Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 30

< January 29	January 31 >

January 30

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 09:19, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Darwinian Happiness

Original research, non-notable, originally posted by the author in what appears to be an attempt to self promote his book/concept. Concept not found anywhere outside his book. --JPotter 21:13, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Can we please decide whether to keep Bjorn Grinde, the book's author, first? If he's deleted, his book ought to be too; if he's kept, his book probably should be. Jason, I vote that you withdraw this nomination temporarily, and nominate the author's page first. dbenbenn | talk 00:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done --JPotter 06:20, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 03:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agree to both points--ZayZayEM 14:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've voted to keep the author, but that article has space enough to be expanded and this isn't one of the classics of science that deserve an article of its own. Merge, possibly trimmed (Wylliums version), with Bjorn Grinde, provided that article is kept. Otherwise userfy both. / up+land 17:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)
Keep. --Viriditas | Talk 19:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Stormie 09:43, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared

Current vote here

lets review. copyeditor turned:

<<Creation biology is an attempt to study biology from a creationary perspective. Creation biology is identical to mainstream biology with respect to the observable physiology and function of living organisms today; for instance, the structure of the cell, taxonomy, and genetics. It acknowledges microevolution and speciation as observable phenomena. Creation biology differs from mainstream biology only with regard to the origin of living things. into:

Creation biology is an attempt to impose on biology a creationist perspective. Creation biology differs from mainstream biology by relying on religious literature instead of generally accepted scientific evidence.

my "vandalism" was to revert. npov presents all ideas sympathetically without implying that they are right or wrong ... but then provides substantive counterpoints by mainstream scientists to explain WHY they are wrong. copyeditor deliberately twisted the intro into his pet caricature of creationism, and stripped out all the qualifiers to show exactly where the issue is. he then made a mockery of all the links. no go, bro. Ungtss 12:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is another example of Ungtss at his best:

"you're stuck on one stupid little point: "yes, God can create through evolution." so what? Darwin thought genesis was wrong. THAT'S A DICHOTOMY. DID GENESIS HAPPEN OR NOT? i get too pissed talking to you. ben, listen, you've obviously had your head up your butt your whole life. as you were. Ungtss 17:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) Bensaccount 14:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bensaccount at his best. Ungtss 14:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I also think that the above edit should be credited at least partially with the recent removal of the disputed NPOV and factual accuracy banner from the page. Bensaccount 14:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

was it that, or everybody else getting tired of fighting with your repeated unjustified reverts against consensus of creationists and evolutionists alike? perhaps we should move this discussion over to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ungtss? Ungtss 15:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In this free-election, it is clear who the victors are. (joshuashroeder).

After trying to work through this, it has become apparent that this article has no potential to become encyclopedic. Nor did there seem to be any result to the debate. A majority of those who posted comments on this voted for deletion. The main reason this page should be deleted is because there is no way the sole creationist editor User:Ungtss will allow for a reasonable comparison of ideas. Joshuaschroeder 17:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In an attempt to circumvent to circumvent the removal process User:Ungtss has made a number of daughter articles that I'm guessing he hopes will be preserved if the vote is rerecognized for a removal. Please, administrator, when you remove this article, also remove the following articles:

Creation vs. mainstream science in biology Creation vs. mainstream science in geology Creation vs. mainstream science in cosmology Creation vs. mainstream science in early civilization

in attempt to circumvent reality, josh has accused me of attempting to circumvent the removal process by creating daughter pages for some bizarre ulterior motive, rather than simply to cut an enormous page down to bite-size nibbles. please, administrator, when you remove this article, please remove josh. Ungtss 13:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment Does anybody see why we shouldn't just reference this page [1]? It lists all the claims and actually cites them instead of the monstrosity we have here. I can't even figure out the context for half the things Ungtss is saying. I have pointed this out on the talk page. Joshuaschroeder 20:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) Can anybody give a good reason why arguments cannot be referenced from the Creation vs. evolution debate page instead of setting up this side-by-side nonsense?

begause talk.origins is not npov. npov is our specialty. let's try it, eh? Ungtss 15:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I once asked Ungtss to come up with a factual error on the site. He couldn't do it. His new tactic is to declare that talkorigins.org is not NPOV. I ask him to show an example of non-NPOV in the site I showed. They are very balanced in their treatment of creationist claims. Please show me where they aren't in the above site instead of grandstanding your own bias. Joshuaschroeder 06:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please, that's a stupid argument. We don't have any control over that site, so it could change at any time without us being able to change it. And besides, we have articles on all sorts of things that there are good alternatives for on other sites. That does not mean that we should get rid of this article and "just reference this page [2]". - Ta bu shi da yu 04:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

when did you lose track of the facts? i demonstrated the strawman on talk.origins to hob, since you dropped out. i find your belief that talk.origins is "balanced" to be quite amusing:). Ungtss 16:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No you didn't. The result, as far as I am concerned, was:

You and me were talking different languages. I don't think it makes sense to discuss with you because I don't speak Ungtssese, so I stopped doing it. For example, you seem to think that "exquisite design" can be "good" or "bad", and "A, therefore B" is the same as "B, therefore A". Since you don't try to make yourself clear, your position seems to change every few minutes. Or maybe it does change every few minutes, I'm not in a position to know. It's a pain to discuss somebody like that. Anyway, you couldn't explain how the page is a strawman. You ended up claiming that I knew it is a strawman, which is not true. I guess you misunderstand the page because it is written in English instead of Ungtssese. --Hob Gadling 16:52, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

keep. this page is really getting places. we're starting to get cited opinions on all the relevent issues, and i think the page is starting to allow for a description of the scope of the debate. this page has a great deal of potential to be encyclopedic, if we're willing to explore the ideas on their own merits. with regard to josh's repeated personal attacks against me, i will only say that i have only presented creationist opinions on the creationist side, and i have left the mainstream side to present itself as it likes. all other mainstream editors are welcome to present the mainstream side as powerfully as they like. i only ask that the creationist side not be weighed down by mainstream caricatures and deletions of creationist ideas. Ungtss 17:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Above is vote by article creator - David Gerard 23:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

above is untrue. Ungtss did not create the article, nor did he propose its creation. The article was created by Barnaby Dawson, evolutionist,[3] and originally proposed by Hob Gadling, another evolutionist.[4] check your facts. Ungtss 14:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

this page is really getting places. -- If by getting places you mean mired in quicksand.

we're starting to get cited opinions on all the relevent issues, not even close. Look at the talkpages if you don't believe me. The current incarnation of the page is that only creationists are allowed to write on the creationist side -- there's no editorial control and it's impossible to make heads or tails of some of the incomplete arguments.

this page has a great deal of potential to be encyclopedic, if we're willing to explore the ideas on their own merits. -- nonsense. The minority creationist view has a lot of shrill malarky but if it cannot even be presented in a consistent way, how will there be anything like an NPOV comparison?

i will only say that i have only presented creationist opinions on the creationist side --> I disagree entirely. Ungtss presents his own version of creationist opinions. This isn't anything like an NPOV -- even of creationism. He maintains the strict right to edit out opinions that I know exist in the creationist community but are inconvenient for him to accept. For example, I know that the vast majority of YEC accept a biblical inerrancy, but because Ungtss is one of those peculiar ones who don't, he somehow thinks it inappropriate to include this argument (which is made more often than not by people who are YEC) on that side. However, Flood Geology is trumpeted as if every creationist believes it. That's certainly not the case, there are some creationists that don't think all geological features were created by the flood like Ungtss believes. If this page were to be honest, it would be called "Views of Ungtss and mainstream scientists compared": is that encyclopedic?

all other mainstream editors are welcome to present the mainstream side as powerfully as they like. -- Does anyone else find it problematic that we are setting up a place in wikipedia where people aren't allowed to edit?

i only ask that the creationist side not be weighed down by mainstream caricatures and deletions of creationist ideas. -- according to Ungtss' own POV of what that entails. It's clear that the page should be deleted and Ungtss has no ability to see the problem of this false dichotomy.

It must be very encouraging for the creationist to be able to present his POV without having to worry about someone who actually studies the stuff edit it. That seems to be Ungtss' goal for this page. Joshuaschroeder 17:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

all groundless and untrue accusations aside, the talkpage shows that josh's stated goal for this page has been to "make it look ridiculous" from the very beginning. well, it appears he's succeeded. i only hope mainstream scientists who have their heads on straight will be willing to develop this page into something good -- and i do think it has the potential to be something very, very good. Ungtss 18:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The debate is ridiculous. The page, if it were to be done correctly would look ridiculous. This is because there is so much more to put down from a scientific perspective than there is from a creationist perspective. Ungtss doesn't seem to realize that people other than himself are familiar with creationist arguments and the current format discourages them from editting the creationist POV...

Which makes me wonder, why are we entertaining POV at all on wikipedia? Joshuaschroeder 19:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

there are indeed people familiar with creationist ideas, but you're certainly not one of them. you've devoted yourself to caricaturing and deleting creationist ideas on the page, and adding loads of irrelevent information to the mainstream column, making it looking equally ridiculous. if the debate is ridiculous, i can't help but wonder why you take such an interest in it ... especially in light of the fact that there are many other evolutionists who think that the page is a great means of allowing the truth of mainstream science to put creationist pseudoscience to shame. Ungtss 02:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

there are indeed people familiar with creationist ideas, but you're certainly not one of them. utter bullshit. Joshuaschroeder 07:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good one:). Ungtss 16:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Joshuaschroeder has been studying the issue for eight years. I have been studying it for 30 years. In my opinion, Joshuashroeder's familiarity with the creationist side is severely lacking. Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<*Comment Does anybody see why we shouldn't just reference this page [5]?>>

I believe that this is symptomatic of Joshuschroeder's bias in editing the article that he can't see how POV is his suggestion to reference an anti-creationist website as a substitute for an article comparing views of creationists and mainstream scientists.

Maybe it's symptomatic of your idealization that NPOV means treating all opinions as though they are equals. Your opinion, sir, based entirely on non-science, is frankly not worthy of NPOV inclusion.

(Above comment made by Joshuaschroeder) Since when is science (so called) the basis of NPOV? Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<The main reason this page should be deleted is because there is no way the sole creationist editor User:Ungtss will allow for a reasonable comparison of ideas.>>

As another creationist editor of the page, I would strongly disagree with this. It is Joshuaschroeder who persists in turning the creationist views into a caricature, consistent with his stated aim of making the page look ridiculous.

Phil and Ungtss have demonstrated that they don't even the most basic of science (for example they make claims on radiometric dating that are absolutely absurd). How can we have a constructive article writing if the writers of the article who are supposed "experts" don't know science? Joshuaschroeder 07:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Translation: Philip and Ungtss make claims that you don't agree with, so you accuse us of not [knowing?] science and accuse the claims of being absurd.

I didn't make claims for radiometric dating. I cited claims made by creationary scientists (including physicists). Joshuaschroeder seems to think that if it doesn't agree with the POV that he sides with, it isn't science and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<It lists all the claims and actually cites them instead of the monstrosity we have here.>>

I rewrote the section on radiometric dating to list the claims of creationists, citing essentially every one, and Joshuaschroeder deleted virtually all of them because he thought they were ridiculous. He didn't dispute that creationists claim them; he disputed that these creationist arguments have any merit. Any wonder Ungtss would rather he stick to the mainstream science side?

There are creationist who also claim that the earth is the center of the universe (see Modern geocentrism). Yet their claims aren't included. Why? Because they are nonsense (as they are shown to be in the referenced article). Likewise, putting in lies and non-facts is hardly encyclopedic with regards to presentation. And it is a bald-faced lie that I deleted all of them. But then, creationists do tend to break the commandment to not bear false witness. Joshuaschroeder 07:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article is not exhaustive, so not mentioning something means little unless the possibility of mentioning it has been suggested and rejected, which I don't believe to be the case here. And geocentricism is only accepted by relatively few creationists, so may not warrant mentioning in an article about creationists' views. Wikipedia is supposed to take a NPOV, and it is disputed that some of the things Joshuaschroeder calls "lies and non-facts" are in fact that.

His view of NPOV is clearly that if the majority of scientists consider it to be fact, then those "facts" can be presented as true regardless of the existence of opposing views, and contrary to Wikipedia NPOV policy ("... we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct.").

As for his claim that it is a "bald-faced lie that [he] deleted all of them", I actually said that he deleted virtually all of them.

His remaining comment about creationist lying is vilification that shouldn't be acceptable on Wikipedia.

Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<It must be very encouraging for the creationist to be able to present his POV without having to worry about someone who actually studies the stuff edit it.>>

Translation: The creationist POV is not allowed to be presented on a page comparing POVs if Joshuaschroeder "who actually studies the stuff", thinks that that the creationist POV is wrong. Which of course he does, as he thinks the anti-creationist web-site Talk.Origins is neutral!

Philip J. Rayment 10:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's more neutral than any other site I've found. Joshuaschroeder 07:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It gives arguments against creation and for evolution, etc. How is that even purporting to be neutral? It speaks heaps for Joshuaschroeder's POV that he thinks an anti-creation site is neutral! Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, despite some problems (which are not unique to this page), it is informative and has potential. Pollinator 19:13, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
If anyone bothers to count the votes, they will find that it is 20-9 delete (don't forget my vote), which gives a 69% ratio. All that is needed is an admin who will stand up to the usual lies. Bensaccount 17:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain. There's no policy against renominating VfD survivors for deletion. But to do so barely a week after the previous debate is closed isn't going to convince anyone. —Korath (Talk) 18:05, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

When User:SimonP added the vfd template to the vote, there was no explanation for what the ruling should be. As User:Bensaccount has rightfully pointed out, we need to know how to proceed, as it isn't clear from the results.

