Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 28

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was 8 Keeps / 3 Merge and redirect / 1 Delete. Keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

J.D. Frazer

It's not worth to keep this article. Or it's improved or deleted. --Neigel von Teighen 23:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Could an admin have a look at all these votes? I find it highly suspicious that everyone would vote in the same way, contrary to the MO of everyone else on every other VfD item (usually by using "Keep"). Also, most of these people have almost no contributions other than to create a user page and vote on this site. A couple of the accounts appear to be "stealth" accounts in that they were used sporadically to make one or two edits a month, and then suddenly they vote on this account. --Deathphoenix 02:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC). Never mind, looks like everyone's looking into it already.

BTW A quick snytax analysis of the majority of the following vote against deletion entries shows them to be written by the same person.

-- not reallly. you'll note similarities, but the use of the "vote against" would be a very striaght forward notation to make for as the prior votes carried it.

edit by Marcus22 --Epideme 22:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It would be fair to say that has already been discussed, and while a large number of votes were cast by first-edit users, they were not the same person. You have only been a member since 17:59, 24 Jan 2005, so can hardly be called a long-term member, and your contributions appear to be only to vote to delete (even your own article). Epideme 22:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And the relevance of that is ??? --Marcus22 13:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Most of us are probably fairly new to wikipedia, although I have used it before many times, I only edited very recently. We agree that the article needs a great deal more work, and will have a complete reworking within 4 days. However, having gotten involved in editing now, I will no doubt take a much greater interest in the wikipedia and in correcting articles. Please do not suggest that simply because someone is new they are false. Epideme 02:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• vote against deletion. I echo kickstart70's views that if we delete this article we'll have to delete others, just to be "fair." In addition to J.D.'s contributions in the cartoons, he is much more then a simple cartoonist. Abaron
• vote against deletion. If we delete this, how about the numerous other minor celebs that have pages here? Like the people from Slashdot or some minor character from a cut-rate 1960's sitcom? Full disclosure: I am the head moderator at UserFriendly and the initial creator of this page. I have a feeling this is a grudge request for deletion. Kickstart70 23:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A minor celeb he may be, but as the first person to run a daily online web cartoon, and as the first web comic to be ported to newspapers, he is an important and vital addition to the encyclopedia. Epideme 23:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC). Modified to keep Epideme 22:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• vote against. agreement with above.

• edit by 68.190.97.227 --Plek 02:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The nominator, by saying that this wiki should be improved, shows that s/he needs to read the deletion policy page, which specifically states that pages that need improvement are NOT valid for a deletion nomination, at best they require a "needs attention" flag. JD is an amazing comedian, artist, and tech and deserves a mention as much as anyone! JeffUK (Vote Against Deletion)
• Vote against. Seconding Kickstart's reasoning. C. A. Jenson/krikkert
• Vote against. The nominator claims "It's not worth to keep this article" but fails to say why that is. As can be seen by the votes here, there is a great deal of potential for this article, given time.

• edit by Ston --Plek 02:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Vote against. Why in the world would you delete information about the first person to publish a web comic? That's analagous to deleting an article about John Glenn, because we all know lots of people have orbited the earth since. The guy had a book in Amazon's top ten in the humor category for crying out loud. Leave the article in place, perhaps expand it.

• edit by Tengig --Plek 02:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Vote against. Nothing to say that others haven't already said above.

