million and half copies in print, has been acclaimed the “best popular history of the Jews written in the English language.

  Probably People at jewishvirtuallibrary and Max I. Dimont are anti-semitic to use such 'disturbing' titles.

  You might continue to track my edits. I am least bothered by them, in fact I like it. So I am not planning to use any sock puppet in near future. :)) Zain 02:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  Zain 02:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • • Simply being NPOV does not mean that an article is merited. If I created an article called Items on Carrp's Desk, it could be completely NPOV, yet certainly doesn't merit mention in WP. Why couldn't the information in Jews in USA be included on one of the many other pages that discusses Jews? In fact your information is already included in WP and appears to have been copied verbatim from Jewish American's population section. Carrp 02:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • You ignored the google hit argument and books and articles on jewishvirtual library. I have added relevant information from jewishvirtuallibrary. i think now your complaints are gone. Any other complaints? Zain 03:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • We'll let users vote on this. I personally think an article with 100% pasted content from a website should be deleted. If you believe WP is missing information in the Jewish American article, why not add it there? If you really like the "Jews in USA" title, make it a re-direct. We have different opinions on this page and I'm going to let the VfD process proceed. Carrp 03:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Your thought about copying is 100% correct. (by the way I also mentioned it in edit comment). it is bcoz the vfd was called without much discussion. So ofcourse now we have to NPOV the claims of Jewish virtual library. I'll really love if you lend a hand in it. So a lot of work is left in that article that's why I labeled it as a stub. but your demand of proving 'uniqueness' of the article required quick adding of data. So if you think it shouldn't be copied as it is. You should edit it. Plus the jewish virtual library data is in public domain. Wikipedia is also public domain. and its policy says that we can copy paste text from public domain sources whenever applicable.

          Now about Jewish American that article is generally about individuals and this is more about community interactions. These two are different things. One is about individuals other is their collective influence. you can understand this difference when u read jewishvirtuallibrary. 'American Jews' are treated different then 'jews in america' both topics are given different treatments. So is here. Now your objections gone? Zain 03:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[Material formerly occupying this position, and concerned with issues of possible copyright vilations, have been moved to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Jews in USA, since such questions cannot be resolved here, and this page cannot authorize anyone to remedy such violations. -- Jerzy (t) 22:22, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)]

• Confused

Rather than this being a vote for deletion or not, I would like an explaination. Having worked on History of the Jews in the United States and Jewish American, both would seem to be good places for material on Jews and politics. In fact, I have already writen a lot of material on these subjects in History of the Jews in the United States. Why not add material there? It already talks about Jews and socialism, Jewish support for Israel after 1967, and Jews and civil rights. Or, add it to Jewish American, which is not about individuals at all if you read the article. Please justify the article (not the title, which is fine, but could be a redirect) and why it needs to be seperate. -- Goodoldpolonius2 06:37, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I did a little more search work for it and I found [2] It probably suggests that we can reprint (reproduce the work) if we put link to jewish virtual library. Similar to GFDL I think. Only one constraint that if the content is not orignal work of jewishvirtuallibrary but it is a borrowed work. Then we have to get permission to orignal source too. The content which I copied was not a third party work.

Now American Jew refers to individuals. While this one is about community. I found neglect of this topic when I used to view jew article. There was a section of jew world wide in that we had sub-sections of jew in Europe etc but had no section of jews in USA. So It is normally difficult to put some content directly in jew article. So I prefer making a seperate article then by vfd get a merge vote.

Zain 22:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The Jew article talks about populations in Israel and the Diaspora, the Europe thing has since been changed, so your argument does not make sense. The article on American Jew talks about the American Jewish community, look at the content, not just the title (if you want, redirect this title to that article). Plus, so does History of the Jews in the United States. You have not explained what you want this article to cover that is not in the other two, or, indeed, what content you want to see here. It just seems redundant. -- Goodoldpolonius2 02:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[Material formerly occupying this position, and concerned with issues of possible copyright vilations, have been moved to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Jews in USA, since such questions cannot be resolved here, and this page cannot authorize anyone to remedy such violations. -- Jerzy (t) 22:22, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)]

• • You said that :

    The article on American Jew talks about the American Jewish community, look at the content, not just the title"

  Doesn't it suggest that the content is 'irrelevant' in the context of title? And we should move that content from that article to this article.

  Now about the jew article. I was just mentioning that this topic is some time ignored. It was ignored when jews in europe and even africa were mentioned. Now the structure has changed so that is no longer an issue. But I was refering it as a general trend.

  Now what content I want in this article. Almost in same direction as it is mentioned in jewishvirtuallibrary if that is copyrighted. (I copied the link which suggested that reproduced is allowed). That content will be somewhat irrelevant in american jews. normally the 'relevance' issue is brought when a change is brought which is not liked by most editors. So I found that better solution is to create a whole new article. Instead of wasting time in debating what is 'relevant' or 'irrelevant'. Zain 02:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  

• Delete or, if there is any useful content and the edit history should be retained, merge and redirect. Duplicates/overlaps topics that already exist in the Wikipedia. -- BM 14:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No useful content to merge with many better articles. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary article duplication. Megan1967 01:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Jewish American and/or History of the Jews in the United States. - Sean Curtin 01:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm totally confused. This has both a copyvio notice and further content. I thought that was never supposed to happen: if the copyvio notice is there, any rewrite should be at Jews in USA/Temp. Given this, I have no idea what we are voting on. I will check back later. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:17, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am also not sure. I think first copy problem should be solved after that we should continue voting process. If the copy problem is solved positively. Then the argument of duplication goes. I think copy problem should be solved first and after that it should be again put for vfd Zain 02:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Del for reasons already given, if not copyvio. -- Jerzy (t) 03:43, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
• Delete Zain, you're causing chaos. SlimVirgin 09:20, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete duplicate information. This article doesn't add anything beyond what is listed in other articles (such as Jewish American and History of the Jews in the United States]. -- Death phoenix 04:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Tentatively Delete (or merge anything actually unique). Nothing has happened to alleviate my previous confusion, but I have seen no clear explanation why this should be retained or what purpose is served by separating this out from Jewish American. If a cogent explanation of this is provided, I might change my vote, but as far as I can tell, Zain has not stated purpose for this separate article and is just creating unnecessary confusion. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:49, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Regarding the Copy-vio aspects of this discussion:

1. This page is not empowered by make copyvio decisions.
2. Copy-vio discussion is therefore off-topic here, and a disruption of the VfD process.
3. The previous discussion of copy-vio does not cast doubt on any votes, since no one gave copy-vio as the reason for their vote.
4. It has long been policy (but i have made no effort to be sure there have been no changes) that the introduction of copyright-protected material cannot be remedied by removal of the problematic material from the article by editing, so it requires the special permissions needed to remove it from the history as well.
5. The reason for prohibiting editing of a page under copy-vio consideration is that it is impractical to extract the new contributions from every copy-vio-ed page, leading to loss of those contributions. Thus
   1. Those who edit an article that already contains a Copy-vio notice deserve to have their contribs go to waste.
   2. Those who edit an article after the introduction of material that is later determined to be copyright protected, but before the Copy-vio notice is added, may have a legitimate gripe; i don't know if there is a solution in practice, but they should discuss the situation with someone experienced with copy-vio handling.
6. In the case of this page, post-copyvio-notice editing has apparently already begun, and taking it off VfD won't fix that.
7. I am adding this article to the copy-vio page, on the basis that there are disputed opinions here of copy-vio, and that is where the expertise on what is or isn't a violation is assembled. (Copyright law is a matter for experts, despite opinions of others that they understand everything about it.)
8. If the article is voted for deletion under VfD (which seems likely, given the 9-Del/1-Keep tally), and completes before a copyvio decision is reached (which seems plausible, with a little over 3 days left), the copy-vio consideration becomes moot.
9. Therefore (and especially since there is no agreement about the copyvio being real), IMO this VfD should continue.
10. Two interested editors delayed voting under the influence of the copy-vio confusion, and others may have been put off by it without saying so. Therefore if any additional Keep votes from well-established registered users come by the end of the 28th, the possibility of the misguided discussion changing the result becomes plausible, and i will re-link this page so discussion continues until the end of the 30th, as if it had been nominated today, so there is no question of it being deleted without 5 full days of consideration.
11. I will transfer the copy-vio discussion presently on this page, where it is an irrelevant distraction and impediment, to the copy-vio page, replacing it with a note and link to its new location.

