Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 28

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Galacticon

Mascot for non-notable band Galacticon AD 2525. Non-notable bands have non-encyclopedic mascots. Delete. FreplySpang 00:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Note: Should not be confused with the science fiction convention called Galaticon. Megan1967 02:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, YA nonnotable band. Needs more Cowbell Klonimus 07:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn bandcruft. ComCat 02:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree with all of you. Sanmartin

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

• Comment I strongly suggest you simply make the article a redirect to
  Legilimency. If you think it needs discussion, the Talk page would be the proper place, but this seems to me a good case for being bold
  . Ready, fire, aim. Since redirects are reversible by anyone if there's serious opposition it will become evident and you can hash it out on the two articles' Talk pages.
  • I know about being bold, but ah! I'm new here, so I just wanted to make sure I wasn't stepping on anyone's toes. I'll keep this in mind in future. Re your comments: Should I wait the customary five-day period, or go ahead and redirect? Hermione1980 22:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect I vote that that the nominator replace the entire text of the
  Legilimens
  page, including the VfD notice, with

#REDIRECT [[Legilimency]]

and I further suggest that this VfD discussion then be considered done and ignored, unless others come in with arguments that give some good reason why this

• Redirect to
  Legilimency. Megan1967
  03:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not notable enough for its own article. TigerShark 00:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to
  The Waste Lands. Megan1967
  03:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I'd like to state that the article on The God Drums was left incomplete for a few hours, and that I have come back and completed it. The rex 03:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Still no reason for an article of its own. Merge and redirect to
  The Waste Lands. (Also, this is written in a way that leaves it utterly unclear what elements are real and what are fictional.) -- Jmabel | Talk
  04:04, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep wastelandcruft.
  Kappa
  11:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I merged and redirected it. Please expand and improve existing articles instead of adding new ones. VfD is too cluttered for this. --Smithfarm
  • Comment: This kind of thing doesn't belong on Vfd anyway, if it's "not notable enough for its own article", it should just be tagged with {{merge}}.
    Kappa
    19:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That depends upon whether there is anywhere to merge it into and whether it is even notable enough to merge. "Merge" is a valid vote on VFD and therefore it follows that it is valid to VFD an article that may warrant merging or deleting, to allow for it to be voted on. Thanks. TigerShark 19:15, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:03, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Mey Vidal

Not notable Spanish language singer, advertising. Delete. --Fibonacci 00:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, unless strong argument made to the contrary. Google search certainly suggests notability (not on number of hits, but on what they say). Fibonacci, do you have some basis to say non-notable? Is this a field you know well and assert that the web sites in question are misleading or what? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:58, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you point me to a specific link, Jmabel? I did a Google search, and found nothing that suggests notability. --Fibonacci 03:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • For starters, 168 hits, nearly all appear to be her. No one item is all that big, but she keeps showing up in the context of reasonably major performers and venues. Looks like a reasonably active musician, performing enough to merit an article. I'm not aware of any other Cubanas doing reggae, so I suspect that alone makes her kinda notable. No great loss if deleted, but we certainly have musicians less notable than this. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:16, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Reggaeton is not the same as reggae. Tuf-Kat 08:11, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Nearly all appear to be her, and say nothing at all? Again, could you point me to a specific link? I mean, if there is any that remotely suggests her notability. --Fibonacci 00:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Jmabel. Megan1967 06:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Tentative Keep. Seems to have some notability within genre but would appreciate assessment against WikiMusic project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 10:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Does it even meet the
    guidelines? If it does, it is nowhere documented on the article, as is asked in the guidelines' page. I still say delete. --Fibonacci
    15:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of significant notability is presented. No allmusic.com entry, for what it's worth. Gamaliel 00:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Neither allmusic nor artistdirect ever heard of her. The top Google searches are music download pages, which seems to indicate that she doesn't have a recording contract. This link seems to indicate some notability, though "Next Level" just seems to be an internet "tv show". Weak delete. RickK 01:01, 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 delete. – ABCD 02:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jack Lumber

Vanity (have left note on user's talk page RE: Creating user page). - TigerShark 00:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ditto. Elf | Talk 20:24, 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. – ABCD 02:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Teddy byrne

Vanity (have left note on contributor's talk page RE: Creating user page) - TigerShark 01:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete as vanity. BJAODN? Academic Challenger 01:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity and nonsense. Megan1967 03:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. --
  Jacobw
  17:09, 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. – ABCD 20:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tivo Hacking

• speak up!
  01:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is this even legal to post on here? Zscout370 01:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes it is perfectly legal. Agree that Wikipedia is not a how-to, but some of this can be merged to
      Tivo#Tivo_hacking. Merge and redirect as appropriate, then transwiki the most explicit details to Wikisource and allow for further organic growth there. --GRider\^talk
      18:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok, it might be sold on Amazon, but since this is a new technology, we are treding on new legal territory. To err on the side of legality, we shold not post this. There are numerous other sites that post this content, so it is not like we are the only ones to talk about it. People sell things alot online, but many of it is not legal. Zscout370 19:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • See my comment below to DaveTheRed. Irrational fear is not a valid reason for deletion. --GRider\^talk 19:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • What we can do is say the concept exist, but not place the whole process, since that is the sticking point me and others on here have about this page. If the article turns out to be a stub after the editing, then we could send to the Tivo page. Until then, my vote for Delete still stands. Zscout370 20:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because wikipedia is not a how-to, and because we could probably get into serious legal trouble. DaveTheRed 02:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you an attorney at law? If so, on what grounds could Wikipedia "probably" get into serious legal trouble for the publication of text, so long as it is not a copyvio? --GRider\^talk 18:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No, as it happens I am not. Are you? I do know that wikipedia could be sued for this regardless of the legal basis of it. A case could be made that by printing this material we are aiding criminals in the act of commiting a crime. DaveTheRed 20:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Frivolous lawsuits without merit are frequently submitted to courts around the world. Religious organizations have also wrongfully filed suit against television networks, music labels and game companies citing them as the cause for such things as suicide, arson, and murder. If it hasn't happened already, it is inevitable that Wikipedia will be met with several frivolous lawsuits as well. There is nothing even remotely illegal about this article's content and fear should never be a factor for deletion. --GRider\^talk 21:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • However, GRider, if a lawsuit was made against Wikipedia over this, it will have merit. There is a crime in the United States called Aiding and Abetting in a Criminal Act. We will be liable for this, since we are telling everyone the process you need to hack into Tivo. Hacking, as far as I know, is also illegal. I am not a law expert, but I seriously still think this article needs to be gone. Zscout370 21:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • While I appreciate your seriousness, I believe you may be strongly misunderstanding the term "hacking" in this context as well as the legalities of documenting how to modify personal electronics. This discussion is mostly moot anyhow because Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, which is why I voted to merge and redirect as appropriate. --GRider\^talk 22:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Then if you think it is not legal to put on here, then lets Delete this page. Zscout370 03:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki to Wikisource
  iff it is legal to do so. Alphax ^τεχ
  03:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or rewrite to be an encyclopaedia article on the history and social practice of Tivo hacking, and mvoe the different firmware versions into a general Tivo article. Justinc 21:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The armchair lawyering here is ridiculous. This article is not "new legal ground", nor is it controversial. This information is available from many different sources, none of which have been sued by TiVo Inc. While "hacking" is illegal, information about "hacking" is not illegal. But this article isn't even about the type of "hacking" you're undoubtedly picturing. I'm not voting here, just ranting. This isn't a great article, but we do need an article about the practice of TiVo hacking. Rhobite 00:52, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that a mention or two about Tivo Hacking should be in place, but we just need to be careful about what we place in here. Zscout370 00:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No, it deserves more than a mention and we don't need to be very careful about disseminating evil hacking information. In this instance, I'm sorry to say, you misunderstand the law. There is no law against telling someone how to get a shell on their TiVo, or add a hard drive, or an ethernet card. The DMCA would be of limited use, since Wikipedia isn't distributing "circumvention tools" - only information. If you're still worried about potential claims against Wikipedia, please see DeCSS. Rhobite 02:10, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Regardless of the legal issue, this is not encyclopedic. Transwiki. Radiant_* 09:41, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, tivocruft. ComCat 01:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, There are probably encyclopedic things which can be said on the matter., but such things would probably fit comfortably into TiVo, at least for now. UserGoogol 18:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move how-tos to Wikibooks. —Korath (Talk) 01:06, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:07, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Girlfriend and Boyfriend

