Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 30

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mustard juice

Stupid. Neutrality^talk 03:10, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: What minimal content there is here, if any, should be merged into Mustard. --Durin 03:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Idiotic. Nothing to merge. Quale 04:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mustard sauce is a suspension. Suspensions separate over time. Not notable. Gazpacho 05:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial. Megan1967 08:02, 30 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 to Richard I of England. Postdlf 07:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Basile

Already merged majority of content with

• Delete, nothing left to merge. Megan1967 08:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If it's merged, redirect to
  Richard I. --Tony Sidaway|Talk
  12:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to
  Richard I Tobycat 02:24, 5 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 KEEP. Postdlf 07:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Ran (So Far Away)

songcruff, their is no reason why this neeeds it's own page I sugest Merge and Delete Deathawk 06:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, a hit song and representative of its time, no reason to merge or delete anything.
  Kappa
  07:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Top 10 hit in US and number 1 in Australia. and probably top ten in the UK in 1982. Given that it is a well-known example of a one hit wonder, the song is probably as well known as A Flock of Seagulls who performed it. Capitalistroadster 08:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Capitalistroadster. —Markaci 2005-04-30 T 11:33 Z
• Keep per Kappa and Capitalistroadster. Samaritan 12:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep N-Man^talk 13:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable song by a notable band, if only for a non-notable period of time. - Longhair | Talk 16:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Needs more cowbell. Klonimus 04:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• And I keeeeept, I kept all night and daaaaaay. --
  ^thimk
  04:48, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
• . . . . . . . groan. . . . . . . . Thank you very much (not) for ensuring that the song is now stuck in my head for the rest of the day. Soundguy99 19:21, 5 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 NO CONSENSUS. Postdlf 03:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Percleus

What do you think? I don't have any idea except this one -- Svest 06:37, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, not sourced. Quale 07:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to note that the article has been updated so that it is now sourced. No change in vote because now it's clearly non-notable. Quale 05:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. First, the article currently seems more like an ad for this content management system software. Second, I only get a couple of Google hits, thus not notable yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I am changing my vote to Abstain. As of now, I am unsure how widespread it is now, and how it might be spread out in the future. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is indeed www.percleus.com. It's a CMS like Slashcode, PHPNuke, etc, it's in PHP (they nearly all are), it's verifiable, and there is at least one site powered by it (I updated the article). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Yes it's real, and appears to power a whole two, apparently non-notable web sites. Is that sufficient? Maybe not, but I'll abstain. :) — RJH 02:50, 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 DELETE. Postdlf 07:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Perception

Blogspam —Wahoofive (talk) 06:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 07:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 08:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• No Alexa data for thepeoplesperception.com. 3 threads on their web board, one that it's testing, one that registration's closed and one spam. Samaritan 14:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Promotional and not notable. Tobycat 02:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • fixed vandalism by user 68.192.67.107 - changed my vote back to delete.Tobycat 05:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The original creator of the page is 68.192.67.107, the same user that vanalized my vote and changed it from delete to keep. Interesting, yes?Tobycat 05:27, 8 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 NO CONSENSUS between keep/merge alternatives. Postdlf 03:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Post Literate

Dicdef —Wahoofive (talk) 07:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, important concept, potential for expansion.
  Kappa
  07:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep but should surely be moved to Post-literacy. SteveW | Talk 11:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs cleanup (it reads like sophomoric twaddle at present). I would probably move it to Post-literacy but I think that kind of thing shouldn't be made in VfD if it can be avoided. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Literacy. - Paradiso 05:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Literacy, too small to keep as single article, more easily found with search on literacy. - Who 19:53, 8 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. – ABCD 17:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Butcher of Brentwood

Non-notable nickname for

• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 07:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect--this is akin to the 'Commander Codpiece" debate from last month. Meelar (talk) 08:10, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Nobody, but nobody is going to go searching this term rather than his name. Delete. Samaritan 12:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A Google search for "Butcher of Brentwood" -Wikipedia [6] only finds 75 articles. BlankVerse ∅ 02:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The glove doesn't fit. Klonimus 04:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The page is obviously guilty of being non-notable. Tobycat 02:29, 5 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. Postdlf 03:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Travail

Non-notable band —Wahoofive (talk) 07:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, broke up before they even toured or recorded anything notable - fails Wikipedia notability guidelines. Megan1967 08:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Megan, where'd you get that? Keep and expand. Quick searching shows they were nominated for one or more
  Dove Awards; those are the award for contemporary Christian and gospel music. Samaritan
  13:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The Dove Awards dont have much credibility outside of christian music circles. Megan1967 04:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All Music Guide notes one album to their credit recorded in 2000. As the band has been nominated for a Dove Award which is a notable award for artists in that genre, this band is notable within genre. Capitalistroadster 18:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above.
  Kappa
  19:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Just for the record,
  WP:MUSIC requires as a criterion of notability that they win a major award, not just get nominated. —Wahoofive (talk
  ) 21:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Suggests, not requires. From its introduction: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when decided whether or not to keep an article that is on votes for deletion." The music guidelines are not themselves restrictive, official policy or semi-policy. Samaritan 22:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If the article noted that the band had been nominated for a Dove Award, it would be easier to determine whether the band was notable. Also, if that award really is a significant award for artists in that genre, WP doesn't know about it. From
  Dove Award
  :

"Hence, the Doves are not taken particularly seriously by many musicians or music fans."

