Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 30

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 20:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Silklantern

Non-notable The Wheel of Time fan site. Delete following precedent set by Template:VfD-Wotmania, especially given that Silklantern.com has a much lower Alexa rank (about 750,000, see [3]) than Wotmania (about 200,000, see [4]). —Lowellian (talk) 11:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per reasons given above. —Lowellian (talk) 11:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• I concur. Delete.--Securiger 12:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete promo. —Seselwa 09:55, 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 no consensus. – ABCD 02:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of postal codes in Austria

User:Minirich has been using this article and others as a depository for Austrian postal codes. This is not encyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a postal code database. Some of the articles were just given numbers as names, see for example: 7300 - 7399 I've speedy deleted about five such articles, and in a charitable frame of mind, copied information from the articles to User:Minirich/temp. But honestly, I feel that none of the following articles belong on wikipedia, not even the ones that are properly named. I'd like to delete the following articles:

• 7200 - 7223
• 7300 - 7399
• 7400 - 7499
• Austrian postcodes 2000-2099
• Austrian postcodes 2800-2899
• Austrian postal codes 2600-2699
• Austrian postal codes 2700-2799
• List of Postal codes in Austria Vienna
• List of postal codes in Austria

--Woggly 11:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh wait, there's more!! What an infernal waste of time:

• 2000-2099
• 2100-2199
• 2200-2299
• 2300-2399
• 2400-2499
• 2500-2599
• 2600-2699
• 2700-2799
• 2800-2899
• 7500 - 7599
• 8240 - 8293
• 8350 - 8399
• Austrian postcodes 2100-2199
• Austrian postcodes 2200-2299
• Austrian postcodes 2300-2399

--Woggly 12:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In light of discussion here, I'll amend my vote: keep

• 2413 - 2491 (recreated)
• 2812 - 2852 (recreated)
• 3000-3099 (recreated)
• 3100-3199 (recreated)
• 3200-3299
• 3300-3399
• 7000 - 7099 (recreated)
• 7100 - 7199 (recreated)

--Woggly 08:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete 'em all. Not encyclopaedic at all.
  t^g_e^c_k
  ) 12:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) (In retrospect, reading that policy page Allen3 quotes, I guess that one will stay, but my vote stands)

• Keep
  List of postal codes in Austria and delete the rest. The top level list is allowed by Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Postal district, but articles on individual postal codes are not. --Allen3 ^talk
  12:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Allen3; maybe rewrite it to immitate List_of_postal_codes_in_Germany? (clem 12:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC))

• These are certainly not speedy deletions. I think mass deletions of them are quite against policy, whatever you think of the content. It is factual. Charles Matthews 13:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I've listed them on Votes for Deletion, not marked them for speedy deletion. The ones I did delete had numbers for names, no meaningful lead, and no content in English - three things that make for very bad articles - I copied their content to a separate subpage (nothing lost) and alerted the author. When I realised there were lots more, I came here. Why don't you vote, or make a constructive suggestion, rather than just complaining? --Woggly 13:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Because you have been clearly violating the speedy deletion policy. Like it says, check for links first - that would have told you these were Austrian postcodes, just as it told me. Charles Matthews
• And keep. NB we have pages like List of postcodes in Tasmania, list of ZIP codes in Rhode Island, not to speak of some British codes having individual pages. Charles Matthews 14:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all since huge lists of postal codes are hardly encyclopedic. If we absolutely want something like this, consolidate it all into bunches like "1000 series: Vienna" and so on and add an external link to the Austrian postal service. However, I feel honor bound to mention that
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of ZIP Codes in the United States) survived a debate like this, albeit with a slim majority favoring deletion. Sjakkalle
  14:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and consolidate as necessary, like
  Kappa
  14:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Per earlier consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Postal_district, keep only the main list for Austria, and delete the rest. I would say WikiSource except that WS doesn't want it. Radiant_* 14:33, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but cleanup the pages and create a uniform format for them. The list seems useful, for example to see which places in Austria don't have articles yet. I suggest that there should be one subpage for each
  state. Martg76
  16:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the main page and merge the rest in. --SPUI (talk) 20:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic maintenance. --GRider\^talk 23:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all articles about postal codes. RickK 01:06, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete so as to artificially decompose. Postcode articles should redirect to the localities they refer to.
  speak up!
  01:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, these pages DO link to the localities they refer to. Martg76 08:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 02:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Expand? How is that possible? RickK 05:05, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • All 32 of them? --Woggly 11:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep main article on postal codes of Austria, delete the others. Capitalistroadster 12:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oh my God!!! Delete that stuff (maybe except for main page). Grue 14:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Non-notability not established. Keep.--Gene_poole 01:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Utterly non-encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The criterion for this kind of thing IMO should be whether a more authoritative source for the same information is available elsewhere. Lists of postal codes are easy to find authoritative sources for (like postal service websites for the respective countries), and users will not turn to Wikipedia for this kind of thing, nor should they. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. That said, I've reconsidered my vote. Someone here said that Wikipedia has a clear policy of keeping lists of national postcodes. Since the pages are obviously not correctly named, I suggest that we keep the whole mass but refer it to Wikipedia:Requested moves, which I gather is the proper place for addressing complicated mergers and moves. --Smithfarm
• Delete. It is a sad day when deleting "articles" like these sees such hot debate. Indrian 00:07, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Some of us feel that this kind of page is precisely the kind of navigation feature that makes it superior to rivals such as Britannica and Google.
    Kappa
    05:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with Martg76. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but merge with the main page, or find a more informative subdivision schema (such as by province/state). Some of these are in completely the wrong namespace, but it is a potentially useful list. The ones in the wrong space (ie: just numbers, or a numerical range of Austrian postal codes) should be deleted (not redirected), but only after the information therein is moved somewhere appropriate--Kieran 14:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I can't see a reason to delete rather than Cleanup.--Irishpunktom\^talk 14:39, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. List is not useful, and is impossible to maintain. --Carnildo 22:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep main list, delete the others. PrimeFan 22:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - what next on Wikipedia - pages from the phone book ? Andypasto 08:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Pointless spam JoseMonzako
• Delete - but great for a sister project CoolGuy 00:23, 18 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. -

ADM: Knowledge Management Desktop Powerful outliner and knowledge management desktop with many unique features

Looks like obvious product spam to me.