These 2 articles refer to 2 equivilant versions of a non-marital romantic spouse (1 male, 1 female); this calls for a request of business: it would be superfluous to have 2 articles about different-gender versions of the same thing --TheSamurai 14:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect and merge both "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" to non-marital romantic spouse. --TheSamurai 14:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• How did this happen?? I studied this Vfd and I got that an article got put back on Vfd after a while of being kept. No vote right now, this is just a question. Georgia guy 00:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This has already been voted on. So has boyfriend. Both discussions have been blanked; I'm not sure of the method to fix this. I have also completed the incompletely done VFD nomination. --SPUI (talk) 01:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • (reply to message above}: there is no sense salvaging a VfD list from a previous VfD iteration for the same article because it would be superfluous. And besides, people will think that VfD votes from 2 iterations would be part of 1. --TheSamurai 02:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the standard is to either create this at "Girlfriend 2" or move the old one to "Girlfriend old" or something. --SPUI (talk) 02:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • There is a great deal of sense to preserving the prior VfD discussions. SPUI is correct that the proper procedure is to manually edit the VfD nomination so it goes to the a new sub-page (in this case, now VfD/Girlfriend (2nd nomination)). The header and footer on the prior VfD discussions explicitly say that they are to be preserved. Please familiarize yourself with the procedures before making a deletion nomination. If you need help, please ask. This nomination is now fixed. No vote. Rossami (talk) 04:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I will repeat the reasons that were said in the previous VFD: They are well written encyclopedia articles on topics that are well beyond the scope of a dictionary. Zzyzx11 02:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, the terms "Girlfriend" and "Boyfriend" are
    more common in the English language than "Non-marital romantic spouse". Zzyzx11
    02:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Girlfriend is also the name of a magazine with 1,000,000 Google hits. Megan1967 03:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "Boyfriend" and "Girlfriend" are much better known to most people than "Non-marital romantic spouse."
• Keep, nothing has changed from the strong consensus to keep last time. This seems a frivolous VfD. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Jmabel. Alphax ^τεχ 09:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Non-marital romantic spouse? What is this,
  Mike H
  22:51, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I couldn't have said it better. I agree completely. -SocratesJedi | Talk 02:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Rhobite 00:22, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable concepts. Capitalistroadster 10:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Boyfriend and Girlfriend duplicate a significant amout of content from each others' articles; as I said, I think it is superfluous to have 2 different articles that duplicate most content from and onto each other. And the phrase "the female equivilant, Girlfriend" clearly admits that the Boyfriend article duplicates information from the Girlfriend article. If you redirect and merge as directed, please put the disambiguation links in the article I request for bf and gf to be merged and redirected to. Will anybody concur with me now? --TheSamurai 23:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: No, they are different concepts with different associations. Duplicate content occurs in a great many articles to varying degrees.

speak up!

11:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is more notable than a pokemon character. --Spinboy 07:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Both of these are encyclopedic and have recently survived VfD. Keep.
  speak up!
  11:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Anybody who thinks this should be deleted doesn't get what reference resources are about. This topic is rich for social/anthropoligical exploration and is the definition of encyclopedic. Leave it open so people can improve and expand upon it. Sniffandgrowl 04:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User was created today; he has only four edits not to vfds, two of them to his user page. —Korath (Talk) 04:37, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
• KeepThe tone is encyclopedic and the terms are more accessible as they stand at present - "non-marital romantic spouse" seems to be confusing the issue. --Onlyemarie 19:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep these. Delete the oxmoronic "Non-marital romantic spouse" which is not a term anyone uses. Jonathunder 08:09, 2005 Apr 2 (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) 01:13, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/High schools

This page seems to have been abandoned in November 2004 [1]. I think it was created as part of a discussion on a policy on school notability (that also seems to have stalled). Parts of it seem tosu be mourning the loss of school articles that were deleted, while other parts seem to urging people to nominate schools for VfD. All the activity having ceased I think this page has outlived any usefullness it once had. Thryduulf 02:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Compare
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/GRider/Schoolwatch
  .
• It should at least be kept as a historical record. Personally I also hope it would be revived as soon after it was created the deletion rate of high schools fell dramatically. However, it does take a great deal of work to maintain the page. - SimonP 03:21, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. I'm probably in the minority here, but I'd like to point out that the recent nominations on high school articles have once more turned into shouting matches rather than civilized discussion, and using pages such as these to get more people to join in are not helping. Radiant_* 08:34, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, why delete? Grue 17:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a historical record if it is no longer being updated. The recent attempt to supress school-related documents here is a bit perplexing, to say the least. --GRider\^talk 20:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Commentary You could probably use this article as some kind of projective test by seeing what people perceive to have been its purpose.

For what it's worth, it originated when a sysop acting on some high school articles kept some school articles whose apparent vote counts would have led most sysops to judge that there was consensus for deletion. This sysop decided that he should ignore votes for deletion, that, he judged, stated reasons for deletion that were not specifically covered by the written deletion policy. There was some brouhaha and the sysop stopped doing it. The action took people by surprise, and someone, not me, began the page with the idea of making it easy to see if anyone started again.

Now, there had been lots of vague talk about what actually happens to articles on high schools. I decided it would interesting to try to track the fate of every high school article created for a while, and over a period of a month or so I did so. It was sometime suggested that deletionists were systematically nominating every high school article for deletion. I concluded to my own satisfaction that many high school articles were not, in fact, being nominated for VfD.

It was sometimes suggested that nominating these articles for VfD was a waste of time because there was never consensus and so the articles were always kept. I concluded that this was not true, either. There is no consensus on high school articles in general, but there is sometimes consensus to keep particular high school articles and there is sometimes consensus to delete particular high school articles.

It was never an attempt to organize support for deletion of school articles, although it could easily be, and probably was, misinterpreted that way.

Generally speaking, I think that factionalizing the high-school-article debate is bad. This page had two purposes, neither of which is relevant any more. If it's exacerbating friction, it would probably be better gone. On the other hand, to my mind it's a mildly interesting record of the actual fate of high school articles. I don't feel strongly enough either way to vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that. More than one person has commented that it should be kept for historical reasons, which I have no inherent objections to, but if this is the case would anyone object to a This page is no longer live notice at the top, similar to that found on concluded VfDs? I wont add anything of that nature unitl the end of this VfD lest I get accused of bias, pre-emption or anything along those lines. I wont add it at all if its clear people don't want it. Thryduulf 22:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you need to wait, why not just be bold and do it? I'm sure people will be happy to revert if they disagree! I wouldn't say "this page is no longer live," because that makes it sound too much like a VfD discussion, which it never was. As far as I know nobody ever thought the page ever had any official significance. Why not say something like "This page has no policy significance. It has not been maintained since [date of last significant edit] but is being kept for historical interest." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is more notable than a pokemon character. --Spinboy 07:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware that notability was the issue in this particular VfD. How can a sub-page of the VfD pages have (not not have) notability? Thryduulf 16:07, 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. – ABCD 02:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RAMIM ISLAM

It's great that he "stopped smoking the Mary Jane", but this is still vanity about a high school student. Please, don't write about yourself unless you're worthy of appearing in an encyclopedia. Meelar (talk) 02:06, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity.
  Andrew pmk
  03:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, orphan non-notable, private joke. -- Infrogmation 04:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy to Omphaloscope (talk · contribs). Alphax ^τεχ 09:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable,
  original research. Mikkalai
  22:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• So many reasons to DELETE it's hard to pick just one: vanity, original research, unverifiable, hoax or private joke, obnoxious ALL CAPS title. Jonathunder 00:44, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

snarkle

In all conscience, I cannot transwiki this. Whilst there does appear to be a word "snarkle", this isn't its definition. This is just rubbish. And there don't appear to be a thing named "snarkle" or things called "snarkles" that warrant an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 03:29, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

• Delete. A snarkle is unencyclopedic with an abundance of neologism. Isomorphic 05:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 06:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. --Smithfarm
• Abstain A snarkle refers to an open, active and social online community of users who share ideas, experiences and images. Sound as though wikipedia is a snarkle. Klonimus 06:02, 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 speedy delete. (twice) -

How

Does this actually exist? Google suggests otherwise. Unless you can prove that it isn't nonsense, Delete. Philthecow 03:47, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Concur. Delete unless evidence presented. Joethehorse 04:01, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted, as the claim that a "how" is a half-horse half-cow was deleted previously, and is already preserved at Wikipedia:In Soviet Russia, Bad Jokes and Other Nonsense Delete YOU!. -- Infrogmation 04:10, 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. – ABCD 02:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hoangtommy

Clearly Vietnamese. Could be a copyvio. CryptoDerk 15:21, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC) -- remark on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, where it's now had 2 weeks and no action. I concur with the possible copyvio issue; if anyone sees something worth doing with this, fine, but it's useless in Vietnamese with no one working on it. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:47, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Past due date. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete abandoned foreign-language article. The ONLY Google hit for this neologism is this image. He appears to be a wrestler at Duke. --Smithfarm
• Delete — RJH 18:03, 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. – ABCD 20:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

