Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 27

< March 26	March 28 >

March 27

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. -

Mailer Diablo

07:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dusk Catharsis

Vanity article on a teenager in a local band, no relevant google hits, no references, no incoming links. -

Seth Ilys

00:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity. Rick K 00:32, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, some kid making himself a rock star. -Deadcorpse 03:39, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 05:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vanity, Vanity all is vanity!! Klonimus 09:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Indeed, this seems to do nothing but glorify the author and/or his friends. I find it quite humorous that it links to another article that is also a candidate for VfD. --Txredcoat 12:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Rock on, but not here. Fawcett5 21:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 21:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Mailer Diablo

17:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kardinalitet

Article in some Scandinavic language, with some English in places. Oleg Alexandrov 00:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No vote. Normally, this sort of thing would go in this queue instead, but since it's a mix'n'match of Language X and English, maybe it's OK being nominated for VfD. It looks like an article on mathematics, maybe group or set theory, so it might be worth keeping if translated. android↔talk 00:25, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy. It's a copy of an article from the Norwegian wikipedia [1], which gets speedied according to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. FreplySpang 02:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Essentially a translation of Cardinality, and "Kardinalitet" is not an English word so no point even having a redirect. --Henrygb 23:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's gone. Someone speedied it. -
Mailer Diablo
17:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Mailer Diablo

07:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Poorly built rocket bus

Delete. This close to being a speedy delete, but it doesn't quite meet the criteria, IMO. Not notable, band vanity, near-nonsense, not encyclopedic... take your pick. android↔talk 00:18, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, I agree. -Deadcorpse 00:21, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I would use {speedy}}. Pavel Vozenilek 00:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy under which criterion? It's not quite patent nonsense, and IMO the article provides just enough context for criterion 1 under "Articles" to not apply, though that's debateable, I suppose. android↔talk 03:29, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Because I'm not a knowledge hating fascist! — (This edit by 69.162.158.161, who, surprisingly, appears to have nothing to do with the article in question.)
Delete. vanity... along with its passionate defense by a humble, unknown IP addy. Feco 04:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Poorly built rocket buses are dangerous.
speak up!
07:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. So many reasons, all listed. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete for not being a genuine species of Pokemon (that being the one criterion that it doesn't yet fail). Chris 20:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Damn, this is too funny. BJAODN. Grue 17:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If "their lyrical themes are ghosts, monsters, fish, sea monsters and all kinds of waterfowl", I wonder what a song called "Improbable Love Story" could be about. Anyway, Delete, vanity. VladMV ٭ ^talk 18:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete patent in my opinion. Fawcett5 21:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Mailer Diablo

07:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PiroNet NDH AG

Advertising. Rick K 00:38, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. advert. Feco 04:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertisement. jni 13:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete marketing blurb. --Smithfarm
Delete concur is ad. Fawcett5 21:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 21:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Mailer Diablo

07:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jawara Ogbonne Heard

This has had a

cleanup-importance tag on it since mid-February, and is the same nonsense/vanity it was then. It also apparently had a VFD page created for it then, but I can't see that a notice was ever put on the page, or that it was ever posted to the main VFD page. So I'm doing that now. Previous contents of the VFD page are just below. Oh, delete too. CDC (talk)

01:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- Looks like pure self promotion to me (and without proper grammar!) EggplantWizard 02:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I'd have to agree...no real explanation is given, it's somewhat POV, and frankly, it just fails to inform people about anything. As a side note, I added a link to the page at the top of this VFD page. -- Cabhan 02:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Garbage. Pavel Vozenilek 01:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity, near-nonsense. android↔talk 03:26, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete lamer vanity. Fawcett5 21:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Mailer Diablo

07:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

James Wormworth

A non-notable musician. He is related to someone slightly more famous, and is a substitute bandmember on another TV show. I'd argue he's under the usual bar of notability for musicians. CDC (talk) 01:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. vanity, non-notable. Feco 04:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete for above reasons. jni 09:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete concur Fawcett5 04:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to The Life of Riley. —Korath (Talk) 01:46, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Life of Riley

This is a non-notable high school band. CDC (talk) 01:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity, non-notable, yada yada yada. Feco 04:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to The Life of Riley Rick K 06:08, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to The Life of Riley. Users will be looking for the 1950s sitcom, not a non-notable band. 23skidoo 14:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Being bold and redirecting to The Life of Riley (though keeping VfD tag until closed). Chris 19:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Made it a proper redirect and added Lightning Seeds info. COuldn't see a reason to hang about. Pcb21| Pete 23:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Good call, thanks - I'd have done that too, if I wasn't so TV-ignorant to have never heard of the show. CDC (talk) 23:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was difficult. While the intent of the community is clearly to preserve the content of this section (with a very strong recommendation that it should be preserved within the context of the Grameen Bank article), a brief research confirms that this is an unresolved [[2] copyright violation]. As such, the copyvio decision must take precedence. Rossami (talk) 02:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sixteen Decisions

Advertising. It's the business rules of some bank, not notable as a google search of "16 decisions" + "Grameen Bank" turns up <200. Delete (transwiki to wikisource if notable enough, but it looks like copyvio from the external reference anyway)--

Dmcdevit

01:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge the info into Grameen Bank. Grameen Bank is actually quite notable; it pioneered the use of microcredit as a way to help people in developing countries. Their principles of operation, illustrating the way they work in the communities they serve, are a useful part of an encyclopedia article. Summarize/paraphrase as appropriate. FreplySpang 02:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge. The article is useless on its own, but seems to fit very well as part of Grameen Bank. Feco 04:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Right, but I guess I am more worried about copyvio; I'm not good with the rules, but I can't see why this is an exception.--
Dmcdevit
05:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge doesn't mean copy verbatim from the source article, especially when the source is a copyvio. Whoever does it will (presumably) take great care that whatever gets inserted into Grameen Bank isn't in violation. (Incidentally, I vote to so Merge). android↔talk 06:59, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Concur, Merge. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:42, Apr 1, 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. -

Mailer Diablo

07:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adam Bagni

Vanity, non-notable. FreplySpang 02:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, looks like a resume. User 139.84.176.165 (talk - contributions), who created the page, keeps vandalizing this one, which shows what kind of person he is. --Deadcorpse 18:58, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Dsmdgold 17:53, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Yawn. Fawcett5 21:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:50, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wild style

wild style is a crazy form of graffiti, most of the time it is very coplicated and hard to read by people who are not familiar with tath typical style, it also includes arrows, spikes, and other things, depending on the style — which (to the best of my understanding) makes it sound entirely conventional. If this article is attempting to say anything worthwhile, it's impossibly incoherent. -- Hoary 02:00, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

[Wildstyle graffiti] gets me 11,000 Google hits. Redirect to graffiti, unless someone can rewrite this encyclopedically. Meelar (talk) 02:14, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup and Keep (or merge) notable forms of graffiti.
Kappa
03:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) (edited 08:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC))
- Comment But (so far as I succeed in understanding the limp prose of
  Wild style), roughly half of the photos in Graffiti show "wild style". I don't claim any expertise, but it seems to me to be a kind of default mode among non-stenciled, western (or western-influenced) fairly large-scale exterior urban graffiti. If the article doesn't yet say (in words) anything about it, it could easily do so. -- Hoary
  06:19, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
  - It could, but it doesn't. This article says something that needs to be said, although maybe it doesn't say it very well, so it should be cleaned up and merged or kept.
    Kappa
    08:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Redirect. Graffiti doesn't talk about this "style", but I can't find a reason why this is even considered its own unique style. Until graffiti is broken down into cubist, neoclassical, postmodern, etc... we don't need a single style article on its own. Feco 04:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes I guess graffiti is inferior to real art, no point going into detail about it.
  Kappa
  05:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - No, it's just that material about this particular style should go into the graffiti article until there's plenty of material to split off. If and when that happens, I'll change my vote. Nothing against graffiti. Meelar (talk) 06:12, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
    - So what is the purpose of a redirect? Just to tell people not to make a separate article?
      Kappa
      - Yes. Information does not want to be alone. If there's little to say about a topic, merge it with a related topic, for easier reference. E.g. School pranks. Items can be broken out if and when they get too big, but for several topics that isn't likely. Radiant _* 11:09, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
        Wow, deletionists really are pure evil.
        Kappa
        21:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        Er, that was actually a mergist point of view. I assume you know the difference? Radiant _* 07:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
        Merging isn't specially evil, but these votes are redirect without merging, which to me equates to a "delete and don't allow to be recreated" vote.
        Kappa
        11:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        Well, the reason I said that is because there isn't any information in the article as it currently stands. It does allow for recreation, as always. Radiant _* 09:12, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Wild Style. Tuf-Kat 08:02, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Wild Style, and add a link to Graffiti from there. I am not convinced that 'wild style' is really a special form of graffiti, I suppose Alkivar would be the one to ask. Radiant_* 11:09, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Er, isn't
  Wild style the proper Wikipedia-style capitalization? FreplySpang
  18:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - ~~Er, oops, yes you are right. So probably the correct way of doing it would be to delete this, and then rename~~ Wild style to preserve edit history. Radiant _*
    19:41, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
    - Movies are capitalized, so
      wild style a reasonable redirect. Tuf-Kat
      02:41, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Wild Style. Megan1967 05:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- the style of graffiti, as protrayed in that movie, is a different subject from the movie itself. Disambiguate. --Christofurio 14:53, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep as the person who got Graffiti to FA status please allow me to elaborate. There are many "styles" of graffiti, most notably the "Wild Style" most popularized by NY City writers and "Wiked Style" most popularized by Californian artits. Although these are similar in that they are both graffiti and block lettering, there are distinct differences. The earlier comment about Cubist, Modernism etc is actually not far from accurate here, Wild Style is more aggressive and angular in origin whereas Wicked Style is more futuristic and rounded. Graffiti historians and enthusiasts can generally identify where a writer learned/who influenced their work based on the form of their characters. Both of these styles were originally redlinked from Graffiti although it would appear someone came through and attempted to start a stub. I feel this stub should be kept and allowed to expand, rather than redirected to the movie which although uses the name is a poor target IMO. ALKIVAR™ 19:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, then, as per ALKIVAR and Christofurio. FreplySpang (talk) 03:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep A quick google search will show that its a popular style of graffiti. Paradiso 11:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Reviewing the article, I can find nothing redeeming to it. The article lists a series of unrelated coincidences and tries to imply a connection to the Sep 11 attacks. The military runs war games all the time and they run them on more scenarios than you can imagine. There are entire groups whose job security depends on finding new scenarios to plan for. If I'd found this discussion during the voting period, I would probably voted to delete it as contentless. However, the community concensus is not to delete. The decision is to keep.

Having decided to keep, I am not going to call this as a decision necessarily to keep in its current form. Very good arguments were made in favor of merge and/or redirect. That decision should be reached on the articles' Talk pages. Rossami (talk) 02:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 War Games

A collection of unrelated 9/11 conspiracy theories pretending to be an article - SimonP 02:25, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Merge to Operation Vigilant Guardian. Gazpacho 03:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. The encyclopedic content is already present on Operation Vigilant Guardian. Everything else will have factual/NPOV probs. Keep the article as redirect to prevent its reappearence next month. Feco 04:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep The Operation Vigilant Guardian article doesn't contain the NRO exercise [3] (the most important part of the article I think) nor does it contain the other war games. Apart from the lone gunmen part (which I think is just a interesting coincidence, although a scary one) the article doesn't mention any conspiracies or theories. --P8 15:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge to
!pu kaeps
02:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The "war games" information is the most important piece of the puzzle for understanding how 9/11 was allowed to happen. This entry should be greatly expanded upon, not deleted. See "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" by Michael Ruppert for the most comprehensive investigation of the war games. A summary article is http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml - Crossing the Rubicon: Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney, by Michael Kane. Another page summarizing information about the war games is at http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html
- unsigned comment from anon user:4.243.27.199
Keep Seems ok to me, doesn't really imply any conspiracy, just points out that several exercise (more than just Global Guardian were taking place). Fawcett5 21:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Mailer Diablo

07:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oiple

Spam for a non-notable webdesign company in Boston whose two founders attended the Democratic National Convention DS 03:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Note: article was created by User:Oiple. FreplySpang 03:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity promo. Megan1967 05:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete and ban user. The anon blanked this discussion. - Lucky 6.9 23:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable company ad. Fawcett5 21:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki. Rossami (talk) 02:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of Words from Foucault's Pendulum

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this page is a list of dicdefs. ~~Delete~~ Wiktionary as per Uncle G. FreplySpang 03:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge or keep Ecocruft.
Kappa
03:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete glossary. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you want to create a concordance, Wiktionary has plenty of room for more at Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Concordances. Wiktionary. Uncle G 05:51, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
- I'm the one who started this. I took your advice and made a concordance. I guess I'll vote for "delete." I hate how segregated Wiktionary and Wikipedia are.
  Unsigned comment by 24.215.185.52 (talk · contributions)
  - They may be segregated, but that's a good thing. A dictionary and an encyclopaedia have different aims. However, it doesn't mean that they are separate, that readers don't have easy ways to navigate from one to the other. See the shiny new interwiki link at
    Foucault's Pendulum (book), for example. And note that whilst it would have been a bad idea to redlink every single listed word in List of Words from Foucault's Pendulum in Wikipedia, in Wiktionary:Appendix:Words From Foucault's Pendulum in Wiktionary that's actually a good and desirable thing. Wiktionary likes dictionary-definition magnets. Furthermore, notice how many of your de-linked words, that you manually added definitions to, already had definitions in Wiktionary. Concordances get definitions of their words for free in Wiktionary, which doesn't happen in Wikipedia. You've made a contribution to the betterment of Wiktionary. Thank you. Uncle G
    13:09, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
    - Hmm that will work fine for books which use real words, but how about things like Finnegan's Wake or A Clockwork Orange?
      Unsigned comment by
      Kappa (talk · contributions
      )
      - That's a question for the Wiktionary Beer parlour. Feel free to ask. I suspect that Wiktionary would deal with such concordances in the same way that it handles the definitions of protologisms. But, as I said, put it to the Beer Parlour. Uncle G 22:22, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
        Check the talk page on List of Subjects in Foucault's Pendulum
Wiktionary. Megan1967 05:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to the new concordance per 24.215.185.52 and Uncle G. I loved the book, and the Wiktionary/concordance setup is more appropriate than a WP article. Barno 16:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. Done. Jinian 22:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of Universities in the United Arab Emirates

Tagged for speedy deletion because "it's a list of two, neither of which has an article, one of which isn't even a University". I'm not convinced, so I brought it here.

