Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 7

March 7

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was RESULT. DELETE Rich Farmbrough 02:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NoPoint.org

Un-notable website, no Alexa rank, advertising--nixie 00:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete probable spam. Their blog put up a "We're in the encyclopedia" entry within moments of the WP article being created. Previous entry before that was in January. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:50, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Who would spam a website that you couldn't profit from? Serves as an easy to manage/update FAQ for the site. Keep it! Kaneda
  • Wikipedia isn't here to advertise your site. User:Kaneda's only edits are to the article up for deletion.--nixie 00:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not an advertisement...it's a reference. I highly doubt any random user would go onto wikipedia.org and type in NoPoint.org in the search box. You advertised the website when you put this page up for deletion, now people who never knew that the site existed, and would have never known the site existed are discovering it. The only reason this article is the only one I've editied is because I just signed up for a username on Wikipedia, I planned on editing other articles besides this one. Kaneda
  • There's no reason for Wikipedia to manage, store, serve, and maintain the FAQ for your web site. A site described as a "news blog and messageboard" ought to be able to find someplace to store their own FAQ. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• KeepI think this should stay on, these guys are awesome.
  • This vote by User:149.152.23.25
    • ...which apparently Barab's address: see this edit. —Korath (Talk) 05:46, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • We all have same IP's here at university 149.152.23.25 05:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sites on Wikipedia should already be notable when they are listed on WP. When sites are listed for the sole purpose of trying to gain notability through WP, that is advertising. --Tubutler 02:06, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • To clear up any confusion; the sole purpose of the WP page is to serve as a reference to users/new users of the site; not to gain notability through WP. Again, the only people who will read this article on WP are people who have been to the site. Kaneda
  • What about the AYAZN? Barab
    • Oh, they repost pictures from Maxim Online! Clearly that makes them notable. (Note for sarcasm-impaired: no it doesn't.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable.-gadfium 02:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Possible spam? Hogwash! Merriam-Webster defines spam as "unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses". This article spam? I think not! I think any attempt to find a commerical connection here will be ultimately futile. Keep im mind, this article is a major work-in-progress. The final product will no doubt be a major contribution to academia. Concentrate your efforts on why a search for "pig roast" links to "group sex". - Barab
  • Wikipedia defines spam as "advertisements masquerading as article". Delete. JeremyA 02:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia also admits (from the FAQ) that information from this site "is of course possible for biased, out of date or incorrect". Ergo WP's definition of spam may be innacurate. Barab
  • See above statement. Kaneda
• KEEP!! keep this page it rocks
  • The above from User:69.165.81.222. It is his only edit. —Korath (Talk) 05:42, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promotion. And delete the images, too. —Korath (Talk) 03:15, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as self-promotion/vanity/non-notable. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wow, so many reasons to choose from: vanity, non-encyclopedic, self-promotion, sockpuppet-supported. Android79 03:55, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• If so many people like it, why delete it? And could somebody define "non-encyclopedic" for me? It sounds like a pretty subjective parameter. And by the way, it's not self-promoting since everyone else is promoting it through this topic...Kaneda
  • Subjective? Sure, but we have guidelines. Also, "It's not self-promotion because you guys are promoting it, too" is pretty illogical... Android79 04:38, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I meant in the sense that a random user would never have stumbled upon the entry for the site on WP - and that people are finding out about the website now because it was put up for deletion - which was never the intention. Kaneda 04:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The "no user would ever have thought to look for it in an encyclopedia" argument has been tried before. It's not exactly a good argument for keeping the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you'll find that the number of users who frequent VfD discussions is pretty small. Sure, I found out about it, but I'm never visiting again. Android79 05:11, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • There are alot more than I expected...I wasn't aware that this was such a huge past time. I can't believe all these years I spent wasting my life when I could've been doing this! Why didn't someone tell me?? Kaneda 05:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As the wise Mr Spock once said "Emotions are alien to me. I'm a scientist." 149.152.23.25 05:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is quite simply not notable. Is it a fun website for the bunch of friends that it serves? I'm sure it is. But it's not encyclopedic -- meaning that if "the people who like it like it!" was enough to qualify a website then there'd be almost no site that didn't. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "It is undignified for a woman to play servant to a man who is not hers."
  • You may think it isn't notable now Antaeus, but sometime in the future it could be. Besides that, how does it affect you if it's up or not? The page will have plenty of content in the weeks to come if it stays up, and will be very informative. C'mon, let's keep it up! Kaneda 05:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • 'Uhh... Kaneda, I'd like to point out that.... Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This means that if it's not notable now, then it must be deleted now. When it's notable, THEN it can go in and stay in. Wakuseino 07:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, self-promotion. -- Cleduc 05:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "It is more rational to sacrifice one life than six."
• Delete this vanity article. Rhobite 05:35, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Instruments register only through things they're designed to register. Space still contains infinite unknowns."
• Delete, there is NoPoint in this article staying. Not notable, obvious promo. Megan1967 05:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "On my planet, to rest is to rest -- to cease using energy. To me, it is quite illogical to run up and down on green grass, using energy, instead of saving it."
• Strong delete. There was a time... when I considered sparing this article... But all this flaming repulses me. Get it away from me. Ugh. — JIP | Talk 11:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity, and please get 149.152.23.25 from vandalizing this VfD discussion. Radiant! 11:12, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for advertising. Do you think that you will get more keep votes if you troll here? Jeltz talk 11:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable (even the creators of the article appear to be claiming no-one would search for it), and quoting an actor wearing plastic ears isn't going to convince me either. A website without and wider influence, current or historical, isn't encyclopedic. Average Earthman 12:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I take offense at that. He's not quoting Leonard Nimoy, he's quoting Spock. To us Trekkies (or is it Trekkers nowadays), Spock is much more than a pair of plastic ears. But I still vote delete. — JIP | Talk 17:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. You people have no right judge the social and cultural implications of NoPoint.org based on your narrow viewpoint. For example, I do not study astrophysics, yet I do not go and mark the astrophysics page for deletion because the subject is not of immediate importance or interest to me. I understand and respect the fact that there is a community that astrophysics is important to, so I believe they are entitled to a page. Although it may not be apparent to you people sitting in front of your monitors, there is a community that appreciates the existance of a NoPoint.org wiki entry, albiet smaller than the astrophsyics community, yet no less important. Who are you to judge?
  • Note: The above vote is by anon IP 68.109.118.145, whose first and only contribution is to this VfD. Not that that should really surprise anyone, of course. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:33, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The website isn't notable enough to have an article in an encyclopedia. -Hapsiainen 17:37, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• keep Does not the bible say "Judge not, lest ye be judged?" 149.152.17.20 17:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This is the first and only edit from the anon's IP. I have created several articles to Wikipedia. You can put any of them to VfD, if you like. I'm sure that they will survive. -Hapsiainen 18:15, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• keep Just stumbled upon this entry as I was browsing through the VFDs...sure, some people may not think it's worth of an entry into WP, but these guys seem passionate about their site. I say we let them keep the entry. 128.59.149.140 20:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) 128.59.149.140's only edits are to this VfD and blanking User:Kaneda.
• STRONG Delete. These self-important twits seem to think Wikipedia is a free web-hosting service. Their site isn't remotely notable, nor is it likely to become so in the future. I suggest we keep a close eye on User:Kaneda and his team of sock-puppets. They'll probably try to recreate this page after it's been deleted. Binadot 23:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, I strongly recommend that we ban User:Kaneda and his associated tentacles. He's being incredibly obnoxious, changing people's votes, altering their comments, etc. Binadot 04:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and consider enforcement action against the sockpuppets. Chris 23:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: if you are a first-time editor, are affiliated with the nopoint.org website and are planning to vote: wait, and read User:Gamaliel's and my comments near the bottom of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Khakain first. Thank you.--Plek 23:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, articles have to be encyclopedic to be included in an encyclopedia. Why don't the sockpuppets realize that their efforts are futile? DaveTheRed 00:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• yuo goons Barab 03:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Why do you guys care so much though? Can someone tell me how this page being on WP affects their daily life? Kaneda 03:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That's a perfectly fair question. There are two major reasons: (PRECEDENT) In a way, every VfD is a precedent. Nopoint.org has absolutely no Alexa rank at all (proof here: http://www.alexa.com/data/details?url=nopoint.org ) and next-to-no Google presence. If we were to keep this article just to be nice, then literally any website could argue that they deserve an article too, on the basis that Nopoint.org was kept. (REPUTATION) Wikipedia is, above all, an encyclopedia: a tool for people doing research. While articles like this are not personally offensive to us, a reader who finds Wikipedia to be clogged with unimportant, nonsensical, silly, trivial, and useless information is less likely to take wikipedia seriously as an information source. This is detrimental to Wikipedia as a whole and all the editors who work hard to make it a useful information source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok, I see your point. And thank you for a decent, reasonable explanation. The precedent case makes sense to me, as all the other website articles you guys shut down would want to be brought back up if you kept this one up. But can we make an exception? Ok, haha, probably not. I have to admit though, I was shocked by how passionate people are about shutting this page down. And although I do see your point about how people might not see WP as a serious information source...I'm not really sure how many people would consider WP as one. I use WP just as a hobby, but I would never use WP as a 'serious' source if I was going to write a paper, or even a short article. I can't imagine citing an open source encylcopedia ever as reference...the only thing it would be good for is perhaps references itself to other materials. Just my two cents. And also, I'd suggest some people who browse the VFDs so often read up on these: hobby and recreation. Kaneda 22:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • We are doing our part to improve Wikipedia. One of the ways we do that is by removing articles that do not belong here. DaveTheRed 07:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, blatently advertising his own site on wikipedia. Remove immediately. mcbarron
  • This vote was cast by User:68.79.57.94. -Hapsiainen 17:14, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not even my site son! Kaneda 05:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, insufficiently notable. Jonathunder 04:55, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• Delete -- Curps 05:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A reputable administrator will ignore the delete votes being made by vandals.
  • This voter from IP 82.46.103.4 is definitely a vandal, becase he changed the heading to link to Slashdot.org. ([1]) -Hapsiainen 17:14, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Recycling Troll 22:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kenneth_Alan
  • The above comment by Frontiersman. Frontiersman (talk • contribs) has 5 edits.
    • And I entirely fail to see how an Arb ruling against Kenneth is relevant to the discussion on the encyclopedicity of this article. Radiant! 11:32, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Frontiersman's edits to Ken Firby and User:Kenneth Alan make the claim that they are the same person. This is almost certainly untruth of the highest order. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • They ARE the same person! I had no idea he was on WP, we haven't had any contact with Ken since High School. (~4 years) Back in the old days he used to post crazy ramblings on my site ALL the time! What a crazy coincidence that he'd pop up here! See and you guys thought he wasn't really infamous! He just started posting on my site again you can go check it out if you'd like. Small small world! Finding out what Ken's up to made the whole thing worthwhile!! Thanks Wikipedia!! Barab 16:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Barabad0s, that is the corniest shite I have seen in so long. What kind of drugs, please tell me. Also, it would help if they saw the elderly cached remains of your site. Dig up the old board's posts and maybe you'll have a case. I haven't seen them in a while and Ken's not only infamous here, but also on www.bolt.com, www.skadi.net and www.stormfront.org. Frontiersman 18:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Not notable. Advertising. Delete. Kosebamse 20:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that niether me nor Kaneda had any part of the recent vandalism to our page... Barab 21:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• That's good, because whoever did ought to be banned immediately. Android79 22:53, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Well i figured you guys would point your fingers at us Barab 23:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. -- Karada 23:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Q: Who would spam a website that you couldn't profit from? A: The same sort of people with the egos to make a pointless web site about themselves. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:21, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • • Wouldn't you call this a personal attack? 149.152.23.25 18:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I might, but I think the point was that the other attacks were unsigned. If they're clearly attributed to someone, then it's easy to tell who's making the attack. In other words, register and log in when you post if you want even your personal attacks to be taken seriously. Android79 18:18, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Further more, I'd call it an answer to the question. If your argument is going to be "Our motivation isn't commercial profit, so clearly our motivation was a good one, instead!" then you don't act surprised or as if you've been grievously wronged when people point out that other poor motivations beside the profit motive exist -- and highlight the evidence for those motivations. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Egos for having our own webpage? You have your own webpage, you f'ing hypocrite. [[2]] At least on ours we don't have the ego to post our "professional experiences." And by the way, learn some HTML. I made a webpage back when I was in 8th grade (nearly 10 years ago) that looked infinetly better than yours. It'd be a good hobby for you, since you're obviously not getting anywhere with your sketches. Unsigned personal attacks by 160.39.202.137 (talk • contribs), whose edits are all to the article or to this VfD.
    • I believe you missed the word "pointless" in the original argument. Chris 22:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • We use it to keep in touch with each other after moving away to college (columbia, northeastern, wpi, ccsu etc)
        • BAM! Alas the point of the webpage. I know it's kinda confusing, it being called nopoint.org and all...but don't let that trip you up. Kaneda 02:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • This is commendable, but it doesn't mean that the site merits an article. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment OH BAM! 149.152.23.25 05:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable Tjc 10:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Generally harmless, but still basically vanity. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, self promotion. Jonathunder 04:51, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• Delete and delete - David Gerard 11:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Others have said it all, a waste of bits. Fawcett5 02:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable; vanity. Wikipedia isn't here for free advertising. Dpark 02:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Halidecyphon 17:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable, vanity. Jasoncart 20:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - probable vanity page. Article text doesn't lead one to believe the subject is notable in any way. Psychonaut 01:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Quinn