• -- Jerzy (t) 21:45, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

• Regarding what we are voting on:

• This page is not empowered to make or act upon decisions about whether a copyvio has occurred.
• Any vote on VfD is a vote on whether the title in question should continue to be the title of a page on WP.
• Many voters chose to vote something instead of, or in addition to, Keep or Delete; in effect such votes are additional guidance available to future editors about what the community will tolerate. (E.g., a consensus to "Keep as Redirect" is compelling evidence that the redirect may not be converted back to an article.)

-- Jerzy (t) 21:45, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

• Redirect to History of Jews in America Smoddy | ειπετε 22:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tally (As of 19:55, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC))

• Delete
  1. Carrp 01:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) (As nominator)
  2. Wyss 07:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. BM 14:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) ("or merge and redirect..."; see main body of this page.)
  4. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Megan1967 01:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Sean Curtin 01:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC) ("Merge and redirect", to be precise; see main body of this page.)
  7. Jerzy (t) 03:43, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
  8. SlimVirgin 09:20, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Death phoenix 04:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect
  1. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Cerceole| (talk) 03:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep
  1. Zain 02:34, 23 Jan 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) 08:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Korn bootlegging

Zero hits for "Korn bootlegging", and less that 1500 hits happen to have the two words somewhere on the page (FWIW "rolling stones" bootlegging gets about 2000). Given zero hits for the exact phrase, a redir to korn or bootlegging doesn't seem to be very helpful, tho' would probably be preferable to having this article--what's next, a whole series of [[{insert name of band here} bootlegging]] articles that all say the same thing except the name of the band? Anon user's only other contrib to date is adding an external link to the KoЯn page, to a site that, guess what, sells Korn bootlegs. Niteowlneils 02:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• delete Not notable nor any more encyclopedic than the bootlegging of any other product. bootleg seems sufficient. -- InShaneee 04:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is almost an ad for bootlegs which are not in themselves encyclopedic. Wyss 07:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete almost every semi-successful band has a bootleg or two out there somewhere. Not notable, and linking to bootleggers is not in WP's best interests legally. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic, possible promotion of illegal activity not in the best interests of Wikipedia. Megan1967 01:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per all reasons stated. - Lucky 6.9 17:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with all the above reasons. JoaoRicardo 04:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Much as I love anything with "Korn" in the title... Not notable Smoddy | ειπετε 22:20, 27 Jan 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) 08:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Voice Chasers

Nonnotable website. Has an Alexa ranking of 449,584. Indrian 02:39, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertising, 41 links to it in Google. JoaoRicardo 02:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: though it's a good site, it's not encyclopedic. I don't think the article poster is connected with the site, just an overzealous fan. — tregoweth 03:01, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP not a web guide. Wyss 07:28, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wyss said it. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Secretcurse 01:24, 28 Jan 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) 08:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Brandon Wong

Vanity page. — J3ff 02:38, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. There aren't many ways a 13-year-old can become encyclopedia-worth. JoaoRicardo 03:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as juvenile user test. Wyss 07:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable vanity more appropriate for a user page. -- Death phoenix 04:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete on grounds of vanity. GRider\ ^talk 18:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Candidate for speedy deletion. Longhair 10:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. How many times must we delete this kind of trash? Smoddy | ειπετε 22:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Brandon, sweetie, fill it out or lose it. -- chaizzilla 00:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "little other information is know", just as well, how much of this stuff do we really want to read? Carole a 09:19, 28 Jan 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) 08:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RetroLand.com

Non-notable website; it doesn't even place very high in a Google search for "retroland." — tregoweth 02:50, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, no Google hits. JoaoRicardo 02:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, link-spam. Wyss 07:26, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Not a speedy candidate because it does have a sentence of explanation. Delete as non-notable website. Dbiv 12:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no potential to become encyclopedic, primarily an ad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable ad. -- Death phoenix 04:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete See Deathphoenix Smoddy | ειπετε 22:23, 27 Jan 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. dbenbenn | talk 12:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 8 keep, 3 merge, 1 delete.

Seraphin Records

Not only should it be "seraphim" if anything at all, but the Angel Records homepage (www.angelrecords.com) has no information linking the two such labels. Web search does not find "seraphin" Denni ☯ 02:47, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

• Right. So try some combination such as "seraphim angel classical" and you reach such pages as this one. Keep and then speedily rename to "Seraphim". -- Hoary 03:44, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
• Keep and rename, well-known art-music label. Wyss 07:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and correct. warpozio 09:08, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Correct to "Seraphim Records". I have no idea what the status is today, but in the fifties and sixties LP era Seraphim was Angel's "bargain" line. The connection between the companies was obvious, the label design was very similar, and IIRC the labels explained that Seraphims were "Angels of the highest order." Most recording companies had similar bargain labels, which in most cases were simply older releases. RCA had two, Victrola and Camden. London had... rats, I can't remember that name, but I loved that label, because at the time London had some of the best recorded sound there was, and their bargain label was just as good, just older releases... Dpbsmith (talk) 23:28, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, bargain bin record label, sorry but still not notable enough for inclusion. Megan1967 01:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: But it's not just walkman-dripfeed mood music but rather music for listening to. -- Hoary 09:08, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

• Keep, historically significant record label -- Jmabel | Talk 02:09, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Move to Seraphim Records. Capitalistroadster 08:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Redirect as well? GRider\ ^talk 20:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Angel Records. There doesn't seem to be enough information for a separate article. JoaoRicardo 04:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect Not enough for a full article, but notable on the Angel Records page. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect to Angel records. Secretcurse 01:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and correct. One article per record label is standard and appropriate. Jgm 01:36, 28 Jan 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. dbenbenn | talk 12:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Angel Records

DELETE. Angel Records' own website says

Angel Records was founded in the early 1950s and was later purchased by Capitol Records. Angel Records signs, develops and markets a select roster of classical, crossover, Broadway, world and folk artists and releases. Angel Records is also responsible for U.S. marketing of artists and releases for sister labels EMI Classics (UK) and Virgin Classics (France).

Angel Records, located in New York City, is a division of Capitol Jazz and Classics, owned by UK-based EMI Recorded Music and is distributed in the United States by EMI Music Distribution.

The veracity of any other "fact" on this page is therefore highly suspect. Denni ☯ 02:52, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

• Keep Record labels with more than a handful of releases are inherently notable. If some of the facts are wrong, that's grounds for cleanup, not deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:26, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Offhand I can't say that what's in this article is all true, but I can say that the Angel label long predates the early 1950s; that it started in 1898 wouldn't surprise me at all. Deliberately or otherwise, Angel Records' website (or more accurately the website run by a company that now happens to use the "Angel" name) distorts. -- Hoary 03:38, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Major historic record label.-- Centauri 05:26, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Don't start a VFD because the facts on the page are "suspect". Edit the page and fix them or tag it cleanup. -The topic of the article is noble enough. K1Bond007 05:47, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this was an important record label, lots of artistic recordings by admired musicians were released on it for decades. Wyss 07:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep warpozio 09:08, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is kind of fractured (the history of the Recording Angel is a little bit more involved than that), but the 1898 is correct and it was and is definitely a major label. iMeowbot~ Mw 12:37, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons listed above. 23skidoo 16:28, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Significant record label. Questions of bias or fact are best addressed by the {{NPOV}} or {{disputed}} tags. -- TenOfAllTrades 00:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Megan1967 01:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Please explain the reasoning behind your delete vote as per Wikipedia policy. GRider\ ^talk 18:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, historically significant record label -- Jmabel | Talk 02:10, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The information cited in the nomination shows that Angel Records is a historic record label owned by EMI and responsible for distributing classical, Broadway, folk and world music releases. Artist Direct says the label is in its second century and is the oldest record label trademark existing. 1 Capitalistroadster 09:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Historical minutia: the Angel with a gramophone disc may be the oldest label trade mark still in use, but Columbia Records is an older brand name. -- Infrogmation 19:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is on a valid subject, and continues to be improved. -- Infrogmation 19:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\ ^talk 18:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Why keep. Wholly significant. May need tidying up, though. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:26, 27 Jan 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. dbenbenn | talk 02:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 8 delete, 9 keep, 5 merge.

Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948

Please pick your favourite refugee number or what is the purpose of this list? A mere number collection isn't informative at all, it doesn't even say how the mentioned sources arrive at their count. The topic should be and is covered in Palestinian exodus, there is no need for this non-article. Either expand or delete. -- Elian 03:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Belongs in Palestinian exodus. Indrian 03:05, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The talk page and history contains a huge amount of very important information. The discussion and development of the page is very active. It is not reasonable to hold a vfd vote over that pages future at this point in time. Palestine-info 03:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it and besides, this was a huge event that much of the English-speaking world is only dimly aware of, if at all, even if its blowback is still responsible for much of the unrest in the ME. Wyss 07:22, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • the article is not about the event but about a number. -- Elian 16:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is useful discussion/info; and because of its contentiousness it is useful to separate out from the main article ( Palestinian exodus). However it does need clearly linking with and making consistent with that article. Rd232 10:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This doesn't make sense to me as an independent article. The range of estimates belongs in Palestinian exodus, along with discussion at who has made estimates, the methodologies that were used, and the problems with those methodologies. Just listing the numbers used by various people and on various web sites doesn't make much sense. For one thing, there is no reason to believe that they are even independent estimates. Several of the numbers appear more than once. Is that because two sources have independently attacked the problem and arrived at the same result, which would tend to add confidence to the number? Or is it simply that someone made an estimate, and other people have used it. This wouldn't add any confidence to the estimate, any more than buying a second copy of the New York Times and finding that it has the same news as the first copy adds any confidence that the information is true. Finally, retaining an article because of valuable information on its Talk page seems strange. If that is so, then that information can be moved to another Talk page or sub-page, when the article is deleted. -- BM 13:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article was created as an offshot of another heavily contentious article. The point was to move contested data to another place where it can be presented in a neutral way without overloading the main article. -- Gene s 14:16, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep For historical reasons, the estimates in themselves are encyclopedic and a good subject for an article. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 17:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I quite agree, but this is not an article; it is a list of figures. An article already exists that these figures belong in: Palestinian exodus. Indrian 17:49, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It should be pruned by removing tertiary sources, augumented with a discussion of the problem, then merged with Palestinian exodus or Palestinian refugee. -- Zero 10:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for all the valid arguments to keep listed above. GRider\ ^talk 20:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, No brainer really, it's a brilliant collection for research. -- Irishpunktom\ ^talk 00:50, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not an online archives, it is an encyclopedia. Integrating data into an article is a good thing; justifying a page that contains nothing but data by calling it a colletion for research is, in my opinion only of course, not proper for an encyclopedia. Indrian 16:09, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with relevant articles (either Palestinian exodus or Palestinian refugee), after cleanup. Some of the information in there now is quite good, particularly the hard to find information regarding U.N. and UNRWA estimates. Various numbers are often bandied about, often for propagandistic purposes, and this article clarifies exactly where they come from and what they mean. However, most of the "Other" estimates are either wild guesses or partisan junk. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the fact that there are several dozen estimates for the same figure show how unencyclopedic this is. What Wikipedia is not: Original research. Jewbacca 18:17, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do I see some personal bias showing through here? I voted delete, but not for these reasons. Numbers are often disputed, and a good encyclopedia will point out a controversy that large. A paper encyclopedia may not have room to actually list said figures, but wikipedia can. Also, this is certainly not original research, as the figures are all quoted from already existing sources and therefore represents a synthesis of prior work. The problem with this "article" is that it is not an article at all, which is why the figures belong someplace else on the site. Indrian 19:17, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 19:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Palestinian refugee and delete the redirect. -- uriber 20:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into Palestinian exodus. A collection of data is not an article. These should be discussed, but they are not worthy of an article because they have no importance in themselves. The Palestinian exodus deserves an article; the debate about how many Palestinians were dislocated does not deserve an article. JoaoRicardo 04:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, don't need a separate article. ← Humus sapiens← Talk 10:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Informative data, ItisIAnonymous 20:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Carioca 20:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, the latter to avoid article recreation. Subject notable, and keep the talk page. But the article is not useful as is, without any context. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• keep. This bunch of numbers will only clutter a normal article, but makes perfect sense as a supplementary article. "Merge & redirect" proposals are valid only for stubby articles, not like this one. Mikkalai 06:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This shouldn't be an independent article. SlimVirgin 18:02, Feb 2, 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) 08:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I was carrying out the delete, I came across this prior deletion decision. Rossami (talk)

===[[Pav]]=== Non-notable college event. Some 700 hits for "The Pav" churchill, but note that many are for completely different topics, such as "post-antibiotic vulvovaginal" (PAV). Probably at wrong title. Niteowlneils 03:16, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, article offers no evidence as to why this might be of encyclopedic interest. Wyss 07:19, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Churchill's ents were always rubbish when I was at Cambridge. Dbiv 12:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, article does no harm Breglatoonaphunk 15:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• College kids get together and drink on Friday nights? I'm shocked! And this happens at a famous university?? I'm doubly shocked!! And, oh my!, the faculty are welcome to come drink with the students? What depravity will we have to endure next? Delete -- RoySmith 17:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Churchill College, Cambridge has lots of space for a section on student life. -- TenOfAllTrades 16:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not extraordinary or special in the annals of college life. Indrian 16:11, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable. Could be merged if it was a traditional event held for decades. JoaoRicardo 04:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, almost certainly unnotable. Interestingly, there is no discussion of what "the pav" is... Smoddy | ειπετε 22:30, 27 Jan 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 SPEEDIED. dbenbenn | talk 12:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chad Harrington

It's been been recreated, but still doesn't seem notable. Niteowlneils 03:26, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted, re-creation of article that was voted for deletion and deleted in process. Note: content of article was as follows: Dpbsmith (talk) 23:16, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chad Harrington is a fictional character in the first-person shooter computer game Humanoid Aliens!: Into Evolution. Chad is portrayed as a young, 14-year-old boy living in New York.

Old, aborted discussion:

Chad Harrington was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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

===[[Chad Harrington]]===

Character from a non-notable game which hasn't even been released yet. See also the vote for Humanoid Aliens!: Into Evolution's deletion. David Johnson 16:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now been blanked by author: listing as speedy. David Johnson 16:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

• Er, excuse me? This isn't merely some actual human being we're talking about here, it's a "fictional character in [a] first-person shooter computer game". Isn't every character in every shoot-em-up game, every adorable Poké/Neopets creation, every lobotomized "science" fiction series limitlessly fascinating and encyclopedic? Wikipedia is not on paper, y'know. Or that's what they say. As for me: delete. -- Hoary 04:39, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

• Do we even have an article on the game? Delete. Rick K 06:49, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as unhelpful cruft. Wyss 07:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I follow gaming pretty closely, but I've never even heard of this game, much less this character. The name "Humanoid Aliens" was possibly chosen for deliberate confusion with the real game Alien Hominid. Even if not, it's still non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 08:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mysterious Dungeon: Pokémon World- Pikachu's Great Adventure

This is "a game lately reavelved" that doesn't actually exist yet (outside Nintendo HQ, anyway). Non-notable juveniliacruft vaporware. -- Hoary 03:33, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

• Delete, vaporware. Wyss 07:17, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Write it again when it's somewhere near existing. Delete. - Vague | Rant 09:53, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• This game might be worth mentioning when (and if) it's released. This ain't the mention, gang. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 17:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. GRider\ ^talk 18:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• We have two articles about a Harry Potter movie that doesn't even have a name yet, and a Harry Potter book that doesn't even have a name yet. We also have another two about Harry Potter book & movies not yet released and lots more examples. Keep. ✏ OvenFresh ☺ 22:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know who rewrote this,Thanks to Oven Fresh's tweaks, I'm considering changing my vote to keep. It's still stubby, but it's much more informative than the original. Even its skin has cleared up! - Lucky 6.9 00:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, subject doesn't even exist yet. As for the Harry Potter stuff, I support its deletion as well, or moving to Wikinews. JoaoRicardo 04:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as the game has not been released yet. JamesCraven 7:10 AM EST 01/27/2005.