W. 21st St., W. 41st St. (Tulsa) and S. 57th W. Ave.

While closing a

• Articles on individual street addresses? Oh please. Delete. Radiant_* 07:57, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-encyclopedic. W. is not a general knowledge base. --Smithfarm
• Delete, generic street names. DaveTheRed 19:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to disambiguated names. Show me a map that has the information in these articles. --SPUI (talk) 05:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have added Yahoo maps to each of the articles, the article text matches the maps. Klonimus 00:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I added Yahoo Maps for each of these pages. I personally found these to be insightful articles. Seriously Keep and allow for organic growthKlonimus 09:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Subtrivial. I suppose we'll be seeing Gosnold Road, Woods Hole, Massachusetts soon. I would at least think that an article on W. 21st St. would be about the street in Manhattan, and still deletable. -R. fiend 17:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  I think they should be renamed to reflect that these streets are in

  Tulsa. IMHO it is provincialism to assume that W. 21st St. in Manhattan is more notable than W. 21st St. in Tulsa Klonimus

  04:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • • The relative populations, for instance, of the cities seems to beg to differ, and in any case I said an article on the W. 21st Street in Manhattan should be deleted too. -R. fiend 20:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If I were trying to research/learn about Woods Hole, MA, and Gosnold Road is an important road to that community, I would find the article very valuable and interesting. I would be surprised and happy to find any info. on the web about it.AboutWestTulsa 19:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete streetcruft. ComCat 02:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all three. Every major city has these numbered streets. This is not Mapquest. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:02, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This applies to all other articles about streets unless they're EXTREMELY notable. /sɪzlæk˺/ 06:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --
  EnSamulili
  13:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a general knowlege base. --Carnildo 03:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. These articles show how the connections between communities of West Tulsa function. At the very least, unique info. in each article should be transfered to the appropriate article about the community/communities the road interconnects.AboutWestTulsa 19:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful, interesting, verifiable information. --Centauri 09:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Late Keep, failing that merge. Adequately interesting and informative even for a "random page" user.
  Kappa
  22:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Library acquisitions

Portuguese and strictly a dicdef. Had its 2 weeks on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English with no action. I'd welcome a rescue and a real article here, but this is useless. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:07, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Portuguese dicdef. --Smithfarm

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Izmir atatürk lisesi

From Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
Turkish. Possibly a school vanity. - Mike Rosoft 23:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Could be. I'm guessing "lisesi" is derived from the French "lycée" (high school) since Turkish has lots of French loanwords.
  Atatürk. — Ливай | ☺
  02:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Had its 2 weeks and no one has worked on it. I concur with "Mike"; also, smells like copyvio. Let's just lose it; if the topic merits an article, we'll get one eventually. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:13, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Past due date. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic, school vanity. Megan1967 06:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I wish I understood Turkish. It looks like an interesting language. However, this article clearly doesn't belong in the English Wikipedia, and from what I gather from other comments, it doesn't belong in the Turkish one either. Delete as per general consensus. — JIP | Talk 08:41, 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. – ABCD 02:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Benis

Quotes from the article: "relatively new slang term"; "has enjoyed only meager acceptance"; "it is likely to fade with disuse". New slang that is used by only a few people and likely to disappear does not seem encyclopedic to me. JeremyA 05:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It wouldn't belong here (except as a redirect to body parts slang) even if it were in widespread use. This is another attempt to get a word into the dictionary by adding it to the encyclopaedia instead. If you want to know what the actual word "benis" is, read Wiktionary:benis. ☺ Delete. Uncle G 05:51, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 06:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• dleete" whoever wrtoe that article has a small benis. THE KING 13:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • THE KING (talk · contributions) has made a string of vandalising edits, and virtually nothing else. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• At least it's NPOV! Neologism, likely to fade with disuse, hence delete. JFW | T@lk 14:16, 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. – ABCD 02:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

faced

I couldn't find anything to back up this definition (its only corroboration being Urban Dictionary, which is - shall we say - highly inclusionary), so I wrote Wiktionary:faced from scratch instead. There's no scope for metamorphosis of this dictionary article about a verb/adjective into an encyclopaedia article about a person/place/concept/thing; no adjective→noun redirections seem appropriate; and a redirect to face seems inappropriate, too. Uncle G 05:23, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 07:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. JFW | T@lk 14:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. --Smithfarm
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 20:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hereticam 23:35, 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. -

Quest4Treasure

• Vanity article connected to a concerted attempt at self-promotion and advertising. Quite unencyclopedic in style and topic. Isomorphic 05:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, spammer-supported, scam-supported. —Korath (Talk) 07:05, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, one of many weird edits by the spammer. --Deadcorpse 07:08, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Smells of spam. --Smithfarm
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 20:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity4Sure Klonimus 07:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This guy is up to no good. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:44, 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. – ABCD 02:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jamie and Nick

Non-notable webcomic, nonsense. RickK 05:27, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 07:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, vn. Alphax ^τεχ 09:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Death to all webcomics. Delete. JFW | T@lk 14:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. --Smithfarm
• Delete. notability. Mikkalai 22:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 20:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webcruft. ComCat 02:40, 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 list on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. —Korath (Talk) 01:17, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Broadcast radiation

• I was going to tag this as a speedy, but thought it might have some potential to be re-written. As it is, it's bordering incomprehensible and is a likely copyvio.
  speak up!
  05:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The topic sounds encyclopedic, and the material could be reworked into a good article. I don't think there's a deletion issue here at all. However, there might still be a copyright violation. Isomorphic 05:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if rewritten. This topic has potential to be encyclopaedic. Megan1967 07:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite. I thought this was cancer victims suing the BBC. In its present form it is geeky gobbledygook. JFW | T@lk 14:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this Copyvio from Cisco. It has been added to
  copyright problems. Editors are reminded that writing This information was obtained from Cisco at the bottom of the article doesn't give us the right to copy entire web pages. Someone can write a new article on the temp page; the topic might be encyclopedic. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk
  15:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Advertising, vanity, the images are probably copyrighted. RickK 05:47, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Remove images, rewrite, and keep. The brand has become quite popular in recent times around here.
  speak up!
  05:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. 240,000 Google hits, see [2]. Megan1967 07:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with the comments below. Probably best
    Emily Strange be moved here instead. Megan1967
    09:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; a fairly well known comic/marketing whatever. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Terrible article, but the subject deserves an article as a notable something-or-other. I was thinking about adding this to the lists of requests. Gamaliel 22:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and move
    Emily Strange to Emily the Strange. Gamaliel
    03:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'll start clean-up now. -- user:zanimum
• Keep and allow for organic growth. VfD is not cleanup. --GRider\^talk 22:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete come on folks, this is just an ad. Fawcett5 22:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

change to Redirect as below. Fawcett5 00:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to
  Emily Strange might be better moved to Emily the Strange. -Sean Curtin
  00:15, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Jinian 00:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

English Wikipedia

Vanity, self-reference. If this is all we have to say about the English Wikipedia, it isn't worth having. This article has been here a long time, nobody's done any better than this? RickK 05:49, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Beat me to it! Delete, too self referential, any content is an easy merge with the main Wikipedia article.
  speak up!
• Keep. The article is pathetic. But since Wikipedia is not the same as English Wikipedia, we need this article. -- Taku 06:48, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Vanity. But redirects are cheap, and might discourage someone else with the same Bright Idea. —Korath (Talk) 07:08, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• When I saw this nomination, my heart leaped into my throat--I thought it was that time of year again. We've still got a few days, though. Anyway, redirect this article to Wikipedia. Meelar (talk) 07:10, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wikipedia. Megan1967 08:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. 'Nuff said. Alphax ^τεχ 09:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, and list German Wikipedia and Japanese Wikipedia for a proposed merge. JFW | T@lk 14:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment how about moving this stuff to the Wikipedia namespace? 132.205.15.43 14:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All articles under category:Wikipedias by language should be kept. — Instantnood 15:37, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I changed {{vfd}} to {{subst:vfd}} as per VFD footer guidelines. No vote yet, but thinking about voting for delete/redirect unless improved but keeping other non-stubs in Category:Wikipedias by language. I would oppose merge of German and Japanese as they are larger and Wikipedia is at 31Kb now. -Wikibob | Talk 16:58, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • Comment it looks like all the language Wikipedias would fit nicely in History of Wikipedia, the Chinese one is almost identically copied from there in any case. I would then favour a redirect of this English one to History of Wikipedia#English Wikipedia. Likewise all the others. They can grow from section stubs there and as/if one gets big enough it becomes an article. The reader could then see all the (major) language Wikipedia in one article and compare and contrast their histories. However I don't think future potential is an argument, still thinking, though, not a vote. -Wikibob | Talk 20:04, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
• Keep, unless all the other articles about the different Wikipedia editions get deleted or redirected as well. --
  ✉
  18:09, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • You mean articles like Japanese Wikipedia and Chinese Wikipedia? Those are fairly lengthy! -- Taku
    • That's my point, such articles have the potential to become big, so why should we delete them? --
      ✉
      18:33, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. --GRider\^talk 18:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect --Henrygb 20:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep to counteract systemic bias caused by wikimodesty.
  Kappa
  22:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The COTW discussion for this article should make interesting reading. Uncle G 22:50, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
• Move to the Wikipedia namespace. Too self-referential for a main namespace article. And yes, all the similar articles should go to the same place. Japanese Wikipedia and Chinese Wikipedia are also too self-referential. If this were a different topic, we would probably consider it original research. Rossami (talk) 01:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable encyclopedia in English. Capitalistroadster 10:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wikipedia. I understand the reasoning of all those who voted keep, but not their conclusion. Everything which is in this article is already at the Wikipedia article, and so I think a redirect is in order. Sjakkalle 14:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to
  bainer
  08:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Uhm, have a look at
    ✉
• Keep
  tαlk
  18:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand. Useless as it stands, but a perfectly valid topic. Plenty could be done on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:34, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand it. Look at the Japanese and Chinese Wikipedia articles. This article has potential. Something as important and impressive as English Wikipedia (as well as all other versions of Wikipedia) deserves an article. And additionally, what is wrong with self-reference? All articles should talk about their subject matter. If no one will write the article, at very least it should redirect to History of Wikipedia#English Wikipedia. In any case, it should be changed from its current state.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hanchett

