Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 18

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 23:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Venkata Darbha

Seems to me to be a vanity page. Not notable, only hit on Google is his own website... Clym 21:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable.-Clipdude 00:12, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:07, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Oatha

As a native speaker of Tamil, I feel this is not notable enough to warrant a separate article. In the local culture, use of expletives in formal documents or before elders is considered indecent, though most people use it during their teens and a few years after that and also occasionally later when they are in a verbal fight. Also, the English transliteration seems to be incorrect.

If Wikipedians feel it should be present, I would suggest the following version:

Othaa is a Tamil expletive. In the local culture, use of expletives in formal documents or before elders is considered indecent, though used by younger people in casual conversations and by some of the older people when they are quareling or fighting.

The word corresponds roughly to fucker. The root of the word is believed to be Ol, which means to "fuck".

-- Sundar 11:56, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Stombs 06:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• I will trust the nominator's assesment of this subject and vote Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, dictionary definition. Megan1967 02:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, then, but wouldn't interlanguage wiktionaries be nice? Samaritan 07:58, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • wiktionary.com is a little-known interlanguage wiktionary.
    Kappa
    11:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 01:02, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Darwinia

Ok, I hope I'm doing this right :)

The current page for 'Darwinia' is a disambiguation page. However, the first set of links points to

Disagree strongly. The plant is far more important; it has been named for well over 100 years, and will still be around for hundreds of years after the game is forgotten. I'd be surprised if the game is still around in 5 years. MPF 18:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep- its a disambiguation page, the plant entry will get written at some point--
  nixie
  00:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Darwinia Plant link was added on the 16th November 2004. For two months the page has not been added. What hope does that bring for the page to be added in the future? NeoThermic 00:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Added. It should probably also be noted that the game hasn't actually been released. --

nixie

01:10, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While the game is not released to the public, its in its RC stage of Beta testing. Possibly a compromise, such as the linking to Google's disambiguation page would be better? As an example of the populartiy of Darwinia as a computer game, a google search shows it at #1, so why shouldn't it be the first page to be indicated by the wikipeida article? NeoThermic 02:08, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I added one that also has a red link. RickK 00:36, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Don't worry about a few redlinks. Gamaliel 02:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- DCEdwards1966 05:45, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Lectonar 07:42, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There can always be a link to the plant at the top of the article, much like
  Introversion has. I believe this is usually done for articles that are more specialized/less "popular" -- LLamaBoy
  09:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Work in progress. Sooner or later somebody comes along somewhere, someday, sometime, and writes an article about it. Inter 10:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment I advise the nominator to take this to Wikipedia:Requested moves. This is not a deletion per se. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know that page exsisted. What should be done then about the current VfD? NeoThermic 16:08, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Move to Darwinia (disambiguation), and move Darwinia (plant) to Darwinia -- Eugene van der Pijll 17:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Darwinia (disambiguation), and move Darwinia (plant) to Darwinia - MPF 18:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Darwinia (plant) now seems to have a good start on an article. Privileging either the plant or the game over the other instead of leaving a conventional disambiguation page at Darwinia would annoy or confuse gamers or biologists. --TenOfAllTrades 19:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, let the article grow (pardon the pun). Megan1967 02:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a disambiguation page, seeing as Darwinia (novel) has also been added, it makes the most sense. Moving Darwinia (plant) to Darwinia would be a bad idea, as I think most people will be looking for the game rather than the plant (although the plant should be achnowledged using the disambiguation page, rather than a link to it at the top of an article). --Coolsi 11:58, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as disambig. I read the novel, it wasn't bad. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:51, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -Sean Curtin 00:33, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a disambiguation page - the plant isn't obviously more notable than the book or game, since I only knew about the book before seeing this. Bryan 22:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:59, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Danny meharena

Vanity. Delete.-gadfium 00:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Why is the P.E. section of this boy's end-of-term report posted to Wikipedia? It even has a "could do better" section. Delete. Uncle G 01:00, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity or trivia, but let's be kind to new contributors. -Rholton 02:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 05:46, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Easy: delete. For reasons above. Stombs 06:53, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy and Delete, Things like this should be SD'ed. Inter 10:41, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC
• Delete More nonsense! Brookie

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Article already deleted. Joyous 00:59, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Universal Church of Google

A joke church. Gets 107 hits on Google. Delete.-gadfium 00:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Soft keep -- It is a joke church, but it's a real joke church on Orkut. Seems like there could be a real atricle about this joke church. Another possibility is to merge into Orkut and redirect. -Rholton 02:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 05:48, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect, Inter 10:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's so insignificant that it isn't mentioned on the Orkut page (and no, changing that now isn't going to convince me). Average Earthman 14:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if someone wants they can add something about it to Orkut, but I don't think it's that important. Don't redirect. --fvw* 17:30, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 02:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. GRider\^talk 21:17, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Article already deleted by Neutrality. Joyous 00:58, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Toilet: The Novel