Kappa

03:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect into the
UAE article; might be the beginning of an interesting Education section there. android↔talk
04:32, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete without prejudice against a real list. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per Android79. Zscout370 04:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per ZScout. Break out as necessary if/when it gets too big. Radiant _* 15:14, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, a list with bogus entries. Megan1967 07:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is more notable than a pokemon character. --Spinboy 07:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge as above, can also have a category when the articles are made. Fawcett5 21:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect, as above. (I'm the person who over-hastily tagged it for speedy delete; sorry.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Mailer Diablo

07:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deadjim

Delete. Band vanity. No entry at allmusic.com; deadjim band yields 189 Google hits; provided external link for "official" website is broken. Doesn't meet criteria for musician notability. android↔talk 04:26, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete I think it's dead Jim. band vanity Klonimus 07:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There's nothing much to say, really. Phobophile 09:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, band vanity. VladMV ٭ ^talk 18:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ever notice how much the same these all look. Anyway, bandcruft. Fawcett5 21:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 15:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fishbucket

Delete. Vanity, self-promotion, non-notable web designers.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Disco Squad. android↔talk

04:59, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Userfy and explain about user and article namespaces. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:30, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity, promo. Megan1967 05:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's already been said. Phobophile 09:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. VladMV ٭ ^talk 18:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert Fawcett5 21:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Mailer Diablo

07:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Disco Squad

Delete. Vanity, self-promotion, does not establish notability. A group of people that share similar interests in film is not encyclopedic. Presumably created by the same person that created

VfD), since that page is the only one that links to this one, and has much of the same content. android↔talk

04:58, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity, promo. Megan1967 05:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable group of eleven people. jni 13:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. VladMV ٭ ^talk 18:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete FishbucketCruft. Fawcett5 21:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:55, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

ChoiceOne

Advertisement for internet phone co, complete with link to external URL. Should be deleted. Feco 05:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Entry is not for advertisement, but is a simple statement of fact about an existing company. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._C._Penney_Company for a similar type of entry--Randude 05:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Neutral, but if kept, this should move to
Choice One Communications, per their web site. —Korath (Talk
) 05:30, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Promotional. See
JC Penney is a nationwide chain of department stores, and has a long (100+ year) history; I don't see how this is an apt comparison.) android↔talk
05:37, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I tidied this up a little, reducing the rather promotional. Big enough company to require an article, and this will do for a start. Pcb21| Pete 23:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Concur and keep, but rename per Korath. Radiant _* 09:29, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is more notable than a pokemon character. --Spinboy 07:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep They're a notable VOIP
voice over ip player. Sniffandgrowl
01:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- User was created today; he has only two edits not to vfds, one of them to his user page. —Korath (Talk) 02:25, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Not promotional after last editFornadan 12:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand with some more info. Seems to be a quite big company giving service to lots of people. Sarg 13:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep Sufficiently notable. Marked {{Corp-stub}} Fawcett5 21:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 15:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keira High School

Delete. Non-notable high school. BEEFSTEW score of ~~1 (D)~~ 0. android↔talk 05:14, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, necessary to coverage of its local area.
Kappa
06:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Useless substub about non-notable school. Anything "necessary to coverage of its local area" can go in an article about the relevant town. Gamaliel 06:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep This argument shows a failure to understand the category system. The town's article won't be in the education menu sytem. Wincoote 20:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Categories exist to serve articles. We shouldn't have bad articles merely to serve categories. —Korath (Talk) 22:45, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, suspect it's not even notable within Fairy Meadow.
speak up!
07:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm wondering what three facts you found to fulfill D; I count a BEEFSTEW of 0. —Korath (Talk) 08:48, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm wondering, too. Must have been the late hour. Amended to 0 above. android↔talk 16:15, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I like BEEFSTEW, merge into the town article if we need to keep it. Otherwise delete. Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per low BEEFSTEW score. Radiant _* 15:13, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this and all other articles on nonnotable high schools. --
Angr
15:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Just another high school. --InShaneee 15:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Useless substub about a non-notable school. DaveTheRed 18:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete No useful information, and probable vanity. If this school deserves an article, this definitely isn't it. Chris 19:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just a directory entry. Wikipedia is not a directory. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete; zero BEEFSTEW. (Alternately, a mention of the school can be merged to the Fairy Meadow article if someone really feels the need.) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 05:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This pointless anti-schoool vendetta is becoming quite tiresome. All schools are public institutions, and all public institutions and facilities are notable by definition. That's right - all public institutions and facilities.--Centauri 06:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Note that the most recent Wikipedia poll on the subject indicates that articles on non-notable schools should be deleted. This poll is asserted by some people to be policy. Radiant_* 13:23, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Many things are asserted by many people. For example, some people have gone as far as to assert that a user page which promotes article improvement should be deleted. No policy consensus was ever reached at said poll, don't you agree? --GRider\^talk 19:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Ah, and several people assert that GRider is not a troll. Anyway, I fully agree that said poll does not have a consensus. And note that I never said it was policy either (nor do I think it is). Radiant _* 09:36, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  - Well that should make things a whole lot easier for you Radiant!, because there's no such thing as a "non-notable school". --Gene_poole 23:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - That's your POV. The 'pedia would be a better place if we could reach a consensus on this. Radiant _* 09:36, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and allow for tender love and organic growth. --GRider\^talk 19:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I've said it before and I'll say it again: This is another typical "bored student" substub that is patently useless as is and does nothing to establish anything of note about its subject. It's more of a Yellow Pages listing than an encyclopedia article. Respectfully disagree that any handful of words that try to describe a public facility is automatically sacrosanct and/or capable of growth. OTOH, if this is fleshed into a real article and not a phone book entry, I'll gladly vote to keep this. Public facilities can be and often are notable, but this article doesn't ring the bell for this particular example. - Lucky 6.9 23:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. --BaronLarf 03:42, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Err,
Keira Technology High School; Keira High School is now a redirect to it.) android↔talk
04:36, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. See my points at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Any policy regarding school articles?. -- Toytoy 04:37, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into
Wollongong, New South Wales and delete. I wish that those who would write about their schools could instead start a school project to expand articles about their whole community - Skysmith
10:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable school. --G Rutter 12:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable school. Any useful information should be in an article on its local area. Carbonite | Talk 13:31, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep' and allow for tender love and organic growth. If nothing happens in a reasonable timeperiod, then VfD it again Klonimus 09:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Note: user's 22nd edit (and most of them are talks or VfDs)
  - Radiant _* 08:20, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
delete. I do not believe that the average high school is encyclopedic. Joyous 11:50, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 23:53, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is more notable than a pokemon character. --Spinboy 07:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Lucky, who said it well. Jonathunder 15:44, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
Delete. Non-existant BEEFSTEW score. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:51, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. VladMV ٭ ^talk 18:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 02:00, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Allan Jenkins

Delete Non-notable/Attack page --CVaneg 05:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, probably speedy. Attack page. Some of that stuff is potentially libellous. Keep. Bad stuff removed; good, if stubby, article on notable person. android↔talk 05:41, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC); vote change: android↔talk 22:44, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep (but clean up). Allan Jenkins really is an editor at the Observer, which makes him notable. Remove the "potentially libellous" material, sure, but the article itself should stay. Kelly Martin 05:58, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- But does just being an editor make him noteworthy? --CVaneg 06:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Editor of the Observer? Damn straight it makes him notable. The Observer is one of the UK's most important newpapers. Kelly Martin 10:25, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Editors of national newspapers are noteworthy.
Kappa
07:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Hopefully I excised all the POV stuff now. Mgm|^(talk) 12:35, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- It's better, at least. I'd like to see citations for the alleged affairs and the budget overruns, but if wishes were fishes.... Kelly Martin 16:57, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Merge onto The Observer since everything stated about Allan is also relevant to the main article on the newspaper. Radiant _* 15:16, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per Radiant! VladMV ٭ ^talk 21:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, under the bar of notability. Megan1967 05:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep no longer libellous. The Observer is in Britain, I'm in Oklahoma. I've heard of it. That, inmy mind makes the paper important enough for the editor to be notable. Dsmdgold 22:38, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, lacks notability. Ejrrjs | What? 01:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep. I'd vote keep if someone will take responsibility for expanding this, merge otherwise. Can't imagine how people think this lacks notability. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:49, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Editor of the observer probably sufficiently notable. Any notable or controversial tidbits re his editorship that would enhance? Fawcett5 21:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Mailer Diablo

07:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Harlaw Academy

Delete. Non-notable secondary school. BEEFSTEW score of 5 (A, B, C, D, J) although criterion C is only satisfied because of the (IMO) unnecessary inclusion of the school's daily schedule. android↔talk 05:24, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, necessary to coverage of its local area.
Kappa
06:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Useless substub about non-notable school. Anything "necessary to coverage of its local area" can go in an article about the relevant town. Gamaliel 06:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That would be a merge vote, then?
  Kappa
  07:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - No. I have no objection if you work on expanding the coverage of the local area by adding information about Harlaw Academy and its role in the community to the relevant articles, however. Gamaliel 09:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, concur w/ Gamaliel.
speak up!
07:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think unencyclopedic detail begging for removal, as had been done with the schedule and list of clubs before I looked at the article, should be counted toward a BEEFSTEW assessment. —Korath (Talk) 09:00, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per low BEEFSTEW score. Radiant _* 15:13, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable secondary school. DaveTheRed 18:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep It looks like the deletionists are trying to organise themselves, but it will be a waste of time in the long run. Wincoote 20:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You're more optimistic than me, in the long run I think a deleted wikipedia is inevitable, but it's worth keeping it as useful as possible for as long as possible.
  Kappa
  21:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Organized? You mean like this? I came upon this article by chance; I'm serving no one's agenda, if that's what you're implying. android↔talk 23:22, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. VladMV ٭ ^talk 21:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Wikipedia policy, as determined by a poll, is that articles on high schools should not be deleted. - SimonP 01:18, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- No, that is not at all what the poll says. It is broken down into several categories, basically for varying levels of notability, and for the more obscure kinds of school this poll clearly shows a majority to delete them. Radiant _* 08:07, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. School vanity. Not encyclopedic: WP is not a directory of schools. Jonathunder 03:21, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
Delete according to Wikipedia notability policy, ancient and obsolete polls notwithstanding. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This pointless anti-schoool vendetta is becoming quite tiresome. All schools are public institutions, and all public institutions and facilities are notable by definition. That's right - all public institutions and facilities.--Centauri 06:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I look forward to your articles on government run restroom facilities. Gamaliel 06:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - If it's important enough for someone to write about, and it's not original research, vanity or complete nonsense, then it's important enough to keep. If someone is interested enough to write about public toilet facilities, and their information is factual then I'd certainly vote to keep.--Centauri 08:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - You probably mean you would keep an article on public toilet facilities in general (which I'd agree with) - but would you want to keep an article on public toilets in south London? Radiant_* 08:07, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
      - A general article would certainly be a keeper - but a geographically-specific article could easily be a keeper as well. There may well be someone out there who is the world authority on south London public toilets, and if they can present an interesting, informational, factual overview that describes the history and social relevance of those facilities (eg, how 19th century British attitudes towards public sanitation led to their construction, why they were sited where they are, who built them, how much they cost, how they may have altered social attitudes, how they may have been utilised as meeting places by subculture groups such as homosexuals etc etc), I see no reason for that not to exist as a stand-alone article in Wikipedia. --Centauri 10:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        Okay, if we conjecture that there is actually something historically and socially relevant about toilets in south London, then it would be a useful article (per
        WP:UA, too). But even then, a series of articles on public toilets for a large number of locations in the world would be very repetitive. The problem is that most school articles are neither interesting nor informational, nor do they have historic significance. Several schools are interesting because of a famous event there, or a number of famous alumni, or for some other reason - but the vast majority of schools have no distinguishable features. And hence, are unencyclopedic. Radiant _*
        13:21, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
        There is "actually something historically and socially relevant" about all public facilities, including schools. Details such as where they are sited, who founded them, why they were founded, when they were founded, how much they cost to construct, who constructeed them, how many pupils they started out with vs how many they have now, how many graduates they've produced, particular values they claim to promote, whether they are government or privately owned, how they interact with the local community, notable teachers/alumni, notable academic/sporting achievements are all "historically and socially relevant" to someone. Just because those details may not be of importance to you doesn't make them objectively unimportant. Indeed, the fact that so many articles are written about schools is itself a testament to their tremendous significance within the context of contemporary western civilization - and as far as I'm concerned the higher the level of granularity Wikipedia can achieve on this and other so-called mundane subjects, the better. --Centauri 21:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        The details you mention are trivia, rather than facts of historical significance. The fact that so many articles are written about schools is a testament to the fact that many people want to write an article about their own high school, but very few people care about articles about other high schools, except on general principle (because if they did, those articles would not be stubs). Radiant _* 09:26, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
        You seem to be confusing the concepts of notable historic detail and trivia. The former relates to matters of factual relevance to researchers on a given subject, whilst the latter relates to irrelevant minutiae. As a hypothetical example: It is historically relevant that St John's Primary School was founded in 1985 by Father Peter Smith, that it is sited on land donated by Mary Stewart adjacent to St John's parish church in Vincent Street, Kentville, Australia, that it was funded largely by a bequest from the Davis family and that it now consists of 14 classrooms housing 300 students. Irrelevant trivia might be that there are 3 eucalypts growing in the lower playground, that the boys toilets are painted duck egg blue and neighbour Mrs Marple whose property adjoins the school is a grouch who refuses to return balls accidentally lobbed over her back fence. --Centauri 22:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        
        I would consider the amount of classrooms and exact amount of students to be trivia. And certainly, for some schools it is historically relevant by whom they were founded and who donated the land (I never said that every school is not notable, just that some aren't) - but the majority of schools were founded by the community council, on ground donated by the community council. That's nothing special. You can't use an example for some schools to claim that all schools are important. Radiant _* 07:55, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
        