• edit by Arachnid --Plek 02:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Vote against. Agreeing with Kickstart and others for all the reasons mentioned in this article. Klaranth DragonWriter
• Vote against. I agree with all comments above. The page should definitely be expanded, though. Michiel Helvensteijn
• Vote against deletion. As the creative force behind a highly successful web comic - UserFriendly, J.D. Frazier would be worthy of inclusion, but his contributions go beyond that of a typical web-toonist. Utilizing humor, he has been a visible and vocal advocate for the open source software movement since the strip's debut in November of 1997. It should also be noted that the strip has been online continuously since that time. In addition, the standards he has set (and consistently maintained) for the electronic community that evolved around the comic strip have allowed it to become a favored source for not only general discussions, but one which also provides significant contributions in terms of collaborative technical support in a positive, non-threatening manner. As the creator of this presence, his inclusion in this wiki is merited. Dire Lobo 01:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - looks like we've got a horde of UF forum-goers making their presence known. I hate to tell you this, guys, but your votes aren't going to count much. Carpetbaggers don't carry much weight. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not all of us are carpetbaggers...look at our contribution history. Past that, there are very valid points here and I haven't seen anything that I would consider a valid point for deletion, even if it were for something I didn't particularly like on Wikipedia. Kickstart70 02:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I've added user identification tags to the unmarked votes. Contrary to what Kickstart70 says, all the voters thus far, except Kickstart70 and Krikkert, are first-edit users (well, as if that wasn't obvious to begin with). --Plek 02:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• In my case, I didn't even realize you could register on Wikipedia. But before registering, I've used it extensively and made several edits. I understand how this flood of voting might seem suspicious, though. :) Michiel Helvensteijn
• Alright, so let's discuss what the reasons are for keeping and deletion. He is the creator of a very popular comic strip that has been running for over 7 years and is syndicated in multiple newspapers. I notice there are no VfDs for the Wikipedia page on the strip itself, so I believe that the creator of the strip should have a page. According to Alexa, the site is ranked 17165 in popularity according to its rankings. Other strips' creators have pages that are not disputed. How about you give us a chance to provide content? Kickstart70 02:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• So improve the article. And please stop people coming over from UF for the sole purpose of voting against deletion, because it doesn't help at all, as you should know if you've been here long enough. Keep and expand. Raven42 03:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Article much improved. I think that if we get rid of the VfD then no one is going to keep coming here (FWIW, I -did- make a request for registered users to come voice their opinion here. I didn't think anyone would register specifically for that purpose. However, I don't control their extra-UserFriendly actions, so I can't do a whole lot about what they do here. Kickstart70 03:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Well, your request probably worked. However, I would have done a quite search for notability before voting. To tell you the truth, seeing all the flood voting just brought up my suspicions and I voted for an extreme delete before even making a notability check. Please realise that flood voting isn't the only way to make your voice heard. Often, it takes just one vote or comment with a good explanation and the veterans will vote for your side. --Deathphoenix 03:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Strong, Extreme! Delete. Normally, it would just be a delete, but I hate it when accounts that contribute much less than even me flood VfDs with their votes out of the blue. --Deathphoenix 02:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and keep. Okay, I looked into UF after getting an explanation from Epideme. UF appears notable enough, with an Alexa rank of 17,165. However, I agree with Raven42, as I explained to Epideme, VfD flood votes out of the blue from new users look highly suspicious. --Deathphoenix 03:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I can understand why we don't explicitly say "no new user voting", but I wonder if it might be a good idea to update the {{vfd}} tag to say that new users should probably write on the talk page or make comments instead of actually voting? This kind of flood voting feels like we just got Slashdotted or something. --Deathphoenix 03:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • sorry to hit the system so hard - "UFies" are a fairly loyal bunch. Apologies if it caused any consternation. It has gotten me more interested in becoming a more regular contributor (if you'll be patient with me while I learn the nuances of the system)! There is a synonym for "Slashdotted" - It's known as "UFied" - and I think you've just experienced it - again, my humble apologies.
      • As far as raving fans go, they're relatively mild, if numerous. At least they can "rite good english", unlike some of the ones we get. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • That has a lot to do with the standards and expectations of the community (and it's members). Proper grammar and spelling is an expectation (of course as soon as I typed that I noticed an error in my previous "post" - and had to go fix it). I look forward to learning more about the Wiki and its processes. Dire Lobo 04:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Who does the final decision belong to for the deletion/etc.? When can we get that notice removed? Thx... Kickstart70 07:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep despite (normally suspicious) influx of first-edit voters. —Korath (Talk) 04:46, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What Korath said. I can buy his books at Barnes & Noble, and published authors are notable. The article, when tagged, was a mess, but is much more coherent now. Niteowlneils 17:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to User Friendly. From all available evidence, he is notable solely as the author of the webcomic. Readers will be better informed if he is discussed in context with his creation. The User Friendly article is not yet so large that this won't fit in easily. Rossami (talk) 02:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 03:40, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep —Mar·ka·ci 18:50, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
• Keep, despite controversy surrounding the VfD process above, he is notable - some of his books have been published. Megan1967 04:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Famous, multiple published books, highly verifiable - David Gerard 16:08, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable. VfD submitter gave no reason for deletion, which isn't kosher. — Gwalla | Talk 22:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. I've been a reader of User Friendly for some years and see no reason why JD shouldn't have a Wikipedia entry. However, I agree that it would be wiser to make his entry and User Friendly's entry one-in-the-same.

This page is now preserved 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. Mgm|^(talk) 21:01, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Silentlikeauburn and Silentlikeaubun

Band. Philosophy and assurances of artistic integrity presented; no evidence of notability presented. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• What utter pretentious crap. Delete with extreme prejudice. RickK 00:54, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• del Mikkalai 01:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Like the band, I am "Not afriad to write about what they feel, think, and believe", and that is Delete this crap --RoySmith 02:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete silentbikeauction or silentbutdeadly whatever the heck it calls itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, vanity band article. --Deathphoenix 02:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't meet
  WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion, and no evidence of notability is given. Tuf-Kat
  05:51, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and sent back to "the ashes of a decaying scene" from whence they came. Edeans 08:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. (Anon votes do not count) -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Moonn D)))

This is band vanity. They are also not the first tribute band to a tribute band, I know for a fact that

• Delete. Not notable enough to be independently verifiable - David Gerard 01:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Del))). Mikkalai 02:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough, possible vanity. Megan1967 03:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, vanity band article. --Deathphoenix 02:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't meet
  WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion, and no evidence of notability is given. Tuf-Kat
  05:52, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I have googled them and could not confirm that they are the most well known doom metal band in their city. Because verifiability is so important, please point to where this is documented. Thanks. Tuf-Kat 02:33, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Also, please note that assumptions are unwarranted. Encyclopedia articles do not assume, they give facts. Tuf-Kat 02:35, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

See the doom-metal.com bandlist (http://doom-metal.com/frame_bandlist.html). They are the only band in the drone doom subgenre listed in all of Poland. Not just in the town of Ilawa.