The author's bio was deleted

• Delete. For a some grins, follow the link on the article to Amazon.com, then check out "See all my reviews" for the two reviewers listed. Kinda fun to see Amazon gamed this way. -Rholton 02:28, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Stombs 06:52, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable and sorta adish. Inter 10:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:11, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mike, dude, give it up! I see you tried to get your bio back in today by using your middle name but someone saw it and gave it a speedy and I notice you've been spamming the Existentialism article again. That's the problem with WP, someone's always watching. --LeeHunter 13:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:56, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

The shitty asshole

Experimental noise band started in late 2003. Release catalog eztends to a demo tape and CD-Rs only. Not my definition of notable. Thryduulf 01:28, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Not a slam dunk either way. If you wade through the porn sites that are included in the search results, Google does show several references to this group. I would keep it if it can be expanded and made NPOV. -Rholton 02:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Everything appears somewhere on google. Non-signed bands don't appear in wikipedia. And signed bands don't release CD-Rs. -R. fiend 02:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN - Also please note that Shitty Asshole is a duplicate entry. Delete this as well. K1Bond007 03:15, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:17, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 05:53, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Wipe and flush. Possibly the name has some deep artistic meaning, but my theory is that it's their only claim to fame, and it's not enough. Andrewa 09:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I have much pleasure in casting my first ever vote in the direction of deleting this entry. --Historian 10:49, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Although again with the indie band discussion. Where do we draw the line for a bands notability. Inter 10:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: There's another thing that concerns me here. We have no verification that this band even exists, but we're publicising their (very small) website on which they offer "presales" of (very) limited release CD-Rs, for example "10 only, 2 left". Now, if you sent your dough and nothing arrived, would you complain? I'm not saying this is a scam, but I can't find any evidence that it isn't, either. Andrewa 11:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, duplicate article. Megan1967 02:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, and gross. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:52, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• FAO administrators: I've set Shitty Asshole to redirect to this article (it was a duplicate) pending the outcome of this VfD. If it is deleted then this page should be deleted as well. Note that Shitty Asshole is itself the subject of a VfD. Thryduulf 12:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not really an article for Wikipedia - Master Of Ninja 09:13, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

+ Delete - what rubbish Brookie

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:55, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Racial separation

• Delete: Poorly written, blatently racist article. Should either be rewritten from scratch or deleted. Kaldari 18:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: POV, badly written.
  Binadot
  18:50, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Please read the VfD instructions next time. I do like numbered lists, though, so I'm keeping them. —Ben Brockert (42) 02:18, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Brocker's comment refers to the fact that the vote format of this VfD was separated, or at least segregated. I've fixed this for consistency and to restore the TOC at the top of the page. --fvw* 17:37, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
    • "t". —Ben Brockert (42) 01:31, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Missing many years of post civil-war history, and the relevant info is elsewhere. Not respectful (if not downright racist). There could be an NPOV article under this title, but in it's current form this needs to be deleted unless it is substantially improved. (I would rather see it improved than deleted, but still...) --L33tminion | (talk) 04:57, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Use cleanup for cases like this. Gazpacho 05:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yikes! --Zappaz 05:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to racial segregation. Neutrality^talk 06:08, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

  Not the same thing. Segregation is living & working in the same area but using different facilities. Separation is living in separate political entities. I think there's enough to say about separatism to justify its own article (incorporating content from the segregation article). Gazpacho

• Was reading with an open mind until that last sentence, which made me seriously question the writer's motives. Racist and a bunch of nonsense. Delete. Stombs 06:48, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge cautiously/redirect or Keep. Racial separatism does indeed redirect to Racial segregation - there's no way "racial separatism" and "racial separation" should go to separate places. The second sentence of racial segregation says "The separation may be geographical, but is usually supported by providing services through separate institutions (such as schools) and through similar legal and social structures," which is what Gazpacho says the difference is. Let's see how this evolves. Samaritan 19:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, there is probably not enough here that could be justified merging with Racial segregation without a major NPOV rewrite, borderline. Megan1967 02:08, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Ambivalent about also merging, as this would first need to be NPOVed. -Sean Curtin 00:35, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think there's anything worth merging. Josh Cherry 02:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:05, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Houston Academy of Genius

What is the purpose of this? We already have a Rice University article. This title doesn't even deserve a redirect. RickK 05:06, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

• I was just using it as a sandbox that wouldn't be discovered/deleted as quickly. It's easier to do it that way and transfer it all at once that to make a bunch of updates for people to wade through in the history. Anyway, I've transferred what I have so far home to the Rice University article. -Omnibus 05:45, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move without Redirect to User:Omnibus/Houston Academy of Genius. Uncle G 11:39, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
• Never underestimate the power of the NP patrol. ;-) Delete, Since its a sandbox. Move it to Rice and that's that. Inter 10:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• It's all moved to Rice University... thanks folks! RickK also told me about the Userspace as sandbox, so all is well. Wiki seems even cooler now. Omnibus 08:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:11, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Freelists

