Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 29

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 01:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd argue that very few bus routes, if any, are encyclopedic. I don't see how this one is any different from dozens of others in NYC, and countless others elsewhere in the world. Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. CDC (talk) 00:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - as above. --
  Orelstrigo
  00:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I hope WP never gets to the point where every bus schedule in the friggin' world is listed. --Deadcorpse 02:28, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• delete. why was this added?
  Avriette
  03:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wouldn't this become out-of-date rather quickly anyway? I doubt someone would be quite bored enough to update this article every time this route changes. android↔talk 04:50, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Condense into a line or two and merge into something. --SPUI (talk) 05:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agreed with other arguments. Bus routes aren't encyclopedic. Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. When I saw the title I thought it was goiing to be about the bus lane on the
  M4 Motorway in the UK, and was poised to suggest a redirect to there. However, just as you should never judge a book by its cover, you should neve judge a Wikipedia article by its title. Thryduulf
  16:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since individual bus routes are not encyclopedic. I could support a list of bus routes in New York, but not an individual article about each of them. Sjakkalle 06:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since nothing in this articlec is worth merging into a wider article about New York buses. Chris 21:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, transitory, un-encyclopedic. -- Dcfleck 15:10, 2005 Apr 3 (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 01:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity, spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 00:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Appears to be a misplaced user page, but because of the content and since User:Yangdav has no contributions but this "article", I am not changing my vote. - Mike Rosoft 00:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but maybe give him the opportunity to make it his user page so that his effort wasn't wasted. --Deadcorpse 02:31, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• delete. on the other hand, i'm tempted to just make it his user page and speedy the original.
  Avriette
  03:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Just userfy and be done with it. Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy (I like that term). I started a talk page for this article on 27 Mar 2005 and explained to it's authors, especially User:Yangdav, the difference between Article and User namespaces. I suggested that either he move (userfy) it or that someone would do it for him. I have not received a response. hydnjo talk 19:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No point making it his user page, he's not a user, having only come here once to create the article and never returning. He's not interested in contributing to Wikipedia, he's just spamming us with some self-promoting drivel. Make it a user page and we'll be providing him free hosting for his little bit of vanity. Just get rid of it. Amazing how many people blatantly ignore the warning: "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business." — Trilobite (Talk) 20:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Dcfleck 15:48, 2005 Apr 3 (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 01:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. CDC (talk) 00:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. --Deadcorpse 02:33, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• delete. worthless article.
  Avriette
  03:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A student wrote a paper. Ha! Oleg Alexandrov 04:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --Wikimol 15:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Dcfleck 15:49, 2005 Apr 3 (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) 01:00, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it was vanity, but this guy has probably been dead for at least a hundred years. Anyway, he's some guy who was in the Navy for eight years, and he's not notable. CDC (talk) 00:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I'd say delete, but do we have a policy on naval officers? Meelar (talk) 01:20, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, he was a Captain in the Royal Navy, died in the Crimea War, has a memorial in St Pauls in London. His father Edmund Lyons is more famous/higher ranking and probably deserves an article, I'm unsure about this guy--
  nixie
  01:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep. if somebody can clean this up, it's a bio-stub. i mean the article is ugly, but there's no reason to delete it.
  Avriette
  03:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment not sure about this one. Did he only get a memorial in St Paul's because his father was Commander in Chief of the fleet? Or does the line on his memorial having just returned from the command of the squadron in the Sea of Azov where his brilliant successes were warmly acknowledged by his Sovereign suggest some more notable achievement? Average Earthman 08:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to his father's article, unless notability further established. Being the son of a notable person does not make you inherently notable. Radiant_* 09:59, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep dead people with memorials in St Pauls.
  Kappa
  11:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Died in battle in command of HMS Miranda while engaging the batteries of Sevastopol in the Crimean War. [1] The crew paid for the memorial at St Paul's. Capitalistroadster 12:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep and expand to establish notability as listed by Capitalistroadster. A memorial in St. Paul's with some vague peacock words does not automatically establish WP-worthy significance in my opinion, but it sounds like his actions, at least at Sevastopol, aroused considerable attention. Source material ought to contain more specifics that can be checked and added to the article. Perhaps a disambig between him and his father might be appropriate. 205.247.102.130 21:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Above vote was mine, not logged in. Barno 21:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. --GRider\^talk 18:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• KeepI've categorised it. Article is incomplete and statement on length of service by the nominator is clearly incorrect. Wincoote 01:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --
  Talk to me.
  20:21, 2 Apr 2005 (CST)
• Keep. Ridiculously bogus (non-policy) nomination and an example of non-criterion "notability" being measured by the breadth of the nominator's apparently wilful ignorance - David Gerard 09:47, 3 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 01:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Band vanity. Yes, they have albums, but if they're available 'exclusively through www.crashmartinez.com', that means they don't have a real label or distributor - anyone can make a CD. CDC (talk) 00:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. --Deadcorpse 02:34, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• delete. at least capitalize the "M" if you're going to write your own vanity page.
  Avriette
  03:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 08:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, band vanity, non-notable. By the way, allmusic.com doesn't know them. VladMV ٭ ^talk 19:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, definitely non-notable band vanity. Hey, I've made an album, but you don't see me making a page about my Tunes for the 21st Century, do you? --
  ?