Delete. Fails fitness criteria - David Gerard 23:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, still POV flame war material. I cannot see this article becoming NPOV. Megan1967 03:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. i still maintain that it is a good comparison. is this the reverse inquisition? Xtra 03:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I dont see why we are doing this again, though, the majority already voted for deletion. Bensaccount 03:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The title of the page is inherently wrong, as it suggests that creationism is a scientific view. Martg76 03:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It does no such thing, and your POV that creationism is not a scientific view, is not a valid reason for deleting an article. Philip J. Rayment 10:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In order not to suggest this, the article title would have to be Views of creationists and scientists compared. In any case, comparing religious doctrine to scientific theory is comparing apples and oranges, and thus non-encyclopedic. Martg76 18:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But it doesn't suggest it now, and your suggestion would imply that creationists and scientists are two mutually-exclusive groups, which is demonstrably wrong. Creationists argue that their views are as scientific as evolutionary ones; your claim to the contrary is merely a disputed POV. Philip J. Rayment 22:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By opposing "creationism" to "mainstream science", the article title suggests that creationism is a scientific POV. This assertion in itself is a POV (and in my view rather a ridiculous one). Martg76 09:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Opposing "creationism" to "mainstream science" suggests that creationism is opposed to mainstream science. But if you can come up with a better title that doesn't suggest the opposite POV, that creation is not science, be my guest. And I disagree with you that calling creationism science is ridiculous, but this is supposed to be about the merits of the article, and our respective POVs should be irrelevant to that. Philip J. Rayment 11:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. All of the above criticisms of this page should be dealt with on the TalkPage. This page is too big and unfocused, yes? A few short arguments on both sides would make the comparisions in the two columns clearer, yes? Yes. But these and the above criticisms of this page should be handled on the TalkPage, not here on VotesForDeletion. ---Rednblu | Talk 06:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The fundamental problem with this page is that it assumes that all creationists hold one set of views and that all "mainstream scientists" hold another- this is simply not the case. --G Rutter 09:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not sure what's going on here. I voted in the previous discussion, so discount this if it is a double vote. My objections are the same. Gamaliel 09:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is what I voted before, and my opinion hasn't changed. I would like to hear from the admin who processed the previous vote as to how he/she disposed of the previous vote. Is the point of submitting this again to VfD after only a short time that the first vote wasn't tallied correctly, or that there was something wrong with the previous vote? I think this so-called article is a discredit to the Wikipedia, but it doesn't make sense to vote every couple of weeks on the same article, unless there is some new development. --BM 13:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup, possibly move to a better title. The thing is too long and its current formatting is awful. But it is a compendium of useful information, too valuable to just delete. It is obviously also a source of some bad will.
The main problem seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding between the editors. Some don't understand that creation can't be proved or disproved by science and that the debate is purely about whether available information supports the view that the universe was created by design or not. Others insist that certain assumptions of science are necessarily true, when they are in fact just tools that allow us to make sense of the world and may as well be wrong. This can't be a discussion between scientists and creationists on the existence of a god and the uniformian assumption - these are not falsifiable and are thus not a good subject for scientific debate. Zocky 15:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The whole concept is pretty much doomed.Potatojunkie 16:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The page is a good exercise in compromise. Neocapitalist 02:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Rename. It is doomed under this title which presupposes what is "mainstream" U$er 06:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep -Cookiemobsta 19:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - All the information on this page is already covered in the articles on evolution and creation. No need to duplicate the information. It also seems that the views on this page are the views of all scientists and creationists, which almost certainly is not true. people on both sides subscribe to a whole bunch of different views and if we start including all those the article it will become unmanagable and lead to a huge edit war. kaal 19:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Carrp 19:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The header in this incarnation of the article addresses some of my concerns about the presentation (the false dichotemy argument). However, this still feels like a fork to me. The split from the main article will make future maintenance much more complex while adding little value to future readers in my opinion. No change to my prior vote below. Rossami (talk) 03:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I strongly concur with Kaal and Rossami, and with similiar views expressed above. The very title of the article seems an invitation to a flamewar. Edeans 04:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not because this article is inherently going to be POV or flamebait or whatever, but because it is nothing close to an encyclopedia article. It is a set of two lists placed in parallel which, while serving as a wonderful metaphor for the actual Creation vs. Evolution debate in that they don't really seem to be talking to one another at all, is not a proper format for a Wikipedia article under any conceivable model. The other problem, that having only two literal columns, and thus only two categories, restricts all opinions to a simple one-or-the-other (the "all scientists"/"all creationists" problem) is another consideration, but ultimately I think that the article is unencyclopedic as is, and has no possibility of being encyclopedic—to make it an encyclopedia article would mean to make it an article on the Creation-evolution controversy, which already exists. So I don't really see the point. --Fastfission 06:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- Epo 00:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fairly obvious stuff, and what isn't should be in the article on the creation/evolution debate. -Sean Curtin 06:45, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Yeesh, what an unreadable, disorganized mess. Delete this thing and put it out of its misery. --Calton 10:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see any reason why this material couldn't be handled in existing articles. This one is unweildy, unhelpful, and unworkable. The title, format and approach mark this out as an article that is never going to be helpful for people LOOKING for information on the topic. It's for people who feel strongly about one side or the other and want a place to fight it out. Mattley 10:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete It is an ugly, impossible-to-follow mess that doesn't help to explain either side of the issue well, and I see no way to improve it. 4.232.147.209 12:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
delete the problem with creationism is that their views are deliberately vague and consist of a diatribe against science, I can't see how this page is useful; and I am concerned that it comes out as Untgss's views on creationism versus science. In each case the views ascribed to creationists can be better described in individual articles on their beliefs, and as a footnote within a sensible article on genuine science (e.g. second law of thermodynamics). Dunc|☺ 14:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I was hoping for a ruling on whether this second call for votes was legitimate. But it doesn't seem to be coming. In case it is, I vote to keep. Philip J. Rayment 15:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Or at least move the information (or disinformation as some declare it) to whatever pages are deemed properly related to Wikipedia. Dan Watts
Delete. Creationism is not science. --Viriditas | Talk 20:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are supposed to be voting on the merits of the article, not your POV of the topic. Philip J. Rayment 13:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Ugly and unwieldy. ral315 21:35, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. needs edits. no need to delete what is true. ConfessedSockPuppetJunior 00:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete'. Also the split off pages ("...in..."). Before they start to multiply and evolve. --Pjacobi 10:14, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
Delete. It seems there is no hope for this article.. the beliefs of all creationists (or even most) can't be so easily nailed down.. and many of the editors seem incapable of separating their own views on the subject with perhaps the 'mainstream' views.. believing (consciously or unconsciously) their view simply is the mainstream view. Even the title can imply there are only two views. Also the split off pages referred to above should be deleted. Mlm42 18:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. CheeseDreams 04:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I think it's good, personally. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete along with its daughter articles.--FeloniousMonk 05:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

old vote -- a week before new vote -- administrator archived discussion without comment (20 delete 9 keep or rename: 69%-delete)

Page typecasts all creationists as pseudoscientists. Also subject is fabricated and not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bensaccount 02:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, The article does not even come close to presenting the scientific side. For example, it should have been mentioned that there is not enough water on earth to cover all the land. Example: even a child can calculate how long it would take for a stalagmite to form given a simple rate of mineral deposition. Even the smallest cave will show age in excess of 6000 years. user:bconline
- Creationists would dispute every one of your claims used as reasons for deletion (and one is a strawman anyway), so the result is that you are voting to delete because it doesn't agree with your POV. Philip J. Rayment 13:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Creationists are also fond of presenting a false dichotomy that this page advocates. To be truly NPOV, we should mention that there are other pseudoscientific theories that are not creationism that can be referred to in the debate. Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Don't bother looking for Mr. Bconline's "User contributions." 8))) ---Rednblu | Talk 16:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, since creationism is ultimately based on untestable religious beliefs, a comparative article on creationsism and objectivist science has no traction and will ineveitably mislead on both topics. Wyss 02:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- As with bconline, creationists disagree with the claim you use as a reason for deletion, so you also are voting to delete on the basis of your POV. Philip J. Rayment 13:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - It doesn't matter if creationists disagree. There are facts and there are opinions. The facts are that creationism is wrong. There has been objective studies of all of creationists claims (that are decipherable) and they are found to be incorrect. Joshuaschroeder
Keep, excellent work. The article does not use the term "pseudoscientists," and creationists are in fact outside the mainstream of science. Wishing that people saw things differently is not a proper basis for a POV complaint. Gazpacho 03:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep - controvesial, but worthy of inclusion. --Zappaz 03:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant, and begging for flamewar. Creationism, philosophical naturalism, materialism, evolution, evolutionary creationism, etc. all address these issues without trying to reduce the debate to only two diametrically opposed viewpoints. Some of the content may be mergeable into other appropriate articles. --TenOfAllTrades 03:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Provides a comprehensive comparison of the self-proclaimed assumptions and arguments of both camps and maintains NPOV. Acb 04:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
KEEP It is a very good and well balanced article. ping 06:44, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Move to Comparison between creationist and mainstream scientist views. Current titled includes an inversion. And I think inclusion in existing articles would make them too large. 131.211.210.157 10:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Server problems logged me out. Above anon is me. Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant content. Merge anything useful into one of the many other articles on this subject. --Centauri 11:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This was an experiment with a new format which was my idea - I thought that edit wars could be prevented if both sides had their own section. But it failed. It has become the same opinion stew as the other creationism articles. Also, there is just too much material in this subject, enough for a wiki of its own. So leave the debate to EvoWiki [6] and... hmmm, CreationWiki [7] seems to be dead at the moment. --Hob Gadling 13:19, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
- I would say it failed because editors failed to stick to NPOV rules and while this is not acceptable it does not give reason to delete the article (just one to change our behaviour). If there is enough material to make this into many articles there is no reason not to as long as we can mantain NPOV. However, most of the science should probably just be linked to from other wikipedia articles. Barnaby dawson 09:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep The stated reason for deleting (that it "typecasts all creationists as pseudoscientists" is not true (and I say that as a creationist), and it is still being heavily bashed into shape, so deletion is at best premature. Philip J. Rayment 14:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree entirely. It's not even clear how to edit this page at this point. If I had my way, I'd go through with a sledgehammer. We do have a Creation vs. evolution debate page anyway, why not just use that as our outline? Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- the page compares two sets of views clearly, concisely, and with npov. non-"pseudoscientist" creationists are free to associate themselves with "mainstream science." Ungtss 14:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- There is no way that the views are compared clearly. Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- after merging content somewhere else, probably Creationism. In general, when we have an article X on some set of views that aren't "mainstream", the comparison of X to mainstream views should NEVER be in a separate article but in the main article. If X is not a "mainstream" view, the X article should say so, and should summarize the debate between X and the "mainstream" views. Anybody reading about a non-mainstream X shouldn't have to go hunting for the "Comparison of X with the mainstream views" to find out why and what the "mainstream" has to say about X. If the X article does not have this comparison of views, then it is POV propaganda for X, and if it does then the "Comparison" article is redundant. If the X article gets to be too long, it is very doubtful that the best way in general to split it up is to remove the section contrasting X to mainstream views. --BM 16:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Consider how one distinguishes a Wiki article from a forum argument. I suggest that a forum will accommodate ongoing discussions, with no intention to reach a state of completion, but that it should in principle be possible to complete a Wiki article – that is, to have it include virtually all relevant information in an NPOV form at some particular time. I can’t see how this article could ever reach a state of “completion”, since the debate is ongoing. It is far better to report the present state of the debate in related articles. For the same sorts of reasons, the article will never be “comprehensive”. Furthermore the article assumes that each side of the debate has some agreed account of their position that can be set against the view of the opposing party. This is not the case. Plainly creationists disagree with each other, and scientists disagree with other scientists. The format does not allow this to be shown.Banno 21:04, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Merge with creationism if any of the content is not redundant. Martg76 23:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If this is in fact a fork of one of the Creation vs Evolution articles (which Hob Gadling implies above), I would rather see this redirect back to a source article. Redirect preserves the history of the debate. Having said that, I didn't see anything in this article which was not already covered in some other article. Further, I believe the other articles do a better job of sourcing the various opinions. This article's presentation presents a false dichotomy and obscures conflicting beliefs among groups within the columns. If there is not concensus for a clean redirect, please interpret this as a vote to delete the fork. Rossami (talk) 23:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV flame war material. Wyss is correct, the article will mislead. Megan1967 23:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete it. To be NPOV and fit its title, the righthand column would need to include the entire output of the sciences of biology, geology, astronomy and physics, to name a few. This is "things creationists dispute with science and what science has to say about them" masquerading under a more NPOV title. I think there is a case for an article that does list the problems creationists have with science but it would need to be meticulously sourced -- not a list of "some say this, some say that", and it should certainly not be presented as a dispute within science, which it is not.Dr Zen 00:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that it needs to be well sourced. See wikipedia:NPOV (Comparison of views in science) for a first attempt at a set of guidelines for articles like this. Barnaby dawson 09:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Creationists dispute that they have a problem with science, so you also are voting to delete on the basis of your POV. Philip J. Rayment 13:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Creationists do have a problem with science inasmuch as they think that the vast majority of those who are employed as scientists are not doing science! Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons mentioned above, and more. Most importantly (which I don't think anyone has mentioned), the title seems to me highly inappropriate for any Wikipedia content. Wikipedia does not "compare" views, as that would be original research. Rather, we report the views of creationists and the views of evolutionists, and let the reader compare. Article's contents seems to be setting up some false dichotomy between "mainstream scientists" and "creationists" (with a disclaimer that not all creationists agree with whoever's opinions are in this article). Tuf-Kat 00:14, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia most certainly does compare views - that's one of the cornerstones of the NPOV concept. As long as this article maintains this, than it's acceptable. The subject matter is one of those things 100% of the people will never agree upon, so therefore the "disputed" disclaimer at the top is fair. I do feel the article needs to be retitled somehow; as it stands I don't believe it's NPOV enough. However I can't think of another title at the moment that wouldn't come off worse. 23skidoo 07:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- We can do this on the Creation vs. evolution debate page.
keep good comparison. Xtra 07:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete The article is horrendous, the comparison of views is just a hide-behind for a creationist endeavor to paint a false dichotomy. There is science and then there is pseudoscience. Creationism isn't an alternative scientific theory: it is one of many alternatives to science. Joshuaschroeder 20:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
keep but only if it can be agreed to set up guidelines for NPOV in such articles. Please interpret my vote as delete if no such agreement can be reached. See wikipedia:NPOV (Comparison of views in science) for a first attempt at such guidelines. This is a set of guidelines on NPOV in articles making comparisons between scientific or pseudoscientific positions. I believe that if those guidelines were strictly adhered to (and perhaps a few more sensible ones added) it would be possible to create an article such as this without it becoming NPOV. This topic is dealt with very badly in the web as a whole and it would be great if wikipedia could cover it properly and in an NPOV manner. I think the current version is heavily biased towards the creationist viewpoint but I do not think it is inevitable that this be so. Barnaby dawson 09:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the most balanced treatment on the web to date is the talkorigins archive [www.talkorigins.org]. The creationists, however, think that it isn't balanced at all. If there is to be a debate at all, it has to be in the form of an exhaustive rendering of facts and a willingness (as expressed by the maintainers of the archive) to be constantly vigilant in keeping up to date on the latest creationist fad.

