Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 22

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 and redirect. —Xezbeth 19:55, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

The entry just arouses nonnotability.

• Delete and send to the Home for Retired Necromancers. Yeesh. FreplySpang (talk) 00:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't establish notability. As a side note,
  List of characters in Elfquest links to the page, but it appears to be talking about an elf, not a gnome. LtNOWIS
  01:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all player characters from MMORPGs and pen-and-paper RPG campaigns. android↔talk 01:55, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to
  Everquest. android↔talk
  03:33, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • • Yes, you are probably correct. Megan1967 06:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Barring that, we could merge this into Things that encourage VfD voters to coin new words ending in "-cruft". sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 05:39, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Windkin is an important character from
  List of characters in Elfquest. Radiant_*
  10:14, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• What the?!?!?! NO, I repeat NO character from an MMO will EVER deserve a mention on Wiki. Unless they commit suicide and there's a huge intellectual debate or something like that. As suggested above, delete and redirect to
  List of characters in Elfquest. A very good idea Radiant! Might as well make the redirect of (potential) use. Master Thief Garrett
  22:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you know, for someone as influential as Irshad Cassim is supposed to be, he's got a surprisingly low amount of Google hits: one - and reading the page shows that his name isn't even actually there. His multimillionaire wife "who owns six chemical industries" doesn't show up either. Some of his famous ancestors appear to have existed outside of this entry, but I'm dubious as to whether they were actually his ancestors. Purge. DS 23:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

DS, I've shortened your URL cutting out the unnecessary tags so future editors don't have to put up with a horizontal scrollbar. Hope you don't mind... Master Thief Garrett 22:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, only 1 Google hit [1] from a letters column in a newspaper - not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 03:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ONE Google hit?!? I've never, never, never seen so few listings for a real person. Probably vanity, there looks to be as much info here as there is at that other site. It talks of relation to royalty, but like DS I severely doubt this is real. Delete I say! Delete away! Master Thief Garrett 22:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing links to it as well.Tobycat 00:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was marked as {{

• I'm the one that cleaned up the grammar/POV and applied the tags. The problem of running cars getting stolen is certainly real, but the term "puffer thief" is a neologism. Merge into Motor vehicle theft, but don't refer to "puffer thief" at all. android↔talk 02:17, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 20:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Neologism. Master Thief Garrett 03:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 06:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Can't even find references to it on google. Tobycat 00:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cute but unencyclopedic/original research/unverifiable/all that. BJAODN? FreplySpang (talk) 02:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Agree with above. --Durin 02:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic, in spite of the fact that a cat's tail is currently swishing across my keyboard as I type. Joyous 02:36, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no BJAODN. Cute, but not funny or weird enough for that. android↔talk 02:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonencyclopedic. Not bad enough for BJAODN. Also, it's pretty widespread on the Internet: [2], [3], [4]. All three have copyright notices, but the last says the piece itself may be in the public domain. But it's still not an encyclopedia article even if it isn't a copyvio. --
  _comhrá
  05:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic, original research, unverifiable, but not really BJAODN material. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. With great sadness. El_C 07:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy for the reasons listed above. Firebug 07:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of stale, outdated and oft-repeated allegedly humourous internet lists such as this. Average Earthman 08:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep Agesander 12:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This user is a sockpuppet of banned Iasson. Thryduulf 13:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is, of course, the only important piece of cat physics. sjorford →•← 14:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And what the heck, include it in BJAODN just because we don't have GJAODN. --Idont Havaname 20:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I think I got this very same crap via email more than once! Master Thief Garrett 03:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think Wikipedia is the kind of place where this eminently sensible article can cohabit with such gibberish as the Rules of Acquisition. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd change my vote if the content could be contextualilzed within a bona fide phenomenon such as a notable book that made these popular or a well-known and long surviving internet joke that has documentable history and interest.Tobycat 00:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think Wikipedia is the kind of place where this eminently funny article can cohabit with such lies as Evolution. RossNixon 10:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move to BJAODN. I think it's hilarious, but of course untrue. (or is it strangely true?) Deco 05:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this little gem while cleaning up a substub (Amateur writing). It's a neat bit of adcopy, but utterly non-notable as the site's on free hosting and only has 20 stories. Sorry chaps, you'll have to do better than that.

And the moral of that is: go fix a substub today, it's very relaxing. humblefool® 03:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• delete. Where does a personal webpage ad end and an enclyclopedic article about an established organisation begin? Obviously NOT HERE. At least they used the word "amatuer". Master Thief Garrett 03:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. Megan1967 07:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad Dsmdgold 10:42, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad. The page Self-publishing links to it. That should probably be edited out if the delete is made. Tobycat 00:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It could be a very useful market for a beginning writer to look into. They're interested in publishing one of my pieces, in fact. The_Iconoclast 20:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advert. Psychofox 23:34, May 5, 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). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While plant hormone and the way that the control plant development and respond to stress is perfectly acceptable material for Wikipedia, these articles are not the way to do it. First of all they're essays and may include original research, I hypothesize pops up frequently in the text. Second, the way it is written both simplifies and complicates the issue at the same time, so anyone that read it and is not a plant biochemist (and even then...) is going to come out confused. Third, nothing is cited (which is why I'm not just merging the articles), this knowledge doesn't just exist it has come from years of research, this brings up two problems, people aren't being credited for their work, and everything in these massive articles would need to be fact checked and referenced, since it has been written to meet the authors hypothesis, literature has also been left out. So weighing all that up I am recommending that these be deleted

I should also mention that these have been used with permission from a website [5]. --

• Delete. Comments on the website lead me to believe that these fall into the realm of original research. Joyous 03:26, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research, especially when they don't cite anything. Mgm|^(talk) 08:32, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The references for the articles are at Talk:Plant_hormone - Fuelbottle | Talk 18:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • An essay like that really needs in text referencing, are you prepared to do that?--
    nixie
    23:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like this topic and 95% of the content, but the articles need to be overhauled and made "encyclopedic". To preserve them, remove speculation and any first person observations. Remove author's research unless truly widely recognized as field-advancing. Add links and references. Then it could be better than any of our endless cruft on tv and video game characters. alteripse 03:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Topic may be encyclopedic but the current content is not (yet). Unfortunately the general plant hormone article, though shorter, is in a similar sorry state. It's the one, though, that should stay since it has the potential for meaningful cleanup. These two should go. Tobycat 01:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with Tobycat's comments. CheekyMonkey 22:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with alteripse. This seems to be more of a research paper than an encyclopedia article. --Kerowyn 03:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Since there is already a much more concise Plant_hormone page, I'm inclined to agree with Tobycat. --Alan Au 05:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:54, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Already covered completely and more thoroughly in