I don't have a strong feeling about this particular case, but the current article completely fails to establish any notability at all. Instead of telling us about what quick searches show, how about fixing the article so that the band's notability is evident to everyone. Quale 04:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Then that's a borderline POV/original research or at least poor wording problem with
  Grammy Award that they aren't taken particularly seriously by many musicians or music fans in China. Samaritan 17:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak keep. Allmusic.com entry but no written bio. I've also chopped out some POV from the article. Gamaliel 08:20, 6 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. Postdlf 07:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Jubara

Vanity, NN. Rl 07:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Quale 08:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The only google web or groups hits for her name are a high school graduate from Green, Ohio. Samaritan 14:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, not-notable, and silly. Tobycat 02:33, 5 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 NO CONSENSUS. Postdlf 07:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mirengoff

Reasonably large number of google hits - but he's a blogger, so there would be. No evidence of notability in the article. Is this guy worth an article, or is it just big name no blanket? Grutness|^hello? 07:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 08:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 08:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. With a legitimate inbound link from
  Power Line (blog), which is highly notable among blogs, it shouldn't be considered vanity. Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Samaritan
  13:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand Member of PowerLine, one of the most popular and notable blogs there is. It broke the story of the use of fraudulent documents by CBS News about President Bush's time in the national guard. The reason that he gets a number of hits is because PowerLine is a highly influential blog which was Time Magazine's blog of the year. According to the TruthLaidBear ecosystem, PowerLine is in the top 10 list for blogs with 61,000 visitors. He is definitely worth an article and I will work on expanding this one.Capitalistroadster 19:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Organic Growth. Klonimus 04:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Have expanded the article. Capitalistroadster 05:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Time Magazine's Blogger of the Year and thank you Roadster.
  Kappa 07:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not notable, bloggercruft. Grue 16:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability. The notable content isn't about the person and is already in the
  Power Line (blog) article.Tobycat 02:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Generic bio-stuff, nothing that can't go in the Power Line article. Gamaliel 08:23, 6 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. – ABCD 00:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shitpoo

If its for real, its certainly not notable - no google hits. Andypasto 08:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. RickK 08:21, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probable hoax. Even if not a hoax, by the article's own admission, it's non-notable. The earliest known introduction to this game was in January of 2004, in a last period study hall in a Wisconsin High School. Quale 08:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above. -- Hoary 08:27, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. I could use the phrase "Wikipedia is not toilet paper" but that would be way too obvious. Megan1967 09:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think I need to say more. --
  Natalinasmpf
  09:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably a real game really played by high school students, but that does not make the game notable. Sjakkalle 09:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. For all the reasons stated above. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fifty-two card pickup sounds like a more notable game than this. Nestea 19:48, 30 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. Postdlf 07:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Blaire Lady

We read that My Blaire Lady was a trail blazing radio show that ended in 2005. The embers of the trail have gone cold with remarkable rapidity: Google shows half a dozen or so hits. One of them is "User Info" about "blahthequah" which says in part: I am the host of the My Blaire Lady Radio Programme -- though a prolix disclaimer toward the end warns that none of this need be true. Intriguingly, My Blaire Lady is the first and so far only WP contribution by Blahthequah. Vanity, not notable, delete. -- Hoary 08:39, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 09:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy to User:Blahthequah. Samaritan 14:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Leithp 14:39, 30 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, which will be implemented pending resolution of block compression errors. Postdlf 07:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rifai

Precedent is not to keep articles about non-notable family names. RickK 09:17, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, geneology. Megan1967 09:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is no place for geneology. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This is definitely one precedent well past its use-by date. When Wikipedia has articles on every surname in the world it will be that much closer towards achieving its goal. Keep.--Gene_poole 06:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 05:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. not notable. Tobycat 02:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into an article on whichever family of surnames into which this one falls. Almost every surname in the world falls into some family, based on derivation or structure (see
  ^thimk
  14:03, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was already DELETED. Postdlf 03:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wings Of Fire/Temp

We have an article on

• In that case, 'redirect to
  Abdul Kalam. SteveW | Talk
  11:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't redirect the Temp version. RickK 22:16, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing worth merging. Megan1967 04:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wait until this replaces the copyvio then replace by redirect (info is already merged). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:48, 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 - deleted - SimonP 04:19, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Pierre Clèment

"Pierre Clèment" -wrestler gained an impressive five google hits. And not a single one of them was for this guy. Six letter word - begins with D. Grutness|^hello? 10:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Little coherence in the article, and most likely not a notable subject. Sjakkalle 11:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Quale 05:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If you'll notice, it's linked off some fancruftish "wcw/etc/other/crap/here" template listing all the "champions" of that particular brand. See
  Avriette)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Not notable / encyclopedic Tobycat 02:44, 5 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 - deleted - SimonP 04:21, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Tommy Cookson

I'm sure that Tommy Cookson does a great job, but so do most other head-teachers, teachers, principals... Non-notable, so delete. SteveW | Talk 11:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe this should be Speedied. There's no context. It just says, "The best head Winchester College has ever had." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd agree, the entire content is POV (and since the school is 600 years old, they've had a lot of headmasters). Average Earthman 13:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Winchester College for now, hoping someone could shed light on this person. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Speedy delete even. This won't get much better. - Longhair | Talk 16:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. no real content. notability. Tobycat 02:45, 5 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. – ABCD 16:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental combo

Cannot find anything on google to substantiate this term as real. It claims to be popularised by "Ian Mitchell" but it appears as a red link, and again does not turn up on google. Delete as not notable or encylopaedic. --TimPope 12:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the article as neologism. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Quale 18:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 04:23, 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 delete. – ABCD 16:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Keramati

Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. Thue | talk 13:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• His resume does say he wrote a book, Internal Network Security, published in 2004, but no web or usenet hits for +Internal-Network-Security +keramati. Samaritan 14:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Quale 09:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The place for resumes is monster.com, not Wikipedia. Tobycat 02:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although, I find it hilarious that this guy had the... gall... to post his resumé as a Wikipedia article. M412k 19:44, 5 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. – ABCD 16:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Jam Fly Jive

Local band making up stuff about a $1 million record deal with Warners, topping the charts in Ireland and a critically acclaimed tour of the U.S. 14 Google web hits and their own website provided seem to disconfirm this. Samaritan 15:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like a hoax. I cannot find any credible third party evidence to pass
  WP:MUSIC. Zzyzx11 (Talk)
  15:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete - agreed. Kingturtle 20:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete even if these guys exist, this article would still be vanity. 68.190.40.38 02:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:24, 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 - kept - SimonP 04:22, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Roman army formations

Nothing in this article that couldn't be merged into

• Keep. The Romans brought a very technological approach to warfare, and their chief weapon was the phalanx, with locked shields, spears held from each level of the formation, and short swords at the ready to get any lucky man who made it through the spears. The tortoise was another formation, which was used to break sieges. There is a lot of scope for a good, solid article here, and this is a good, if modest, start. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above.
  Kappa
  23:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I am sure that this topic can be turned into a substantial article. Capitalistroadster 01:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. As a side note, VfD is not the place to suggest mergings, the talk page is.-LtNOWIS 02:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — topic is historically important, although I think the title should be "Roman army tactics" to cover other aspects (fortification, siege warfare, &c.) — RJH 02:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Roman army tactics. Very notable and encyclopedic subject. Klonimus 04:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-delete :: as apparently merge isn't allowed.--80.40.7.71 20:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- however move article name to Roman army tactics. - Longhair | Talk 02:05, 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 - redirected - SimonP 04:23, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ancient roman army formations

Nothing in this article that couldn't be merged into

• Merge and redirect
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Roman army formations). --Tony Sidaway|Talk
  22:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as above.
  Kappa
  23:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to
  Roman army formations. At the moment both pages have the same text. Martg76 09:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and redirect to Roman army tactics. - Longhair | Talk 02:06, 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 speedy delete. – ABCD 16:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geminosity

Not Notable *Delete Collins.mc 15:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete No Content, can probably be speedy deleted Fornadan 15:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete because the original author blanked the content before the VFD tag was placed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:35, 30 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. – ABCD 16:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Evolution 2000

Without the link at the end of the article, it would be impossible to find the geocities homepage of this game that apparently had its team assembled two weeks ago. I'll go out on a limb and predict this will never become notable. Rl 15:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• delete not notable/vanity Brighterorange 17:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity, Wikipedia is not for minor WIP projects for games nobody cares about. Nestea 21:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Tobycat 02:48, 5 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. – ABCD 16:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To Live is to Die

Non-notable band. Not listed in allmusic.com. The top results on Google for "To Live is to Die" is lyrics to the Metallica song even "To Live is to Die" + "Cleveland" doesn't bring to their official website until the 2nd page results.

• Delete -- band vanity - Longhair | Talk 16:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. Kingturtle 20:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 04:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Good Band. Here in Cleveland they have a very good reputaion and a solid fan base. Also have a respectable fan-base throughout the rest of Ohio. Own legal copyright for phrase/name "To Live is to Die". Renablistic 18:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Gamaliel 08:24, 6 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 - kept - SimonP 04:25, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Vestavia Hills High School