If this page is kept, it will either degenerate in a free-for-all posting of whatever flight-of-fancy creationists feel like pursuing with the scientifically-minded scurrying to find the appropriate niche-counter for their nonsense or it will be a complete repeat of the talkorigins archive. Either way, I'm not sure it behooves wikipedia to engage in a rehash of a very tired "debate".

My main point, however, is that this isn't really a "debate" at all. There are many alternatives to the scientific mainstream and to post a "debate" as such makes it seem like the only alternative is creationism. More than this, the current slant of the article is definitely YEC in flavor, which is only one type of creationism in general.

What we need to do is cleanup the Creation vs. evolution debate article and get away from this necessarily POV fork. Joshuaschroeder 06:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete This article is redundant and clearly slanted.. I think it's important to explain the creationist beliefs, but this article does so in a manner that seems insulting to science. Mlm42 01:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Much as I dislike creationism, this article is inherently POV. Lacrimosus 10:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This seems to me to be more of a debate forum than an encyclopedia article. Also, as has been pointed out, it gives the impression of a false dichotomy. It would set a precedent for inclusion of a myriad of articles comparing "the views of scientists" to every other theory held by someone somewhere. Alarm 00:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The debate between the two viewpoints considered on this page is of encyclopedic relevence. That the debate occurs regularly in legal and governmental circles in america should be enough to establish this. There is no slippery slope here. Barnaby dawson 20:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - The debate itself is ocf encyclopedic reference. This page does a poor job of covering it, though. We should delete the page and work on Creation vs. evolution debate. Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Many good points have been made above in criticizing this page. However, we should keep this page to reflect the history of this debate accurately. Mr. Rossami argues that this page should be merged and redirected to Creation vs. evolution debate. But this page is a breakout of the detail of that debate and has a totally different advantage for the reader--namely, to present data in a table. Mr. Schroeder suggests that the talk.origins site duplicates the function of this page, but it does not--because the talk.origins page presents only the right hand column--the mainstream science rebuttal to the creationist nonsense in the left column.

Untrue. The talkorigins archive contains references to all the nonsense (how else could they critique it? Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Bconline complains that this page does not honor properly the scientific view. But this is not the SciencePedia, this is Wikipedia, and NPOV at least requires that the creationists should get to state accurately the documented history of their nonsense view of the world--which in my view this page does quite well. The page is getting there. 8)) As Mr. Zen complains, this page does not yet have the citations to scholarly publications. We will do that--and we will eliminate the original research that does not have citations to scholarly publications. But let's get the comparison of views first. Mr. Rossami suggests this page presents a false dichotomy, but it does not. This page merely tabulates the contrasting views in the debate. Nowhere on the page does it imply that you have to pick one or the other--quite the opposite. The parent page at Creation vs. evolution debate makes clear that there is a whole continuum of views in the debate from "Young earth creationism" to "Materialist evolutionism" (Scott 1997).

This is baloney because there is no way in the side-by-side format to decide where a nuanced view or a view that's not creationist but extra-scientific should go! Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Along that continuum, there is less and less disagreement between the creationist view and the mainstream view as you move from the extreme of "Young earth creationism" toward the other extreme of "Materialist evolutionism." Accordingly, the Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared page merely tabulates the observed differences where the empirical data indicates differences. I definitely agree with Mr. Dawson that we should consider seriously the proposed Wikipedia guidelines for tabulating comparisons of science with nonsense. The issue here is how to treat nonsense in a legitimate NPOV manner. ---Rednblu | Talk 16:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think Rednblu is evaluating a hypothetical article and not the one that currently exists. How are we going to decide what constitutes a reference that we can use as part of the argument? Creationists have views that range from the most absurdist miracle-based ideologies to technical disparaging based on physical misconceptions. To reasonably do the "NPOV" suggested here would mean the article would stretch out ad infinitum. How would anybody decide what was reasonable to include and what wasn't?

Much of what the argument against creationism is is that there is a VAST body of scientific evidence against them. I could begin posting public domain sources of the hundreds of thousands of rocks that have been consistently dated to counter the claims that the creationists make against isochron dating. However, this obviously isn't in Wikipedia's best interest.

i'm not editing the page because it looks like it's about to be deleted. the fact that you think the left column is nonsense does not make lining that nonsense up with scientific truth pov -- if anything, it should make the left column look like nonsense in the light of the truth. i think this page could serve the purpose of getting the "issues" of the debate off the debate page and into a side-by-side comparison, so the debate page can consider more of the "big picture" issues, and it's only as long as we make it. Ungtss 19:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In short, those who are crying NPOV for keeping the article haven't really thought the issue out. Nor have I seen contributions from them that would seem to indicate that they were moving in the NPOV direction. It would be a sad thing if this article were kept as it is. We should expand Creation vs. evolution debate and make a reference outside of wikipedia. Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This belongs in an article, not a chart which creates a false sense of equivalence. A flame war will be inevitable. Gamaliel 16:45, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The article presents YEC arguments on the creationist side, many of which OECs would not accept

Exile 22:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Citing from NPOV: Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. J. 'mach' wust 04:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge into various creationist articles. "He said, she said" does not an NPOV article make. Heck, this monstrosity isn't even an article; it reads like someone's notes for a school assignment. However, there are real articles that could benefit from some of this information. foobaz·✐ 05:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This comparison is not only unwiedly, but it fails to properly capture the biases from each group; insofaras, creationists are filling in portions of the "mainstream science" section and vice versa. This is a big POV problem that has failed to be addressed.04:41, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate wasdelete. Joyous 20:13, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

6 ft 1 in (1.85 m)

Yet again another in the never-ending celebrity height articles, with yet again another format in its title. Rick K 00:03, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...I didn't even get around to posting this before it was recommended for deletion. Methinks that speaks volumes about the sad-sacks who appear to have some incomprehensible vendetta against my Height Project. In any case, I vote Keep! And if something isn't up your alley, perhaps go off and find a page that is. Getalis 00:08, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete --fvw * 00:20, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete. Vendetta? Vendetta means some form of revenge. Nope, a lot of us here have the idea that some things belong in encyclopedias, some don't, and articles categorizing people by height aren't in the least bit encyclopedic, IMNSHO. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Josh Cherry 00:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Chris 73 Talk 01:02, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
The same as for the others: Merge to a single List of people over 2m tall article, or Delete. Uncle G 01:06, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
In the event that a request for deletion goes up before the actual page itself, one realizes that those requesting said premature deletion are, in fact, just out to break balls. This has nothing to do with legitimacy. You're either uninterested in the topic or upset that you didn't think of it first. Either way, it isn't grounds for deletion. Getalis 01:37, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
- All you have to do is to compare the create dates on the article and this page and you will be assured that your article was up BEFORE I created this page. I added the vfd header to your article and then clicked on the page link there which led me to edit this page. Now I will appreciate an apology for your unfounded accusation. Rick K 22:08, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

- Maybe off in electronic la-la land. But in the real world, when I first clicked "save" on my initial write-up, it didn't take. So I back-clicked and saved again. This time it took, and the page displayed itself...with your ridiculous Vfd tag already upon it. Now I will appreciate an apology for forcing me to (once again) set you straight on things. Getalis 01:30, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  - The evidence is clear for all to see. You will not apologize even when you're wrong. I will now ignore your constant ranting and foaming at the mouth until you learn how to behave in a civilized manner. Rick K 01:32, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  - There are occasionally weird little system bugs where the page does save properly, but the creator gets an error page incorrectly suggesting that it didn't. It doesn't mean anybody's out to bust your balls; it's a database problem. It's happened to me quite a few times in the past few weeks; I need only click on "my contributions" to see that the page did save properly. In this case, the page history does confirm that you created the page first. It's not even possible to put a VfD tag on a page that doesn't exist yet, dude. Had it happened as you claim, your second save would have erased the VfD tag. Bearcat 03:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. And being short about it isn't going to get you keep votes if it's not notable. --Woohookitty 01:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. --LeeHunter 01:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You write 'em, I delete 'em. --RoySmith 01:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) (PS, an edit conflict in a VfD!) (Wow, a double edit conflict)
Delete, see previous comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/6'4". Megan1967 03:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- Hoary 03:59, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Keep Completely harmless. Philip 10:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete this and all similar pages, which are non-encyclopedic, and inherently US-centric because of the use of feet-and-inch measurements in the titles (which leave out intermediate heights in between). Martg76 03:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete all. —Korath (Talk) 09:10, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - merge relevant into to articles about the people concerned - Skysmith 09:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete all of them. HowardB 14:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep all of them. Although not really notable, we do have entries for every date in the year, and for every year. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)
Delete all of them. Far too trivial (what next? list of people by weight? shoe size? hair colour? waist measurement? cup size?). Extreme heights are notable, but 6' 1" isn't. sjorford:// 22:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I know - let's make articles categorising men by their penis length, and women by breast size as well - how relevant!!!! DELETE Selphie 11:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) **
Delete. --Viriditas | Talk 20:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Another pointless height article. ral315 21:40, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

6 ft 5 in (1.96 m)

Listed for consistency with the other articles. My vote remains Merge to a single article or Delete. Uncle G 01:01, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

Delete. Rick K 01:02, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
A list of extremely tall and extremely short people would be interesting, but this is pointless. Delete the whole series. Tuf-Kat 01:13, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, see previous comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/6'4". Megan1967 03:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ambi 07:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete all. —Korath (Talk) 09:11, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - merge relevant into to articles about the people concerned. As it happens, this is my height, but I do not consider the fact relevant in any encyclopedia - Skysmith 09:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Viriditas | Talk 20:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Another pointless height article. ral315 21:42, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Alejandro Lanusse

Merge into Alejandro A. Lanusse and redirect. Repeated page. Mtiedemann 00:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

VFD isn't the right place for this. If you want to merge two articles, then follow the procedure at WP:DA. Don't set the lumbering deletion mechanism in motion. Just Do The Merge™. I've started you off. Uncle G 01:18, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete the repeated page, see Uncle G's comments. Megan1967 03:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No. The duplicate page is kept as a redirect, to preserve the edit history. Uncle G
I've now done the next bit for you, too. Withdraw your VFD nomination, remove the {{subst:vfd}} from the article, clean up Alejandro A. Lanusse, and you're done. Do you see how easy it is compared to VFD? Uncle G 17:53, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

I've completed the merge and clean-up. Thanks for the pointers. Mtiedemann 19:21, 30 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 4, Delete 3. No consensus. Keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David Douglass