Wikipedia is not a genealogical site. This also seems to be a copyvio, but I can't find from where. RickK 07:01, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree that it looks like copyvio from a geneology site. Non-notable regardless. Feco 07:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. I'm also allergic to the use of "You" outside a direct quote. JFW | T@lk 14:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete geneology. --Smithfarm
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 20:49, 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. – ABCD 20:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of superhero abilities

This was tagged with a speedy delete tag with no reason given. Doesn't look like a speedy candidate, but does seem debatable, so I brought it here. No vote.

• This is already covered far better under Superhero, so it should redirect there since there really isn't anything to merge. Radiant_* 08:10, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• An easy one. merge/redirect to Superhero. Mikkalai 08:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Superhero. Megan1967 10:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It has already been merged; I checked. No encyclopedia articles link to it. I don't think anyone is going to search for this title, so a redirect doesn't make much sense. --Smithfarm
• Redirect to superhero for the time being. FWIW, recently we've been over superpower, which is about international politics, although a lot of articles discussing super powered characters link to it. Since both superheroes and supervillains have super powers, a separate page discussing and classifying these powers might be appropriate. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, although the section of superhero discussion powers and archetypes is getting large enough that it could be split out into its own article. On the topic of somewhat related articles, there's also superhuman. -Sean Curtin 00:19, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic garbage. Pavel Vozenilek 20:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Would anyone actually come here directly? No point in saving as a redirect. --Pc13 08:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, more notable than a pokemon chracter. --Spinboy 23:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect. I think it's appropriate.--Onlyemarie 23:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a pretty pathetic page. Indrian 23:47, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --
  EnSamulili
  13:22, 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. -

Gawd

Wikipedia's not a slang dictionary, and the other items mentioned do not have articles here. Delete along with duplicate GAWD. Gazpacho 07:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I almost listed this myself. RickK 07:23, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, might place a redirect to God to prevent recreation. Radiant_* 07:57, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 08:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep and turn into a disambig for the bottom two THE KING 13:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • THE KING (talk · contributions) has made a string of vandalising edits, and virtually nothing else. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The King's proposal makes some sense, but disambig pages should not be made for non-existent articles, IMO. --Smithfarm
• Delete. A "mispronunciation?" God and gawd come out the same. "Gawd" is one of those print-dialect spellings that are used more to characterize dialect speech as dialect rather than to represent it phonetically. There probably ought to be an article about the phenomenon, once someone figures out a name for it. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If god and gawd come out the same, your accent must have undergone the
    Kappa
    21:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No, it's not a mispronounciation. Rather, I've seen several books, stories and comics using phrases like "oh my gawd" as a more politically correct form of "oh my god". Compare "what the heck". I'm not particularly fond of PC stuff but it does exist. Radiant_* 09:45, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • FWIW, we do have a page on eye dialect, which discusses the phenomenon of variant spellings used to mark "substandard" speech by a character, even when the spellings make no difference. This page wants expansion and citation of literary examples. This may be a good place to merge and redirect the article in question as well. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 20:45, 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 and redirect to Earnings per share. – ABCD 15:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Income per share

Should be a Merge and Redirect with Earnings per share, which is the much more common term for the same thing. Feco 07:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Then go to
  WP:VFD is for deletion. You are in the wrong place. Uncle G
  08:28, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
• NOTE that the articles already match (very short). All that's left is to delete the IPS one. Per wiki rules, I'm getting consensus before just doing it myself. Feco 08:39, 2005 Mar 28 (according to history Uncle G 08:58, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC))
  • Deletion is not the final step in an article merger. Once again: Go to
    WP:DA. You are in the wrong place. Uncle G
    08:58, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • If the articles are already merged, then just redirect
    Income per share
    to the proper title. Clear the article content, and replace it with

    #REDIRECT [[Earnings per share]]

  • --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Done. sjorford →•← 15:30, 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 keep. -

M A Hannan

I assume by "read" this article means "read aloud", but that still doesn't establish notability. RickK 07:48, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. (vote chg) Mikkalai 08:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 08:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unintelligible. Keep and clean up. It's somewhat more intelligible now. Should the article title be renamed to "M. A. Hannan" in accordance with USA usage? I don't know about Great Britain (aside from the fact that they don't put periods after "Mr" and "Mrs"), but definitely in India (and presumably Bangladesh and Pakistan, too) initials are generally written without the periods. --Smithfarm
• Keep - turns out to be notable enough in Bangladesh to have an airport named after him (added to page now). Charles Matthews 20:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable independence-declaration-reader.
  Kappa
  21:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect, cleanup. For starters, MA Hannan seems to be
  Bangladesh Awami League leaders, but I see nothing more notable about him. So I suggest to merge him there. And BTW the airport seems about to be renamed. If a grounded vote to "keep" requires heavy research, better it be deleted. Mikkalai
  01:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Amanat Shah (previous name MA Hannan) International Airport  :-(. Mikkalai 02:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems that VfD is a major driving force in improving articles that start from a chaotic anon blurb. :-) Mikkalai 02:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Which is sad because that's the whole purpose of Wikipedia:Cleanup rather than VfD. Megan1967 09:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. Reading a declaration of independence leading to a war seems notable enough in its own right and presumably if a national airport is named after him, there is more to be said about him. Capitalistroadster 11:08, 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. -

Fenestrocryptophobia

Neologism, nonsense. RickK 07:58, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• And...? Mikkalai
  • And what? I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. RickK 08:11, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • And your vote is...? Sorry, but I've already witnessed playing on this formality. From your language it is reasonable to assume that you vote for deletion, but you have to say it, to avoid surprise decisions. Mikkalai 08:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Nonsense. My vote is assumed. RickK 08:45, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
        • Heh JFW | T@lk 14:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Heh Heh. RickK 21:02, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd like to know according to which policy this chad-like issue is to be resolved. In a similar situation my vote was disregarded by one bureaucrat-minded admin. Mikkalai 22:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Comment: Based on a review of the log pages of closed discussions, deciding admins seem to be split - some assuming that any nomination is a "delete" vote unless explicitly noted otherwise and others assuming that a nomination is an "abstain" unless an intent to "delete" is explicitly expressed. While you can argue for hours about how they should be interpreting your nomination, it's easy to say "delete" and remove the ambiguity. Rossami (talk) 00:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Indeed. However, it rather appears at this writing that it might be possible to judge rough consensus for deletion without having to resolve the inscrutable mystery of what RickK might mean when he calls an article "nonsense." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • If mikkalai thinks that all of a sudden, without discussion, the nominator must explicity say delete on their nomination, he needs to take it to Talk, because this is a change in policy. RickK 22:03, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
                • Definitely. Current policy says you have to state why you are nominating an article for deletion. Current policy does not say you have to explicitly claim "delete". If anything, it would suggest to me that it is the responsibility of the nominator to exclude themselves if they are fixing someone else's incomplete nomination. Chris 21:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. neologism. Mikkalai 08:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• one word: OMFG!!! What an awesome article. well done whoever wrote it. THE KING 13:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• oh yeah and just for you mikkalai, my vote is keep.!THE KING 13:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • THE KING (talk · contributions) has made a string of vandalising edits, and virtually nothing else. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, fenestrocryptocruft. JFW | T@lk 14:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Feco 19:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, of course. Josh Cherry 00:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. THE KING is this close to being run up on the VIP page. - Lucky 6.9 05:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Add to Talk:-phobia, then delete — RJH 20:09, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:26, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Reputation