        Delete. I, on the other hand, do believe that virtually all schools are nonnotable. By Centauri's logic, every single person who has ever lived is worthy of an encyclopedia article, because the "notable historic detail" of when they were born, who their parents were, who their brothers and sisters were, what they did for a living, what their favorite color was, what their favorite food was, who they were married to (if applicable), and how and when they died (for those who aren't still alive), etc., are "'historically and socially relevant' to someone". --
        Angr
        19:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        
        Errr yes. That's my point precisely (aside from your confusion of trivia and historically notable detail). This is an encyclopedia, after all. It's supposed to be encyclopedic.--Centauri 21:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - Good, I'm glad I didn't misunderstand you. But if you truly believe that Wikipedia should have an article on every single human being who has ever lived, you'd better get busy. It'll take a while. --
        Angr
        22:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - If someone is dedicated enough to use the potential of wiki technology to establish a project intended to create a fully cross-referenced article record of every person who has ever lived I would certainly support it. There is currently no such record in existence, and were it to be created within the context of Wikipedia it would be an awesome achievement and another credit to the project. It's time people stopped acting like Wikipedia is some sort of hip electronic version of Britannica, and started recognizing and making use of its real potential.--Centauri 23:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      - This is quite simply a pipedream, and I credit you with enough intelligence to realize this. There is no way to accomplsih this since the necessary records do not exist and never will. Furthermore, if wikipedia were to take as its goal a task that is literally impossible, it would be reduced to a laughingstock and not taken seriously by anybody. Indrian 23:41, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. See my points at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Any policy regarding school articles?. -- Toytoy 04:37, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Aberdeen and delete - Skysmith 10:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 00:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
delete. As the article currently exists, I make the BEEFSTEW score 3 (ABF) - even less notable than when it was nominated for VfD. The examinations info is entirely irrelvant to facts about the school because almost every state school in Scotland (of which there are many) will offer the same examinations. Thryduulf 22:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. --GRider\^talk 22:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and improve --BaronLarf 22:54, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Ejrrjs | What? 01:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep this school's article. Notability is subjective. ~leif ☺ _HELO 04:45, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 11:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just another random, boring, non-notable school. Sarg 13:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing worth noting here. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Mailer Diablo

07:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Enrique Sanchez

vanity, autobiography Feco 05:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity. Good formatting job on the article, though. Mr. Sanchez should make valuable contributions in other areas. Fire Star 05:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nicely done, but still vanity. Make sure the picture disappears, too. android↔talk 05:43, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- The picture's used on the person's user page. It seems like a seperate IFD listing would be required under those circumstances. - RedWordSmith 22:26, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  - Ah, okay then. I shouldn't have assumed we'd have an orphaned image. android↔talk 23:12, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Already userfied. —Mar ka ci 2005-03-28 T 16:39 Z
Delete. userfied. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:50, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete but let's see if we can bring this user around...I notice he copied it to his user page Fawcett5 21:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 22:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oak Hills High School

non-notable public school... also may be a vanity post b/c it mentions "internet troll named after the school" Feco 05:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OakHills199 has also just appeared... looks like a troll

Delete, highly likely to be in bad faith.
speak up!
07:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, BEEFSTEW 3 (ABD), and a red link to a town or city in the US makes me highly suspicious. —Korath (Talk) 09:11, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- I was suspicious, too, but even though there is no
  List of cities in Ohio, Google Maps seems to be aware of at least a place with that name, whether it's a city or not. android↔talk
  19:57, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  - It seems to be a real school. I'm not clear on the relationship between Bridgetown and Cincinatti, but I've run into a number of things like that. Bridgetown is apparently either a suburb of, or neighborhood-with-its-own-name-and-Zip-code-within, Cincinatti. The school's website here puts it at 3200 Ebenezer Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45248, while Bridgetown] seems to be Zip code 45211. Oddly enough, this listing puts it in Addyston. This is all an indication that whoever wrote the article wasn't too punctilious about facts, but I don't think it's an outright hoax. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. More dubious than most of these. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I wouldn't be suprised if this was created as an attempt to make a case for keeping the OakHills199 article by the same person. Thryduulf 11:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete per low BEEFSTEW score. Radiant _* 15:13, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this and all other articles on nonnotable high schools. --
Angr
15:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable high school. DaveTheRed 18:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Also, -1 from the BEEFSTEW score for posting two vanity articles at the same time. Chris 19:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, probable bad-faith edit. android↔talk 19:57, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I love how it's filled with weasel-words too.
Arkyan
00:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete.
Wikipedia is not a directory. Dpbsmith (talk)
01:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. School vanity. Not encyclopedic: WP is not a directory of high schools. Jonathunder 03:20, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
Keep. This pointless anti-schoool vendetta is become quite tiresome. All schools are public institutions, and all public institutions are notable by definition. That's right - all.--Centauri 06:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Where does it say, in Wikipedia policy or elsewhere, that all public institutions are notable by definition? You're entitled to your opinion, but if that's no more than your personal opinion it would be nice if you would label it as such. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. Remove the duplicate article. --GRider\^talk 19:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. See my points at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Any policy regarding school articles?. -- Toytoy 04:36, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep since GRider is organically growing and expanding it.
Kappa
09:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Bridgetown, Ohio and delete - Skysmith 10:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge if possible then delete. Agree with Skysmith and kudos to Dpbsmith for catching the geographical glitches. Hail, Smiths! - Lucky 6.9 04:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 00:59, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is more notable than a pokemon character. --Spinboy 07:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep Public schools in unincorparated parts of cincinatti are notable for thier distinct lack of notoriety Klonimus 07:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Low BEEFSTEW score. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:56, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 21:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and improve---BaronLarf 22:58, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
KEEP! It's part of a government institution, and that's notable in itself. The Wikipedia permits geography articles on cities with less than one thousand people, so I fail to see how this would be an exception. The "non-notable" rule was to keep the Wikipedia an encyclopedia, and free of advertising and vanity pages. This should fly, folks. Phobophile 09:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 11:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just another boring article about a non-notable school. Sarg 13:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Wikipedia is not Wikischool. VladMV ٭ ^talk 18:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete and allow for organic disintegration. Gamaliel 19:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Mailer Diablo

07:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maglicious

This is a dictionary-style definition of a made-up word. Dictionary entries belong in wiktionary, made-up words don't belong anywhere. Should be deleted. Feco 05:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Was just about to nominate this myself. Delete - RedWordSmith 05:46, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable, and made-up = delete. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:50, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A very maglicious neologism. DaveTheRed 06:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 06:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete; not maglicious enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete nnn Fawcett5 21:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Mailer Diablo

07:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Animal Brands

Delete or possibly Merge but I don't think so. Non-encyclopedic. Anything that could be addressed here would be better addressed in brand, animal, symbolism, or on individual product pages, but I don't think it warrants an article on its own. --CVaneg 05:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Just plain wrong, too, besides the bad grammar which seems to indicate that the creator is not a native English speaker. No humans are brands? Betty Crocker? Aunt Jemima? Uncle Ben? Colonel Sanders? The Quaker Oats Quaker? Rick K 06:14, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Inaccurate, nonsense, incoherent. (In addition: Mr. Clean? The Brawny Guy? Ronald McDonald? That creepy new Burger King?) android↔talk 06:55, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Nonsense. BTW Is Ronald McDonald really human? Dsmdgold 02:52, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete close to patent, but not quite. Fawcett5 21:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Mailer Diablo

07:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OakHills199

Autobiography of a self-proclaimed internet troll. Should be deleted. See also Oak Hills High School. Feco 05:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An "infamous Internet troll" with only three unique Google hits. Delete. Rick K 06:17, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - troll vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not quite at the level where I'd be crying "Goodness, why isn't this a speedy?", but still vanity. Chris 19:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Troll. android↔talk 20:07, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Keep the actual school article which is undergoing continous organic growth. --GRider\^talk 20:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Carnildo 21:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete troll vanity. Andris 00:38, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. VladMV ٭ ^talk 18:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete TrollCruft Fawcett5 21:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 22:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikidrawal

Belongs in the Wikipedia namespace, if anywhere, but I think Wikiaddiction is already pretty well covered there, so I recommend a delete. - RedWordSmith 05:58, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Bah. Probably created with intention to end up on BJAODN, in which case it shoulc probably be deleted. Put it in meta, if anywhere. But preferably Delete.
speak up!
07:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I thought it was mildly humorous, and wouldn't mind sending it to BJAODN. One caveat, though. "medical practitioner Givamebek Mewiki (pronounced 'give-a-me back me wee-kee')." Well ... d'uh. We'd be able to figure out the gag without the pronunciation guide! --Christofurio 20:43, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Copied from [4]. Would be copyvio if it weren't on
OpenFacts. Delete. --cesarb
01:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Josh Cherry 02:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. Megan1967 06:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 22:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Piepkorn

Article does not establish notability. Rick K 06:19, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, no notability established.
speak up!
07:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep "Arthur Carl Piepkorn" got 500 google hits (yes, with quotes!). --Alexs letterbox 08:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, since he has a Center for Evangelical Catholicity named after him [5], he's probably done something notable. That said the current article is worthless. Weak keep. Radiant _* 15:18, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, under the bar of notability. Megan1967 06:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing particularly notable here. Indrian 13:42, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I say bye bye. --Woohookitty 23:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 02:03, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

House hippo

Amusing enough. ~~Vanity. Trolling for website hits. Delete. BJAODN?~~ --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, the House Hippo is a real Commercial produced by the Concerned Children's Advertisers of Canada. Get your facts straight. snafuu|Talk 06:31 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well there you are then. Just goes to show I can't sit on my bum here in London and know everything. :) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

May I Take out the VFD and F&F now? snafuu

allow other users to post their thoughts on this one... whether or not it meets wikipedia inclusion standards is open to discussion

Delete. Fictional characters from advertising campaigns are questionable... I don't know if this one has entered pop-culture enough to be worth including. If kept, the article needs a major re-write to make it clear that this was an advertising tool. Wikipedia articles aren't meant to confuse.Feco 07:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but keep it on VfD for the appropriate length of time. The article should also be rewritten to make it clear in the first sentence that this is an advertising campaign. Rick K 07:31, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep if the wording can be fixed so that the article isn't practically a verbatim transcript of the public service anonuncement. --iMb~Meow 08:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I find this somewhat doubtful... is this a valid meme or merely a character from an ad? Because I could think of at least a dozen of the latter, and unless on par with the Duracell bunny there's really nothing special about them. Abstain for now. Radiant _* 15:20, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep but improve. Who knows whether five years from now this might explode into a retro-meme? - DavidWBrooks 15:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "House hippo" + CCA gets 58 hits [6]. Doesn't seem like a notable enough advertising character for inclusion in wikipedia. DaveTheRed 18:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I boobed when I nominated htis. This article is now a well written description of an anti-advertising campaign. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep but rewrite to provide immediate context and remove - or substantially reword - the opening paragraph as I believe it is a verbatim copyvio of the commercial's script. 23skidoo 22:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If it can be reworded, keep. Otherwise delete.DS 23:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete as copyvio. This decision should not be interpreted as precedent against the creation of a non-copyvio article about this company. Rossami (talk) 03:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Babylon Ltd

