Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 26

Jorb

Fan trivia - could redirect, but this is a nonsensical redirect, and the content is already at the target. So delete CDC (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.I would have suggested a merge, but as you note, it is already included at the
  Coach Z article. I don't know why the verifiability notice was posted though, he definitely says it. --M412k 02:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  Coach Z, 'cause they're cheap. I wouldn't be opposed to a delete. AиDя01DTALK
  03:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to
  Coach Z. Homestar Cruftter. Nestea 03:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, duplicate content, fan cruft. Megan1967 06:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Homestar Runner fancruft. No redirect necessary. --Idont Havaname 07:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, even the Homestar Runner wiki doesn't have this. the wub (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think a redirect is necessary, as it's unlikely to be a common search term for folks looking for Coach Z, and besides, he says it other ways too (Jarb, Joereerb)... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:07, May 26, 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.

John Stamey

Probable vanity. CDC (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails to show importance, probable vanity. --
  talk) 01:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: CV material. I suspect someone fulfilling a class activity by creating an article. Geogre 03:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity, doesn't seem that notable. - Etacar11 17:06, 26 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.

Modal (textile)

Lacks encyclopedic potential and appears to be nothing but an advertisement dressed up like an encyclopedia entry. BenSamples 01:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Definitely promotional material, complete with registered trademarks, lest we forget that we're supposed to go out and buy this stuff. Geogre 03:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: needs to be made NPOV, but this is an interesting substance of moderate commericial importance. ike9898 13:59, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertisements. Scimitar 15:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertisment, and I wouldn't be surprised to find it was copied from a promotional brochure somewhere. --Carnildo 22:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, definitely keep. Being owned by a company doesn't make a new material unencyclopedic. Consider pharmaceuticals, for example. --Unfocused 02:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. May be important info. Vorash 08:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but cleanup. JamesBurns 11:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Karol 11:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Since these votes were cast, I've made the article less POV. I think that the ® mark is setting off user's advertisement detectors but I really think that this is unwarrented. ike9898 13:28, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, thanks for the cleanup ike9898. Wonder if wp has a policy on ® marks.
  Kappa 21:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, I found it very helpful! Since my girlfriend bought a shirt form modal and I had no idea what it was. Just the fact that one kann

• Keep Granted, I wrote a hefty chunk of this article (so take that into consideration), but the fact its name IS a registered trademark, and thus to use that name to describe the fabric without said trademark is a violation of the trademark. The fact that Wikipedia is open source doesn't mean that it doesn't have to follow others' rules for their content, only that its rules for its OWN content are lax. And no, I didn't copy this... I wrote after purchasing some sheets of the fabric, and did a bit of research on it. - Loweeel 00:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but add more detail. Doesn't Modal have any deficiencies?

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. —Xezbeth 16:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

BubbaTek Productions

Advertising vanity. Denni☯ 01:59, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

• Delete: Advertising for a non-serious (and, of course, non-notable) company, and delete the Kyle Devies article, which shows that the company's owner is a 17 year old. More kid project vanity. Geogre 03:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

low_no_ovlp.amt.day_only, not notable, advert. Megan1967 06:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Nateji77 07:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad. - Etacar11 17:07, 26 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. —Xezbeth 07:04, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ruxton Towers

As much as I try to avoid the words, vanity page. Deltabeignet 02:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet my criteria for retention of a performing musical group article. Kelly Martin 02:00, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Isn't there an actual place in London by this name? I'm not sure it would be a good subject of an article, either, but this garage band certainly isn't. Unsigned, unrecorded, undistributed, unknown. Geogre 03:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It's the name of the fictional
    The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner. Uncle G
    08:42, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
    • Ah, thanks. It has been an age since I read that book, and now my memory is starting to make scrambled eggs of college. Geogre 13:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. - Etacar11 17:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don't meet the
  WP:MUSIC criteria. -- Lochaber 14:39, 27 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?) 01:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Component Pascal

This page is a promotional article for Oberon Microsystems, which is the seller of "Component Pascal". Further, "Component Pascal" is not in fact related to the language Pascal in any way, it is actually a variant of the language Oberon. In short, the page is promotional, and misleading, and should be deleted. I would suggest that the page be rewritten to be less misleading (and I have added a comment to the page to that effect). However, the page was clearly posted by, and has virtally all its references to, Oberon Microsystems. (this VfD was started by 192.18.43.11, an anonymous user. --Ketsuban (is better than you) 01:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Can you provide some reference urls? drini ☎ 01:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Please examine the links at the bottom of the article. All but two point back to Oberon Microsystems, and the other two are close associates. Scott A. Moore