I see eleven Polish bands listed there. Or are you referring just to drone doom? (the term drone doom does not appear to be used at the site you linked to, nor in the article in question) If so, one band does not make a scene (and the guideline says it must be the most prominent band in a local scene). Also, the article itself must make the claim of notability. This means you need to change the text of the article to explain why this band is worth noting and preferably provide a citation or two. Tuf-Kat 22:15, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Do not delete. Zaraza The creation of Moonn D))) was announced quite a few months ago at the doom-metal.com forums, they are a legit band, even if somewhat obscure...but then, so is most of doom metal.

• Delete. Mrmiths An unnotable contribution to drone doom.

• Do not delete [Insig.] Delete? Why? Sure it could do with an edit to fix the statement so that it cannot be missinterpreted. Besides, it is the first drone/doom band to ever emerge from Poland. However a lot of people here seems to think that obscurity means unimportant. Only around 20 people speak volapük, so why not delete it's entry?

• Do not delete. The article does mention drone doom, when it speaks of "uber-slow drone riffs". Doom-metal.com does have drone doom listed if you click on the "All Bands" bar at the top of the bandlist (top left of screen)and scroll through the genres to drone doom, many drone bands are listed there including Sunn O))) and Earth, the two bands which the author mentions. As for being the most prominent band in a scene, surely that means 99% of bands do not deserve to be listed here seeing as only one (maybe two) bands can invent a style of music. Eg, Napalm Death should be the only Grindcore band listed but they are not.

• Do not delete [Doom-metal.com site owner] As far as I am aware the only Polish Drone band, the only Drone tribute band to a tribute band, infact probably the only doom tribute band to a doom tribute band. Perhaps not as well known as ABBA, actually pretty sure of that. But they are quite unique within the entire doom-metal genre. And in all honesty, what can it hurt? It's hardly a vanity entry as the band didn't submit it themselves, nor are after any claim for glory. And doom-metal as a whole is already a strugling enouth genre as it is.

This page is now preserved 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. Mgm|^(talk) 21:03, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Insecure.org

Advertisment for a website --

• Delete Ad. --Woohookitty 02:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad. Bacchiad 07:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 08:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Nmap is very well known, but we don't need a separate article on the website it resides on. Merge it. Inter 09:17, 28 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. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:52, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Gotem(speech)

Neologism of local interest. --LeeHunter 00:53, 28 Jan 2005

• Strong keep This article is about a new trend/slang within pop culture and therefore should keep its spot on wikipedia until it fades from pop culture. bakuzjw (aka 578) 00:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I notice that bakuzjw has already put some of this material on his user page. Good idea. You can pretty much do what you like within very broad limits. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep: This article has data beyond a definition and is a good example of how WikipediA is on the edge of society. I see absolutely no reason to delete this page... ever. - Singpolyma 16:47, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since when is Wikipedia on the edge of society? It is long-established policy that Wikipedia does not accept articles and supposed facts which cannot be substantiated. RickK 21:55, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Article does contain some useful information. 00:55, 28 Jan 2005 PhoenixPinion (contribs)

Please note that votes by the author of the article and anonymous voters are not counted. --LeeHunter 01:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, votes by the author of the article (if a registered user) are counted. --Goobergunch|? 01:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. --LeeHunter 02:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Phoenix,s etits are only at the gotem page, at the non-notable high-school page, who is claimed to be the birthplace of gotem, and here, hence he may be excluded under the policy "or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article.". Mikkalai 02:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have made many other edits, only I have never registered. Of course, I understand you have no reason to believe me, but until one of my articles came under fire, I had no reason to register. PhoenixPinion

• Delete If it's still around in a year, then put it on here. --Woohookitty 01:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Local neologism that doesn't even clearly explain how it's different than "got 'em", if there's anything other than the spelling--removing punctuation from an expression doesn't seem very notable. Niteowlneils 01:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "growing in popularity" today will disappear tomorrow. Mikkalai 01:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable neologism. --Goobergunch|? 01:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable --
  nixie
  02:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. The expression "Got 'em" (never spelled "Gotem") as an abbreviation for "Got them" is very old and long predates usage by Florida high school students. The new usage described for a single local high school in Florida is not notable, probably a fad that will end when they graduate or get bored and move on to the next fad. If an article about the very common English expression "Got 'em" is needed, then write it from scratch... there's nothing here that could be used. By the way, some of the "keep" votes above are suspicious and sound like an informally organized campaign to stuff the ballot box. -- Curps 02:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems common sense that an article that is incomplete should be expanded upon, not deleted.--PhoenixPinion