I cleaned this one up, but it still looks like spam. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 05:18, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Although commendable, it isn't notable. Inter 10:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Very week Keep. ~ mlk ^✉♬ 06:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) ~
  • When I orginally posted, I assumed it was for freelists.org. FreeLists.com I've never heard of, and don't believe it is all that importent, but could be wrong. So, if it is .org, keep, if .com, no vote. ~ mlk ^✉♬ 00:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) ~
• Keep and cleanup. Assuming the article is accurate, it's a very interesting, historic website. Andrewa 18:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete platform for external link. (It's indeed .com, mlk.) —Korath (Talk) 01:52, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Article speedy deleted. Joyous 00:46, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ninja Weasel

Vanity. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 05:35, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 05:54, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Vanity. Inter 11:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --RoySmith 22:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:44, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ed mccorkindale

vanity Gazpacho 06:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• <Willy the groundskeeper voice>It's crahp!</Willy the groundskeeper voice> Delete. RickK 06:09, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Entire text: "A freshman Physics major attending WPI. 'Been dating someone for 6 years. Often tells Joe Bendor to do his homework." Samaritan 06:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, Shoulda been. Inter 11:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:45, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Fadigan

Ha ha. Gazpacho 06:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Sigh. RickK 06:41, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Funny. And so witty. Lectonar 07:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Really, for a fifteen year old humorist, it shows some promise. Delete though. Samaritan 09:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Funny. Should be moved to the joke section. Inter 11:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wow, when we're deleting gems like this, what we're keeping must be really great. Um... Maybe... Andrewa 12:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Should be speedied as patent nonsense. --LeeHunter 20:28, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:41, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Emancipism

One Google hit (and that's a .pdf file). RickK 06:46, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Clean up. Iasson 07:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • What is there to clean up if this philosophy is nonexistant? RickK 07:21, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Lets give to it some more time before delete it. Iasson 07:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Non-notability is non-notability. Only one hit in all of the Internet makes this non-notable and original research. RickK 08:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • Have you tried "Emancipist" google hits? Iasson 09:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • 625 Google hits for "emancipist", and it means a "freed convict". And the one Google hit refers to the same thing, judging from the context. No connection with this non-existant "philosophy". Delete. Raven42 10:48, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons stated above -- Ferkelparade π 13:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, neologism. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:10, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 16:54, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 17:47, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
• Delete -- Curps 17:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --RoySmith 22:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, original research, neologism. Megan1967 02:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. And delete Iasson's comments re: a new voting procedure as well. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I've deleted it twice, he keeps reinserting it. RickK 08:11, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 23:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were:

For Errorwear and SysWear, 6 delete, 8 keep.

For ThinkGeek, 1 delete, 15 keep.

(Clipdude and mlk voted only on ThinkGeek.)

Errorwear, SysWear, ThinkGeek

Advertising. RickK 08:43, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Yes its advertising. Inter 11:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ThinkGeek gets 2,540,000 Google hits! Notable enough for a brief article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:10, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Hmmm. I don't think these three articles should be lumped together like this...ErrorWear and SysWear, while pretty well known in geek circles (umm...not that I would know anything about that :P), may be too small in the grand scheme of things, but Thinkgeek is definitely notable enough to warrant its own article -- Ferkelparade π 13:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hm I may have worded badly. The articles are too advertish, but ThinkGeek should definitely have its own article. I know of its notability. Agree with that sentiment. Inter 13:41, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• ThinkGeek is a keep. I haven't heard of the other two, so I'm not aware of any notability and wouldn't notice their deletion (so delete unless someone makes a good neutral article on them by the end of the VfD period), but ThinkGeek is well-known enough that it's possible to write a non-advertising neutral article about it. Average Earthman 14:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Listings of multiples likethis generally result in a confusing mish-mash of comments for the person who closes the discussion and makes the final decisions to sort through, so out of respect to the task that they do I suggest listing separately in future. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Ferkelparade; lumping these together into a single VfD was sub-optimal. ThinkGeek is definitely a keeper for the reasons stated by others. I'm inclined to think the others should be a week delete, because I've never heard of them, but that's probably a pretty poor criteria for what makes something notable. We don't (IMHO) need an article on every on-line retailer that caters to geeks, but Think Geek is well known enough that I think they stand out as notable. I would say that the others deserve a mention on the Think Geek article. --RoySmith 16:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There should be a policy against bundling VfD submissions. GRider\^talk 17:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not sure about that. Sometimes it makes sense, like the case of that huge group of buildings all from the same university that someone listed last week. This time it should have been seperate, probably, though I still would have voted to keep them all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:52, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Delete, Weak Keep. --fvw* 17:48, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
• I don't know about the first two, but Keep (and hopefully expand) ThinkGeek. It's a fairly well-known online merchant, and I've seen people wear their stuff.--Clipdude 00:24, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all, it's information, not advertisement. bbx 01:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The reason why I listed all of these together is because they were created at the same time by the same User and all link to each other. RickK 20:08, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, no problems with notability. Megan1967 01:58, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Errorwear and SysWear. Keep ThinkGeek. ThinkGeek is somewhat well-known and distinctive. The others have nowhere near the prominence. --
  Stevietheman
  18:22, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep. Does that really say 2.5 MILLION google hits. What the F*** were you thinking? —RaD Man (talk) 05:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about annoying you, of course. Isn't that the only possible reason I could possibly have posted this? RickK 22:50, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ThinkGeek. ~ mlk ^✉♬ 06:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) ~
• keep Thinkgeek, consign the other two to the bit-bucket. Bad Rick, not doing your homework. (Just kidding! Don't kill me!) hfool/Roast me 02:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, keep, and strong keep! Do your homework, Rick! --Idont Havaname 06:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't make personal attacks. RickK 21:40, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. ThinkGeek is certainly famous enough for an article, and though I don't know about the other two since they're bundled in here with ThinkGeek I vote keep on them as well. Bryan 22:24, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 23:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 12 keep, 0 delete.