Danny Yee 12:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yup. Definitely delete. --Woggly 12:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad. (Even the title is an ad.) -- Cyrius|✎ 12:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. This product can't be confused with those of megacorporation Archer Daniels Midland but if I were the developers of this software I'd suggest changing it anyway... Dpbsmith (talk) 18:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Didn't I already vote for this on VfD? Was it deleted and then rewritten? Strong delete. — JIP | Talk 04:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. I seem to remember this clunker as well. If memory serves, a user commented that no one would ever type that whole mess of words in the search box. - Lucky 6.9 02:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, that was me. — JIP | Talk 04:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it is indeed a re-creation of something previously deleted, isn't it a speedy candidate? Jonathunder 04:32, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Delete advert. —Seselwa 09:56, 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. -

First Trade Union

The article is about..., um, well it begins by mentioning the Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers and claiming it is the first trade union in the United States. It does not make clear if that means it is the first trade union in the world (which the article title implies) or put it into any historical context. It then goes on with a couple of loosely connected sentences and ends up with a somewhat longer paragraph on what a trade union is, a subject which is already covered in the article Trade union, even though a little more on the origin of unions may be in order in that article. The page includes an image which is nicked from the website to which the article refers. The article author is likely very young, judging from other edits. / Uppland 12:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete if not moved and severely cleaned. Right now its a bunch of nonsequiturs and a dicdef. -R. fiend 17:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Topic belongs in a more general article. Wincoote 01:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definitions, doesn't really merit having its own article at this stage. Megan1967 02:44, 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. -

Benjamin Parks

Non notable. Google yields 7 hits on name + photographer. Inter\^Echo 13:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete stubby vanity advert. --Smithfarm
• Delete vanity. —Seselwa 09:57, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:38, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Tacumwah

No potential to become encyclopedic, possibly vanity page Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Total article text

“Tacumwah

• Delete (just to clarify my vote) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The new material and information changes matters considerably. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Tacumwah was a real person, and this is not a vanity article. The article was supposed to link to
  Chief Jean Baptiste de Richardville
  , her son, who was a very important historical figure. I mistyped the link, which I am going to correct. This article should be expanded, with reliable, factual information, NOT deleted.

The reason I have left it at sub-stub level for now is that I have had a hard time separating some of the mythology about Tacumwah from the facts. Her name has been used for a large youth sports complex in my area, which has prompted some of the same edifying mythology for young people as for

Michikinikwa (Little Turtle). Since you are a Briton, and not a resident of northeast Indiana/northwest Ohio, you are probably not familiar with these moral tales Probably the most famous is th story of how Little Turtle fired off his arrows to the four winds to set the boundaries of a place where the young braves could always go to learn the skills and values proper to the young men of any tribe. It's a complete fairy tale made up some 150 years later, when Camp Chief Little Turtle at the Anthony Wayne Boy Scout Reservation was founded. However, unlike Little Turtle, Tacumwah doesn't seem to have inspired as much genuine scholarship, at least that I can uncover. I'm also busy with several other Wiki projects (like Costas Georgiou

, and school assignments right now, and I haven't had the time to go digging in the library.

I'm planning to go to a historical society meeting on the preservation of the Richardville treaty house in Fort Wayne, Indiana, which is scheduled to take place in a few months, when school is out for the summer. There should be many more knowledgable persons than I in attendance, who can give me some reliable info and point me to good sources. Can we tolerate the stub for two more months? --Jpbrenna 17:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, I've started some other Miami-tribe related stubs and sub-stubs. They should all be linked to here, in this category that I created: Category:Miami_tribe I started the articles because I referenced the subjects in other, related articles and I figured I could start a stub and attract other people with better information to work on them and/or eventually uncover some more info and work on them myself. I've been wary of relying on Internet-based material too much, because of some problems I encountered with 'net info on Costas Georgiou, and some of the materials I need are only available through inter-library loan and will require extensive reading that I don't have time for right now. If we can hold off on votes for deletion on these for a couple of days, I'll try to sift through the Internet sources and develop enough to justify keeping them around.--Jpbrenna 18:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup and Keep. Not vanity (she was born in 1720), and seems reasonably notable, in so much as a few things in south Florida have been named after her. Anilocra 17:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I've updated it with as much internet-derived information as I dare. The knife story seems reasonable enough, but some of the other stories I've heard seem a little far-fetched (although truth is sometimes stranger than fiction).--Jpbrenna 18:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, in the light of the new additions. That said, Mel's original listing was, I think, warranted; such minimalist placeholder substubs seem unwise to me. They don't add much value, and run rather a high risk of being forgotten, orphaned, and left to rot. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 20:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to
  Chief Jean Baptiste de Richardville. Until this article is substantially improved further I see no reason to keep this as an individual article when it could be merged with her son's article. Megan1967
  02:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Significant person in the history of the Miami tribe.Capitalistroadster 12:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep - nomination withdrawn --r3m0t ^talk 22:54, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ray Eames

Famous designer? If this were so, I would be able to find non-wikipedia hits on Google. I can't. r3m0t ^talk 13:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, I get about 73,900 non-wikipedia hits. This one is from the Library of Congress.
  Kappa
  14:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I did the same Google search as Kappa. Charles and Ray Eames were a notable husband-and-wife team of American furniture designers. FreplySpang (talk) 14:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ultimate doubleplus x-treme keep. Highly notable. Surname pronounced exactly like "Ames," BTW. Can't imagine why you couldn't Google her. Try "Office of Charles and Ray Eames." The Eames chair. The "House of Cards" toy/sculpture/thingy. The movie "Powers of Ten." The couple was among those honored in Apple's "Think Different" poster series ad campaign a while back, although as the pictures were never captioned it wasn't obvious if you didn't know how they looked. See http://www.eamesoffice.com/ and http://www.powersof10.com . Oh, they designed museum exhibits sponsored by IBM, "Astronomia" at the American Museum of Natural History and "Mathematica" at the Boston Museum of Science and perhaps elsewere. "Mathematica" is still there. I think it must have been there for three decades! Very nice exhibits, even if phrases like "World peace through world trade" (an old IBM motto) have a tendency to pop up here and there, like Nina in an Al Hirschfeld cartoon. Oh, did I mention the IBM exhibit at the 1964 New York World's Fair? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