• Delete - non notable, list it when it becomes popular. This is not a site to popularize stuff. kaal 03:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and delete all of the sockpuppet and anon votes. RickK 06:01, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• How is this verifiable? (See Wikipedia:Verifiability.) Has it been covered in a local newspaper, or picked up by academics of English who watch colloquialisms as their life's work, etc? If not, you won't likely be able to convince Wikipedians it should be in the encyclopedia. (See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.) A more appropriate place for this would be Urban Dictionary. Samaritan 06:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The way to counter lots of votes by new users is to vote against them, not to call them names. RSpeer 07:09, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. sjorford:// 09:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this word deserves a place in a wikimedia project it should be on Wiktionary without 'speech' in parentheses in the title. Please review policy before creating an article. Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Er... the article says it: slang among Florida...high school students. Kind of very extremely limited. (Vanity we love you!) Gtabary 13:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn,vanity... Lectonar 14:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. No evidence presented of real use outside a very narrow circle. When it appears in printed dictionaries, even dictionaries of slang or regional English, or someone can cite an article about it in a newspaper of record like The New York Times, we can have an article about it. "everythign starts small, let this grow. itll stop growing on its own if its not meant to be" is really the key: Wikipedia is not for the promotion of new trends, however, worthy. It is an encyclopedia that presents already-well-established existing facts that are already of some degree of importance. I am not convinced that the supporters are sockpuppets, and I'm sorry they are having a rough introduction to Wikipedia.. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Localised neologism. Wikipedia isn't for things that might grow, it is for things that have. Someone creating an article for their baby because, hey, they might win a Nobel Prize would see it deleted pretty quickly, and the same for neologisms. Average Earthman 17:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. GRider\^talk 18:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, slangdef. --fvw* 23:32, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
• DeleteSc147 02:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unconfirmable local slang. Jeltz talk 13:53, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Martg76 17:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:10, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologistic vanity. --
  Angr
  22:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another neologism. IF this word becomes popular, it could deserve an entry. TomTheHand 22:32, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. definition -Willmcw 23:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete the fierce defense only makes it seem more like a vanity page. LizardWizard 04:37, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • User's only edit. --32147 21:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Uh, buh? Last I checked I had a few edits. LizardWizard 09:10, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • That's NOT LizardWizard's only edit, as far as I can tell. He's been here since late last year. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Votes attached to personal attacks

Okay, I'm probably doing something controversial here, but I'm making a point about the unprofessional and harmful comments that have been left along with votes, by setting apart these votes like the "suspect votes" were set apart. I'm not denying that these votes count. I voted delete, by the way. RSpeer 20:15, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: What's done is done, but in the future please do not try to sort out the suspect or controversial votes. It makes it almost impossible to sort these discussions out at the end of the discussion period. Too much context is lost when the comments and/or replies are moved. Long threads like this are hard enough even when you do have a clear context and an edit history that matches the contributions. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) (no vote)

Comment: I fully endorse RSpeers move of identifying unprofessional delete votes on VfD. These acts of immaturity towards potential newcomers does nothing to help Wikipedia's already degrading image. I voted delete as well, by the way. GRider\^talk 20:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So complain on their talk pages. Messing with the order of comments and votes to express your discontent with their content isn't appropriate. --fvw* 20:47, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

• Another strong delete. To the sockpuppets: Give it up. Or "gotem." Either one. - Lucky 6.9 20:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since when is a quip and/or a mild swipe at a sockpuppet considered to be a personal attack? I am a firm believer in not biting newbies and I did not mean this to be any sort of attack. - Lucky 6.9 19:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Newbies don't know what a sockpuppet is or why you're calling them that. Other people have managed to introduce suspicions of sockpuppetry while explaining what the term means and giving their evidence. RSpeer 05:18, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Good point. I stand corrected. No change of vote, but I withdraw the quip. Thanks, Speer. - Lucky 6.9 22:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just to spite the sockpuppets if for no other reason (and there are plenty). -R. fiend 03:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable/neologism/vanity, take your pick. I'm sure the attempts to ballot-stuff will be disregarded. Rje 03:01, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Ballot stuffing. I can not believe that people are making the claim that ballot stuffing is going on when you have no proof. Perhaps we should steer clear of making baseless claims about each other, and instead debate the real issue which is wither or not this is a valid article for Wikipedia, which i think it is. bakuzjw (aka 578) 03:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We have plenty of evidence. All of the new "Users" who have shown up all of a sudden to vote on this page as their first, one of their first, or their only edits is evidence enough. RickK 21:56, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, local neologism - not yet notable enough, possible vanity. Sockpuppets/first time edit voters only add weight to the delete vote. Megan1967 03:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable neologism; ballot-stuffing appears to suggest that this is also a vanity article. -- Karada 01:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suspect votes