This seems to be just another high school, and as such is non-encyclopedic in my view. (I moved this here from Candidates for Speedy Deletion). Rje 16:11, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, information on high schools is necessary to coverage of education and history in their local area. If the current stub is not kept, it should be merged somewhere until it grows. High schools, like villages, are large in number but intrinsically interesting.
  Kappa
  17:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. High schools are not intrinsically interesting. If you doubt this, ask the average high school student. Quale 17:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL high school students are not the only users of WP.
    Kappa
    18:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Non-notability not established. —RaD Man (talk) 17:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good school article and achievements in debating are worthy of note for mine. Capitalistroadster 19:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 19:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or have you never seen a real encyclopedia before? XmarkX 20:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Avoid personal attacks. Samaritan
    21:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • For me, the question is "What would we see if a real encyclopedia had infinite resources?", and then "How close can wikipedia get to that?".
    Kappa
    23:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Rocking expansion. Samaritan 20:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has significantly improved since it was put on VFD. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As with other high schools. - SimonP 23:56, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• No vote, but a strong admonishment to whoever nominated this not to list things like this on speedy deletion. That is a gross abuse of policy. Meelar (talk) 03:30, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep All schools are worthy of inclusion in a great encyclopaedia. Klonimus 04:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep current article. Mea culpa on the original speedy. The article started as rambling kiddie-wiki that concluded with the fact that the lunch room sells french fries. Thought it was appropriate at the time. - Lucky 6.9 04:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem--didn't mean to snap at you. Speedy tags where they don't belong are a bit of a pet peeve. Sorry about overreacting. Best, Meelar (talk) 05:57, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• No sweat, pal. Just one of those days.  :^) - Lucky 6.9 23:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the only
  own Florida competitions from out of state. --SPUI (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, non-notable. Leithp 08:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 16:33, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a school. Gillian Tipson 18:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Non-"notability" not established.--Gene_poole 23:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure it was. They sell french fries in the lunch room, remember?  :^) - Lucky 6.9 01:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Badly written content is not a justification for deletion, it is an opportunity for cleanup - and VfD is not Cleanup.--Gene_poole 06:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• You're right. I was just kidding. I owe you a wiki-noogie. - Lucky 6.9 17:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looks like a decent school stub to me!  ALKIVAR™ 04:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-encyclopedic.--Prem 06:25, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Vestavia Hills, Alabama and delete - Skysmith 07:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Vestavia Hills, Alabama or Keep --194.47.220.223 07:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep VFD contributers please take note of this - these well developed HS articles will be kept - there will be a consensus to do so - so please don't clutter the beleaguered VFD pages with these entries.
  Lotsofissues 11:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • VFD contributers please take note of this -
    WP:DP and your best judgement dictate. I'm surprised that "all schools are notable" crowd complains so much. The high school articles are typically miserable when they come into VfD, and at least marginally better even though rarely encyclopedic when they leave. Quale 05:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Yawn. —RaD Man (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's keep it civil please. Gamaliel 06:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • zZZZzzzzz. —RaD Man (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • QUACKBAA! --SPUI (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Try this instead, kids. Gamaliel 21:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • How about this instead? —RaD Man (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yawn. Gamaliel 06:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I second Gamaliel's call for civility, please respect the other side of the debate.
        Kappa 14:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • Thanks, but I say let them go,
        Kappa. That's the level of argument I expect from the "Every school is sacred" crowd. Calling their comments "debate" is giving them dignity they have not earned. Quale
        • You're right, looks like those two are a lost cause. Gamaliel 21:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's true, I cannot be saved. —RaD Man (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this decent school stub. Has potential to become further encyclopedic. --Andylkl ^(talk) 07:46, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep ALL schools are notable in their area. Colleges and Universities are more so only because they draw students from a wider area. Further, much more notable than obscure Pokemon charaters.--64.254.131.77 15:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. How is it special compared to any other school? —Lowellian (talk) 01:33, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The Steve  12:08, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Another school article with a lovely picture! Thank you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Articles about schools belong in Wikipedia, though this one should be marked for improvement --Zantastik 19:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 22:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Enduring institutions, including schools, are inherently encyclopedic. Tobycat 02:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This school is one of the most notable public HS's in Alabama and has something of a national reputation in math, debate, and baseball competition. Notability, by itself, is a spurious criterion. If the article meets other criteria it should be kept and the rest of the encyclopedia should be given time to catch up. Dystopos 04:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fails my usual criteria of over 100 years old, but notability actually seems to have been established for this school. Noisy | Talk 10:20, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability still failed as policy and isn't a valid criterion. Is it verifiable? Yep. - David Gerard 11:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• A secondary school in a place like Alabama that wins state baseball and football (especially football!) championships, and in multiple recent years, is of iconic importance to its region. (I voted already.) Samaritan 23:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - pretty good stub for a notable school -CunningLinguist 23:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and refine policy to prevent future VfD nominations of school articles. In my opinion, schools with more than a few students should automatically be considered "encyclopedic"/wikipedia-worthy. Wikipedia will not be improved by the deletion of this article. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 20:48, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Intrigue 18:21, 12 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. – ABCD 16:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"John Wayne" Edwards

I tried to clean this article up, but it almost looks like the original author went out of his way to make it impossible to find any relevant information. Possibly NN, vanity, or hoax. Odd. Rl 16:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This guy is linked to on the Toronto Argonauts page, but i can't find one single mention of him on the Argonauts' website. I also can't find anything on google for John Wayne Edwards and the Argonauts except for Wikipedia mirrors. Furthermore, i can find nothing about any football players named "Edwards" going to play in the CFL on the Missouri Southern State University website. Looks like a hoax. However, i will change my vote to keep if anyone can substantiate this guy's existence. R Calvete 17:41, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 18:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can find out who this is suppose to be referring to. I did a few searches and could not find out. Kingturtle 20:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. And shouting doesnt help the article either. Megan1967 04:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax. There is no "John Wayne" Edwards who played for the Argonauts. Perhaps it's a vanity from a guy who went to training camp, but was cut? --Deathphoenix 04:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing here worth saving. Kelly Martin 15:11, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - found to be a copyvio - SimonP 04:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

M.O.P.

The page

• Merge the two articles and make one a redirect, if copyvio concerns are cleared up. The submitter is right--M.O.P. (with the period) feels like copy that came from somewhere else, but a cursory Googling doesn't locate it. I don't know what the correct name for the merged article should be. Does the period belong or not? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: forget VFD. This article is a copyright violation. The text is lifted directly from here. Please remove the VfD tag and replace it with a copyright violation tag. Kingturtle 20:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. Any user can add a copyvio tag, by the way—there are instructions for the process at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 21:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, copyright violation. Megan1967 04:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to
  M.O.P N-Man^talk 20:59, 1 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. – ABCD 16:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chile imports and exports

Unsourced, unformatted, unlinked. I would redirect to economy of Chile but I doubt anyone will search for these keywords. Delete if not cleaned up and renamed. Neutrality^talk 18:52, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete if not cleaned up and renamed in a week. Neutrality^talk 18:52, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The economy of Chile article has a good section on foreign trade.Capitalistroadster 19:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As near as I can tell, this document actually doesn't have anything to do with the economy of Chile. It's a table of imports and exports from the United States, duplicated from here or somewhere similar. The information is public domain, but it's source material that doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
  • The above comment is mine; I forgot to sign. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article. but salvage as much info as possible, and put it in economy of Chile. Kingturtle 20:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Chilecruft. Klonimus 04:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not up to encyclopaedic standards. Megan1967 04:30, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 00:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kismet H.C.