• While James Craven might be real, JamesCraven is (so far) fictional. That comment was actually made in a series of edits ending 12:10, 2005 Jan 27 by User:68.83.242.193. James/68.83.242.193, do I understand that you're saying non-release of a game makes it more notable? -- Hoary 12:40, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 03:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Goodgoth

Platform for an external link. 329 unique google hits isn't a whole lot for an internet-based company. — Korath ( Talk) 03:47, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as link-spam. If it wasn't goth I'd have said speedy, but let them have their five days. Wyss 07:16, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy-deleted per article critera 9. -- Slowking Man 07:53, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Heh heh. Wyss 15:42, 23 Jan 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 18:18, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Wikichat

Self-reference. I was tempted to mark it for speedy as a test, but figure it's borderline. Doesn't seem worth moving to the Wikipedia: namespace. — Korath ( Talk) 04:05, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Wyss 07:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• A Wikipedia: page, but not really necessary. Delete. -- Slowking Man 07:50, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Asbestos | Talk 12:19, 24 Jan 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 irrelevant. The page that was voted on is not there any more; it's now a page about a particular song. dbenbenn | talk 02:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Crazy (song)

This article is just a list of some artists who have had songs called "Crazy". There's no information about any of the songs. Unless someone wants to write an article on one of the songs, this page should really be deleted. -- Moochocoogle 04:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Delete. -- Conti| ✉ 04:19, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• There are many many songs with the title "Crazy". Allmusic.com shows that songs with the title "Crazy" appear on over 900 albums [3] meaning that this is far from a complete list. My point being that anyone looking for any of these songs called "Crazy" would have to go to a disambig page to differentiate between which "Crazy" they were looking for. Possibley a rewrite may be necessary, but I beleive we should keep this page -- The_stuart 05:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now. Thank you Jgm Kappa 22:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) Keep -> merge as per Sixpence below. Useful information. Also the Willie Nelson song is notable IMO, and a lot of them are by bands which have articles which might be a place to describe the song without having a full article about it. Kappa 05:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd have no problem with this article as a disambiguation page if it actually linked to any particles. As it doesn't it seems rather pointless.-- Moochocoogle 06:28, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep 'cause it's mildly interesting to contemplate duplicated song titles. Wyss 07:14, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Do you think "(You Drive Me) Crazy" by Britney Spears counts? Everyking 07:17, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into List of sets of unrelated songs with identical titles and List of notable cover versions, whichever each song falls into and redirect to List of sets of unrelated songs with identical titles until at least 1 article exists for one of the songs. Sixpence 07:48, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as directed by Sixpence. -- Idont Havaname 08:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not necessary. This (and similar articles) would just create zillions of redlinks for non-notable songs that nobody will ever create articles for, or worse still they WILL create articles for and they'll end up VfDed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Surprisingly, the best-known song of this title by Patsy Cline isn't listed. I'd be game to leave this if the article was expanded into a piece about the Cline song, with this list included as a "see also" but as it stands, it doesn't have much value. Delete as is. 23skidoo 16:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point. Seal's big hit "Crazy" isn't in there either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Willie Nelson (listed) wrote the Patsy Cline one. List of sets of unrelated songs with identical titles mentions this. Kappa 18:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Are we going to have lists of songs with title X, now? What is interesting or special about the fact that there is more than one song with the title "Crazy". There are tens of thousands of songs with English lyrics. For any reasonably common English word, especially if it has some connection to typical song subjects, there are going to be multiple songs with that title. So what? -- BM 23:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, un-necessary list, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect per Sixpence's suggestion. - Sean Curtin 02:01, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Isn't this just a disambiguation by another name? Are you telling me that of the 900 songs, none of them are worthy of an article? Are you crazy? My only suggestion is to de-link the song name and link the band or album unless the song is particularly well known.  The Steve  04:01, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with Starblind above. JoaoRicardo 04:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Grue 19:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• The list as presented was redundant to the list Starblind mentioned, but the Willie Nelson song does merit an article. In fact, I've started one at this name and taken a shot at redirecting other interests to the proper spot on the other list. Whaddaya think? Jgm 03:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • good compromise -- The_stuart 16:37, 28 Jan 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 18:17, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes

A joke from a single episode of South Park. Indrian 04:16, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this jokecruft. Individual South Park episodes don't generally have their own articles, and nobody would search for this, so there's really nowhere to redirect this article. Szyslak 07:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unhelpful cruft, potentially misleading. Wyss 07:13, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this article. It is a silly joke. - Preaky.
• Well, lots of people watch South Park, so I think articles on individual episodes are fine. Unfortunately, as we have seen with Simpsons episodes, people have a tendency to create articles on jokes within the episodes and not on the episodes themselves. Perhaps the problem is that most people don't know the episode titles. It seems to me, though, that if we just left all these "joke" articles in place, eventually a dedicated editor (or several) would come through and do the necessary moving and rewriting to make them proper episode articles. So I say keep. Everyking 13:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that if someone has a mind to make a proper article on an episode of the show, they will do so whether this article is here or not. Keeping an inappropriate article (which I believe you see this one as looking at your above statement) in the hopes that someone will move it someplace else and expand it into an appropriate article strikes me as rather silly justification for keeping an article. Indrian 16:19, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not really. I just don't want to lose the content. Everyking 23:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "proper episode articles" -- now there's a concept. -- BM 13:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, un-encyclopaedic, trivial. Megan1967 01:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, the group has been referenced many other places following the South Park episode. It "formed" through several sites around the web. -Bill
  • Posted by anonymous User:216.127.159.37 Szyslak 09:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non notable. JoaoRicardo 04:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Merge content into List of South Park episodes. Mikkalai 06:22, 28 Jan 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 00:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kath hound

A very minor creature in the Star Wars universe that is of little note. Indrian 04:22, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Dantooine. K1Bond007 05:51, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• merge/redirect somewhere or keep. Kappa 05:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect.-- Matteh ( talk) 09:39, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete minor videogame creature. I don't think they were even in the movies, and if they were they were just background dressing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• OK, Princess, now that we've forced you to give us URL of the rebel base, we're still going to Delete this article. Not because we're evil (we are) and it makes for a better storyline for the movie (debatable), but because it's non-notable. -- RoySmith 17:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I wanted to verify my comment (above) that Kath Hounds don't appear in the movies, so I ran a Google image search for "Kath Hound". The only result was this: http://www.petscorner.com.my/ChampionDogs/Miyu.jpg ...awwww! Kath hounds look just like pomeranians! So cute! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:07, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Dantooine and add redirect. Megan1967 01:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into Dantooine. Not enough info to award its own article. JoaoRicardo 05:00, 27 Jan 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 list as copyvio. Joyous 18:06, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Juan Gómez

This is a pretty clear copyright violation. See [4] 24.241.239.85 05:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Then it should be at WP:CP (where I see it's already listed), not here. — Korath ( Talk) 05:10, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:14, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Inuyasha Theme Songs

This newly-created page consists only of information that was already in InuYasha media and release information, except for the last section which I added to the other page. Josh 06:14, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, duplicates. Wyss 07:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant article duplication. Megan1967 01:56, 24 Jan 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 18:09, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Softinic bowd

Apparrently, a working title of an AC/DC song. This article is poorly written and the song in question doesn't even have it's own article. On it's own, this is not notable if even true. -- Moochocoogle 06:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not encyclopedic, could be content in an article mentioning the song but there's no evidence of verification. Wyss 07:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:57, 24 Jan 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 18:08, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

E-athlete

Obviously a neologism (note the "l33t" alternative form). — Kelly Martin 06:24, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism, maybe vanity. Wyss 07:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Neologism. Delete. -- Slowking Man 07:45, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as ridiculous neologism, and anyone who refers to themselves as an "e-athlete" in mixed company is leaving themselves open for a sound beating. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ANyone who refers to themselves as an "e-athlete" in any company leaves themselves open for a beating. Tongue-in-cheek tone suggests article may be an attempt at immortalization on BJAODN. -- TenOfAllTrades 00:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Neologism. Delete. Bart133 15:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like a joke. JoaoRicardo 05:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Secretcurse 01:30, 28 Jan 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 18:07, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

16buttons of justice

BAND on a show that is being "shopped around". Rick K 06:52, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think this may actually be speedyable, but maybe that's just me... Bearcat 06:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Creator deleted the vfd header, I've suggested that isn't an appropriate thing to do. Rick K 07:01, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. — Kelly Martin 07:08, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this shameless publicity blurb, no evidence of encyclopedic content. Wyss 07:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vanity, advertisement, etc. Delete. -- Slowking Man 07:37, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity, advertisement. Megan1967 01:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable, 65 Google hits. JoaoRicardo 05:04, 27 Jan 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. dbenbenn | talk 00:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 3 delete, 8 keep.