A physicist who once wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal. Apparently, he doesn't believe in global warming. If he is for some reason notable in his lack of belief (or for some other reason), the article should say so. Googling reveals some hits (possibly not for the same person), but nothing that appears very noteworthy. Tuf-Kat 00:45, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I got a letter published in the newspaper too. Can I have my own article? Gamaliel 03:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Google Test turns up a number of David Douglass's, most of which are however not the man in question. I am assuming though he is the Professor of Physics & Experimental Condensed Matter Physics at Rochester University, homepage here [8]. Has had a number of his works published in physics and climate journals. His research has created a stir in global warming circles. I'm voting a keep on this one. Megan1967 03:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article does not establish notability, as it stands it's a quote from a letter to the editor. Not sure he passes the average professor test. Nearly every professor has been published in journals in their field; you don't stay a professor if you don't. -R. fiend 22:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Current article does not establish notability. Edeans 04:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. I do not agree with Douglass, but his publications deserve some mention, as well as expanding his bio. He's certainly a notable dissenter. I've done a little bit of cleanup on the article, and I will do some more in a few hours. --Viriditas | Talk 06:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Open scientific debate is very important, and the loyal opposition should get a fair hearing. 69.212.36.88 22:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- User since Feb 3, edits to only two articles.
Keep. The article would be of interest to readers looking for sources on both sides of the debate, as well as to those who had come across his name – perhaps because of the letter – and wanted to know a little more about him. It's thin at the moment, so stick a stub template on it, or expand it. (I think that he's wrong, but what does that have to do with it?) And if Wikipedia only had articles on people that the average VfD addict agreed to be “notable” it would be limited to dead people, software gurus, and comic-book writers. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. After counting all the votes, and subtracting all the unsigned, anon, and sockpuppet votes, the tally I got was: Delete 18 / Keep 10 / Merge 2. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Horace Mann Elementary School

Non notable. Delete -- Chris 73 Talk 00:55, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Yep I'd agree. Not notable. --Woohookitty 01:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep if they put their references on the article. (Notability is still not a criterion, but verifiability most certainly is) - David Gerard 03:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete despite being a place of learning and happiness. Gamaliel 03:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, banish all places of happiness from wikipedia! --fvw * 04:48, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
weak Keep There is some potential, but I think detail and organization are lacking. At least it has more than <name of school> is a school in <name of location> as many schools on CfD have. If one is willing to do the background research on schools, you can fing many interesting and notable details on most schools. This one is close to minimal, but could be expanded by anyone willing to do the leg-work. I hope the original creator actually comes back to read this instead of giving up because it's been CfD'd Weaponofmassinstruction 09:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is much more than a sub-stub. This stub is well on its way to becoming yet another great article on Wikipedia. It's a shame that deletionists fail to recognize that. GRider\^talk 18:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Absolutely nothing to distinguish it from tens of thousands of others, thus unencyclopedic. —Korath (Talk) 09:56, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, due to lack of exceptional evidence of note. How many schools advertise themselves as a place of confinement and misery, anyway? Average Earthman 19:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article doesn't establish why it's more notable than the hundreds of thousands of other elementary schools (53,066 public elementaries in the US alone, nine of which are named Horace Mann Elementary) in the world. Niteowlneils 19:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's one very good reason, for starters.--Centauri 21:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Second choice, merge/redir to Oak Park Elementary School District (the redir may become a disamb at some point, but at the moment, no other Wikipedia article seems to reference "Horace Mann Elementary"). Niteowlneils 20:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

School. Keep. --Centauri 21:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable. Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
delete. →Raul654 06:21, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Auto-Delete — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 09:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge into relevant community (wherever it is) and delete - Skysmith 09:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\^talk 18:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Yet another school article that fails to provide any insights of encyclopedic worth. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge database. Indrian 00:32, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. —Ben Brockert (42) 00:54, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This particular school article is definitely worth keeping, it's not just a sub-stub. I wish I could say the same about the other 5 on VfD today. —RaD Man (talk) 10:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's cleanly written and has a picture, but the article is almost painfully generic. No evidence of notability. A statement like "The school has grades from kindergarten to 5th, has a library and a technology center, and teaches many students from all over the district" could apply to almost any elementary school. Isomorphic 22:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
keep all places of happiness. Yuckfoo 18:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- My bathroom is a place of happiness too. Perhaps I should take a picture of it and start an article. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It might be better written than the other school on VfD atm, but it's still not notable. Xezbeth 19:48, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
KEEP what radman said ... definately better than some of the other school stubs, but it does need a reference. ALKIVAR™ 00:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Schoolcrufta delenda est! Edeans 04:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. JYolkowski 00:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep I think this article is worth keeping. It might not say in the article, but it was the spot where 21 snowmen, 3 snowwomen, and 6 snowchildren melted on April 2, 2002.
- I removed that bit as it was unencyclopedic. Also, you'll want to sign your vote if you want it to count. JYolkowski 02:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete No offense, but this article is useless. And I don't think it has any significance at all. - TheThing1001
Keep. Rhobite 00:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Enochlau 01:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. TomTheHand 01:39, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
No indication of notability, so delete. RadicalSubversiv E 07:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Definitely keep. This article should stay!
Keep Why do they want to erase this?
Keep! Horace Mann Elementary School is the place where a bunch of snowmen melted in 2002! It was the biggest snowman melting in the US! Like 30 snowmen. Keep!!!!!
Keep
I think delete, not sure
Keep immediatly! Warning! This is a Kristof's Things, inc. government file! Keep this article or this webiste will be vaporized. Thank you.
This article is cool. Don't delete. This is my school!
Please keep This is an alien from Pluto. I request you keep this Earth article, please.
Keep This article is awsome! Aha! Lets keep is Yeah!
- All of the above are from KFan II, the creator of this article. Also note his scant contributions. KFan II, please be aware that you're not fooling anybody; once would have been sufficient. —Korath (Talk) 01:12, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Sufficiently notable, many results on Google. Certainly more notable than a lot of the c**p on Wikipedia, this one has just been jumped on for some reason. TigerShark 22:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Please keep. Please note: I'm not assicited with Horace Mann or this KFan II person. If you want to know, I'm Personperson
- Vote is user's first edit. --fvw * 22:49, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Mathew

Appears to be a vanity page. Google returns ~400 hits. None of which seem to have any relevance. Dismas 00:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as nonsense. Rick K 01:05, Jan 30, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Doc's Little Gem Diner

A restaurant of strictly local interest. --LeeHunter 01:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep if verifiable references are supplied. Also needs name of town and country in title - David Gerard 03:12, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough, reads like an advertisement. Megan1967 04:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't establish notability. --fvw * 04:47, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Rick K 07:04, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
On the plus side, it motivated me to destub the diner article. Gazpacho
Delete - not relevant enough even for a merge - Skysmith 10:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Possible merge to Diner, delete as non-notable. This is the kind of thing where if someone wants to merge it into his/her user page, that would be perfectly OK. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:12, Jan 31, 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 wasdelete. Joyous 20:17, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

6 ft 9 in (2.06 m)

Another height thing. --LeeHunter 01:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've long suspected certain VFD participants of having a canned response on a keyboard macro. I never thought that I'd be half-longing for the same thing. The same as for the others: Merge to a single List of people over 2m tall article, or Delete. Uncle G 01:59, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete, as per previous comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/6'4". Megan1967 04:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per my comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/6' 2". Could I additionally vote to merge all of the vfd votes into one? Thryduulf 19:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete them all. Neither encylopedic, nor possible to maintain. Rje 20:23, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Please delete.Martg76 03:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete (including those listed in see also). Nonencyclopedic. At best merge into a list by height of historical figures or something. ÅrÐ£nT^†_∈ 07:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete all. —Korath (Talk) 09:13, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - merge relevant into to articles about the people concerned - Skysmith 09:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Another pointless height article. ral315 21:43, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

6 ft 8 in (2.03 m)

Listed for consistency with the other articles. This is becoming disruptive. My vote remains Merge to a single article or Delete. Uncle G 02:05, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

Delete --LeeHunter 02:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) (6' 1")
Delete, as per previous comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/6'4". Megan1967 04:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Rick K 07:02, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ambi 07:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete all. —Korath (Talk) 09:13, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - merge relevant into to articles about the people concerned - Skysmith 09:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Can you say "Not so different"? Shuai 12:38, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Another pointless height article. ral315 21:43, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

6 ft 7 in (2.01 m)

Listed for consistency with the other articles. This is becoming disruptive. My vote remains Merge to a single article or Delete. Uncle G 02:05, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

Delete --LeeHunter 02:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) (6'1")
Delete, as per previous comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/6'4". Megan1967 04:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Rick K 07:02, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ambi 07:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A bit pointless really. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 13:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete all. —Korath (Talk) 09:14, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - merge relevant into to articles about the people concerned - Skysmith 09:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Another pointless height article. ral315 21:43, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

6 ft 6 in (1.98 m)

Listed for consistency with the other articles. This is becoming disruptive. My vote remains Merge to a single article or Delete. Uncle G 02:05, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

Delete --LeeHunter 02:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) (6'1")
Delete, as per previous comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/6'4". Megan1967 04:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete the lot. --fvw * 04:47, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete. Rick K 07:02, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ambi 07:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete with all reasonable haste. This is getting to be just silly. Can we expect a list of celebrities with mullets next? Arranged by length and type of mullet?I suppose I should "sign" this. Weaponofmassinstruction 09:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Away with it already. Inter 13:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete all. And next time, list them in block, please. —Korath (Talk) 09:14, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - merge relevant into to articles about the people concerned - Skysmith 09:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Another pointless height article. ral315 21:43, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

The Banana Song

A childrens' song. This article is appears under this title as well as "The Name Game". I propose merging the two articles under "The Name Game" which is the official title of the song.--Moochocoogle 02:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You can merge them yourself without this procedure. Gamaliel 03:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge and delete, no redirect. Megan1967 04:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I just merged the two articles at The Name Game. --Woohookitty 08:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've created a redirect. Once you've merged two articles, you must create a redirect from the duplicate, so that the list of authors isn't deleted. sjorford:// 11:25, 30 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 4 deletes, 1 merge, 1 weak keep. Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proserpina (Pak protector)

I'm not familiar with Ringworld, but I don't see that this (minor?) character needs it's own entry on Wikipedia Djbrianuk 03:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ Keep, borderline. Megan1967 04:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't need its own article. --fvw * 04:47, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete. This is not the Ringworldpedia. --Calton 11:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Calton; but I bet we'll lose this one. Wikipedia is the Ringworld-o-pedia, as much as we might hate to think so. --BM 14:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the worst thing is that if the article had been named Proserpina-mon (Pak-mon protector-mon) and had listed all of her "attacks" and super Pak powers granted to her by the Ancient Niven-mon, or had been a fictional planet (even one that is mentioned only in passing in two paragraphs) in a "Star Wars", "Star Trek", or Asimov universe, people wouldn't have dared list it here. Whilst sticking to what exists in this universe, there is nothing more to be said about this subject than this one-sentence stub. Redirect to Ringworld's_Children or Delete. Uncle G 17:32, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete. I like Ringworld. I reread the series not even a month ago. But this is subtrivial fancruft. —Korath (Talk) 23:47, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Ringworld's Children, for what it's worth with such a tiny stub. Bryan 08:27, 31 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Durham johnson

Incomprehensible, non-notable, not encyclopedic, etc. Gamaliel 03:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete - David Gerard 03:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- Hoary 03:43, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete --fvw * 04:47, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete what I suspect is an editing experiment. Edeans 05:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Angelo Dante

vanity Uncle G 03:45, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

Delete Gazpacho 03:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete --fvw * 04:47, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vanity? You do realize that this is a fictional character, right? Redirect to Robotech or Super Dimension Cavalry Southern Cross. Gamaliel 01:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It's masquerading as fact. That, of course, is another reason to delete it. Uncle G 02:02, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  - A vanity page does not necessarily have to be written by its subject, whether real or fictional. Megan1967 23:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - This article is useless junk either way, but I don't understand how an article about a fictional television character can be a vanity article. Gamaliel 08:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - See the example at Wikipedia:vanity page and the explanation below it. Uncle G 18:29, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
        Sorry, still don't see how this is vanity. Gamaliel 19:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge/redirect per Gamaliel. It's not masquerading as fact, it's assuming that people found it legitimately by searching or clicking on links, not with "random page" or "new pages" or whatever. Kappa 09:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No, it is masquerading as fact. Where people came to it from is irrelevant. The article boldly states that "Sgt. Angelo Dante [is the] oldest member of the 15th Alpha Tactical Armored Corp.", "Dana Sterling puts everything on the line", and "Dante keeps a cool head and does not take unnecessary risks.". All of these things are presented as facts, but are not facts. There is no Sergeant Angelo Dante (or at least no notable one). There is no "15th Alpha Tactical Armored Corp". There is no (notable) Dana Sterling. And the behaviours of these non-existent people are themselves non-existent, too. Every single sentence in this article is false. Yet it is presented as a factual article. Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check_your_fiction is very clear about this sort of thing. We usually call such articles, that are entirely full of made up stuff that is false, "hoaxes". Uncle G 18:29, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
  - Fictional and false are not synonyms. These things do exist, within a fictional construct seen by millions of viewers. This is not the same thing as a hoax, which is just a bunch of crap made up by some random newbie and maybe his friends too. Frankly these semantic games seem to be justifying an initial mistaken first impression. It's just silly because no one is disputing this is a bad article which needs to be disposed of in some manner, but we shouldn't throw around terms like "vanity" and "hoax" which clearly do not apply. The fact that it sucks should be enough. Gamaliel 19:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Brutti morgan

On Morgan Brutti, a dancer who Google suggests is not notable. Looks like vanity. (Turn her from a mere human into a "digimon", and her every feature would of course be of huge noteworthiness, or so I infer.) -- Hoary 03:56, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

Delete --fvw * 04:46, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete, apparently a joke. (Brutti means ugly or dirty in Italian) Sietse 09:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 01:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Cool. Italian vanity! Delete our "ugly morning." - Lucky 6.9 23:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Stormie 09:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Adrian Durham