• delete, as above. Master Thief Garrett 02:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge with
  The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons El_C
  07:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, duplication. Megan1967 07:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge With
  The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons --Nate3000
  10:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A non-notable forum, completely unencyclopædic and the article seems to be used as a message board, too. DO'Иeil 03:41, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete for the same reason mention above. --DuKot 03:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Abuse of Wikipedia. Tssk, tssk. --
  ^gab
  04:01, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just... just because. Weird stuff. Master Thief Garrett 07:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Ugh. The rolling eyes mean I can't believe somebody would think that this possibly belongs in an encyclopedia. Delete. RickK 20:53, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Uh...right. My eyes didn't roll so much as cross. Delete "strange canoes in bay with wings." - Lucky 6.9 21:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN Dsmdgold 20:12, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: Non encyclapedic, also did anyone get the impression that although it's a website about Japan it seems to be an extremely racist one?Deathawk 03:38, 26 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 06:51, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Neologism. --Durin 04:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Total nonsense. Google returns no results [6] --DuKot 04:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pamcruft. --
  ^gab
  04:05, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
• Dont delete!. The term Pamcake is an rising slang in High School conversations, mainly in the Houston Area. This page correctly identifies the accurate usage of such a term so that it will not see a quickened end due to incorrect usage. Furthermore, new ideas such as this should not be frowned upon because new ideas, however dumb at first, is essential in the continuation of our social legacy. --User:Cheney (actually 68.92.196.52 04:39, 2005 Apr 22 according to history Uncle G 16:00, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC))
• Dont delete!. Yea he's right. You have to start somewhere with these new terms. Give it a chance , please. 70.241.81.238 04:43, 2005 Apr 22 (according to history Uncle G 16:00, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC))
  • So every neologism is allowed to have a page? Come on. This is not worthy of an article. --Durin 04:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. You may have to start somewhere but that place
  isn't Wikipedia. FreplySpang (talk)
  04:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism. (But I'm tempted to say "Redirect to pancake as a possible mispelling.") Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Neologism. El_C 07:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 07:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Master Thief Garrett 07:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef neologisms. Simple definitions of words should not be put in an encyclopedia. Read
  WP:WIN Mgm|^(talk)
  08:35, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This could serve as a textbook example of a trivial fancruft article. — JIP | Talk 09:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to Meet the Parents (movie) as a character therein. Radiant_* 12:45, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• The schoolchildren aiming to get their made-up word into the dictionary have once again missed, and hit the encyclopaedia instead. (They've also hit the dictionary. Wiktionary:pamcake is up for deletion right now.) A quick search reveals that several other people have, from time to time, made up this word, although apparently not seriously. (One web site makes the flimsy claim, based solely upon a picture, that Pamela Anderson is going into competition with IHOP.) It also reveals that a lot of people have mis-spelled pancake. No such word. Therefore no such concept/person/place/thing to warrant an encyclopaedia article by this title. Redirect either as per Radiant! or to pancake. Uncle G 16:00, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
• Delete. Could be a redirect to pancake as a typo. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 18:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a neologism dicdef. --Carnildo 20:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism that I've never even heard of, and I'm a high school senior. Linuxbeak 20:52, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as pamcakes with sockpuppet syrup. Can we vote over at Wiktionary, I wonder? -Lucky 6.9 21:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops...no need. They speedied it. - Lucky 6.9 21:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this sock-supported neologism. Jonathunder 01:14, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
• redirect it to pancake then Yuckfoo 00:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Sorry Cheney, but it really doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I put it in Urban Dictionary though. Also, you didn't even mention who the starcraft player is (i don't even know) and in general your entry was horrible - Yan

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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, as related to deleted Republic Of Henderson Island

Delete: Hoax/nonsense. See Republic Of Henderson Island created by similar IP# which is also up for delete as a hoax. --Durin 04:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Google has nothing, so suspect unverifiable, and probably a hoax. Average Earthman 08:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, created by a prankster. Mikkalai 17:34, 22 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 06:53, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Obvious advertising/vanity. Not notable. --

• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 07:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, promo/ad. Now I've seen everything. Wiffle as a suffix? Master Thief Garrett 03:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is already appropriately mentioned in the
  wiffleball article as the host of championship games. As a stand alone article it's just an advert.Tobycat
  01:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:53, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Vanity, nonsense. --Durin 05:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Concur with above. Nonsense, by a vandal as well. --

• Delete Vanity, Nonsense Dsmdgold 10:41, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, nonsense, or a joke.Tobycat 01:15, 27 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 06:55, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Advertisement. NTK 05:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - While Image Coputer Systems LTD are notable, at least as notable as Barcode and sticker-makers can be, this is nothing.--Irishpunktom\^talk 15:01, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Carnildo 20:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 11:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. Master Thief Garrett 03:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's nothing there.Tobycat 01:16, 27 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 19:53, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned article with no explanation, seems to be a list of people in some Adam Sandler song. In any event completely nonencyclopedic. NTK 05:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A nonesensical list, but why? El_C 06:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 07:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to
  ^gab
  13:11, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Why bother with a redirect? Nobody is going to explicitly enter the exact phrase "Sandler Jewish Celebrities" trying to find this song, and nothing links to this article. What is "fun" about a worthless redirect? NTK 00:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• You are quite correct! I'm changing my vote. Master Thief Garrett 03:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to The Chanukah Song. No need to merge.--Irishpunktom\^talk 14:44, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Chanukah Song. That page explains much better what this is all about. - Marcika 23:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Chanukah Song. That page explains much better what this is all about. Master Thief Garrett 03:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)Delete, as per NTK. Master Thief Garrett 03:31, 26 Apr 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

• del. nonnotable. old news. Mikkalai 07:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a towering work of genius now that I'm done with it.
  • Vote by User:64.160.45.112, who has a dozen edits.
• Weak keep as published author, even if he only writes meta-literature. Radiant_* 10:17, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, you can buy his book [7] and a biography of him [8] on Amazon.com, plus 800 Google hits [9], pretty good for an author who's been dead for more than 40 years. --
  bainer
  12:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Very notable. Whats with you guys? --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:42, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - National Book Award = notable. FreplySpang (talk) 14:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough for me. --Myles Long 15:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this "towering work of genius".
  Kappa
  19:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable enough. - Longhair | Talk 12:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definitely notable, this is a must keep!!! I dont understand why, something so critical would even be considered for deletion. KEEP!