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. ugen64 23:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article claims that this is a "proposed" Star Trek spinoff, and has two supposed references - however both references are broken links. Unless there is some proof that this was proposed by an actual Star Trek producer (not just a fan), it should be deleted as speculation. Rhobite 00:40, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It already provides a link to an article on Memory Alpha, unneeded here. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:32, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Star Trek, other storylines. There is a TV subsection which this could possibly fit into. This is listed under [2] and TV series [3] as "Star Trek Babies":

"During the 1980's, a proposed animated series was in the works at Marvel Productions, then later moved to development at Hanna-Barbera. Series was similar in concept to "Muppet Babies," but with the crew of the original "Star Trek" series, reduced by a 'space cloud' to tots, though still with full knowledge and capability of running the Enterprise. Though concept sketches were undoubtedly produced, so far as TBTC has been able to determine, no actual footage or finished work was ever completed." On quite a few message boards I Googled, I notice there were rumours of a proposed Warner Brothers film that was discussed in in 1996 but ultimately scrapped. Megan1967 08:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• merge as per Megan1967. Thryduulf 16:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above although I vaguely remember this was an April Fool's Joke years ago. 23skidoo 21:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, more important than an article on a pokemon character. --Spinboy 23:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as it was never actually produced I don't think it warrants its own ST-series article --Hooloovoo 16:57, 6 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 and redirect to MUD. – ABCD 01:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

even if this was verifiable (google returns nothing relevant), it would need to be hugely expanded. 213.78.90.5 00:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. I cannot find anything CustardJack
• Delete. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:31, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like a prank. --Deadcorpse 02:36, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to MUD (which is often spelled in lower-case). Delete content first if you like. —Korath (Talk) 02:37, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to MUD. Megan1967 08:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect tp MUD. This would appear to be some crappy old videogame, although that is not what the article says. Jacoplane 17:06, 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 01:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Non-notable, advertising.
  speak up!
  00:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• 0 unique Google hits. Vanity. Delete -- Riffsyphon1024 01:33, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. Also note the text seems to be lifted verbatim from the website it links to. -- Deadcorpse 02:38, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 08:33, 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 01:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article seems to be just an advertisement for an owner of a kickboxing studio in Washington state. No pages link to it.

• Delete, vanity. -- Deadcorpse 02:39, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity --Briangotts 04:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• ""Delete"" ytinav !! Klonimus 09:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Jonathunder 08:18, 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 delete. – ABCD 01:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shenzhou 12 has block-compressed revisions. – ABCD 01:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chinese space missions that may be planned in the future, they are so unplanned that they do not appear in the

• Delete any that haven't been scheduled and publically announced by the Chinese authorities.Average Earthman 08:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable (yet). Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Megan1967 08:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Until confirmed by Chinese officials, Delete. --
  Kitch
  15:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This article (in Chinese) from April 2004 mentions an official source that Shenzhou 8 through 11 will involve spacewalks and docking:[4]. Whether this sort of minimal information is enough to justify an essentially placeholder article is open to question. -- Curps 17:51, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

This article is just quotes from other web sites, not a real article. Only one other article (

• Delete. No content. --Briangotts 04:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. Google for Joan + Kroc + Institute gets 20,800 hits [5]. Seems notable enough. Could be rewritten into a decent article. DaveTheRed 05:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  There is more than one Joan B. Kroc Institute (e.g. [6]), but the Notre Dame one still gets 7000 hits [7] and has a site at [8] --Henrygb 23:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Rewritten. I rewrote the article as, I think, a valid stub about the organization, using information from their website. DaveTheRed 05:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep DaveTheRed's rewrite as good stub. Seems to be notable within its field. Capitalistroadster 12:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Change my vote to Keep' and expand based on rewrite. --Briangotts 16:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. Any institute created with a $50 million dollar gift of McDonalds money is notable.
  • sorry, forgot to sign :-0 --
    ^gab
    04:59, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
• Keep in present form. (And best wishes for its success.) Dpbsmith (talk) 01:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep.
  8^D said it best. --Centauri
  02:29, 1 Apr 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 01:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While the net has shown me that anything is possible and anything can be fetishised, Google spits out nothing on this. Someone's invention that hasn't caught on, I'm guessing. --Paul Soth 01:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC

• Delete. Seems to be a joke about furry fandom. Do they worship at the Church of Appliantology perhaps? — Gwalla | Talk 03:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. original research or just plain madeupTjc 21:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• delete. same reasons as the above. checked groups. and web. google, found nothing. kinda having dirty thoughts about my television now, though.
  Avriette
  21:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As far as I can tell, this is an invention of the author. Kairos 21:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Funny. Delete. humblefool® 21:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral Unless this is original research, keep.
  • User:Sniffandgrowl was created today; he has only two edits not to vfds, one of them to his user page. —Korath (Talk) 02:27, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dsmdgold 00:10, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• The concept certainly exists, if the OS-tan are any indication, but the term is kinda new. Should be merged with the general personification article.

Yeah, I suppose it exists out there somewhere, but I'm also sure there are people who are aroused by floor cleaner. Even if someone came up with a name for such a fetish and a supposed community around it, if it fails the Google test, it's just not worth listing. Also, you need an account before you can take part in these votes. I do hope you're aware of that. --Paul Soth 09:44, 3 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 01:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pure dicdef, and I doubt if it has any potential to become encyclopedic. Delete.--