Wikipedia is not a listings magazine. Uncle G 04:20, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

You appear to have made that one up.Philip 03:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No. It's WP:WIN phrased in terms suitable for this particular article. If you don't understand the similarities between directories, listings magazines, memorials, and others then you haven't understood WP:WIN. Uncle G 15:37, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
  - You think you understand it better than me; I think I understand it better than you. I think I'm right on this article; you think you're right on this article. That's all fair enough. What is not fair enough is that you are prepared to fabricate and misrepresent policy to try to win a vote. Philip 18:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neither is it a resume service. --Woohookitty 08:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- He is already one of the main presenters on the UK's main national sports radio station, so I doubt he is looking for a new job, and I'm sure if he'd posted it himself it would have been better written. Philip 03:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. He is on national radio, so it's hardly a vanity page, although he's not that famous. Could alternatively be merged into talkSPORT. sjorford:// 11:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- What it is is an entry from a listings magazine. Stripped of the text telling us what days and times the radio show is on, and who the guests are, there is nothing here apart from the one sentence "Adrian Durham is an English football journalist and broadcaster who hosts shows X, Y, & Z on station W.". Well there are plenty of them. What makes this one special enough to warrant an encyclopaedia entry? Despite the prodding of the {{vfd}} notice (which, I remind you, reads "you are welcome to continue editing this article and improve it, especially if you can address the concerns of those who believe the article should be deleted.") no-one, not even Pcpcpc, has actually addressed that concern at all. This article is an attempt to recolour a red-link at talkSPORT. But until there is actually something of note to say about this person, which it seems there is not given the lack of progression of the article even with enthusiasts present, it should remain a red-link. Uncle G 15:37, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep Do not merge as it can't be categorised then. He must be more famous than thousands of people with their own articles. I have tidied it a little and categorised it. Megan, please try to restrain your hostility towards football related articles. Philip 03:04, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Hostility implies I am dead against football, which is not correct. I have either abstained (no vote) on some articles or voted keep on one or two. Wikipedia is not a resume or listing service btw. Despite all that is said and done he is not that famous. Megan1967 05:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep The article looks like it's pasted together quickly, but there's nothing wrong with the subject. Junes 00:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There's nothing to be said about the subject, though. The "broadcaster who hosts shows X, Y, & Z on station W" information can be, and almost is already, said on talkSPORT. You don't even need to read much else on Wikipedia (not even the articles about radio station personalities in other countries, let alone Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia which says "When creating new pages, please consider first if there will be enough material for a whole article.") to see why this article, stripped of its listings magazine content, is so dismal. You only need go as far as the other talkSPORT entries. Compare this with Ray Houghton, and it is painfully obvious that "Adrian Durham is an English football journalist" is is less than encyclopaedia-worthy. Red-links should be recoloured properly, or not at all. Uncle G 15:37, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

I don't know much about him because I don't listen to commercial radio stations because I can't stand adverts, but he's famous enough for me to have heard of him nonetheless. It is destcutive of the ulility of the category system to shove subjects of one type (a person) into an article of a totally different type (a radio station). If something is famous enough that someone might look them up for non-personal reasons, which is certainly the case here, he deserves an article. If you are American, you may not appreciate how prominent national radio presenters are in the UK, where radio is much closer to the status of TV than it is in the US. Philip 02:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was 6 Delete / 3 Keep. Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vyelipol

It appears to be a joke. Uncle G 05:05, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

Delete, Props for being one of the vaguest articles I have seen. Inter 13:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 01:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Article has been rewritten far more coherently, and now actually makes sense. PalmMP3 07:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Note to those of you condsidering deleting this page: this page has been rewritten on a more serious note to reflect the true history of Vyelipol, and is no longer some vague, joke-like article as it may have previously seemed. As for "citing sources", I will post them as soon as I can find them on the web (the sources I used were all hardcopy and/or real life experiences and knowledge). Please reconsider your vote to delete this page. Thank you. 70.23.42.41 07:33, 2005 Feb 1 (comment moved from article to discussion Uncle G 12:43, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC))
Weak Delete. Still not really fit for an encyplodia, seems way too personal. JimmyShelter 12:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I am the original author of this article, and I intended it as a stub. This is a about a well know Jewish school in New York, and information about its history. I would like to put information about the town it is named after, but very little is known. However, many people are researching this information, and it would add to the historical perspective, as many Jewish schools take their names from the towns in which they or their founders originated.
Keep. Bacchiad 15:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Schoolcruft. Edeans 05:11, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It reads like something from the school newspaper. Info about the town: maybe. Junes 00:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Full of unverifiable information about an apparently non-notable school. Delete. RadicalSubversiv E 07:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Logosophy

Claims to be science, which it clearly isn't; but I haven't a clue what it is. I must concede that it does seem to have some paying customers. Actually it looks like quintessential twaddle to me, but perhaps somebody reading VfD who can read books marketed as "popular psychology", etc., without either laughing or nodding off can make some sense out of this article or its subject. -- Hoary 05:47, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

If this is a real philosophy, as odd as it seems to be, then we should probably have an article about it. There are 649 Google hits, so I would vote keep and cleanup. Rick K 07:48, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Ah, but if this were a real philosophy, wouldn't it be discussed in peer-reviewed philosophy journals? That was one criterion suggested for Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe -- which seemed (to me) unlike this in not very obviously being total blather. 649 hits doesn't sound very much, especially as this hocus-pocus has more than one website of its own. I suppose genuinely (if inexplicably) popular blather, such as The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, deserves an article; but 649 hits? -- Hoary 08:44, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

Cleanup. My standard for CTMU was notability rather than peer review, and "logosofia" has 4390 hits. Gazpacho 11:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 01:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Sure it sounds dumb, but so does Theosophy and we have an article on that. This kind of claptrap is big business in Argentina - would be implicit bias to delete it.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stopping power

Nicely written article, but it is original research. Wikipedia is not the place for it. --Woohookitty 06:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep or ~~Merge with Terminal ballistics~~. -- Duk 12:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Terminal ballistics is already a large article, and deals with larger artillery, in addition to fire arms. Stopping power is an important and well used term in the vernacular. And there is a huge amount of research over the last century on this topic, see M16 and Flechette for example. I think this article is a very good start. Duk 08:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup. Megan1967 01:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, too different to merge with the very general terminal ballistics. Also, it's not even original research -- it's explanations, presumably gathered from ... the author says Martin Fackler -- where'd you get that, Woohoo? Chrontius
Keep, but feel free to disregard this vote; as the original author (with an account, finally), I can hardly be considered unbiased. The vast majority of information in the article is indeed from Dr. Fackler. Exact citations are difficult since very little of his writing is available on the web, and I have no hard copies. The links section links to what little there is, though. I wouldn't particularly mind if this article were merged with terminal ballistics, however. In fact, I'm in the process of modifying said article right now. Arrkhal
Keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 10:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup. Valid subject about which much can be written. — Gwalla | Talk 00:36, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep plus cleanup --Smooth Henry 17:41, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or clean up radically. Long winded, needs summarising. More of an essay than an encylopedic entry. GraemeLeggett
Keep. It has a lot of good information about an interesting and usual topic, which is exactly what Wikipedia is about. With a little structural rearrangement and editing for voice, I think it will fit right in here. --Jwanders 16:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

KeepWikipedia is just the right place for factual articles, even with its subjective conclusion, which make common sense. The article is factual as any one who has read experts opinions of the many gun magazines over the years or has done a lot of shooting and hunting will agree. "Keep" [RS]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

College notre-dame

Delete, Vanity -- Chris 73 Talk 06:32, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Comment, We usually keep school articles. This one however would need to be rewritten. Inter 13:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it will probably be easier to start again. I learned nothing of value from this. Thryduulf 20:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, college vanity, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 01:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Make a mention in Montreal and delete - Skysmith 10:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing worth reading. Bacchiad 15:10, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Schoolcrufta delenda est! Edeans 05:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Funny, but not wikipedia material. ral315 21:48, Feb 4, 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, which has already been done. Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Main Page (article)

Uttterly non-notable. It's about Wikipedia's main page! Eric119 06:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is surely covered in the Wikipedia namespace for anyone who's interested. I suggest a delete. - RedWordSmith 07:07, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete —Mar·ka·ci 07:23, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete self-reference. Though it made me laugh, which is a plus. —Korath (Talk) 10:00, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, heh, that was funny. Inter 13:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN and Delete self reference. Hey, if it's so funny, maybe it belongs in BJAODN. --Death phoenix 14:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Neutral This is my second failed page. Please excuse me for being a noob. I'll let you guys decide on this. User:DoubleRing
Delete I'm neutral on the issue of BJAODN though. Thryduulf 20:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Neutral, but DoubleRing had the right idea; if somebody wanted to add a "Main Page" section to our article on Wikipedia, it would be welcome, summarizing all the various features etc. Meelar (talk) 06:50, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
- I was half-tempted to suggest something similar. - RedWordSmith 07:02, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete ÅrÐ£nT^†_∈ 09:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alien language

Out of context, original-researchy. -- Curps 06:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, imaginary subject. Gazpacho 08:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, speedily if possible, as patent nonsense. --Angr 14:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) Keep now that the article has been rewritten to shift focus onto science fiction. --Angr 16:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Josh Cherry 20:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I could see a place for an article about the nature and role of alien languages in science fiction, but this is not that. Seeing as how extraterrestrial linguistics is presently no more than speculation, and even at that there's not much speculation we can do since we have no idea if aliens even exist much less any clue how they might communicate with each other differently from terrestrial beings, it would be impossible to write a factual and verifiable encyclopedia article on the subject. — Ливай | ☺ 01:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Has been re-done, worth sparing now. — Ливай | ☺ 20:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. See new edits. Bacchiad 15:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There is nothing wrong with having scifi related subjects on wikipedia. -- Old Right 23:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Reads fine to me now - lots of interesting hooks into other diverse regions of Wiki - RAO.
Keep. It's a little bare so far, but some people's ability to imagine and create full languages is definitely real, and to comment about it is encyclopedic. Plus, Wikipedia is very geek-friendly and computer-friendly. This is genuine and has potential. Just because no other encyclopedia would have this article doesn't prove that the article is bad: it shows that Wikipedia is exceptional. Eje211 23:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There is a perfectly valid reason for including this article from a fiction point of view, as being a subset of fictional language; however, there is also a factual aspect to the topic (eventhough no-one's ever seen any alien languages yet). See [9]. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 23:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cannot agree that this is patent nonsense, but it is still pretty useless. Delete. Edeans 05:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - There is nothing nonsensical about the article. Its just as worthy as the Fictional language page. [10] [11] -- Crevaner 20:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This isn't really an encyclopedia topic. What can it say? "Alien languages are languages spoken by aliens in science fiction stories. Some science fiction authors have constructed languages for the alien characters in their works. Example. Example. Example." That, in fact, is the gist of the first part of the article. The second part of the article is a bit of philosophy of language speculation/original research as to whether we could ever translate an alien language, in case there are real aliens who speak languages. A lot has been written in philosophy about the issue of translation, but a topic on "Alien Language" isn't where I would expect to find a discussion of this work. On top of all this, this article just duplicates material that is in Fictional languages and Constructed languages. I don't see any reason why we need another article on this same basic topic. --BM 18:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Existing article is mediocre, but more can be written on this topic without resorting to speculation. — Gwalla | Talk 00:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The article has considerable potential. How should we communicate with aliens? What strategies have we employed to date in Voyager and SETI? GeorgeStepanek\^talk 09:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Copyvio / Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New York City Water Tunnel No. 3

Non notable. --Woohookitty 06:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep. This ranks up there with the Big Dig on the list of notorious urban engineering projects. See [12]. Gamaliel 06:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Never mind, it's a copyvio. The topic deserves an article, however. Gamaliel 06:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yippee-kai-yay, motherfucker! Keep but delete as a copyvio (so it can be created again without a speedy delete). --SPUI 20:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough, copyright violation. Megan1967 01:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. An extraordinarily notable engineering project, if only for its scale and duration (project planned in the 1960s, started in 1970, will continue to 2020; total cost ~$6 billion). Someone really needs to write a non-copyvio article about this. --TenOfAllTrades 13:55, 31 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 speedy delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mulsiber

Unencyclopedic, non-notable and just about everything else. --Woohookitty 06:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete patent nonsense / no context. Gazpacho 10:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy candidate: It looks like a page rank boost misunderstood -- simply a list of all the nouns they'd like to up in Google. Geogre 13:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is it still here? Speedy. Kappa 20:33, 30 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Lambeth Walk

Amateurish, non-notable. --Woohookitty 06:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