• keep because it is very notable ok? Yuckfoo 00:45, 26 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 06:54, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Very minor arcade company with only two locations in

• Delete. If the chain becomes larger and more notable in the future, we can then re-create the article. Firebug 07:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not yet notable Dsmdgold 10:39, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Bakersfield cruft. Klonimus 13:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable enough, and a decent article in need of some slight cleanup. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:40, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nonnotable. It is not a manufacturer of games, just another pachinko. Mikkalai 21:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, they just do tournaments etc. of OTHER COMPANIES' games. So, no, non-notable. My local fish-'n'-chip shop would probably have a more exciting story to tell revolving around the acquisition of its US/Euro-region cabinets despite the shop itself being located in New Zealand. Come on. Who adds this stuff anyway? Possible vanity. Master Thief Garrett 22:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Concur, delete. Radiant_* 10:27, Apr 25, 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. —Xezbeth 19:52, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

This page is a slang term and its etymology. It's already in Wiktionary so don't vote "transwiki". Kevin Rector (talk) 07:50, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Wiktionary article is perfectly adequate. Average Earthman 08:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This can be expanded into a proper article on bunny boiling, examples of similar obsessive behaviour in reality, examples of the term used in the press, etc. Matthew Platts 14:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, with recipes, too. Mikkalai 21:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Already in Wiktionary. Concept can be covered in stalking, erotomania, girlfriend. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 18:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The term "bunny boiling" should not be used to lump together all sorts of obsessive behavior, that would obviously belong in the Obsessive Behavior article. RickK 20:55, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nonnotable, nonexpandable. BTW this is a slang term, not a medical term, kinda sorta "psycho". Mikkalai 21:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't *sound* medical, so that means it isn't! Medical terms are always either mutli-syllable mouthfuls (psychosomatic dyssentry), or based on the name of the first researcher/sufferer (Asperger's Syndrome) or Latin (no example comes to mind). It originates from a movie, so possibly fancruft. Master Thief Garrett 22:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like it belongs in the dict, and it is. It seems that the problem has been solved to me, so we can del. BigFatDave 02:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Add mention to Fatal Attraction and redirect. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Fatal Attraction. Now, if'll you'll excuse me, I'm off to delete headache per MTGarrett's logic. FreplySpang (talk) 18:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL! No I didn't word it quite right did I! What I meant was that this is a fluff/invented term. Headache is an established term. LOL! Master Thief Garrett 03:00, 24 Apr 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

was solidwater.org

Delete for the reasons expressed

• Agree. The previous page was deleted for non-notability as per VfD procedure, no need for a re-vote for an attempt to re-create in under another name. This is therefore a speedy deletion candidate. -- Karada 08:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, qualifies under recreated article from previous vfd. Megan1967 10:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Content speedeleted; the page is under {{pendingdeletion}} for technical reasons. Mikkalai 19:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a vanity page. "Eggmaster J" doesn't get any Google hits. Delete. — JIP | Talk 09:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable, possible vanity aricle --Randolph 09:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 10:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Martg76 11:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Everyone knows that Eric Vislay is Egg Master J! --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:39, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; vanity again. Linuxbeak 20:51, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; sorry bro, but the only Google hits come right back to us. Until you've really made your break in the industry, I'm afraid you have no place here. Sorry bro, but that's showbusiness for ya! Master Thief Garrett 02:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No allmusic.com hits, obviously. Gamaliel 03:01, 24 Apr 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 (block-compress error). – ABCD 17:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be advertisement for a language school and therefore doesn't belong in wikipedia. Ben talk contr 10:37, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete As it currently stands it certianly ins't encylopaedic. I have no doubt that there will be a flury of activity to fill this article with trivia, though. Thryduulf 23:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious advert for a private business in a provincial Japanese city. --Calton | Talk 23:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam on sight. —Korath (Talk) 23:58, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete An advert for a school which offers, wait, calligraphy and flower arranging. Wow! Because that makes it interesting. The JPS 00:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. Megan1967 01:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain for now— waiting to see if it can be filled with trivia. —RaD Man (talk) 03:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable/advertising. Noisy | Talk 11:00, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, adcruft. There is NO point waiting to see it fill with trivia, they'd just be wasting our bandwith with their vain fluff... Master Thief Garrett 02:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 19:10, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Trivia != encyclopedic. Delete. Radiant_* 10:27, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• keep this because it is notable and informational Yuckfoo 00:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable advert. ugen64 21:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Plenty of room for growth. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a school, it is inherantly notable --Zantastik 19:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "inherently notable"?!? I hate it how you school-keepers say that. In that case, I can add Cabri primary school which had an all-time high classroom attendance of 23? I am completely serious, that school does actually exist. But is it inherently noteable? Heck no. Is this? Probably not either. You see my point, where do we draw the line? Master Thief Garrett 23:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a vanity page Number 0 12:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, band vanity. Fails
  bainer
  13:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 13:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, 99 Google results, mostly mirrors of "us", incl. this Vfd page! Sorry guys, but Wikipedia is not your testing ground. We will gladly cover you in full detail when you've got your break and have become supremely popular. We wish you all luck, but until that time comes, you cannot be listed here. Sorry bro, that's showbusiness for ya! Master Thief Garrett 02:55, 24 Apr 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, though someones redirected to

This looks to me like a conclusion to delete the redirect. There is nothing of value in the article history - since this was never anything but a crude attack page. Nothing could reasonably link here. It should be deleted. — Trilobite (Talk) 05:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation and innuendo, created in bad faith as a more subtle way of calling Pope Benedict XVI gay than engaging in crude vandalism of his article, which would be quickly reverted. You only have to look at the line: "The current Pope is Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor was Pope John Paul II. They were known to be very good friends." This is also original research, and not encyclopedic. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed this line. Whether or not the article is deleted, this sort of innuendo has no place in Wikipedia. Shoaler 13:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• (Speedy) Delete, at least one of
  bainer
  13:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article says: "Whilst some people may be very narrow minded and disagree with this article it contains nothing but fact and further research is being conducted." Yes, original research. Fie on thou!!! --
  ^gab
  13:02, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
• Delete--reads like original research from a Jack Chick pamphlet. Meelar (talk) 13:04, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - This is just "_____ IS GAY" vandalism in disguise. - Omegatron 13:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Speculation and innuendo. Schoolboy stuff. Delete DJ Clayworth 13:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't think of any way this article could be worthwhile. Shoaler 13:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Anti-gay vandalism. - UtherSRG 13:54, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given by nominator. No source citations. No "X said Y about Z" where X = some notable person or authoritative source, Y = "is gay", and Z = popes in general or some pope in particular. "It is entirely possible and probable... Just how many... is not known... it is now more likely than ever that there recently has been or currently is a gay pope." If you remove the nonfactual sentences there is literally nothing left in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge While probably a vandal article to cause a stir, it might be interesting to start an article called
  Husnock
  14:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There already is and article "
    homosexual bishop". You may want to expand it and rename accordingly. Mikkalai
    18:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete although it might be true, WP is not the place for speculative articles. -- Wegge 18:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was made into a redirect to