• Delete, dicdef, copyvio from American Heritage Dictionary.
  speak up!
  05:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 08:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteTjc 21:13, 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 20:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Teenager vanity. -- Deadcorpse 03:31, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, the same IP that created this page also added a list of supposedly famous people from Revere, MA on this page. While some of the names may be famous, I doubt the veracity of the list, as she lists herself there. -- Deadcorpse 03:42, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable.
  speak up!
  05:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity and no establishment of notability. As for adds to
  AMA
  ] 07:46, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • And never trust anyone born after 1980. -
    AMA
    ]
• Delete. No establishment of any achievements significantly beyond the norm. Average Earthman 08:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but I take much offence at Keith Tyler's comments... I do hope they are in jest :p.
  t^g_e^c_k
  ) 13:28, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete Vanity. Dsmdgold 22:47, 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 merge with Duke Nukem 3D. Sjakkalle 14:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Another one from SamuraiClinton/GoofyGuy/TheSamurai. Follows the recent pattern of: select an obscure topic from a video game, and write an incomplete list-style article about that topic. At least it isn't Monsters from Duke Nukem Forever. android↔talk 03:59, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Tasteless useless article. Oleg Alexandrov 04:28, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Briangotts 04:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Couldn't we Merge this with Duke Nukem 3D? DaveTheRed 05:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, no redirect. This guy is really treading on thin ice. - Lucky 6.9 05:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Duke Nukem 3D. Megan1967 08:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per
  WP:FICT. Radiant_*
  12:20, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested. VladMV ٭ ^talk 19:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Recent policy consensus dictates that this should be merged and redirected. --GRider\^talk 18:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. There's no need for a separate article on this. 23skidoo 21:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Given the improvement in the article since it was nominated [9], I'm not going to list it on cleanup, though any of you are of course free to. —Korath (Talk) 01:07, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Vanity/advertisement. Delete. Eric119 04:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, although the article doesn't specify what Jade Solid Gold is, a googling shows that it is probably a TV show in China. This article reads like a promotion, but I don't think it would belong in Wikipedia even if rewritten. -- Deadcorpse 05:53, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, show promo. Megan1967 08:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Jade Solid Gold is a programme by TVB, but the writing that currently does not suit what a Wikipedia is. This article is need to be wikified to raise to the higher standard of the Wikipedia article. --Shinjiman 15:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep TV shows from major companies. Cleanup as necessary.
  Kappa
  19:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable TV shows such as this one. There's far too many near-identical TV shows, and nearly every TV company is a major company. Radiant_* 09:10, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • So when some poor Hong Kong person tries to look up their favorite music show, they should get nothing, and think "Oh, it's not notable enough for wikipedia, must be just the same as some other shows, I'd better look up
    Kappa
    09:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, exactly. Radiant_* 15:24, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth, VfD is not cleanup.
  All television shows are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. --GRider\^talk
  00:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That's your POV, not policy - and "Nubian Design Collective" you're referring to is not even a TV show. Radiant_* 09:31, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • My only hope is that you've intentionally missed the point. --GRider\^talk 17:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and send to cleanup. Every TV programme in a major channel is worth an article. -Hapsiainen 09:52, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and since this programme is notable in TVB in 1980s, and many major Canton-pop are coming from this programme and become the pop-signer. (example: Aaron Kwok, Leon Lai, Jacky Cheung and Andy Lau in 1990s) Shinjiman 10:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. — Instantnood 10:45, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and major re-write. SchmuckyTheCat 15:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:13, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A pointless list of items. Oleg Alexandrov 04:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Err, no, a Google search would have told you that this is a valid term in abnormal psychology, albeit without any context. Someone with knowledge of the subject area should Merge this into that page (or a subpage thereof) and redirect there. android↔talk 04:47, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Serial killer. This topic is already mentioned there so no need to merge. Megan1967 08:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important psychological term referring to early warning signs for serial killers.I will work on cleaning this up tomorrow. Capitalistroadster 12:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in anticipation of cleanup.
  Kappa
  12:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. (Crossed out my delete vote above.) Will it need to be moved to
  MacDonald triad? Oleg Alexandrov
  15:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Now sourced, given context, and moved to
  MacDonald triad. humblefool®
  21:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Never mind my merge vote above; looks good now. One thing to note: if an article on VfD would be well-served by a move, I know it's tempting to do it, but the VfD notice explicitly says not to do this; for one thing, it breaks the link from the article back to the VfD discussion, and IIRC it makes things slightly harder on the admin that carries out the consensus decision. android↔talk 22:55, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Burger King Keep as above. Radiant_* 15:23, 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 01:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First person vanity, complete with email address. maybe a misplaced user page? -- Deadcorpse 05:21, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Looks like it to me. I'm going to redirect it. - Lucky 6.9 05:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, one problem, the page was created by 203.42.242.131 (talk - contributions), not by a user called AmeliaKB. Can anonymous IP users have user pages? -- Deadcorpse 05:47, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Depends if other users use that IP address. Megan1967 08:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, vanity. VladMV ٭ ^talk 19:54, 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) 01:16, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Apparently a
  speak up!
  05:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 08:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• "Unverifiable"? Google is your friend: [10], [11], [12] and more. Well, verifiably not Venetian: he works in Parma, as the article says. Parma is quite some way from Venice, and I don't know how Venice got into this at all. "Mis-titled"? Certainly, and I'd rush to retitle it, but this would throw a spanner into the VfD process. "Possible vanity"? Perhaps 70% or more of new articles are possible vanity, but what makes you think that the possibility here is more than negligible? Admittedly our man hasn't kicked a ball around in front of a US audience or appeared as a Pokemon character (two ironclad guarantees of notability in WP, it seems), but keep. -- Hoary 10:48, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
• Keep luthiers who found schools. Cleanup as necessary
  Kappa
  19:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I hope I'm correct in assuming Kappa means "keep luthiers who establish schools", not "luthiers who managed to find a school which would accept them." Barno 21:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Concur w/
  speak up!
  06:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep An important contemporary luthier who’s instruments are obviously in demand and will likely maintain or increase their value. Need more aticles on current luthers like this one. Paradiso 07:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Looks notable to me. Keep and allow for melodic growth. Radiant_* 09:10, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and eventually retitle. Well done to Hoary for his research on an important figure in contemporary classicla music. Capitalistroadster 10:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • [Cough] Already retitled, actually (by
    Slac was just sleepy: I know that seeing article after article of vanity and trivia can do in my brain to the point where I hardly notice when the next article is actually worthwhile, and I don't suppose I'm unusual. -- Hoary
    10:11, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
• Keep re-written article. --Carnildo 19:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 21:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dictionary def, with only 4 google hits. I'd say offer it to wiktionary but I'm not sure they'd want it because I'm not sure it's a real word. Dictionary.com has no definitions for it. RJFJR 05:48, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment not sure about Metagrobology (looks like someone just made up this word) but the study of puzzles is more commonly known as Enigmatology. I guess this article could be rewritten, renamed and transwikied to Wiktionary as there is currently no entry for Enigmatology. Megan1967 08:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • There is now: Wiktionary:enigmatology. I suggest as a general principle that we do not construct dictionary articles in Wikipedia with the aim of giving them to Wiktionary. It is my experience that this does not work. In my experience, Wiktionary (with suitable prompting) can come up with dictionary articles from scratch in days that are far better than what Wikipedia can grow in months or even (in some cases) years. Uncle G 12:25, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
• Wiktionary would classify this as a
  enigmatology, where this subject is already (not) covered. Otherwise Delete, since there is nothing of encyclopaedic value to retain. Uncle G
  12:25, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
• Comment, well if this is a neologism I'm not sure a redirect would be appropriate since it is a "made up" word. Megan1967 06:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I am the original writer of this article. I thought it was worth adding as it does appear from time to time in my trade (puzzles). The eminent David Singmaster always calls himself a metagrobologist, and "metagrobologist" gets 194 hits on Google, not 4.