Delete Non-notable/Spam Company person admits to as much on talk page. --CVaneg 06:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: article deleted after listing on

Duk

07:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep: I'm having trouble parsing that comment. Do you mean "Both non-notable and spam: a company person admits as much on the talk page"? If so, I disagree. She does say there that it was created elsewhere as corporate advertising and copied to WP. She also says that she realizes that the advertising tone is inappropriate. She doesn't say that she intended to advertise on WP, let alone to spam WP, and she certainly doesn't say the company isn't notable. I'm not happy with the article myself: it needs more work. But the company has a certain notability and the article is salvagable. -- Hoary 06:55, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC) ......PS vote canceled for now; see my "comment" below for the reason. -- Hoary 04:45, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
Keep since salvage efforts are underway and it looks notable. Bring back to Vfd if salvage efforts fail.
Kappa
07:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep despite low quality of article; 10 kilogoogles is probably worth it. Radiant _* 15:21, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's a fairly young company with nothing special to set it apart from millions of other companies. --NormanEinstein 16:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep I am not sure if I am allowed to vote (this is the site of the company I am working for), but Hoary understood me completely right, and after his kind editorial help our article is anything else then an "advertisement". As to the age of our company (see NormanEinstein's remark) - one-click-translation tools are a very narrow niche, but in this field we are certainly one of the main players and being in the Internet business for about eight years - that makes us almost a "dinosaurian". I do not say that we are the best, but we are certainly not less important then a large part of the software companies that are listed in WP. Best regards to all UrsulaR 12:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: thank you, UrsulaR. But shortly after you wrote that "keep" vote, you made these changes, adding such material as Babylon has now leveraged its patented technology in an integrated server and client system that gives business customers a unified platform for instant retrieval of critical information from corporate information systems. This is pretty much the kind of stuff that I'd earlier taken out, because of its low signal/noise ratio. (Just in this new addition: What does "leveraged" mean beyond "used"? We don't need to be told that its "technology" is "patented". Retrieval can't be "instant".) So what is it that you're you voting to keep -- (a) something in the spirit of the version that I made, or (b) a not-too-obvious corporate puff (just a little milder than the original, which you thanked me for rewriting)? If it's the latter, I vote to delete it. (Incidentally, my own employer is a large institution that unquestionably meets the criteria for an article on WP. Rather to my surprise, it doesn't yet have an article -- but I'm not going to create one, precisely because it's my employer. Somebody else is sure to create an article eventually. Similarly, if Babylon is important enough, won't some other, disinterested person eventually write an article about it too?) -- Hoary 03:30, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
Keep providing that this is a legitimate company. Its not a great article but do not see how it fits any criteria for deletion. Sirkumsize 04:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Unsure if it's a copyvio it has to go. Rich Farmbrough 21:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: In the article's discussion page, UrsulaR seems to say that the company releases this as GFDL, but still wants to say that all rights are reserved. (Yes, this seems daft to me too.) -- Hoary 03:52, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
Delete. Earlier, I got the impression that the author realized that it was too much of an advertising page and was happy with changes making it less of one; since then, she has in effect reverted a number of these changes. If some person outside the company wants to make an article about it at some later time, fine; in the meantime, attempts to rewrite this corporate vanity article to make it more "encyclopedic" are likely to be thwarted. I regret the time that I've wasted editing and defending it. -- Hoary 03:52, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
- Comment:

1.) I didn't write the first version of this article, someone else in the company did, simple copy & pasted some of the texts in our website. 2.) I inherited it as – god forbid, I wrote an article about Joshua Sobol (Israeli author), which makes me the “wiki-pro” in our company. 3.) I was more then happy about the changes done by Hoary, and even more delighted by his kindness to help. 4.) The changes I did, and that found so much criticism by Hoary, were mainly a response to some of the votes above from people being unsure if Babylon is “worth” an WP article. I had the feeling that important info was missing in the article and that it simple became too short. So I made a new version. 5.) My mother tongue is German, I raise two kids that answer me only in Hebrew (we are living in Israel), so no wonder that I relay on people that should know better and took the “leverage” stuff from someone who speaks English as her mother tongue. I looked the phrase up now – and it doesn’t make sense to me either and it is gone from my new version. 6.) Making a search on "instant information retrieval" in Google I see that Babylon is not the only one to use this phrase to describe their way of information delivery. 7.) My personal opinion set aside – have you got any notion of how many of WP’s company articles have been written by a “disinterested person” and how many are done by the companies themselves? 8.) greetings to all UrsulaR 17:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep Dsmdgold 15:56, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. Rossami (talk) 03:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Platform Screen Doors on HK MTR

Stationcruft. Rick K 06:42, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Mailer Diablo
07:04, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep, deals with a specific system and too long to merge with the main page for that system (which it was probably broken off from). Maybe merge with a page about the history of MTR? --SPUI (talk) 11:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge with MTR per SPUI. Most of this article is about the planned refitting, including a schedule of stations to be done, which is not particularly encyclopedic. Radiant _* 15:23, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Merge or keep stationcruft.
Kappa
20:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge with MTR. Megan1967 06:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo
07:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of Google X mirrors

It is debatable whether we need a whole page on
Google X since it is little more than a simple cosmetic change to the regular Google Search. We definitely do not need a separate page listing sites that mirror Google X, especially since it is unlikely that the majority will stay live for very long. Already some of the mirrors that were added to the list (when it was part of the Google X page) have disappeared. AlistairMcMillan
06:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete - most of this is already in
Google X (itself of only marginal encyclopedic value). CDC (talk)
16:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete lists of mirrors. I would argue that the
Google X article should stay, but that it doesn't need the list of mirrors that it currently has. DaveTheRed
18:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect. Why lose the traffic? Pcb21| Pete 23:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Someone just pulled the list off the Google X page to create this page. I restored the previous state of the Google X page, so there ain't anything to merge. AlistairMcMillan 03:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Josh Cherry 02:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --NormanEinstein 17:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo
07:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Johar Jharkhand

I don't know what this is. Somebody's essay, I guess. They've posted the same thing to the Jharkhand article on http://wiki.seo7.net/Jharkhand. Rick K 06:54, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. You beat me to it... I'm not sure if this is a chamber-of-commerce article, a bad babelfish translation, or some kind of job posting for a bank (read the whole article... it gets interseting). However, not really wikipedia stuff. Feco 06:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Reads like a Nigerian email scam. Very weird, and definitely not encyclopedic. android↔talk 07:04, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I speedied an earlier incarnation of this because it's gibberish. It seems to have been written in some kind of pidjin--English words, foreign grammar. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge : Jharkhand is an Indian state. The page has useful information that should be merged with Jharkhand after a rewrite. After merging, delete. Nichalp 18:39, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo
07:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Default alliance

Looks like a group trying to grab some free wiki/webspace. Emphatically not encyclopedic. FreplySpang 07:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delelte --Alexs letterbox 08:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, promo, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo
07:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stagg Marching Chargers

should be deleted as non-notable; high-school marching band. Feco 07:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Probably a copyvio, but it isn't an encyclopedic article, anyway. And I notice they don't bother telling us which high school this is. Rick K 07:33, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 0 google hits outside of their own self-promotional website. Postdlf 07:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete Note: the user who wrote the page 67.165.163.2 has this as his only contribution. --Alexs letterbox 08:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable high school marching band. DaveTheRed 18:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete as an attack page. jni 13:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Marley

idiosyncratic non-topic, personal ravings about a non-notable person --Aramգուտանգ 07:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete
speak up!
07:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete Almost patent nonsense. Maybe it should be put in BJAODN. --Alexs letterbox 08:02, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, attack page. —Korath (Talk) 09:22, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 20:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Christine DeGregorio

Non-notable professor. "Christine DeGregorio" gets only 90 unique Google hits, and I don't know how many people that covers. "Christine DeGregorio" +"Networks of Champions" gets 8 hits. amazon's ranking of it is 191,857. The title by the way, is "Networks of Champions : Leadership, Access, and Advocacy in the U.S. House of Representatives". The "Networks of Champions" title seems to be a series by different authors. Rick K 07:46, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, although Networks of Champions is her own book, not part of a series, AFAIK. I hope she doesn't see this vote; I had a class with her last year. Meelar (talk) 18:20, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, published professor. Megan1967 06:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Every single person who has ever written a book should have an encyclopedia article? Rick K 06:23, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
No, only if they are professors or notable academics. Megan1967 07:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This article doesn't establish that she's notable. Even one of her students, above, doesn't think she's notable. Rick K 21:19, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep — Semi-notable. — RJH 20:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. There are literally thousands of new books published a year by academics and many more journal articles. Heck, it is a "publish or perish" professsion. Virtually every professor is published at some point in his or her life or that person tends to no longer be a professor. Definately not a bar of notability when it probably weeds out less than 10% of the group. Indrian 13:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not every published acedemic, professor or not, is notable enough for an encyclopedia article, but its hard to call. A listing on amazon doesn't mean anything, unless it is high ranking. Paradiso 03:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete As noted above, almost every academic publishes. As a comment, I don't think that the Amazon ranking is quite appropriate for evaluating the notability of academic work. Number of citations a work recieves would more accurate. Dsmdgold 01:36, Apr 9, 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 concensus. -
Mailer Diablo
08:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ngee ann secondary school

POV puffery about a non-notable school in Singapore. /sɪzlæk ˺/ 08:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, BEEFSTEW 3 (ADH). —Korath (Talk) 09:20, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Gamaliel 09:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep, cleanup as necessary.
Kappa
09:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete the article says nothing worth knowing about the school. Thryduulf 11:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete per low BEEFSTEW score. Radiant _* 15:13, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete this and all other articles on nonnotable high schools. --
Angr
15:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable, just another high school. --InShaneee 15:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, just a non-notable secondary school. DaveTheRed 18:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Simply a directory entry and
Wikipedia is not a directory. Dpbsmith (talk)
18:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete No useful information. Chris 20:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete per low BEEFSTEW score and Dpbsmith's reasoning. android↔talk 20:08, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, school vanity. Jonathunder 02:44, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

Keep What a waste of time Wincoote 20:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep, Wikipedia policy, as determined by a poll, is that articles on high schools should not be deleted. - SimonP 01:19, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
That is a misinterpretation. The poll is broken down into categories by, basically, levels of notability, and that the more obscure categories have a clear majority for deletion. Radiant _* 08:13, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

note that the poll dates from
October 2004. Thryduulf
01:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Deletion policy only says that certain things are not reasons for deletion. (Non)-notabilty is not amoung them.

It does give examples of things that may require deletion, including:

No potential to become encyclopedic (see WP:NOT) [e.g. its not notable enough for enough people to know/want to know about it and thus improve the article]

Vanity page
[i.e. the subject is not notable enough to merit and article]

from
Wikipedia:Vanity page
: Usually, vanity authors write about themselves, their significant others, or their high schools.

Completely idiosyncratic non-topic [e.g. the topic is not notable enough to merit an encycolpedia article]

from
Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for Deletion#Rationale shorthands
: "non-notable" or "NN" are shorthands for "Something that that (the voter thinks) is unimportant due to its obscurity or lack of differentiation from others of its type". See above for several guidelines to notability that some Wikipedians agree upon and apply.

from
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents
: This page is an attempt to make a collection of precedent-setting Votes for Deletion decisions. This is full of notability criteria and non-notability votes.