I'm reopening this VfD because the

• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails
  WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 10:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. Dcarrano 16:00, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JamesBurns. Vegaswikian 05:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Postdlf 04:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Petpet

Non-Notable, advertising. тəzєті 20:00, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It is a stub. It is valid. It is just a subgroup of Neopets. Give this article some time. Kingturtle 20:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect just as I did before.
  (Rabbit and pork)
  20:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neopetcruft. Nestea 21:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Improve upon and Redirect. Hmib 01:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. This is just as valid as the pages on the various Pets. Grev 02:57, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are no pages on individual pets. They were all merged into List of Neopets. —Xezbeth 06:29, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand.--Prem 06:26, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or merge somewhere. —Xezbeth 06:29, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• If someone promises that next week won't see "petpetpet" then I'll join the keep and expand constituency.--Simon Cursitor 20:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think that the Neopets main article has a better definition than this article currently does. тəzєті 03:27, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Adding a list of the Petpets (but not in great detail) wouldn't be too bad. --Idont Havaname 00:39, 5 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. Postdlf 04:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates

Rejected policy proposal that User:Netoholic nonetheless continues to refer to as though it was authoritative. Should be deleted in order to prevent any such further abuse. LevelCheck 20:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The page makes several valid points whether it is "authorative" in some undefined sense or not. Sounds like the problem, if it exists, is with Netoholic, not this page. Pcb21| Pete 22:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this nomination is intentionally disruptive (just like Template:Utterlyrejected was), created by what looks like an agenda-pushing sockpuppet account. The vast majority of the text is not mine, but from the database developer User:Jamesday. VfD is not how you handle your issues with policy proposals. -- Netoholic @ 22:18, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
• Keep. Already has {{notpolicy}}. Contains some useful information and generally sensible advice. Not surprising if Netoholic often refers to it. But even if it didn't, I'd still oppose deletion because we don't generally delete rejected policy proposals. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP!. VFD is not the place to deal with Wikipedia policy. BlankVerse ∅ 01:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tony Sidaway and BlankVerse. There should be a form of vote to speedily lift candidates like this out of the VfD pile. Samaritan 01:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and admonish LevelCheck to nominating non VfD stuff to VfD, as it waste's everyones time. Klonimus 04:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Historical policy proposals are valuable. --iMb~Meow 15:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Stuff like this should not be deleted. N-Man^talk 20:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- While I find this page's content objectionable in nearly every particular, I will defend to the death Netoholic's right to voice his opinion. It's true that he has attempted to raise this to the status of policy and, failing to succeed, has cited it as if it were policy; but I trust his able mentors to control this in future. Also, it's history and it's Talk history is a valuable record. It is more use to us as common property than if it were to be userfied. — Xiong熊talk* 03:11, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
• Keep. The only policy pages that should be deleted are those created in bad faith. --Carnildo 05:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy, either by moving to Netaholic's userspace (similar to the way he moved Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits to userspace) or mandating that his name be in the title, such as Wikipedia:Netoholic's interpretation of Jamesday's concerns about meta-templates. Then he can't refer to it as if it were policy, but the content will still be available. The technical issues are fact, but the methods of dealing with these issues are highly contentious opinion. Let's keep this out of the Wikipedia space until it becomes policy, to prevent abuse. - Omegatron 14:59, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • That doesn't make any sense, since the directive and technical description of the problem is from the database developer User:Jamesday. Anyone who thinks other wise hasn't read his posts on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 15:07, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
    • Jamesday contributed about 34% of the current version. A plurality of the content was contributed by Netaholic. - Omegatron 15:38, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

      Hum. That title was originally my suggestion on Wikipedia talk:Transclusion costs and benefits and in case it's not obvious, I wasn't seriously advocating such a move. JRM · Talk 14:54, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

      Yeah, I just copied it here.  :-) Yes, I thought you were serious, but I still think one or the other is a good idea. - Omegatron 15:13, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy due to
  WP:TFD nomination of Template:Prettytable. I agree rejected policy proposals should generally remain in the Wikipedia namespace, but the level of abuse surrounding this particular proposal makes that no longer a viable option in my opinion. Firebug 05:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I don't care what Netoholic does or has done; as it stands it should be treated like any other policy proposal. If you don't like Netoholic's actions, go take them up with Netoholic. JRM · Talk 14:54, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

  We already have. See here. This isn't just another policy proposal... - Omegatron 15:18, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

  Yes, I know. Sorry. "Again". JRM · Talk 15:23, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Comment Of tangential relevance to this VfD is

Would you please not use freaky legal jargon while discussing the ArbCom? It scares the hell out of some of us. :-) JRM · Talk 00:30, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

It is my interpretation of this text (which I studied in the original) as excluding the possibility of deletion at this level of process. On the other hand, the text also renders the page impotent until either (a) the developer committee renders an opinion or (b) community consensus congeals -- I believe, whichever comes first. Not that I should be so bold as to advance this interpretation past this comment. — Xiong熊talk* 03:09, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – ABCD 16:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved to User:GenderStudies/Semiotics of gender. Noel (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semiotics of gender

Another article by "the undergraduate student authors of this collaborative classroom project", see also

Note: I recieved a mail today from the instructor, and she is perfectly willing to help to either move the contributions of her class to WikiBooks, or make them encyclopedic. Under these circumstances, please do not delete the article yet. Voting of course or debate can and should continue. -- AlexR 08:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete AlexR 20:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Essay. Quale 21:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Wikipedia is not a repository of undergraduate school projects. --Idont Havaname 03:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There was a long and inconclusive discussion about professors turning students free on wikipedia as a classroom project. Can be a very good or very bad thing, depending on the actions of all parties. See Wikipedia:School and university projects. Feco 04:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy, hope that encyclopedic content can be prepared. These articles in their current form don't work for us, but there is substance here. We're not talking about somebody's band that hopes to have a record deal someday. JamesMLane 08:50, 2 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 article was speedy-deleted because, after the nomination of this page, a user noticed that the page had been deleted twice before. —Seselwa 22:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A list of Albanian Web-pages on Religion