Does being the leader of a neo-nazi group make you notable enough to be in wikipedia?--nixie 00:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: this article has been listed and deleted as a copyright violation. Duk 23:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Depends on the size of the group. Unfortunately (or fortunately, I suppose) the article doesn't include any external links, or Wikilinks, for that matter. Anyone who can stomach digging up information for this "November 9th Society" gets a cookie. Android79 03:59, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Well, his British neo-Nazi group (the November 9th Society) seems weakly notable, garnering 158 unique Google hits under that name. On the other hand, "Kevin Quinn" himself is a bit harder to find. Searching on that name reveals nothing about this particular Kevin Quinn in the first seventy or so hits (I gave up looking at that point.) The top Google hits are for an assistant professor at Harvard [3], an athlete [4], and a reporter [5]. A search of the BBC News site doesn't reveal any references to Quinn, either. Quite frankly, I don't think any of the available Kevin Quinns clear the notability bar. Delete. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable and copyvio. The biographical sketch is a direct copy-paste from the November 9th Society site here:[6]. It has now been reported as such. Quinn still doesn't appear to have any independent notability. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep, assuming November 9th Society is notable. You can't cover a party properly without covering its leaders. Kappa 21:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio takes precedence. Regardless, I would still be inclined to delete. Yes, we can properly cover a party without independent articles about their leaders. Verifiable information may always be included in the main article until and unless that article becomes too large. Rossami (talk) 19:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: as someone who follows the topic, I'd be reluctant to write an article about an individual neo-Nazi unless they have achieved some notability (e.g. being convicted). That's personal preference, though, not policy - David Gerard 10:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• No text there now just delete I wouldn't think there'd be much left anyway.TAS 16:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Rich Farmbrough 22:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:32, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Shawn Brenhouse

The name gets 20 google hits, none talk about the supposed hit or case. Not verifiable--nixie 01:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete even if every word of it is true, he wouldn't be notable. Somebody shot his truck. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:27, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only a vanity page, but an odd one at that. Android79 04:04, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete he is an irrelevancy.
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 10:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - underwhelming. Weird vanity. Fawcett5 02:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unexpandable. Ellsworth 19:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was move to IGCC and disambig. ugen64 21:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Igcc

Dicdef. Move to Wiktionary. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Wiktionary. Megan1967 06:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (actually, should redirect to Integrated gasification combined cycles or be a disambig page for the other things it can refer to ([7])—Remember, we delete because an article can't be more than a dictionary definition, not because it is. There's an encyclopedia article here; it isn't written yet but the technology is notable. Demi 19:16, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• If you do keep, note that the redirect/disambiguation page should be IGCC, not igcc, since the former is the abbreviation, not the latter. Uncle G 22:52, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• keep, dicdef of real thing, and second the above. Kappa 22:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but redirect to Integrated gasification combined cycle technology. Fawcett5 02:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED (recreated content). jni 19:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Steak and Blowjob Day

This is nowhere near a real holiday, like International Talk Like a Pirate Day. --Pharos 20:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. A Google search for "steak and bj day" gave 945 results, in a bunch of different areas. --Modemac 21:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: This page did not appear on the main VfD page as of 22:00 UTC on 6 March. Entry added to page. Chris 02:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, talk like a pirate day is a good measure of notability for memes, this one isn't notable enough--nixie 02:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I've read about this on many websites and know a few people particpating. What guy can deny this great idea? Barab

  Comment: Above vote by 149.152.23.25, though I suspect this is due to sign-in amnesia. User has 10 edits on account, one was creating the NoPoint.org article nominated below, and most of the rest are "keep" votes on said VfD. I have my opinion, but recuse from voting due to finding the "widowed" nomination. Chris 04:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  Comment. 149.152.23.25 (talk • contribs) committed some vandalism, and there are various circumstantial links between him and Barab (talk • contribs) based on their edit histories (a common interest in group sex, for instance [8] [9]). The above vote should not count unless Barab signs in as himself and takes credit for it. -- Curps 05:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is apparently a joke about Valentines Day started by a couple of DJs in Boston and spread through internet humor. All of these internet mentions are about what a great idea it is. I see no proof of actual existence.--Pharos 04:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It is in fact a joke by Boston-area DJs, who actually described it as "Steak And A You-Know-What Day" by one of the DJs doing his Peter Graves impression. All of which makes it funny but not encyclopedic. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic, trivial. Megan1967 05:44, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as reposting of previously deleted material. A title like that's hard to forget! - Lucky 6.9 05:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another bad joke with no place in Wikipedia. I'm taking this off March 14. -- PFHLai 06:52, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable although I can imagine some hopeful husband arguing that he read in an encyclopedia about the good things in store on March 14. Capitalistroadster 10:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Radiant! 11:13, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Steakandblowcruft. Rad Racer 12:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as Lucky 6.9 said. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted content at Steak and BJ day. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was RESULT. DELETE Rich Farmbrough 02:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Romance-Interstate standards analogies

• Idiosyncratic. Delete. Evercat 01:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Heh, heh. Idiosyncratic may be too polite. It is amusing though, but represents personal musings rather than verifiable information. Delete. older≠wiser 02:31, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN --SPUI (talk) 02:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Pfft, this could have been a speedy... Delete ugen64 02:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ... original research? - Vague | Rant 02:55, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Original research -- Cleduc 05:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original musings. Jonathunder 05:32, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Sietse 15:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• "Free love on the freelove freeway, the lovin's free and the road is long..." Delete. complete nonsensical crap. Too stupd for BJAODN. -R. fiend 17:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep although the quote above mine is funny with the exception with the delete vote. I think it is interesting to make analogies between love and the road; it is rather interesting. --GoofyGuy 23:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more speculation from User:SamuraiClinton. Rhobite 02:53, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense essay. — Gwalla | Talk 03:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Ha ha ha. Delete - David Gerard 10:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - patent nonsense. Fawcett5 02:18, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. some very "original" research Bonus Onus 19:53, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

David Reveman

Non-notable software developer--nixie 01:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Possible self-promotion. 939 Google hits is pretty small for a software developer. Android79 04:20, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. This and the software articles read like they were written by the creator, but the software is notable in a small way in the X area. Possible redirect to the software Author of live project on freedesktop.org, so someone cares about his work - David Gerard 11:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was RESULT. DELETE Rich Farmbrough 02:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hala

Nonsense page about a (probably) non-existant person JeremyA 02:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Nonsense is right. Delete. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Best deleted. I'm beginning to think Hala is a deliberate mis-spelling of "Haha". Quite a funny page, though. Ethereal 05:48, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Android79 04:16, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, nn. -- Cleduc 05:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, probable hoax. Megan1967 05:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 11:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• "...probable hoax..." - the article talks about pink and green ducks! delete Treborbassett 01:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - please...an obvious put on. Fawcett5 02:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was RESULT. DELETE Rich Farmbrough 02:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Michael Cassano

• No evidence of notability. Delete.-gadfium 02:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Near is not good enough, delete or userfy--nixie 06:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. rummey can add this entry if and when he is notable. Cnwb 06:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability supposedly being 'near' is not grounds for keeping. Website mentioned has no Alexa rank at all (see http://www.alexa.com/data/details?url=idcwebdev.com) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:00, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• After reading the guide to voting, my vote here would be (no, I am not the creator of this page, but he sits near me at work): Userfy.-rummey
• Delete - David Gerard 11:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was RESULT. DELETE Rich Farmbrough 02:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ken Firby

This guy isn't really infamous, at least then this article would be interesting. More spam from the nopoint.org crew--nixie 02:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Nopoint.org and its related nonsense is non-notable. --Tubutler 03:18, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia needs to get these monkeys off its back. Not notable. Megan1967 05:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. —Korath (Talk) 06:06, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Vanity. Cnwb 06:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doing stupid impressions at school isn't in any way notable. Average Earthman 12:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with the above. Article subject is best-known for pretending to be a monkey. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. -Hapsiainen 18:10, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn vanity. ComCat 04:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but give the monkey a banana. DaveTheRed 04:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, along with NoPoint.org and User:Kaneda. Binadot 22:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, along with NoPoint.org and User:Kaneda. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kenneth_Alan
  • The above comment by Frontiersman. Frontiersman (talk • contribs) has five edits.
    • And I entirely fail to see how an Arb ruling against Kenneth is relevant to the discussion on the encyclopedicity of this article. Radiant! 11:32, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • I too fail to see any way in which the two are connected. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more nopoint.org nonsense. Rhobite 18:16, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. -- Karada 23:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 11:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete So he pretends to be a monkey? Not good enough.Deathawk 23:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; non-notable. —Psychonaut 01:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was RESULT. DELETE Rich Farmbrough 02:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Marriage obsolescence

Marriage obsolescence is some event that may occur in the future. This reads like original research, the exact phrase gets zero google hits--nixie 02:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I concur, sounds like original research. may occur in the future ... Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Android79 04:14, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Annulment. Megan1967 05:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Original research, at the very least.--Pharos 06:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Eric119 16:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. This has nothing to do with annulment. Rossami (talk) 20:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, other articles on Wikipedia that speculate the future are kept (e.g. End of the world); it poses a similar concept like marriage obsolescence would. Wikipedia is already a crystal ball to a certain degree; also, I have seen episodes of Forensic Files on Court TV, they also pose as a precursor to marriage obsolescence. --GoofyGuy 19:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is active speculation, that is, original research; articles like End of the world are articles about belief systems that already exist, and have existed for some time. I'm not sure what you mean about the CourtTV show. Precedent exists for deletion of crystal-ball-like articles, like not-yet-released video games. Android79 19:46, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more speculation from User:SamuraiClinton (goofyguy above). This user has written many articles which are on VfD now. Rhobite 02:47, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 11:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original speculation. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Crackpot philosophy? Technically "original research" I guess. Fawcett5 02:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• With sources, this could make an article, but with no sources and no internet hits, i would have to say Delete. Bonus Onus 19:56, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:56, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Freeway entrance template (michigan)

No potential to become encyclopedic. I'm pretty much an apathetic inclusionist, but sometimes there are things that make me wonder WTF is this? Delete. older≠wiser 02:48, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with List of highways in Michigan or the like. --SPUI (talk) 02:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic, roadcruft. Megan1967 05:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete - David Gerard 11:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Random road sign verbage. Jonathunder 23:13, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• Delete - How could this be useful to anyone? Dpark 03:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I can see how it might be interesting to some hardcore road buffs, but not necessarily useful. (Delete, by the way.) /sɪzlæk˺/ 06:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:55, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Bologna ponies

