Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 14

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is appears to be a joke page, it uses complicated (but accurate) phrases to translate simple words which have English equivalents. For example: "傘 — this is a noun signifying a sort of device usually used to keep dry during a rainstorm". The normal translation for

I move that the charges against my client be dismissed as he has just entered a rehabilitation program with the help of Mssrs Yamamoto Yitirou and Nathan Piazza, and most claims against him are no longer valid. --Node 00:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response: It is most definitely not a joke page. The "complicated phrases" are intended as descriptive definitions so that there can be no confusion regarding meanings. "kasa" for example can also translate to any number of English words which are more specific types of umbrella. (note for example that Wiktionary includes "parasol" and "parachute" although I would disagree with the latter) "Umbrella" in English is also used in many cases where it makes no sense in Japanese. (on wikt:umbrella, the second through fourth definitions are not accurately translated as "kasa")

Also, I challenge you to find a single one of these that is incorrect. Some here who don't seem to speak Japanese have said the page is wrong, or that there is some factual error, with some sort of authoritative air about them, yet all I can think of is that they are making a conjecture based on the lies Uncle G has been spreading and the implication of your original nomination that the "complicated phrases" are nonsensical or incorrect. (fixed by Kappa)

So while it may seem like a joke, this page is entirely serious. To those who think I'm trying to make this page into a dictionary, the list is intended only to be illustrative and never to be an exhaustive list of Japanese nouns - whether that even belongs at Wiktionary is questionable (as a category maybe) - because that would really suck and stuff. As you can see, nobody has added or removed any nouns to or from the list since I created the article. I know plenty of other Japanese nouns (曇, for example, is a noun referring to a sort of formation of condensation which, when seen in the sky, appears fluffy. but did I put that on there?), yet I have not put them there. --Node 05:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't intend to imply the "complicated phrases" were nonsensical or incorrect, I have amended the nomination to correct this impression. Kappa 07:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. This page serves a serious function. Linguistically, it is true that there is no exact semantic equivalent for any Japanese noun to any English noun or vice-versa. There isn't anything on the page that is non-factual, and it isn't unencyclopaedic. keep--Node 09:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your point at
    German modal particle has remained made for months, and since then we've had similar discussions on other articles written by Lost Lexicographers, concluding the same as you argued in November 2004. There's no need to perpetuate this article merely in order to keep making the point. Uncle G
    01:08, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
    • It wasn't created to make a point. The fact that it was linked from the talkpage is meaningless. --Node 01:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course it was created to make a point. The edit history speaks loudly and clearly. You created this parody page (from your original redlink) roughly 1 hour after arguing on the talk page of
        German modal particle that articles should not contain such content. Uncle G
        06:21, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
        • Not only are you coming across as extremely hostile, you are claiming to know my personal motivations, thoughts, and feelings better than I know them myself. This is obviously a load of bullshit on your part. It was not - I repeat, was not - created to make a point. --Node 01:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This page has some poor information on it. Speaking from a linguistic standpoint, it's very base. It needs some work, but it should be an article. I'll see what I can do. - Barfooz 09:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend directing your energies instead towards categorizing more of the Wiktionary articles on Japanese nouns into Wiktionary:Category:Japanese nouns. Uncle G 01:08, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs some work, but is facinating. --Commander Keane 13:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and bad translations aren't useful anyway. Perphaps put it on Takl:Japanese to see if anyone can mine something useful from it. --W(t) 14:32, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • I don't see how this is a dictionary article - it merely has a short list of examples of Japanese nouns, and provides correct definitions, if not so-called "Exact" translations. --Node 01:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to
  Talk:German modal particle
  . Samples of current unencyclopedic content:
  • Japanese nouns sound more Japanese than do English nouns
  • Nouns are common in Sino-Tibetan languages, such as Tibetan, Burmese, Yi, and Chinese. They are also common in the O'odham language.
  • There are perhaps one thousand nouns in Japanese, and a list is included below.