P. S. And I'm NOT particularly big on architecture or design, it's just that the Eames' did something infinitely cool about twice per decade. If you don't know what the Eames chair is: you'd recognize if it you saw it, and probably half of all comfy non-secretarial expensive leather swivel chairs are knock-offs of it. Oh, and they designed the relatively comfy row-seating (black seats, shiny metal frames) you see in half the airports I've ever been in. These. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

P. P. S. We have a whole article on their Powers of Ten movie. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and allow for organic growth. --GRider\^talk 18:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I made some sort of mistake here. Can I withdraw this? r3m0t ^talk 19:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

• • Maybe put "withdrawn" in italics under the title, and it's probably safe to take off the Vfd notice too, no-one's going to vote "delete" now.
    Kappa
    21:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry if I went on and on. Mistakes happen. No harm done. By the way, the Powers of Ten movie is just unbelievably cool and worth seeking out. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:08, 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. -

Homeless Solutions in Edison NJ

All of the other advertisements from 67.85.73.41 (talk · contribs) are currently listed for deletion. This completes the set. Uncle G 14:00, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

• Delete not encyclopedic.
  t^g_e^c_k
  ) 19:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV original essay, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as inappropriate. --Smithfarm
• Delete in agreement with those above (not an encyclopaedia entry, original work, and non-neutral POV). Oliver Keenan 16:17, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. —Seselwa 09:58, 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 redirect to

What happened to the Canon 20A, B, and C? Seriously, having separate articles for every single rev of a camera is like having separate articles for different option packages on a car--I think 2001 Chevy Camaro 5-speed with tinted glass and power locks, but no CD changer is carrying things too far. Delete or merge/redir. Niteowlneils 14:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Concur with Niteowl, merge. Radiant_* 14:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• There are other individual Canon camera pages. Link from List of Canon products and cleanup/wikify. — RJH 16:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. --GRider\^talk 00:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Fg2 02:37, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• There's already a proper page on the
  Canon_EOS-20D mvdhout
  09:54, 12 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 merge and redirect to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. – ABCD 02:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Czerka Corporation

I am not familiar with Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. If this corporation is important in the game, then the article should be expanded. Otherwise I would suggest it be deleted, or merged if the article is extended. -- Daniel Lawrence 15:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or keep fancruft.
  Kappa
  16:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge fiction trivia per recent
  WP:FICT consensus. Even if "this corporation is important in the game" it is still just a minor something in a game that hasn't been culturally influential even though Star Wars somewhat has. Nothing article-worthy about this Lucascruft. I want StarWarsWiki to start so I can vote Transwiki to hundreds of these articles. Barno
  17:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Apparently it's been started. I think it's not really taking off because everything that gets tranwikied there gets kept here for some ungodly reason,making it redundant. I think "wookiepedia" is a good idea and wish it would take over this sort of thing. To encourage this I will vote transwiki there, then merge or delete from here. -R. fiend 03:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. I'm on my second play-through of this game; Czerka Corporation is really only a minor part of the backstory. android↔talk 17:23, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per
  WP:FICT. Radiant_*
  17:26, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, although the corporation is of slightly more importance in KOTORII Lectonar 10:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral It's my self-styled policy not to give anyone a delete. But I can't for the life of me understand how the star wars universe gets such a free pass on Wikipedia. To invoke Pokemon as an example. I do nothing on this place but look at deleted articles to see if anybody is being a frivolous delete-happy choad and I see better content than this summarily being dismissed. Sniffandgrowl 04:26, 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)
• Delete. I think this should be deleted, but if it should be merged, I would urge caution on how to do so. Czerka is not limited to KOTOR and merging and redirecting there would be silly. To create a real-world analogy, that would be like merging delorian into Back to the Future just becasue one was used in the movie. Indrian 00:16, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, you seem to have more knowledge of the subject than I do... any ideas on a target for the merge? List of minor supporting Star Wars concepts? Where's Riffsyphon when you need 'im? android↔talk 00:26, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Czerka is a personal weapons manufacturer that specializes in producing hold-out blasters. If redirected, it should be to something like List of Star Wars Corporations or an article on blaster technology in general or hold-out blasters specifically. There is already a category called Star Wars companies, and some of those shoud really be merged into said list as well. Freitek, Blastech, Sorosuub, etc. are really just footnotes in the Star Wars universe with very little material produced on them, essentially just samples of their products with little corporate history. Indrian 00:56, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Galaxy's third largest arms producer! This is as major as most Star Wars companies artices. If it isn't kept, there'll be room for it at at starwars.wikia.com:[5]-LtNOWIS 20:44, 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. -

Footmen frenzy

A non-notable custom map by non-notable "clan" in a computer game. Delete this as fancruft. jni 16:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nearly anything about individual videogaming "clans". CDC (talk) 17:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete anything on clans and custom maps. Mgm|^(talk) 08:14, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 09:59, 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 speedy delete --Carnildo 22:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Magma26

This vote was started by

• Delete, not notable. Vainity article. Lyo 20:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --
  ✉
  17:08, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete No need for vfd. I put speedy mark on the article. Pavel Vozenilek 17:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, empty article. Megan1967 02:57, 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 02:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marluxia

Kingdom Hearts-cruft. User:Luigi30 (ΛυηγηΛ) 16:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, quite big, probably best on its own.
  Kappa
  17:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - as best I can tell, this is all covered in
  Marluxia is shorter now that I hacked off the most obvious copyvio bits. CDC (talk)
  17:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per
  WP:FICT (unless already covered there, then a redirect will suffice). Radiant_*
  17:26, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, covered in Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories, nothing left here to really merge. Megan1967 03:00, 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 keep. -

Ashley House

Who wants to know about an obscure house in Bermuda? Delete. TAS 17:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why not to include the bramuda house as long as the content is accurate. It seems to be a valid referance to a historic building in the "New World" where you may notice we have a shortage of realy old buildings. Honestly i think that there is no reason to delete the page unless it can be proven inacurate.