Band vanity, no music released in any 'offline' formats--nixie 03:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• no evidence of notability presented; cutesiness like "pioneers of yadda-yadda of which they are the sole representative" tells me this is a band with nothing real to say about themselves. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. As the article mentions, "The Bologna Ponies are opposed to traditional methods of distrbution," and so on. They should not be punished for holding true to their aesthetic without yet having a comparable level of fame (outside of San Diego, where I live). -- Doubleplus 04:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) Note: user's only contributions thus far are to the article in question and this VfD discussion. Also note that user removed this comment. Android79 04:32, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC) I removed it because it's an ad hominem attack and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I had no need to create an account up to this point, so my previous "contributions" were not tracked. -- Doubleplus 04:50, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • If you feel it was an ad hominem, which it wasn't, then comment on it, rather than deleting it. I didn't mean to be rude, but is pertinent to this discussion. You may have contributed much more to WP than your user history shows, but this is unverifiable. Android79 05:05, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's ad hominem in that you're attacking the person (or the person's credentials) instead of his argument. The issue here is whether the band should be able to have an entry. Whether or not I've ever contributed to Wiki has nothing at all to do with the answer to this question. -- Doubleplus
    • Look, you're taking this entirely the wrong way. This sort of tagging of new or low-edit users is a common occurrence in VfD discussions. The idea is that, if a user has very few contributions to date, there's a good chance that the user may be arguing in bad faith or engaging in sockpuppetry. I was not implying that you were doing either of those things; I was just pointing something out that will be useful to both the discussion and to the administrators that make the final decision. There's nothing personal about it. Android79 16:38, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • I wasn't taking it personally; I was pointing out what I believed to be a logical fallacy. But thank you for making the effort to clarify what you were saying.
    • Who's saying that credentials are irrelevant? If you were overseeing a local election and a 14-year-old came in to vote, wouldn't you turn him away and say "Sorry, but you're below voting age"? If someone walked in and couldn't show evidence that he actually lived in the municipality whose next leaders he wanted to help choose, wouldn't you turn him away? One of the biggest myths of VfD is that, just for showing up, any random editor gets an equal vote -- even if they show no signs that they've been around long enough to understand Wikipedia's standards, or even any sign that they give a damn about Wikipedia's standards. If you don't think that's fair, then let us manage your band. It doesn't matter that we have no experience, aren't familiar with your music, and may in fact only want to sabotage you -- we showed up, and no other "credentials" should be relevant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • What do you mean by "your band"? I don't have a band. I've been following the Ponies for a couple of years now and I decided to post a stub for others in their sizable fan base to expand on. And using your own logic, you shouldn't be taking part in this decision anyway. You don't live in SD, and you don't follow free-form jazz/rock acts (as far as I know), so how can you say that this band isn't notable enough in either of those regards to merit an entry? The "sole representative" line that's being beaten about is just a conceit on my part and can easily be edited. -- Doubleplus 17:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Here's a hint for you: A Wikipedia article is not a right. The standard is not "The band gets an article unless someone shows they shouldn't", it's "The band doesn't get an article unless someone shows that they should." Claiming that I don't have the knowledge to dispute the evidence presented for their notability is moot until such evidence is presented. And if you don't want to play by those rules, then go elsewhere. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:44, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails to meet the notability and music guidelines. Android79 04:32, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, we (Bologna Ponies) use a creative commons license (non-commercial, no mixing, else copying ok) and naturally are not going to satisfy any of the traditional notions of notability. -- BologniumNitrate aka Chuck 21:19:20, Mar 6, 2005 (PDT) This is 168.253.132.237's only edit.
  • This is not my only edit, I simply do not feel the need to maintain a vanity account on wiki and make my edits as such. I think the real purpose to which user accounts appears to be turned is to establish a criteria for rejecting contributions, which is absurd, and potentially marginalizing. "He's not one of us, just delete him, folks. Move along." Wikipedia has real fears, I recognize that and have seen some of the abuses of wikipedia, but most of the real abuses don't revolve around one-time edits. In addition, you are basing your arguments on a position of ignorance claiming we don't deserve an entry because you've never heard of us. As I and Doubleplus have shown elsewhere, Bologna_ponies do have contacts, affiliations, and influences in the local music community. BologniumNitrate
  • Even with the no commercial ethos, your groups hasn't toured, been featured in the media or hosted by any arts institutions, which may have pushed you over the line for notability--nixie 06:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It is only more difficult for a Creative Commons-licensed band to show notability; it is not (as you seem to be implying) impossible-and-therefore-irrelevant. Look at Brad Sucks, whose music is all CC-licensed; his music has been licensed for use by TV shows and for commercials. That's evidence of notability. Merely saying "CC-licensing means you can never show evidence of notability and therefore Wikipedia should just waive that entirely for us" is a false statement followed by an unreasonable interpretation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, obvious band vanity. Megan1967 05:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability. Jeltz talk 10:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Radiant! 11:13, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bands with unorthodox distribution can get articles, but not if nobody pays any real attention to them. If they aren't touring (to significant audiences on an at least national basis), and it is impossible to verify that anyone is actually listening to them, then they shouldn't get an article. Average Earthman 12:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, falling outside the norm shouldn't preclude an artist from existence. User:Marstokyo\Marstokyo Note: this is Marstokyo's only edit.
  • "Existing" and "having a Wikipedia article" aren't the same thing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia doesn't include every artist which exists, only those which can prove a certain degree of public recognition or other importance. Kappa 13:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• From the above cited Music/Notability Guidelines: "These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when decided whether or not to keep an article that is on votes for deletion." and "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city." and "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable." The last applies since Monk played in the past with Tristeza, which is a much more pop/profit minded band that you can "verify" if you like. -- Doubleplus
  • Well, the guidelines exist for a reason; they're generally applied equally to all musician VfDs that come up. As for the guidelines themselves: emerging post-indie San Diego improv jazz/rock sound, of which the band remains the sole representative does not exactly jive with calling the scene/sound notable, as you yourself describe it as emerging and the band being its lone representative. As for was once a part of [...] a band that is otherwise extremely notable, I'm not sure if Tristeza would qualify as extremely notable. Android79 16:50, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • The use of the term 'extremely notable' would appear to disqualify Tristeza completely (particularly since nobody has bothered to write an article for them yet). I mean, extremely notable would be a band such as, say, Joy Division, hence New Order and Monaco (band) would qualify for articles even if they didn't on their own (off the top of my head example). Also, you said 'played with' not 'was a member of'. Average Earthman 17:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't suppose The Robot Ate Me would qualify as extremely notable, would it? Emperor Meng has a part in the album reviewed in that article. They also have a page on wikipedia. BologniumNitrate
• Delete bandity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. They also have a grand total of 14 google hits. If they really were important to their local scene, they'd have more. DaveTheRed 04:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. BTfromLA 06:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One of the criteria under the WikiMusic guidelines is completing a tour of a large or medium size nation. As yet, this band has not done this. As well, if it was using a revolutionary distribution system and achieving some level of success, this would attract publicity in itself and establish notability. As yet, we don't have verifiabilty or notability established. Capitalistroadster 09:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Band must have more than local following or be notable in some other way to be encyclopedic. Demi 19:25, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• Delete without the faintest evidence anyone else cares - David Gerard 11:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - more band vanity cruft. Fawcett5 02:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability presented. Gamaliel 02:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, band vanity. If you've got to create your own entry, you're probably not notable. Dpark 02:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:59, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Retrogade

Website advertisment, see Josh Bend also up for vfd--nixie 03:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, website ad. Megan1967 05:58, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Cnwb 06:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Refdoc 10:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and recreate as redirect to Prograde and retrograde motion. Gazpacho 23:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Make into redirect as suggested by Gazpacho - David Gerard 11:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:55, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Josh Bend

Delete Appears to be a vanity page of some sort. Not encyclopaedic. Refdoc 22:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) Not listed on the main vfd page, adding today--nixie 03:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep It was made merely because Josh Bend is refered to in the Retrogade article I recently posted. Vanity has nothing to do with it. --Seizure_Dog 23:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Josh Bend does not appear to have done anything worthy of a biography. --nixie 03:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible promo. Megan1967 05:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn bio. ComCat 04:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity - David Gerard 11:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:55, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Adolescent species

Dicdef and apparent neologism. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I couldn't find a single publication in the web of science or pubmed that uses the phrase, delete--nixie 06:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, apparent neologism. delete. Kappa 09:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. This article is just an excuse to pass judgement on the human species. DaveTheRed 05:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is definitely not an ecological or evolutionary term as its virtually meaningless in those fields. I can't envision anyone using this term for a population during an initial period of exponential growth just after a crash or after a sudden increase in carrying capacity (as is the case in humans). I checked google to see if it might be a legitimate term in pseudoscientific communities, but everything I found was about how humans still had developing ahead in terms of knowledge and technology. Nothing like what is used in the article. --Aranae 08:40, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism - David Gerard 11:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not a recognized term in evolutionary biology. I had thought from the title that it might be a mangled explanation of neoteny, but it isn't even that. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete, agree with DaveTheRed Bonus Onus 19:59, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:53, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Matt withrow

An aspiring athlete, not notable yet--nixie 04:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, vanity, NPOV etc. -- Cleduc 02:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jonathunder 04:53, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 11:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:53, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

PictureTalk

Advertising JeremyA 04:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertisement. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ComCat 04:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad - David Gerard 11:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Advertisement Ethereal 11:06, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. One more block compress error/pending deletion situation. Joyous 21:52, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Jah Asikari

Created as a joke, I'm fairly sure, and some time ago. I spotted it a while back and intended to RfD it, and just got busy. No evidence whatsoever that there is any such person or religon. Zora 04:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not encyclopaedic, possible hoax. Megan1967
• Delete, hoax --nixie 06:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and the many related articles/sections of articles; even if it is "real", in the sense that maybe one person somewhere believes it, no evidence of notability. - Mustafaa 06:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probable hoax. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 11:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:51, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Antulio Kobo Santarrosa

Article is very point of view. The person is real, but there are no links on the internet that gives us vital biography stats, and the person that write it did not even spell the name right.

The heaviest reason is the point of view the writer expresses, and the fact that we are missing some internet sites with Santarrosa's information. --Marine 69-71

• Delete, just under the bar of notability, POV promo. Megan1967 06:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, erase the crappy POV first. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, an article like this deserves either a big clean up or a quickie goodbye. "Antonio Bye Bye Love Martin"
• Delete. Bad article; not notable. 13 google hits (5 unique), and that's miniscule for anyone involved in popular entertainment. -R. fiend 18:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• As Antonio agrees it is not worth keeping, Delete. -- Infrogmation 18:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Another block compress error has raised its ugly head, preventing the immediate deletion of this article and its associated talk page. Joyous 21:49, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Jahasikarianism

I think this is a joke or fantasy entry. I meant to delete it a while ago and just got too busy. No evidence for the existence of any such religion or any of the persons mentioned. Zora 04:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 06:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The only place this seems to show up is in wikipedia and its mirrors, if thie is a real religion they're keeping it really quiet. Delete.--nixie 06:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A new religion which is a mixture of Buddhism, Rastafari, and Agnosticism? Probable hoax. Borders on nonsense. Jonathunder 01:00, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Delete. Probable hoax. Brings to mind the "Anuzutica" fracas. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 11:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. This article contains yet another block compress error, thus, it joins the legions in purgatory pending deletion. Joyous 21:47, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Halifu Kwajah

Third of a series of joke/fantasy pages created, I'm guessing, by an L.A. sub-teen born in 1993 <g>. I noticed these a while ago and, I regret to say, just didn't get around to having them expunged. No evidence that any such religion as Jahasikarianism exists, though there may be a dj out there who goes by the stage name of Halifu Kwajah. Even if there were, I don't think he's sufficiently notable to have his own page. Zora 04:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity--nixie 06:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 13:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable yet at the age of 12. Jonathunder 00:56, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Delete. As written, appears to be a hoax. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 11:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 15:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. This article and its associated talk page contain block compress errors and are pending deletion. Joyous 21:46, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Assorus Tablet

As it currently exists, I'd have speedy deleted it under the "little or no context/definition" rule. However, the talk page indicates attempts to verify the information that was once in the article. These attempts have apparently failed and no discussion on the subject has happened in two months. Delete as hoax. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The tablet was supposedly discvered in November[10], we can't verify its existence let alone what it may or may not say, delete--nixie 06:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A public hoax is encyclopediable. A private hoax, or one merely directed at Wikipedia, is meaningless. --Wetman 06:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 06:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Major hoaxes are encyclopedic (e.g. Piltdown Man, the Hitler Diaries), ones that nobody appears to notice aren't. A google search doesn't suggest this made much of an impact. Average Earthman 12:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 11:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:44, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Deryke Drow

Nothing in this article can be verified, the names or people and books get no hits on google. If this was a notable group I think we'd be able to come up with something. --nixie 05:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:30, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Orphan, likely vanity, unverifiable. -- Infrogmation 18:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, ramble, personal attacks, etc - David Gerard 11:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Kaneda