• "keep it, i use it everyday, it is a cultural thing. everythign starts small, let this grow. itll stop growing on its own if its not meant to be. dont vote against this"
  • unsigned vote by 4.235.196.40 (contribs)
• Strong keep This article shows the freedom of speech in the US, and some kids just want to exercise their first ammendment rights. It shows a longing for difference, and some creativity. --Bobtheazn 02:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)User:bobtheazn
  • Strong disregard this vote by policy "...or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article.". Mikkalai 03:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Considering the wealth of information on Wikipedia dealing with pop culture, there is no reason that another article regarding a new colloquialism should be deleted.
  • unsigned vote by Karmapoliceman (contribs)
  • This user's only edit. --Goobergunch|? 01:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article does not represent absolutely no truth about anything. And it is contrary to the inverse of what wikipedia is not trying to accomplish. Thus it shouldn't not be undeleted. --198.190.223.15
• Keep Article shows origins of speech patterns in a local environment, a growing interest in some fields.
  • unsigned vote by 128.227.189.207 (contribs)
• Keep Great article. Definitely keep it, I think it's really valuable. I can now appropriately use the word in Florida schools, if ever necessary. --32147 01:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)01:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Three current edits by this user; one to this page, one to the article, and one to User page. --Goobergunch|? 01:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep I'm a seventeen year old highschool girl in Florida and this term is thrown around all of the time, and quite frankly, I would be severely disappointed if a site so proud in its depth of information were to discredit a new word such as 'gotem'. portia
  • User's only edit. RickK 06:01, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• And on the flipside, Keep, just to spite the sockpuppets who want to delete the article simply because they are unfamiliar with the term or see it as insignificant from their point-of-view. --32147 03:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)-[[User:32147|32147]
  • I would like to ask that this vote not be counted because the only motivation is out of spite for “sockpuppets” and not for the content of the entry. I again ask that we try and steer away from baseless and childish attacks and focus on the real issue at hand bakuzjw (aka 578) 03:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I second bakuzjw's motion not to count 32147's vote. Clearly made in bad faith. -R. fiend 03:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Um, a small mistake has been made R.fiend. My comment about not counting the vote was in fact directed to your vote and not 32147"s vote. Sorry for the misunderstanding. bakuzjw (aka 578) 03:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • 32147's only edits are to the article, the school it supposedly comes from, and this page. RickK 06:01, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • And note that he voted keep twice. If it's gonna count it'll have to be just once. Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP You are my best friend. and you are my hero. and i love you :) oh yea whoever deletes this i will be very mad at you. The word 'gotem' is a very smart word.prettypinkpony
  • Please just vote, don't feed the trollerkinder. See you in 5 days. Mikkalai 03:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• My thoughts excalty, i couldnt agree more. 24.250.217.87 03:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Can we all be friends please? Oh and could someone wikify the word "sockpuppets" and then make an article on it because I'm confused. Is this a puppet that is made out of a sock? If so, what does it have to do with Gotem(speech)? I am disturbed by the number of "veteran" users here who are referring to unrelated things such as sockpuppets to justify the deletion of this article. --32147 03:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Sock puppet --Goobergunch|?
      03:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't call new users who aren't sockpuppets "sockpuppets". It's elitist and a really crappy welcome to Wikipedia. If you really think they are the same person as another account (which is what "sockpuppet" means), show some evidence. RSpeer 07:09, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree. I don't think that most of the votes on this are sockpuppets, but that they know each other in real life. However, 32147 wanted to know what a sockpuppet was and I was happy to oblige. --Goobergunch|? 20:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment If I were the acting sysop on this page, I would probably count these as about three "keep" votes. Admittedly there's no way to be sure and a clever person could simulate different personalities and writing styles. I see enough differences in style between different voters to there's more than one voter. I see enough similarities in style to think there are fewer than nine. taking the geometrical mean of one and nine, I get three... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Only sockpuppets take geometric means.
• Comment checking this page i can see that some people suspect that "sock puppets" have been used. I give you my word, that to my knowledge, no sock puppets have been used. Now granted some of the "keep" votes are by new users, which apparently aren’t going to count (however i think they should). So a question for an admin, how is it determined what votes are used and what votes are thrown out. Does a person need to have a certain number of edits, be a member for a certain amount of time, ect.. I am in no way trying to cause trouble, I am just curios as to what the protocol is. (And besides even if the votes that have been thrown out were counted the article would still be deleted, sadly I might add). One last thing would it be a problem for me to have the gotem article on my homepage? bakuzjw (aka 578) 23:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment (I already said this on bakuzjw's Talk page but I just want to emphasize it). No, there would be no problem at all for you to put this article on your User page. It would be a good idea. This material falls well within the very, very loose bounds we set for appropriate use of user pages. And by the way Google does index user pages. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm not suggesting that you yourself are a sockpuppet but nearly all of the those anonymous keeps came in within a few minutes of the page being VFD'd which is a strong indication that a little clique had been 'instant messaged' to fluff up the vote. Why else did a bunch of anonymous voters show up so quickly? It never happens unless some form of sockpuppetry is involved. I don't think they were sockpuppets in the strict sense of the word, but there was obviously a group of people trying to make their little catch-phrase into something it isn't. The delete votes, most of which came from regular contributors, straggled in as they normally do over the next hours and days. --207.253.111.119 15:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(This comment isn't just directed at 207.253.111.119 -- though it's fascinating that the strongest elitism is coming from an anonymous IP -- but at everyone in this discussion who is attacking the new users who tried to contribute to Wikipedia.)