User:Vergina/FYROMian History vandalism of Macedonia

This page is a blatant misuse of the Wikimedia Foundation's web servers. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Users are entitled to put pretty much whatever they want in their own user space, provided it is related to Wikipedia, which this is. sjorford 11:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not even a misuse, let alone blatant. Andrewa 12:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it (it is a personal page). Suggested procedure: Strong majority(2/3), decision valid for 12 months , min_voters 12 in 3 days Iasson 13:17, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Please discuss Vfd policy on
    talk. sjorford
    22:22, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • ok...have lets discuss it there. I put the subject in "84 Allow or prohibit peculiar votes inside Vfd" Iasson 08:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- DCEdwards1966 17:01, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Is Susvolans trolling VfD? I am concerned. GRider\^talk 17:20, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • No, I am not trolling. Vergina's use of the word "vandalism" borders on a personal attack. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I am concerned too. Posting the page to VfD seems to be an escalation of this conflict, and has little to recommend it IMO. No change of vote. Andrewa 19:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --fvw* 17:48, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
• Keep. Susvolans, VfD is not the place to
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons. Gazpacho
  23:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this isn't the place. Samaritan 23:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, that is a persons user page. It shouldnt be up for VfD here. Megan1967 01:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. User pages are generally not candidates for VfD, unless they are completely unrelated to Wikipedia. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Clear Keep. User pages are fine for expression of personal POV, etc. The total amount of storage used by this text page is negligible. It's not being used for obviously NON-Wikipedia-related purposes (like the fellow who was using his user page as a signup sheet for a campus computer lab) or anything like that. This page doesn't contain hate speech, or physical threats, or legal threats, or direct insults. Well within bounds. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Please try to keep legitimate user pages off Vfd  The Steve  03:42, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. POV is fine on a user page, IMO. 23skidoo 04:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Article was speedy deleted. Joyous 00:40, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dubweiser

Mistitled vanity. Mgm|^(talk) 10:37, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Lupo 10:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity and non-notable. -- Hoary 10:47, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
• Delete, Vanity. Inter 11:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• It's difficult to tell what this is, but it's easy to tell what we should do with it: Delete. --RoySmith 16:45, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete patent nonsense / short article with no context Gazpacho 23:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. - Jpo 00:09, Jan 19, 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 13:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 5 merge, 2 delete.

A00 Sokolsky Opening 1.b4 e5

• I honestly don't even know what this is supposed to be. I found this while looking at
  ✉
  10:38, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe merge to Sokolsky Opening. It shows a few lines of the opening. It would be nice if somebody added comments and annotation between the raw notation.--Sonjaaa 10:50, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete more chesscruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:08, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge useful content into Sokolsky Opening and be sure to format it. Mgm|^(talk) 13:17, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge. It's the analysis of the opening, not a game. But beware of original research: see Talk:A00 Sokolsky Opening 1.b4 e5! If this turns out not to be the standard ECO analysis, then delete as original research. Lupo 14:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • ...and if it is taken from ECO, it should probably be deleted for copyright reasons (chess games cannot be copyrighted, but analysis can be). --Camembert 14:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The wording of the analysis has copyright protection, the substance of the analysis does not. --Jerzy(t) 01:44, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
      • Oh, really? Fair enough. --Camembert 01:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to Sokolsky Opening. Megan1967 01:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful to Sokolsky Opening. Andris 01:08, Jan 24, 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 00:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 1 delete, 4 keep.