There is no reason to feed a troll who doesn't listen reason, by a VfD. Mikkalai 14:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Mikkalai, this isn't about feeding a troll, it's about removing a very offensive article. It MUST GO, whether the troll goes with it or not.
• Delete. All the reasons said above. This is probably VERY offensive to Catholics. Or, at least, if I was Catholic I know *I* would be offended! So, yeah, deleted. I'd say
  homosexual bishop could one day share a similar VfD fate as cruel editors could word it in a very offensive way... Master Thief Garrett
  22:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Since when was offensiveness against Catholics criteria for deletion? - Omegatron 23:10, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

  Good point! I said "probably", but even so I didn't quite word it correctly. I'm not worried about it sounding offensive, but I'm just saying that someone may take such offense that they vandalise or start an

  edit war to get rid of the content. I mean, if you started an article about, say, rapidly increasing gay suicide rates or something (potentially) objectionable like that, there'd be bound to be someone offended by it and would want it taken care of. So do Catholics count in the same "Political Correctness protect-o-bubble" as ethnic/sexual-orientation groups, or not? EDIT: I'm not saying that term to offend anyone/any group, it's just the briefest wording to explain how those groups are protected. Just thought I'd clear that up. Master Thief Garrett

  23:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  It should be deleted because it's just stupid vandalism; not because it's potentially offensive to someone. We'd have to delete a lot if we cared about potentially offending individual people.  :-) Wikipedia may contain objectionable content - Omegatron 00:33, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• As the first person to request deletion, I say redirect to
  Homosexual bishop. If someone keeps adding speculative/uncited material, take it to RFC or protection. Gazpacho
  11:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 by Jpgordon (Hoax, nonsense) --cesarb 00:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This person was born in the 4th century and is still alive, aparently. Total nonsense, but not patent nonsense unfortunately, so it must be listed here. David Johnson [T|C] 12:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Also, the only way he can be killed is if you cut of his head. --
  ^gab
  12:53, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

• Delete. Complete nonsense. BrendanH 12:58, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and IMHO, you would have been right to speedy. If an article's claims are obviously untrue (a 4th century guy living for thousands of years) it falls under patent nonsense. Meelar (talk) 13:05, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless. --WalkinDownThirtyThree 18:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• SPEEDY Delete, the crown of all weirdness. I don't know if this is based of a legend, but come on, that makes him even older than Methuselah, the oldest recorded character EVER! "Hoaxes", "fictional story material"... this falls under both. Let's speedy-ise it (oh look, a new neologism!) Master Thief Garrett 22:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• UPDATE: Oh my, look what Google found! Someone's added some joke bio page to Wiki. And it's been plagarised from there. Even worse. Come on, it's a joke, a speedy delee for sure. Master Thief Garrett 22:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I've speedied this piece of gibberish. It's utter bullshit -- and though the rules don't necessarily allow for the speedy deletion of utter bullshit, this is utter enough bullshit to register on my synapses on patent nonsense too. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:17, 23 Apr 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 (done already). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One line article on the sequel to a non-notable porn movie. Anilocra 13:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the original movie and the series that followed were quite notable, however I agree delete this substub; if someone feels they can make a viable article on this film series, they should start with the first film. 23skidoo 14:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete substub, agreeing in detail with 23skidoo. Barno 15:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes it could be quite an article, but, as above, start with the first movie if anything. Master Thief Garrett 22:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Audiovideo 22:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I would vote to keep a decent stub on this but so far this article fails to make the grade. Capitalistroadster 03:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I created a stub for the original film and would suggest a redirect there. (you can imagine the fun I had searching google for "Taboo pornographic movie" ...!) Anilocra 11:34, 26 Apr 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:18, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Mok" should be capitalized, a new page has been created with correct capitalization and identical information, please delete this incorrectly titled article --MightyJack 14:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• All it needs is a Redirect. No need for VfD process. On second thought, Merge both articles into
  WP:FICT. android↔talk
  14:40, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• In general, please don't ever move a page by cutting and pasting its contents to a new title; this loses the article's history and authorship information, which is needs to be preserved to satisfy the
  WP:CSD). The merge to Thundarr the Barbarian is probably best. —Korath (Talk
  ) 14:44, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity page for a local group of musicians with no evidence of widespread notability. *Delete. — Ливай | ☺ 14:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Definitely vanity. --67.99.175.118 16:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • anaon's vote ignored. Mikkalai 18:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agesilaus II 16:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ignore vote of above user: sockpuppet for banned user Iasson. Barno 20:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. notability. Mikkalai 18:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. HUGELY POV. Refers to a "local hero". If that isn't POV then I don't know WHAT is. Also made up of vanity, vanity, vanity... that's all VfD is these days... who adds this stuff?!? Master Thief Garrett 22:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 01:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, If you can't provide information for adoring fans and have a little fun at the same time, then what is the point of this site? Besides, who spends their time searching every article on the site to delete articles?