-- Krubo 14:43, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

• • • I don't see how any of that is unencyclopaedic: it is all 100% true. And as noted above, the fact that it was linked from the talkpage of the GMP article is meaningless. --Node 01:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean-up. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup would involve erasing the entire content of the article. There's no salvageable content whatever. Uncle G 01:08, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
    • I disagree. --Node 01:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with the caveat that IANAL (linguist) - but given the comments on that other talk page, and the tone of this article, it sure smells like a joke to me. ESkog 15:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, cleanup.
  ² 16:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• TRANSWIKI and merge into the relevant Wiktionary articles. Perhaps it could be wholly transferred to Wikibooks? 132.205.45.148 16:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment betrays a profound lack of knowledge about Wiktionary. I recommend a visit to Wiktionary. A vast number of Japanese/Chinese articles were added to the English Wiktionary early on in its life. Its coverage of those languages is extensive. For your edification, I've interwiki linked some of the words in this list to the Wiktionary articles. I strongly suggest following them, and comparing the (deliberately) pathetic tripe that is in this article with the proper definitions that already exist at Wiktionary. This article is plainly a parody, created to make a point. Wiktionary has no need of it. Uncle G 01:08, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
    • 1) not a parody, 2) not created to make a point (if it were, would I be defending it?), 3) tell me a single definition in that list that is incorrect. --Node 01:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't there something about being nice to users? As for profound lack of knowledge (not nice), many many many articles on Wiktionary are not very good. There's no set standard for a Wiktionary article, so there's no consistent look to find a definition. Furthermore, doesn't the article under discussion provide nuances on the meanings of words? If you've looked in the OED, you'd notice some definitions akin to these. 132.205.15.43 00:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN or just delete Redirect - Everything before the list is completely useless. The list is ridiculous - "this is a noun signifying a sort of sharp tool used to cut through things" for the word NAIFU, which if you can't tell comes directly from the English "knife" - as well as being unencyclopedic. Redirect as per Krubo, as people might look for the topic and the Japanese grammar article has the relevant information. -- Jonel 17:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC) (revised Jonel 00:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • The word "MANSYON" comes from the English word "mansion", but means "condo" (flat). Likewise, although "naifu" means "knife", it is not exactly the same semantically, and has different connotations psycholinguistically. --Node 01:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ludicrous. RickK 19:59, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What's next? Manx prepositions? Edeans 20:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not even funny! Gmaxwell 21:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is a joke. Brighterorange 23:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Quale 23:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• German modal particle has stood without the analogous content to this for months. Delete. Uncle G
  01:08, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • I don't see what's wrong with a list of words to provide examples of Japanese nouns, and I also don't see what's wrong with a single one of my definitions - is not "kasa" a sort of device used to shield onesself from the rain?? --Node 01:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course you do. You yourself articulated exactly what is wrong with this sort of article on
      Talk:German modal particle. When you entered an edit war with Dieter Simon over it you created this page, from your own redlink, as a section-for-section, if not sentence-for-sentence, parody of the version of German modal particles that you kept on attempting to remove. Your version of the article prevailed over the version that you parodied months ago. We can only guess why you don't want your parody to die. Uncle G
      06:21, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
      • Again you are claiming to know me better than I know myself. I refuse to put up with that any longer. Your continued insistance that you are right about my feelings and motivations and that I am wrong is obviously a load of crap and on top of that is highly offensive. --Node 01:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonsense and even if it were true, wikipedia is not a dictionary. Megan1967 03:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also... what part of this article isn't true? Hmmmmmmmm?? --Node 01:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it /were/ a dictionary, there would be an article for each individual noun listed there. It isn't called "list of Japanese nouns", the list is merely a supplement to the article to illustrate the unique function of Japanese nouns which cannot be found in those of any other language - no other language's nouns sound quite as Japanese, and no language has all 1-to-1 correspondences with all of these unique function words. --Node 05:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blatant nonsense. Physchim62 14:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • いつまで日本語が勉強してましたか? If you can't answer that question directly without asking somebody what it means, I don't see what you base your judgement on. --Node 01:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, in case anybody asks, no, that really is what I meant to say. --Node 01:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • 勉強していました, my vote (and comment) stay the same. Physchim62 22:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clearly you did not comprehend the question. --Node 01:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      Should this page exist? Should we have Japanese nouns about and with a list of Japanese nouns, or Bengali counting words? There is nothing different between the function of modal particles in German and in other languages. A list of German modal particles definitely does not belong here, any more than does a list of Navajo noun classifiers.

      And as noted above, a list does not belong here, even if this article does.

      Also as was said before, duplication of information at other, more generalised articles is frowned upon.

      And I will show you two policies, one that says Wikipedia is not a dictionary (that's what Wiktionary is for), and another that says we aren't trying to teach people slang or how to speak a foreign language, when combined they mean that a list in this article, at least at the length you have (two or three examples would be OK), belongs on Wiktionary or Wikibooks, and not on Wikipedia.