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 01:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. FreplySpang (talk) 06:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not very vain, though: "in dire need of an update".
  t^g_e^c_k
  ) 12:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like this is in dire need of a deletion. Non-notable, vanity auto-biography. Note that I moved this to new title Nadine Buchholz per its author's request. Consider userfying to User:Mekachu. jni 09:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 21:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be deleted or re-written? I think it should because of its heavily religious standpoint that might cheer some, but offend others. --WikiFan04 13:02, 26 Mar 2005 (CST)

• Comment: this looked like a copyvio [13], but the site says its stuff is in the
  bainer
  09:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Move →
  Number 777 conflicts with all the other number articles. --Allen3
  13:57, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see too much salvageable here. It's hopelessly POV, and almost all the references it makes are to the number 7, not 777. Reads like the sort of religious dogma that turns everything around to prove black is white. Anything that is slightly useful can be moved/merged to 777 (number). -R. fiend 06:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. --GRider\^talk 18:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content, and mark as requested article. Radiant_* 15:24, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons already stated. PatGallacher 23:47, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
• Keep. The article should be edited, not deleted. --
  Eleassar777
  12:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV and original research: "To some people the triple sevens (777) numerically symbolise Yahweh, the Father of Yeshua the Messiah." Where is the source for this? / Uppland 12:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: What exactly is the consensus on this, then? --
  ß
  19:48, 5 Apr 2005 (CDT)

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

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

Apparently a Sydney pub rock band. Attestations of notability are welcome.

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 08:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be vanity. --NormanEinstein 17:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, the band exists (Google:Exserts) but the article is pretty bad. Alphax ^τεχ 02:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! - This is an Australian punk band of an album and several singles. It's on my long, long list of Australian indie rock bands to write up. I'll see if I can bring the article to better shape - David Gerard 08:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, LP and one comp track appearance (my record collection is on the other side of the world and the memories in question are clearly rusty). I've tried to polish it up a bit - David Gerard 08:59, 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 merge, the main discussion being where to merge this. I will merge this and redirect to

• Merge with article on said protests. I know Wikt takes sayings but I doubt they take slogans unless of meme-level. Radiant_* 09:58, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary welcomes idioms, certainly. This isn't one. It's easily decomposed into its constituent words. Uncle G 12:31, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
• either expand with more background, or redirect/merge.
  dab (ᛏ)
  10:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as above. --InShaneee 16:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is a liberal chant for a recent protest. does not belong here. Drexel1 18:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to
  Popular opposition to war on Iraq, do not redirect --Teknic
  18:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. This slogan has been widely used by opponents of both Gulf Wars, and by opponents of American involvement in the middle-east in general. Slogan alone gets 57,000+ google hits, and has its own website. --
  ^gab
  19:44, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
• Delete Silly
  hippy screeching. Non-encyclopedic. A wise leader will always trade a plentiful renewable resource for a scarce non renewable one. Klonimus
  10:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to
  list of slogans, which could use some cleaning and de-linking. Also note that this slogan was used in the first gulf war as much as or more than the second one. -R. fiend
  06:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to
  Popular opposition to war on Iraq. Alfio
  13:23, 3 Apr 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 01:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Block-compress error. – ABCD 01:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Three minimalist composers with a a small selection of their works does not make a list of American pieces. I feel the page is unnecessary. I would not recommend it for expansion. Daniel Lawrence 09:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Concur with that, it's too broad for a list. There already are lists of groups or pieces by genre in a country. Delete. Radiant_* 14:26, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Concur. Delete. --Wahoofive 01:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary list. Megan1967 06:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, what about Template:Pieces-identity? Hyacinth 03:04, 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.