Inappropriate user page. Duplicate of NoPoint.org, also on vfd. —Korath (Talk) 05:49, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. User pages enjoy a lot of latitude but using them to dodge VfD is not kosher. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I agree, Delete the page along with NoPoint.org. Rhobite 05:54, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - bad faith attempt to avoid deletion through user page loophole. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obnoxious attempt to violate the rules and procedure of wikipedia--nixie 06:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Egil 06:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, I was under the impression an editor's userpage cannot be VfD'd. We've had previous user pages here before and the consensus was almost always not to delete. Megan1967 06:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "Inappropriate user pages in excessive or stubborn cases: List on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion". —Korath (Talk) 07:10, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's inappropriate to use a user page to bypass the vfd process. Zzyzx11 08:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A lot is allowed on userpages, but bypassing vfd isn't. Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with MacGyver. Radiant! 11:18, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete obvious attempt to defy consensus by re-creating VfDed content in user space. On the plus side, I suppose, it at least removes any reasonable doubt regarding whether the NoPoint.org article is vanity or not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:33, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the user page. Blatant abuse of userpage facility. While we're at it, delete the user as well. Chris 16:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it. Circumvention of vdf. DaveTheRed 01:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, along with NoPoint.org. Immediate action should also be taken to ban User:Kaneda and his legions of sockpuppets. Binadot 17:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Assuming this isn't allowed (and I'm confortable assuming it). -R. fiend 18:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Those should be independently nominated. Rossami (talk) 20:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I feel there should be some leeway for cases where the VfD consensus is that the article as written (rather than the article subject itself) is inappropriate; in such a case it might be appropriate to allow the article to be moved to userspace to be worked on. However -- this is not the case for User:Kaneda. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well the above articles were deleted for promotion/non-notability/vanity issues, not that they were particularly poorly written. -R. fiend 21:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • True. I just wanted to say that since we're starting to talk about a general principle, that there might be some exceptions -- even though neither User:Kaneda nor any of the subpages you list would be exceptions. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Good, then we're in agreement. -R. fiend 22:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And hard. Circumvents VfD. Demi 19:30, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a webhost - David Gerard 11:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Preposterous and persecutory. I routinely preserve deleted articles in my own userspace and I don't think that violates policy at all. In any case, the user has blanked the offending content, although I see no reason why he or she should feel obligated to. Everyking 11:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Bypassing VfD is not cool. Advertising is not what user pages are for. "Generally, you should avoid any substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian." Dpark 02:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I dont understand what you guys are trying to do, Kaneda has cleared his page repeadatly, yet you guys revert it back and keep trying to delete it? Just let him clear his own page and get it over with. Barab 01:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Barab makes a pretty good point. -R. fiend 02:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The reason for continuing, IMHO, is to establish a solid consensus. If someone were determined to flout consensus, they might try to delete the page in question and say "OK, I give, call off the VfD" -- and then, once the VfD was called off, recreate the page somewhere else and say "No VfD ever actually called for it to be deleted!" If you think that's farfetched, you haven't seen what some people really will try to get their way. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I know what you mean, but since NoPoint.org has already been deleted as an article this argument is doomed anyway. The reverting of this page back into existence after the creator blanked it, just to delete it permanently is deliciously ironic, however. -R. fiend
        • I'm glad not every editor on this site is a moron Barab 06:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • No personal attacks, please. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons outlined by Korath. —Psychonaut 01:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Your user page calls people "cranks" and "problematic". If I had to delete either this user page or yours, I think I'd pick yours. But I'd prefer to let people do pretty much whatever they want with their pages. Everyking 02:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • You too chief, you're allright Barab 06:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:15, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

TCKP

Non-encyclopedic. Internet forum in-joke. To quote the article itself, "the joke is only continued by the origional reviewers of the image." Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not suitable for wikipedia--nixie 06:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. Gmaxwell 06:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Tygar 06:12, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Bloody heck, someone drew a Photoshopped image, and it suddenly merits an article all to its own? Especially when the same article blatantly admits it's not notable? I vote delete. — JIP | Talk 10:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no need for existance here. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:30, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 11:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:15, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Surrealist Subversions

• Delete, See What Wikipedia is not, also the edits and reverts on the article show disagreement over article being objective and bias. The article states, "as the name suggests", which is not objective wording. The article was also created by Wikipedia user, Daniel C.Boyer, who is a contributor to the book(as indicated in article contributors) and has obvious vested self-interest. This is another violation of Advertising, also the redirect to AUTONOMEDIA, that page shows that the, Autonomedia, is in need of a cleanup as indicated by tag on that article. Also, there exists no credible reference sources regarding literary or critical review outside of the independent press. Author, Ron Sakolsky, is a pirate radio expert, not a surrealist with any literary or critical notability. NON-NOTABLEClassicjupiter2 16:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This VfD was nominated by Classicjupiter2, who didn't follow the stated procedure for editing the VfD page, and didn't sign his nomination. Wyss 06:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

noted. Thank you user Wyss. I did follow stated procedure for VfD editing but was having trouble formatting and editing my nomination. It is now fixed. I forgot to sign, now I signed.Classicjupiter2 16:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, ad. Wyss 06:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, book advertisement/promo. Megan1967 07:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Autonomedia is a perfectly respectable publisher - David Gerard 11:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, advertising. Amazon.com Sales Rank in Books: #738,692. My personal criterion is that Amazon rank numbers larger than 250,000 are prima facie non-notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion: block compress error. Joyous 16:12, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Diablito

Quite a number of google hits (20,000 or so) - but almost all for people using this fairly common Spanish word for their user IDs on blogs or forums. The page, as written, seems to be vaguely nonsensical - I can't see anything encyclopaedic about it. Grutness|^hello? 06:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dogmatic, no sources named, not encyclopedic. diablito is the diminuative form of diablo ("devil") in Spanish, often synonymous with handtruck. Perhaps this is a subject for the Spanish Wiktionary? -- Cleduc 02:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It would fit better in the Spanish wiktionary if it was in Spanish, not English. Kappa 10:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - short dicdef phrase, followed by pov commentary on satanists in general. The latter is already better described somewhere else. Radiant! 11:39, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 11:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was withdrawn – ABCD 00:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mary the Elephant

This article is an incorrectly capitalized and largely erroneous version of Mary the elephant. I'm submitting it for VfD because I think the content should be deleted and the title re-directed to Mary the elephant. Wyss 05:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Re-direct, as above. Wyss 05:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Duplicate article. Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delist. Making an article into a redirect does not require lising on VfD, and removing the history is not necessary short of a copyright violation, in which case the listing would be at WP:CP and not here. --iMb~Mw 23:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I have redirected the article, VfD withdrawn. Wyss 23:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rushworth Kidder

Delete. Blatant self-promotion. Reads like a press release, complete with photo. Possible copyvio, but I've been unsuccessful in attempts in tracking this text down. Keep. As per Demi's edits, this article should no longer be considered for deletion. Android79 02:18, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Tygar 07:09, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 07:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is awful, as the nominator points out it reads like a speaker bio. However, the subject is a published author and is notable. The article needs editing, not deletion. Demi 19:34, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've edited out the bio-speak, the publicity photo and unverifiable quotes of praise. There's not a lot left, but I do think these bare facts establish notability. I think it should be delisted. Demi 19:50, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
    • Nice job. I'll withdraw the nomination, and see about getting that photo deleted. Android79 02:18, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 11:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:11, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cloeburner

32 google hits. Non-notable vanity. jdb ❋ (talk) 07:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence that they are a noteworthy band. --Stormie 07:23, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:44, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain Until a band has at least one hit recording, why are you even voting on this stuff? --Wetman 07:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to meet notability criteria at Notability and Music Guidelines --Allen3 12:18, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with no evidence anyone else cares - David Gerard 11:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:10, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Disco of Death

I could not verify anything in this article, non-notable band vanity--nixie 08:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Concur, delete, but dont they sound superb... Jdcooper 18:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Radiant! 11:39, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 11:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Everyking 11:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:50, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

F3

Delete. Not worth as an article. --Minghong 08:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, animecruft. Megan1967 09:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, 10,800 google hits for "F3 hentai" [11] Kappa 09:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up. The animé series is certainly notable, but this article is almost useless as it stands. — JIP | Talk 10:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Is this really more notable than, say, the Formula Three championship, which also uses the name F3? Average Earthman 12:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Formula Three already has a page, I've added a disambig to it. Kappa 12:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. The series is notable but this article fails to mention why. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. How this can be considered "cruft" is beyond me. Xezbeth 17:38, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as expanded by Kappa, although I would have voted to delete the version that was nominated. The article now states something beyond the obvious. - RedWordSmith 18:02, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.Welldone Kappa for improving this. Capitalistroadster 09:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this version, icky as the subject matter is - David Gerard 11:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:53, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Djmax

I can't verify anything about this orphan game, since everything online is in Korean. Can anyone vouch for the notability of this MMORPG?--nixie 08:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, gamescruft. Megan1967 09:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a music game, not an RPG. Googling "DJMax" in Korean gets 9,770 hits, and simplified chinese gets 44,700 hits. [12]. Kappa 09:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. I've played it, though I don't remember much, only that gameplay is similar to other "DJ" style music games. --SPUI (talk) 10:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs cleanup. Xezbeth 21:01, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. --iMb~Mw 23:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep, obviously. VfD is the cancer of Wikipedia. —RaD Man (talk) 11:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, much as it pains me - David Gerard 11:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Say Anything (band)

This tagged for speedy deletion as band vanity, but it seems at least borderline for inclusion under the Notability and Music guidelines with a national tour, an album produced by possibly notable folks, and coverage in LA weekly. Kappa 08:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, just under the bar of notability, band vanity. Megan1967 09:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• National tour, album recorded and coeverage in LA weekly leads me to believe this band is notable enough for inclusion. Keep. Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this band meets the guidelines. --Allen3 12:30, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• The tour and the write-up don't impress me (any band can get in a van, play gigs in half a dozen states and call it a national tour, particularly if opening for someone else), but their album makes them squeak by. Keep. -R. fiend 18:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• My bad for the speedy. The original contrib really looked like bandcruft. Keep. - Lucky 6.9 08:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 11:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline, leaning towards delete. Everyking 11:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:10, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Durga Prasad Pandey

Not even a regular professor, notability not established--nixie 08:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 09:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, his CV contains no scientific publishing worth mentioning. / Alarm 12:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:34, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without evidence anyone will care - David Gerard 11:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikibooks. ugen64 21:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Russian humour/Rzhevski

Orphaned subpage. Delete because Wikipedia is not a repository for jokes. Maybe some content can be merged to parent or somewhere? jni 09:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, trivial. not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Megan1967. (As I usually do, I've found.) Jonathunder 00:52, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Maybe transwiki to the Jokebook section of WikiBooks? Rossami (talk) 21:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to books - David Gerard 11:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry guys. I started it, then just like you decided it is non-enc.... and then forgot about it. Mikkalai 21:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:09, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Blunt (band)

Article fails to establish notability in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Band has no recorded output. Allmusic.com entry refers to a French Canadian band. Band has not been functioning for some years. "Jam Night On Tour 2002" returns only one Wikipedia mirror on Google [13]. JamesBurns 10:09, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity. Radiant! 11:40, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Band vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 04:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without evidence of e.g. an album released by someone else - David Gerard 11:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete – ABCD 00:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Bell

Way too little information to be encyclopedic. Probably a joke. — JIP | Talk 10:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I've speedied it for having no information besides its title. Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with speedy deletion, article was unintelligible. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep and rename. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kiski

Was tagged as a speedy, but since it states to be the "oldest remaining all-male boarding school in the United States" I have doubts there's any good grounds to speedy. I think it needs to be renamed, but before I rename, I'd like to know whether the stated facts are at all verifiable by Americans. Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. It does appear to be a real school. Its web site looks legit, and it gets about 2000 google hits. It just barely squeaks by as notable enough for me. Needs to be renamed and expanded though. DaveTheRed 05:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability, schoolcruft. Megan1967 06:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but not speedy. Notability not established. Radiant! 09:44, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be renamed "The Kiski School" as it says on the school's webpage. After looking at their website for awhile I did find that they were the oldest all-male boarding school remaining in the United States. I do not know whether or not this includes military schools or not. It does look pretty exclusive and boarding school enrollment in the U. S. has been on the upswing in years so it may as well be kept.

• Keep and expand. (Agree on rename.) How come all the people who keep coming out of the woodwork to say "keep" on schools with no claim to fame haven't come out to defend one that actually has one? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:26, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

The school also had one of the longest serving headmasters in U. S. history. His named was John A. Pidgeon. Apparently, he served for at least 40years. He went to Andover where he played on the same baseball team as George H. W. Bush. Pidgeon retired in 2002. His wife is the state treasurer of Pennsylvania named Barbara Hafer. The Kiski School also has a noted football program. Joe Paterno, the coach for the Penn State football has often sent prospective players who could not make the grade academically to qualify according to NCAA standards. An example of this was Curtis Enis. U. S. Representative John (Jack) Murtha also went there. The schools that Kiski competes against include Mercersburg Academy, The Hill School, University School, Western Reserve Academy, Shady Side, and the Valley Forge Military Academy.

• Keep - David Gerard 11:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Leaning towards keep. Everyking 11:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep, with a rename. --Zero 13:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More Info.: Beano Cook (ESPN commentator); Bob Mathias (won decathlon in 1948.Also, in 1952, became the only athlete ever to play in Rose Bowl and compete in the Olympics in the same year. From 1967-1974 served 4terms as U.S. Congressman from California); David Conrad (Actor); Harry Stuhldreher (of the "Four Horsemen" of Notre Dame was the quarterback); Scott Paterno (son of Joe Paterno who lost his race for congress this year); Alex Schoenbaum (Founder of Shoney's and owner of Big Boy hamburger chain). Jack Hanna also went there.