Hong Kong Government Cantonese Romanisation

As the article itself states, the "Hong Kong Government Cantonese Romanisation" does not exist. This is crap -- Ji ang 07:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is crap
To User:Jiang: Please mind your language.

• This should be deleted, it does not exist. - Preaky
• Object — The title may not be a correct one, but the article did summarise how the proper nouns in Hong Kong are transcribed and romanised. The Hong Kong government does not make up a title, but the way does exist. We should not request a deletion, but instead a collaboration on an accurate title. — Instantn ood 10:22, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Second edit by this user. -- Ji ang 22:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• This appears to exist, but not under this name, so I support Instantnood's objection to deletion. Kappa 10:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Rename — this is informative and encyclopaedic, so worth keeping (assuming it's accurate). Lev 14:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • A discussion of Cantonese romanization in general already exists at Cantonese (linguistics). Pointing out a few examples of romanization, in non-standard form, and trying to call it a romanization system is wrong. -- Ji ang 22:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep... compare to Postal System Pinyin. There's no standardized system there either. -- ran ( talk) 23:03, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • well..."Postal System Pinyin" exist as a well-known and standard name. This name does not exist outside Wikipedia -- Ji ang 00:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Although not systematic, it is the de facto Romanization in Hong Kong. Its nature is very similar to Postal System Pinyin. The difference is that the government have not given it an official name. -- Felix Wan 00:13, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Note conflict of interest: MY name is spelt under this system. My last character, "Tung", cannot be spelt this way under any of the systems covered except this one. Cantonese (linguistics) doesn't cover this and a merger could be extremely messy. The title is wrong (I can't exactly remember what they call this, I have to look this up, which would take awhile) but otherwise the details appear right. -- JuntungWu 01:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • • I'm afraid only part of your name is romanised with this system. Jun would have been Chun under this system (if it's the pronunciation that I'm thinking). — Instantnood 12:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If this is a nameless system with official capacity, then perhaps it should be moved to the empty section Standard_Cantonese#Romanization since it is part of the discussion on "Standard" Cantonese-- Ji ang 02:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that the HK government's ID card homepage http://www.smartid.gov.hk shows sample ID card with a name romanized under this system - (YIP Yau Shing) - rather than any of the systems listed in the Cantonese articles we've got right now. So there's definitely such a system, I just have to figure out what it's called. -- JuntungWu 03:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, misleading title - infers there is a standard system when no "standard" like this exists. There is nothing here worthwhile keeping when Cantonese (linguistics) already does the job. Megan1967 02:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I actually think the Cantonese (linguistics) article is quite deficient as it stands - it's weighted too much towards academia and there's not enough stuff towards everyday use. I agree that the title is misleading but I need to do some serious research on the correct title. It's in a book somewhere. -- JuntungWu 02:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. In fact, this is the only Romanization that is really popular. Most people from Hong Kong know only this Romanization and none of the academically sound systems. I guess the editor got the idea of the title from List of common Chinese surnames. I also did not know how to call it when I edited the article, so I put "HK Gov't" and wrote in the its footnote: This is the romanization used most often by the Hong Kong Government in transliterating names for birth certificates and identity cards. It is an unsystematic method based on the Meyer-Wempe system, with all the aspiration marks and diacritics gone. There is finally an article that I can link to but it is put on VfD. Yes, we may work on the title and improve the content, but it is informative and factually correct. Certainly, besides the schemes proposed by various scholars, Wikipedia needs an article on how Cantonese is actually Romanized in Hong Kong. Every Wikipedian from Hong Kong can testify the facts. -- Felix Wan 00:08, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
• Keep -- Indeed this is the only transliteration system that I have known for a long time; the article definitely has its place in Wikipedia. And most people in Hong Kong never knew any other system! -- KittySaturn 10:33, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
• COMMENT - how about Hong Kong defacto standard Cantonese romanization ? 132.205.45.110 20:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I find the existing title acceptable. We just need to explain in the content its pragmatic nature comparable to Postal System Pinyin. If the consensus is to avoid a name that sounds like a standard comparable to Jyutping or Pinyin, I am thinking in the line of Cantonese Romanization used by the Hong Kong Government, Cantonese Romanization common in Hong Kong, etc. -- Felix Wan 22:36, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
• Move to more appropriate name, whenever that's determined and whatever it may be. Since it's not official, it appears the word "government" at least should be dropped from the title. Once the move has been accomplished, deletion of the resulting redirect can be considered at redirects for deletion. However, deletion of the current article is inappropriate, since this is potentially valid encyclopedic information and we need to preserve the page history. -- Michael Snow 00:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The situation is this: the Hong Kong Government actually uses it without any "official" announcement, but the examples listed are all "official" usage. The problem is that the method is inconsistent and cannot meet any academic standard. Any suggestion for a good title? -- Felix Wan 01:33, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
    • Well, the examples are from the government, but is it only the government that uses this? If so, then at least add (unofficial) to the title of the article. The current title gives the impression that the government developed it and is trying to promote it in the same sense that LSHK is trying to promote Jyutping. -- Michael Snow 04:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • The government has never promoted the system but just keep on using it while never successfully adopted another system. I have got your point on the possible confusion. -- Felix Wan 23:36, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDIED. dbenbenn | talk 00:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Klander Brigade

Band vanity. Very well-formatted and well-written band vanity, particularly for a bunch of high school students, but band vanity nonetheless. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 07:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Band vanity. Delete. And hey, don't knock us high school students. =p -- Slowking Man 07:15, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I left a note on User:Klander Brigade's talk page mentioning that they should try editing articles on their influences instead; 'twould be a shame to drive away people who can spell *and* use proper Wiki markup.. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 07:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. — Korath ( Talk) 09:41, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nice-looking for a bandity article, but three little concerts (all of which take place... in the future!) doesn't exactly equal The Beatles or anything. Good luck to these guys though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band made up of 15-16 year olds whose only gigs are talent shows nine months in the future. Dbiv 14:51, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Following comment was placed on the talk page for the VfD by User:Klander Brigade:

I can see your point in these comments. I also find it hard to disagree with them If this is what must be done, let it be done. I will save the markup is used to write it and hopefully be back in a few years with a wiki-worth article.