So Wikipedia actually does have a notability criteria. Thryduulf 01:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) (I wrote this in response to a claim that WP has no notability criteria, that seems to have been changed between my reading it and my finishing my post). Thryduulf 01:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere, I think the results of that poll are, to coin a phrase, so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make head or tail of it. It is not a touchstone that can be used as a working tool to crystallize consensus on particular cases. I can't remember it being cited more than a couple of times in all of 2004. I think the hope was that the poll would demonstrate consensus for at least the extreme cases, and IMHO it didn't. I still think the most accurate thing that can be said about high schools and lower grades is that there is no consensus. That poll is perfectly good gotcha material and I should have at least said touché when someone pointed out an inconsistency in my vote on that poll and a vote in a particular VfD, but it's not a generally accepted current consensus. If someone really thinks there is consensus now, they need to state what that consensus position is and conduct a discussion and see whether people agree. I don't think it's possible to obtain consistent conformance to a policy unless it is current consensus. And I do mean "consensus," not "majority." Dpbsmith (talk) 14:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the poll doesn't show any kind of a consensus. And there obviously is not a consensus on the school matter. So I wonder if we can resolve this matter somehow? Radiant _* 09:21, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, according to Wikipedia notability criteria. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, schoolcruft. Megan1967 06:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep and allow for organic growth. --GRider\^talk 19:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Schools in Singapore are just as important as schools outside Singapore.--Gene_poole 23:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. See my points at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Any policy regarding school articles?. -- Toytoy 04:34, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Merge into Tampines and delete - Skysmith 10:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand. --BaronLarf 19:08, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. School vanity in Singapore is just as non-encyclopedic as vanity elsewhere. Jonathunder 19:11, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 20:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Needs a little NPOV work but we've seen worse. --Zero 22:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Dr Zen/keepschools —RaD Man (talk) 06:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep this school's article. Notability is subjective. ~leif ☺ _HELO 04:51, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 07:45, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, needs expansion -- Lochaber 11:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable schools in Singapore are just as non-notable as non-notable schools outside Singapore. VladMV ٭ ^talk 19:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo
07:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Billy Zumbrun

Non-notable boxer, personal attack, racist. Rick K 08:54, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Is world-rank of 145 considered notable? Probably not, but if the consensus is so, clean the hell out of the racist drivel and innane narrative. Otherwise, Delete. El_C 14:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, personal attack. Megan1967 06:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- Jmabel | Talk 04:55, Apr 1, 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 for
Mailer Diablo
07:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stephen McIntyre

Delete. Not encyclopedic. Publishing a paper together, even a high profile one, does not justify its own wiki page. No links on "what links here". Dragons flight 09:15, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. I've also listed
Stephen McIntyre for vfd and have redirected him to this page. The Ross McKitrick article seems to be ok. Rick K
09:43, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Keep
Stephen McIntyre
; delete McI & McK.

(William M. Connolley 20:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I disagree with listing these together. SM *does* have links to it.

Keep Stephen McIntyre, delete McIntyre and McKitrick. --Spinboy 03:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep Stephen McIntyre, delete McIntyre and McKitrick, slap hand of editor who created it. ;) -Willmcw 21:02, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC).

Keep McIntyre (likely expandable); delete the unnecessary disambig. Bearcat 05:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep Stephen McIntyre (author of a high profile paper), delete McIntyre and McKitrick (unlikely that anyone would be searching for this term). Andris 00:36, Apr 1, 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. -
Mailer Diablo
10:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Derick Bellamy

Vanity. Rick K 09:28, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

My name gets more hits than this guy, my wiki account ten times as many. Delete -JCarriker 09:36, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unless notability is established. Thue | talk 09:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

you guys need more information about him! everyone has heard of this guy!He's famous and kicks ass and it's a shame that there isn't more info on him.
Unsigned comment by 67.177.78.112 (talk · contributions)

Delete. Not notable, vanity. android↔talk 20:09, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not only is it sockpuppet-supported vanity, it's bordering on gibberish. Bye, Derick. - Lucky 6.9 05:28, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I'm commenting right. I know of this guy, but I'm also from Scarborough. A lot of stuff is ignored on this, and I think he's just 'famous' to teenagers in Scarborough, most of which don't know him personally. It looks to me like this wasn't written by him, and there's no harm in keeping it. I don't know your system exactly.

The above by 24.101.83.78 VladMV ٭ ^talk 20:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete this vanity now. VladMV ٭ ^talk 20:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 00:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Richest places in the United Kingdom

No explanation as to what is meant by "richest", no indications of what makes these cities "rich". Original research? Rick K 10:22, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Its unlikely to be original research as lists of this sort are produced by the
Champagne on a regular basis, etc, etc). Delete. Thryduulf
11:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless definition of rich is given and sources are provided. DaveTheRed 18:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It's a regular newspaper feature to do some survey or dig out some figures ranking the towns of the United Kingdom in some sort of order, and this particular one has been done several ways. But this isn't it. Dbiv 19:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete Zero credibility. Birmingham second! Wincoote 20:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Too vague. No context. No source. No point. 23skidoo 22:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I've added some actual content to the article. It's as valid a subject as the similar Richest places in the United States article. Hopefully I've rescued it from this vfd. -- Joolz 13:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That looks better, and I agree the topic is encyclopædic but I'm concerned about the copyright - the liscence style you quote is for Resarch or private study purposes only [7], I'm not certain that wikipedia qualifies there. Also the info at the bottom of every page explicitly states that: "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details)". Crown copyright is incompatible with the GFDL. As such I will mark this as a potential copyvio and will make a note at the aprorpiate place for that (I can't remember where that is, but its linked from the template). Thryduulf 14:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Quoting from statistics.gov.uk: "All the material featured on this site may be downloaded to file or printer for the purposes of research and private study without requiring specific prior permission. Where National Statistics material is being published or copied to others the following statement must be shown" - I understood the last part ("being published"..) to mean that they allow the material to be published, as long as you have the statement there -- Joolz 14:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with that, but all text on wikipdeia is explicitly released under the GFDL (images have more leeway), and afaik that would mean someone is able to remove or edit the copyright statement on this or a mirrored version, meaning we violate the Crown copyright (never a good plan. I don't know how keen on enforcing it ONS are but the Ordnance Survey who also have crown copyright are known to be strict about it). I am not 100% certain though which I why I've played it safe, the people at copyright problems will understand the situation better than me. Thryduulf 16:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose it's best to err on the side of caution. In which case, I'm not sure if any other data source is tenable for this article. -- Joolz 16:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Research commisioned privately may have a less restrictive lisence, but its not something I can think of where to start looking for. Possibly the best would be to wait until the next such survey is released and think about it then. Thryduulf 16:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. -
Mailer Diablo
07:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eirias High School

This school isn't notable, its only claim to fame is seemingly two ex-pupils, neither of whom have an article. The article reads almost exactly like a prospectus, down to the details of the uniform and how it is enforced. Perhaps we ought to have a WikiSchools project for articles like this. Thryduulf 11:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep, no need to apply "notability" to high schools.
Kappa
13:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So, any reason why we have to apply it to everything else? Chris 20:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We don't. We apply verifiability.--Gene_poole 23:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Abstain, for now. Are high-schools notable in and of themsleves? El_C 14:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) Since there is no policy set, I can choose my own standard for, heh, nn hs notability. Delete. El_C 16:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That is probably the single most controversial question on VfD. Kappa's opinion is that they are. Mine is that they are not. Hence I'm going to vote delete and watch the other standard votes roll in below. Radiant _* 15:09, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

The point of a "notability" is to exclude things that are of interest to very few encyclopedia users, things like ordinary people, shops, and amateur bands with no audience. High schools are virtually all large, influential and different enough from each other to be interesting to anyone who wants to know about their local (or catchment) area.
Kappa
15:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I see your point, but what would you do about a high school that is small, non-influential and very similar to several other high schools? Radiant _* 19:57, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
I think this kind of high school would be very hard to find, but if it was very similar to several others, they could be merged together.
Kappa
21:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, most high school articles I've read on WikiPedia do not in any way demonstrate that said school is influential or different from other schools. So personally, I would be in favor of merging the lot of them (by city or district or something) into an annotated list. Radiant _* 08:22, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

High schools are almost all entirely the same, hardly different enough to be interesting to anyone except the people who attend it. Gamaliel 23:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete this and all other articles on nonnotable high schools (which in my opinion is a tautology). --
Angr
15:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't sure, because I put a
VfD on a nn school a few days ago and no one voted nor commented on it, except one anon that just wanted to be its friend. :) El_C
16:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's because it's not listed on the main vfd page; please see the
instructions. (It's there now.) —Korath (Talk
) 18:34, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Here we go again. High schools aren't inherrently notable. DaveTheRed 18:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, BEEFSTEW score of 3 (ABJ). I'm not counting dress code (trivial) or alumni (which would be under F if they had Wikipedia articles) towards D. —Korath (Talk) 18:34, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

You don't know who Steve Morgan is? Uncultured bunch. Cacn't be that many schools with a T3, but still not enough to set it aside from every other school in North Wales. Delete Chris 20:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep These nominations of a random selection of school articles are a waste of time. Wincoote 20:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I can't speak for other nominators of course, but my nominations are not random. If I see a school article that imho merits inlcusion, I don't nominate it for deletion. Also, to state the blindingly obvious, I don't nominate articles I'm not aware of. Thryduulf 22:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Gamaliel 23:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep, Wikipedia policy, as determined by a poll, is that articles on high schools should not be deleted. - SimonP 01:19, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
That poll was concluded in November 2003 and acknowledged as out of date by October 2004. Thryduulf 02:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't see anyone ever saying it was out of date, just that it might need to be reviewed. Moreover no later poll, or even a consistent series of VfD votes, has overturned the 2003 decision. - SimonP 03:26, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
It is no decision or policy, it is just a poll. Also, it is broken down into levels of notability, and for the more obscure kinds of school, there is a clear majority to delete them. Radiant _* 08:15, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Polls are perhaps the most widely recognized method for creating official policy. Note that the page states "rather than discuss this repeatedly on VfD every time a school article appears, it would be more sensible to gain a consensus which could be applied to all of them. That's what this page is for." Moreover the only types of schools that have conseunsus for deletion were those with under thirty studetns, preschools, and bulk automated entries. The poll is old, perhaps it would be a good idea to re-run it or a similar poll to show where the current consensus lies. - SimonP 13:34, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
According to
Wikipedia:Policy, policy is created by consensus. This poll does show majority votes in a couple of cases, but it does not show any kind of consensus. Therefore it's not policy. Also, it has a total of only 31 voters, which is unacceptably low for the size of Wikipedia. Radiant _*
09:25, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, etc.
speak up!
01:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. School vanity. Not encyclopedic: WP is not a school directory. Jonathunder 03:18, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

Keep. This irrational anti-school vendetta is geting really tedious. --Centauri 04:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This irrational anti-encyclopedia vendetta is geting really tedious. --~~Centauri 04:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)~~Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The remark immediately above was actually posted by Jayjg, using my signature.--Centauri 06:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oops, bad copyediting. Perhaps I should follow your example instead, and simply use boilerplate text to vote on articles, without actually looking at their contents or thinking about them. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg, please refrain from making
personal attacks in the future. --GRider\^talk
22:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
GRider, please familiarize yourself with what a personal attack actually is; Centauri clearly copied the same Keep text to a number of different school VfDs on more than one occasion, (e.g. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]), and clearly believes all articles on schools should be kept, regardless of content. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg , perhaps you should follow my example and provide a consistent thesis in support of your votes, instead of attacking other editors for daring to disagree with your POV.--Gene_poole 23:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, "Gene", I have done exactly that, voting based on Wikipedia policies around notability and whether articles have a chance to become encyclopedic. Thus, unlike "Centauri", sometimes I vote delete, sometimes keep. As for you, "Gene", perhaps you should straighten out just exactly which userid is "Centauri", and which is "Gene Poole"; that way there won't be those embarrassing episodes where you get confused about whether you should respond as "Gene Poole" rather than "Centauri" (or vice versa).[15][16] Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Behavior of this sort is uncalled for. It is improper and impolite to imply that Gene is a sock puppet. It is also rude to suggest that Centauri casts votes without "actually looking at their contents or thinking about them." Perhaps you should consider a Wiki-vacation and cool off before you find yourself on the receiving end of an RfC. --"GRider"\^talk 23:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have not stated that Centauri and Gene are sockpuppets; why on earth would you even bring that up, unless you think there is evidence to support the idea? As for your advice about Wiki-vacations and "cooling off", considering that in the past couple of weeks you have become the subject of two RfCs and now an Arbitration, with a suggested injunction to ban you from editing these kinds of pages because of your provocative edits, perhaps it might be wise if you took your own advice. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is no evidence to support your impolite insinuations. Let me quote back to you what you said just a few lines up: "As for you, "Gene", perhaps you should straighten out just exactly which userid is "Centauri", and which is "Gene Poole"". If you have evidence which supports this insulting suggestion, by all means, please present it now. --"GRider"\^talk 17:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Did you happen to note the two links I provided following that comment, in which "Centauri" replies to a comment addressed to "Gene Poole" as if he were indeed "Gene Poole", then deletes the comment, realizing his revealing error? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but I found it to be inconclusive at best. There is a much more lengthy discussion regarding this subject on User:Centauri's talk page. --"GRider"\^talk 20:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, yes. Centauri's claims seem... implausible, all the more so in light of the additional evidence provided by Calton. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

GRider, while I agree that Jayjg could have phrased what he said more gently, your response is also sailing rather close to the wind. Jayjg, if you beleive that Centauri and/or Gene Poole are abusing sockpuppets and/or behaving otherwise improperly, then I suggest you open an RfC (if you do let me know as I'd be interested in knowing the answer to this). Alternatively, perhaps mediation between the different sides in this debate would be more apropriate? (I admit to not knowing a huge amount about the mediation process). Any further discussion on this matter would probably be best on the talk page. Thryduulf 23:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is rather unfortunate that people feel they must make personal attacks just because they don't share the same viewpoint as someone else. --"GRider"\^talk 00:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep and allow for organic growth. Just another notable and encyclopedic school. --GRider\^talk 19:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete this article on a random school. Pilatus