del. Dicdef. Wiktionary:reputation already exists. Mikkalai 08:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, duplicate dictionary definition. Megan1967 08:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Amazing allegories abound!
    • Awesome alliteration above by Radiant!. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It's an album by Dusty Springfield, if that helps. ☺ Uncle G 08:36, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a better definition than the wiktionary one. Also has potential for expansion.
  Kappa
  10:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • How would you expand this, then? Any article on 'reputation of <foo>' should probably be kept at '<foo>'. Radiant_* 12:01, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Personally I would expand it to discuss the significance of reputation in various fields such as customer/investor relations, or online communities, and give some specific examples. I could also mention designer brands like Burberry being adopted by street culture, and ending up with a reputation for being worn by hooligans, or the way some people commit suicide rather than live with a dishonorable reputation.
      Kappa
      13:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Sounds good to me. Keep, then. Radiant_* 09:50, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important subject. N-Man 13:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Hesitant keep, but only if within the forseeable future someone inserts sociological or politicological research on this aspect human nature. JFW | T@lk 14:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Has the potential to discuss sociological phenomena and so forth. Doesn't need the self-referential bits about reputation on Wikipedia, however. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with the wikipedia bit? I think it's a reasonably well-known website, gets 13 million hits...
    Kappa
    16:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Nothing's out-and-out wrong with it; it's just a tad obscure and technical. Although quite a few people know Wikipedia exists, only a very small fraction of that number really have much understanding of how it works. I hate to drag a mention of of anonymous IP addresses into an article on a sociological concept unless there's absolutely no way to avoid it. Mind you, there might be a section about reputation in online communities in general waiting to spring forth, and the effects of anonymity/pseudonymity (is that a word?). I would tend to talk about the reputation system on eBay or Slashdot's karma first. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. --Smithfarm
  • You really are supposed to look at the article before voting.
    Kappa
    17:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The sad thing is that I did look. Still think it's a dicdef (albeit with a couple examples appended). Having read the article, I still wouldn't know it is an important concept in sociology. I defer to the consensus, and hopefully someone will expand the article and give this the treatment it evidently deserves. Doesn't the online communities part qualify as original research? --Smithfarm
• Keep; an important concept in sociology, related to matters like
  face (social custom) and honour -- Smerdis of Tlön
  17:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, article is fine as currently written. DaveTheRed 18:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• What is going with the article is good and well, but for two things I disagree. First, it smacks of
  original research: no authoritative sources that discuss the notion of "reputation" per se. Second, IMO what we have here now is just a storytelling that uses the word "reputation". Everyone may throw in his favourite case of damaged reputation, but anecdotes do not make it more encyclopedic. I am not a sociologist, but I still fail to see a possibility of an encyclopedic discourse for this word, as well as for its synonym, "opinion", by the way. Mikkalai
  20:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Another example of this kind of thing is Default (computer science) These articles attempt to go beyond a dicdef by presenting trivia and anecdotes. --Smithfarm

• Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-28 T 22:51 Z
• Keep and expand. But no self-references. -Sean Curtin 00:22, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and let it grow. Sociological significance and all. FreplySpang (talk) 04:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good stub with potential to grow. Capitalistroadster 11:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (maybe a weak keep, but so what?). I would suggest a new banner (like POV-banners, etc, placed at top of articles that we wish to get improved further beyond the level of wiktionary definitions.

— I'm not sure the stub-banner would be a good place to state such a wish of ours, but maybe a certain kind of stub-banners? However, that might be complicated to combine with the stub-sorting project. /Tuomas 06:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{Move to Wiktionary}} contains such a notice already. —Korath (Talk) 01:26, 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 delete. – ABCD 02:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John LaPlaca

This is an insignificant vanity article. Not worth keeping. -

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity resume. --Smithfarm
• Delete. notability. Mikkalai 22:37, 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 (IP votes are not counted). -

Hassan El Hares

Engineer, D.Sc. Professor in a couple of Arab universities. Consultant for

• Delete, under the bar of notability, possible vanity. Megan1967 10:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete resume. --Smithfarm
• Keep, Try to search Google for "H. El Hares" and "El Hares H." as well as "Hassan El Hares".... You will find more hits -- FTYL
  • The above comment edited variously by 194.69.1.22 and 194.69.1.21. —Korath (Talk) 01:35, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- MONH
  • The above from 62.68.51.155. —Korath (Talk) 01:35, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, One of the most remarkable names in the desalination world with great acheivements -- LINA
• Keep, A known professor who served his counrtry for years worldwide.-- K FAHMY
  • The above from 62.241.151.161. —Korath (Talk) 01:35, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Notable Scientist and Professor, with significant work in the petr./desalination industry -- Eng. LH
  • The above from 163.187.228.221. —Korath (Talk) 01:35, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, but the article doesn't describe any specific work or achievements. Are we to just take you at your word? --Smithfarm
• Comment: It may not have to be pointed out, but the keep-voters above either have no or very few other edits. / Uppland 09:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If he's such an important person in
  EnSamulili
  13:26, 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. – ABCD 03:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

meaning of canon

This isn't the meaning of "canon". That can be found at Wiktionary:canon. This is someone's vanity article about their on-line pseudonym in a multi-player computer game. Just a hair too much for CSD #A1. Uncle G 09:22, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

• Delete, concur with nomination.
  Kappa
  10:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 10:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. --Smithfarm
• Speedy delete and maybe redirect to canon (fiction). 23skidoo 00:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree to redirect, as it may deter re-creation of this. --Smithfarm
• Delete, this is not the meaning of canon. Could redirect to canon, which is a big disambig page. Antandrus 06:12, 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. – ABCD 02:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mahangu Weerasinghe

Spam, not notable, etc.

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 12:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity216.40.21.106 12:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — come on, it's not vanity, it's a speedy delete: “Mahangu Weerasinghe is a 19 year old student writer who lives in Colombo, Sri Lanka. He currently masturbates and posts to his weblog”... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was not quite like that at the point of the original listing.

t^g_e^c_k

) 13:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My apologies; I should have checked. THE KING needs a rap on the knuckles, though. I Welcomed him after he'd made a couple of genuine edits; he quickly showed his true colours, I see. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think I may be getting somewhere with him. Who knows?

t^g_e^c_k

) 14:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid not; I've just reverted the same sort of childishness at RAMIM ISLAM. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. notability. Mikkalai 22:32, 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. – ABCD 02:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Timothy John Barron

Vanity. I need say no more.

• Speedy delete. Two-line vanity article. -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 11:25, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • Comment: The above vote for Speedy is under criterion A1 (Very short articles with little or no context). -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 16:32, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, classic vanity. Megan1967 12:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• To make the voting easier, I quote the entire article here: Timothy is the most handsome student in Blessed Elena Academy at Pasay City, The Philippines. Women like him because of his muscular body and handsome appearance. Delete. Might be good to save it as a good example of what not to write in an article. --Smithfarm

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ashraf sheikh

Vanity, hopeless vanity. Or a story, whichever. Delete it.

• Delete Phils 11:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 12:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete stream-of-consciousness personal website copy. --Smithfarm
• Delete Vanity, not notable and dull. Dsmdgold 22:47, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete, copyvio. – ABCD 02:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good writing

The Ten Commandments of Good Writing. BJAODN without a doubt. But delete.

• Thou shalt Deleteth this article. Thine article is original research. DaveTheRed 18:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The author would do well to consider contributing to Wikibooks:The Written Word. However, the author is cautioned not to contribute this article to the Wikibook, since it is a copyright violation of Ten Commandments of Good Historical Writing. Copyvio. Uncle G 18:56, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • Well spotted. I was laughing so much that I didn't think of that...
    t^g_e^c_k
    ) 20:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Quoth the page: Permission has been granted to reproduce this document for non-commercial educational purposes, on the condition that the author receives credit. Theron F. Schlabach is a professor of history at Goshen College, in Goshen, Indiana. Shouldn't that be enough? --abach 09:00, 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. – ABCD 03:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tshirthell.com

A website that sells offensive t-shirts. But Wikipedia isn't a web directory, and the site/company doesn't seem notable. Reluctant delete.