Do other admins agree with me that this qualifies under criterion 10 of the criteria for speedy deletion? Dbiv 21:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • Speedy delete per request from page author and sole contributor. Dbiv 00:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:03, 24 Jan 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 18:00, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Cuatro Pelo

Not-yet-released debut album by above-listed band, Klander Brigade. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 07:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Band vanity. Delete. -- Slowking Man 07:16, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. — Korath ( Talk) 09:41, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Unbiased and informational. Does not violate wikipedia rules. Would like to see more info on artist. Allow for growth. z0mb1
• Delete. Mikkalai 07:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Mozzerati 22:34, 2005 Jan 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 delete. Joyous 17:59, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Taffet

Ryan is "lead (only) guitarist for the band Klander Brigade" listed above. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 07:14, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Band vanity. Delete. -- Slowking Man 07:18, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. — Korath ( Talk) 09:41, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Antandrus 06:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn vanity. GRider\ ^talk 18:07, 25 Jan 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 17:58, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Matt Zwingraf

Founding member of above-listed Klander Brigade. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 07:16, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Band vanity. Delete. -- Slowking Man 07:19, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. — Korath ( Talk) 09:42, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:05, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn vanity. GRider\ ^talk 18:08, 25 Jan 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 17:57, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Snoop John

Smells like a hoax, but it's hard to figure out from Google if there are any hits for this guy. I would bet not. Rick K 08:32, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep 219.78.96.135 08:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The above by the creator of this hoax article, who was just banned for 24 hours for deleting the vfd header from the article, randomly adding vfd headers, and failure to respond to suggestions that the vandalism end. Rick K 08:52, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd normally recommend the contributor to provide some verifiable sources for this possible hoax, but unsucessful artists aren't going to be be considered "notable" even if they are real. Kappa 09:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. delete unless there's another Motown in Gary, Indiana. Kappa 09:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article doesn't even try to make him sound notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity, possible hoax. Megan1967 02:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. GRider\ ^talk 18:09, 25 Jan 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 SPEEDIED. dbenbenn | talk 00:20, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ralph Allison

Simple vanity. Might be worth a speedy deletion on the basis of being a test page, but I figured I'd throw it here to be on the safe side. - Vague | Rant 09:23, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete it a lot. — Korath ( Talk) 09:36, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, new user error by the looks of it. Average Earthman 11:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted under criteria 2 (test pages) and 4 (very short articles with little or no context). Dbiv 12:43, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• N.B. This is not a misspelled fork of Ralph Ellison. -- Jerzy (t) 04:00, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
• Speedy. Well done. -- Jerzy (t) 04:00, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 17:56, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Christie Appelhanz

Non-notable freelance writer. No Amazon hits. -- Calton 12:37, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete very likely vanity, certainly non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:17, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Who cares? No distinguished accomplishments. Just using Wikipedia for self-promotion. Get this: "Still living in 2005"???? DELETE, DELETE, DELETE!---- Keetoowah 19:41, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

At very best a marginal notible. I found google hits for a syndicated column but no author of books on Amazon. Could very well be using Wiki for self-promotion, though its uncertain. I don't see why Congressional staff members or their consultants should get publicity. Found this through "Dennis Moore" link. Midwestbluesfan 22:41, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Stand and deliver! I want you to hand over all the lupins you've got. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:52, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Not only does she not have any books listed in Amazon, but the screenplay that she refers to doesn't appear on IMDB. She did do the Peace Corps work, but she stopped before her term was finished. The newspaper column was about the Peace Corps work, but it ended when she abruptly quit the Peace Corps work. When you does a little research behind this entry you can plainly see that she is simply engaging in self-promotion--against Wikipedia policy. Should be set for a speedly deletion.----- Keetoowah 01:17, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity, possible hoax. Megan1967 02:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete I could only find the newspaper column, which, yes, ends abruptly with no explanation of why she's quitting Peace Corps assignment(27 months). IMO the column was unprofessional and had a condescending tone. I agree with Keetoowah, who's really done research. This is just self-promotion of a freelancer who worked behind the scenes for a congressman. Also info on Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS) shows a Rebecca Black listed as press secretary. I say remove this entry entirely. Midwestbluesfan 02:51, 24 Jan 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. Stormie 08:37, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Xex

Promotional hype for local band. (Had been on WP:CP but claims permission on talk page.) -- Infrogmation 12:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. jni 13:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity, advertisement. Megan1967 02:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hype Timj 27 Jan
• Keep. Informational and unbiased. Does not violate Wikipedia rules. Allow for growth. z0mb1
  • Note: above vote by not logged in User:63.171.166.140. -- Infrogmation 02:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Mikkalai 07:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity, advertisement.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 08:38, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Fabíola nogueira

Substub about Brazilian transvestite porn actor. I doubt he/she is notable. Anon who created this has all his other "contributions" either reverted or here in VfD. jni 13:39, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Quoting Wikipedia:Substub,

If you don't want to turn it into a stub,

1. Speedily delete it. Articles with no context are speedy deletion candidates.

Lev 14:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I considered pressing the delete button for this, but then I saw that Deb had sent Suzana holmes to VfD, so I decided to give this the same treatment. On second thought, this seems indeed a case where CSD rule 4 applies. Anyone wanna speedy this? (I've done enough of those today) jni 16:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:36, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Some porn stars are indeed quite famous, i.e. Linda Lovelace. Transvestism is certainly notable, so clearly transvestive porn stars have the potential to be notable too. Considering the contributions Brazil has made to erotic woman's clothing, I have to assume there is nothing inherently non-notable about a Brazilian transvestite porn actor. I also don't think it matters who created the article, or what the fate of their other articles may be. So, with all that out of the way, I think we have to evaluate the notability of the subject of this article on its own merits. Unfortunately, I don't see any :-) The article doesn't tell us anything about what the person did to earn notability (it doesn't even say they're a porn actor, so I assume jni has additional knowledge). For that reason, and that reason alone, I'm voting Delete. If somebody (ahem) fleshes out the article to provide the additional details substantiating notability, I'll change my vote. -- RoySmith 18:08, 23 Jan 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 17:36, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

David neill

Not notable. Thue | talk 14:00, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable or hoax. jni 14:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above. -- Hoary 14:26, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree. —  Pt  _(T) 14:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- not notable. Longhair 10:20, 27 Jan 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. Jerzy (t) 03:00, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Isaac Fanous

Final tally: Keep 13; Del 2. -- Jerzy (t) 03:00, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

[This debate has now had the 120 hours that may have been contemplated by the 5-day standard, and at midnight it will have had the de facto standard, i.e. the day of nomination plus 5 calendar days counted on UTC. I have let slide my promised removal of a personal attack, mostly to discuss it with the IMO reasonably innocent editor who made it. I shall do that removal and annotation, for the sake of the permanent record, not too long after midnight, and call the result if no one else has done so. It would contribute to good order if other VfD-closers would delay so that i am not forced into a violation (no matter how technical) of the requested forbearance from editing after the calling of the result. -- Jerzy (t) 19:18, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)]

[Multiple reformattings w/o individual sigs, made by Jerzy (t) 05:26, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)]

Vanity page with very little information. Probably self-promotion by artist himself or family member; as he is not known enough to be encyclopedic. Omar Filini 15:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) Note nominator has voted below, and do not count nominator's implicit Del vote. -- Jerzy (t) 05:26, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

• Keep - the most basic Google check on his name reveals 195 entries that seem to support the information supplied. Saga City 16:34, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. References that are clearly to this person dominate the first several pages of Google hits on his name, and a spot check of these pages support the claims made on the page. — Kelly Martin 17:40, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even though google finds many pages about this artist, the man is virtually unknown in Egypt and to call himself "The Father" of Coptic art is VANITY in the first degree. The "Father" line was added by user afanous which could be a son, wife, brother or even the artist himself. Omar Filini 01:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If Isaac Fanous as an artist is not known to the majority of Egyptians, by virtue of them being Muslims, there is hardly any of the 15 million Copts around the world who does not know Isaac Fanous. He has travelled around the world to paint Icons for Coptic churches. He has a whole school of his own to teach modern Coptic iconography, and where hunderds of apprentices are currently learning the art of painting Coptic icons. I am the one who added the article and I am not of the same family of Dr Fanous (that's to answer the claim that it might be a self-promotion from my side). I vote to keep the article.
  • This was written by user Afanous who shares the same surname as the artist in question. [Personal attack removed by Jerzy (t) 23:50, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)] well I guess the majority of wiki people are christians and might sympathise with the coptic plea, but really this artist is not notable at all in Egypt Omar Filini 01:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that I share the same last name with Dr Fanous does not mean it is a religious issue! If you as an Egyptian Muslim do not know who Dr Isaac Fanous is, that does not discredit the fact that 15 million Copts around the world do! He has become for us, Copts, the symbol of modern Coptic Art. afanous 21:16, 23 Jan 2005 (EST)
  • Dont assume that I am Muslim Egyptian because I am not Omar Filini 14:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) the guy is simply Not notable!! [The text between the timestamp and here is all part of the same edit at 14:25, 2005 Jan 24 by Omar.]
    • [[Personal attack, by illogically supported and presumably unsupportable contradiction of previous denial, removed by Jerzy (t) 23:50, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)] how do you know that this artist is not notable at all in Egypt??? Please clarify. Sincerely, afanous
      • Are you trying to make this about religion? because if you are then it is [personal attack removed by Jerzy (t) 23:50, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)]. I am a catholic who has lived in Egypt for the past 20 years!! That is how I know that [Personal attack, by unsupported and presumably unsupportable contradiction of previous denial, removed by Jerzy (t) 23:50, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)] is not Notable in Egypt (maybe only in a few coptic churches) Omar Filini 19:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not the place for a personal or sectarian feud between the two previous participants in this particular thread of this VfD page. Both of your votes stand and will be weighed when the time comes. Nothing relevant to this VfD process remains to be said between you, and in particular no one else cares which of you is the more injured party. Neither of you should add further arguments, and if you think of further information, of an NPoV nature, that you think will be seen as relevant by undecideds, i urge you to preview it with someone who seems reasonable to you so far, either among contributors on this VfD page or among the admins, before posting it.