      • But I didn't ask that - Physchim62 said "blatant nonsense", not "should not exist". I disagree with both, but the former argument is practical whereas the latter is more philosophical --Node 01:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with all of the above statements, which is why I would say "merge" to Japanese grammar#Nouns and other deictics if there were anything useful in the first part of the article ("Japanese nouns sound more Japanese than English nouns" is hardly informative or useful) and "transwiki" the list to Wiktionary if the definitions on the list were useful (a definition for naifu that could also be used for the English words "saw" or "axe", which are not meant by naifu, is not useful). -- Jonel 02:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly intended to be a parody. Or should I be more "accurate"? "Your collection of text which is supposed to be factual information appears to be instead a humorous reproduction of a previously developed collection of text and while it perhaps may be useful for you to attempt to make your argument from a previous page more clear it is not within the guidelines and other rules for this online encyclopedia project." --Fastfission 03:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is indeed more accurate. "intended to be a parody" does not include the information: "which is supposed to be factual information appears to be instead" (parodies aren't nessecarily "supposed to be factual", although they can be), "humorous reproduction of a previously developed collection of text" (this indicates that it is a text-based parody, and that it uses layout and sentence structure from the original, rather than having all-new text), "and while it may be useful for you to attempt to make your argument from a previous page more clear" (these alleged circumstances are not conveyed by "parody"), and "not within the guidelines and other rules for this online encyclopedia project" ("parody" does not imply that the content is nessecarily against the rules). That gave me a good laugh - what was intended to be sarcastic actually went the opposite direction than intended. Anyhow. It was not intended as a parody. If it were, I would've pointed out explicitly on Talk:German modal particles that "To show you just how rediculous this is, I have created blah blah blah blah blah blah blah", which I most certainly didn't. I simply changed my opinion regarding articles on parts of speech by language, and decided that Japanese nouns, a nonexistant page, should really exist in the interest of completeness, and so populated it with content. After all, if there are so many Japanese nouns and they are used by the millions on an hourly basis, doesn't that make them notable?? --Node 01:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Radiant_* 13:13, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The page is a description of roles and connotations that many Japanese nouns carry, and is meant simply to illustrate that no word has a definite one-to-one correspondence with its English "counterpart" like so many people seem to take for granted. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all Japanese nouns, either. And to answer your question like someone who understands it would, 二千年までにほんごをべんきょうしています。--sébastien 06:41, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or sort of transfer to BJAODN. --Fenice 17:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think that this article should be written in a more serious way, and be judged the article after it's well written before it gets deleted. --Yamamoto Ichiro 22:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for a seriously written version of this article, see Japanese grammar#Nouns and other deictics. -- Jonel 00:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Comment" - That doesn't go into nearly as much detail. I also don't see what about the article is wrong or not serious. --Node 00:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  ^talk
  03:26, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Delete. I reiterate Jonel's comment at 00:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC). That article is much better-written. - Barfooz 03:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure it's considered reiteration when you didn't make the original comment yourself. That aside, the article to which Jonel links touches on Japanese nouns in a different aspect, ie nominal morphology (and syntaxis), and the rôle they play in the larger picture of Japanese grammar more than in their own right as does Japanese nouns. --Node 03:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — mind you
  ✎ 07:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 deleted by User:Duncharris

• 15:19, 14 May 2005 Duncharris deleted "Wrenshall Images" (just external links)

Sjakkalle 08:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity, no text - Barfooz 09:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under criteria for speedy deletion A3 (articles "whose contents consist only of an external link, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, or interwiki link"). Having three external links is no better than one. Sjakkalle 12:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yup, speedy deletion makes sense to me. Otherwise, delete. --W(t) 14:32, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
• Delete. List of links does not an article make. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 (sent to BJAODN :-)). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say to an article that claims:

Born is Dunkles Holz, Goels’ early life was spent in the bucolic environs of his father’s successful fish ranch. A promising athlete as a youngster, Goels trained seriously at Das Institut der Beiläufigen Athletik in Kleve. His sporting career ended abruptly when Goels was badly injured in a freak trampoline accident that left him with a slight limp and a pronounced lisp.

Or:

Goels’ most famous work Dank für die Probe Bitte – a sixteen panel work depicting the Board of Directors of Belgian chocolatier Sucrerie Chère – was a cause célébre at the 2001 Kowloon Biennial when one of the subjects of the work insisted his portrait be removed because it made him “look fat.” Schlammklappe is typical of Goels’ work in series, reflecting his tendency to make large numbers of discrete images on a given theme which, collectively, make up a single work. Goels’ willingness to allow a given work to comprise, in a particular context, all or part of a series has been seen as a radical attempt to destabilize the unity of the art object and to challenge the authority of the artist. Others have seen the practice as the product of lazy or sloppy execution.