Unsigned comment by 168.99.197.187 (talk · contributions)

One reason is that

Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Dpbsmith (talk)

01:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and Cleanup. I agree that this should be placed somewhere on the Bermuda pages, but I am thinking it could be cleaned up a bit so it does not sound like an ad. Zscout370 17:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's one of 60 historical properties on the island. What's so special about this one? Gamaliel 20:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: That just gave me an idea, why not create a page of Historical Places in Bermuda. Zscout370 21:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --SPUI (talk) 20:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There are many such articles in Wikipedia, and we shouldn't sneer at small countries. Wincoote 01:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I would be much, much, much happier seeing this as a section in an article on Historical Places in Bermuda than as a separate article in itself. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Dpbsmith. Move to Historical Places in Bermuda, then tag for expansion. Meelar (talk) 01:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing really outstanding or notable about this structure. Megan1967 03:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep historical properties. If it's moved I'd prefer Historical places in Bermuda or Historical buildings in Bermuda. You know, capitalization and all that ;) Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Radiant_* 10:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep historic places.
  Kappa
  11:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Other historic houses should all be kept, why shouldn't this one? P Ingerson
• Oh no! Ashley-cruft strikes again! keep Grue 14:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Per Gamaliel's comment -- answer: It's important enough. The non-notable argument is the most misused one out there. This is for architectural record and probably useful for a number of people. Sniffandgrowl 01:06, 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)
• Keep all important historic buildings.--Centauri 02:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, sure, but is this an important building? That's the whole question, isn't it? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It says "A Grade One listing is applied to properties that are of significant historic and/or architectural importance to the country"
      Kappa
• As I undersatand it, a "Grade One listed" building is by definition a significant structure. Keep Dsmdgold 22:52, 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 (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 02:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rankmat

While sorting stubs within the fictional galaxy of Star Wars, one source was unable to firmly validate the contents of this article. As I see it, this article stands no chance of becoming encyclopedic; is this fan-fiction or encyclopedically notable content? No vote as of yet. --GRider\^talk 17:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, subtrivial fancruft. Send it to the star wars wiki if need be, but get it out of here. 106 google hits, which seem to be about a different thing altogether. -R. fiend 17:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to
  Yuuzhan Vong. The lists of links to stubs on that page could stand to be fleshed out with single-sentence descriptions, and the stubs themselves made redirects. Shimmin
  18:42, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Star Wars Wiki and move to
  Rakamat (correct spelling). -- Riffsyphon1024
  19:23, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per
  WP:FICT. Radiant_*
  10:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Ahem. Please either vote, or withdraw the nomination. Only those that are fixing incomplete nominations can make "no vote as yet". Chris
  21:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge to appropriate Star Wars fancruft page. Note: the title is "Rankmat" but the article body refers only to "rakamat". Which is correct? --Smithfarm
  • "Rakamat" is the correct term. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:31, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Note:This is probably copyvio. See this link: [6] Aidje 14:38, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • Aidje, its the other way around. That is a mirror of this already existing article here. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:49, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • oops. That text is really tiny. And far down on the page. And... I'll stop making excuses now. Sorry about that. Aidje 16:54, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Delete. Sub-trivial fancruft. If the Star Wars wiki wants it, they can have it. --Carnildo 22:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with
  Rakamat? -- Lochaber
  16:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge just put it in
  Yuuzhan Vong
  , it makes sense in there

Vodka and Coke

For those who are logically handicapped, Vodka and Coke is Vodka and Coke. Totally unnecessary article. And, if you can believe it POV as well. -R. fiend 17:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Much as I agree with the sentiments on Gin and Coke, Delete. Anilocra 18:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. For reasons articulated by nominator. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Next thing you know, there will be a
  Kitch
  18:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • ...in Category:Alcohol and cola. FreplySpang (talk) 22:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant definition, no cultural significance, and the author still managed to get it wrong: Coke's ingredients are primarily "water" and "high fructose corn syrup". So we've got a trademark used unnecessarily ("Vodka and cola" would have served) and a POV comment in an article that WP doesn't need. Barno 19:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and clean up. 5,660 google hits for "vodka and coke" (plus another 446 for "vodka and cola") indicates notability.
  Kappa
  21:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Zzyzx11, is there any particular reason you replaced the words "vodka and coke" with "Bermuda" here? FreplySpang (talk) 22:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Kappa. Zzyzx11
      23:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Um yeah I think this is a bug, nothing to do with ZZyzx11.
        Kappa
        23:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh. Okay. I apologize for implying you did anything inappropriate. Bugs happen. FreplySpang (talk) 05:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete - POV and badly punctuated. The plural is "colas" not "cola's". The latter is the possessive form of "cola".
  Kevintoronto
  21:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge -- To clarify: I suggest we make a short note of "vodka and cola" in both Vodka and Coke articles. A separate article of Vodka and Coke is not needed. Zzyzx11 22:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hard to believe that anyone searching for "vodka and cola" would not search under either "vodka" or "cola". Maybe, just maybe, we could have a
  speak up!
  22:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Zzyzx1. Slac - we do, but it's spelled List of cocktails. Mention it there, and add a (cheap) redirect to Cocktail. FreplySpang (talk) 22:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I was about to say the same. Instead I'll note in passing that Rum and Coke has been around for 3 years now. I also point out that Wikibooks:Cookbook:Cocktails is just gasping for more articles on how to make cocktails. I'm currently leaning towards Wikibooks followed by Delete and recreate as Redirect to cocktail. Uncle G 00:45, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, unnecessary. Megan1967 03:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm working on making this a good article. Please help the process of organic growth instead of being so quick on the trigger. Klonimus 03:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Please consider working on Wikibooks:Cookbook:Vodka and Coke directly instead. Your enthusiasm for writing recipes is commendable. But it is simply making work unnecessarily for other editors if you don't write them in the right WikiMedia project. We have a recipe book in need of recipes being written, and an editor writing recipes. Please put them together properly. Uncle G 01:08, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • I consider this topic to be as encyclopedic as
    Long Island Iced Tea. Klonimus
    03:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Neither of which are recipes like the article that you are writing here (Indeed, the former is a disambiguation page.), and both of which have recipes in the recipe book (at Wikibooks:Cookbook:Martini and Wikibooks:Cookbook:Long Island Iced Tea respectively). Again: Please consider making your contributions in the correct places rather than making work for other editors. Uncle G 14:32, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
• Delete and add to Wikibooks, and replace this with redirect, as per UncleG. Radiant_* 08:27, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with
  bainer
  09:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep alone, more important than Pokemons. Grue 14:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, i think this can grow into a good article. bbx 15:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the cookbook, or some other wikibook. For all intents and purposes, this is a recipe (as if you need one) with suggested proportions.Chris 21:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The title serves as a recipe, and the article seems devoid of factual information. Kossukola sounds more like an ad campaign than an actual cocktail; anyone know? —Michael Z. 2005-03-31 23:54 Z