~~Next time mark this for speedy delete. Gamaliel 06:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)~~
- Looks like I jumped the gun. Keep after Nunh-huh's changes. Gamaliel 07:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable dance. Rick K 07:06, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep —Mar·ka·ci 07:13, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Keep -- Famous song. Oi! -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:15, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Keep - Mailer Diablo 07:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect: Me and My Girl could have been done in 90 seconds. Songs from shows usually need to be in context, unless the articles are just too long— over 32 kilobytes for a start— but check that Times headline: possibly bogus. --Wetman 07:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect: based on the context argument Courtland {2005-01-30 USA ~14:20 EST}
Keep This is one of the most famous British songs of the first half of the 20th century Philip 10:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Nunh-huh has done a really good job of saving this. Rick K 07:32, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Gee. I think that Nunh-huh is trying to make me look bad. lol --Woohookitty 07:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Nah, it's just that I'm old enough to remember this<g> - Nunh-huh 07:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I knew that there was an article here, and I also knew that the original wasn't it. Hence the liberal plastering with pretty coloured boxes. My vote was, and is, Keep. I'm pleased to see the Wikipedia process in action. Uncle G 12:37, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Keep, great article. Samaritan 14:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Vfd is not a cleanup request. Alrigh' me old china? -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 15:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Did you look at the original? It was a teenager's diary entry. Perfectly legit listing. Gamaliel 18:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes but a google search would have revealed that this is quite an old and well-known song in London history, for which I would have either sent it to cleanup or cleaned it up myself. I wouldn't have listed it here. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 19:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - ... which were my reasons and actions exactly. ☺ Uncle G 20:03, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Keep. Another example of people using VFD for spurious purposes. VFD is not Cleanup.--Centauri 21:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Hitler would disapprove, so I approve. --SPUI 23:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Me and My Girl, no need to have a seperate article on this. Megan1967 01:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Good re-write. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Listing it on VfD was probably a mistake, but 'using VFD for spurious purposes' is a bit strong, isn't it? Mattley 19:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There seems to have been a rash of recent VFD listings for articles that merely need cleanup or expansion. I think my choice of words is a pretty accurate way of describing the actions of those responsible.--Centauri 22:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Um rather than "merely need cleanup or expansion" I would put it as "contain nothing usable". Kappa 16:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Oi! Edeans 05:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

William Hoskins

Article does not establish notability. Rick K 06:59, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Better explained at BSD license, and he's not otherwise notable. Probably BSD license should be edited to unlink his name. -- Curps 10:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep, article needs expansion. Megan1967 04:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. This figure is notable. GRider\^talk 19:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Flapper and firkin

Advertising. Reads like a copyvio or a press release. Rick K 07:43, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete --SilasM 08:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Apologies for not including reasoning in my (first ever) VfD. Will comply with policy in future. My reasoning follows that of Megan1967.--SilasM 04:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Inter 13:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete: It's not that it's necessarily advertising, but rather it's an article on a pub. For this to be encyclopedic, the pub needs to be really significant, singular, and a leader. There is no evidence that this is the Hammersmith Paladium or Der Rathskeller. A pub that has rock shows. Geogre 13:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Interestingly, it's neither. It's just true. (84.9.90.192 10:12, 2005 Jan 30 according to history Uncle G 17:39, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC))
Merge and redirect with an article on the Firkin Brewery: all their pubs are given similar names and a list of such would appear notable to an encyclopedia, but don't include reviews because they're pretty much all the same. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 15:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is littered with peacock terms and even lists the prices of the drinks, for goodness' sakes! This is an advertisement, pure and simple. Pay Google for your placed advertisements, like everyone else does. Delete. Uncle G 17:39, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough, advertisement, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Optionally drop something in Firkin Brewery (if correct), as Francs2000 indicated. —Daelin 01:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Don't Delete It is a good article about a very famous (locally) pub. Many of the articles on this site would not fit in an actual paper bound encylopaedia. If you think the inclusion of prices is an advert, take them out. No need to rip into someone's work for it though. CiderDaemon 15:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- (81.86.84.112 15:15 31 Jan 2005 according to page history -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 15:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC))
  - that was me, CiderDaemon. I'm not sure why it doesn't work
    - Well, 81.86.84.112, logging in would help. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 00:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - lol, cheers
Thank you. I think it's pretty strange how unwilling people are to permit accurate information being put up here...I mean if it was packed with lies and badly typed, I could understand the complaints. It's not taking up space required for more scholarly entries, I tried to make the entry dryly humourous, and if people are interested in it, what's the problem?
- (84.9.90.192 18:56 31 Jan 2005 according to page history -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 15:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC))
Delete. Firkin pubs are definitely not notable! They are a commercial chain of pretty un-unique proportions. Moreover there are, and have been, many more pubs in the Midlands of England which are far more worthy of inclusion than this one. (eg Barbarella's, The Golden Eagle, Bogarts, The Railway etc..) And yet even they are not included nor do they really deserve to be... --Marcus22 14:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I really don't understand this attitude of certain things not 'deserving' to be included. I mean, surely the ideal encylopedia would have information on absolutely everything and anything imaginable! Your normal encylopedia has issues of physical size, and the time its authors must take to research and write an article,- things must be limited, so the concept of 'deserving' inclusion is relevant. Neither of these restrictions apply to Wikipedia, so what's the fuss? Why are people so desperate for an article to get deleted? And, even if you don't see the logic in what I just said, if the Slayer song 'Angel of Death' warrants it's own, multi-paragraph, entry, practically anything does.
  - (84.9.64.83 19:08 2 Feb 2005 according to page history -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 18:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC))

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ZGMF-X12A Punishment Gundam

As stated in the article, this is a fan creation. Wikipedia doesn't list pieces of fanfiction, so fan-created mecha don't strike me as worthy of an article either. Redxiv 07:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, this is not the place for fanfiction. Rje 20:19, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I can't even work out what the fans are fans of. Thryduulf 20:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Gundam SEED. Doesn't make the article any more notable or encyclopedic, though. Redxiv 06:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:32, 31 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Duel Gundam

This page is entirely redundant with GAT-X102 Duel Gundam, which offers more information and more closely resembles the other articles in the category in format. 68.47.175.214 21:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, It's redundant. Thanks for the submission, anon soul! Inter 13:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment. See Wikipedia:Redirect. In fact, at the risk of being overly bold, I've made it one. This technically violates the policy of not removing VfD headers, but what the hey. Common sense override. JRM 19:55, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete, redundant/duplicate. Megan1967 01:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Endorse JRM's speedy redirect. —Korath (Talk) 04:28, Feb 3, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Crabstreetjournal

Non-notable. I speedied at first, article was recreated, I thought better of speedying it a second time since in retrospect, it doesn't meet the speedy criteria. (Update: Page author has removed the VfD header from the article several times.) Bearcat 08:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable, delete. Rick K 08:34, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
No evidence of notability submitted; use of "we" indicates vanity. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, online magazine about land hermit crabs as pets? You want to do the what now? Inter 13:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. jni 14:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, too granular and fails "Wikipedia is not a web guide". But I happily added crabstreetjournal.com as an external link on hermit crab. Samaritan 14:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I like hermit crabs too, but their magazine doesn't get a wiki entry. Delete. DS 00:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep; a cursory glance suggests they've got a fair number of people associated here. Everyking 04:27, 31 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 09:23, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Vapaire

Advertising. Rick K 09:39, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, Looks like it. Inter 13:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Bizarre fringe product. Next will be a Brooklyn Bridge for sale. Advertising. Geogre 13:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete this advertisement. jni 14:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advert. Wikipedia is not a billboard. — Ливай | ☺ 16:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment: It's probably a brand name, but the product doesn't sound all that bizarre. Does anyone know what a machine like that is called in general? Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ditto. --The PNM 15:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I did laugh about "Future of Water" section though, such a give away Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)
Delete. Also, I'd also consider the possibility of hoax or snake oil. Vapaire would produce distilled water, which is actually harmful for continuious drinking AFAIK. Also, I am wondering how much air must be pumped thru the gadget to get 5 gallons? What would be the electrical bill? I suspect that the places where air has 5 gallons of water have no problems with potable water.Mikkalai 20:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If this name actually is notable, any useful content could be merged with dehumidifier, and this redirected there. They would appear to be the same gadgets. You don't want to drink dehumidifier water BTW. -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge anything useable to Dehumidifier, and add redirect. Megan1967 23:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Barone Lucia and Lucia Barone

Italian text about a dancer. If it's not a joke, then at least this person doesn't seem to be notable. See also: Brutti morgan. Sietse 09:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, Google yields 92 and 77 hits respectively on this. I'd say not enough notability, and it needs to be translated aswell. Inter 13:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. jni 14:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing in there worth translating, article does not establish notability. / Alarm 17:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:36, 31 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Most Ancient and Most Noble The Order of Purple

Zero Google hits, as would befit a secret society. Secret societies are, by their nature, unverifiable. Does not establish notability. Rick K 10:10, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete'. Seems a pity to spoil the total secrecy that they have maintained until now. --BM 11:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, "We do! We do! etc. Inter 13:12, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Angr 14:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A group of drunk students with pretensions. Delete. Uncle G 14:39, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. Now let's all get drunk and play ping pong!. --Death phoenix 14:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Noble Order of the Lamp and Sword. If there are any more Noble Orders so secret we cannot find anything about them, please copy and paste this vote. It should count as if I'd personally cast it. :-) JRM 19:58, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete unless good, verifiable references are provided prior to expiration of VfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Students thinking their drinking club is notable. If it's secret, we can't verify it now, can we? Average Earthman 13:54, 31 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 2 Delete / 1 Keep. No consensus. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anabolic (band)

Doesn't appear to be notable. No google hits that I could find other than on wikipedia mirrors. Xezbeth 13:52, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 01:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No allmusic.com listing. Gamaliel 01:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --Xadai 03:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was 5 Keep / 5 Delete. Kept. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jamie Wingo

A brief filmography list of an 80s gay porn actor. ~~No content whatsoever~~, marginal notability, ~~and has strange category links up top~~. I can't see this developing into an encyclopedic article. - Mark 11:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Strikethrough added by Mark at 13:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) since anon user improved article a bit after listing)

Keep, Google yields 3190 hits for that name and it appears quite a few of them are about this person. I'd say enough notability. Inter 13:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete: 3,000 hits is miniscule for a porno actor. Porn actors are never-ending, and going into every single porn actor is absolutely not encyclopedic. Geogre 13:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep - no reason to delete - David Gerard 23:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Verifiable, real actor. Rick K 00:11, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
~~Weak~~ Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 01:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. humblefool ® 05:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a database of everyone who's ever fucked on film. -R. fiend 23:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, seems more than notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. GRider\^talk 19:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Geogre said it. Edeans 05:33, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Why delete it? I mean, he's not so well-known, but what's the harm in being comprehensive?Zantastik 07:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Andrew lortrakul

Vanity. If only these could be speedied.. Xezbeth 13:56, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - this process works. Samaritan 18:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete this likely libel or practical joke. Edeans 05:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Terran Federation

Nonsense.

Merge and redirect. Above nomination left unsigned by User:200.68.70.105, whom we will nevertheless humor. This is not nonsense, it's fancruft, with the distinctly redeeming feature that it's put into context. That said, the article itself states that "Most of the information in this article is taken directly from the novel in addition to conjecture." Conjecture? Wikipedia is not a place for essays or original research. Merge the relevant "facts" (in this fictional setting) with the main Starship Troopers article (which is lacking in this respect) and redirect. If such merging cannot be done because nobody can separate fact from fiction, just redirect. JRM 20:15, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Concur Kappa 20:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge anything useable to Starship Troopers, and add redirect. Megan1967 01:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Vote changed as per above to Keep, but with cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 00:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge: Put a "history of federation" section on the Starship Troopers page.- B-101 12:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:09, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Merge the facts to the SST article. ScottM 04:19, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep ----68.81.105.166 15:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) Do we have a life. What's the problem with this article. Clean it up and remove the conjecture.
Keep Clean it up as we always do.--Tomtom 15:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - We keep sillier and more nonsensical articles, why pick on this one? Can't we clean it up and keep it? Maybe as we go on, someone else will extrapolate further and make it better. As always...--Numerousfalx 16:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - The article is just as legitimate as the articles on Starship Troopers. -- Old Right 21:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I'd much rather see this article remain. The subject covered here is too vast to be intergrated in the main Starship Troopers page. Also, the History of the Federation is not part of the main plot of the previously mentioned book. Also, I see no request to delete the United Citizen Federation page (which is considerably smaller).
Keep - Why Terran (StarCraft) may exist and Terran Federation may not? Clean up if necessary. --212.45.8.211 21:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Schapelle corby/Schapelle Corby

Getting busted for allegedly carrying drugs across the border is not evidence for notability. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 14:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment : Google search returned 665 hits. Same article appears under two names. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
delete but painfully so. While some terrible things (allegedly) happen to some people in these circumstances, wikipedia isn't a campaigning site. The article doesn't explain why she is more notable than anyone else in a similar situation. Thryduulf 20:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
~~Weak~~ Delete, POV article, recent news story but not notable enough for inclusion. Megan1967 01:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopedic. Edeans 05:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Systems Union

Advertising. Inter 15:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Google search return 27,000 hits. Send for Cleanup, notable enough. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. After deleting the corporate blather (which I did), it is basically a sub-stub. I think red links are better than sub-stubs, so I vote to delete. But this company is big enough that it merits an article, if someone wants to write it. I don't. --BM 00:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, needs expansion. Megan1967 05:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Google is a good barometer of notability here, easily worthy of inclusion. GRider\^talk 19:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Signum Polonicum

a polish martial arts group. notable? spam? (note the interwikis). dab (ᛏ) 15:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Google gives 285 hits, the vast majority of which are in Polish. I found a history of the organization in English on their webpage which does not suggest this is anything more than a small organization. The only mention of any press coverage is the following: "In Polish edition of French magazine “Culture” nr 3/582 (April), there was an information about our Club as of supporting member of Archives of Literacy Association in Paris." Delete as non-notable. — Ливай | ☺ 17:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Also note that I have removed the interwikis because they all led to blank pages. — Ливай | ☺ 17:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Offer for translation/transwiki to the Polish Wikipedia to see if they consider it notable. Delete it here. Samaritan 18:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 01:45, 31 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 Redirect 2 / Delete 1; No clear consensus. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Majas DSL

Non-notable entry on a DSL provider in Latvia. Text is: Majas DSL is an ADSL service provided by Lattelekom in Latvia. and an external link to a site in a foreign language (presumably Latvian). RJFJR 16:16, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - I'd argue this comes within the spirit of Reason 9 for Speedy deletion. Thryduulf 21:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Lattelekom. A brand name of a service provided by the local former government telecom monopoly is notable.