Why the reluctance? If I may be excused a gratuitously irrelevant comment, I'd like to praise tshirthell.com. A couple of years back, some asswipe (sorry, but the language in the article is infectious) somehow stole my vital credit card information and attempted to make a lot of purchases, all online. I contacted all the companies about this. Tshirthell was particularly efficient and courteous about the attempted transaction, kindly supplying me with the (Swiss) address offered as a delivery address (the only address I got from anyone). So my gut inclination is to support the idea of an article for this company, which to me seems more noteworthy than squillions of people who've appeared on third-rate American TV series, etc., and who are being immortalized on WP. And now I'll shut up and let you vote. -- Hoary 09:33, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

• Delete, under the bar of notability, website advert. Megan1967 12:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. --GRider\^talk 18:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable, advertising. RickK 21:22, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another online retailer. nothing special here. -R. fiend 21:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, pretty well known web shop. bbx 03:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as ad. Radiant_* 09:49, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, adcruft. ComCat 02:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --
  EnSamulili
  13:28, 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 move to Adventures of Stephen Brown. ugen64 23:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Brown

May be a mix of vanity, unnotability and vandalism (see this IP's edit history). Delete. JFW | T@lk 13:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Maybe not vandalism. It is a real but small TV series: Newspaper article from 2002 FreplySpang 15:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to "Adventures of Stephen Brown" in light of FreplySpang's comment. That IP address might be a machine in a high school computer lab. Some edits are good, others are vandalism, indicating they might come from different individuals. --Smithfarm
• Comment webspage has been down for sometime. No vote as yet. Megan1967 06:43, 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 keep. – ABCD 02:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spin room

American press neologism dicdef. Recommend transwiki to wikitionary. jdb ❋ (talk) 15:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a real, notable phenomenon--it's encyclopedic as a phenomenon, not just as a definition. It's somewhat distinct from the notion of
  spin itself and media criticism is full of the term and concept. Demi ^T/_C
  18:15, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. --GRider\^talk 18:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The phenomenon is spin. This is a definition. I do not see any way to expand this. The current content should be transwiki'd. If someone can expand it during the discussion period, I'll change my vote. Rossami (talk) 00:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. Article can be expanded to show how spin rooms are used in politics today, or how spin rooms have been used in the past. DaveTheRed 06:00, 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 redirect. While the majority voted to delete, FreplySpang did use some content of this to improve another article. In order to preserve attribution (a GFDL requirement), I am going to instead make this a redirect. Rossami (talk) 04:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support volunteer

Non-encyclopedic. Fairly well-written, but a rant of interest only to Invisionfree users. I merged a summary of the info here to Invisionfree and left a note in the talk page for the authors. "Support volunteer" is such a generic term that a redirect would not be useful. Delete. FreplySpang 15:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete subtrivial forumcruft. —Korath (Talk) 01:11, Apr 15, 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 13:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sandlådan

This article consists of only the letters ggg. Doesn't seem useful: Completely idiosyncratic and/or total gibberish. Maybe add back later if something more can be done with it?

• Speedy delete under criteria G1 and G2. Move along now. Uncle G 18:16, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
• Comment, "Sandlådan" is Swedish for the Sandbox so that should explain why this article was created. bbx 03:51, 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. – ABCD 03:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

to pose

This smells too much like a copyright violation of a dictionary, although I haven't looked to see which one. It's too suspect to transwiki, so I wrote Wiktionary:pose from scratch. There's no scope for expansion of this dictionary article about the infinite form of a verb into an encyclopaedia article about a person/place/concept/thing; and a redirect seems pointless given the title. Uncle G 17:53, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

There isn't even a page to redirect to. Delete.

t^g_e^c_k

) 21:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:38, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Closing

Dictionary definition. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 12:36, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Um nope, don't see any definition of the topic in there. It needs one though. Keep and cleanup, important concept in
  Kappa
  19:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Upon reading the above comment by Kappa, I realise that it is important but needs a lot of clean-up, the first step of that should be an appropriate stub message. Keep -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 04:55, 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 keep. Rossami (talk) 04:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Phylogenetics

This article is already being discussed in Cladistics and should be deleted. I think all the informations this article has is already merged there. Bruno Dantas 18:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• If information was used from this article and merged into another article, the normal process is to redirect it there. This preserves the attribution history - a requirement of GFDL. You can be bold and redirect. You do not need to bring it to VfD. Rossami (talk) 00:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Phylogenetics is a far more common term than cladistics, so I think the former should stay, perhaps even as a redirect target for the latter Turnstep 13:45, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
• I agree that phylogenetics is a more common term than cladistics (Science magazine has 108 citations for 'phylogenetics' OR 'phylogenetic' and 5 for 'cladistic' OR 'cladistics' in the past 10 years). Philosophical discussion between statistical phylogeneticists and cladists indicate that the terms are not interchangeable.--KCranston 04:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Any way that you could encourage these philosophers to edit the two pages? :) Turnstep 13:06, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The two terms are distinct from one another. Phylogenetics is a broader term than cladistics. Phylogenetics is constructing an evolutionary tree. Cladistics is one of several techniques by which trees can be constructed. It would be nice if this page is improved, but that will happen someday. --Aranae 03:40, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is also the main article for an important category and should be kept for that reason as well. --Aranae 03:46, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 03:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Quigley

• Delete - vanity and useless.Gorrister 16:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn —Xezbeth 16:20, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, nn. VladMV ٭ ^talk 19:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• We could wait for more information. Nah Delete Dsmdgold 00:55, 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 delete. – ABCD 03:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aaron brigatti

• Delete - vanity and useless. Gorrister 16:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity Dsmdgold 17:36, 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. – ABCD 03:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reedie

• Delete - not worthy of an encyclopedia. If anything, should be on the Reed College page.Gorrister 16:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 06:58, 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. -

Uzzy

• Delete - useless and not worthy of an encylopedia.Gorrister 16:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• There is a word. It's a proper name that is a contraction of Uzziel, however, not this. So no transwiki to Wiktionary. As far as I can tell, there is no person/place/concept/thing. And this is, of course, an obvious attack page. Delete. Uncle G 20:16, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
• Delete, attack page. Megan1967 06:59, 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 redirect to

• Delete - OK, I give up, what's this for? Gorrister 17:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to
    Hypothetico-deductive method. Sarg
    21:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to
  Hypothetico-deductive method, nothing to merge. Megan1967
  07:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:40, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Garrett Stebbins

• Delete - looks to be somebody attempted a vanity page, but failed. Gorrister 17:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm speedying this as a personal attack on an identifiable person. --Tony Sidaway|Talk

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. ugen64 23:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SuperShadow

To some, this may appear to be a vanity article for the operator of a Star Wars rumor mill and fan-fiction website. Should this be deleted in accordance with the

• Keep - It is important to warn people about this guy. As long as George Lucas is not doing anything about this guy, it is important, to inform people about this hoax LordofHavoc 13:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this page needs to be deleted so badly that it hurts.Gorrister 18:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Internet handles are not encyclopedic. Out of curiousity, why do you continue to phrase your nominations as questions when you know it pisses off a large number of people? Are you trying to intentionally spite them? Do you seriously think that phrasing as a question is a superior way to nominate? Or do you just enjoy being contrary? DaveTheRed 20:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. All the important things in it are unverifiable, according to the article itself. Almost certainly vanity. Notability not established by anything presented in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: notable net-loon. The whole point is that he talks cobblers. --Phil | Talk 12:01, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but modify: he is nuts, but people need to know that he's a fraud. This entry needs to be modified, though, as it is almost an entire copy paste of "About the REAL SuperShadow" website. - Tokakeke 8:45, March 30, 2005
  • The above from 63.191.200.162. —Korath (Talk) 01:41, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: This is not a vanity page by definition, since it affects a larger group of people, namely Star Wars fans. - J. Swift 7:59, March 31, 2005
  • The above from 208.39.131.105. —Korath (Talk) 01:41, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn lucascruft. ComCat 02:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivial. Indrian 23:50, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but modify: As J. Swift said, Supershadow is something/someone that actively affects Star Wars fandom, not just some random fanboy with delusions. The man and his site are a constant cause of discussion and controversy among (online) Star Wars fans, and I can't think of any major SW website that hasn't written something about him (check out the external links), so I don't consider an entry on him to be 'vanity' (a somewhat paradoxical term when you consider what it actually says about him). However, it does need to be changed; the structure is really all-over-the-place, most of the subheadings about the sections of his site aren't really necessary. Colonelcraud 18:05, April 2 (EST)
• Keep, out of all the star wars pages this is by far the most enclylopedic, as it describes something extrinisic to the plot. This is the exact opposite of the ghastly and horrible 7 styles of lightsabre fighting page which I believe it is a grand atrocity that it was allowed to be kept.
  • Anon vote from 67.180.61.179
• Keep as part of Star Wars culture. Not vanity. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:08, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - borderline nonsense, vanity, junk. CDC (talk) 17:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but modify: The guy is completely off his rocker. The problem is that some might not see this and will believe that he actually has the connections he claims to have. It would be good to see some improvements, though, as already mentioned. - Treesloth, 9:54 AM, 11 Apr 05
  • The above from 70.56.102.154. --GRider\^talk 16:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. It doesn't have to be self-written to be considered vain. Radiant_* 18:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete he may be a famous crank, but outside of star wars fandom he's not notable.  ALKIVAR™ 19:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, for reasons stated. I think the article was much better before a lot of the information in the past 15 or so edits was added, and it certainly should be cleaned up. But it's notable, as others have stated. 5,080 Google hits, at least the first 6 pertain to this article.
• Keep. A useful reference for anyone who wants background on this guy or just wants a good laugh. --DarthGroznii 15:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I think it is notable, Supershadow is a pretty controversial figure from what I have checked so far and this article explains that he is a fraud.--Milicz 21:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As per above. Meelar (talk) 21:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is necessary so that Star wars fans won't be ripped off for money by this phony again. [[User:RM 21:52, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Above is not User:RM but 192.88.94.254's first edit. jni 16:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a hoot. It also could keep some people from being ripped off by this guy.
  Doug teh H-Nut (talk)
  5:10 PM EST Apr. 15, '05
• Keep - this page is about someone who actively influences star wars fandom
  • The above from 208.180.133.103; it was his third edit. —Korath (Talk) 11:34, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep'* To many people believe that SS is the real deal.
  • The above from D.Breezy; it was his first edit. —Korath (Talk) 15:54, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Climate of the Alps. —Korath (Talk) 01:42, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Vine Region of the Alps