  Kossukola is a classic finnish cocktail. It is made with the most popular vodka and soft drink in finland. If you google the term, you get about 160 hits, with the first page being a finnish cocktail site. Klonimus 06:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to List of cocktails, as per Rum and Coke.
• The only encyclopedic bit of this article is the very last line. Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook and either delete or at most redirect to List of cocktails. —Korath (Talk) 00:48, Apr 5, 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. -

Nguyen the-anh

Is he notable ? JoJan 18:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - It is a vanity page. --
  Anonymous Cow
  21:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly rambling non-article (some looks like dumped text from a personal webpage). Speedy delete as junk IMO would be ok. -- Infrogmation 01:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable/vanity/self-promotion/advert/trivia. —Seselwa 10:01, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Quake

According to the article, Star Wars Quake, a planned Quake mod, never materialized. Non-commercial fan-based vapor-cruft, or notable and encyclopedic? No vote as of yet. --GRider\^talk 19:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It could be just me, but I remember VFD'ing this a while back. Delete either as recreated deletia, or as non-notable for being one of millions of unfinished game projects. Mgm|^(talk) 08:21, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until it exists. Radiant_* 10:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Existance doesn't equate notability. Star Wars Quake is a well known example of gaming vaporware, second only to Duke Nukem Forever. It's notable for having lasted so long, going through so many different teams and directors, and garnering so much attention, yet still never materializing. 99% of mods have a lifespan of one semester, Star Wars Quake lasted for six years. - Lifefeed 14:51, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) (author of the article)
  • Second only to Duke Nukem Forever. And Daikatana. Also Doom 3, at least until that ceased to be actual vapourware. That said, the article is well-written, and substantial. Keep for now. Chris 20:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • And Team Fortress 2. No vote.
      Mrwojo
      15:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Week keep, look like it has some level of notability. Grue 15:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn lucascruft. ComCat 02:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, mainly because it's a well written and comprehensive article. The topic is a somewhat canonical example for mod development going wrong, so there's at least no harm in keeping it. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A reasonably well-written example of cummunity-based gaming projects failing -- I learned a fair bit reading it. Zantastik 02:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A well-written article on well-known vaporware. --Carnildo 22:57, 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. Carbonite | Talk 02:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

U-pop

Neologism. Transwiki to Wiktionary, if appropriate, or delete. --Wahoofive 20:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, gets 35,700 hits which means it's in widespread use.
  Kappa
  21:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth if Universal has a category of records from this genre. --GRider\^talk 23:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. I seriously doubt that USA-pop is in widespread use. Google turns up all sorts of hits for U-pop but going through these hits they mostly do not refer to a "USA-pop" as mentioned in the article. Megan1967 03:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Megan. Radiant_* 09:32, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism, and not yet in accepted usage. Chris 20:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete imaginary word. —Seselwa 10:02, 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. – ABCD 02:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good fences make good neighbors

• move to wikiquote. Mikkalai 20:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• No need to VFD this. Quotes go on WikiQuote. Just transwiki it. Mgm|^(talk) 08:22, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Did youm look into the article? Someone goes lengths on commenting about possible meanings of the quote. So I had my doubts. Maybe someone thinks this is a pretty much encyclopedic entry or may be made into such. Mikkalai 15:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm thinking "Keep until an article on the poem comes along, then merge into that", but I'm not planning to vote keep unless someone else does first.
  Kappa
  20:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Ejrrjs | What? 01:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keepIf you read it, the poem itself is commentary on the saying, which, while attributed to Frost, is an old New England saying. The point of the poem is to inspire debate. Mlorrey 05:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, and I don't see what an article on
  Good fences make good neighbors might possibly be about :|. This might be moved into an article on Mending wall (poem). Gaurav
  16:56, 8 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 no real consensus either way, but there is a slight majority favoring inclusion. So keep. Sjakkalle 11:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coppell High School

Salvaged from "speedy del". No vote. Mikkalai 20:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and allow for organic growth. Coppell was cited among the top four percent of "America's Best High Schools" by Newsweek magazine, their band has been the recipient of a number of honors, and the Coppell High School Music Program was named "the best in the nation", according to the National Music Educators Association. --GRider\^talk 20:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this one, and also "non-notable" high schools, to prevent systemic bias.
  Kappa
  21:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• very week keep. I don't know how influential or reliable (in the scientific validty sense) Newsweek magazine is in these things, but if it is one of the top schools in Texas that is a point in its favour. 4% of American high schools is a very large number, and so its not as impressive as it might sound - not that it isn't good. Overall there are a lot of very minor claims to notability, but nothing that clinches it. At what level were the band honours? For all the article says they could be national finalists (I am assuming they would explicitly mention if they were national winners) or third placed in the city schools competition. BEEFSTEW score is 4 (ABDgh) (half marks for G and H as they're borderline imho). Thryduulf 21:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 21:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and continue to improve. I'm pretty proud with how quickly we've taken this article from a profanity-laden rant against the high school to a viable article. --BaronLarf 21:48, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - seems off to a good start. - SimonP 21:54, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While this article at least tries to show notability, it does not succeed. As Thryduulf mentioned, the top 4% isn't very impressive; nor is the citation by the
  National Music Educators Association, as evidenced by its red link. —Korath (Talk
  ) 21:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cute. OK, rephrase: The citation by the
    National Music Educators Association might have been impressive had its article not been made to prove a point about a vanity school aritcle. —Korath (Talk
    ) 23:35, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. High schools are inherently nonencyclopedic. --
  Angr
  23:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not at all notable. Rls 23:46, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is more than an academic encyclopedia. Wincoote 01:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge this article into the article of the town where this school is located. Zscout370 01:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I have no problem voting keep for universities and tertiary institutions but this high school is just not inherently noteworthy for inclusion. Megan1967
• User:Dr Zen/keepschools —RaD Man (talk) 06:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the Newsweek citation makes it notable enough for me. Mgm|^(talk) 08:24, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Coppell, Texas and delete - Skysmith 08:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, would set a bad precedent to keep this type of article (local high school). --
  bainer
  08:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Coppell, Texas and redirect. --G Rutter 09:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Megan and Bainer. Radiant_* 10:51, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep needs expansion. -- Lochaber 12:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing encyclopedic here. Gamaliel 19:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.. There is enough information to warrant keeping this school. Capitalistroadster 20:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. If article is expanded to contain more of the stuff that makes this school distinct from other schools (otherwise we might as well redirect all of these articles to
  high school), and less of the linkspam, then I'll vote to keep this. Otherwise, it reads very much like a medium-length article on any other school. Chris
  20:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think any Wiki contributor should tolerate any objection other than 'not notable'. Especially in context of a high school which is an institution of public record. The 'not notable' crowd have a really contrived idea about what Wikipedia should be, and it's silly. Obscure entries are *exactly* what make this a useful resource. Not "what everybody already knows" Sniffandgrowl 00:30, 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) 02:24, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Nobody in their right mind would even think of nominating any of Wikipedia's hundreds of railway station articles for deletion, because the consensus is that they're all notable. On the other hand, we're expected to believe that verifiable public institutions that affect the lives of thousands of people - like schools - are somehow not notable. Go figure. That's a keep, in case anyone was wondering.--Gene_poole 03:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this school's article. Notability is subjective. Also, what gene says above. ~leif ☺ _HELO 04:46, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability, should be deleted in line with Wikipedia's various notability policies.
  • above vote by Jayjg. Thryduulf 15:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep new article. Interesting, encyclopedic and notability established IMO. The original article (if you can call it that) was nothing but a POV, sour-grape rant which deserved to be posted here. - Lucky 6.9 22:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC).