I forgot to sign. --JuntungWu 14:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Lattelekom. Megan1967 05:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rod Dobson

Made no sense to me. Correct me if I am wrong. - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, blatant vanity. — Ливай | ☺ 17:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Insult page aimed at someone named "Rod Dobson", probably written by one of his colleagues at the restaurant where he works. Delete. Uncle G 22:43, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea what this is, but I do know it does not belong here. Delete. Edeans 05:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jeenz

It appears to be a vanity page. --Neigel von Teighen 18:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't make out whether this lot have actually released a song. If they have not, Delete. Uncle G 18:47, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough, band vanity. Megan1967 01:47, 31 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Battlestar Wiki

Not notable. 7 hits from Google, not in Alexa top 100,000. Rhobite 18:18, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ Keep, expand. Megan1967 01:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable -- the statistics page gives 15 users, 228 content pages, 2,320 edits, and 18,000 pageviews in the past two and a half months. My best estimate is that Wikipedia gets that many pageviews every second, that many edits every hour, and that many new pages every five hours. --Carnildo 03:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Correction: It takes Wikipedia about 20 seconds to get that many pageviews. --Carnildo 07:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable Cdc 04:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. You can't expand it, it's not notable. Wikipedia isn't a webguide, so there's no point having an article on it. Link as an external link from the article describing the TV series if you think it's useful, but notable it isn't. Average Earthman 13:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Edeans 05:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 07:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Benutzer:Fasten/interview part2

I can't even work out what this is. Whatever it is, it certainly isn't encyclopedic. It appears to be a verbatim copy from this German wikipedia page. Smoddy | ειπετε 18:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It appears to be part 2 of an interview with someone who has something to do with Buddism. With the complete lack context (presumably some context is in part 1, wherever that may be) it doesn't make any sense. Delete. Thryduulf 21:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
From the name alone, it looks like an accidental post of a user page to the wrong language. Userfy to Benutzer:Fasten. Uncle G 22:38, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
German Wikipedia userspace page which already exists at Benutzer:Fasten. Doesn't this qualify as a speedy delete? Martg76 04:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. (The interviewee appears to be God, interestingly enough.) Eric119 04:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete- Skysmith 10:07, 31 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 -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It has been redirect to Packet switching -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Datapackets

Um, ok. This article is entirely by User:Agquarx whom has less than 50 edits and most on this article. I can't make sense of the article at all and I have no idea what Agquarx was going for: complete nonsense. I am posting this to VFD instead of speedy delete in case there's something I'm missing.....yeah.... Cburnett 19:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Excellent surrealist nonsense! --Neigel von Teighen 19:12, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. E.S.N. (that I am not willing to read). Author may want a copy for a talk page but doesn't belong in article space. RJFJR 19:34, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Complete gibberish with every word a wiki-link, from the people that brought you Ego surfing (already itself up for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ego surfing) and Datastream (roll the history back to the original), random wikification of ordinary words in various articles, and flamebait additions to Poland. I'd go for CSD criterion #3 and a vandalism watch on any further contributions, myself. Uncle G 19:59, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete, without a doubt. Josh Cherry 20:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Curps 21:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What in the name of....? Delete, preferably speedily as nonsense. -R. fiend 21:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Sounds like original nonsense. --Carnildo 03:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Surrelistic nonsense w/ computing undertones. possible redirect to datapacket. delete. humblefool ® 05:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Bizarre. Is medication involved somewhere? Average Earthman 13:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Timecube anyone? -- JimmyShelter 14:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I haven't been this disoriented since Last Year at Marienbad. Lacrimosus 20:29, 31 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 -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Circumvent

Dictionary def. Text is: Circumvent is the process of reverse engineering or decompiling copyrighted work or any work that has the intention of getting around control measures put in place. RJFJR 19:14, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Dict def, and a bad one at that. Josh Cherry 19:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Argh, you'd think people could at least get it right when they put in dicdefs. JRM 20:17, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Update. This absurdity seems to have been spawned from Analog hole. We have copy prevention, which the article links to. It should not have linked to circumvent. I've removed the link. JRM 20:25, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Update to the update. We have circumvention, which is eerily similar (and it links to anti-circumvention... My head hurts!) I've taken the liberty of redirecting circumvention to copy prevention; there may be something to say for separating these articles, but their current state doesn't warrant it. JRM 20:30, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete. --Neigel von Teighen 20:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If it was a real dicdef then it would be a move to wiktionary, but it's someone's anti-copyright slang that is not in general use. Dbiv 20:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is an example of circumvention, nothing more. Courtland 2005-01-31
Delete. Dict def --*drew 03:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Circumvention, otherwise delete. Megan1967 05:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
DeleteLectonar 13:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, utterly incorrect. ral315 21:48, Feb 4, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Uttarkashi

Spam and propaganda --Neigel von Teighen 19:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete: agreeing with Neigel; does not mean that an article on topic should not exist, but this is inappropriate. Courtland 2005-01-30
Delete. Josh Cherry 19:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Seems to be copyvio: http://gov.ua.nic.in/newnic/_en/uttarkashi/homepage.htm . Kappa 20:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV advertisement, un-encyclopaedic, copyright violation. Megan1967 01:51, 31 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pat Garrity

Original research, no potential to be encyclopedic, etc. I followed the link from List of current NBA players and found this patent nonsense that has nothing to do with Pat Garrity the basketball player. 151.205.113.200 19:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Nonsense that should be CSD'ed. --Neigel von Teighen 20:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. He is NBA player for the Orlando Magic. After deleting the nonsense, there isn't much left besides a sub-stub. I personally think red links are better than sub-stubs, and so I would delete it in its present state. But there is ample precedent for there being an article on this athlete, provided it is real. If someone expands the article in a reasonable way during the VfD vote, and I don't get back to change my vote, please disregard it. --BM 22:12, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, current article is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)'
Keep now that it's been fixed. I was the original user who posted the VfD request, someone took the liberty of taking out all the nonsense and replacing it with a substub. It's fine, now. 151.205.109.144 03:55, 31 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tennessee RiverHawks

Asside from the insults at the end, this completely fails to establish notability. Thryduulf 20:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Speedy deletion?? --Neigel von Teighen 20:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Speedy deletion!! --R. fiend 21:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If you've nothing better to do with your time than tell readers of an encyclopedia that they have no life, you might want to stop and re-think what you're doing with your own. — Ливай | ☺ 22:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Stripped of the insults, only a sub-stub is left. Delete to recolour the link at National Indoor Football League red once again. Uncle G 22:47, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough, POV un-eneyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:54, 31 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Horse

It's fancruft. We don't need an entry for every single throwaway character on Ren and Stimpy. No sir, I don't like it. DS 20:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --Neigel von Teighen 20:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nor do I. Delete (though a potential merge into Ren and Stimpy or something wouldn't be awful). -R. fiend 21:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Cdc 22:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm too lazy to look, but if there isn't already a "recurring characters" chapter of the main Ren and Stimpy article, then this could be merged with that (along with the inevitable articles on Powdered Toast Man etc.) 23skidoo 23:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough, minor fictious character. Megan1967 01:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Ren and Stimpy. Mr. Horse is already listed there. RedWolf 04:13, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge somewhere. Everyking 04:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We have the name, the series, the catchphrase. This is already listed on the Ren and Stimpy article. Therefore anything worth merging is already there, so just delete. Average Earthman 14:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Ren and Stimpy, unless there is a more notable Mr. Horse around. Kappa 23:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I can't imagine anyone looking for "Mr. Horse" before looking for "Ren and Stimpy." - Lucky 6.9 02:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep We have entries on nearly every South Park character, after all.Zantastik 07:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Why not expand it a bit, then? Seriously. As I recall, Mr. Horse was in the very first R&S as the consumer Stimpy asked to try out Gritty Kitty cat litter. He was in the "fire dogs" episode and got to use the catch phrase after falling from the burning building and breaking both hind legs. Oh, and don't forget "Rubber Nipples!" Call the poleeeeeesse... - Lucky 6.9 21:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete 3 / Keep 3: No consensus. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lorna Nogueira

Actress whose total credits are an unmade film and a straight to video release. Not notable. -R. fiend 20:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. R. fiend says it all really. Can we have an average actors rule to go along with the average professor rule? Average Earthman 14:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
KEEP... Why do I feel I'm not loved here? Plank 00:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Xezbeth 10:34, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Edeans 06:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Let's err on the side of being a comprehensive resource.Zantastik 07:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Let's err on the side of being an encyclopedia. -R. fiend 00:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep but with reservations. Needs definite expansion if its stays. Megan1967 05:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment I've made a tentative start to expanding this article. Megan1967 04:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Right now the article has her as an actress in a Damon Albarn album. -R. fiend 01:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete 3 / Keep 2: No consensus. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Update: The nominator was not counted as a delete, but should have been. That makes the vote 4-2. I'll go delete Robin Gabrielli now. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Robin Gabrielli

The contents of the deletion debate have been removed as they relate to a living person. A record of the deletion debate can be found in the deletion history.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 3 / Keep 3: No consensus. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Diane Mela

The contents of the deletion debate have been removed as they relate to a living person. A record of the deletion debate can be found in the deletion history.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Steve Mullahoo

Another non-notable actor. -R. fiend 21:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Same boat as above. Average Earthman 14:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Xezbeth 10:33, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not IMDB, not AE dir, etc. Edeans 06:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete 4 / Keep 2: Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John Shanahan

And another non-notable actor. -R. fiend 21:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't even have an IMDB article! Now, being listed on IMDB isn't a sign of note, but not being listed is a sign of complete obscurity even in the world of straight to video bargain bucket B-movies. Average Earthman 14:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
KEEP... I'm beginning to feel that you like reading yourself... Wow, the fiend hasn't put up John H. Tobin? Will wonders never cease! Plank 00:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestion. -R. fiend 02:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Xezbeth 10:32, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn, etc. Ummm, I'm sensing a pattern here. Edeans 06:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Let's include these things.Zantastik 07:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Are you really claiming that anything and everything that is factual should be in Wikipedia? Do you know Anthony di Pierro? RickK 07:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment: Don't say that, Rick, you'll summon him. — Gwalla | Talk 00:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- LOL! Delete for lack of content if not out-and-out questionable notability. Thanks for the laugh, fellas. - Lucky 6.9 01:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete 5 / Keep 3: No consensus. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Update: The nominator was not counted as a delete, but should have been. That makes the vote 6-3. I'll go delete Stacy Armstrong now. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stacy Armstrong

And yet another non-notable actress. -R. fiend 21:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. What the hell is an EARP award anyway? I can't find anything on google for it. Winning an obscure award doesn't make someone notable. Average Earthman 14:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:06, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this and the above ones. This is the first person i've seen who has a blank imdb page. I can't believe that some of these 'actors' have had articles for months. Xezbeth 18:27, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
keep Vagrant
Delete, yada, yada, yada. Edeans 06:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Let's err on the side of being a comprehensive resource.Zantastik 07:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable. Comprehensive doesn't mean that we have to include every actress or actor. This article doesn't even say whether she was a star in any of these productions. --Woohookitty 07:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is an Encyclopedia, not "all things that have ever existed". Rick K 07:59, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but with reservations. Article needs definite expansion. Megan1967 05:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Can it be expanded without going into vanity? Average Earthman 10:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mario Norihusband

Non-notable; hoax? -- Curps 21:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. Complete hoax. Has already spread to one wikimirror; kill it now before it metastasizes further. DELETE. DS 00:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 01:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's hoaxirific! Edeans 06:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Power Rangers Toons

Apparent hoax. No such show title in IMDB; IMDB [13] says "Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers" lasted from 1993–1996. -- Curps 21:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, see also this vandalism by the anon who created this page. Perhaps this page should just be speedied. -- Curps 21:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No Google hits at all for "Power Rangers Toons" or "Divatoxine", and Power Rangers being the popular fad they are this probably means the show didn't exist. Why somebody would make up something so detailed and believable escapes me but unless verified this should be deleted. It cannot be speedied since it does not fall under any of the criteria, even if it was written by a vandal. — Ливай | ☺ 22:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hoaxed reference to Power Rangers Turbo. Delete or Speedy as pure vandalism. Gazpacho
I had reverted their change in Power Rangers and put the page in question on speedy. How did it resurface? kelvSYC 03:15, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Order Of Imitation of Christ

~~Non-notable. Can't find any information on Google.~~ foobaz·✐ 22:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