Very well done joke entry that should be archived somewhere, but not in the main namespace.

There are several related articles from the same user:

• New Situationist Movement
• Otto Jungt
• Image:GegenAlleVorteile.jpg

I've stamped a VfD on all of them, linking back to this entry on VfD. --Diderot 10:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missed one: Dirk Endlos This too is a joke entry from the same contributor. --Diderot 12:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Archive as jokes and Delete. I believe Diderot is correct. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN.
  ² 16:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Humorless bastards. Speaking of jokes, where does one get off calling oneself 'Diderot?" --Tsheeder 13:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• BJAODN. Megan1967 03:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN.
  ^talk
  03:26, 2005 May 19 (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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are no grades of vanity, there are only grades of ability in concealing it. ~Mark Twain --

• Delete. Doesn't seem notable enough. Sjakkalle 10:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity. --W(t) 14:32, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
• Userfy, vanity.
  Doc Glasgow 15:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Okay, looked like an odd contribution. :) DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity.
  ² 15:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete. Tomkr, please visit your talk page. EvilPhoenix

• Delete. The thimble club? You've got to be kidding! LOL! In Delft, no less! Ganymead 03:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  ^talk
  03:27, 2005 May 19 (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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity, should be deleted. --Ajshm 11:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vanity, not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --W(t) 14:33, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, cleanup.
  ² 15:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, vanity. EvilPhoenix
• Delete all articles about MMORPG (sp?) clans. — JIP | Talk 16:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clancruft. Nestea 17:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Quale 00:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  ^talk
  03:27, 2005 May 19 (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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No papers cited, no Google hits. Possible joke as it's unlikely a philosopy student has quantum mechanics papers. Samw 11:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, vanity. --W(t) 14:33, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
• Delete, appears to be vanity page started by anon. user. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax.
  ² 15:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. If you are the author of the article, please visit the articles discussion page. EvilPhoenix
• delete. no verifiable information. -Willmcw 18:45, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.
  ^talk
  03:28, 2005 May 19 (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 06:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like some government instruction sheet copied from somewhere. In fact the first paragraph gets 53 google hits [7]. Anyway, I don't think this is an encyclopedia article. Is this something for Wikisource? Sjakkalle 12:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Note from author: The source is the
  OPCW. This page is meant to replace and expand material currently on Chemical Weapons Convention, though I agree that the introduction needs some work doing on it. The format and placement of the list on Wikipedia allow links through to the articles on individual chemicals, and a check-tool for editors writing new chemicals articles. Hope you'll keep it ;) Physchim62 13:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete.
  2 15:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. However, let's make sure that good Wikipedia practices are followed. Physchim62, it looks like you've been doing a lot of contributing to Wikipedia, so thank you for that. Please make sure that you are within fair use requirements and are not directly quoting your source material, and that you are not duplicating material already found elsewhere on Wikipedia. I am all for keeping this article, it seems to have valid information. EvilPhoenix
• Keep, since it's on a .gov website [8] its not copyrighted. Should really explain where it comes from though.
  Kappa 17:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- Longhair | Talk 18:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Samaritan 19:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, cleanup and expand. useful. Megan1967 03:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep similar to List of Poison Pokemon Klonimus 05:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems inconsistent with a keep vote, as List of Poison Pokemon is a redlink. A Man In Black 07:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Note from original author: I have to agree! However, I still think that this page is a useful expansion of the Chemical Weapons Convention article. The intro is now slightly improved, and I welcome other comments either here or on the article's talk page. Physchim62 16:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a useful page, particularly in these days of terrorism. I can imagine this page getting a lot of hits if there is a major chemical weapons attack. Walkerma 23:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.
  ^talk
  03:28, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia has expanded past half a million articles covering practically all aspects of almost everything. With such a number of articles and many new ones introduced every day, the article topics are now getting more detailed. Considering the detailed nature of many of the articles in the half a million we have, I think it is consistent for Wikipedia to keep this internationally applicable and relevant list, although I concede it is not relevant to most people. Also, the list is not so exceptionally long that it poses a burden for Wikipedia to keep. As for the fact that it does not seem like an encyclopedia article, perhaps the explanation should be expanded so it is like one. H Padleckas 04:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• As the nominator I'm shutting this down now, I see that I'm clearly in the minority on this one. Sjakkalle 06:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most probably fictitious. I tried