Homarid

Appears to be something from Magic: The Gathering card game. Non notable. Inter 11:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Creatures of Magic: The Gathering and redirect. --fvw* 17:50, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
• Delete. I have several of these dudes lying around in the attic. I never quite had enough for a 'Homarid deck' though. Axl 18:58, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thanks for the link. Given the extensive list of precedents, I suppose that the sentient lobsters deserve a place. Axl 14:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This page was created to fill a red link on the
  List of species in fantasy fiction
  page, if that makes any difference to you.
• Weak Keep, article needs claenup and expansion. If not kept merge with Magic: The Gathering as sub-heading and add redirect. Megan1967 01:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, merge if you must, since wikipedia is not...a magic deck builder's encyclopedia. hfool/Roast me 02:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Creatures of Magic: The Gathering per fvw. Merge in Cephalid and Myr while we're at it. —Korath (Talk) 02:02, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 00:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 6 merge, 0 delete, 0 keep.

Tjalang

Tjalang is simply the dutch spelling of Calang.--Peacenik 11:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect in that case.
  Kappa
  11:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Normally I wouldn't be for redirecting foreign names, but considering the dutch-indonesian history it might be appropriate here. --fvw* 17:51, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
• Tjalang would also be the Indonesian language spelling used before the early-1970s spelling reform, and is possibly still used locally; lots of old spellings for place names are still used, especially informally. So a merge/redirect is definitely the right answer here. Cdc 19:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, assuming that it is Calang... I created this page (and Calang). — Davenbelle 19:02, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, although there isn't a lot here to merge. Megan1967 01:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merged and redirected. All links fixed; sorry for the bother. — Davenbelle 03:45, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:38, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Shitty Asshole

Duplicate of

• I've set this to redirect to the shitty asshole pending the outcome of that page's VfD. If it is deleted then this page should be deleted as well. I will copy this note onto that VfD page as well. Thryduulf 12:35, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not opposed to this action, it seems commonsense to me, but a little curious... is there any policy supporting it? If not, do we need one perhaps? Andrewa 17:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't know whether its policy or not, now you mention it. If it isn't then I would certainly vote for one. I should probably have added that if the above VfD results in a keep vote, then this article should be (imho) left as a redirect to it. I don't see the point in a separate VfD for a duplicate artcile. (see also wikipedia:votes for deletion/Joshua Claybourne regards Josh Claybourne) Thryduulf 17:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't really think we need a policy. Anyone can make a redirect, and this certainly is a case where a redirect is needed. If the target page gets deleted, it only makes sense that redirects to that page are deleted. -Rholton 17:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: No. It may seem obvious but it's not that simple at all. The complication is that redirects often have significant history. In this case it doesn't, but it's not safe to assume that just because an article is deleted, all redirects to it will or should be deleted as well. See
        redirects for deletion, there's quite a lot there and there are sound reasons for not bypassing this procedure. Andrewa
        19:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Andrewa. You are exactly correct, and I over-stated in my comment. I was only thinking of the case where there are two new identical articles created, as appears to be the case here. -Rholton 05:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Agree. Andrewa 15:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I really dont think this needs a redirect. I have voted delete previously on these duplicate articles. Megan1967 01:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think the consensus above is that assuming the vote is to delete the shitty asshole then this goes too, without needing further

discussion. Andrewa 15:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:36, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Robert Holohan

A boy who was recently murdered in Ireland. Tragic but not encyclopedic. --LeeHunter 13:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Might be appropriate on wikinews, but not here. Delete. Lupo 13:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. Delete Sad stories are not necessarily encyclopedic ones. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:42, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wikinews -
  Mailer Diablo
  14:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree with the above. It's a sad story but it belongs at Wikinews. Inter 15:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• If the only justification is that it is a news item then what about
  Carlie Brucia
  - Disagree.
  • Comment: That vote by IP 213.190.139.186. Please sign your posts. Andrewa 17:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --John 22:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 01:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Megan1967. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:35, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Armanious family

Another recent murder case. Are they noteable for anything else besides having been murdered? Might be appropriate for wikinews, but not here. Delete. Lupo 13:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A sad story, but not notable unless some case could be made that one or more family members were notable during their lives. --RoySmith 15:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 17:52, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 19:46, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --John 22:17, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 01:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:39, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. Votes to delete and to keep (in various forms) were about even. The decision defaults to keep.