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm putting this article up for a vote for deletion after finding it in the articles to be cleaned up section. On the talk page a few people have commented on the ambiguity and POV nature of the article and I simply have no idea what to do with it. The article talks about two authors who already have seperate articles written about them. If you take away those two sections of the article, then there really isn't much substance left to the article at all. It's such an obscure and non-notable subject that I feel it would be best to delete it. I don't see any hope of a merger or cleanup. --Randolph 14:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — RJH 16:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A an encyclopedic article for a known expression. Why would one want to remove "those two sections" that explain the history of the term? In this way one can decimate almost every article. Encyclopedia is not a bunch of 100% separated topics. Things tend to be interrelated and overlapped in real life. Mikkalai 18:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's not POV to document a POV expression, compare
  Kappa
  19:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• if you keep it, move it to the correct title. Gdr 22:14, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
• Keep WLD 22:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly decent article. I'll bet most people who encountered the phrase in Through the Looking-Glass were puzzled by the expression. An explanation of the background is worthwhile. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Much less obscure to those of us who read and write than articles about video game characters. alteripse 03:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but rename to correct capitalisation. Radiant_* 10:29, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nice little article. Capitalistroadster 03:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this is not a common theme for discussion, does not convince me that the Alice reference is related to a broader discourse, and is incredibly poorly composed.XmarkX 09:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's also the title of a very well-known novel which has been continuously in print since 1956. It seems to have become a sort of catch-phrase like blue-plate special, used as a vaguely witty headline for all sorts of things. Google shows it to be the title of an academic conference, a title for a themed issue of an online journal of medieval northwestern Europe, etc. A search for the phrase "Anglo-Saxon attitudes" in a www.a9.com search limited to books shows many uses in the sense mentioned by the article. For example, Christopher Hitchens writes in a 1995 book, "But, like the migration of Shakespearean birds, Anglo-Saxon attitudes are able in the United States, in some sense, to cut with the grain." The main thing that this indeed-incredibly-poorly-composed article fails to do is to give any uses of the phrase contemporary with Lewis Carroll; that is, I still don't know what Carroll was riffing on. I do get the impression that most modern usage of the phrase is either a direct reference to Wilson's novel, a direct reference to Through the Looking-Glass, or a mere flippant use as a catch-phrase. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs more background information, though. --Dcfleck 11:45, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Keep - I just re-read Through the Looking Glass. humblefool® 02:05, 29 Apr 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is not only factually bare, but also seems to be a mockery of the song. It provides no real information as to the nature of the song, its recording, and its significance. Although it does outline the "plot", the song really doesn't have much of a story. As such, an entire page devoted to the "story" is an insignificant waste of space.WalkinDownThirtyThree 16:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• All those seem to be arguments that the article should be cleaned, not deleted. It doesn't look like you're saying this is a bad topic for a song. Keep, but I could well change my mind if people present some arguments as to why this is a bad topic for an article. Meelar (talk) 19:30, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC) Pretty definite keep, if it was a hit single. Meelar (talk) 00:00, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and add some context. This was a hit single, or at least a single. "waste of space" doesn't really apply to wikipedia, something like "would disappoint anyone who found it" might apply though.
  Kappa
  19:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Seems to be one of the "Rock 'N Roll Hall Of Fame's 500 Songs That Shaped Rock And Roll" [11].
  Kappa
  01:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Eh, I see what you're saying. Perhaps I was just so disgusted with the stupidity of what was written that I acted irrationally. Perhaps I'll write the new article myself! --24.55.187.176 02:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable song as part of Springsteen's live show as well as classic rock song. Capitalistroadster 03:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Basically just a paraphrase of the song's lyrics, which it doesn't even quote correctly ("mama's reins, not mama's reign, geez). --Dcfleck 11:50, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Keep. I've been slowly expanding the Springsteen content on WikiPedia and will add this to my list. JnB987 15:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP

I suggest the merger of this article with

• keep separate. The Discordianism artilce is long, and article splitting is wikipedia's policy. There is nothing illogical to have separate articles for separate subjects. And there is a huge number of fancruft in wikipedia that many people would deem eunencyclopedic, but fans have a different opinion. Mikkalai 17:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to a section in the
  WP:FICT. Not separately encyclopedic, even after a Catholic pope dies. Parent article may be large but this topic can't be expanded to merit an article... unless you want to list all six billion Discordian popes. Barno
  19:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:FICT is a semi-policy, to bundle two-liners into a list. If an article is over a 1000 characters, then let it be. Also, the current article is incomplete, despite your claim, and I am even not a discordianist :-). Right now I am adding an important bit, but there is more of it. Mikkalai
    22:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep separate per Mikkalai
  Kappa
  19:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Mikkalai. All hail discordia. 23skidoo 03:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is long enough that a merge would make Discordianism even harder to read than it already is. DenisMoskowitz 13:22, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
• Keep Shoulp we merge the topic "Pope" under Catholicism? The topics are related, but distinct.
• Keep Discordian Pope is a distinct and self contained element of Discordianism that merits its own page. Besides, the Discordian page should be split into sperate articles as it is, why compound the problem by adding in more sections? brash
• Keep. I've seen the
  ^gab
  21:02, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Comment. Discussions on whether a merge is necessary properly belong on the article's talk page, not on VfD. Don't saddle admins with the responsibility of carrying out such merges; regular users can do this just fine, so they usually won't do it anyway. Putting the vote on VfD does not give it extra legitimacy, and what's worse, it emphasizes a vote over a discussion to consensus. In short: don't put things on VfD unless you want them deleted. JRM · Talk 08:57, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Wrong. Even shorter: we delete "articles", not "things". Mikkalai 18:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, to be replaced with a line "Every Discordian is a Discordian Pope" on Discordianism. All of these supposed elaborations on the power of a Discordian Pope are entirely in the mind of the author(s); the Principia just says that everyone is a Discordian Pope, and empowered to make up their own powers. None of this stuff reflects any sort of community consensus (this is Discordianism we're talking about) or any sort of canon (again, Discordianism). Any article that suggests some sort of structure or consensus in Discordianism should be taken with a massive grain of salt. A Man In Black 12:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • All these "elaborations" are documented. We have plenty of fictional things which are "in minds of their authors", but nevertheless are in separate articles. Mikkalai 18:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge - This simple idea has been articlized into a joke. Put it into the main article where it belongs. - Tεxτurε 18:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with a joke? Many elaborate enough jokes have own pages. With all due respect, your suggestion is an opposite to wikipedia's way: articles are being split as they grow. Mikkalai 18:38, 28 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 19:48, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic; only entries found through Google are a memorial site and an "artist of the month" listing. - jredmond 16:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Recognizing the subjective nature of Art and what's considered "popular" or not. Nathan McClain (1973-1997) was a U.S. illustrator, artist, and painter who died at 24. This deceased artist recently received international recognition at the Museums & the Web conference and is developing a passionate following. Please reconsider this deletion and keep the entry for others to view. (comment left by anon user 63.125.147.253)
• Delete, not notable at present (though this may of course change at a later stage) Worldtraveller 17:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment (not a vote). I'm the curator of Nathan's online gallery and was honored to find it listed in Wikipedia. There was a conference I attended in Canada where I spoke about Nathan and his art. There were numerous comments about how moved people were by his story and I'm speculating that someone wrote this Wikipedia entry based on that. You probably haven't heard of him before and you won't see his art in traditional galleries (it's all privately owned). As of today, Nathan McClain would be considered an underground artist with loyal supporters. The awareness of his art and who he was is getting greater attention. Nathan's listing here appears to be a very brief high-level summary; an extensive biography can be provided if needed. Hope this helps provide a context. Nmadmin 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can you provide evidence that would help the community make this decision? For example, does McClain meet one or more of the recommended
    WP:MUSIC. It's not written for visual artists but it might give you a sense of the kinds of evidence that the community usually considers appropriate. And perhaps you could help us develop parallel suggestions for visual artists.) Thanks. Rossami (talk)
    • Comment (response): After reviewing the
      criteria for inclusion of biographies, here's some supporting evidence. Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field? There was a grassroots fundraising effort in the Fall of 2004 to save an 16 foot x 8 foot mural that Nathan painted. Because of Nathan's popularity, the Middle School he attended now owns this painting and it is displayed in their cafeteria. The saving of the painting involved people who did not know Nathan and was reported in the local paper, a local art zine, & the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. A dedication ceremony/career retrospective is being planned for early June to not conflict with school activities. Also, there is a current effort to locate an Ozzie Smith painting that Nathan created which was auctioned off in 1996 when Ozzie retired from baseball. There was a feature about this and Nathan on the St. Louis Fox news affiliate. Verifiablity In addition to being the curator of his gallery, I was his best friend of 20 years - we met when he was 4 and I was 5. So all biographical details would be accurate and independently verifiable especially as more articles are written about Nathan. Presuming this Wiki entry is kept, I would be more than willing to supply a fuller biography than what exists today. Nmadmin
      27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Wikipedia is not a memorial, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Megan1967 01:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is possible to die young and still become a notable artist - I'm just reading a book on Henri Gaudier-Brzeska at the moment. But it takes time to build a reputation and I don't think it has happened yet in this case. The lack of independent sources is also a problem. -- Solipsist 08:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable, no google hits, hoax. Here was my post on the Misty Watlered talk page:

This, and along with Tribal (album), "Ocean Limit", "Anime Queen", "Is Your Drawing Rad" and "Evolution" seem to be made up. Nothing can be found on any search engine for these, except links to Wikipedia itself. There's not even a link from Misty (Pokémon) to here. Also looking at the page histories and user contributions, it seems like the IPs 64.231.163.147 (talk · contribs), 64.231.163.66 (talk · contribs), 64.231.170.177 (talk · contribs), 64.231.168.195 (talk · contribs) and 64.231.131.114 (talk · contribs) are contributing to this (these articles are what the IPs have edited mainly). They have also seemed to have edited Spice Girls and Avril Lavigne articles, and maybe some others, so can other users check those pages too for anything to be reverted.--secfan 08:29, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. IMDB turns up nothing. There's a possibility that "Watlered" is a typo for something else, but searches on "Misty" + the album names also don't seem to turn up anything. If not a hoax, at the very least not notable. -- Curps 18:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. Unless someone made HUGE typos in both the name (Mindy?) and the albums ("Trivial (album)?") then it's a crappy hoax. Actually, if this is a hoax as it seems to be, does it qualify for a speedy? Master Thief Garrett 22:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No such thing. There just isn't. I have checked the Avril Lavigne and Spice Girls articles, and this person seems to have just been making slight grammatical corrections to barely noticable errors (I am a constant Avril Lavigne checker). Otherwise, this singer does not exist. This is also because Misty's voice-actor is Rachael Lillis, not "Misty Watlered", unless like stated above, a huge typo was made (which honestly wasn't).
• Delete. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 07:08, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
• Delete. This "artist" does not exist.
• Delete. I agree with all the reasonings, especially the third statement. The Spice Girls article has been cleaned up, and the Avril Lavigne article has been, too. DrippingInk 20:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to icebreaker (facilitation). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dicdef, trivial Delete --WalkinDownThirtyThree 18:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect with
  Kappa
  22:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Actually, Kappa, I'd say breaking the Ice ought to be deleted too. It's also a dicdef. And no-one comes on an encyclopedia looking for those. Master Thief Garrett 22:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• True story - when I was a peer advisor in my university, we were taught a variety of "ice-breakers" - tried and true methods for getting groups of strangers warmed up to one another. Apparently these are a big hit on the corporate scene. There ought to be an article on that topic, and this ought to redirect to it. --
  ^gab
  01:46, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
• Isn't there a Parker Bros. game called "Break the Ice"? Redirect to that and make an article on the game. RickK 21:48, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Never heard of the game, but icebreaker activitities are common at, say, scouting camps. See Icebreaker (disambiguation). I'd like this and Breaking the Ice merged with some samples of common icebreaker games. Radiant_* 10:33, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• There was a Milton Bradley game called Don't Break the Ice. The facilitation activities (corporate, scouting, etc) are most commonly known as "icebreakers" - an article which we need but do not yet have. Unless someone has a better suggestion, I will create it at icebreaker (facilitation). Redirect this dicdef there. Breaking the Ice however has a history as a stub article about a specific peace project by that name and should probably stay separate for now. Rossami (talk) 00:17, 27 Apr 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. —Xezbeth 12:58, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

A looong magazine article, not an encyclopedia article. I don't know if the claims regarding copyright and use in the beginning are valid and make this a non-copyvio, but it seems doubtful that it would be compatible with

• Delete: not an encyclopedia article; probably incompatible license. --Carnildo 20:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, copyvio, despite the disclaimer. Also not encyclopedic as it exists. RickK 21:54, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, if the statement at the top of the article is correct, it's not a copyvio to post it here -- but little things like creating derivative works, ie. editing, aren't allowed, so it's an incompatible license. In any case, I have my doubts about anything from a website that claims to offer Truth with a capital "T". --Carnildo 03:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for all reasons above. --Trypa Party 03:59, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

band vanity Brother's keeper management is vanity related to hellmouth band

• moved Brother's keeper management here with a redirect. Might as well kill both in one vote! Master Thief Garrett 22:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- illiterate band vanity. "This one time, at band vanity ..." Ben-w

• Delete. Vanity and almost impossible to read. Linuxbeak 20:49, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as gibberish. I think I lost a few IQ points trying to comprehend this. - Lucky 6.9 21:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, HUGELY vain, note the use of "we". VERY badly written, useless to any visitors. They "had" four record deals and lost them? That's pretty bad odds. Usually if you get a deal in the first place the company thought you good enough to stay with them for the duration... come on, these people can't even find the Shift key!!! And obviously I'm not the only one to wound my psyche with that one... I think I need a coffee now... Master Thief Garrett 22:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable (no google hits) possibly vanity --

• Delete. No (real) content and possibly vanity. Linuxbeak 22:51, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If Google hasn't heard of him, he's a nobody. It doesn't even say why he's in Wikipedia to begin with! If it went on to tell a sad story of him being in a concentration camp and all his relatives dying there and then he hides on a cargo ship and works in New York for a shady car dealership dude for 50 cents a week, then yes it would probably have a home here (again, with accompanying Google hits) but as it is, at least needs a reason WHY he's here. Master Thief Garrett 23:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this nobody boy. Vanity?