• Delete, fiction by someone who doesn't appear to have the slightest understanding of the British political system. Average Earthman 15:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  ² 15:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete
  Stancel 16:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete.
  speedy deletion tag to the article. EvilPhoenix
• Delete. Hoax. The article's creator, 24.254.219.13 has a history of vandalising pages by adding in irrelevant references to the Fairly Oddparents. There is no evidence that this "tv special" has any basis in reality. R Calvete 17:19, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete for nonsense. Nestea 17:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 03:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Nonsense. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant advertising - Algebraist 13:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Self promotional vanity - Longhair | Talk 13:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertising Terrace4 13:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There was also a spam link on
  NSR 13:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Advert. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ad.
  ² 15:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete as spam. The user has been blocked permanently for doing nothing but, particularly for moving Milwaukie, Oregon to "Learning toys." Intolerable. Postdlf 01:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete DS1953 20:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Postdlf (advert by linkspammer). Master Thief Garrett 11:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity -- Longhair | Talk 14:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't establish notability, wikipedia is not a web directory, etc, etc. --W(t) 14:34, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
• Delete. This is the same article as above but with a different name.
  NSR 14:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, ad.
  ² 15:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 18:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Uncle G 23:48, 2005 May 14 (UTC) Per the deletion log:

• 14:05, 2005 May 14 ChrisO deleted Rachel Davis (Speedy deletion - Patent nonsense)
• 00:40, 2005 May 2
  Petaholmes deleted Rachel Davis
  (content was: 'Rachel Davis (dec. 12, 1991), A big fan of American Idol and Paula Abdul..loves to dance, play the key broad and gutier..also is an actor in small pla...')

Not notable. Thue | talk 13:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Uncle G 23:45, 2005 May 14 (UTC) Per the deletion log:

• 14:56, 2005 May 14 Duncharris deleted SA 8000 LEAD AUDITOR COURSE (spam)

Ad. Thue | talk 14:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. You shouldn't even need a vfd with this. --
  Natalinasmpf 14:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A collection of irrelevant trivia. Thue | talk 14:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's hard to tell whether something article-worthy can be said about this, but this isn't it anyway. Delete. --W(t) 14:35, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
• Delete. An anon. user's personal POV of a gov. building. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, cleanup considerably.
  ² 15:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete.EvilPhoenix

• Keep.
  (что??) 18:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I withdraw my nomination - keep new cleaned up version. Thue | talk 20:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-opened since there were three delete votes from people other than the nominator, and I see no evidence of a 'cleaned up' version since it's only one line with poor spelling and grammar. Also, Delete. Radiant_* 13:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep
  ^talk
  03:29, 2005 May 19 (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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is he notable? I only get 80 google hits, 25 with very similar entries omitted. Thue | talk 14:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The reference to many "'letters-to-the editors' of international magazines" allegedly written by the subject of the article is a pretty good clue that he is not notable, probably not even remotely. Delete. Edeans 20:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reads like a cut-and-paste job to me. Perhaps a copyvio... and in addition, the evidence set forth here suggests the absence of notability. Delete. --Chanting Fox 16:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  ^talk
  03:30, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Delete --130.232.129.242 09:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ad. Thue | talk 14:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to mention a copyvio, were it not being posted by the site owners. Delete. --W(t) 14:36, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
• Delete, PoV ad.
  ² 15:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete.
  ^talk
  03:31, 2005 May 19 (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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, probably advertising. --W(t) 14:21, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