They aren't sockpuppets in any sense of the word. It may be annoying when a new user recruits other new users to back them up on VfD, but there's no rule against it, and there shouldn't be, because all users are equal.

Editors who have made hundreds of edits are usually dismayed to find that some high school student recruited over IM can cast a vote that counts as much as theirs. They tend to react by intimidating the users, either calling them names or telling them that their votes don't count (which is untrue). You've done this too, now.

So is it that upsetting that someone might vote against you? Someone who (gasp) isn't familiar with how Wikipedia works? You should sit back and relax, knowing that other experienced editors will come along and cast their own votes, and the right thing will happen to the article.

Sure, this article doesn't have much worth, but the users supporting it might once they get more Wikipedia experience. Wouldn't it be great if more high schoolers discovered Wikipedia and found out what a wonderful thing it is? Instead, though, they tend to discover Wikipedia and immediately have to withstand a barrage of personal attacks on VfD. Get off your high horse and go edit some articles.

RSpeer 20:07, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that "anonymous" comment was mine -- I didn't realize I wasn't logged in when I made it. I must admit I am baffled by the suggestion of 'elitism'. It is a well-established policy to distinguish between votes made by contributors and votes by people who are making their first appearance to try and sway a vote in favor of some group. --LeeHunter 23:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I could not agree more with Rspeer, the whole point of wikipedia is to make loads of knowledge available to the masses for free. And the only way that a lot of knowledge can be compiled is if a lot of people compile it. When veteran users come out and attack an article so furiously is not saying much about the wikipedia community. I enjoy Wikipedia, I like creating new articles and editing old ones, and I like to just sit and read wikipedia. But the problem is wikipedia will die out if veteran users attack new users in the way that happened many times on this vfd page (lets face it veteran users, which i am not one of, as you age, get married, get a job, have kids, wikipedia will fall to the bottom of your todo list). I guess what I am trying to say is that just be friendly to the new users, help them with various wikipedia protocol (which i am still learning and i have been part of wikipedia for a good 2-3 months now). And instead of declaring their vote invalid (because they only have one edit, or are new to wikipedia) and mocking their attempt at trying to save a wikipedia article they like, tell them why it isn’t a valid wikipedia article (which wasn’t done until days after the initial votes were posted), and i would think that the process would go smother. I know this wikipedia article will be taken down, but that is no longer the point, the point is (and some users ego's still wont let them see this) that I think wikipedia needs to take a look at who they treat new users, becuase remember in the future it will be us (i am only 17, and most of my friends-which made up a large majority of the keep votes- are the same age)who will be keeping wikipedia alive, so come on treat as with a little respect.bakuzjw (aka 578) 23:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Read the comments again! There are comments on the article itself - most of which are utterly bland and neutral, saying that it doesn't belong. And then there are comments about the voting, some of which merely express irritation that a bunch of people came out of nowhere for the sole purpose of saving this one little catch phrase which wouldn't belong in WP anyway. That's not elitism. It's not a ferocious attack. Anyone is welcome as a contributor but if a contributor doesn't understand what WP is all about, someone else will point that out to them. Hopefully this will be done diplomatically, but sometimes not. I actually think people have been remarkably restrained and good-humored about this and a number of people have taken pains to explain how things work. --LeeHunter 02:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• CommentReading through some of the delete votes i was amazed at the amount of elitism that was contained in there reasons for deletion. While maybe I am just reading the votes wrong, I still find it somewhat shocking that this is how some of the veteran users treat new users. It seems to me that there is a wikiclick and if you are not part of the "click" then your going to be in trouble. I just think that people should maybe tone down their responses and try and welcome new members instead of scaring them off by bashing them. bakuzjw (aka 578) 23:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Lots of votes here are misunderstood. Veteran users aren't all a bunch of elitists. Most of them are just trying to be effective and quick about the deletion process. People who feel strongly about the subject may feel hurt about its deletion, but it's not a personal attack. They're trying to keep the wiki clean and it can be really frustrating to see such stuff coming by. I recommend all new users to read the policy on what
    wikipedia isn't. Having it on your userpage wouldn't be a problem in my opinion. Mgm|^(talk)
    09:17, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah. For instance, when I see an article posted to VfD on Special:Recentchanges, I'll usually check the article, do a Google check, and then post a fairly quick keep/delete comment. I posted the notes about number of user edits because it's common practice on VfD votes to do so. However, I think we (including myself) often forget to take into account that new users are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. I'll note to be a bit less brusque in the future. --Goobergunch|? 20:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The word that you are hunting for is "clique", the phraseology is