Reviewing the votes and the current content, I concluded that the solution recommended late in the discussion (merge into

• Predictions are already in 2005 page. The page doesn't really make much sense, and doesn't really say anything noteworthy. There is no actual predicitions listed, merely a discussion that some people make predictions. Astrotrain 13:39, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Divination

  Comment: User:LeeHunter forgot to sign [1]. dbenbenn | talk 00:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Would say Delete due to it is a phenomena which isnt really notable and highly abstract. Some media outlets do this, but certainly not all. Inter 15:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• This page was originally Predictions for 2005. Uncle G 15:13, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
• Delete. --RoySmith 16:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a real, and rather odd, part of media culture. I think the article needs to clarify the difference between educated-guess-type predictions ("Band X will release a new album and it will be a huge hit") as opposed to psychic-type predictions, aliens will land, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:42, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until someone manages to say something noteworthy on the topic, this is just "many people make predictions for the new year, they are often wrong". That's not a decent basis for an article. --fvw* 17:54, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
• Keep for now, expand in realtion to possible reasons for the phenomena. It is certainly notable, and this article has the potential to be a great resource on teh history of it, what sort of people/groups do it, etc. You never know, with a bit of work it might make it to be the featured article for 2005/6 new years eve/day. Thryduulf 18:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, Thruduulf, but that sounds like
  original research, unless you know of someone who has actually written on this subject whose findings can be reported. Better to delete it. --BM
  21:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, a part of every culture but the article itself needs to be rewritten and clarified. Megan1967 01:47, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete kaal 02:22, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with
  futurology! This content, awkwardly titled, fits there like a glove. Samaritan
  07:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge'n'Redirect to
  futurology. Good call. —Korath (Talk
  ) 09:03, Jan 23, 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. Joyous 00:30, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sigve Sæther

Article says he was born and moved once. Not sufficiently notable. --LeeHunter 13:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. -
  Mailer Diablo
  14:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete likely vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, likely a self-created article, and no statement of any notability provided. Average Earthman 14:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, Inter 15:08, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't even assert notability. - Jpo 00:06, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:31, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Colaiste choilm

School is not sufficiently notable. -

• Delete, doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 17:56, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't say anything more than where it is. If the author wants to contribute, they could expand the Ballincollig article and include a line or two in there on the schools. Separately, however, this is of no use. Average Earthman 20:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. - Jpo 00:05, Jan 19, 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:28, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Jamie Mason

This seems to be part joke, part vanity. A Google search consisting of "Jamie Mason" + Salisbury comes up with 52 hits. A Google search of "Jamie Mason" comes up with 73 hits. The Talk page includes some comments which doesn't help things. In the history page it is suggested VfD aswell. Inter 14:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as pretty obvious hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it, it's not a hoax [--62.255.32.10]
• Delete, nonsense. --fvw* 17:57, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
• Delete, part of a pattern of vandalism. Possibly has some basis in truth, so if it can be verified we should instead revert to this stub or something similar, but I'm sceptical. Andrewa 18:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jamie Mason is an artist, but seemingly people have him confused with somebody else, meddeling kids! (Please sign your posts, IP 62.255.32.9, not that they will count for much. Andrewa 02:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC))

• Delete as near patent nonsense. The talking hosiery sure don't help matters. - Lucky 6.9 23:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:42, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a complete hoax. Sammo 01:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 00:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Federal State of Rickardia

Apparent hoax. Note when searching that Ricardia (sic) is a fictional country used by economists when discussing David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage. Uncle G 15:02, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

• Delete, Hoax. A constitution in 7 AD no less. Inter 15:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 17:57, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
• Delete. Thryduulf 18:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax, unless the world has somehow failed to notice a previously undiscovered 12,917,750 square miles of land in the Pacific Ocean. - Jpo 00:04, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 01:38, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Susvolans marked this for speedy deletion, but that tag has been removed. A "Federal State of Rickardia" article was speedily deleted yesterday, a mere couple of hours before this article was created. From the deletion log:
  • 10:26, 2005 Jan 18 Lupo deleted Federal State of Rickardia (content was: '{{subst:delete}}The Federal State of Rickardia is a country in the pacific ocean with a population of over 700,000,000.')
• This appears to be a re-creation, with variations, of an article that has been speedily deleted once already. Uncle G 12:33, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted again. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:26, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Buddy anderson

I cannot verify the factual accuracy of this article - the only few google hits I get for either "William Roy Anderson" or "Buddy Anderson" are obviously not related to the person in the article -- Ferkelparade π 15:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no notability established Egil 16:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. - Jpo 00:03, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity or hoax. Megan1967 01:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Article already deleted. Joyous 00:22, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Fraser White

Orphaned Vfd, Vfd header added by User:Michael Ward. Looks like pretty non-notable musician vanity - while his band apparently played support for Franz Ferdinand, the band itself gets all of 279 Google hits -- Ferkelparade π 15:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no google hits on "fraser white" "beat trap". Either untrue or not notable. --fvw* 17:58, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:35, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:22, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dean Barnes

Probable vanity, possible hoax. Delete. Khanartist 15:23, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

• Delete. Related to Jamie Mason, listed above. Lupo 15:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless we can stubify (ie to verified stub), see
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jamie Mason. No useful content, borderline speedy as pure vandalism. Andrewa
  19:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jpo 00:02, Jan 19, 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:20, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Lauren Cremer

Vanity. I thought it should be on

• For a minute I thought it said you can also paint squirrels black, but a re-read was highly disappointing. Delete. --fvw* 18:00, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
• Delete apparently not notable --John 22:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jpo 00:00, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 00:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 7 keep, 1 delete.