Anon vote discounted. My own vote is delete as neologism. Rossami (talk) 05:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An Encourager is the counterpart to a gainer and somewhat similar to a feeder. It is a term usually only used in the gay male community of the fat admiration subculture, or so we read. Well it certainly is a rum old world. Sorry, I mean delete as a gaymalefatadmirationcruft dicdef. -- Hoary 10:14, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

• Keep, has potential for expansion. And why is "gaymalefatadmiration" a reason for deletion
  Kappa
  11:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It isn't. Cruftiness is. But hats off to your rather apt "potential for expansion". (Burp!) -- Hoary 11:17, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
• Delete. I am myself a member of the "gay male community of the fat admiration subculture" (known more succinctly as the "chubby and chaser community") and I've never heard this term. --
  Angr
  12:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism. --InShaneee 16:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A neologism of a subculture of a subculture of a subculture which may as quickly disappear. Paradiso 10:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It would be a mistake to delete this page. Even though not everyone in that community may have heard the term it is certainly used and I have seen it mentioned on various sites for a number of years now. The number of links with references to "encourages" in the article proves that the term is quite widely used and has existed for some time now. The gay male community of the fat admiration subculture or chubby and chaser community has many, many sites, which shows that it is very large and like the term Encourager will probably exist as long as the internet does. This term is also mentioned in the Gainer article, which was written by someone else, and has an observation in the discussion page about its use by gays in the fat admiration community. If the description of the community is disliked it can be changed without deleting the article, though I do feel that is the most accurate way to describe it. To delete this article would be denying the proven fact that Encourager is a used term. -- dannyzau ...Actually not by User:dannyzau (a WP impossibility) or User:Dannyzau (who doesn't exist, or anyway has contributed nothing) but instead created in a series of edits by User:210.49.177.42 (contributions), the same IP number that was used to create the article.
  • Comment: 210.49.177.42, I think you'll agree that discouragement (let's say) is a widely used term in English, and indeed that it's vastly wider known than is encourager in your special sense. But it doesn't have an article, because it's merely a word, and WP is not a dictionary. (Meanwhile, Wiktionary is.) I've no idea why this subculture needs more than one article, rather than
    Feedee, Encourager, and perhaps more. -- Hoary
    10:59, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
    • How about merging the lot of them? Radiant_* 15:25, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • Good idea.
        Angr
        17:19, 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 01:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's another article that's nothing more than an epitaph on a gravestone Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nina Kay (Dot) Gore (1878 - 1963)

Wife of Thomas Pryor Gore,

mother of Nina Gore (Vidal Auchincloss) Olds (1903 - 1978),

maternal grandmother of Gore Vidal.

• Delete. I'm an inclusionist in general, but Wikipedia isn't a book of remembrance. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Maternal grandmother of Gore Vidal? Not notable enough for me. Delete. --
  Kitch
  15:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not-notable JoJan 17:48, 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) 01:21, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion last night by anon 198.70.89.43 with comment "very short, pointless text". No vote on my part at this time. -- Cyrius|✎ 12:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup, expand. I've heard the term. It's a huge trend in the porn industry right now. --InShaneee 16:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The porn industry's response to reality TV? Eh, sounds plausable. Google backs it up, 755,000+ for "reality porn", the first page of hits dedicated to this sub-genre. Keep. humblefool® 21:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a legitimate subgenre, not to mention a dominant Internet-based industry. Needs major expansion. It's possible that "reality porn" may be synonymous with "gonzo porn" which is addressed in the article gonzo, so maybe some sort of merge and redirect might be in order, too. 23skidoo 03:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but does need expanding. Ollie 16:14, 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. Rossami (talk) 05:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's no such specific person/place/concept/thing as a spack, and therefore no encyclopaedia article to be had. This isn't

• Delete - try
  spaz, perhaps? anyway, this is nowhere as widespread as spaz, and I'm willing to bet it's a neologism. humblefool®
  21:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I've heard it used- Redirect to
  nixie
  11:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:25, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• 20:18, Mar 31, 2005 RickK deleted "Fort Bleakeley" (hoax article, vandalized repeatedly, past its time to be deleted)

This article looks like a hoax to me. I smell a rat, in any case. The intro paragraph reads: "Fort Bleakeley is an isolated research facility on the west coast of Canada privately owned by Thunderstorm Corporations. It is currently in charge of the three orbiting satellite projects Prometheus, Icarus, and Mercurius. Its location is undisclosed, these projects being secret." "Fort Bleakeley" doesn't Google, nor does "Thunderstorm Corporations". Any Canadians out there who can confirm the existence of this "fort"? If not, then delete. --Plek 12:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as nonsense, before more is added as promised--
  nixie
  14:26, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and the speedy boilerplate has been added. --
  Kitch
  15:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Mgm|^(talk) 18:24, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Why would he want to write up on this if he's trying to keep it secret? Delete, I say, but let's wait a while. I want to see what he'll write next. --Jake 20:32, Mar. 29, 2005 (UTC)

  Comment by 84.154.54.74 (talk · contributions)

• Speedy Delete Pavel Vozenilek 19:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Wow. That's funny. ??? 21:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Last comment by 84.154.85.194 (talk · contributions), most likely the author of the article, who deleted its contents and is now asking to delete it altogether. --Plek 21:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Amazing deductions! Now will you delete it? Please???

  Unsigned comment by 84.154.85.194 (talk · contributions)

• Someone also needs to deal with
  Prometheus_Project. AdamW
  00:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 06:14, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy! Speedy! Speedy! --obmiJ

  One more unsigned comment from 84.154.85.194 Fed up?

  Fine, delete all my articles. You think it's a hoax, then it's a hoax. Prove it.

  I challenge you ALL.

  from 84.154.85.194 Best regards.

  • The onus, dear anon user, isn't on anybody to prove that it is a hoax; it's on you to prove that it isn't. Information on Wikipedia has to be verifiable. Bearcat 19:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Hey, has anyone checked out the Prolino article? It's the same guy who wrote it - it might be another hoax. 84.154.49.63 20:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Point well taken, my dear Bearcat, but the fact remains that we don't have a website and probably will not till Kingdom come. I suggest looking up the sources I listed. Or have one of you stubborn Wikipedians go some 500 miles north of Vancouver Island. Then you can decide if it's a hoax or not. I'm not saying it is. That's why, admins, save us all the trouble and delete this article swiftly. That's one more vote for a speedy. Do us all a favor and end this. Now.