• keep and retitle please. Yuckfoo 20:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete – ABCD 00:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seabuckthorn

Advertising. Inter\^Echo 11:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Advertising. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speedyable under "Any article which consists only of attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title" surely? Xezbeth 17:52, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:08, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Friend finder

It smells dangerously of advertising. If you go up front you get a good whiff! Inter\^Echo 11:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as advertising. — JIP | Talk 11:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. Evertype 11:48, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
• Delete Four links to one external site in four short sentences = spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:32, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• I de-spammed the links, the first version [14] has the stealth advertising. Delete anyway, unless someone wants to use it. Kappa 12:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• OMG! I have friends who worked for Friend Finder! They described it as a porn site disguised as an online hookup site. That cracks me up. Delete though, as a non-notable advertisment. DaveTheRed 01:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity advertisement. Tygar 06:13, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• I see it's been rewritten. Delete this version too - David Gerard 11:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't rewrite it, I just took out the spam links Kappa 12:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I see nothing wrong with this, it's not an ad at all, and it seems like a notable topic. Everyking 11:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - This was spam before the links were removed. Now that the links are missing, it's just cruft. Dpark 04:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion: block compress error. Joyous 16:08, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Neo-Gaelic language

Delete There is no evidence that this language exists. Google links to "Arsh" point not to a Goidelic language, but to a survival in Appalachia of Scots, which is certainly not "Neo-Gaelic". Evertype 11:44, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

Delete. Although it's likely that some form of Gaelic existed in Appalachia, there's no direct evidence for it, least of all for the Irish-Gaelic-Scots-Welsh-Cornish-German-English-African-French-Native American pidgin or creole described in this article. --Angr 12:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless references are provided. - Mustafaa 20:58, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable, internally contradictory, strong suspicion of original research (if not outright neologism). Though would be a notable topic if it could be stood up. Alai 15:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, possible hoax or conlang backstory. — Gwalla | Talk 04:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 11:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Germany. sjorford →•← 17:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Federal Republic of Germany

This is intended to be a fork of Germany by a user who refuses to work with other editors on the article (explaining its current protected status). User intends for this to be his/her own private article as illuminated by their description of it:

I've started a new page on my own at Federal Republic of Germany. The title was still free. The links on Wikipedia can stay as they are - there is no need to redirect anything, because the Germany page will still remain the "official" article. The "FRG" will be the "unofficial" version and will be under my charge.

Therefore, I believe it ought to be deleted as a fork and a redirect put in it's place (to ensure no future reemergence of deleted contents). Cool Hand Luke 12:09, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect Was a (long-standing) redirect a little while ago, should return to being one. (Though not especially opposed to deletion and recreation as same.) Alai 12:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. Five day lag time is enough for the user to copy his POV-fork off-site. jni 12:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• At the moment (13:41 UTC, 7 Mar 2005) it's a redirect to Germany, which is clearly what it should be. --Angr 13:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Re-redirect - as above. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect; protect if necessary. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect the fork. Wyss 22:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Protect if needed - David Gerard 12:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was list as copyvio. Joyous 16:06, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stewards

Article doesn't contain info on stewards, and talks about the Wikipedia power pyramid. Filled with duplicate information. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 12:34, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Just some anon rant/essay. jni 12:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• What is not POV is duplicate information. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It reads like a quote from a magazine article. Wasn't there a Wired magazine piece on Wikipedia recently? Could be a copyvio. --BM 22:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's a copy of the wired article - [15]. -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.. - Mailer Diablo 23:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I tagged it as a Copyvio. DaveTheRed 07:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy – ABCD 00:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sunami animation

The page title is incorrect. Content is in the form of a question. Probable subject already covered on 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Ringomassa 12:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I have speedied this as an attempt to communicate. Content was: Is there anyone who can create an animated version of this earthquake/sunami? I cannot find exactly where he epicenter was? How did the waves travel and how much tim did they have to warn people here? jni 12:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete, but redirected just in case. ugen64 21:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stephen A. Nuno

This article was tagged for speedy with no reason given. It's not a speedy candidate, but this might be regarded as vanity or something. Could probably be merged with the The Irvine Review Foundation and/or Irvine Review. (no vote) Kappa 12:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Concur, merge. I'm also in favor of merging said Foundation with the Irvine Review, as the latter is a student newspaper. As such, I don't believe it deserves three separate articles. Radiant! 15:33, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the paper itself is of only marginal notability (the article claims circulation 3,500). I think we'd be setting a dangerous precedent by allowing articles for student newspaper editors/staff. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:37, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ComCat 04:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Irvine Review - David Gerard 12:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:06, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

The Hollywood Liberal

Article is a blatant advertising mess of this website. Inter\^Echo 13:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed, delete as advertising. Maybe copyvio, too? Radiant! 15:38, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; blatant advertising. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advert. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity ad, platform for external links. Xezbeth 17:50, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.. - Mailer Diablo 23:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad - David Gerard 12:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep. ugen64 21:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bunny Hood

If a clothing item, such as a "bunny hood", makes an appearance in 3 different Nintendo videogames, does that somehow make it noteworthy and encyclopedic? If your answer to this question is "yes", how and why? --GRider\^talk 17:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Well-written, informative article. Xezbeth 17:31, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be part of a series of articles on recurring power-up items. Not everybody's cup of tea, to be sure, but they're well-written articles and of interest to the gamer community. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:39, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you Andrew and Xezbeth both for your comments. Each of you raise the same valuable question: If an article is "well-written" does that then somehow obviate the need to be "encyclopedic" and make it worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? --GRider\^talk 17:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Not by itself, obviously, (a well-written article about my favourite hat would likely go) but it's certainly a point in the right direction. My own personal criteria has always been--and is likely to remain--A subject should have an article if it is reasonably evident that a non-stub article about the subject could be created without resorting to filler, trivia, or unverifiable information. In this case, that is clearly true. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and Grider, would you mind only nominating one of these sorts of things at a time? It's a pain to have to vote to keep all of them, when these could have been consolidated into one vote. Best, Meelar (talk) 20:23, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• See Super_Mario_Bros._3 - Merge all items related to the same game into one article for easy comparison. In this case, that would be both the Zelda series and Super Smash Bros. Radiant! 20:36, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merging things into two different places doesn't make wikipedia any smaller or more convenient. Kappa 22:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, since it's been in 3 different games it's more useful as a separate article. Kappa 22:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn gamecruft. ComCat 04:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, gamescruft. Megan1967 06:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Trim, merge, and redirect to some article on crap from Nintendo (not that exact title though, maybe "Ninendo objects"). -R. fiend 18:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, agree with R. fiend. If the power-up's not game-specific then put it under a series powerup article or something. Demi 20:00, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• Merge with The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time weapons and items and Super Smash Bros. Melee, redirect to the former. Andre (talk) 22:57, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-- There are a lot of articles just like this one that have never undergone VfD. 67.81.191.226; 09:29, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Then nominate them. — Gwalla | Talk 04:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable in its own right. Super Smash Bros. Melee had a lot of items from other games, which should be described in their own games' articles, if at all. — Gwalla | Talk 04:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but TFD that template - David Gerard 12:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:55, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Magical Pokémon Journey

Encyclopedic? Is it not? [16] Is Google a fair and unbiased barometer? --GRider\^talk 16:58, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Ok, if you spell it that way it gets just 15 hits, but with a normal "e" it gets 5,400 Google Hits Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:04, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic, fits in with the existing manga articles. Xezbeth 17:28, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep series of mangas, especially ones from a major franchise like this one. Kappa 22:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic, pokecruft. Megan1967 06:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in light of evidence presented by User:Starblind. —RaD Man (talk) 07:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Irrelevant, unencyclopaedic. 80.255 10:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. *points to Starblind's vote* Ketsuban
• Delete or merge into pokemon. I fail to see how this is anything short of promotion, or a mini cast profile for a Manga. Srcastic 07:20, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, hurt as it does to say so - David Gerard 12:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect to Super Mario 64. ugen64 21:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Metal Box

Do I really have to ask? Is every single item that appears in more than one Nintendo videogame considered encyclopedically notable? If an article is "well-written", is that sufficent? --GRider\^talk 18:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Generic as the words "metal box" are, metal box +Super Mario returns 264 unique hits. [17] No vote. --GRider\^talk 18:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as before, though someone suggested merging all these into a single article in the previous VfD, and that might be the best solution. Xezbeth 18:21, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Meelar (talk) 20:25, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hello Meelar. If you would not mind, could you please explain the rationale behind your vote? --GRider\^talk 17:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • For those interested, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Party Ball
• See Super_Mario_Bros._3 - Merge all items related to the same game into one article for easy comparison. In this case, that would be both the Mario series. Radiant! 20:36, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep though I suspect that "metal block" would be a slightly more accurate title, unless someone knows for sure that Nintendo refers to it as a box. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:05, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, gamecruft. Wyss 22:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, common gamecruft. ComCat 04:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic, gamescruft. Megan1967 06:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too minor to get its own article. The Super Mario 64 article already mentions the blocks, so no need to merge. DaveTheRed 07:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. It is knowledge of a sort so put it somewhere. Not exactly like, but not completely different from: Baseball glove Raazer 16:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Hello Raazer and thank you for your comment. It is worth noting that "Baseball glove" returns well over 170,000 googles while "Metal Box" in this context returns only 264. Yes, it is knowledge, but is it valuable knowledge which is worthy of inclusion in any encyclopedia? That is the question at hand. --GRider\^talk 17:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Point taken, changing my vote above to Merge only (should take some dude 15 mins to do that). But my google searches seem to return at least twice as many hits as you say occur for "Metal Box" in Super Mario context. (I found the minimum was 584 with ["Metal Box" Super Mario]). Given the order of magnitudes, this is a non-issue here. But overall, I think it would be more appropriate to use the metric of "googles" only if the exact search string is provided.Raazer 16:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Trim, merge, and redirect to some article on crap from Nintendo (not that exact title though, maybe "Ninendo objects"). -R. fiend 18:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Super Mario 64 and redirect. Andre (talk) 23:00, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-- There are a lot of articles just like this one that have never undergone VfD. 67.81.191.226; 09:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to a Nintendo-related article, assuming there is someone willing and able to do so, otherwise Delete. I noticed that this had gone to VfD previously. Comment: Did anyone else besides me come across Metal Box while actually looking for Metal Box (album)? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just an item from Super Mario 64, and already described there. Smash Bros. Melee uses several items from other games, which should be described in their original games' articles if at all. Additionally, I believe in SM64 it was simply called the "green block", not the "metal box". — Gwalla | Talk 04:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seriously, the only other game than Super Mario 64 I've seen it in was Super Smash Brothers Melee, but as mentioned before, if every item in SSBM had its own article, it'd really be a waste of space, considering that pretty much all of them were taken from some other game, and may have only appeared once or twice elsewhere. Wakuseino 07:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If this is deleted, is it possible to delete Metal Box (disambiguation) along with it? What about moving Metal Box (album) to Metal Box? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge/redirect to Pokemon or some derivative page. ugen64 21:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rare Candy

With 815 hits on Google [18], what makes "rare candy" notable and encyclopedic? Is Google even remotely relevant to the question of notability? What if Google did not exist, how then would we determine if this was worthy of inclusion? --GRider\^talk 17:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as before, though someone suggested merging all these into a single article in the previous VfD of Metal Box, and that might be the best solution. Xezbeth 18:20, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• See Super_Mario_Bros._3 - Merge all items related to the same game into one article for easy comparison. In this case, that would be both the Pokemon video games. Radiant! 20:36, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep. If a "cruft" item has a large number of google hits, that might be an additional argument for a separate article. Kappa 22:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, gamecruft. Wyss 22:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge at best or just delete and be done with it. Not only is the information insignificant except as a minor footnote to Pokemon, the title is misleading. At first glance I'd have thought Rare Candy was about some rare and exotic sorts of (real) candies. Arkyan 02:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, common gamecruft. ComCat 04:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic, pokecruft. Megan1967 06:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I fully understand why someone wants to purge Wikipedia out of all or most of the Pokémon material. Sadly, these articles are a part of the much too large poké-universe, and thus they are notable. Sjakkalle 08:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Trim, merge, and redirect, as above. -R. fiend 18:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Pokemon. Andre (talk) 23:00, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-- There are a lot of articles just like this one that have never undergone VfD. 67.81.191.226; 09:38, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

They should, then. Wyss 00:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or merge. I agree that "articles just like this one that have never undergone VfD" should all be deleted or merged. Should there be seperate articles for each space on the Monopoly board? How about each person in the boardgame Clue? Perhaps an article for every card in a deck of cards? ("three of spades" has 926 Google hits). Srcastic 07:27, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to list of Star Trek characters (done by someone already). ugen64 21:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Walker Keel

Is every single fictional character who makes a cameo appearance in a single episode of Star Trek TNG honestly encyclopedic? If so, what is your definition of encyclopedic? 313 unique google hits. [19] --GRider\^talk 17:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, unless there's an article where these minor characters can be Merged to. Xezbeth 17:49, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of Star Trek characters. --Allen3 18:13, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Every character on Star Trek deserves a mention, but not every character deserves an article. — JIP | Talk 18:44, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting. Is every minor one-time character of every television show deserving of a mention, or is this indicative of a strong inherent bias towards Star Trek related material on Wikipedia? --GRider\^talk 19:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well... I might have put it too strongly. Minor characters who actually have a role in an episode or a book deserve a mention. Minor characters who are just named once and then disappear don't. — JIP | Talk 21:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• merge or keep minor characters who actually have a role. Same for every notable show (one that gets an article), if people want to write about them. Kappa 21:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge it. Wyss 22:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnecessary to merge this fancruft. ComCat 04:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with reservations. Cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per above. DaveTheRed 07:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge minor character. It's highly probable that this character will never appear anywhere other than in the one episode, so no possibility for expansion. Average Earthman 18:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Conspiracy (TNG episode) and redirect. The character is part of one and only one episode; he can certainly be filed under that; the list of minor characters should be kept to recurring ones---or are we going to stuff it with every single-episode villain never to be mentioned again? grendel|khan 20:17, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• I was Bold and merge/redirected this article. All minor Star Trek characters generally seem to be consensussing on merge to List of Star Trek characters. So i am. Jdcooper 12:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:05, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