Delete. Agreed. --TheParanoidOne 21:52, 30 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. Postdlf 04:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Song

A non-notable song (albeit by a notable band). -℘yrop (talk) 21:19, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. A single from a hugely selling album, a music video etc. [8] -Hapsiainen 22:10, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or failing that merge to Out of Time (album) and redirect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all
  Kappa
  23:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Definite keep. REM may be the best-paid band in the world and is not lacking for sales and critical acclaim. This was not just an album track but single and a video. The rap/rock integration, and circa 1991, definitely adds to it. Samaritan 23:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This was their second single from Out of Time which was released at the height of the popularity in the early 1990's. Capitalistroadster 01:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nothing that would call for deletion, great song 68.190.40.38 02:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Out of Time (album). Megan1967 04:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable songs by notable bands collaborating with notable rappers --Badlydrawnjeff 14:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's almost no content here, and what little there is can easily be merged with the Out of Time article. There's no need for stubs like these. Song articles can break out of album articles when they are sufficient size. Gamaliel 08:27, 6 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. – ABCD 17:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Adventure 3

An unreleased game should not have a page of "speculations".

• Delete. - Stoph 21:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete, keep if it actually exists. Unreleased stuff is acceptable, if it's major and anticipated, like
  Civilization 4. I couldn't find this on Gamespot or the official sega site, but I got 842 google hits and some official-looking sites.-LtNOWIS 02:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment, I checked GameSpot as well, and I couldn't find it. I don't think it's even been announced yet. - Stoph 03:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, speculation, cruft. Megan1967 04:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Speculation. Nestea 21:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I have been accused for making speculative articles b4. One of the most obscure video game speculation articles on VfD was
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/DOOM/DUNE. I don't know if Sonic Adventure 3 is speculation, but we should keep it for now and add the realism when we hear about it since it is superfluous to delete an article that will start a 2nd iteration of existance. --SuperDude 05:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I have a better idea. Delete this and wait for official facts to pop up. Nestea 22:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia =/= Crystal ball. Ketsy 19:52, 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 NO CONSENSUS. Postdlf 07:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EJay Day

This article is about a non-notable American Idol finalist who has not done anything notable outside of finishing last in Season One. Delete as non-notable and unencyclopedic. Hermione1980 21:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, apart from a brief appearance on TV, no significant achievements or influence. Average Earthman 22:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We have articles on almost every AI top 12 finalist. The finalists are seen and voted on by millions. Gamaliel 22:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Will vote to delete any other bio article whose only "notability" is a top 12 appearance on
  Jeopardy over the show's 40 year history. When we've done that, we can start working on Family Feud winners. As winners all these people are clearly more notable than are American Karaoke losers. Quale
  23:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep or merge, top 12 is reasonable. Accepting articles is not the same as saying we have to create more of the same.
  Kappa
  23:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Just to clarify here—the only reason I put this article up for deletion is because EJay Day has done absolutely nothing that I know of since American Idol. Sure, he was on the Season One tour; he was also on the finalists' album (I think). But he has done nothing on his own aside from that. I'm not saying we need to delete all Top 12 articles; but I agree with Quale insofar as people whose only notability is finalist status on AI. The only exception to that would be current finalists, who haven't had a chance to do anything "outside" of AI. Hermione1980 23:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Even on
  WP:MUSIC (which is a guideline, not a restrictive minimum!) he can be said to meet criteria 2 and probably 4! Equal footing with other top 10 or 12 AI finalists. Samaritan
  23:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets Wikimusic Project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 01:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, top 12 on fox's most popular tv show is notable. Jendeyoung 9:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, personal tastes aside, American Idol is the most-watched television program in the United States for the past decade - the history of folks associated with it is of encyclopedic - if not historic - value. The subject is the first finalist ever to be voted off the show. This is one of the resaons we point out that Wikipedia is not paper. This article hurts nothing and enhances the main American Idol entry. DAVODD 16:11, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If Ejay Day is so important to American Karaoke, mention him in that article. He is simply not important enough for a standalone article and he is not in the slightest bit notable outside the karaoke context. It does hurt WP to include these sorts of articles. It isn't a question of WP not being paper. It's a question of using editorial restraint and judgement, and not letting WP descend into a mudhole of utter mediocrity. Quale 19:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mediocrity also could be seen as being purposely incomplete. The information is of use to scholars of American popular culture. DAVODD 15:20, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • It's useful to scholars in context. Scholars of pop culture won't look up Ejay Day because he's simply not notable. If his only notability is in the context of American Idol then mention him in the American Idol article. Consider researching all the contestants of American Idol, The Apprentice and The Bachelor. Put the non-notable contestents in the articles for those shows and the information is in 3 places. Otherwise it's in 100 tiny articles, each of which say, "Person A is extremely notable because he/she was the nth person to lose in season m of the reality show zzzz". Quale 20:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to American Idol. He appears to have no notability outside the show.--Theo (Talk) 14:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as above. His fifteen minutes were up some time ago, and my money says that no one will remember his name a year from now. --InShaneee 14:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• By the policy that each episode of a major television series can merit an article, we could recast all the losing contestant articles into American Idol season 1 episode (elimination of EJay Day), or however titled, etc. Or we could just accept short individual articles on singers themselves. I'll take the second. Samaritan 14:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable loser. Grue 04:17, 7 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. Postdlf 07:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Falling Up (band)