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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

Not globally notable, not an encyclopedic topic. -- Curps 19:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: the image Image:Smallrufio.jpgMUST BE DELETED ALSO or it will become an orphan. Master Thief Garrett 07:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment: Note astroturfing campaign at Talk:Rufio and the Lost Boys and Talk:Rufio and the lost boys. -- Curps 20:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, no potential to become encyclopedic, supported by lame astroturfing anon's on talk pages. Barno 20:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. I've left word on the talk pages. - Lucky 6.9 20:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, not notable, possible hoax -- three Google hits, and none of them seem to be related. --Carnildo 20:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Please note this user has so many edits he clearly has nothing else in his life. Ignore his vote everyone else does.
  • You sure about that? I'm just barely in the list of the top thousand contributers. --Carnildo 03:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I gave them a chance by marking Rufio and the Lost Boys with {{cleanup-importance}} immediately after it was created. [12] Alas, they refused to listen and change this vanity. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. José San Martin 21:27, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, this is part of a vanity campaign that includes transparent attempts at astroturfing.
• Delete, not notable, vanity, promo. Megan1967 01:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep Rufio has become an important part of popular culture, this article will clearly be the start of something big. ALtough on the other hand I love the word astroturfing, this is to be commended.Zenupassio 02:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: User's seventh edit. --Carnildo 02:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is just vicious anti elitism. Zenupassio 03:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, it's a note about possible drive-by voting. --Carnildo 03:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Very Strong Speedy Delete *does drive-by voting* die mutha****ing Ballas dawgs! Sorry, couldn't resist. Seriously now, Delete. As said above. Master Thief Garrett 07:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, vanity. It's pretty bad when the first Google hit for a supposed meme is the Wikipedia VfD page. RickK 21:59, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity Dsmdgold 18:28, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. vanity. Vandal supported. jni 20:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not notable, looks like vanity page. Thue | talk 19:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NO forummer identity will EVER be Wiki-worthy unless it's George Bush or someone notable on the other end. This is just (wordhere)cruft. Master Thief Garrett 07:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If the article about ProtoWall is worth keeping, shouldn't it be mentioned in it that ProtoWall is written by someone calling himself DudeZ? Otherwise, delete them both. Wipe 09:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• ProtoWall gets only 12,000 Google hits--should we cull it too while we're at it? You know, because of that old saying, "cull two vain ads with one vote"... no, wait, did I just misquote that? hehehe... Master Thief Garrett 09:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Vanity - Longhair | Talk 12:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to dude or something like that. Radiant_* 10:35, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Total vanity, no doubt. Svest 16:35, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No content article about a japanese porn film mocked by SomethingAweful.com. Less than 50 Google hits. --InShaneee 19:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, although I'm bordering on speedy deletion. Linuxbeak 20:47, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is useless. Link is hilarious (in a tasteless, disgusting sort of way), but hilarity and notability are not interchangeable concepts. --
  ^gab
  21:55, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 01:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Article could be better. Delete unless it improves. - Longhair | Talk 12:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no sign of this being a notable bad/weird porno movie, unlike, say, Let My Puppets Come. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:34, 23 Apr 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

Not notable, vanity page. -- Curps 20:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. Linuxbeak 20:27, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more Rufio and the Lost Boys vanity. Ben-w
• Delete, more Rufio and the Lost Boys vanity. José San Martin 23:36, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Vanity. - Longhair | Talk 12:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Vanity - Whatcanbrowndo 11:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity and advertising. Linuxbeak 20:14, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like some guy's resumé

• Vanity José San Martin 21:58, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds like a resumé all right. I'm very sorry dude, but this isn't Wikijobs. Please upload your CV elsewhere. Master Thief Garrett 07:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree, it's vanity and advertising.Tobycat 01:28, 27 Apr 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

• Not notable. -- Curps 20:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Non-notable and Rufio and the Lost Boys's vanity! José San Martin 21:37, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable neologism dicdef. --Carnildo 21:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 01:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism AND dicdef, all in one go. Master Thief Garrett 07:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Well, it's not a neologism since it was used in the original Peter Pan, but this is being used for more Rufio vanity. Delete. RickK 22:02, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable Dsmdgold 18:30, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. neologism. jni 20:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity

• Delete as vanity. José San Martin 21:15, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 01:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Master Thief Garrett 07:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- vanity. - Longhair | Talk 12:25, 23 Apr 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Linuxbeak 20:24, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC) NOTE: Is this other Jim Harrell a notable/real person, or should he be voted for alongside his "father"? Master Thief Garrett 07:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, it reads like a third-person flavour of narcissism. Master Thief Garrett 07:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I just added some contextualizing information. This isn't my entry, but I think the guy is significant enough to be here. He got 41% of the vote for an open seat (NC5) in the House of Representatives - basically, I think any serious candidate for a national congressional seat is important enough to have an entry. Mcsweet 21:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Added context improves article. Belongs in wikipedia.Tobycat 01:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting any good search results for this article. I tried many combinations such as "band" and "music." Superfury is not a notable band from what I'm getting. The closest results are just misspellings of the notable band,

• Comment: I take that back there is band named "Superfury" that was short lived but I leave it in Vfd for just in case if it is notable or not to be included in this site. --
  Chill Pill Bill
  20:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: short lived power pop band and so, band vanity. José San Martin 21:06, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--fails
  WP:MUSIC. Meelar (talk)
  23:52, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 01:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Short-lived in the real world? Then so is their time on WP. Sorry kid, but that's showbusiness for ya! Master Thief Garrett 07:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what to call this, but I think it falls under vanity. Linuxbeak 20:44, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if it is not vanity, it is not an enciclopedic article... José San Martin 21:03, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and stubify. The author appears to have no writing skill and only a theoretical understanding of the English language. But it's the notability of the subject that's at issue -- and Google seems to indicate that Makil was a fairly well-known Filipino singer and actor. ---Isaac R
  • Comment about Isaac R's vote; Google pulls up Makil as a late music professor and musician. There was only one page that I saw that was relevant enough to be considered, and that was the UP's obituary of him (http://www.up.edu.ph/makil.htm). I'm not saying he wasn't a great musician, but so is my band director and my euphonium teacher. Linuxbeak 00:13, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not only is his English skills questionable but the anonymous author of this article (User:203.177.186.11) also vandalised the 1950s article by deleting existing entries and replacing them with Filipino ones, [13]. Megan1967 02:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, notability not established, no allmusic.com entry, no imdb.com entry, no publications, Wikipedia is not a memorial, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Megan1967 02:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment about Megan1967's comment: I just noticed that. He DID vandalise the 1950s article. This should most assuredly be taken into consideration.
  • Delete, a combination of non-notability/vanity (~50 Google hits) and other-page(s) vandalism make this a ripe picking. Now it could be two completely different people happened to share that very IP, but what are the odds? Master Thief Garrett 07:37, 23 Apr 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 wiktionary, and redirect. moink 10:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Several reasons. First, the title is all caps. Second, I don't think this type of figure deserves an article other than a list of such figures made of regular polygons, the only one I know of is a 998-gonal prism. Third, it needs a lot of cleanup. *Delete if nothing can be done to make it look better. Georgia guy 20:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary. José San Martin 21:01, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Unsure. It's a dicdef at present, but an interesting term IMO, and the capitalisation is easily fixed. I might have a go at saving it. It's also the first try by a newbie, so we should be a bit gentle. No vote as yet. Andrewa 22:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• We've had this discussion before. See
  Wikipedia articles are not words formed on a predictable numeric system. Uncle G
  23:52, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
  • Comment: More than 9,000 Google hits versus two and 108 puts this in a different class to those previous discussions IMO. Just incidentally, I'd have made the second a redirect to polygon rather than deleting it, but nobody even seems to have suggested that. Still no vote. Andrewa 00:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The first two of those hits are dictionaries, the third is a non-existent page, and the 7th is this deletion discussion. Looking further, we find that instead of 9000, Google actually returns only 54 distinct results on your first search. And every single entry on pages 4, 5, and 6 of those search results is a dictionary. Uncle G 09:50, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary. Not of any particular mathematical or geometrical importance. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agree it's of no particular mathematical significance, but that's an intersting fact in itself as it does seem to have some currency in literature. Still no vote. Andrewa 00:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. Megan1967 02:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Wikipedia is big enough and multifaceted enough for all polygons Polyhedra. Klonimus 05:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't. There are an infinite number of polygons. (To say nothing of polyhedra). Dpbsmith (talk) 10:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Thankfully wiki isn't paper, so we dont have to worry about abstract physical constraints. Klonimus 05:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge. Surely this can go SOMEWHERE other than here? Wikitionary? Wikibooks under math? Merged into a "list of geometric shapes" article? Master Thief Garrett 07:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary --Carnildo 08:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and as far as I know there are no mathematically/aesthetically significant types of chiliahedra. Gazpacho 11:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The base ten number system is a deliberate raping of children's minds. --SPUI (talk) 16:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary, dicdef. All those Google hits go to word lists and dictionaries. Feel free to mention it at polyhedron, though. FreplySpang (talk) 18:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good solid encyclopedia matter. Wiwaxia 05:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Pun noted. Gazpacho