Delete. See my points at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Any policy regarding school articles?. -- Toytoy 04:35, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Merge into Colwyn Bay and delete - Skysmith 10:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete non-notable school. --G Rutter 12:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. — Dan | Talk 05:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Article does not establish notability. --Carnildo 19:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep this is more notable than a pokemon character. --Spinboy 23:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep this high school's article. Notability is subjective. ~leif ☺ _HELO 04:34, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 07:49, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 11:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, highschoolcruft, nn. VladMV ٭ ^talk 19:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. jni 13:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"alexander mustafa"

This either a vanity article, some kind of joke, or patent nonsense. Delete. — JIP | Talk 11:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete I have added a comment to the contributor's User Talk page (they have also created a similar article Osmond chiu) - TigerShark 11:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Obviously. El_C 14:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I speedy-deleted this vandalism. No need to waste our time with a vote. - DavidWBrooks 15:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. jni 13:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Osmond chiu

Vanity or possibly nonsense. I have added a comment to the contributor's User Talk page (they have also created a similar article "alexander mustafa"). - TigerShark 11:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism - I speedy-deleted it. No need to keep it around, cluttering up the servers. I also did the same to the alexander mustafa article. - DavidWBrooks 15:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Epistemology. – AB CD 00:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Epistemologia

A Spanish (I think) article about epistemology. It consists of a paragraph about the etymology of the word, a definition, and it says that it can be divided into pure and applied epistemology. I don't think it contains anything that would improve the current epistemology article. Sietse 13:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Delete. El_C 14:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete or Transwiki to Spanish Wiktionary if they want it. Thryduulf 03:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete and Redirect to epistemology DaveTheRed 18:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Concur with Sietse. No redirect; it's not very likely that anyone will be looking up "Epistemologia" in the English Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirects are cheap, and you never know, someone might search for epistemologia. DaveTheRed 02:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete rapidamente, por favor. Josh Cherry 02:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete and redirect. -Sean Curtin 05:57, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Epistemology. Megan1967 06:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete fast. It even uses the wrong type of accents! (` instead of ´). Sarg 14:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete and redirect to
Slashdot trolling phenomena. —Korath (Talk
) 02:09, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Bsd is dying

At best non-notable TigerShark 12:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speedied for containing no useful info. Mgm|^(talk) 12:55, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

It's been recreated as a redirect, in case anyone else was wondering about the blue link. —Korath (Talk) 16:53, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo
10:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Red embers

Website is outdated (has last years tourdates) and I can't find any sign of them being notable. Delete unless such notability can be established. Mgm|^(talk) 12:52, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 20:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Free ticket problem

"Free ticket problem is a simple question which was derived by me when I lost an opportunity to get a free airline ticket.". This is orginal research, which wikipedia cannot accept. See
Kappa
14:02, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This is just an example of
EnSamulili
14:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not only is this original research, it is also wrong. The events 1, 2, etc. (as used in the calculations) are obviously not independent, so the calculations are irrelevant. (For example, if the first person gets the ticket, the second certainly doesn't.) The exact (and entirely non-noteworthy) solution is P(i)= 1/n for all i. Arbor 15:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) Note to Trieu Also, please follow VfD etiquette. Since you are the primary contributor, you should identify that fact very, very clearly in your vote. You also should vote only once.

Keep. Dear Arbor, I got the answer and your advise, sorry so much, and thank you so much for your advise . And the answer is now correct!. We can treat this as a useful example of conditional probability, so that students like me are no longer make a mistake between the selectiom of independent and dependent events. So, keep this as it is now and add the link to it in the conditional probability page as "An example of conditional probability" 202.172.246.7 05:26, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. "Free ticket problem" is not where anyone would look to find an example of probability. Oh, and, it's wrong. If they all open their envelopes "together" as the article says, then the events are independent and the probability is 1/6. If they open them in the order received, then P(student n has ticket given than students 1 through n-1 did not) = 1/7-n)) . FreplySpang 16:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. As others have said, not only is it something the author made up, it's wrong (and obviously so to anyone who knows anything about probability; it has the probabilities of the different outcomes adding up to more than one, for crying out loud). Josh Cherry 01:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Bad original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While the question it asks is mildly interesting, this article needs to be under a different name (because there is no reason for it to be known by that name) and with different content (because it's wrong). So I guess that's a delete then. DJ Clayworth 22:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep this is a better article than one on a pokemon character. --Spinboy 23:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete spurious article. PatGallacher 23:53, 2005 Mar 31 (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 difficult. The core objection to this article is not whether the topic is encyclopedic but whether this particular article can be salvaged given the poor (to me, unintelligible) use of English and the lack of
verifiable
sources. Noting that no corrective edits have been made to this article in almost a month, I am going to call this one as a delete.
Comment: This decision should probably not be interpreted as precedent if an intelligible article on the topic is created. Rossami (talk) 03:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Othsu or B"

Makes no sense - appears to have been translated by machine. Deb 15:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless somebody can make sense of it. May be machine translation but then again Japanese English often looks like that... AdamW 16:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-Under these denomination stay indicate the japanese plans agains Soviet Union. this if similar at plans against United States (Operation "KO or "A"),plans against China(Operation "HEI" or "C"),figth against Great Britain(Operation "TEI" or "D") and last attack to Soviet Union (Operation "Otsu" or "B").
this is stay in one historical context,stay relationed with WW2 Times in Pacific war,and proceded from "Kogun" one Japanese Military Manual of these time why are translated to English.for your historical nature this term no appareing in any common web finder.additionally i see why for more near at Japanese pronunciation if use in certain times h in certains words how for example "Otsu"(more western translation) are replaced for "Othsu"(more near at Japanese usual writing translation).
i advised why this information no proceded from fiction or imaginaire sources and none similars,are this one historical information of ww2,based in "Kogun" military manual text and the book "Goodbye Japan" writing for one american journalist why living in Japan in last times before at Pearl Harbor attack in december 1941.
One curiosity if why acase all terms debt to sense or having finded in web finders? if certain why exist more vandalist or very ocious persons dedicated to molest or writing hoaxes or lies,but in this case this writing are based in historical documents,reiterrally lamentably for having scarcy know in web sources this considered for yours and others how false or non existant term,but this no indicate why precisally are this.mentioned other similar case,fuyioru ancient Jap old denomination of nikolayevsk,at first,this term for no appareing in official recent list for your ancient nature(this appareing in ancient russian map)obviously no appareing in present web finders, but if appareing in web russian map and this confirm your existance. i see the long list for deletion and encounter more articles digns for delete but no stay accord with why for why one word no appareing in contemporary list debt to sended to deleting list.
Wlad k.

Unsigned comment by 200.46.205.186 (talk · contributions)

On behalf of all very ocious persons, I ask, "buh?" --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It appears that
cite sources, there's no way to verify this. Uncle G
04:22, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

Delete unless someone can decipher this mess. This user seems well-intentioned, and I know it's not kosher to delete material from non-native speakers, but this is utterly incoherent, and seems to have been taken directly from a poor machine translation.
Binadot
18:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps a native Japanese speaker with more practise at English could help out here? AdamW 19:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See also Strike North, which appears to contain similar material. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And
Strike North Group and Outer Manchuria. Somebody has added 'cleanup' tags, but I don't know that there is enough comprehensible information there to be able to clean it up, unless perhaps it does make sense to a native Japanese speaker. AdamW
22:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also
Kappa
13:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And "Othsu or B" Operation. FreplySpang (talk) 17:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep - well, I can understand it, and have started to do a basic copy edit. Charles Matthews 16:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Othsu or B" Operation was what I was working on.

Delete: so poorly written, I can't imagine we wouldn't be better off starting over. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:00, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. The clear majority of voters said "delete" but I find no offensive or invalid content in the history and therefore no compelling reason why this article must be purged from history. I am going to exercise my discretion and override the majority this time because redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 03:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Overhead_line_pylon

Much longer article exists already (pylon). This version (with a heavy German bias) appears to be a machine translation from German, with some words untranslated). I propose deletion. AdamW 15:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. See also
Rail current pylon by the same IP address, User:85.74.23.45. They look like copies of the (linked) German wikipedia articles, and thus candidates for speedy deletion. Can someone who actually knows German check me on this? FreplySpang
16:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's not a speedy criterion; it's encouraged since not everyone speaks all languages. --SPUI (talk) 20:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's described as a speedy criterion on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English: "If the article is a mere copy of (all or part of) an article in a foreign-language Wikipedia, it can just get added to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion: we want to discourage people who cut articles from one Wikipedia and paste to another without translating." FreplySpang 20:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh, hey, look at that. Right at the end of the sentence I quoted where it says "without translating." *blush* Er, never mind. Although I'm still not impressed by machine translation. FreplySpang 20:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I came across a user creating pylon articles a while back and made a note on my user page under "Current tasks". Just merge anything useful into pylon and delete. Mgm|^(talk) 17:42, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

merege anything useful that is missing from pylon and delete. No redirect is necessary. Thryduulf 19:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Redirect in case someone else German tries to translate more stuff. --SPUI (talk) 20:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge if anything useful, then delete. If attribution for this stuff is already in de:, then we don't need to preserve it here. You don't get credit for machine translation. Chris 20:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, reads a lot like it's specific to teh electrificationo of railway lines. Chris 20:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge anything useful to Pylon. Megan1967 06:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo
08:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Radioanyway

Delete Non-notable college radio program, advertising. Copyvio from linked site anyway. --InShaneee 16:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete for reasons above. Chris 20:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, stationcruft. Megan1967 06:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo
08:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Harto's Challenge

This is much better-written than most stuff we see on VfD, but the subject simply isn't encyclopedic. It's basically an inside joke, best I can tell. CDC (talk) 16:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, delete. Mgm|^(talk) 17:46, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Well written, unencylopedic article about a non-notable college game. DaveTheRed 18:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete If only the pointless articles on schools were this good, then we wouldn't have a problem. Chris 20:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo
08:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tons and roses

One-man band vanity. No google hits for "tons and roses", if you care about that kind of thing. CDC (talk) 16:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. AMG doesn't list him either. Non-notable cover band. DaveTheRed 18:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo
08:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Matrix Hippie

A character from student films. I'd say student-made films are not encyclopedic unless they've gotten exceptionally broad acclaim outside their immediate community - hence fictional characters from them are even less likely to be encyclopedic, and more likely to be vanity. CDC (talk) 16:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Correct assessment. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 17:47, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Neutrality^talk 04:08, Mar 31, 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 Jinian 12:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hacker misinterpretation

Not only is this pure dicdef, it's wrong. The writer purports that "hacker" only means someone who is very interested in computing, and so it has been misinterpretted. Checking Wiktionary, though, one of the defs is "A cracker; one who breaks into computer systems with malicious or criminal intent." See the usage note to see where the writer gets this idea. This should be deleted and not sent to wiktionary.--
Dmcdevit
17:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The possible nuances of "hacker" are already discussed at great length in the hacker article. Gdr 18:17, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Delete. This material should be at Hacker. However, Hacker already discusses this and this article adds nothing to what is already there, therefore should not be merged. This is not a useful "index entry" as anyone seeking this information is very likely to look under "hacker" and negligibly likely to look here. so this entry should not be kept as a redirect. Therefore, simply delete. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete Duplicates already covered information. Chris 20:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge. Inspite of the "Hacker" page discussing that the press has been misusing the word "hacker", it doesn't quote any examples. It doesn't help if the press continue to misuse the word unless we make them aware of this. By the way, we must not forget that hackers were the ones who gave us the Unix operating system in the early days of computer science. I suggest that the hacker misinterpretation page be merged with the hacker page.

Perhaps merge a specific example or clarification to Hacker, otherwise delete, do not transwiki. Nominator shouldn't argue from dicdefs, especially one from the same project we're editing. The fact that one "incorrect" use has gotten frequently used, even by John Ashcroft while he was USA Attorney General, doesn't mean that WP should list it as a standard meaning without a note right there in that def, although it does mean we should acknowledge the corrupted version. The Hacker#usage_note section serves more usefully than this article. Barno 16:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you are saying Wiktionary is wrong, change it by all means. I thought it was a reliable source for a definition, but I admit I don't know what the true defintion(s) are, so if Wiktionary is wrong, then my assessment of it's merge-worthiness is also.--
Dmcdevit
22:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, dupecruft. ComCat 01:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE Jinian 13:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stemage

I consider article Stemage vanity and its content non-encyclopedic. I originally asked for speedy delete. Author however doesn't agree because (1) it contains some facts and (2) "it's about time that Encyclopedias were humorous". Pavel Vozenilek 17:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, joke. Internet handles are not encyclopedic. DaveTheRed 18:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete--right on the borderline of speedy. But I don't quite think it makes it. Meelar (talk) 18:15, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, un-encyclopaedic, vanity. Megan1967 06:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep, Its the coolest thing ever, why would get rid of the coolest thing ever? (unless you love
hitler
) 01:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This was written by author of Stemage and vandal of Halo and Ico Pavel Vozenilek 19:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I didn't write Stemage...
Author of Stemage is Stage Beans. The user who voted to keep the page makes mention of himself as "Red." I fail to see the difficulty in checking these things before making accusations.