• Change to VSD --User:Joey.dale
• Delete, ad.
  2 15:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, adspam. Samaritan 19:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ad. Cedars 09:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  ^talk
  03:31, 2005 May 19 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by ChrisO (nonsense article). Master Thief Garrett 11:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such genre as "Blues-Rap". The article is unencyclopedic and the subject matter qualifies as original research. Adraeus 14:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 14:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, wikipedia isn't a what-if site. --W(t) 14:55, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
• Delete, original-research-fiction.
  2 15:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, nominated for speedy. EvilPhoenix
• Delete, silly, and inevitably a google for +blues +rap +influences disproves the article's only claim, that "nobody has started this, or even experimented with this." (And any article about such cross-pollination at Blues-Rap would still be mistitled...) Samaritan 19:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A note in a Scandinavian language (presumably Swedish) about hostility towards foreigners. I don't fully understand it, but it says something along the lines of: these regions are in Belgium, France, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and Austria. They all have a tradition of hostility towards foreigners and [???] for relatively many years. The exception is the LPF [political party] in The Netherlands which arose in 2000. . I don't see how this can be made into something encyclopedic. Sietse 14:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments copied from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
  • A note in some Scandinavian language about hostility towards foreigners in Europe. I'd like to hear what other people think: should this go to VfD or can it be converted to something encyclopedic? Sietse 16:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appears to have been deleted already. SteveW | Talk 10:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's still there. Looks like PoV in Swedish to me, but I'd rather have another viewpoint before VfD. Physchim62 10:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It's in Swedish. The title means "Hostility towards foreigners in selected European regions". The contents say "The selected regions are located in Belgium, France, The Netherlands, Switzerland and Austria. They all have a tradition of hostility towards foreigners and their parties are not new, but have existed for relatively many years. The exception is the LPF in The Netherlands which arose in 2000." Delete as a non-encyclopedic, non-verifiable, PoV rant. Oh, and it's in the wrong language too. — JIP | Talk 14:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I've had my other viewpoints, I vote delete. Physchim62 15:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  ² 15:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 17:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this rant. Edeans 21:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  ^talk
  03:32, 2005 May 19 (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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't establish notability. --W(t) 14:51, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

• Delete. High school principal. There are thousands and thousands of them, why does this one stand out? The article suggests nothing.Average Earthman 15:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Dunc|☺ 15:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  ² 15:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete. Article written by anon. user. possible vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.EvilPhoenix
• Guillotine!
  (что??) 18:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, maybe on the bel air hs page it should be noted who is the currently principal --Howard547 20:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)~[reply]
• Merge with the
  Harro5
  22:02, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't pass the average high school principal test. Sigh. Fawcett5 03:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't establish notability. --W(t) 14:52, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

• Merge with
  Bel Air, Harford County, Maryland article. Currently it merely states that it is a school, the name of the principal, and what size it is. And no, padding it out with pictures and details of the after school clubs won't make it notable, just bloated and overlong. Average Earthman 15:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete, no redirect. Merge the one sentence w/ the place where it is. Dunc|☺ 15:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.
  2 15:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, verifiable and NPOV but perhaps a poor title. There must be other Bel Air High Schools in the world. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.EvilPhoenix
• keep and expand. Disambiguate if any other Bel Air High Schools show up.
  Kappa 17:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, echo Kappa.
  (что??) 18:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- and expand. - Longhair | Talk 18:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability established by words "High School" in name. Oliver Chettle 18:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, same reasons as Oliver Chettle. --Unfocused 19:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; article's already being expanded, and it's the oldest high school, amazingly, in the large suburban
  Washington-Baltimore division of Harford County, Maryland. Samaritan 20:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, could be expanded into useful article --Freyr 20:48, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Schoolcrufta delenda est. Edeans 21:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Instutional Vanity. Gmaxwell 21:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Get the original author to encourage their friends to help expand the piece, because I'm guessing he goes to this school
  Harro5
  21:41, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Will grow organically. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep high schools. R Calvete 21:57, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 22:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful collection of specific facts about a significant school. This is an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are inherently encyclopedic and there is much to distinguish significant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. —Teknic^Talk/Mail 23:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say "superficially similar" rather than "nearly identical"
    Kappa 14:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• keep high school articles. Brighterorange 23:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Doesn't not establish notability. --Centauri 23:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with
  Bel Air, Harford County, Maryland article. --Carnildo 05:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep every school is included in a truly great encyclopaedia User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 05:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - you have to let the article survive in order to expect it to increase in quality, for goodness sake. --
  Natalinasmpf 12:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment. It was nominated within 12 hours of creation. --Unfocused 14:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I cannot possibly word it better than Gamaliel did. "Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world." My sentiments exactly. I'm beginning to think we need to launch WikiSchools to stop this angry "all schools are auto-notable!" idealism once and for all. Master Thief Garrett 05:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Master Thief Garrett, I don't see any anger in this discussion except in your perception of the comments of others. This is encyclopedic, NPOV, and verifiable, as are all school stubs. They belong here. Wikipedia is not running out of space! In fact, at the end of April, the database was less than 4 terabytes gigabytes, only a few thousand hundreds of dollars worth of disk space. --Unfocused 05:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, the 4 terabytes gigabytes is for ALL languages, not just English. --Unfocused 05:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correction: 4 gigabytes, NOT 4 terabytes. (3980 MB = 3.98 GB) --Unfocused 05:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I was meaning "angry" in a purely symbolic sense. Many users have a viewpoint that boils down to "How *dare* people vote to delete?!? All schools are automatically noteworthy here, WP is not paper; I don't see how anyone can possibly think otherwise!" This view is not necessarily given in as many words, but that's the basic idea of it.