This page has no discernable content, does not say what part of the Alps it is talking about, and was only created by being removed from another article where it was also unwanted. The only link is from the Alps page. Justinc 18:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Most of the
  Glacial Region of the Alps, into Climate of the Alps. Martg76
  21:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I see didnt realise that they were Brittanica fragments. Still in my opinion best to delete it (possibly some of the otehrs too, although they are slightly better than this one). Its just not a good starting point to make something with actual content. It is not a term that is used - every entry on google is a copy of this article... Justinc 22:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Martg's suggestion. Megan1967 07:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the lot of 'em. Information does not want to be alone. Radiant_* 09:49, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as Martg suggested. Capitalistroadster 11:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ok, have done a merge into Climate of the Alps. Havent deleted the individual articles yet. Any comments? Its still a big load of garbage, but hey at least it is all in one place... Justinc 17:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) Turned the other articles into redirects now merged. Justinc 21:57, 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. – ABCD 03:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

X! Records

A couple of CD-Rs doth not a record label make. --Wahoofive 18:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep It is a small start, but give us some time and the article will grow. warpozio 22:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• delete, sorry, but it's not the size of the article, it's the size of the record label. Come back when you meet the
  Kappa
  23:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, record label vanity. DaveTheRed 05:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, label vanity. Megan1967 07:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, nn. VladMV ٭ ^talk 19:32, 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 and redirect to

Neologism. --Wahoofive 19:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Well looky here! Someone has an album to sell. Merge to
  xenharmonic. Uncle G
  22:28, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • Xenharmonic is equally dubious, but I'd go along with a redirect. --Wahoofive
    22:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, though it seems like the word should be "xenotonal". As it is it sounds like a new sedative drug, and the article in and of itself isn't very good. Haikupoet 01:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to
  Xenharmonic. Megan1967
  07:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:44, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Xess

Vanity band page from Lithuania. They have one EP out. --Wahoofive 19:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep, they seem to be famous enough in their home country. Strong keep if expansion of the article make it more verifiable. bbx 03:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with reservations. Article needs expansion. It's a pity their website is only in Lithuanian otherwise I could do a write up like the Without Face (Hungarian goth metal band) article during it's VfD sometime ago. As pointed out by Bbx they have won awards in Lithuania and have some uniqueness and notability in the Baltic states, but this would be pushing it for overall notability. Megan1967 07:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep award-winning Lithuanian bands
  Kappa
  09:36, 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 and redirect to SimEarth. ugen64 23:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SNES Simearth

I am requesting this page be deleted. What wikipedia is not a game guide

I am amending this request as a clean up and merge. SYSS Mouse 16:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with SimEarth, which is a notable game. Radiant_* 09:50, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with SimEarth - I agree. Rickyrab 09:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I am NOT writing a game guide I am merely explaining the aspects of the game. This version is VERY different than the PC version. Stovetopcookies 03:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• List of Wonders in Civilization could be considered as well. Don't be so quick to judge to works of others until you recognize your own actions.

The difference is that you went too far in explaining the "aspects". It may not be a game guide but it still looks like a game manual. In the List of Wonders in Civilization case had I pur the requirements and the effects of the wonder it would be deleted as well. I have amended the request. SYSS Mouse 16:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If I removed things like the omega energy requiements and just list and describe each of the lifeforms, etc, would that be considered a reasonable amount of detail to incorporate? Stovetopcookies 17:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, articles on games are not the same as game guides.
  Kappa
  08:14, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into a SimEarth section about the differences between the PC and SNES versions. Mgm|^(talk) 08:21, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. I am in complete agreement with MacGyverMagic on this one. Sjakkalle 08:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Yeah, what MacGyverMagic said. KingTT 14:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• How about the last two posters try again. This time, try to actually present viable reasons instead of just "duh, whatever he said" Stovetopcookies 16:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Mrwojo
    15:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: This article is showing the different aspects of the game. Extensive as it may be, it is providing a clear and thurough wealth of information wih regard to the subject. 130.156.3.254 00:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, simcruft. ComCat 02:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Informative article. Klonimus 03:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into SimEarth and clean up. At the moment it's an outline (or guide the text itself says) of how to play the game rather than an article about the game, so what's currently there could be transwikied to WikiBooks Game Guides and Strategy.
  Mrwojo
  15:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki game guides to Wikibooks. —Korath (Talk) 00:06, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 03:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

trout sniffer

It's certainly a phrase, and a pejorative one, and as such an article about it (rather than about trout sniffers, whatever they are) belongs in Wiktionary not Wikipedia. But I cannot find any evidence whatsoever that verifies the claim in this article, no evidence has been supplied, and not even the people who use the phrase seem to know exactly what it means. As such, it's not worth transwikiing. Uncle G 19:38, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

• Delete - Don't believe it's true.Gorrister 20:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - FWIW, UrbanDictionary.com defines it as "lesbian." FreplySpang (talk) 21:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 07:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn lesbocruft. ComCat 02:42, 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 redirect. Rossami (talk) 04:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apathyism

Neologism of no real relevance, only vaguely interesting because it is a homophone for Apatheism. Kelly Martin 20:05, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to apatheism. Meelar (talk) 20:46, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Make into redirect to Apatheism, which is what I'd originally done with it when I spotted it. First article by a new user; see User talk:DrBobStirling and User talk:Mindspillage. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a redirect is appropriate. Kelly Martin 21:18, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Why not? We have redirects for misspellings all the time. Meelar (talk) 01:28, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Apatheism. Delete Megan1967 07:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually in this instance a redirect is probably not the best solution. Megan1967 07:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Apatheism. Rewritten Article. I disagree strongly with the original Apatheism stub. I believe it overstates how broadly apathetic an Apatheist needs to be, and I was trying to express that interpretation without vandalizing the original stub. With further reading, I now believe that I went about it in an inappropriate way. I'm learning from it however. DrBobStirling 03:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I just don't care. Merge with Apatheism. Dsmdgold 00:15, 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 redirect. Rossami (talk) 04:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is the Song That Never Ends

Duplicate of

• If you wish to merge an article, you do not need to bring it to VfD first. Just be bold and merge it. DaveTheRed 20:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Be
  duplicate articles, and someone will get around to it. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk
  20:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Sadly there is no procedure for merging duplicate responses in Vfd. (LOL)
    Kappa
    21:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with
  The Song That Never Ends, no redirect. Megan1967
  07:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 03:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ethno-blogger

You would expect anything mildly notable in the world of blogging to show up. This manages 14/16 not very special hits on Google [8] so delete as non-notable neologism. --Henrygb 20:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism and / or academic vanity: a term coined by Goran Batic and Nancy Mauro-Flude during a confrence called on "A Decade of Web Design". Ianb 07:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - neologism Fawcett5 04:27, 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 redirect to

No real basis for article. Inarticulate drivle.Gorrister 20:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to
  Backward_message --Wahoofive
  21:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect without merge --Henrygb 23:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to
  Backward message, no merge. Megan1967
  07:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 03:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ethnoinformatics

A merger of ethnology and Informatics, but no Google hits [9] so delete as original research. --Henrygb 21:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unverifiable. DaveTheRed 05:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, neologism. Megan1967 07:47, 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. – ABCD 03:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kiliminjaro super kids

Roll playing on a message board, I have found no other mention of this on other sites on the internet. Delete --Poorpete 21:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, the article makes no sense, and could almost be speedied as patent nonsense. At any rate, Kiliminjar super kids gets no google hits. DaveTheRed 05:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:49, 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. – ABCD 03:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

twunt

There's no such person/place/concept/thing as a twunt, and therefore no encyclopaedia article to be had. There's a shiny twunt dictionary article in Wiktionary already. And this isn't sexual slang. It's just yet another pejorative word. Uncle G 21:20, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable slang. Megan1967 07:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism created by "cunning linguists." Oh, puh-LEEZE!  :^P - Lucky 6.9 23:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism Fawcett5 04:28, 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 delete. – ABCD 03:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ernie Werbel