Vaughn (Band)

More band vanity. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Erring on the side of keep. Google turns up 4050 hits and this person appears notable enough for inclusion. GRider\^talk 17:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Band has 2 full studio albums released plus live CD, Danny Vaughn widely regarded as having one of the finest voices in modern rock history. ** Edit ** - If deletion seems likely, suggest Merge information with
  talk
  0219 GMT 19 Jan 2005

• Delete, vanity. Plenty of bands on this island Earth have released one or two albums. Megan1967 01:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • ...and plenty of them are listed in Wikipedia. Keep 23skidoo 06:36, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It should be at
  Vaughn (band). Samaritan
  07:36, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Two studio albums plus live album indicates that this band is notable within its genre of heavy metal/hard rock. Capitalistroadster 10:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 17:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep and Send to Cleanup. -
  Mailer Diablo
  03:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:17, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

King Ho CHEUNG

Nonnotable and vanity. May be an attempt to make a user page. Author is Kinghocheung. Indrian 17:12, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Moved to user page. --fvw* 18:03, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
  • article was moved to the user Kinghocheung page earlier but recreated by 210.245.138.116. self bio article. kaal 21:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Oh well, I tried. Delete. --fvw* 22:58, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
• Vanity. Delete. ike9898 23:01, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.-gadfium 23:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is simply a resumé or CV. -- Curps 16:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 02:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 6 keep, 2 merge, 7 delete. Since "delete" doesn't have a large enough majority, I interpret each "delete" as "delete or merge".

Hey Jealousy

Still not enclopaedic, we don't need an article on every song.

• Keep. Something has been found to take its place. Expandible. If the song had been released and become a hit one or two years ago, I doubt it would be here. (See Stacy's Mom...) Samaritan 19:37, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep hit songs.
  Kappa
  20:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --John 22:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if heroically expanded during the vfd process, merge and redirect to New Miserable Experience until there is remotely enough information to justify a split. —Korath (Talk) 23:32, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.
  Carrp
  23:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. There's room in Wikipedia for well-known songs. - Jpo 23:59, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Definite keep. Why was it immediately nominated again? At least wait a month or two. Everyking 00:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Presumeably because in the previous vfd, it got ten deletes, three redirects, and one keep (yours). —Korath (Talk) 00:31, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Surely that's an abuse of the process. We only just voted on this recently and the vote was fairly conclusive. Megan1967 01:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, still not notable enough to warrant its own article. These songs are not even well known despite what their fans believe. Megan1967 01:29, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, much as I like the song, it's simply not iconic enough to warrant an entry in it's own right.
  Djbrianuk
  0938 GMT 19 Jan 2005
  • Does it have to be iconic? If millions of people have heard it and would recognize it, that's notable. Everyking 09:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Enough material to write an article on this song. If deleted should be redirected to New Miserable Experience. Capitalistroadster 10:31, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Though I don't think all songs (or even most songs) need WP entries, this one is VERY memorable and was quite a hit in its day. Lets leave it up and revisit the issue in a few months if nobody's expanded it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:29, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to the album. -Sean Curtin 00:38, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect (what there is of it) to the album. --Calton 10:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can see a time in the future of wikipedia where every band has a page that links to every album they made and every album links to every song on the album, but we are not there yet. This article fails to establish notability or provide any analysis; therefore it is unencyclopaedic.
  • Above vote by Indrian, who forgot to sign. —Korath (Talk) 09:00, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:15, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

The Starmaker

Non-notable and non-verifiable, probably vanity. --fvw* 18:33, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

• Delete. No google hits for "The Starmaker" + "Mogul Films". No imdb entry. -- Infrogmation 18:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Speedy as a hoax. Mogul films doesn't even exist, let alone a film in development by them. Xezbeth 20:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence that it's a hoax, but it's definitely vanity at this point and not notable. - Jpo 23:54, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & convert to redir to Star Maker, the classic Olaf Stapledon novel. 25% of Google references misspell it as a single word, and tho it's probably an error to include "The" in the title, omitting it is so unnatural that it's common to include it. (But it's hard to be sure what proportion of citations do that.) I've taken the liberty of adding it as a top-of-page dab. --Jerzy(t) 03:48, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons cited by others. Would concur with Jerzy if there is evidence that the redirect is necessary (missed searches, for example). -- Fred 03:05, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:58, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Condalangus Rice and Condolangus Rice

Not encyclopaedic. --fvw* 20:43, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