We're not at all concerned about running out of disk space--

WP:WWIN openly encourages long, detailed articles, and if we were really Scrooges

we wouldn't allow User pages to tie up said bandwidth--but the thing is the ultimate ungainliness of it.

OK, my mother came from Cabri, pop. ~500 and declining (the old people slowly die off, the children quickly move to Swift Current, and no new families move in). It is a town so obscure it doesn't even have an article of its own yet (if ever). Now would anyone from Cabri come here and search for the their one-and-only school (with a roll of ~50) and actually *expect* it to be here? Of course not, because they know full well they're insignificant to most of the world and are even missing on many maps. But, according to the Schoolwatch ideal, should that school be here? Oh yes, of course, it's instantly notable.

Now that is the problem. As I expressed it on my User page, "the Vfd ideal ... is, that people vote for an article to be kept because it is *actually* valid, NOT merely because it is a school." The schoolwatch program tells me nothing of a realistic minimum of (non)notability, and in the end we could end up with 500,000+ school pages that will never get hits!

Now THAT is my concern, that the Schoolwatch program has "legitimised" a precendent for the addition of countless useless pages.

Please understand this, I hold academic institutions of all forms in high regard (except for the Kohanga, which result in children having a great understanding of Maori but no working knowledge of the English language whatsoever, but I digress), but very, very, VERY few of them are noteworthy to the outside world. And, therefore, THIS one certainly isn't. Master Thief Garrett 07:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I would love wikipedia to have a decent article on that school in Cabri, sorry about that. As to numbers, there isn't a huge flood of school articles coming in, and the nominations and votes on school "notability" leave no room for compromise on the validity of the article. Let's make a {{cleanup-schools}} tag to get the articles up to a certain minimum quality, and discourage people from dropping in substubs which others have to fix up.
  Kappa 07:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge with
  Bel Air, Harford County, Maryland and delete - Skysmith 08:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep--AYArktos 08:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and continue to improve. High schools should not have to prove notability.
• Delete. Useless collection of trivia. If delete falis, merge with
  Bel Air, Harford County, Maryland. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Schools are inherantly notable -- delete them when we delete articles on individual tv episodes! --Zantastik 19:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added a good deal of verifiable data to the article. The school dates back to 1811 and John Wilkes Booth once attended there, if some people are looking for notability. I'll let someone else calculate the BEEFSTEW if they want to. --BaronLarf 20:09, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 22:57, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia would not be improved by the deletion of this article. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 01:37, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
• Keep. Good start. DS1953 04:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. Radiant_* 13:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per
  ^thimkact
  15:21, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
• Keep. Move to include location in name - David Gerard 22:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lets keep things in perspective. Is this article less noteworthy, or less encyclopedic, than, say for example, some random article in
  St. Louis Car Co.? linas 00:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• LOL Keep. Will Smith may have attended this high school. —RaD Man (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Samaritan. —Markaci 2005-05-21 T 17:33 Z
• Comment This has been on VfD for more than 2 weeks; is anything going to be done here? I see 27 keeps, 10 deletes and a couple merge votes. Doesn't seem like a consensus to delete to me. --BaronLarf 11:27, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Somebody will close it sooner or later, but I'd prefer it were someone who didn't participate in the discussion. Meanwhile, assuming your count is reasonably correct, I'm removing the VfD notice from the article as the discussion period is long over and it's an obvious keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

128.135.188.232 (talk · contribs) nominated this article for deletion on 2005-05-11, but made a botch of the nomination, forgetting to sign the rationale, to add a header, and to transclude onto the per-day page. I've completed the nomination. This is not a vote. Uncle G 15:39, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Irrelevant material for wikipedia. (Unsigned comment anon user 128.135.188.232)