  At the rate this is going, it could easily end up with either or both of you barred from editing this page, or even blocked from editing for the duration of this debate. Wise up, guys.

  -- Jerzy (t) 23:50, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I must start this comment by noting that i have no idea what to make of this editor, and therefore this represents no position on her role in this vote. On the other hand, i have no idea what to make of this editor who has been registered a month (since Dec.23), and accumulated 1229 edits. About 1000 of those appear to be a nearly solid block of VfD votes. (BTW, on a hunch, i looked and found she voted

    Delete, vanity. Megan1967 03:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Marco of Alexandria (see my "Comment" bullet point below).) Of the remainder, nearly all are on pages whose titles begin List of songs by name. (I.e., they are part of a list which is analogous in structure to List of people by name.) These edits are all or nearly all in the earliest few hundred edits, and each either is summarized as

  Removed non-notable songs. See discussion Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of songs by name

  or appears to reflect collapsing, e.g., 7 pages covering W as first letter into a single W page, for most or all of the alphabet. I don't know what to make of this record -- or did i already say that? -- but having stumbled on it, it's too remarkable to not comment on. -- Jerzy (t) 05:26, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

  • In the context of Jerzy (t)'s statement that

    (BTW, on a hunch, i looked and found she voted

    Delete, vanity. Megan1967 03:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

    on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Marco of Alexandria (see my "Comment" bullet point below).),

  Megan1967 responded (and Jerzy (t) reformated, in the face of chaotic formating that would have confused authorship),

  I voted delete, majority voted delete and Omar Filini voted to retain, so your point being?

  without affixing her sig or the timestamp, which would have been "23:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)".

  -- Jerzy (t) 02:49, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

  • I suppose my choice of the word "hunch" fed the same odd bit of human psychology that tends to treat the unmodified word "coincidence" as ruling out the sense of "mere coincidence". Thus i invited the inference that i thought what i learned by following it was some kind of compelling "confirmation" of a hunch, despite the disclaimers before and after it -- and despite introducing it with "BTW", which i think is widely accepted as warning "Don't be distracted by this minor thing i am about to mention; it is an insignificant part of the whole." In fact, i had not so much a hunch as an estimate that since there are about 40 items a day added to VfD, M's VfD edits could be close to the number of new VfDs during her month of editing; if that were true, it would make it surprising if she hadn't voted on that at least peripherally related VfD. Indeed she had, and it seemed to me that leaving that small additional snippet out would undercut my more extensive effort to help anyone interested find a context for this exceptional vote (the only Del, then and still now, other than that of the nominator), and this remarkable history. As i clearly stated, i

  have no idea what to make of this editor

  and take

  no position on her role in this vote

  so IMO it should have been clear i intended no "point". If anyone inferred i did intend one, i'm sorry i was the occasion of that unsound inference, and i hope this clears up any doubt.

  In case there is any confusion about my phrase

  (see my "Comment" bullet point below)

  i considered it necessary to point out why i cited one particular VfD; the Comment states how that VfD may be connected with this one in some voters' minds.

  -- Jerzy (t) 07:12, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

  • And [Personal attack removed here (see details, with this time stamp, subordinated to this bullet point) by Jerzy (t) 02:50, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)] Jerzy has already been remarked upon. Go ahead and make personal attacks. It won't change the vote. Megan1967 23:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I stated twice, without irony, that

      i have no idea what to make of this editor

    and i believe i am entitled, at least after my clarifications above, to the usual assumption of good intention, which IMO means i have clearly said that i don't know what point would be made by the information, and am simply presenting information. If it escaped anyone's notice that the irony on the third, paraphrased, repetition was self-mocking, in response to my being flustered by such a remarkable history, this is my clarification: No point. Just information. And thus, far less any personal attack.

    On the other hand, M, you refer not to the unsubstantiated statement by Omar that lies close at hand, that i "seem [emphasis added by Jerzy (t)] to [be?] vandalizing all [his] edits", but to "[my] record of vandalism" as would be justified only if you have knowledge that such a record exists. If you have knowledge of such a record, i think you are obligated to offer some evidence. If you have just chosen to believe in what Omar is apparently tempted to infer, because that being accurate would be convenient to your purposes, you have made a personal attack on me. In the absence of your either offering evidence of a record of vandalism by me, or disowning the personal attack, i will remove your personal attack and replace it by my summary of the matter.

    -- Jerzy (t) 07:12, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

    • [Personal attack removed by Jerzy (t) 23:50, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)]! why do you think you have the right to remove other people's words and replace them with a summary of your own!?!?!? [Personal attack removed by Jerzy (t) 23:50, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)] Omar Filini 17:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Kindly acquaint yourself with Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -- Jerzy (t) 23:50, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

    • [Regarding the personal attack, to which this is subordinate by one bullet level, and which i removed above at 02:50, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC): The removed material, according to its author, "stat[ed] a claim by another editor which I took on good faith". Without suggesting that bad faith on her part was involved, i regard it as a personal attack for the following reasons:

    1. The thrust of that contrib is that my citation of her remarkable record (my terms) should be discounted because i submitted it; that is a textbook example of argumentum ad hominem AKA personal attack. While the context, including any inferred intent of the author, can be important in remediation and in the justification of the policy, the essential element of a personal attack is the focus on the individual, and the main target of the policy is the attack rather than the author. So one might stop at this point.
    2. While to some extent "meaning no harm" and having acted with reasonable caution is irrelevant (neither protects an attack from removal), i address that area to demonstrate the attack is not de minimis in terms of the policy's intent to protect individuals. Her accepting the claim "[based] on [assuming that User:Omar Filini so claimed in] good faith" (if that is what her reference to "good faith" means) is not in this case compliance with "assume good intent", since concluding i had engaged in vandalism meant assuming i had acted with bad intent. (In fact, whether or not Omar received her assumption of good intent, i did not.) And if there were a need to decide which of two colleagues more deserved that assumption, she had reason not to choose the one who (the day before) had 23 edits since registering 17 days earlier, and had been "prominent" (as i described it) in a troubled VfD: She had reason because of the post that immediately preceded, and provoked, the one she says she relied upon in inferring that a "record of vandalism" existed; if she was reasonable enough to read it, she knew that those things had been stated about him, read by him, and not contested by him. And she had further reason: if she had an impulse to believe his vague charge, and his audacious claim to judge so quickly what vandalism means here, consider the fact that she had (if she acted reasonably) seen a link to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Marco of Alexandria in that preceding post. On that other VfD, a reasonably acting editor could easily have evaluated the behavior of each the nine other IP or newly minted editors allied to Omar, and have estimated the number of independent voters among them, as an aid to evaluating his claim to the benefit of the usual assumption. (Checking exhaustively there for vandalism of Omar's contribs by me would have of course demanded a little more Wiki sophistication.)
    3. While falsehood is not a necessary element of a personal attack, it is IMO another aggravating circumstance that can reinforce the need for removal, in support of the protective role of the policy. The claim was "you seem to vandalizing all my edits and trying to discredit all my actions here!" i.e., (even allowing for inserting the word "be" to make it grammatical) literally not a claim of vandalism but of a subjective sense of it probably having occurred. On the other hand, the removed material was "your vandalism is on record", literally asserting not that the record includes charges of vandalism but that vandalism by me existed, and is "on record", and the circumstances indicate in two ways that the author intended to assert that substance:
       1. the statement is irrelevant to its context unless (in addition to ignoring the ad hom fallacy) the claims are at least credible
       2. presumably understanding that (while avoiding the literal statement can help excuse the intimations to the same effect) authors are responsible for their literal statements unless the intimations are clearly to the contrary, she chose "your vandalism is on record" where either the free inference "a vandalism charge against you is on record" or the literally true "a suggestion of vandalism by you is on record" was an easy substitution.