• User:Dr Zen/keepschools Klonimus 03:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --JuntungWu 07:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a Real Place. Ejrrjs | What? 01:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • So is my garage. Shouldn't we just merge this with the relevant town then? --InShaneee 20:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure. But why stop there? Why not merge everything into "The Universe" so Wikipedia can consist of one easily-managed article.--Gene_poole 00:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep this article. Yuckfoo 20:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Schools are noteworthy. --Zantastik 02:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. School vanity, sock supported. Jonathunder 04:37, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 10:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - As with all schools listed, I vote to keep.--Irishpunktom\^talk 14:42, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. — Instantnood 07:04, Apr 5, 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. -

John Corby

This has been marked for speedy delete for reason "not notable, grotesque mustache doesn't grant entry to Wiki" for about two days. That's not really a reason to speedy delete, so I'm moving it here. No vote from me, though I'd suggest that if this talk show host is only heard in one local area, he's unlikely to be encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 21:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Looks like joke. Pavel Vozenilek 21:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 03:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete useless, ephemeral trivia. Void of substance. --Smithfarm
• Delete satirical trivia. —Seselwa 10:05, 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 redirect to Algonquian. —Korath (Talk) 00:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Algonkian

Redirect to itselve. --

No delete. This should redirect to Algonquian. (This was my mistake?) — ishwar  (SPEAK) 21:55, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

• Besides, redirects for deletion should be listed
  here. android↔talk
  23:12, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Concur with Angr. This entry shouldn't be here. --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 keep, the nominator withdrew his delete vote as well. Sjakkalle 08:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Charles Bronson (prisoner)

Nominate & vote Del but no vote on this guy who's evidently done nothing but

1. get imprisoned for hurting someone,
2. parlay it into a life sentence by hurting enough of those he encounters in prison,
3. codify his scheme for staying in condition to hurt people, and
4. win the love of a prison-groupie missionary.

This bio is essentially an orphan:

1. LoPbN entry: "Bronson, Charles, aka Michael Peterson"
2. bottom-of-page dab on the real Charles Bronson's bio
3. casual example cited in a WP titling dispute.

(Could we transWiki it to WikiMuseum of Futility?)
--Jerzy (t) 21:10, 2005 Mar 30 & 22:54, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

• No vote --
  Template:vfd header was missing from article -- I added it. FreplySpang (talk)
  22:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Charles Bronson was once classified as the most dangerous prisoner in the UK penal system. --GRider\^talk 00:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notorious prisoner. Gets nearly as high a google rank as the other one.
  Kappa
  00:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Lamentable though it is that some people are fascinated with characters of this type, this is one of the most famous criminals in the UK - more famous than some British serial killers. Wincoote 01:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons cited above. Mgm|^(talk) 08:26, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, again for same reasons as above. -- Karada 08:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: he seems to have a fan club. Policy question: should notoriety equate to notability? --
  bainer
  09:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Only if wikipedia aims for a
    Kappa
    11:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I nominated, but i've shifted in light of the evidence of notoriety. (The fan club is evidence of something else than notoriety....) Be careful what you "equate", but, yes, notoriety is notable. I don't claim to be able to evaluate the notability of his notoriety, now that P.T. Barnum's supposed dictum has been proved again: "No one ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public." (But some people, including me, make fools of themselves by overestimating the intelligence of the English-speaking peoples. And that only increases my contempt for this person.) I was mistaken in assuming i could tell that he was non-notable; others will decide whether he is notable enough for his article to deserve more respect than he does. --Jerzy (t) 22:54, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
• No vote from nominator. See Comment thread immediately above. --Jerzy (t) 22:54, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

• Keep Encyclopedic, meaningfully relates to Actor Charles Bronson as a dimension of his fame. Sniffandgrowl 03:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Infamous in UK, often featured by 'The Sun', a publicity seeking convict. The page deserves to be improved to include his poetry and bizarre hostage demands (an 'inflatable doll').

• Keep. Appears to be notorious UK criminal over long period of time. Capitalistroadster 11:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle 09:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

HTML Kit

Non-notable software. Advertising. -- Daniel Lawrence 22:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. A pretty famous piece of shareware. "HTML kit" gets > 100,000 google hits. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 22:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep famous pieces of shareware.
  Kappa
  00:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, it is a pretty popular shareware. It has been downloaded over a 1 million times at Download.com --
  Anonymous Cow
  01:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 03:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep well known software. N-Man 13:32, 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. This article is a duplicate of the concordance at wikt:Appendix:Words From Foucault's Pendulum. It appears to have been created in order to circumvent the deletion decision of the article "List of Words from Foucault's Pendulum". The only difference is the addtion of this sentence in the header of the list. "These are either topics that don't belong in a dictionary or protologisms." I do not find that sentence to be true. All of these are, in fact, topics which do belong in a dictionary. In addition, the concordance is already linked in the main article on Foucault's Pendulum. Rossami (talk) 02:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of Subjects in Foucault's Pendulum

I don't know how to otherwise put it, but I feel that this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Not meaning to bad-mouth Foucault's Pendulum, but I fail to understand why we need to compile a list of subjects covered in this one book, as opposed to compiling a list of subject found in, say The Bible? The Elder Pliny's Natural History? The Boy Scout Manual? (I am trying very hard to put these points in neutral language, but the fact someone would consider this list appropriate for Wikipedia leaves me speechless.)