The Q2

Chat site with a total of three posts to it. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 17:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:21, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Hapsiainen 18:40, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, amounts to an ad. Wyss 22:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An informational article about an open source project, although apparently an ex-employee is tampering with it.
  • This vote was added from IP 66.65.176.199. The only articles that were edited through this IP are The Q2 and this page. -Hapsiainen 01:15, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.. - Mailer Diablo 23:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. How can a chat site with three posts be notable? Average Earthman 18:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The Q2 section in Wikipedia, was having a issue with the management.
  • The vote above is from IP 24.215.176.158. It has no edits in its history except the edits to this page. -Hapsiainen 16:35, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep From what I heard, I think there is not much reason for this article to be deleted.It seems like a petty problem within the company.
  • This vote is by IP 69.10.70.114.
• Keep I visited the website and it seems ok, i think it's still in the making though.
  • Also this vote is by IP 69.10.70.114. It was done after five minutes from the previous vote. This is obvious ballot-stuffing. -Hapsiainen 23:44, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Promotion for a non-notable, barely active forum. Sockpuppets need to get lost in the dryer. — Gwalla | Talk 04:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, send sockpuppets out for unraveling and change the name to Ross anyway. I really haven't lost my mind. See the article.  :^) - Lucky 6.9 04:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I think. The two posts on the forums that are visible are a spam promoting another we site and support for Firefox. Rich Farmbrough 22:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:04, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Travis Heinze

"Travis Heinze" gets fifteen Google hits. Some of them are from Amazon.com - they're reviews written by him, not reviews about him. There's also some pages on some good things he did in the military, but surely lots of other people also have? I don't think he's that notable. — JIP | Talk 18:09, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete article doesn't even attempt to show notability (aside from some vague hints of slight family strife). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:34, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, also slander, could be speedied. Wyss 22:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn vanity. ComCat 04:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep. ugen64 21:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Freezie

What is it about this Nintendo item called Freezie that makes it inclusion-worthy on Wikipedia? Or is every Nintendo item that can be cross-referenced between two videogames inherently noteworthy? "Freezie" +Nintendo = 209 unique google hits. [20] --GRider\^talk 18:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Articles like this are one of the strengths of Wikipedia. Where else would all this information go, if not in this article? Meelar (talk) 20:16, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• See Super_Mario_Bros._3 - Merge all items related to the same game into one article for easy comparison. In this case, that would be both the Mario series. Radiant! 20:37, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, gamecruft. Wyss 22:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:17, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep. Information like this is one of the strengths of wikipedia. Kappa 22:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, like the others. Xezbeth 22:23, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete like all the rest of this gamecruft. ComCat 04:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - 209 hits isn't really all that great for a game, nintendocruft. Megan1967 06:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, like Goomba and Koopa. These things are notable enough and of some interest to those interested in the Mario Bros. series. Sjakkalle 07:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Trim, merge, and redirect, as above. -R. fiend 18:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I will say merge with Mario Bros. and Super Smash Bros. Melee, redirect to the former. Andre (talk) 22:55, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-- There are a lot of articles just like this one that have never undergone VfD. 67.81.191.226; 09:32, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but cleanup. I notice quite a few factual inaccuracies. The notion that Freezies were not in Ice Climbers (which is not a series) is absurd - that's where it originated. - Chardish 07:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment never doubt the ability of gamers to dig up obscure trivia. Ice Climber was a series, consisting of the original, an arcade Vs. edition, and a deluxe updated Japan-only Famicom edition. There was also a GBA remake. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:34, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge/redirect to Pokemon (video games). ugen64 21:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

VS seeker

If you replace the é with an e in my Google query [21], does this then somehow become encyclopedic information worthy of note on Wikipedia? --GRider\^talk 18:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, or Merge if appropriate. Xezbeth 20:16, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• See Super_Mario_Bros._3 - Merge all items related to the same game into one article for easy comparison. In this case, that would be the Pokemon video games. Radiant! 20:37, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, gamecruft. Wyss 22:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep, necessary to adequate coverage of the games. Kappa 22:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:18, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agreed, gamecruft. -- Cleduc 02:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, total nn gamecruft. ComCat 03:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, gamescruft. Megan1967 06:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Trim, merge, and redirect, as above. -R. fiend 18:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Pokemon. Andre (talk) 23:01, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge -- this isn't the only Pokémon item page, there is also Pokégear, Pokénav, Pokédex, and Pokéball. Why is this one trying to be deleted while others aren't? Obviously, Pokéball is a lot more notable than VS Seeker, but still, it should be added to, kept or merged. -- 67.81.191.226; 01:34, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Trim and merge to some page about miscellaneous Pokémon items or gear. The VS seeker, while a key item, is indeed not as notable as the aforementioned Pokémon-related items and, more importantly, its use in the game it appears in is optional. Sinistro 21:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Sinistro -- there should be one single page about less-important miscellaneous Pokémon items, like the VS Seeker and Rare Candy. -- 67.81.191.226; 21:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge Just make sure it is labeled as Vs. Seeker, all right? The first S is lowercase, there's a period after that S, and the second S is capitalized, according to the guide from Nintendo Power. --/ɛvɪs/ 16:18, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 (N.B. article could not be deleted due to technical limitations). Rje 21:26, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Party Ball

Should we encourage more of these articles in the future, or is the entire Category:Nintendo items ({{Nintendoitems}}) full of entirely non-notable contributions? Google returns 106 unique matches. [22] --GRider\^talk 18:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, or Merge if appropriate. Xezbeth 20:16, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per the others. Meelar (talk) 20:27, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your vote, Meelar. In your opinion, what makes a Nintendo Party Ball encyclopedic after taking into consideration the low hit count on Google? --GRider\^talk 21:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, it appears in a well-known franchise; someone has already written an encyclopedic article about it; and the content, while it could be merged elsewhere, would not mix well with other items (such as Freezie, which you've also nominated.) Meelar (talk) 07:34, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Again, thank you for your expeditious response. Based upon the logic you're using, would it then be safe to say that any trivial topic which pertains to a well-known parent topic is deserving of its own article if it is too large for the parent article? If not, where do you draw the line and how? --GRider\^talk 17:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • That would be a fairly accurate summation, yes. Obviously, I apply a certain reasonablenesss criterion that's necessarily somewhat idiosyncratic, but I suspect that I'm hardly alone amongst Vfd regulars in doing that. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 18:57, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• See Super_Mario_Bros._3 - Merge all items related to the same game into one article for easy comparison. In this case, that would be Super Smash Bros. Radiant! 20:40, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep them. Items in games are necessary to adequate coverage. Merging or keeping should depend on size, fame and whether they appear in just one game or many. For example, pokeballs are famous, have a big article, and have been on TV etc, so keep separate. In Party Ball's case, the main article is already 36k, so it would be best to split out all the items (there are 31) into a separate page and merge this with it. Kappa 21:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this one. Unlike the others, this is specific to a single game (at least according to the article) and thus not part of the larger Nintendo mythos. Would consider keeping if it starts showing up in more games. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:11, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, gamecruft. Wyss 22:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agreed, gamecruft. -- Cleduc 02:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not merge this gamecruft. ComCat 03:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - 106 hits for a game isnt all that notable, nintendocruft. Megan1967 06:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Super Smash Bros. Melee. Andre (talk) 22:59, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamecruft. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Royal Knights. ugen64 21:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dynasmon

With 165 google hits [23], are all of the characters within the fictional world of Digimon inherently notable and encyclopedic? How is such notability being determined? --GRider\^talk 19:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, gamecruft. Wyss 22:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep most (all?) of the other digimon seem to have articles, so there's clearly some precendent for this. Also, I suspect that if deleted, it'll be back again before very long at all, as 8 different articles link to it, besides the VfDs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:16, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you Starblind for your comments. Please help me understand something; If I were to go and create 250 articles about every random minor character that ever appeared in an episode of the American television sitcom Seinfeld, would that somehow set a precedent that all of those articles should exist on Wikipedia? --GRider\^talk 00:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps not if you did it by yourself, but I'm not entirely convinced that all 182 Digimon articles are by the same person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:40, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and delist. The prescription in Wikipedia:Deletion policy for "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article", if that is what is believed, is to "Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect", neither of which requires listing here. --iMb~Mw 23:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• delist good thinking Mw. Failing that, merge or keep. Kappa 23:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - 165 hits isnt all that great, digicruft. Megan1967 07:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to a list of digimon characters. DaveTheRed 07:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: He is a major character in the series.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect, both proactively done by others. ugen64 21:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jackson Roykirk

To quote the opening sentence of this article, "Jackson Roykirk is a fictional character from the Star Trek universe, and was discussed but never seen on the Star Trek: The Original Series episode The Changeling." With just 161 unique google hits [24], is this "trekkie-cruft" or material fit for an encyclopedia? --GRider\^talk 19:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - BanyanTree 21:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. Wyss 22:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I think all characters about this level should be merged into some kind of "Minor Star Trek characters" article, with links to each of their character biographies on some Star Trek fansite. Then redirects put up to a more mainstream article/episode article, for example this one redirected to Nomad or whatever. Let another website bear the brunt for people looking for cruft. Jdcooper 22:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have attempted to write the merged onto List of Star Trek Characters, but i keep getting message about "wikipedia not receiving a response for my request" or something, which is frustrating me almost beyond words, but anyway, here is what i regard as merge-worthy information, the rest is duplication of "Nomad" (which itself could be merged into the List of Star Trek Characters, not that the link in this article points towards the correct meaning of "nomad", but there we go): --- "* Jackson Roykirk (TOS, "The Changeling"), 21st Century robotics engineer who built the space probe known as Nomad which was launched from Earth to explore the galaxy." --- anyone whose computer/Wikipedia seems to be letting them edit be my guest to add it to List of Star Trek Characters.

Comment: One thing though, does this not set a precedent for the treatment of minor Star Trek characters which would require editing of epic proportions to be made consistent throughout? Jdcooper 00:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or redir to The Changeling (Star Trek) and de-link there. I don't consider a character that only exists as a sentence or two of dialog in one episode to even be a 'minor character'. FWIW, there aren't many articles at Category:Star_Trek_characters that are this minor. Niteowlneils 02:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-encyclopedic. ComCat 03:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with List of Star Trek characters. A single minor Star Trek character in unencyclopedic but a collection of them is notable. --Allen3 22:17, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. A list of minor characters, where every character gets a sentence or two, without a link to an article of their own, is fine by me. — JIP | Talk 06:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of Star Trek characters. Megan1967 07:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• 'Merge and Redirect as per above. DaveTheRed 07:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Jackson Roykirk, for the record, was also shown in an episode of Team Knight Rider having invented an Earthquake machine in the 1990's. Not that that information adds much to his entry. --Lenonn

• I see it's been made a redirect. Keep as redirect - David Gerard 12:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:03, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Antonio Zapata

Spanish-language CV. Vanity/CV. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:17, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Mexican CV in Spanish. Wyss 22:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Gracias Toño, pero no te vamos a dar chamba. -- Cleduc 02:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:03, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Destroy All Monsters 2

This may or may not be an attempt to describe the upcoming movie Godzilla: Final Wars but even if that's the intent, the information seems highly unreliable. IMDB lists no "Destroy All Monsters 2", even in production, which tells me this is either fan-rumor garbled by several degrees or a hoax. Delete article and content unless some verification surfaces. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: The VfD notice has been removed from the page twice three times by anons from the 66.50.12.x subnet, the same subnet as 66.50.12.38, who created the article.