SEE BELOW THE BLUE BOX RickK 22:12, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Relisting (see previous discussion below where consensus was to delete). Article fails to establish notability. Band's only album is an independent release. JamesBurns 04:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Err, so, why is this being relisted? If it is recreated deleted content, it can be speedied. Me confused. android↔talk 04:22, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • It has been. The article was listed on VfU and then undeleted, and the VfU for it deleted after having been there for only one day. I have redeleted it and restored the VfU listing until the appropriate five day VfU voting period has expired. This VfD should not be here until the VfU period has passed. Invalid VfD listing. RickK 04:30, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • This article has been deleted twice and recreated twice. So far I cannot find anything in the speedy deletion policy which states why this can be recreated even though the author is claiming ignorance of the original vote and that they are not the same person as the first article author, although the article is dicussing the same band. I was unaware someone had removed the VfU entry after only one day. JamesBurns 05:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RickK#Response for the old and new content. This is in no way a recreation of deleted content. --SPUI (talk) 23:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • The only major difference between this article and the first is that the author has bothered to write their names in full rather than their first names. The grounds for deletion was on notability - it had nothing to do with how badly written the first article was. JamesBurns 06:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Please, go to the link I provided above. There's a whole new first paragraph about the band. This isn't really the place for you to argue bullshit anyway, as it's inactive. --SPUI (talk) 06:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • You really need to change your tone of language SPUI. For an admin you are setting a poor example for people reading wikipedia. JamesBurns 04:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • Er? I'm not an admin. I wouldn't want to be an admin. --SPUI (talk) 07:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • Thank God. RickK66.60.159.190 19:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, here we go again. Despite the unanimous delete votes from the previous VfD, this article was listed on VfU, and after a contentious vote, there was a slight majority to Undelete. As per proper VfU procedure, the article should have been re-listed on VfD, but that was not done, so I have now done so. This band is not notable. Delete. RickK 22:12, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. BEC Recordings is owned by the same guy who runs Tooth & Nail Records (the BEC article is going on my to-do list now). They're both pretty important labels, serving as an important "incubator" for bands like The O.C. Supertones, MxPx, Project 86, and Zao, which have all gone on to be major members of their respective music scenes (T&N also released an EP by P.O.D.). If a band joins one of these labels, they do tour on a national scale, and they do get a strong fan base in the Christian circles, beyond what they'd get as a local band or as an internet-only band. A Google query for the band name now results in over 68,000 hits, and "falling up" crashings gets about 5000 hits (which is pretty good for a Christian rock album; it out-Googles several recent albums by the Newsboys, which were atop the Christian charts for a while, for example: [9] [10] [11]). --Idont Havaname 02:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sorry but this band still isnt that notable. BEC Recordings is not Epic or Warners - its a specialist label for mostly Christian bands many of them very obscure. A fair slice of those Google hits are by fans leaving messages on blogs about the band. As has been pointed out on vfd before, the Google Test is not a good indicator of notability for music or pornography. Their "national" tour seems to be mostly confined to churchs, religious festivals and small stadiums. JamesBurns 04:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want this to sound like a personal attack, but... if every band that is on this site has to have a page full of #1 hits and several national tours in which they sold out every
    NFL stadium, should we delete all the others (including those who started some of the more obscure musical genres)? That's a strict criterion; Christian rock basically is on the fringes of mainstream rock, so its bands don't sell a lot of records and are mainly stuck in the church culture. Pretty much any Christian artist that isn't Third Day doesn't crank out #1 hits in the general market or sell out a very large stadium in every show. (Also just a side note: several Christian festivals - see Cornerstone Festival for one of the examples - draw tens of thousands of guests.) Falling Up is also featured on X 2005, a compilation of Christian rock hits from 17 bands, most of which have articles on this site that have been accepted without question. If you'd like to go through and delete all of those bands too, go ahead and do it. But keep things standard across the site. --Idont Havaname 05:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I never mentioned #1 hits. Should we make exceptions to Christian bands just because they wish to be identified in that genre? I dont think so. Notability should be across the board, not just one particular market. JamesBurns 08:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 04:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Idont Havaname did a nice job with a recent update on the article, and it now makes a good case for the band's notability. If the article had always been that good, it probably wouldn't have been up for VfD. Quale 05:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A decent article, and what else is going to use this title? Wikipedia is not improved by deleting this. --L33tminion (talk) 05:21, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hasn't changed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Any band whose article was created by one person, deleted, and then created by a second person who was completely unaware of the first article must be known by enough different people to be famous enough for Wikipedia. (By the way, I have heard of the band too.) Wiwaxia 07:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you know they were completely unaware? We're only taking Cookiemobsta's word for it. Another editor quizzed Cookiemobsta whether they were User:EskimoJoe, EskimoJoe has subsequently "disappeared" and Cookiemobsta has gone silent. Megan1967 08:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Well, whatever happens to this article User:Cookiemobsta deserves some WikiLove for creating a band article that doesn't have redlinks for every effin' member, album and song. Soundguy99 08:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They are notable in the Christian Rock genre. Arguements for Delete all seem to be very weak indeed. Robinoke 08:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Their Allmusic guide entry notes that their 2004 album Crashings made the Billboard Christian Rock and Heatseekers charts. [12] As a result, they are notable within genre. They have also toured extensively meeting the Wikimusic Project guidelines.