• Foucault's Pendulum is a work that's intended to be decoded. There are subjects here that the average reader would be frustrated by, and want to immediately look up in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia makes it much easier to read this book, and if you've paged through it, you know what I'm talking about. How else are you gonna know who Adolphe Menjou is or what Joss sticks are. The boy scout manual reader doesn't need an encyclopedia. I got the idea to make this page when I saw the index for
  Hitchhikers Guide
  and thought this worked along the same lines. Maybe not. Whatever. I vote Delete Someone should turn this into a website before all the work is lost because I know readers need this.

Let's move this effort to its own webiste, & encourage the author to create an external link to it. -- llywrch 22:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - this is the sort of thing the elastic deletion clause ("No potential to become encyclopedic") is for. "Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" would seem to apply as well. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Foucault's pendulum is an important novel, so the esoteric topics covered within it are going be very interesting to many readers. I'm depressed that you don't want wikipedia to adequately cover topics like this book, or the Bible, or Pliny's natural history.
  Kappa
  23:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how you read that into what xe said. The book is covered in
    Foucault's Pendulum (book), not in this article, and the (encyclopaedia-worthy) subjects from the book are covered in individual encyclopaedia articles. How, therefore, does suggesting the deletion of the list somehow translate into non-coverage of either the book or the subjects? Uncle G
    00:59, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
    • Because it means not covering the "non-encyclopedia-worthy" subjects which may neverless be important in the book, as well as not gathering these related subjects together in an accessible form.
      Kappa
      07:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • No it doesn't mean that at all. Coverage of subjects "important to the book" but not outside of it can quite naturally go in the article on the book. Uncle G 01:36, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe I just don't understand the idea here. If you're reading along and find something you want to look up, why would you look at this list instead of just looking the term up directly in Wikipedia? (By the way, if it survives vfd, don't forget to move it to List of subjects in Foucault's Pendulum.) FreplySpang (talk) 23:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This is better because those kinds of words are in every other paragraph, I suggest you try to read the book
  • P.S. Note that
    The Ultra-Complete Index to the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy refers to a document on WikiSource, not Wikipedia. FreplySpang (talk)
    23:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That's an index, it says "word x is on page N, it's not an annotated list of links. Annotated lists of links are possibly the best form of navigation tool ever.
      Kappa
      00:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• How was this supposed to be different from
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Words from Foucault's Pendulum) ? At the moment, as far as I can tell, it's a a copy of it. Uncle G
  00:59, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
  • "These are either topics that don't belong in a dictionary or protologisms. For a list of obscure but defineable words, see the concordance"
    Kappa
    01:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) {BWT "protologism" is a newly created word that hasn't gained wide acceptance, so you shouldn't use it in encyclopedia articles.) There really aren't any protologisms in this list. Its either archaic words that people havent thought to define in wiktionary, or obscure places and things that only a semiologist would know about.
    • That's pretty much the only textual difference between this article and
      Foucault's Pendulum (book) (which has just been turned into rather a mess, by the way)? Uncle G
      01:36, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
      • Any defineable words should have been removed. What's left are encyclopedia subjects. If there are still words, clean it up.
• Delete. Not an encyclopedia article. RickK 01:11, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • WP has a great deal of lists which aren't articles.
    Kappa
    01:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This should be a category, not an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Items in this list are important to Foucault's Pendulum, but not vice-versa. People would rightly object if someone started trying add that category to things like
    Kappa
    07:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I think that the main reason this article is being rejected is the lingering defined words that aren't "Subjects." If people saw only a list of wikipedia articles they would be much more inclined to recognize the significance.
  • I think they recognize the significant, but Foucault just doesn't get the same number of votes that Pokemon or Star Trek does. (please sign your comments)
    Kappa
    09:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The only way I can explain this is that all of the votes for deletion come from Rosicrucians that don't want to be found out. I don't sign theses things because I think it goes against the whole commie-ideal of wikipedia.
      • Well things are certainly more anarchic if you don't know who is saying what, LOL.
        Kappa
        22:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per
  WP:FICT. Radiant_*
  10:51, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy so author can preserve it elsewhere, then Merge to the parent book's article or delete. I guess
  WP:FICT is the closest policy. This is an interesting idea but it's not WP's purpose. Barno
  16:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Its just plain useful. D&D characters get less. Further, most of these are red-links. Umberto Eco was so esoteric that wikipedia still hasent covered the stuff he mentioned in 1988. If it serves no other purpose, it is a place for people to find these links and fill them. Someone jusr started a page on Agartha and I'm looking forward to finding out WTF the Anslem of Cantebury isShadowyCaballero
  • Note: User's seventh edit, all to this article or to this VfD (and one to stub his userpage).
• Comment: Spelling correctly helps find information quicker. Anselm was a person, Canterbury was the place he was from. Eco wasn't esoteric, just the opposite; however this book covered many esoteric chunks of information. The fact that he mentioned old movements, old secret societies, old conspiracy theories, etc. doesn't mean that they're intrinsically verifiable or meet WP's standards of significance. However, I remember wishing for a really big encyclopedia with details of these people and books and organizations. Just not sure WP is the right place to build that. Barno 19:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • You don't think wikipedia is the right place to build a really big encyclopedia? What could be a better place?
    Kappa
    21:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • A big encyclopaedia full of unverifiable secret societies? Please don't distort what Barno said in order to argue against it. Uncle G 01:36, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
      • If the secret society is in this book, that's a verifiable fact about it and makes it significant to large numbers of people. Pokemons get articles.
        Kappa
        09:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Barno's point would be better made if written: "Anselm was a person, Canterbury was the place he was from." Uncle G 01:36, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
• Delete. A sort of glossary, sort of mishmash of words/objects that happen to be mentioned in a sentence of an overrated book. The important ones can be mentioned in the Foucault's Pendulum article, things like
  Clavichords (a redlink which should probably be listed as clavichord) have little to do with the book, and are mentioned so many other places that one might as well have paper on the list as that. Shouldn't be a category either, as it opens up articles to have 1000 categories attached to them: "Subject in insert book here". -R. fiend
  03:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Reading through the entries, this is obviously a "list of words from FP that the writer of the article didn't understand". There's all sorts of random things here, including
  centenary, couscous and naiad. WP is not a dictionary. Radiant_*
  09:42, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I have a sick devotion to wikipedia. Nothing gets me going like a list full of red-links. All the
  cookery
  from the verifiable facts. All of these subjects should be spell checked and blue-linked, but the list itself is highly inappropriate and should be deleted immediately.