  • • Thank you for not suggesting that the topic was also multifaceted. And Keep. --
      ^gab
      13:59, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Merge with Polyhedron, which has a list of the lot of them. Radiant_* 10:37, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to polyhedron. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The article was just transwikied. You may now change "transwiki" votes accordingly. --
  Dmcdevit 00:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NN --

• Non-notable. Wikipedia is not a mailing list list. José San Martin 20:59, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability, no useful content. Not even a URL to subscribe or see an archive, or a stub notice! Created by a good contributor, which is a bit of a puzzle, but that was months ago. Andrewa 22:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 02:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. According to the Declaration of W.A.L.L.A. (Wikipedians against Largely Lame Advertisements) this must not be left standing! And so until the launch of Wikimailout... death! Death I say! ...yes I am being sarcastic... and yes this is my new copy-'n'-paste vote phrase, use it yourself if you wish. Master Thief Garrett 07:32, 23 Apr 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising for the external link. Minimal credibility, because it's just an ad, so no need for a merge to

• Keep. The term gets a couple of dozen Google hits, mainly real estate, but different firms and countries so it's not a neologism. I found it interesting, so I've stubified it. Andrewa 22:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lots of ads for this style of building on Singapore real estate web sites. ---Isaac R 23:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, some notability. Megan1967 06:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Valid term for an identifiable architectural stye. Dsmdgold 20:23, Apr 25, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable, possible vanity. --Briangotts 21:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep Holt is in the second round of the World Snooker Championships, he has been a snooker pro for 8 years, he is 29th in the world rankings (provisionally 27th and could conceivably be in the top 16 "elite" next season). I fail to see how he is not notable: BBC News World Snooker 1 World Rankings

• So why isn't that information in the article? ---Isaac R 23:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It is --Dhowdon 23:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Certainly if players such as Tony Drago have profiles (Drago has never won a ranking tournament in 20 years of being a pro) then Holt should have an entry --Dhowdon 22:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Passes Pokemon test. Snookachu Klonimus 05:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable enough. - Longhair | Talk 12:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep its notable too Yuckfoo 00:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Career as professional snooker player makes him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:43, 26 Apr 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 by The Anome (graffiti: speedy delete) --cesarb 00:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non notable, borderline patent nonsense. --Briangotts 21:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No content, not notable. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 22:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not a park bench for lovers to carve their initials on. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 01:31, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. As above, this isn't Wikijacklovesjill. Master Thief Garrett 07:29, 23 Apr 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No evidence of notability, promotional. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• "Sir! Advertisment on the horizon!" "Damn these adverts attacking the shores of Wikipedia! Open fire!" "Sir, torpedoes have no effect!" "Blast! Open the main bays! We'll have to send out the special weapon! Fire the Delete vote!" Sorry for the sarcasm, but I really think Wikipedia could do without these adverts eveywhere.

Merely info about an all volunteer, free clinic. Not an advertisement at all. Keep. - bstone 03:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• C.A.L.M. is a non-commercial, volunteer-run, free health care clinic which operates and functions in order to provide 100% free health care to those in need. It functions at the annual Rainbow Gatherings in the summers, also a non-commercial event. It could not be further from an advertisement. Please go to [14] CALM to check out CALM for yourself
  • I never said it was a commercial adverisement. (I called it a promotional and said that it didn't establish notability.) But Wikipedia is not a place to promote any organizations, whether commercial or not. - Mike Rosoft 21:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • You seemingly know nothing about Rainbow Gatherings. By definition, they (the people who attend) are non-members of the largest non-organization in the world. (Stone)

• I'm still laughing at the first delete comment. I have to agree, too. Delete. Linuxbeak 22:36, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with
  Kappa
  22:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. Despite what others have said, these guys are pretty notable. They're crosslinked by a lot of alternate healing web sites, and have been written up in serious newspapers maybe a half-dozen times. It doesn't make sense to merge them with Rainbow Gathering because they do operate away from the annual gathering. I do suspect that they're simply another name for the collective that runs the Rainbow Gathering, but that bunch doesn't have an article to merge with. ---Isaac R 23:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Rainbow Gathering unless someone adds information on the group outside of that context, in which case, keep. Jonathunder 01:09, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
• Delete. According to the Declaration of W.A.L.L.A. (Wikipedians against Largely Lame Advertisements) this must not be left standing! Death! Death I say! ...yes I am being sarcastic... Master Thief Garrett 07:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Rainbow Gathering, as per Jonathunder. FreplySpang (talk) 18:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per the above. Radiant_* 10:38, Apr 25, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has become very long, and is no longer being shown directly on this page in order to improve performance. Please click this link to view or participate in the discussion. Rossami (talk) 01:26, 27 Apr 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.