• Delete -- non-verifiable, bordeline nonsense? Jdcooper 01:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable (yet), Godzillacruft. Megan1967 07:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Gojeracruft. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:47, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The most recent anon from 66.50.12.x to remove the VfD notice now says also "This movie is an unmade project." -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speculation. Since Toho officially abandoned the old "Heisei era" continuity after Godzilla vs Destroyah, the claim that any new movie would be a direct sequel to Destroy All Monsters is suspect at best. Seems like wishful thinking. — Gwalla | Talk 04:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:02, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Alforce Veedramon

With 9 hits on google [25], is this Digimon-related topic notable? Deja vu? --GRider\^talk 19:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Digicruft. Android79 05:57, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, digicruft. Megan1967 07:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think we might have seen this one on VfD. I think there are a couple of different flavors of Veedramon's, and it could have been one of the other flavors. That there are different Veedramons is a factoid which I know entirely courtesy of Wikipedia and VfD. --BM 13:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Hello BM and thank you for your comments. You are correct, this has been listed on VfD before. The original nomination was discussed over at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Alforce_Veedramon. A precedent appears to exist for deletion of this article, although it still remains. --GRider\^talk 17:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep
• Delete, along with all of the Digicruft. Philthecow 23:20, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• For the reasons given in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Machinedramon: Merge the lot, or failing that Delete. Uncle G 23:18, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. ugen64 21:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbormon

Is "Arbormon is the Legendary Warrior of Wood" somehow encyclopedic? With 216 unique matches on google [26], does this pass "the test"? Or are all characters from the magical, make-believe world of Digimon inherently noteworthy? --GRider\^talk 20:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Aaargh. Look at all the articles in Category:Wikipedia articles needing their fiction made clear. >90% end in -mon. There is something profoundly amiss if people write articles on fictive entities as if they are factual. Delete, or maximally M&R. JFW | T@lk 02:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & Redirect. It has improved after Wakuseino's work. JFW | T@lk 09:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without merge and redirection, nn fancruft. ComCat 03:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect all of these Digimon stubs, or at least all of the ones in Category:Wikipedia articles needing their fiction made clear, into list of Digimon or list of Digimon characters or whatever. -Sean Curtin 05:26, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Digicruft. Android79 05:57, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - 216 hits isnt all that great, digicruft. Megan1967 07:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect as per Sean. DaveTheRed 07:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --BM 13:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Plank could beat him up easy. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - He is a major character in the series.
• For the reasons given in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Machinedramon: Merge the lot, or failing that Delete. Uncle G 23:18, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• Keep. The guy IS a major character in Digimon Frontier. Oh, and I've expanded the article, too. Wakuseino 22:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. ugen64 21:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cindel Towani

This fictional character receives 108 unique hits on google. [27] Is it a safe assumption that since it is science-fiction related it should be kept? What if this article covered a non sci-fi topic, would the same rules apply? Please discuss. --GRider\^talk 21:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 07:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to The Ewok Adventure. DaveTheRed 07:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Dave. Merge. It's not because it's scifi-related, but Star Wars enjoys a huge amount of fame, thus a minor character from Star Wars could be more important than a major character from a book (sci fi or no) that few people have heard of. Radiant! 09:44, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to the appropriate subsection of Minor characters in Star Wars. -R. fiend 18:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per R. fiend. Rossami (talk) 21:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. We've been doing this for all the Ewoks characters, right?-LtNOWIS 02:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. She's the main character of two Star Wars films that have just been rereleased onto DVD for the public, she's not exactly a background character. Obviously the article could use expansion, but I don't see an issue other than that.--Sherurcij 07:09, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep and move to Corat Damar. ugen64 22:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Corath Damar

Garnering 0 matches on google [28] , is this article mis-titled? Or is this simply nonsense vandalism which should be speedy deleted? --GRider\^talk 20:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• According to the disamb page (and the subject article's text), it should be Corat Damar. However, neither startrek.com nor imdb can confirm the first word, only referring to "Damar". Suggest moving to Damar (Star Trek) (and fixing Damar), or merge/redir somewhere--semi-notable character--nine episodes near the end of the DS9, including the finale (his resistance led to the defeat of the Dominion in the war that consumed the last several seasons of DS9, FWIW). Notability within the ST universe probably between Seska and Brunt, or thereabouts. Niteowlneils 01:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with reservations. Naming needs to be fixed, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 07:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Corat Damar Jdcooper 19:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. Move to Corat Damar. — JIP | Talk 06:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to List of Star Trek characters. If that starts getting too big, split it into smaller lists, e.g. List of Cardassians etc. Miss Pippa 16:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Corat Damar. Carioca 05:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of Star Trek characters. ugen64 22:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dexter Remmick

A google query for this fictional character which appeared in two episodes of ST:TNG garners 170 hits. [29] User:JIP said recently that "Every character on Star Trek deserves a mention" in an article somewhere. Is this really true? If so, would the same logic apply to every character who briefly appeared in an episode of the television sitcom Friends, or is this merely biased inclusionism at its very best? --GRider\^talk 19:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Star Trek has five TV shows, ten movies, about four hundred novels, some computer and video games, and has been known for four decades. I don't think "Friends" has reached quite the same level yet.
But anyway, on second thought, I don't necessarily think all Star Trek characters deserve a mention. Characters like Commander Bruce Maddox, Captain Okona or indeed Dexter Remmick do. Even though they only appeared in one episode or so, they were an important part of that episode. Characters who have only appeared in the background (or worse yet, in some statistical listing in a Star Trek game) and could just as easily have been any other character, do not. — JIP | Talk 10:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I like the general policy of 'move and delete (List of Star Trek characters) for minor characters. RidG (talk) 02:48, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without redirect, nn fancruft. ComCat 03:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with "List of minor characters on Star Trek" and redirect, don't delete. — JIP | Talk 06:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the list of minor characters rather than deleting it all together.
  

JesseG 07:03, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to List of Star Trek characters. Redirects are cheap and discourage article re-creation. DaveTheRed 07:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of Star Trek characters. Megan1967 07:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I agree. Merge and Redirect to List of Star Trek characters. Miss Pippa 16:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Sabine's Sunbird 05:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:59, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Frank Di Giorgio

Factual accuracy issues aside, is this former high school teacher notable and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? If yes, why? 89 unique matches on google. [30] --GRider\^talk 22:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, and how is the accuracy in question? - SimonP 23:20, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • As you are aware, this article has been substantially improved since the original listing on VfD. It contained sentences such as "He ran again in the 2000 Toronto election is a battle with convicted criminal Mario Gentile.", an invalid name categorization, and other such accuracy-related issues, all of which are addressed in the article history log. --GRider\^talk 17:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • How the issue is worded may be potentially POV, but it's a matter of historical record that Gentile was convicted of a crime (see here.) It is not, as such, an accuracy issue. And I fail to see anything that fits into what you allege to be an "invalid name categorization" or any other such issue where facts have been changed. Would you care to explain further? Bearcat 02:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Spinboy 02:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Appears notable for involvement in local government of a major city. Keep. JFW | T@lk 02:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper and Toronto city councillors are notable enough. --Deathphoenix 06:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per all Toronto city councillors. Please consolidate nominations--it makes it easier to vote. Meelar (talk) 07:31, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good idea, Meelar. Saves people from repeating the same arguments over and over. Radiant! 11:48, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and for crying out loud please do NOT consolidate nominations. I fucking hate that, and extremely so. Oh, and Wikipedia is not paper so please cease these time wasting exercises if you don't mind. —RaD Man (talk) 07:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Per consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Local politicians, merge local politicians unless they have done something exceptional beyond being elected. Radiant! 09:41, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a stub article, and so deserves to be kept under the criteria, as per Kevintoronto's comment. Meelar (talk) 18:50, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • I felt the information in there (that he was a teacher and that he lost two earlier elections) wasn't all that informative. From the article it seems he hasn't done anything notable other than being elected. Radiant! 11:48, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • True, but the key point in this was "non-stub article". While this information may seem unimportant to you, that's not necessarily true for all readers, and the overriding fact is that we have, right now, a decent article about this person. Meelar (talk) 07:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not a stub. Kevintoronto 14:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 17:00, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Giorgio Mammoliti

Vanity? Resume-cruft? Is it possible to merge these 430+ words into a parent article? Is anything here worthy of merging or should it be outright deleted? Obligatory google search turns up 157 unique matches. [31] --GRider\^talk 22:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Michael Thompson and Doug Holyday were kept and there is no reason why this Toronto councillor should not also be kept. - SimonP 22:26, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, as the article states, until 2002 he went by the name "George Mammoliti", which gets far more Google hits. - SimonP 23:03, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-7 23:11 Z
• Keep. Even if Toronto city councillors don't automatically count as notable, Mammoliti unquestionably is. His opposition to same-sex benefits in 1994 was major news in the province, as was his subsequent switch to municipal politics, his crossover from the NDP to the Liberals, etc. CJCurrie 23:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Spinboy 02:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Toronto city councillors are notable enough, especially Mammoliti. With the Toronto city council being as critical of former police chief Julian Fantino, Mammoliti's support makes him even more notable. --Deathphoenix 06:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, reads like vanity. Megan1967 07:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Per consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Local politicians, merge local politicians unless they have done something exceptional beyond being elected. Since this guy does fit in the latter category, keep. Radiant! 09:43, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article on him establishes notability rather than just that he is a Toronto city councillor with no further info on how he fits into the scheme of things. Capitalistroadster 10:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not a stub. Kevintoronto 14:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; whether Toronto city councillors are notable or not, Mammoliti was a Member of Provincial Parliament from 1990 to 1995, and it's already been established that members of provincial or state legislatures are always notable enough for Wikipedia. Bearcat 16:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Where has that been established? -R. fiend 19:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. "Political figures holding statewide or nationwide elected office." Bearcat 23:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you Bearcat for your comments. Please note that this figure is neither a statewide nor nationwide elected official so that criteria is not applicable. Do you suggest we update Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies to be less U.S.-centric? --GRider\^talk 23:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I would have to suggest that, yes. In Canada, there's technically no such thing as a provincewide or nationwide elected office per se; we only vote for our local candidate and the premiership or prime ministership automatically goes to the leader of whichever party won the most local candidate races. I remain quite certain that there's an established precedent for keeping people who've been elected to provincial/state/national legislatures. Bearcat 03:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of Star Trek characters. ugen64 22:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jason Vigo

Question: Encyclopedic? 183 hits. [32] --GRider\^talk 20:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Move to List of Star Trek characters and delete. RidG (talk) 02:44, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without redirect, nn fancruft. ComCat 03:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with "List of minor characters on Star Trek" and redirect, don't delete.
  In the Stargazer novels, Vigo is a Pandrilite. I've always wondered if this contradicts with Jason Vigo. — JIP | Talk 06:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to List of Star Trek characters. DaveTheRed 07:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of Star Trek characters. Megan1967 07:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of Star Trek characters. Miss Pippa 16:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 17:01, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Kasidy Yates

This sub-minor Star Trek character turns up 423 hits on Google. Is there anything here worth merging into a larger list or should this be deleted in its entirety? --GRider\^talk 23:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not a big fan of separate articles for non-starring fictional characters, but appearances in 15 episodes over five of DS9's seven seasons, including the finale, certainly makes her more notable than Brunt or Data's cat, Spot. Within the ST universe I'd say her notability is comparable to Naomi Wildman (18 or 20 appearances, depending on how you count). I probably wouldn't lose any sleep if this was merge/redir'd w/Benjamin Sisko or some collective ST characters article, but if she goes, more than half of Category:Star_Trek_characters should probably go, as many have only one appearance in all of Trek. FWIW, there's a bunch more hits if you change that search to the misspelling 'kassidy'. Niteowlneils 03:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with List of Star Trek characters. As Niteowlneils points out, this is a recurring character instead of a one episode blip. --Allen3 04:05, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep recurring, major or otherwise notable Star Trek characters, like this one. Merge and redirect the rest. -Sean Curtin 05:26, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Semi-notable character, not exactly minor. — JIP | Talk 06:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Notable recurring character in ST. Megan1967 07:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't buy into the whole google test idea and notability has never been a valid consideration for inclusion (per deletion policy) as has been mentioned umpteen-illion times before by several people, including the nominator. *COUGH* —RaD Man (talk) 07:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know much about Star Trek, but even I've heard of her. Miss Pippa 16:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and recurring. --Steven Fisher 06:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough.216.40.21.106 14:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oukuwamon

Are all fictional characters within the Digimon universe encyclopedically noteworthy? 4 hits. [33] --GRider\^talk 20:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Proper spelling seems to be "Okuwamon". Merge and redirect to list of Digimon. -Sean Curtin 05:28, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Digicruft. Android79 05:57, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, digicruft. Megan1967 07:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep, necessary to adequate coverage of digimonium. Kappa 10:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedically notable. --BM 12:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not of any note outside of Digimon, and I have no idea of what note this is within the series. Minor Star Trek characters aren't getting solidly keep votes, and Digimon has nowhere near the number and duration of obsessive fans that Star Trek has. Average Earthman 19:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More of a game guide than encyclopedia article. -R. fiend 19:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep
• For the reasons given in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Machinedramon: Merge the lot, or failing that Delete. Uncle G 23:21, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 17:03, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Peter Milczyn

Are city council members from Canada inherently noteworthy? What is the consensus? Google returns 188 unique matches for this particular figure. [34] --GRider\^talk 21:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