This is (hopefully) the last message from 84.154.85.194. At least you haven't found my other articles. Yet.

P.S. Won't you at least place this discussion or the article on BJAODN? An early April Fools' to y'all. signed 84.154.85.194

• Delete as unverified. And logically, if it is accurate, then it is unverifiable. It's a pity that people keep contributing all this great secret information that we can't use, but, what can you do? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That's right, my friend. And I'll fix it up. In a month or two it'll be all reworded and everything and I'll have found my sources by then. External sources. Delete the darned thing. Now. It's "unverifiable".

from your friendly neighborhood 84.154.85.194. One more day 'till April Fools'! Watch out!

• • Now, now, what's all this about me being a "vandal"? I don't "vandalize" accounts, I just create nice and new ones, worthy of entering Wikipedia. If all these things are hoaxes, then I guess I'm a "hoaxer". But not a vandal. Shame on you, Plek. Calling me a vandal and all.

At least you haven't found my OTHER hoax. Some idiot approved it yesterday. Quantum, if you want a hint. G'day to y'all. This is 84.154.85.194, now signing off. Temporarily. Beware.

• Now that I think of it, Dpbsmith wasn't saying anything at all! A jumble-up of sentences... meaning what? And it logically, if it is inaccurate, then it is verifiable, then, ain't it? --84.154.85.194

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. Rossami (talk) 04:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into
  Kitch
  14:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia isn't a web direcotry, that's what you are proposing--
    nixie
    23:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Make them External links in the Furry article, but neither combine nor redirect, as that would be an implicit assertion that Wikipedia endorses them. RickK 22:38, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per RickK's suggestions. Guettarda 23:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with RickK, not inherently worthy of an article. Average Earthman 07:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Combine into a subwiki. Deleting is rash. While I personally find furries to be distasteful, it's a notable subculture and any insight into the "movement" is of encyclopedic value. Sniffandgrowl 01:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User was created today; he has only two edits not to vfds, one of them to his user page. —Korath (Talk) 02:26, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Indrian 23:57, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Dsmdgold 00:48, Apr 6, 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 01:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very brief, first person text is wierd. The organization doesn't seem very significant--500 members in 30 countries, according to their website[14]. It seems likely that it is just a vanity page. Delete. Jonathan Christensen 14:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not-notable enough for me JoJan 17:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable advertisement тəzєті

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 01:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A dictionary article, that has been transwikied, about a word in Hungarian. Uncle G 15:00, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

• Delete. Its Wiktionary stuff and non-expandable. - Marcika 15:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unencyclopedic JoJan 17:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, foreign dictionary definiton. Megan1967 06:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary, can't be expanded. Tony Jin 22:41, 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. – ABCD 01:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity entry for non-notable local ISP company - Marcika 15:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• delete not notable JoJan 17:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete small quasai-advert for a local ISP, not worthy of an entry. Oliver Keenan 17:40, 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 01:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no scope for metamorphosis of this dictionary article about the adjective

• delete this word is already included in Wiktionary JoJan 18:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. --InShaneee 18:43, 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 delete Graham Maule and keep John L. Bell. ugen64 23:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These two articles are about people who have no notability outside of the Iona Community, which itself seems to be of borderline notablity. I was tempted to just merge the information in the article on the community, however I don't think that what is already there needs to be expanded. I am making this one vote rather than two, because I can't see anyone voting to keep or delete one and not the other. Thryduulf 16:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both. Under the bar of notability, reads like vanity. Megan1967 06:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both, sure. Sounds like stupidity. --Dbsanfte 17:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep although the article on
  John Lamberton Bell, which is, I assure people, the same person. I suggest his full name should be treated as primary. Wikipedians in the USA should be cautious about what counts as notability in a British context. PatGallacher
  00:07, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • For the record I'm British and neither are at all notable as far as I'm concerned. The
    John Lamberton Bell sounds like it might be the same person, but as there are no links to the same articles I'm not sure. That article needs a rewrite to sound less like vanity as well. Thryduulf
    08:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I assure you they are the same person, I have met him a handful of times. The
      John Lamberton Bell? Or would that disrupt the VFD process? PatGallacher
      10:55, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
      • You can certainly merge the info from
        John Lamberton Bell without disrupting the VfD process. I wouldn't object to changing the former article to a redirect either, but until others have commented I think you should only add a link to it and alter the Iona Community link as well. Can you clarify what your opinion on the Graham Maule article is. Thryduulf
        11:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I've had second thoughts, he's sometimes known as John L. Bell, seldom by his full name, although we do need to disambiguate him from other John Bells on Wikipedia. I have therefore merged the contents of
  Lord Rector of Glasgow University and John Bell disambiguation (although I realise this last change wasn't strictly necessary). I now vote to keep John L. Bell (although maybe it could still do with some tidying up) and delete Graham Maule (unless somebody comes up with something more notable about him, he seems to be less important of the 2 even in relation to the Iona Community). PatGallacher
  12:34, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • • Keep
      Lord Rector of Glasgow University. This alone makes him fairly noteworthy in my opinion, as does much of his work with the Church of Scotland. Not so sure about other article though. Big Jim Fae Scotland
      11:09, 11 Apr 2005