Vanity. FreplySpang (talk) 21:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Sure is. Delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:52, 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 delete. – ABCD 03:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tom Grimley

Vanity page --Wahoofive 21:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no notability established.
  speak up!
  23:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Fawcett5 04:29, 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 ambiguous. I'm going to call this as a "default to keep" and then exercise my rights as an ordinary editor to be bold and turn this into a redirect to the winery. I see no potential for this particular article to ever expand past a sub-stub. I do agree with Justinc's argument that the google test is skewed in this case because of hits for retailers. Rossami (talk) 04:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edizione-Pennino

• Keep - just needs a liitle more info. It's a stub. Dennyboy34

This page has no content. There is no point writing an article about a particular wine if even the winery where it is made has no entry (which could mention the wine in passing perhaps). It is not famous. Justinc 21:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete oenocruft. Note that the page is not literally blank (which I what I thought Justinc meant). FreplySpang (talk) 21:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable wines. I'm assuming 1,290 google hits indicates notability. If you think there's no point writing an article about a particular wine you can't have seen
  Kappa
  22:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I am in favour of articles about particular wines. I have seen
    Chateau d'Yquem where only one wine is well known). It is fine to list and discuss the wines under an article about the winery, but in cases like this unless the winery has an article there is no point in having one for the wine. 1,290 google hits is not relevant: lots of online shops sell wines. Justinc
    22:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, in the interests of consensus I've struck out my vote.
      Kappa
      00:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Well someone has at least corrected the factual errors and created an entry for the winery. Now its more marginal. Justinc 10:15, 4 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. -

Limits to religious freedom

This page is original research, and apparently somewhat pointless. It was created by Sirkumsize, and then linked to from Circumcision, after the same text was removed from that article[10]. It should be deleted. - Jakew 21:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The first sentence reads "The purpose of this article is to explore philosphical views on whether and when it is acceptible for a state to limit religious freedoms of its citizen." Unless someone can show me otherwise, this looks like a delete as original research. Rossami (talk) 00:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I encourage Sirkumsize to work on existing articles instead of creating these small, over-general articles. You should also take another look at the original research policy, as well as
  WP:NPOV. Rhobite
  00:35, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the Wikibooks Issue Guide, where it could maybe be put to good use. Tuf-Kat 00:56, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this article is a stub that could become a larger more comprehensive article. It is NPOV. References can be found for existing work in it. There is a precidence for wikipedia articles of this nature. Sirkumsize 01:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Also this page provides a religious counterpart to the medical
    Bioethics of neonatal circumcision page. Sirkumsize
    01:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • But it doesn't mention circumcision at all. It has no references, either. Rhobite 02:11, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • This article is a stub. The issue of limits to religious freedom is a broad subject that goes beyond the circumcision issue. Sirkumsize 02:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's the rough draft for a high-school essay. Delete. --Calton | Talk 04:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Issue Guide: Religious circumcision of children (since that what this is really about). --
  Angr
  05:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Everything this article could ever hope to cover is already better covered at
  Freedom of Religion. DaveTheRed
  05:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV original research. Megan1967 07:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this stub already better covered as part of
  Freedom of Religion. −Woodstone
  14:20, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I don't see the part in that article where limitations are discussed. Sirkumsize 15:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV, original research, anything of value already covered better elsewhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, The question of limits to religious freedom is far wider than male circumcision. It includes such issues as the right to refuse blood transfusions and other practices that touch on people's religious beliefs. For example, Orthodox Jews and Muslims have rules about the slaughtering of animals. These practices may conflict with other people's demands for painless killing of animals. In Australia and America some pharmacists will not deal in birth control methods or sell condoms. This conflicts with the right of others to use these devices. Whose rights should prevail? These are the issues that need to be canvassed in an article on the limits of religious freedom.Michael Glass 01:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Bravo Michael Glass. Please feel free to enhance the main article by adding these points. Sirkumsize 03:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At the present time, the entire article is either POV or Original Research, both of which are unacceptable. I'm sure all the other "Delete" votes will be happy to join me in reconsidering its validity at such time as the article has some content that does not violate basic wikipedia policy on these and other potential problems, including abuse. I agree with Michael Glass and Angr that there is potential for the article, but nothing currently contained in the article qualifies as such. Tuf-Kat's idea also has merit...but still only with the same caveat that the current material is essentially, as Calton so succinctly puts it, really only hen-scratching for the outline of a High School-level persuasion essay, and all of it, as I've already said, POV or OR, neither of which are worthy of inclusion as even a {stub}. Tomer ^TALK 06:14, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete same reasons as above. As far as I know, in political theory and in law, the issue is not the "limits" of religious freedom per se but rather the boundary between and definition of the public and private spheres. It would be good to have an article exploring contemporary critiques of the modern liberal state from the view of theorists like Taylor, or critiques of the multiplication of minority rights and the intrusion of the private into the public by theorists like Barry -- but this article is not it, nor is it set up to be it. It is an opinion piece fluffed up to imitate an encyclopedia article by using weasel terms like "some people" without every specifiying who those people are. It's just a personal essay. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete an opinion piece Fawcett5 04:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Very obvious POV to attack religion. SF2K1 06:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. JamesMLane 00:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --
  EnSamulili
  13:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I note that most comments on this board have been votes for deletion. Considering what was in the stub, this is a perfectly understandable reaction. However, I am convinced that the article can grow into something far more important than its somewhat inauspicious beginnings would suggest. I would suggest that people have another look at it now. I think that most would conclude that the article is no longer an attack on religion. Nor is it simply a dispute about the rights and wrongs of circumcision. Michael Glass 03:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Congrats, now it's an anti-circumcision opinion piece. Bang-up job. My vote remains the same. Rhobite 03:06, 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 speedy delete. – ABCD 03:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yonatan Abramski

Tragic, but not encyclopedic. No google hits. Delete. Gamaliel 22:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 07:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Charles Matthews 09:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Fawcett5 04:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable. --Eliezer 09:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Why is the subject of the article notable? Gamaliel 18:22, 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. – ABCD 03:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

tangistics

Not a word. Not a concept. A complete fabrication. Uncle G 22:13, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

• Delete, agree with nomination.
  Kappa
  23:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism.
  speak up!
  05:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 07:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism Fawcett5 04:32, 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. – ABCD 15:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FFXIclopedia

Seems useless. -- user:zanimum (no timestamp)

• Only 6 google hits so delete.
  Kappa
  22:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website ad. Megan1967 09:02, 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 keep and move to

Nomination withdrawn as sources have now been cited by qrc. Would support a rename if appropriate. --GRider\^talk 17:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: do you think that the fact that you currently have two Requests for Comment and a
  speak up!
  23:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and/or Transwiki 1) I've heard about this many times in the Star Wars EU; it's not something made up by fans. 2) A source is cited. Did you not even look at the article's history? The person who made the article gave a link to where he was coming from. 3) Sidenote: GRider has a lot of nerve and shouldn't be making VfD nominations. Aidje 00:22, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
• Keep and/or Transwiki. The source [11] does seem to check out. But I applaud GRiders nerve in nominating all kinds of fancruft equally, mostly people stick to the minority stuff.
  Kappa
  00:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep After reading "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones: The Visual Dictionary," (DK Publishing, Dr. David West Reynolds) which included information on the fact that certain Jedi/Sith use certain forms, I seeked out the more complete explanation of them. The book didn't go into detail; I looked on the Web and finally found that source [12]. After cross-checking the information in the book (which is considered true Star Wars material) with that webpage, I found the webpage to be accurate to its best, so I decided to add the information to Wikipedia. Assuming that that webpage wasn't the only source (a likely source was Star Wars Insider, from which that webpage probably got its information), I noticed also that a file I downloaded for a Star Wars game noted in the readme those same Combat Forms with all information the same. I did not cite the Visual Dictionary book because its information on the forms was less than complete, and I did not cite the downloaded file's readme's combat Form information because it was exactly the same as the webpage. So to my best knowledge it is true. --qrc 03:01, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) Additional edit: ah, after revisiting the source, I noticed that it did indeed cite Star Wars Insider Issue 62. (See the very bottom of the page.)
• Keep. There is now several sources. It's not original research, I've read about the different forms on various sites myself. -- Crevaner 07:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Megan1967 07:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to
  Lightsaber combat and keep as important concept. Radiant_*
  09:52, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Transwiki to Star Wars Wiki. No rename needed. This needs to stop, GRider. --

Riffsyphon1024 01:07, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is the ultamite example of fancruft. This article is completely unencyclopedic, and could never be encyclopedic.
  • (Unsigned comment by
    speak up!
    06:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep though I would prefer to see it renamed as
  Lightsaber combat, and redirect from "Seven forms...". -- Lochaber
  11:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep IF renamed Lightsaber combat and much work is done to diferentiate between the content of films and the terms from the EU. Drhaggis 01:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)