• Redirect to Condoleezza Rice --BesigedB ^(talk) 21:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Should be speedy deleted. -- Curps 22:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete This would have been a sensible choice for "Speedy Delete": note the amount of time this process will cost sensible Wikipedians, below. --Wetman 22:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Another joke that was made into an article. Encyclopedias do not tell jokes. -R. fiend 22:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • An encyclopedia walks into a bar and says, "delete". - RedWordSmith 00:30, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 22:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not redirect intentionally offensive misspellings. Should have been speedy deleted. 22:54, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Above vote by User:RickK
    • Whoops, sorry about that. RickK 23:53, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. Samaritan 23:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. Jpo 23:52, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to comedian Dave Chappelle and do not redirect. No need to have a seperate entry on a single possibly offensive joke. Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Offensive spellings should not be a redirect. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:38, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete, Wikipedia is meant to contain all human knowledge, and I'm sure that whoever created this article is a great guy.
  • Above vote is by the anon IP (24.166.6.140 | talk | contributions) who created this article. -- Curps 22:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • And one minute after voting, he created Condolangus Rice. Wonderful. -- Curps 22:58, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "Wikipedia is meant to contain all human knowledge"??? Where do people come up with this crap? -R. fiend 04:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Possibly a quote from that guy
      Kappa
      06:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • And clearly not meant to be taken literally, or we wouldn't have a VfD page for anything except for utter nonsense. "My back hurts" is knowledge possessed by humans (me and my doctor) and therefore human knowledge, but no one would suggest including it in wikipedia. -R. fiend 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Besides, what he actually said is that Wikipedia is meant to contain the "sum of all human knowledge", which is a different thing entirely. There is an infinite amount of human knowledge; just because we list the numbers 1 and 2 doesn't mean we also need to list all the real numbers in between them. Though some of the list-makers here might want to try. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • But this is not nonsense. This is part of the sum of human knowledge. This should be in Wikipedia, Wikipedia should have articles on ALL topics. *Do Not Delete.
          • The above comment once again is by the original creator of the page, (24.166.6.140 | talk | contributions), with edit summary response to the stupid people. I suppose your edits to Pastrami and Stromboli (sophomoric puns about Strom Thurmond) also contribute to human knowledge? -- Curps 23:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • I think that you're hitting below the belt, Curps. That attack is nothing but partisan politics. Rice and Thurmond may be conservatives, and you may be a liberal, but you still have to show some respect. It is disrespectful to the late Senator.
              • The above was (24.166.6.140 | talk | contributions) again. What on Earth are you talking about? You added links to Strom Thurmond to the pages Pastrami and Stromboli, which I reverted. You are establishing that you are a mere vandal, and any future pages you create should be speedily deleted. -- Curps 01:11, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • I'm no vandal! How dare you make such accusations! This page is worth viewing! I also created the page on Desire (album) and I added stuff the article on Oreos. Why can't you just leave my page alone! It's a good page! I'm just trying to honor my Senator and the soon to be Sec. of State. -- Potatoeman57
                  • Did not create Desire (album). Also apparently uses User:Potatoeman56. Other usernames as well? -- Curps 01:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete . Mikkalai 01:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Dave Chappelle, no redirect. Megan1967 01:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, no redirect. LizardWizard 01:54, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Josh Cherry 02:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and hopefully the Senate will also "delete" Condoleeza Rice. --
  Stevietheman
  18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I get the feeling by reading all of the other changes that this user makes that he/she is a vandal and possibly a racist. I say delete it and everything that he/she does.-----Keetoowah 16:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, with no redirect; the only "errors" a redir could correct are made in bad faith. --Jerzy(t) 03:52, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't a notable nickname, and it's not a misspelling one might reasonably chance upon. Also, while I don't want to be picky, voters need to remember that a vote of "merge, no redirect" is impossible, as doing so would violate our GFDL-mandated obligation to recognise contributors (however foolish) whose contributions we retain. -- John Fader 03:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (both articles) --RoySmith 19:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I change my vote to Delete -Potatoeman57

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. While the term is sourced, it failed to reach the level of discourse necessary to keep as an encyclopedia article. If, however, this term comes into greater use, recreation of the article may become appropriate at some future time. Rossami (talk) 05:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bollystan

Neologism. --fvw* 20:47, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

• Delete - Jpo 23:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An admitted neologism, no less; the page linked to as its "first use" is dated December 3, 2004. —Korath (Talk) 23:54, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 01:24, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Wait! I was ready to vote delete until I noticed how serious the source and propagation so far are. An article in the current
  Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet, a catchphrase from a press release in the last provincial election here. That survived vfd. Here we have a serious word that's already part of global discourse about the rise of South Asia to global power. Cleanup/expand/but keep. (Btw, Google shows the word has been used otherwise, notably as a British magazine title.) Samaritan
  08:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite The current article appears to be copied from [5], but it seems noteworthy enough as Samaritan pointed out. - Arun 07:34, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Del. Nonce expression whose 15 minutes of fame have probably passed. If it rises, well beyond "68 of about 138" Google hits, it can be resurrected without the gap producing harm. --Jerzy(t) 04:04 & 04:41, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)