• Strong delete, as Wikipedia should remain an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. I note that a concordance to this effect already exists in Wikidictionary([7] ), that, incidentally, looks suspiciously like the same list. Perhaps there should simply be a link to that 'Concordance' in the Foucault's Pendulum article. Duncan France April 2 2005 [Please note: I can't find the tilde key on the computer I am at at the moment...!]
• Delete unencyclopedic. —Seselwa 10:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 23:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A datadump of terms, a glorified glossary for a single work of fiction? Uh uh. --Calton | Talk 00:17, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:53, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Awasthi

Non-notable, unprovable claim of the surname being significant.

• Delete: Ragib 22:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I want to add that the place for surname promotions should be genealogy project of wikipedia, (http://genealogy.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page). There are hundreds of thousands of surnames in India and in Asia, and an encyclopedia is not the place to promote them, unless that represents a completely different clan/caste/tribe etc. So, I'd affirm my vote for deleting this and/or moving it to genealogy site. Ragib 21:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, geneology, possible family vanity. Megan1967 03:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Notable surname with strong regional affiliation and social implications. Definitely not family vanity. Unlike Anglo-Saxon surnames, Indian surnames are different than Anglo-Saxon ones; often they indicate that a person originates from a particular region or subculture. There are lots of regions in India where almost everyone has the same last name! Second, as the article implies, surnames in India have meaningful social implications. Don't vote off the cuff. Say delete only if you know something about India and have valid reasons. Geneology is a purely Western phenomenon. Our judgements of "significance" and "notability" can easily carry a Western-centric bias. In conclusion, I would argue that some surnames are notable simply for being common and widespread, and this one obviously satisfies that criterion, albeit on a regional level. --Smithfarm
• Strong keep . Indian surnames have links to the history of a region . This article should not be deleted but can be merged under a broader topic. I TOTALLY support Smithfarms view on this vote. Leningrad 09:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep . Indian surnames are different from Anglo Saxon names and relate to regions or customs/traditions. The best way for keeping these articles would be grouping them under a broader group on Indian Surnames. I thank Smithfarm for his in-depth views on this article and in-fact to be honest, am surprised a bit on his knowledge of the Indian social system. The social system is so varied in India, that the same community when you move from one state to another, will change their food habits, customs, traditions and even marriage criteria etc. So if Brahmins by surname 'Awasthi' dont allow marriages in same family; brahmins by surname Aiyyar would actually consider cousins as the first candidates for marriage. And this is only ONE of the millions of anamolies related to just surnames or regions or other criteria of 'non-notable' significance. Unless the world is not interested in knowing that kind of variations existing in it; the article may be considered fit for deleting, but then half of the rest of pages would fall in that kind of category.

Bobby Awasthi

• Strong keep – I fully agree with Smithfarm and Leningrad. May be, over a period of time, all such / similar articles, in some case, may have to be merged/redirected / brought under a special India specific category.
• Keep. Interesting article that doesn't really fall into the straitjacket of genealogy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Believe me, once deciphered, Indian

• Keep. I actually agree with the socks on this one! Bhadani's statement cinched it for me. - Lucky 6.9 23:12, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:54, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC) The Untouchables first record that was Twist-n-Shake b/w Dance Beat, released on their own Dancebeat label in 1982. Then came 1983's Tropical Bird b/w The General. Tropical Bird was a pretty traditional ska number with jungle overtones.The General was a classic two-tone sounding dance tune.

Their first 12" was a six song EP('84) -- Live & Let Dance, that included originals like Free Yourself, Lebanon, Whiplash and What's Gone Wrong -- all of which got some local play on KROQ during the mid-80s -- mostly Rodney on the Roq, but occasionaly during regular rotation as well. Also included a great cover of Stepping Stone. Their early singles and records were eagerly bought up by mods and have become rarities. It was in '84 that the Untouchables started to get recognition, becoming the posterboys for the Los Angeles mod scene appearing in movies like Repo Man and Surf II.

Their first full-length LP came in 1985 -- Wild Child. Interestingly enough, Wild Child -- the song -- was written by Tony Rugolo lead singer of The Question and was intended for The Question's own LP which -- for various reasons -- never saw the light of day. So, UTs stole, borrowed, grabbed, bought (depending on who you talk to) the song from Tony and it became the title track as well as one of their best live numbers. The entire album was musically tight and very consistent.

The compilation album The Untouchable's Live: A Decade of Dance was recorded at The Roxy in Hollywood on December 22nd 1989 -- The Untouchables: Cool Beginnings Rare and Unreleased 1981 - 1983. Cool Beginnings reaches back into Los Angeles mod antiquity to dredge up some really rough live, and bedroom studio, recordings. Rough like uncut diamonds, rough gems: Ska Mods, Mod Knights, Another Late Night, Motion Like Hers, and The General, to name a few.

The Untouchables early shows were great for their intensity, incredibly energy, and like the LA scene at that time, immaturity. Early on, they did a stint as the house band at the Roxy, and were the mod/ska band to see every weekend at places like The Timbers, Oscar's Cornhusker, Mama Brown's Backdoor, Fenders and even the Golden Bear in Huntington Beach. The liner notes for Cool Beginnings says of their years at the Roxy, "Color barriers were smashed as black and white youths came from neighboring cities and counties to join the mod revival in unity, harmony and ska. 1983 was a very good year for ska mods in Hollywood."

The Untouchables were the impetus for bands such as Fishbone, and later for numerous California ska acts like (early, early, early) No Doubt, Donkey Show, Skeletones and Let's Go Bowling.