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 copyvio. – ABCD 01:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Either original research or copyvio - not to mention how poorly-formatted and badly-named it is DS 16:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It's a copyvio of this bit of choice gibberish written by somebody called Tracy Porter. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I've put a note on the user's talk page asking her to stop creating articles like this, with quotes, and cautioning her (I assume it's a her) that they'll get deleted. But this one is particularly silly and doesn't deserve a second chance. - DavidWBrooks 17:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - the editor claims to be the original creator - original research. Guettarda 23:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - copyvio or original research, either way it's not suitable. Average Earthman 07:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Charles Matthews 08:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 04:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity, non-patent nonsense. FreplySpang (talk) 17:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• delete - it may be a local passing fad but that's all JoJan 18:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy → User:Voldern. --Allen3 ^talk 20:36, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy, concur. He already has a registered account on Wikipedia. Megan1967 06:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. User pages aren't intended for this purpose. He's got a website, that should be enough for him. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy Leave it user:SkjalgB
  • This user has no more contributions, except for Voldern and vandalism of this page. - Mike Rosoft 16:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Spam and blatant vanity. Due to the content and since User:Voldern doesn't have any other contributions, delete and don't move to a user page. Wikipedia is not a personal website provider. - Mike Rosoft 16:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:54, 5 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 as patent nonsense. Thue | talk 17:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Patent nonsense JoJan 17:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense... In fact I will go do that right now. Thue | talk 17:50, 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 01:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Google gets 0 relevant hits. Very close to patent nonsense. --InShaneee 18:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, original research. Thue | talk 18:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Either original research or a joke. Securiger 12:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. r3m0t ^talk 13:40, 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.

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) 01:27, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ever so silly. Delete. FreplySpang (talk) 18:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, patent nonsense. --InShaneee 18:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's speedly deleted - DavidWBrooks 19:10, 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 as a dictionary definition which is already in Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 04:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Talk:Fawce:

• Is this going to be able to be expanded beyond a dictionary-like definition? Joyous 00:51, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

The answer, to quote from this article's entry on Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary, is:

• Fawce: self-confessed slang with no potential of an encyclopedia article ➥the Epopt 01:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was just as easy to write Wiktionary:Fawce from scratch, referencing the original sources, as it would have been to transwiki this. And by doing so I wasn't compelled to copy the blogger's advertising. ☺ Uncle G 19:18, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

• Delete. Securiger 12:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Block-compress error. – ABCD 01:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non notable victim of Titanic disaster. Information at Encyclopedia Titanica shows there that Clarke is no more notable than any of Titanic's other passengers and crew. MechBrowman 17:12, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 06:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere.
  Kappa
  21:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. Niteowlneils 00:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Niteowl, delete. Radiant_* 15:26, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. To quote Dsmdgold, It might be appropiate to have an article Listof Titanic survivers, but not an article for every single one of them. Bubamara 04:36, 3 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. -

Non notable survivor of Titanic disaster. Information at Encyclopedia Titanica shows there that she is no more notable than any of Titanic's other passengers and crew. MechBrowman 19:51, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge somwhere.
  Kappa
  21:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. Niteowlneils 00:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Niteowl, delete. Radiant_* 15:26, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete It might be appropiate to have an article Listof Titanic survivers, but not an article for every single one of them. Dsmdgold 17:49, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Dsmdgold (except I'd rather have a List of Titanic survivors). Bubamara 04:32, 3 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. -

There's no scope for expansion of this dictionary article about a slang phrase, now transwikied, into an encyclopaedia article about fried gold. And I cannot think of a sensible place for a redirect to point to. Uncle G 20:28, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

• Wot no delete votes yet? Better add one. -- Securiger 12:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Make it two, guv'nor. Delete.
  speak up!
  22:19, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:28, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of Famous People. Wikipedia is a great way to organize articles about them. A list of Famous People is not. FreplySpang (talk) 20:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• And empty to boot. Totally unmanagable and pointless. delete. humblefool® 22:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless, redundant, empty, mistitled, misformatted, etc. Niteowlneils 23:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also

Famous Women. Niteowlneils

23:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - unmanageable, unrealistic. Guettarda 23:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unmanageable K1Bond007 05:50, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Oy vey. Delete; unmanageable and unrealistic. Bearcat 06:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Right now I think it's speediable as having no content. That will change if someone doesn't delete it fast. In any case, this article is a very bad idea waiting to happen. -R. fiend 06:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted, as per the comments above. --Neutrality^talk 06:23, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintainable list. Megan1967 06:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This is rather funny, though. Perhaps it should be redirected to, "ebonics."
  Lilyana
• Redirect to
  poker jargon. "Bad beat" is a legitimate and commonly used term. This particular article, however, is just an in-joke. Kairos
  21:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As it stands it makes no sense. Dsmdgold 15:58, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Muscle. —Korath (Talk) 01:33, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Non notable. Non encyclopedic. Sounds more like a Guiness Book of World Records entry. Not for here. --Woohookitty 21:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now - It got much better and useable since I voted Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 17:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Merge anything useful into Tongue. Guettarda 23:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful to Tongue, no redirect. Megan1967 06:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Verify first. "MIT Science Ward"? I don't think so. If anything remains, merge to Tongue, no redirect. FreplySpang (talk) 14:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) Now that it's rewritten, keep. Way to go, Dpbsmith. FreplySpang (talk) 03:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic, possible joke/hoax. "Tongue per pound ratio"?? Anyhow, in terms of total force or total work done over a given time, the diaphragm may be "strongest". And my phallic muscles are said to be {unverifiable claims removed by user} Barno 16:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. IF massively cleaned up, good sources provided, and a good definition of the criterion for strongest is given, it could be a merge and redirect to whatever is the strongest muscle. Oddly enough Google searches do return many casual and unsourced statements about the tongue being "the strongest." Other frequently mentioned candidates for "strongest muscle" are the masseter, the heart, and the external muscles of the eye. I'd have guessed masseter for maximum force per cross-sectional area, heart for maximum sustained work output per mass, and external eye muscles for maximum instantaneous power per mass. I'd have to think that the uterus in childbirth would be in the running, too. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I rewrote it. It could use a lot more work, but in its present form it presents the claims of seven different muscles (Quadriceps, Masseter, Gluteus maximus, Uterus, External muscles of the eye, Tongue, Heart) to be considered the "strongest," with at least some kind of reference for each claim and brief explanations, where known, of what criterion is being used. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep
  Mike H
  03:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. For those who are voting for keep or merge, tell me how the heck this article is encyclopedic. I haven't seen a list of the strongest muscles in the human body in any encyclopedia I have seen. Even if the article is cleaned up, it's still unencyclopedic. --Woohookitty 08:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, almanacs have all kinds of lists like "
  Kappa
  09:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with muscle or human body. Title is not encyclopedic, content is. Radiant_* 15:27, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with
  Eleassar777
  12:56, 3 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. Rossami (talk) 04:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Subject is a poster to a gaming site forum, seems like it violates the policy regarding vanity pages, delete.