• Keep. (I am the original author.) I am cool about the VfD, but I would like 128.135.188.232 to at least try to give a reason for his implied deletion vote. On the other hand I worked to make this article conform to Wikipedia policy (or semi-policy), especially
  Wikipedia:Fiction. The rationale is that tourneys are a major concept of the books in question, and the article takes some time explaining their significance. So, depending on your perspective, this article is either a "major concept" of a work of fiction (and deserves its own because because of its length), or it is a "List of (minor and major) events", which makes it a topical, cross-volume plot summary. Both I find good enough reasons, but I certainly welcome the opinion of other editors. Arbor 19:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. By the way, this page doesn't seem to be listed on the main VfD page at all. (In any case I cannot find it). 128.135.188.232, since you made the nomination, maybe you would like to finish the process by putting the page on the main VfD list, so that it can be found by others than me and you? That is the third step of the VfD proces. Also, I encourage you to expand you nomination in the first paragraph with a reason. (And next time, please don't forget to sign your contribution.) As it is now, this page is unlikely to be found by anybody and hence won't gather many votes pro or contra. No longer relevant. Uncle G kindly finished the proces. Arbor 09:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. is this even a valid vfd until some claims to have made it? Nateji77 08:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone has made it. 128.135.188.232 made it, and even gave xyr rationale. Uncle G 15:39, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
    • Some has made it, not claimed to have made it, and gave the reflexive argument "we should delete it because it doesn't belong." Nateji77 11:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reason to delete. EvilPhoenix
• Keep.
  Kappa 17:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I trust Arbor's explanation of the importance of tourneys to what appears to be a very successful book, trading card game and board game universe. Samaritan 20:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.
  ² 22:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I see no reason why this should be deleted. Maltaran 13:01, May 17, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Band vanity. By their own admittance, have released 1 demo and are working on an EP. Dunc|☺ 16:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Written by User:Justinarama, does not appear to be vanity. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not terribly notable. Article is also currently an orphan. EvilPhoenix
• Nope. (that is, delete) Way under
  WP:MUSIC, even for a "small-genre" band (they're a Christian band). I've got no problem considering bands notable enough in context, but 1 self-released demo CD plus shows only in northern Alabama equals non-notable vanity (even if written by a fan and not a band member). Soundguy99 20:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • WP:V is. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete. I was inclined to vote "keep", until I discovered the article was just band vanity, instead of a Penny Singleton film. Edeans 21:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable.
  ² 22:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  ^talk
  03:33, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Delete --130.232.129.242 09:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A VfD incorrectly submitted by Oberiko. I'm just listing it correctly and not voting. -- Longhair | Talk 16:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Rather ugly substub but could be made better and is linked from Sponge. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Is "folded inner body" the right definition? From googling, it seems more to do with having coral-like skeletons.
  Kappa 17:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, expand.
  ² 21:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and expand. Megan1967 03:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's apparently a new (as of 1970) biological classification of sponges. LSNED. --Unfocused 04:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable form of sponge. I wonder if Sponge Bob is a schlerosponge, Capitalistroadster 11:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I will add a taxobox and straighten it up a bit. --DanielCD 15:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Google hits for "The beshears" + keywords. Other contribs by anon user were all vandalism. Samw 16:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lame joke. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although I'm curious what an "industrial music version of David Hasselhoff" would actually sound like, but then again, I probably don't want to know. EvilPhoenix
• Hoax, or actual art school wankers? Who cares? Delete. Edeans 21:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax.
  ² 21:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A VfD incorrectly submitted by Oberiko. I'm just listing it correctly and not voting. -- Longhair | Talk 16:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. Former dean of an important cathedral. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above.
  Kappa 18:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and expand.
  ² 21:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. God says so. --Unfocused 04:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No google hits uses this word with this meaning. Samw 16:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. mildly amusing but inappropriate for wikipedia. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. EvilPhoenix
• Delete nonsense
  Stancel 18:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, neologism.
  ² 21:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 03:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity bio. Samw 17:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Crush by elephant.
  (что??) 17:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Recklessronin, please visit your talk page. EvilPhoenix
• Userify. Edeans 21:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• "Userify", vanity.
  ² 21:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not encyclopedic, original research. I think it's safe to say that the entire human race is probably "addicted" to food. Yet another "addiction" article posted by this ip that needs to be deleted. - Jersyko 18:08, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to
  Stancel 18:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment that works, but the main article would be Binge eating disorder - Jersyko 18:17, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No useful info not found elsewhere. Edeans 21:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  ² 21:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  _comhrá 15:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This article discounts the complexities of addiction and relegates it to the realm of a physical disorder. Mollywap 18:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]