    deletion process guidelines for administrators. Uncle G
    16:36, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
• Comment Looks like they gotem. PhoenixPinion 23:56, 28 Jan 2005
• What you guys don't seem to realize is, your usage of "gotem" is only used locally by yourselves, in your school or your town. If it ever makes it to widespread nationwide usage, then maybe it would be encyclopedic enough to have an article on it. But right now, it's just a local fad that you guys are practising. So it doesn't belong here. And you shouldn't try to use Wikipedia as a platform to try to promote it... that's not what Wikipedia is for. -- Curps 09:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Even if it were a widely-used expression, unless there was some kind of sociohistorical notablity about the word, at best it would belong in Wiktionary. RickK 21:59, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with RickK. --Idont Havaname 01:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing to see here. Move along. Edeans 08:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism (if you could count a different spelling as a neologism) JimmyShelter 12:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a neologism limited to a particular geographical area, age group, and period of time. It's just simply not encyclopedic. It seems to have been proposed in good faith, but it also seems to have been proposed (and defended) in non-knowledge of what Wikipedia is not -- which is one of the reasons administrators do have discretion when they count votes from anons or users whose edit count is below "voting age", since such contributors may be well-intended but may simply not understand what Wikipedia's aims are. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This word is unique enough to warrant its own article. Do not the words "
  Stanford area in California. While the word's importance may not be immediately obvious, neither was the importance of the word crunk, which started as an obscure slang but came to have a major effect on nearly all segments of American culture and society. It would be a travesty to have this article deleted and lose forever knowledge of its specific origin due to a handful of doubting Wikipedia users. It is highly likely that the use of this word will increase exponentially within the next two decades, if not sooner. This is due in part to the far reaching influence of North Central Floridian students (see University of Florida) and many others associated with the region. What users such as Curps do not realize is that this is a rare opportunity to capture the birth of a phrase that will have a far greater impact on the English language than is currently realized. CharlieO
  02:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote is user's first edit. --fvw* 02:39, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Above post is an astonishing observation. Perhaps you should check IPs before getting excited. 128.227.73.39 02:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Immediately above post is mine (was not logged in). CharlieO 03:00, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I don’t think it matters fvw, if that is the users first post or 1000 post. What matters is the point that he made, which I think is rather valid. So I think that this vote should in fact be counted because the point is valid and one that should be taken into consideration.bakuzjw (aka 578) 03:08, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I don’t think it matters — You should, because it does. Please famliarize yourself with what is written at the top of
        original research, which is not permitted in the first place. Moreover, it's pretty damning evidence of the non-notability of the word if the only place that it is known about is a Wikipedia article submitted by a handful of schoolchildren. Uncle G
        17:36, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
        • I guess we are just going to disagree on this issue then Uncle G, I can't help it if you have a closed mind and don’t like it when "a handful of schoolchildren" stand up for something they like. If you delete this page or not really makes no difference to me because it will live on forever on my user homepage, and perhaps in a couple of months i will repost it and see how the votes fall that time. bakuzjw (aka 578) 00:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, you'd better make sure you have a lot more evidence to present of it being notable at that time, because if you recreate an article that was deleted by a VfD consensus, it qualifies for a speedy delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • Yes that is what i meant, i wouldn’t just repost an article for kicks, and besides, right now i am very well versed in all of the rules regarding wikipeida VfD because i have read over them at least twice (because various people have referred to them in there comments). bakuzjw (aka 578) 21:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What users such as CharlieO do not seem to realize is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such has no interest in "capturing the birth" of anything. At least not in form of an encyclopedia article in the main namespace. That is simply not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. There are other vehicles for recording such things. For example:

• Put it on a web page in any reasonable location and let archive.org capture it. Many ISPs give you a personal web page. Use it. Unless you deliberately exclude it from indexing, archive.org will probably pick it up within about a year. They've picked up my utterly non-notable personal web page twenty times since 1999.
• Or post something about it any Usenet newsgroup, via Google Groups--I suggest alt.usage.english--and let Google archive your post.
• Submit it to jnanabase, which is a general knowledge base
• Or, for that matter, CharlieO, you can put it on your Wikipedia user page, which you have not yet created. Wikipedia user pages are indexed by Google, by the way.