• Keep - Michael Thompson and Doug Holyday were kept and there is no reason why this Toronto councillor should not also be kept. - SimonP 22:24, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you SimonP for your response. Google is returning an exceptionally low number of hits for this individual. Based on your suggestion, is it safe to assume then that all Toronto City Council members are inherently noteworthy regardless of the respective hit count? Is this a matter of consensus? --GRider\^talk 22:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No, my contention is that notability is a meaningless concept. I am asserting that the neutrality and accuracy of an article on a Toronto city councillor is verifiable because they have all received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. - SimonP 23:00, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • Acknowledged. Thank you for your honest and expeditious reply. --GRider\^talk 01:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-7 23:11 Z
• Keep --Spinboy 02:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Being a student in Mr. Milczyn's ward, I am inherently biased, but I agree with SimonP on the neutrality and accuracy point. By the way, GRider, I must commend you on your politeness, many Wikipedians could learn from your civility and courtesy. -- user:zanimum
• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Toronto city councillors are notable enough, and Milczyn is even more so because he is known as one of the former Liberal Party member who threw his support behind John Tory's Tories (say it three times real fast) for the Ontario government. (sorry, forgot to sign) Deathphoenix 12:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Toronto councillors. Meelar (talk) 07:30, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Per consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Local politicians, merge local politicians unless they have done something exceptional beyond being elected. Radiant! 09:42, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, I must disagree--I would certainly contend that this individual has "a non-stub article written about him", and thus deserves to be kept under the criteria established there. Meelar (talk) 18:48, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Granted, it is a long enough article, however I cannot infer from the article that he has done something notable other than being elected. Borderline case, imho. Radiant! 11:50, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not a stub. Kevintoronto 14:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to some Toronto councillors article. This article is 90% filler and basically says nothing of interest. -R. fiend 19:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Not to you, perhaps. If I were interested in the municipal politics of Toronto--and millions have reason to be--I would be interested to learn this stuff. For example, "he is considered one of the right wing members of city council"--that's interesting and important information to many people. Meelar (talk) 01:02, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Well, I am clearly outnumbered but I must vote delete. We would not keep the bio of a random businessman of equivalent seniority and supervisory/budget responsibility. If it must be kept, I strongly prefer a merge. Rossami (talk) 23:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of Star Trek characters. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Prinadora

With 44 matches on Google for this subject [35], is this merge worthy or should it be deleted? --GRider\^talk 20:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Move to List of Star Trek characters and delete. There sure have been a lot of minor Star Trek characters lately. --Allen3 04:01, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and do not move/merge. ComCat 04:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to "List of minor characters on Star Trek" and redirect, don't delete. I don't think I have ever seen a female Ferengi actually appear on the show, which is obvious considering the Ferengi culture. Thus Prinadora doesn't deserve her own article. — JIP | Talk 06:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • What about Moogie? Anyway, Merge and redirect. Too minor to justify a solo article. 23skidoo 00:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to List of Star Trek characters DaveTheRed 06:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of Star Trek characters. Megan1967 07:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep, necessary information. Kappa 10:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, after putting name on List of Star Trek characters. --BM 12:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of Star Trek characters. If that list starts getting too big, split it into smaller lists, e.g. List of Ferengis etc. Miss Pippa 16:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Not sufficiently significant individually, but may as well keep the info somewhere. Average Earthman 19:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since only appears in dialog, not 'in the flesh'. Second choice, merge. Also, AFAIK Ishka is a female Ferengi who appeared in 5 DS9 episodes. Niteowlneils 17:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • With or without her clothes? — JIP | Talk 05:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of Star Trek characters. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vadosia (Star Trek)

Again, are all characters which appear in Star Trek once or twice inherently noteworthy and encyclopedic? Where do you draw the line and how? 112 hits. [36] --GRider\^talk 20:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn fancruft. ComCat 03:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Move to List of Star Trek characters and delete. --Allen3 04:10, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• This one too is a minor character. Merge with "List of minor characters on Star Trek" and redirect, don't delete. — JIP | Talk 06:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect minor characters of popular shows/books/movies. DaveTheRed 06:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of Star Trek characters. Megan1967 07:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge/redir somewhere (to reduce the chance of having to revisit this in the future, if nothing else). Was actually on screen in one episode, but, according to the plot sysopsis at startrek.com, was not a significant part of either the A plot or even the B plot--probably on-screen less than a minute. Niteowlneils 07:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, after putting name on List of Star Trek characters. --BM 12:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I have already merged it into List of Star Trek characters. Are we allowed to redirect it before the VfD time is up? Including taking off the "up for deletion" notice? Does this go for all VfD articles? If so, I will merge all the non-notable Star Trek characters that get put up (although i believe this will lead to the VfD page getting flooded with ST characters) Jdcooper 19:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, as has been done with Minor characters in Star Wars. Failing that, delete as fancruft. -R. fiend 19:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Too minor to justify a solo article. 23skidoo 00:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Deathphoenix 20:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Its Jesus LOL

Its Jesus LOL and its accompanying Image:MormonKnockKnock.jpg are rather devoid of content and value, and the picture is not only tasteless but much larger than it really needs to be. Delete both. -John Owens (talk) 23:55, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as vandalism and maybe block the user who apparently knew what s/he was doing. This is just wrong. - Lucky 6.9 23:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Doesn't take a genius to figure this one out. --The Milkman 00:33, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It's all gone now. -- user:zanimum

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was image has been deleted. sjorford →•← 17:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:MormonKnockKnock.jpg

Its Jesus LOL and its accompanying Image:MormonKnockKnock.jpg are rather devoid of content and value, and the picture is not only tasteless but much larger than it really needs to be. Delete both. -John Owens (talk) 23:55, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

• Delete it --The Milkman 00:35, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:01, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sinister

a fan page to a singer if a non notable band. "Delete" --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 20:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I've heard some great things about this band, they're doing some very interesting things in the field, not just their specific genre. Haven't heard them just yet, but I intend on getting one of their older works soon. From what I can gather, they're ready to explode, probably worth keeping up based on potential. I must admit, the name should probably be changed, as the article seems to be not just about sinister himself. "Do Not Delete" -- 224.13.180.74 | 16:03, 7 Mar 2005 (MTN)
• Delete, non-notable, possible vanity (Google search not particularly effective due to the obvious prevalence of names like "Sinister" and "Blasphemy"). User 224.13.180.74's defense sounds obviously biased, and the lack of a registered name at Wikipedia does not strengthen his argument much. "Ready to explode" even though he has not heard them yet? Come on. RidG (talk) 06:08, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I want this down. Now. -- sinister

• • Oh, man, if this weren't so clearly non-notable, I'd vote keep just because of that threat. Unfortunately, I have to vote delete. RickK 20:06, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, vanity. Note that user 63.120.179.155 blanked this discussion. Android79 21:30, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Good one, Rick! I wouldn't mind voting "keep" just to torque off the hosiery. Alas, a delete must be cast. Bummer. - Lucky 6.9 03:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete all of the related pages. ugen64 22:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2006 Maryland State Senate District 31 Election

Besides being of limited notability, this article is all speculation. RickK21:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Megan1967 07:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, how different is this article in practice from U.S. presidential election, 2008 as far as speculation. If this goes, the 2008 Presidential article has to go. Sugarking 12:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit 9and only one since) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hasn't happened yet. Besides, I don't think State Senate election contests merit separate articles, even when they have already happened. --BM 12:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with User:BM. It's too local. If kept, we's set a precedent for articles about every single local election in history. Future national elections can be kept based on national interest (providing they have sufficient information), this one can't. Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is silly. Wikipedia has tons of articles of marginal or only local interest. As somebody involved in local politics, I give credit to the author for caring enough about local elections to create the page. Jrlformd 13:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note User has 5 edits, one to this VfD, and the remainder to articles connected with thie VfD. Chris 18:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into a general article on the 2006 Maryland elections and one on all the elections to have occured in District 31. - SimonP 14:43, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. Note there's also 2006 Maryland State Senate District 33 Election, 2006 Maryland State Senate District 30 Election, 2006 Maryland House of Delegates District 33A Election, 2006 Maryland House of Delegates District 30 Election, 2006 Maryland House of Delegates District 31 Election, 2006 Maryland House of Delegates District 32 Election, 2006 Maryland State Senate District 32 Election, and 2006 Candidates for Anne Arundel County Executive. One article on the 2006 Maryland legislative election would work (at least when it gets closer), or ones on the overall history of each district, but articles for a single year, for a single district, for a single legislative body? Too granular, and would make Wikipedia further US-centric (and yes, I'm a US citizen/resident). Wikipedia is not League of Women Voters. Niteowlneils 16:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If Wikipedia keeps getting more local, soon I'll be able to move User:Niteowlneils/2500 Augustine wheelchair ramp (factual, verifiable, and "notability is not a criteria") into the main article namespace. Niteowlneils 16:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I'm very concerned that there is so much distaste for expanding the knowledge base. Why should the writer not provide additional information? The pages there are not hurting anybody and may actually provide additional information for those who want to look for info on the internet. Deleting the pages seem like an effort to restrict information, which seems to go against the point of having a Wikipedia. Davidmycanty 16:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note User has 3 edits, all to this VfD entry. Chris 18:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I spent a lot of time creating these pages to provide for public use. The people of my county Anne Arundel County, Maryland deserve the opportunity to find out about candidates on the net. If their search comes to Wikipedia to find it, so be it. Dickdexter 16:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note User has around 200 edits, of which about 10 are to pages other than these district election pages. Chris 18:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Question: Is that a crime? Jrlformd

No, but it's a good indicator of the weight of a vote. Chris 01:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The people in your county certainly deserve the opportunity to find out about candidates; but Wikipedia doesn't have to turn itself into a world-wide local Voter Guide for their sake. Start your own web site, unless the League of Women Voters is doing it already. --BM 18:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a substitute ballot paper. Unless, of course, I should start wheeling out 2004 Swansea County Council elections, Penderry ward, seat 1 to 2004 Swansea County Council elections, Penderry ward, seat 4, as well as another 4 seat articles each for the other 17 wards. In terms of those in the seats, I believe precedent is those elected to a reasonable level (parish councils don't cut it) get to stay, and those merely running but not actually winning stay out, unless they are notable for not actually winning. Chris 18:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note User has edits to such world-bending and articles of encyclopedic proportion as 96.4 FM The Wave which is no bettter or worse than other articles of local interest. Jrlformd.

... and your point is? Chris 01:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete because of speculation, limited notablility and interest, and sockpuppet activity. Gamaliel 18:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and all similar articles. Wikipedia does not need an article on every election for every office in every state in the US. This is Ashlee Simpsonesque overkill. Not all pulbic offices are notable. Not all people who hold those offices are notable. Not all elections for those offices are notable. Speculation is the least of this article's problems. -R. fiend 18:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see much of speculation. The information present seems to be relevant. Any information is good information. --Boshtang 19:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly Delete all of them. Small local elections are not notable. Small local elections that haven't even happened yet are less notable. DaveTheRed 20:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is speculation and not notable enough for an article right now. Carrp | Talk 20:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Having the author of this text nominate valid articles for deletion in retaliation isn't helping anyone, kthx. Mike H 20:03, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Note: I have not nominated any articles for deletion. However, I do not understand how anybody can consider this speculation and less worthy of inclusion than some other articles - Dickdexter, 20:32, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• You may be right, and in that case those other articles would also have to be deleted. It's all a matter of how exactly you mean it. If you are convinced by argumentation here, you can nominate other articles on the same grounds. If you feel the argumentation here is wrong, you should not nominate other articles in an attempt to prove it wrong. Radiant! 11:44, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge. If you check out , this is far from the only such article being created. Everything is factual; the worst that can be said about these articles is that they are currently stubs and may not get enough information to become an encyclopedic article. My feeling is that this set of articles be combined into Maryland elections, 2006. If that combined article begins exceeding the 32 KB standard limit, then there's nothing stopping us from splitting it back up, as appropriate. — DLJessup 05:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as speculation, concur with DaveTheRed. Radiant! 11:44, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, barring some evidence of special notability for this race (scandal of national significance, etc.). Having been involved in several campaigns at this level, I see no reason to believe they are encyclopedic; in the event they involve political figures of some notability, they can be covered in appropriate biographical articles. RadicalSubversiv E 12:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (including the ones found by Niteowlneils. Future events are inherently speculative and unverifiable. The election itself is more suitable to WikiNews than a general knowledge encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 23:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speculation is not encyclopedic. — Gwalla | Talk 04:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the Wikibooks Voter's Guide], which is a fledgling part of the one of Wikipedia's sister projects. That would be a perfect home for this. Tuf-Kat 22:24, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I support this recommendation. Philwelch 20:25, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree that this article is mainly just trying to play fortune teller, not trying to be informative. Zscout370 17:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Any particular reason that I, a North Carolinian, should care? Do you realize what it would be like if every district election in this country had its own page? Slightly interesting, but no more. Ridethefire3211 18:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This just doesn't seem notable enough to anyone outside of that district in Maryland. nanaszczebrzeszyn
• Delete. It's not about norability, but about chronology. Encyclopædias shouldn't be about the future. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just a question: this article was pushed to VfD on March 7th. Under normal circumstances, that would mean that a decision should have been reached on or about March 12th. It's now March 20th. What's the hold up? — DLJessup 02:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• No idea, but I personally think that if you take my vote out and a few others, I think the vote will still swing towards deletion. Zscout370 02:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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