Capitalistroadster 11:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, just isnt notable enough. Megan1967 12:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Capitalistroadster.
  Kappa 12:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. Shimmin 13:22, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. --iMb~Meow 14:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Never should've been deleted in the first place. Grue 15:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• And another keep per Capitalistroadster. Samaritan 18:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Capitalroadster's argument seems reasonable enough. I wonder if the members of Falling Up know about all the trouble this article has created... Sjakkalle 06:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, If an article like this gets kept it will set a bad precedent - any band can put together an independent album and claim notability. Leanne 08:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making an album might be easy, but charting is harder.
    Kappa 08:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That depends. The Billboard Christian Rock and Heatseekers charts aren't based on many tens of thousands of unit sales a week like the rock and pop charts. Making #1 on those charts would still be a little bit notable. Merely showing up on the genre charts (Top Ten albums of the year? Top 100 albums of the week?) is not notable by itself. How meaningfully they "charted" isn't shown in these comments. Having one release on BEC Recordings doesn't make a band notable; they have to do that themselves. I'm not convinced one way or the other by this discussion. No vote. Barno 14:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you see the South Park episode when they parodied Christian music sales? "Christian Rock Hard". JamesBurns 05:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please keep comments relevant to this discussion. --Idont Havaname 03:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Apologies for going silent; my access to the wikipedia is limited (I'm only getting on at the school library) but I'm still here. You also might be able to check IPs or something if you want evidence that I'm different from the first guy to make the article... Also, as far as notability goes; with Falling Up's Crashings being ranked as 9,427 in music sales. Britney Spears' "Oops, I did it again" album is ranked at #9,591 in music sales. Granted, if you added up all of Britney's albums she'd certainly outperform Falling Up, and this is only a statistic on amazon.com, but for them to outsell one of Britney's albums probably means that they're notable enough for listing on the wikipedia. (And the article Falling Up is about an album by Digby. On amazon.com's music rankings, Digby's album is ranked 96,371 in sales. It seems like Falling Up the band might be more notable than Digby's album, yet Digby's album has no controversy about it). -Cookiemobsta
• Controversial to wikipedia, but not notable elsewhere - lets not get carried away with self importance here. Push comes to shove the general public doesnt give a rats behind about whats being said in this thread. JamesBurns 05:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, I've turned the main Falling Up article into a disambig in order to reflect this and in order to eliminate redundancy with the article on the Digby album. By the way, I added more information to the article about the band. Turns out they've broken a sales record set by Kutless. --Idont Havaname 23:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, still not notable no matter how much is added to the article. Iam 03:14, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Gamaliel 08:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a big fan of Christian Rock, I can tell you this band has gotten heavy play on christian radio stations in the last year (as a side note, they're much better than a lot of recent bland bands like Kutless) Kertrats 00:45, 7 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. There are four delete votes counting the nominator, and at most two to keep, one of which is doubtful. Postdlf 03:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason hogg

Vanity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Not a particularly notable person. --Sgkay 22:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Quale 23:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Claim to fame: "Program Manager for Microsoft on the patterns & practices team." Samaritan 23:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Program Manager for Enterprise Development Reference Architecture (formerly codenamed Shadowfax). This is a major part of Microsoft's distributed network service strategy. He's not just some Dilbert, though he bears an uncanny resemblance to him. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move. Needs to be at "Jason Hogg" not "Jason hogg". --Commander Keane 09:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this recommendation. Does this amount to a keep vote? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• When EDRA reaches mainstream notability as the distributed disservice whose security failures or standards-breaking caused the Great Windows Crash of 2006, that might make Jason Hogg WP-worthy if he's still program manager or if he's blamed in Congressional hearings. Until then, no, not every department head at every big corporation needs an article of two or three sentences here. And one who is individually notable should have his surname's initial capitalized. Delete as first choice, move as Keane mentioned only if article bio-stub is kept. Barno 14:54, 2 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 SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 02:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew LaChapelle

The author clearly thinks that he is funny, but this work of fiction is unencyclopedic and should be deleted JeremyA 23:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Joke. R Calvete 23:07, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
• Delete. Who does this guy think I am? Obviously this guy just can't stand limeys. 170.135.241.46 23:11, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC) (according to history R Calvete 23:22, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC))
• Delete. Just delete this already, no need to discuss, really.
• Speedy delete. Nonsense. Quale 23:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• He pipes each instance of his name to link to
  ronin and poodle. Speedy; admitted vandalism. Samaritan
  23:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Can this get deleted faster? I'm done. Really.170.135.241.46
  • Above vote is from creator of the article - so speedy by CSD criteria 2, 3 and 7. Samaritan 23:59, 30 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 NO CONSENSUS. Postdlf 03:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MessengerDiscovery

Advert for a non-notable MSN Messenger add-on. Quale 23:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - DavidWBrooks 23:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good stub, add-on for a very popular IM. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Notability of one program does not automatically confer notability on every third-party accessory program built to work with it. Stub is not especially good, looks like an excerpt from a promo with a misspelling. Given the frequency with which toolbar-style plug-ins from otherwise-unknown websites are found to contain spyware and unconsented adware, I am very hesitant to have WP list one without veteran editors speaking in its favor. No vote, leaning strongly toward Delete in lieu of better evidence. Barno 15:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, needs a major cleanup and expansion. 13,000 Google indicates some notability, [13]. Megan1967 10:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure that 12,000 of those hits aren't hapless users asking, "How do I remove this ***ware!!! ?" ;-)

Expansion will be tough and might require original research. I looked at the official website where you can download this thing, and there's no more info there than is in this article. In fact, the WP article is basically just the features list on the MessengerDiscovery website pasted into WP. Quale 20:37, 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.