Everybody and their brother wants to submit Wikipedia articles about their band, perpetual motion machine, neologism, or philosophical theory, and the argument is always "This may not be notable now, but it will be real soon." Fine. Then we don't need an article about it now. When it becomes notable, submit the article, together with verifiable references to the slang directionary that includes it or the New York Times article that mentions it and we'll be pleased to accept it. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would like to make a factual dispute in the claims by

GoCardinal

21:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No clear consensus. 3 Transwiki / 2 Delete / 1 Keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FCC MB Docket 04-232

Wikipedia is not a mirror. And frankly, I'm not sure how notable this is in and of itself. Just taking up space. --Woohookitty 01:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. or wikisource Mikkalai 08:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Megan1967 02:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I uploaded it to Wikisource. It can probably be deleted from here then. --Woohookitty 02:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Transwiki - Atleast its the start of something deeper and more current.

This page is now preserved 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. Mgm|^(talk) 21:07, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Irish pish

Mabye an Irish person can verify this, but as it stands I cannot verify this (no google hits for the phrase irish pish), and it doesn't seem notable enough to be in the wikipedia --

• Delete. Mikkalai 08:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 08:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 5 years in ireland. Never heard that. Top up with a ' "Irish pish" ' google -> 29 hits. Makes a delete. (Almost thinking article is a test, good csd.)Gtabary 13:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• There's no difference between Irish pish and generic pish. And this article is tosh. Delete. Uncle G 16:07, 2005 Jan 28 (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 unanimous delete. Mgm|^(talk) 21:10, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Fip

Neologism. --Zarquon 01:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• del <- (also neologism w/o wikiarticle, btw :-). Mikkalai 01:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless widespread use can be shown. --Goobergunch|? 01:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Rje 03:04, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 10:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Del even if it was being used as a real word, it belongs in a dictonary
• 'Delete. Probable vanity, certainly unnoteworthy junk. -- Infrogmation 19:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Robert C. Tucker

Appears to be nonsense --

• Delete, not notable enough, possible vanity or hoax. Megan1967 03:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This appears to be a mistake. Robert C. Tucker is a historian, professor emeritus at Princeton University [1]. This seems to be about a different Robert Tucker, perhaps this one. I suppose someone followed the link at list of historians and created an article about the wrong person. JoaoRicardo 05:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 08:18, 28 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. Mgm|^(talk) 21:24, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Jacobs

Resume. Vanity. Not notable. --Woohookitty 01:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Comment An earlier article under this title was deleted back in November. The text of the earlier article was much shorter and was:

Michael’s passions are both photography and architecture. He has been traveling for many years, mostly in Europe, the Middle East and South America. Attracted by architecture and abstract composition, he is always in search of new inspiration for artistic and landscape photography.

I can't tell whether this is the same person—in which case it would be a valid speedy delete as re-creation of a VfD-ed article—or not. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising for upcoming 2005 film. Not notable, probably autobiography, vanity. After the film is made and is a success, we could consider an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Worse, copyvio from his promotional site, unless it's authorized, in which case it's autobiography. Samaritan 05:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. JoaoRicardo 05:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 08:18, 28 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. Mgm|^(talk) 21:26, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Quantal

Part neolgism, part adversitment/book review --

• Delete. Original research, book advertisement. Quantal seems to be an existing word, an adjective relating to the noun quantum. It is used in this sense in Bernard Katz. quantal + "john tyler" gets 29 Google hits. No reference to this in Wikipedia, and the only John Tyler here is the American president. JoaoRicardo 05:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 08:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research, ad, possible vanity, on a sesame seed bun. --Deathphoenix 02:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect—do not merge—to quantum. In general use, it means "having to do with quanta". The current article just seems to be about one guy's portmanteau of two popular scientific words that have little or nothing to do with what he's talking about. Do not count this as a vote towards keeping without a redirect. — Gwalla | Talk 22:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE --ZayZayEM 14:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep 4 / Delete 2 / Merge 3: No clear consensus, kept. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zira

The movie itself does not have a page, so why should a page about a minor character from it? Taking up space. --Woohookitty 02:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral - The movie does have a page, the internal link was wrong. There are also pages on other characters from the Lion King movies--
  nixie
  02:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I linked the Lion King II page back to Zira. Still needs to be wikified. --Woohookitty 02:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, minor fictious character, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article can be fixed, minor character or not, still contains useful information.Cerceole|(talk) 03:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This character isn't notable on its own, the movie page is good enough for it. And this article is not only unencyclopedic, it's also annoying as a big spoiler (it tells every detail of the movie). I don't think this could grow to become a nice article. And the movie article already contains a nice, non-annoying plot summary. JoaoRicardo 05:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anything that needs tp be said can be said in the movie's article. Unnecessary and poorly written breakout. -R. fiend 05:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or merge/redir to movie article, which could use some expansion. Niteowlneils 17:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, strong cleanup. Contains useful information about a character in a notable enough film (though I never watched it). Strong cleanup because it's hard to read, weak keep because it's about a minor character. --Deathphoenix 02:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into the page of the film. Fictional characters shouldn't have their own pages unless they have gained considerable independent cultural significance. Martg76 17:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into the page of the film. The character by herself is a minor character and therefore isn't notable. --Idont Havaname 01:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the film page, this is a lot of pointless info for a minor character. -- Krinberry 17:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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