After reading up+land's information, i change to strong keep myself. Sorry for not doing more careful research before listing on VfD. foobaz·✐ 00:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clean up and merge with Indian Orthodox Church [14]. – Beginning 00:41, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough, article looks like a church promo/advert. Megan1967 02:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. No reason to doubt that the article is anything other than factual. Merely needs cleanup. Google is not thy god.--Centauri 05:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Very strong keep. No merge. Just needs some wikification and general cleanup. Homepage of the order. There is actually a lengthy biography in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (which can be regarded as a neutral and scholarly secondary source) on archbishop Mar Ivanios, the founder both of the order and of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church. / up+land 20:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup, wikify, after reviewing info linked by Uppland. Indicates 1919 foundation of order, and suggests some notability. Thanks to T. for verification. Barno 14:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vijay vikram

Vanity. Allissonn 22:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Probably vanity, since is the only edit by this user. JoaoRicardo 23:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've moved the content to the userpage. Now Delete. utcursch 10:25, Jan 31, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Microstub

Delete. There is no need to differentiate between substubs and microstubs - this page is merely feature-creep cruft generated by an IP that only serves confuse and obfusticate wikipedia's namespace. Lommer | ^talk 22:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I perceive this to be a vanity article written for the enjoyment of the contributor. Neologism, not in real Wikipedian use. No need for such a definition. (We don't need definitions of nanostubs, picostubs, attostubs, zeppostubs, harpostubs, gummostubs, or grouchostubs, either). (And I do not look forward to impassioned pleas urging that microstubs be left alone to grow into substubs). Since the article itself acknowledges that "Not too many Wikipedia users would create articles in the form of a microstub," there is no reason to create nomenclature to describe them. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Very well put. Andrewa 01:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No such concept in Wikipedia. jni 08:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Substub is good enough to cover very small (e.g. oneline) articles. - Mailer Diablo 12:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-needed definition -- JimmyShelter 14:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and delete - David Gerard 16:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Micro-Delete ral315 21:51, Feb 4, 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. Votes were: 7 deletes, 1 speedy delete, 1 delete move to bad jokes. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The punx

Entire content is "A hardcoe/punk/ska/inde band form in 2003 yet they have not sighnd on any label the lead singer/ bassist john sing anti-war anti-racist, and peacful lyrics the biggest infulencer where anti-flag and the caualties i would knoe i'm john rhe lead singer". "The punx" is understandably hard to google-test, but... Samaritan 22:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete Vanity. --LeeHunter 23:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. JoaoRicardo 23:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. "i would knoe i'm john rhe lead singer" is pretty classic, though. – Beginning 00:34, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough, band vanity. Megan1967 02:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Most punks really are more intelligent than this. This sub-literate tripe gives them a bad name. And I totaly agree with User:Beginning above. Pretty classic. -R. fiend 02:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedily delete. Okay, maybe it doesn't fall under the speedy guidelines, but come on. There's clearly *no way* this could pass vfd. LizardWizard 08:31, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete The punx is teh rox! JimmyShelter 14:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. --Mgsuzano 23:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - David Gerard 16:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete and move to bad jokes ral315 21:52, Feb 4, 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 11 / Merge 2 / Keep 2: Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seating Plan of British House of Commons

This is just nonsense. It isn't a seating plan, it doesn't reflect the real seating plan. It's misleading original research. Dbiv 22:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to piss anyone off I simply thought that the seating of parliament (or the closest thing to it,as there is no official plan) should be there to give readers a visual aid in order to see the layout of the national lowerhouse of the United Kingdom. It was never intented to mislead people! 216.249.6.205
Someone has gone to some trouble to produce a diagram that has no key to what the little coloured blobs represent, is entirely speculative, will date relatively rapidly, and indicates the presence of cross-benches (which the Lords has but the Commons does not). Leave these sorts of hypotheticals to Peter Snow, who does them a lot better and more entertainingly. Delete. Uncle G 23:18, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Uncle G. JoaoRicardo 23:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I think a seating plan for the British House of Commons is worthy of a Wikipedia article, but not something with no context or grounds for interpretation. Even someone familiar with British politics would have trouble making sense of this image. 23skidoo 23:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
please note that the Canadian House of Commons seating before the last election was not a true representation of what the house did look like. The Provincial legislatures did not always have the correct seating plan. I would ask that rather than deleting this page, please try to find something slighty more accurate and can reflect the splits in benches, ect. 216.249.6.205
Weak keep. This does have a use–it's an interesting graphical representation of the comparative party strengths in the House of Commons. Similar graphs are often produced in the United States. Change a bit to reflect said purpose (and wikify) and we've got something here. Mackensen (talk) 02:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The graphs of the US Congress are because, AFAIK, seating is by party affiliation. --Carnildo 02:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Extremely weak keep, needs decompressing to bring it within the 32kb size bracket and wikification but it is an encyclopedic subject. Change of vote to delete: there is no set seating plan for the commons outside what side the government or opposition sit and the difference between front and back bench, and this is already pointed out elsewhere in the encyclopedia. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 15:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge the graphics to the main article and delete. There is no seating plan, but as Mackensen said, it's an interesting graphical representation of the comparative party strengths in the House of Commons. 03:25, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
If it is in any way accurate, merge into MPs elected in the UK general election, 2001. Martg76 04:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it's a valid topic as best I can figure. Everyking 04:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete - its a valid topic, but it is based on speculation as far as I can tell. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 04:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I had originally created the table for use on the British House of Commons paged but it was opted to be removed as that page was already very large. I recreated it in a wikified table of a much smaller size but, as you can see on the talk page there semed to be no interest for it. 216.249.6.205 added it to the page now being discussed for deletion and just brought this to my attention over on my talk page and asked that I comment. He points out on my talk page that he has recreated the article discussed here at Party Comparison of British House of Commons and I have edited that article and replaced it with the wikified (and much smaller byte-wise) version. I agree that this is a misnomer if it is passed off as a seating plan but is a useful tool in visualizing the strength of the labour majority and that of the other parties. I does not suggest that there is a crossbench but points out that it is impossible for all members to sit on the benches should they all be present in the chamber and that they would have to rush between the benches towards the table. I agree that this page should be deleted but say we keep it over at Party Comparison of British House of Commons. - Jord 05:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep Interesting Philip 10:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete - duplicates Party Comparison of British House of Commons as stated above. -- RHaworth 12:44, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
Delete. Duplicates with Party Comparison of British House of Commons. Since the House of Commons is essentially free seating (for the backbenches anyway), not strictly speaking accurate, unlike say the New Zealand parliament or the Hong Kong legislative council, both of which have fixed seats for each member. --JuntungWu 14:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Good. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:03, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
The page's name is a misnomer. Hopelessly misleading, right down to the fact that not every MP can fit in the chamber at once. The informative benefit from a visualisation of this is outweighed by the misleading connotations it carries. Delete. Lacrimosus 20:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Diagram resembles periodic table / Carl Sagan interstellar message on Pioneer 11, neither of which have anything to do with British politics, sadly. To quote the title of an email I have just received from a complete stranger, 'fist action'. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Indecision. How accurate is this factually? As others have said, there is no seating plan per se in the UK House of Commons. There is, as far as I am aware, a government side (to the house) and a non-government side. Likewise, the figures of actual seats: are these correct? I'm not sure - and it's not overly easy to find out. These figures change often too: deaths and by-elections and so on. ON THE OTHER HAND, I like the idea of a graphical representation of the Political strengths in the House. Could be useful to an amateur Peter Snow.. --Marcus22 14:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It's not very accurate at all. See what Francs2000 and Juntung wrote earlier, and British_House_of_Commons#Procedure. On General Election nights, the U.K. television news services draw these kinds of diagrams, but they are merely representational, being pretty much glorified pie charts, rather than actual accurate plans. The news services, too, have the problem of what to do when the number of government or opposition members exceeds the capacity of that side of the chamber. As I recall, on the night of the Labour landslide victory some years ago, the real Peter Snow solved this by extending the government benches through the wall underneath Strangers Gallery. These diagrams are not "seating plans" at all. Uncle G 16:18, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 23:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 6 delete, 10 keep.

2-in-1 Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt

Not really necessary. It's really two games in one, and I feel that it should be deleted or something else. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I'd forgotten about that actually... ahh, my mis-spent youth. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:59, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. All of this information (the little there is) is already included in Nintendo Entertainment System. The cartridge itself never had an official name, let alone this one, so a redirect is pointless. And I would question something being considered "best selling" if it was never individually sold. Does that make baseball card pack bubblegum the best selling gum? --Plutor 17:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Plutor. Delete. DS 17:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This isn't even a game. It's just a packaging together of two different games. If either is notable, it should have a separate article. But what is the point of an article about the bundle? Are we going to have new article whenever a game company comes out with some bundle of old games. --BM 18:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. --Matteh (talk) 19:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. In this case, this particular packaged game bundle was extremely noteworthy and did much for the sales of the console (and vice-versa). GRider\^talk 19:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The individual games might be encyclopedic. The marketing choice to sell them together is not. Rossami (talk) 04:10, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. This isn't just the usual 2-in-1 package game-- it's of historical importance. --TheCoffee 05:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, agree with GRider. This is not "some bundle of old games" that was put out recently, but rather something that was sold in the 80s when the NES was popular. Although the vast majority of game compilations would not be notable, this one is. Dave6 06:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Expand Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)
Keep. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-3 04:04 Z
Keep--Xadai 02:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with above "Keep" opinions. EVERYBODY had this cartridge. TomTheHand 06:41, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it's NOT of historical importance. ral315 21:55, Feb 4, 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 23:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 3 delete, 1 merge, 6 keep.

List of Peruvian steam frigates

This article doesn't make any sense to me. Does it to you? — Daniel FR 23:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep. See Frigate#Lists of Frigates. Though admittedly this particular page isn't very edifying. dbenbenn | talk 00:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
~~Weak~~ Delete, not a very useful or practical list, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep and send to User:SpookyMulder for cleanup. It's part of the Frigate#Lists of Frigates set. --Carnildo 02:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Encyclopedic, and perfectly useful and practical to those interested in Peruvian steam frigates.--Centauri 12:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about the above. This article has significant value and should (IMHO) be kept, but to say that its main value is to "those interested in Peruvian steam frigates" misses the point entirely and thus seems rather glib and machanical. --RoySmith 15:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've notice a lot of people who regularly vote to have articles deleted do so because "it's not notable enough for me", forget that their personal opinion is not a sufficiently objective benchmark by which to judge subjects with which they are usually largely unfamiliar; such articles are almost always "notable enough" for other people - otherwise they wouldn't exist in the first place. Encyclopedias can and should be full of all manner of so-called "obscure" data. That is their primary value as a research tool. --Centauri 22:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- No it's not. An encyclopaedia is meant to be useful. Wikipedia is also not a general database, so including every "obscure data" is not policy. See what Wikipedia is not. Megan1967 02:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Let's assume that there is some information which is worth keeping (call it "obscure") and some which is not (call it "trivia"). The question then, I think, comes down to where is the dividing line between trivia and obscure data. Can it be anything other than a judgment call, i.e. opinion? Or is your claim that such a dividing line doesn't exist; that there is no information which is so trivial as to not be worth including? --RoySmith 23:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Got it in one. One person's "trivia" is another person's "priceless data". Articles about famous scientists, dead European monarchs and 2000 year-old religious controversies are not inherently "better" than articles about high schools, railway stations or Congolese paddle steamers merely because the latter subjects might be considered mundane by most people. --Centauri 02:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think we will need to agree to disagree on that, but I do appreciate your taking the time to explain your philosophy. --RoySmith 12:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Cleanup. The article (and the whole series) needs some major cleanup, and standing on its own it's kind of pointless, but in context it's interesting and notable. At the very least, the leaf articles (such as this one) need pointers (catagory links?) back to Frigate. --RoySmith 13:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge if it isn't going to be expanded. If there's only two on the list, it may well be too granular to be an article on its own, but is info that should be kept somewhere (List of steam frigates? List of South American steam frigates?). Average Earthman 14:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If this was the only article in the series, I'd agree with you. On the other hand, some of the lists (for example, List of sailing frigates of the United States Navy or List of British sail frigates) are certainly long enough to deserve their own articles. I think consistancy of presentation argues for leaving the shorter ones as they are. It might be worthwhile reviewing the names of the individual articles in the series to make them a bit more uniform (i.e. "sailing frigates" vs. "sail frigates"). --RoySmith 15:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep, obviously. VfD is not a cleanup tool. GRider\^talk 19:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hold on a sec! As i mentioned above, this article didn't make any sense to me. And it still doesn't. May anyone of you wanna-keepers explain to me, what the words (are these the names of the frigates? the streams they cruise on?) and the numbers (serial ship numbers by the shipping companies? number of crew members? length in manheights? width in feet?) in the list mean? My point wasn't that i question the significance of Peruvian steam frigates as such, but that this Article doesn't make any – literally: nil – sense to me. — Daniel FR 20:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the numbers are meant to be how many guns the ship carried, but I only know that (assuming, of course, that it's correct) because I know something about the subject. Clearly, there's a lot of work needed to cleanup the whole series so things like this are obvious to people without previous knowledge --RoySmith 22:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I happen to enjoy ephemeral subjects and I've written about them here. Normally, I'd vote to delete something like this based on lack of content, but I'm going to vote keep since there are a couple of good users willing to step up and make something useful out of this. Good luck, fellas! - Lucky 6.9 22:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Whaaaa? Is this a joke? Delete. Edeans 06:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not at all useful. An article on Peruvian steam frigates would be good, but this isn't one. TomTheHand 06:42, Feb 4, 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.