• Comment: Nominator & Del voter Omar Filini has 23 edits starting Jan 6, and was prominent in defending Marco of Alexandria against deletion on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Marco of Alexandria, nominated Jan 1 and called Jan 7, a disorderly and IP-ridden process. It was suggested Omar and Marco are one person. Those voting may want to consider whether this nomination is abuse of WP to prove a point by contrasting or comparing Marco's and Fanous's verifiability of notability. -- Jerzy (t) 05:26, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
  • Jerzy Do you have a specific problem with me???? you seem to vandalizing all my edits and trying to discredit all my actions here! and no I am not Marco of Alexandria, and by the way since you brought it up. Marco of Alexandria is more notable than Isaac Fanous and it is not the question of being a Muslim or Christian because they are both Christians as far as I know; but I don't think Marco was Coptic, maybe Catholic or Protestant otherwise he will be called Morcos and not Marco. Omar Filini 14:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) The reason I was Supporting Marco is because I am very much into the art scene here in Egypt and I know much about it; I did add a few names to the List of Egyptian Painters page and plan to write articles about a few. And that is why I nominated this article for deletion because I know that this person is not nearly as notable as anyone on the list; regardless of his position in the coptic church; as an Artist he is not notable at all. [The text from the red link to a non-existent article sharing my username, to here, is all part of the same edit at 14:25, 2005 Jan 24 by Omar.]
• Keep. Isaac Fanous seems to be a notable person in Coptic religious art. In my view, this makes him notable enough for Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 09:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems borderline notable. Wouldn't hurt to have some pictures of his work, or at least descriptions of where it might be found. I would urge my fellow editors to limit particularly verbose commentary to appropriate talk pages. Remember to be civil, avoid personal attacks, and practice WikiLove. -- TenOfAllTrades 17:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Pages linked by Google seem to establish notability for reviving an art form. Could certainly use expansion, though. -- Carnildo 20:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, since as the chair of the institute he has some notability -- Chris 73 Talk 00:03, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this figure establishes notability in his field. Perhaps not "encyclopedic" but certainly and easily notable enough for Wikipedia. GRider\ ^talk 18:07, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough. Page could use some work, but keep. Bacchiad 08:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm Egyptian and I'm aware of the work of Isaac Fanous. The page needs much work, however. -- Alif 22:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While the debate seems to centered around the artist's fame, I believe the article should remain and the content being edited to remove any unfounded assertions. ItisIAnonymous 20:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• keep! Dwain 22:32, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
• keep based on basic google research Mozzerati 22:56, 2005 Jan 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 delete. Joyous 17:35, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Second rate

Vanity substub. Bart133 17:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete platform for external link. — Korath ( Talk) 00:44, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity, advertisement. Megan1967 02:12, 24 Jan 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 17:33, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Tiff risco

This is made up nonsense. Rje 17:15, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Nonsense. Should be speedy deleted. -- LeeHunter 17:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a total load. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete complete nonsense. Suggest Speedy Djbrianuk 20:05 GMT 23 Jan 2005
• Delete this prankspace. Samaritan 08:16, 26 Jan 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 SPEEDIED. dbenbenn | talk 00:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lurkr

This is nonsense (Google turns up no relevent hits). Rje 17:26, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted as nonsense. Thue | talk 17:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Has been speedied twice already by two different admins. IMHO not really patent nonsense, just regular nonsense. Not that I'm really complaining about the speedy decision. The troll that keeps submitting this should be deleted also. jni 17:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not really nonsense, as I perfectly well understand what is written and why, but rather a deliberate joke or hoax. I speedy delete those submissions, though they are strictly speaking not speedy deletes according to the rules. Thue | talk 20:27, 23 Jan 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.

The votes were 2 delete, 3 keep.

Valyria

Minor location in George R.R. Martin's epic, A Song of Ice and Fire. Influential in the history of that world, but has not as of yet played a role in the main story itself. Fancruft. Indrian 17:31, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Just like all other fictional realms from published literature. -- Centauri 23:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • So if I made an article called Kayakayanaya and then wrote: "A land in George R.R. Martin's fantasy series, A Song of Ice and Fire, that is far to the east of Westeros known for its fierce women warriors who pierce their nipples," which is the entirety of information that appears on the realm in the entire series (look it up somewhere if you do not believe me), and somebody put it up for deletion you would keep said article which could not be further expanded in any way? I am just trying to gauge where you draw the line. Indrian 23:28, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes. It is not the purpose of an online encyclopedia editor to "draw lines", ie make sweeping personal assumptions about what may be considered "relevant"; we should not be so presumptuous as to assume that things that aren't relevant to us aren't relevant to anyone. -- Centauri 09:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Any standard applied to an article is going to be subjective, that is why we have a voting process based on community consensus, to see whose subjective view wins out. There would be little point to the VfD process if the assumption was that we keep everything that is factual or verifiable. There would also be no need to qualify vanity articles or what wikipedia is not. I do not object at all to your keep vote, which is your right as an editor of wikipedia, but to the fiction you attempt to maintain that relevance and subjectivity do not play a part in project decisions. I nominated this for encyclopedic reasons, however, and not for reasons of relevance to me. Do you really think that anyone who is not an obsessive fan of this series would have heard of Kayakayanaya? Indrian 16:20, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
        • That is precisely my point. Until I stumbled across it on Wikipedia I was not even aware of this author or his work. Now that I am I should reasonably expect to find that Wikipedia is a comprehensive source on his entire oeuvre, at a high level of granularity. In my opinion the only articles that are valid targets for deletion are (1) original research, (2) vanity, (3) complete nonsense and (4) lists of URLs. -- Centauri 22:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, we will have to agree to disagree then. I respect your viewpoint and wish you happy editing in the future. I will not bother you with anymore lengthly discourse on various VfDs. I hope I have not offended too much, I just like to know where people stand. Indrian 23:18, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's impossible to really draw any lines when precedents have already been set on fictional characters and locations. Megan1967 02:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, as per my comments above. Megan1967 02:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as it is not significant separate from the book. Fictional locations have to be exceptionally notable to be worth having separate articles. The level of relevance is easily determined by how much information is possible - if a location only has a brief mention, then you can't add more information because it simply does not exist. As for the precedent - if a precedent is silly, throw it out. If Wikipedia uses a rule that fictional locations merely have to be mentioned once in passing to get an article, but scientists need to win the Nobel Prize, Wikipedia is going to be laughed at as a serious source. Average Earthman 13:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Someone has created a List of places in A Song of Ice and Fire. Perhaps that should be fleshed out into an article and renamed Places in A Song of Ice and Fire if the actual article for A Song of Ice and Fire is getting too large. There seems to be a very ambitious project afoot to create pages for apparently every location and character in the epic; I'm a bit concerned that many of the entries don't have potential to be more than stubs. -- TenOfAllTrades 20:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Fine as a stub and perfectly consistent with global policy and precedent on fictional concordances within Wikipedia. Jgm 03:05, 28 Jan 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. Stormie 08:36, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)