Delete,
Godwin's Law. Or rather, because it's vanity and nonsense. FreplySpang (talk)
03:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Whoever points out that Godwin's law applies to the thread is also considered to have "lost" the battle, as it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly" And I quote, 'You Got Served.'
d'oh. FreplySpang (talk) 03:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I have lots of jokes, too. That doesn't make me feel like throwing garbage in WP, though. Sarg 14:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete if there's some other dude named Stemage, rename to his actual name if net handles aren't really encyclopedic, and keep for completeness' sake, even if it is a bit vain. I'm shifting a bit more towards deletion status, though. Spiritsnare 22:03, 1 Apr 2005 (PST)

This page should be kept but reworked. Internet handles are encyclopedic if that is the name by which a body effects change. Beyond the poop that flies around on this page, Stem is creating and fostering an entirely new genre of music. Porn Stars are in this enclopedia under their porn star names, Joseph Stalin is in here under the name Stalin. We should re-work it to be less glib, but what this man is doing is impressive and deserves to be documented. It is not vanity, Stem had nothing to do with it. - This comment by User:66.169.90.60.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. jni 13:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mike Rabin

Vanity or personal attack. Very badly written, poor article whichever way.
Daniel Lawrence 17:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good catch! No idea how that survived for so long. Obvious attack pages, calling people idiots or morons, can be tagged for speedy deletion. Mgm|^(talk) 17:49, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo
08:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eric Aguilar's The Book of Life

If this exists, I cannot find a reference to it. [17] turns up nothing. Delete as unverifiable or not-notable.--Henrygb 17:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo
08:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bob wyllie

Supposedly a former hotel night manager and current Mayor of Kemnay. Kemnay exists (it's in Inverurie, Aberdeenshire, Scotland) but no such post exists. Dbiv 17:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good day, I am the, in question, Robert Wyllie. Both Mayor of the Parish of Kemnay on the backdrop of glorious Bennachie, and the Former night manager of the Hilton Treetops Hotel in Aberdeen. By doubting the facts you can all frankly fuck off. To confirm any information ...
Please note the above is from the author of the article
WP:NPA I have removed a personal attack on me. Dbiv
20:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Absurdly non-notable to the eleventh power. Sarg 14:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo
08:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eric wiryanata

Google [18] shows 45 hits, most of which look like messageboards. Page deathrockstar larghely in Indonesian looks like poor advertising. Delete as not-notable. --Henrygb 18:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 15:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Strike North

Sorry, but it made no sense to me. Also possibly original research. -
Mailer Diablo
18:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Probably could be speedied as patent nonsense but as long as it's on VfD it might as well be discussed. Seems like a good example of "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make head or tail of it." This may be unfair since it may be the product of weak English language skills, but unless it can be clarified it must go. I think it is very likely that were it to be clarified it would turn out to be original research and quite possibly have POV problems. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Ummm, original research? It certainly doesn't make any sense. DaveTheRed 02:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete.I can not picture anyone discerning enough meaning to clean-up this article.Tjc 02:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --Tothebarricades.tk 07:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.
I count 24 "delete" votes (one user voted twice but looking at the date stamps, I'm going to give him/her the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an innocent mistake), 12 "keep" votes (two troll votes and one comment by a very new user discounted) and one comment too ambiguous to call. On 8 April, the article was substantially expanded however voters after the expansion continued to express a split opinion. I do not consider the expansion sufficient to overturn the concerns raised by the prior "delete" voters.
Looking at the specific comments in the voting, I note that the majority of those arguing for deletion took the time to present arguments which were specifically applicable to the facts of this particular article while the majority of those argued to keep replied with formulaic variations of "keep all schools". I must admit that influences my decision slightly. I am going to call this one (barely) as a delete decision. Rossami (talk) 03:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saklan Valley School

I fail to see what makes this school notable. Delete. El_C 12:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is fine. Just keep it
The above from 67.169.146.77; all previous edits are to the article. —Korath (Talk) 18:29, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've listed this on today's date, since it apparently was never on the main vfd page. ~~No vote yet.~~ —Korath (Talk) 18:29, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. BEEFSTEW score of -5 (A, elementary). I'm not going to count text plagiarized from the school's website (the text Dpbsmith pasted below) towards B. —Korath (Talk) 18:39, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete.
Wikipedia is not a directory. This is simply a directory entry. Very, very few junior high schools are notable enough to merit an encyclopedic article. No evidence has been been presented that this one is. Note that I snipped two generic, promotional, information-free sentences from the version nominated for VfD. Should you wish to factor these into your assessment, the sentences I excised are shown immediately below. Dpbsmith (talk)
18:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Saklan offers strong academic opportunities and high educational standards where rigorous academic challenges are harmoniously blended with a culture of support, encouragement, and nurturing for each student. Small classes allow teachers to give personal attention to each student."

Delete, the pretty table is all the article has going for it, but that is not a valid reason for keeping it. Thryduulf 19:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn. Dbiv 19:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete per low BEEFSTEW score. Radiant _* 19:44, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Article of no use to anyone. Chris 20:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. School vanity. Not encyclopedic: WP is not a school directory. Jonathunder 03:16, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

I feel I should record my dissent against this interpretation of "non-notability" on some vote other than the Blake Junior High one. As there, WP gains nothing by deleting this factual, verfiable article about something of substance, and loses a little. I assume those who spend time making sure stuff like this gets deleted have a purpose, but have never been able to ascertain exactly what it is. Pcb21| Pete 23:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The purpose is to build an encyclopedia, within some recognizable meaning of the term. Almost everybody agrees that Wikipedia should be more inclusive than traditional encyclopedias, but there is disagreement on how far it should be extended. I think the essence of the matter is
Wikipedia is not a directory
. These sorts of short articles that give a few generic facts are better handled by a database of schools, such as www.greatschools.net. Anyone looking for this sort of basic information would be far better served by the comprehensive and up-to-date information on such a site, or by Googling for the school's own website, than going to Wikipedia for stale second-hand low-quality articles.

We are a secondary source, but we add value to our articles by selecting, synthesizing, and using editorial judgement as to what and how facts should be presented. I don't think this happens in the case of articles like this one. Oddly enough, my judgement is similar to yours but in the opposite direction. A "cruft" article doesn't damage Wikipedia very much, because it doesn't affect anyone who isn't looking for the information. But I do think each and every low-quality article does do a little damage to Wikipedia. ::The usual counter to this is that articles grow and improve over time and only remain in the low-quality state for a while. Well, Rolling Meadows High School has been sitting there since January saying nothing more than
"Rolling Meadows High School is a high school in Rolling Meadows, Illinois"

despite sporting an {{attention}} flag. Nobody in the "all-schools-are-notable" crowd has yet taken it under their wing. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable elementary school with a low BEEFSTEW score. DaveTheRed 02:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Obviously.--Centauri 04:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Note: User:Centauri is a probable sockpuppet of User:Gene Poole (or vice versa). See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppet_Double_Voting.3F --Calton | Talk 00:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[Believes the above to be a personal attack which should be removed.] Speculation unsupported by IP check. --Gene_poole 06:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Obviously. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete this and all other articles on nonnotable schools. --
Angr
08:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the most recent poll on this subject, which some people consider policy, is that articles on non-notable high schools should be deleted. Radiant _* 08:16, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
???? You get that from that poll? Wow. I've always thought the results of that poll were so hopelessly muddled that no intelligent person could make head nor tail of it, to coin a phrase. The one thing that comes through to me crystal clear, on each of several attempts to establish policy, is that there is no consensus. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say there was a consensus, as there clearly isn't. And I agree that it's very muddled. But the majority is for keeping of notable school articles, and deleting of non-notable school articles. Radiant _* 13:30, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Our interpretations of this clearly differ; all public educational institutions are notable, therefore all of them should be kept so long as they are not a copy vio. The assertion that "some people consider [this poll] policy" for deletion is intentionally misleading. --GRider\^talk 20:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the most NPOV way of summarising that would be to say that some people consider it a mandate to delete non-notable school articles, while others consider it validation that all schools are inherently notable. In my book that means there is no consensus, and thus there is no point in either side of a debate trumpeting it as endorsing their cause. Thryduulf 21:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The poll I mentioned obviously has no consensus, and it certainly isn't policy by my book. But some people do consider it policy so I pointed that out. GRider's assertion that all schools are notable is his POV, and claiming it to be fact is misleading. Radiant _* 09:34, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: When there is no consensus, things should be kept, that's the policy. Any delete results just occur because deletionists hang out in Vfd to stack every vote.
Kappa
22:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is no consensus on the general question of whether every high school is intrinsically encyclopedic. On individual school articles, particularly the really bad ones, there sometimes is rough consensus to delete. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep and allow for organic growth. --GRider\^talk 20:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing notable here, no evidence that there ever will be. Nobody is interested in working on these articles until they show up on vfd, then its life or death. Gamaliel 22:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 22:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. All schools belong in Wikipedia. --Gene_poole 23:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Note: User:Gene Poole is a probable sockpuppet of User:Centauri (or vice versa). See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppet_Double_Voting.3F --Calton | Talk 00:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[Believes the above to be a personal attack which should be removed.] Speculation unsupported by IP check.--Gene_poole 06:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete not notable CDC (talk) 23:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, concur w/ Gamaliel.
speak up!
23:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I'm getting to think the VfD process for schools uses more hard disk space and bandwidth than leaving them be. Samaritan 03:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. See my points at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Any policy regarding school articles?. -- Toytoy 04:39, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Merge into Moraga, California and delete - Skysmith 10:26, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Death to non-notable schools. --NormanEinstein 17:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Radman1/keepschools —RaD Man (talk
) 06:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. School vanity, not notable. Jonathunder 22:36, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Keep More notable than a pokemon charcter. --Spinboy 23:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep aw, we are eventually going to have pages for every last little town in asia minor. let this be. and, so much potential future comes out of high schools. if it's not written now, what can be remembered about it 20 years down the road, when Mr or Mrs President happens to have come from here? shuffdog (talk) 23:59, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

There are other sources of information on the planet Earth besides Wikipedia. I'm sure plenty of information about this school can be found if by some slim chance some future president happens to be an alumnus. Gamaliel 00:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are also those who believe that Wikipedia should be the sum of those sources. --GRider\^talk 00:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A collection of sad stubs that no one ever improves is hardly the sum of those sources. Gamaliel 03:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If deletionists spent a tiny fraction of the time currently wasted in arguments about the so-called "non-notability" of schools on actually improving the content of the articles they're so insistent on expunging, there would be a lot less "sad little stubs" to worry about.--Gene_poole 05:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If inclusionists spent a tiny fraction of the time currently wasted in the arguements about the so-called "notability" of schools on actually improving the content of the articles to such a degree that even a deletionist could not argue against their inclusion, there would be a lot less "sad little stubs" to worry about.Indrian 07:55, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

And, of course, if mergists spent a tiny fraction of their time and simply merged all school stubs together into a single article, there would be a lot less "sad little stubs" to worry about. Hm, that's not a bad idea actually :) Radiant _* 08:43, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 07:55, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 11:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. A junior school??? For God's sake! Sarg 14:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. A junior high that's not even regionally notable. --Calton | Talk 00:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep All schools are notable, each and every one. This article is much improved over the one orgionally presented for deletion. Klonimus 00:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

keep with expansion. Yuckfoo 01:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. As long as
Delcatty exists, this should exist. --brian0918 
02:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. Noisy | Talk 10:37, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, obviously. Dan100 20:31, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Schools are worth of inclusion, you silly deletionists! --Zantastik 07:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, useless. Grue 09:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep and continue to expand. Notability should not be a prerequisite for schools. --BaronLarf 00:25, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Notability most bloody well should be a prerequisite for schools, and everything else here. -- Dcfleck 03:29, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 06:15, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ahmed El Esseily

Possibly non-notable. Only 4 results returned on Google, but that could be down to different spellings. TigerShark 07:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, possible self-promotion. Megan1967 11:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Undecided - badly written, but is there third-party verifiability? Google test doesn't cross alphabets well, you know ... - David Gerard 13:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep and wikify - except for that last sentence. He's credited in Mystery of the Nile for example. — RJH 17:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rename to FMTV, and delete the first couple of paragraphs. The article has more interesting things to say about the show than about one of the people (Ahmed) working on it. Radiant! 09:13, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not only is it self-promotion, it needs to be cleaned up. SusanaeIII

Comment I can't even find a obvious reference to FMTV via Google. "Egypt and Mazzika" returns plenty of hits, but there are no results for "Mazzika and FMTV". I think this is non-notable, unless anybody knows better. TigerShark 12:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep You can even know more about it from www.esseilyat.SlangOnline.com

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. -
Mailer Diablo
10:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thinking Putty

Non-notable, spam.
t^g_e^c_k
) 19:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep, just a plain description of a product with 10,700 google hits.
Kappa
19:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep With some modification this could be a better page than Silly Putty's page. BWF89 (talk · contribs) has sixteen edits under that username.

Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 02:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge/redirect with Silly Putty. It's just not very different. FreplySpang (talk) 03:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo
07:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Executive sponsor/wiki/Natural authority

I don't know what this article is, why it is with this name, or, really, anything about it. Apart from that it's not encyclopedic.
t^g_e^c_k
) 19:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Basically a dicdef of "executive sponsor". -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 17:02, 2005 Mar 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 speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 02:11, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yott

This was tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax; that's not really a reason for speedy deletion, but this is definitely a candidate for good old slow deletion. CDC (talk) 19:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually this word does sound familiar, but I couldn't find any examples with google, so delete unless something verifiable turns up. (transwiki if it does).
Kappa
19:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. For the love of anything holy, someone make thiws a valid case for speedy. Chris 20:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, patent nonsense. Pcb21| Pete 22:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo
10:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ary Pleysier

I'm fairly familiar with 19th century art and have never heard of this fellow... his Google hits of 46 confirm my impression that he's not notable enough for Wikipedia. If anybody could flesh it out, I would be willing to keep, but until then Delete. Philthecow 20:19, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo
10:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Optimus Rhyme

non-notable, new band. Vanity page... should be deleted. Feco 20:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. r3m0t ^talk 23:01, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, under the bar of notability, band vanity. Megan1967 02:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete YA Vanity. Klonimus 04:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Weak delete: semi-knowns locally, probably under the bar. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:02, Apr 1, 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 (10 - keep, 5 -delete, 2 -redirect). Jinian 22:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Carlton Street

I don't see why we need an encyclopedia article on an average Toronto street. Sorry if there's something interesting about this street I'm missing.
²
20:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless further evidence is given as to why this street deserves an article any more than the street I live on, for example. -R. fiend 20:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment. There are a lot of recently added articles on Category:Toronto streets. I don't see why we need them either, but I don't have strong convictions either way. I am impressed by the thoroughness of the editors who are doing it, though. FreplySpang 20:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep, major streets are encyclopedic. There are many good articles in Category:Toronto streets. - SimonP 01:03, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Notable street, in a major city of
Soviet Canuckistan Klonimus
08:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep, the street on which Maple Leaf Gardens is on is certainly important. - Earl Andrew 01:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep --Spinboy 01:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Most streets are not notable. Maple Leaf Gardens is notable, the street that it is on is not. DaveTheRed 02:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If and only if it's deleted, merge and redirect to College Street (Toronto), a highly important landmark street of which it's the continuation. Samaritan 03:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My vote is keep in the first place, btw. Samaritan 03:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment. What determines the notability of a road? There are many roads in
Morningside Avenue (which even says, in the article, "there are no major attractions on the street"). Darkcore
06:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Anyone can do it, and if that person decides the road is not notable, it should be merged onto something that is notable, or listed on VfD. Radiant _* 13:27, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep —Michael Z. 2005-03-28 07:59 Z

Merge with Maple Leaf Gardens. Radiant _* 08:24, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Merge → College Street (Toronto). —Mar ka ci 2005-03-28 T 16:29 Z

Comment: Is every street that has one attraction on or near it encyclopedic? Wikipedia is not a roadmap, or worse yet, a description of a roadmap in prose form. At least maps are useful. Also, though it shouldn't be necessary to say so, wikipedia is not Torontopedia, though some people seem to be under the impression it is.-R. fiend 21:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Province of Toronto. —Mar ka ci
2005-03-28 T 22:06 Z

Though there's hardly any question that it's gotten overdone a bit, I'm frankly getting sick and tired of your repeated assertion that anybody who attempts to do the same kind of articles for Toronto that are already on Wikipedia for many cities in other countries is somehow imposing an excessively Canadian-centric agenda. You may disagree with the encyclopedic value of streets in general, but nobody fucking thinks this is the Torontopedia. Funnily enough, though, when people see articles like
Arthur Avenue (The Bronx), they might be forgiven for thinking that equivalent things in Toronto are of at least equal notability. Bearcat
05:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Those have been added to the discussion at
Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor roads. Keep 'em coming. -R. fiend
07:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Already" being done for other cities? Show me one list comparable to
List of Toronto, Ontario roads. -R. fiend
17:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's not about whether it's been done to the same extent'; the very first thing I say in my comment is that it's obviously been overdone here. It's about whether it's been done at all previously, which it has. The debate is about the encyclopedic value of streets in general. Nobody thinks Toronto streets are of special notability, over and above streets anywhere else, just because they're in Toronto. The person who created the extensive list of Toronto streets isn't even a Torontonian; he's just a person who believes that streets are inherently notable, and would just as readily do a list of streets in Cleveland or Atlanta if he knew those cities well enough. Bearcat 18:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep anything which would appear in a "Torontopedia"
Kappa
22:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Or move it to the actual Torontopedia... *g* Bearcat 05:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Move Based on the above. If there is aleady a good place, why not use it?Vegaswikian 02:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, people wanting to make articles on streets should go to
Wikipedia is not a roadmap. Radiant _*
09:35, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete for the reasons listed above. Also it creates a MAJOR name space problem. What happens when a really notable street with the same name needs to be created? Do we have a disambg for virtually every street?Vegaswikian 07:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete or Merge with College Street (Toronto). --Calton | Talk 08:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Move to Carlton Street, Toronto, Ontario which is very specific (good) and not be bothered with notability (also, good). Do we really want to go through this fine-tooth combing whenever another Streetname article comes up? I didn't think so. Let's set up a speedy-delete for Streetname alone and have a rule requiring specificity such as Streetname, City/Town, State/Province and be done with this waste of keystrokes whenever someone thinks that their street is notable. hydnjo talk 19:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Bearcat that all Streets/Roads are inherently notable. So here we are trying to decide if this street is notable enough. C'mon folks, this will just be vandal-bait, you know, my street is "longer" than your's. Lets set-up speedy-delete for all Streetnames (unless specific as to City/Town, State/Province), declare victory and do better stuff than this. hydnjo talk 19:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually I don't think that; I was referring to someone else. Bearcat 03:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep but consider a merge with one of the suggestions above. JYolkowski 00:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep Harmless entry. Part of a larger project. Wikipedia is more than an academic encyclopedia. Wincoote 01:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep Per Wincoote's reasoning Sniffandgrowl 01:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
User was created today; he has only two edits not to vfds, one of them to his user page. —Korath (Talk) 02:27, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Nothing notable about this street -- Webgeer 17:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 02:13, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

American Head Charge

Non-notable band promoting 2005 album. Vanity that should be deleted. Feco 20:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. r3m0t ^talk 23:01, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Band has played on
Djbrianuk
02:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. AMG also has a page on them. DaveTheRed 02:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, under the bar of notability, band vanity. Megan1967 02:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep Major label bands should not be deleted.. whats next, getting rid of Jimi Hendrix or Bob Marley? Remove the vanity information.. I work for a music publication and can do a rewrite without a problem. --Aika 17:54, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

This reads no different from a thousand other vanity band pages, however this group is at least notable enough for MTV to take note of their tour. Cleanup, expand and Keep Dsmdgold 02:29, Apr 1, 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. -
Mailer Diablo
07:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Granduncle

Non-encyclopedia definition of a neologism. Delete. Feco 20:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not a neologism. Dicdef of existing word. I was wondering about this, though. I would say transwiki except that Wiktionary already has a perfectly good definition. Do dictionary definitions have to serve their time here on VfD if Wiktionary already has them? In any case this article should go away so I say delete. FreplySpang 20:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes they do. Being a dictionary article is not a speedy deletion criterion. Uncle G 03:55, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

Delete, duplicate dictionary definition. Megan1967 02:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's not even as much to say here as there is at uncle. And family already links to the dictionary articles. Delete. Uncle G 03:55, 2005 Mar 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 delete. -
Mailer Diablo
07:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seconds to go

Non-notable band vanity. Should be deleted Feco 20:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 8240 Google hits. r3m0t ^talk 23:00, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete All is vanity Klonimus 09:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo
07:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pixeltendo

Non-notable Internet forum.
Wikipedia is not a web directory. -- Antaeus Feldspar
21:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. r3m0t ^talk 22:59, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Tis cool.
Unsigned comment by Oob (talk ·contributions)

Also this users 1st edit. DaveTheRed 02:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Internet forum with 845 members = not notable. DaveTheRed 02:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I might admin the place but I admit we aren't notable. I'm just glad I saved the information. --80.229.226.22 09:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, forum promo. Megan1967 09:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo
07:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pete2004

Not notable. The handle of somebody who stole some UK A-Level Mathematics papers. r3m0t ^talk 22:56, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable hacker. DaveTheRed 02:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. It's been done and not redirected (as discussed). Jinian 22:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Alien Parasites

Fancruft about DC Comics. In the 1994 Bloodline Dc Summer Annuals... not notable. r3m0t ^talk 22:54, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Note: This became part of an IRC game, so the history is somewhat large. r3m0t ^talk 23:37, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

"Fancruft" isn't a reason for deletion. Merge with DC Comics or a more specific article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This belongs in an article about the Bloodline annuals. I also object to the generic title of the article. Gamaliel 23:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge and/or delete per comments by Gamaliel and Tony. --
Boothy443 | comhrÚ
00:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If we had a Bloodlines (comics) article, I'd say merge it there. Since we don't, I'd say either create one and merge, or merge to DC Universe. DaveTheRed 02:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to DC Universe. Megan1967 02:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge or keep fancruft.
Kappa
11:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I created a short article about Bloodlines, but there's nothing here that could be merged there (or anywhere, really), and this title is too generic to merit a redirect. Delete. -Sean Curtin 23:55, Mar 28, 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. -
Mailer Diablo
07:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zorillo

Vanity band page --Wahoofive 23:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Bandity. Rick K 23:21, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo
07:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jackofarad

Made up out of whole cloth, but a little too coherent to be speedied. Delete. FreplySpang 23:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 02:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, I am sure there is a page that explains all of the pico, micro, femto, ato fractions. This also seems redundant, as there is already a page about the Farad rbwendt 3:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, we know Michael Jackson doesn't hold many technical degrees, so the rest sounds like nonsense. Delete. Rick K 08:07, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. Delete Denni ☯ 02:47, 2005 Mar 30 (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. -
Mailer Diablo
07:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Glacion

Supposedly a minor character from a series of books; however, the author's name ("K. Excelthior Wright") gives no google hits, and the character's name gives no related ones. Either fanfiction or outright fiction. Meelar (talk) 23:17, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unverifiable. DaveTheRed 02:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a pretty elaborate hoax, if it is one. Delete and maybe preserve in BJAODN. Rozencrantz 02:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Didn't K. Excelthior Wright himself take a turn on VfD recently? FreplySpang 02:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If I may be so bold to comment, none of you apparently read the entire passage of the Glacion article. It clearly states that the author did, in fact, try and search for both K Excelthior Wright and Glacion on Google and was sadly not able to find any. Deleting this thread would be total injustice on the author's part. Do not delete. In other words, "kept."

---Puperskuper

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Yellow dog. —Korath (Talk) 02:17, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yellow Dog

Duplicate to Yellow dog (note difference in capitalization) --Wahoofive 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why put it on Vfd?? That can be taken care of with no Vfd simply by creating a re-direct. Georgia guy 23:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

please don't bite the newcomers. I don't remember how long it took me to figure out redirects, but it was a lot longer than Wahoofive's been here. —Korath (Talk
) 01:28, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect, and please, we don't need the yellow box. What is the point of being intentionally obnoxious, as is indicated in the edit summary? Maurreen 18:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: We do need some way to tell newbies about redirects
Kappa
22:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What's wrong with a friendly note on their Talk page? Rick K 23:08, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
I think the nomination is a better place for a friendly note or whatever, because then everyone see that it's been done.
Kappa
09:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo
07:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Noll Scott

Reads like a heartfelt memorial. Unfortunately, by official policy Wikipedia is not a memorial (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). The google hits seem to be blog entries and a Guardian obituary, which is not surprising since he was an employee of the Guardian. Unfortunately, it does not appear he was very notable, except to his family and his employer. -- Curps 23:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 02:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. I redirected Noll scott to this since it was the same article. Both need to be removed.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 02:18, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

You Kicked My Dog

Single song from album, no significant information Wikipedia:What's_in,_what's_out#Songs_and_pieces_of_music --Wahoofive 23:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment/Borderline Keep. Actually, this bit was something of a cult hit, got lots of radio station play, and is probably better known than the album(s) on which it can be found. Not saying that it's high art or anything, just that it's famous within the genre. --
^gab
00:54, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

Delete, under the bar of notability. Megan1967 02:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep cult hits and otherwise successful songs.
Kappa
06:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge with the album it's on. Radiant _* 08:19, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Songcruft. JFW | T@lk 13:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. —Mar ka ci 2005-03-28 T 16:15 Z

Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. Notable meme of sorts. --GRider\^talk 20:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Oddball articles like this are what makes Wikipedia go 'round. :^P - Lucky 6.9 05:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Eccentric, but rather well known.--Centauri 02:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Definitely meets criteria for notoriety. Phobophile 09:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_March_27&oldid=1081092648"~~