• Keep. Newbie Wiki here, but I'd like to mention Darkmotion isn't affiliated with this entry as far as I know. The article wasn't written by me wholly, but the majority of its content was. I can assure you neither me nor the original poster are the subject of the entry. As such, this Wiki entry does not appear to violate the deletion policy. In response to fiend, I'll have you know that I can definitively draw a link to Darkmotion and the President of the United States, given enough degrees. How many people can say that?! -Valeo 05:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah? Well, what if I told you that Darkmotion is the U.S. President? Indeed, that would make this article a stunning revelation and thus not worthy of deletion. Now give me some time to prove (read: falsify) it. Valeo 06:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be just another guy who leaves messages on message boards (regardless of who wrote the article). Wow, there aren't alot of guys who did that now, are there. -R. fiend 05:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, note that I can draw a link from myself to the Prez, via a friend's friend who works at the State Department. Where's my article? -R. fiend 06:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Fiend. Radiant_* 09:08, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Greetings,

I'm the Darkmotion in question, and i'd say Delete. Not because the subject is not worthy of an article, but mostly because it's not all that accurate. I link Wiki a lot when i post (to help people understand concepts or big words), hence this entry i'm sure. *bows to Valeo*

Sorry about the disturbance.

Have Fun ! ™

BoardPK Official Board Devil

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 01:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Original research--phrase gets zero hits. Someone seems to have mistaken Wikipedia for WikiEditorial. I don't exactly disagree with this opinion paper, but I don't believe an opinion paper belongs in an encyclopedia. Niteowlneils 23:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your comment. If you did a search on the work "wikipedia" just a few years ago, you would NOT be able to find it, but this word is now one of the most popular words these days. So, if you or any places you do not see the phrase like homeless friendly society, you may see it in a few years later when my Ph.D dissertation published. {unsigned by article creator User:67.85.73.41--Niteowlneils 02:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)}

• Delete WHEN it's noteworthy, we'll include it. --Wahoofive 06:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hobocruft. ComCat 02:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

No potential to become encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory for every odd character in every popular game, so let's not start now. 128.208.76.55 23:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or keep fancruft. Isn't that policy now?
  Kappa
  00:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Question Whose idea of a sick joke was it to send me a 'message' that is a gory-size autofellatio image?
  • We have an ongoing problem with a vandal who posts that image to dozens of talk pages (and other places). He's attacked a bunch of random people this evening. It presumably wasn't directed specifically at you, and so you shouldn't take it as a message at all. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 00:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge
  List of Super Mario characters K1Bond007
  05:55, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, mariocruft. Megan1967 06:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per
  WP:FICT. Radiant_*
  15:30, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Original research. Non encyclopedic. --Woohookitty 23:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. As with Tradeoff between time-to-market and quality, there seems to be very little in this article that could qualify as original research. The author of both articles has written more articles on marketing, and while I have doubts myself whether marketing is a science it most certainly is encyclopedic. This article deserves a number of cleanup tags (and probably a name change), but I don't see VfD material here. Rl 07:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with market analysis (otherwise we could get a lot of near-identical articles on [[Market research for <foo>]]). 09:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Above vote by
    Kappa
    17:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup/rename as necessary, as useful, informative example of market analysis.
  Kappa
  17:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm happy with the name; because the information is specific to software. The author seems to be part of wikiproject:method engineering; which is an academic project using wikipedia. The people involved just don't know the rules yet. Please don't discourage them they are producing some excellent content on project management etc. :ChrisG 13:29, 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 ambiguous.

On 12 April, the article was blanked by the primary contributor. While this is an old management theory, Christofurio's statement of balancing three objectives (cost, time and quality) is the normal formulation. This particular article strikes me as a student paper - sourced but not yet encyclopedic. Since the normal formulation would be a three-way balance, the title is not correct for the eventual article that we ought to write. I'm going to call this one as a delete, in part because of the author's page blanking. Rossami (talk) 04:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Original research. Non-encyclopedic. --Woohookitty 00:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Virtually every sentence comes with a reference from a peer-reviewed journal attached; how is this original research? I also fail to see how management science is not encyclopedic. The article certainly needs work, but VfD is not cleanup. Rl 07:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if not thuroughly overhauled. Reads like a painfully boring essay, and sort of a how-to. Don't really see how it qualifies as an encyclopedia article. -R. fiend 07:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into management. This is not a suitable title for an encyclopedia article. Radiant_* 09:11, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rename if a better name can be suggested.
  Kappa
  17:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- heck, my father used to say, "there's cheap, there's quick, there's good. You can have any two of the three, but only by giving up the third." Thanks, Dad. That simple statement has immunized me against seeing any deep significance in this MBA-jargon filled gobbledygook. --Christofurio 18:22, 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.