• KEEP. The only part that looks promotional was the part added at the bottom, most likely by the initiator of this vote. Furthermore, Component Pascal may not be related to Pascal but it is the name of the language. Damicatz 01:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would you bother to make that accuation (the part added at the bottom, most likely by the initiator of this vote). You can check that easily by simply looking at the history of the page. Scott A. Moore

• I make a Pascal, lets put that up front. I saw this companies article on their own Pascal, and thought "why not make one on my version of Pascal". Well, the rules clearly forbid that, so I didn't do it. However, that's just as clearly what the creator of that article did, create a self promoting peice. So please, tell me the difference. "Component Pascal" is not a widely implemented langauge, it is one company's product. All of the references at the bottom go back to that company. I'm ok with it. If thats ok, then I think you are basically telling me to go ahead and list my companies product (which is actually a Pascal language product, not just named that) as well. Am I slightly annoyed ? Yes. Oberon Microsystems have been promoting "Component Pascal" even though their product had nothing to do with Pascal, and was in fact Oberon renamed. I emailed them about it, they told me "Pascal is dead, we can use the name". This, to me, clearly indicates that they wish to create confusion on the part of the reader. End of rant, sorry. Scott A. Moore

• I'll add: No, I would not list my Pascal implementation. I like and respect Wikipedia, and I will obey its laws and conventions. Too bad others don't feel the same way. Scott A. Moore.

(this anonymous edit was also made by 192.18.43.11. --Ketsuban (is better than you) 01:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• The poster above referred to "The only part that looks promotional was the part added at the bottom, most likely by the initiator of this vote". I have pulled these links that were placed there at the start of the page according to the "history" tab from the page:

Oberon Microsystems

Language Report

More Information

Gardens Point Component Pascal

If these links are not what you are referring to, please state that. I also respectfully request that you refrain from making wild (and completely unfounded) attacks on me. I have a long history with Pascal, going back to 1979, and have worked extensively on the Pascal language page here at Wikipedia, which I have helped become more factual and less biased. I have every reason to be concerned that this page advances disinformation against the Language Pascal> however, besides its disinformation aspect, it CLEARLY voilates the Wikipedia rules on posting to promote a company or product. Please excuse the poor editing, I am a new user of Wikipedia. user samiam95124

• Keep. Excellent article. Lovely, succinct, and tells me everything I need to know in ten seconds. I wish all Wikipedia articles could be this good. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I still think that the article should be kept. Should we remove Delphi next because it's a Borland-specific implementation of a language? It's still a programming language regardless of if it is only by one company or not. Damicatz 18:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It could still use some work to make it less promotional, but that's not something the article should be deleted for. -- Jonel 21:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• So if I understand, I would be also free to place an article online about our company's Pascal (which is a true Pascal, by the way), as long as it is factual about the language and does not read like an ad. True ? samiam95124, 26 May 2005
  • Yes. Please do that. This is what Wikipedia is for--providing neutral information. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Isn't this VfD null and void anyway since it was started by an anon user? Ketsuban (is better than you) 21:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: Why would it be?--24.221.65.46 21:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it isn't. Anonymous users may nominate just as anyone else. Their votes may be discouted at times, but their reasoning is not. Radiant_* 08:16, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a perfectly good article. --Carnildo 22:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and wikify. Hermione1980 22:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not ANON, I have signed up since posting that. Ok ?samiam95124, 26 May 2005
  • Welcome. The anonymous deletion listing was a perfectly reasonable one and was acceptable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing unencyclopedic about programming languages. So the article's genesis may have been commercially motivated... that's one of the reasons why EVERYONE has editor priviledges; to make good, neutral articles. --Unfocused 02:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. JamesBurns 11:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Come on, you don't just delete an article on a programming language designed by Niklaus Wirth! The article is OK as it is; could be improved, of course... GregorB

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.

CSE Revue

Non-notable (387 Google hits) event Denni☯ 02:11, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

• Merge into
  UNSW Revues.--M412k 02:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename to UNSW CSE Revue. To be consitent with other
  UNSW Revues. I've rewritten it into a stub. I've also put in some more information about it. Bambul☯ 07:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge with
  UNSW Revues (and maybe move that article. Isn't UNSW revues the correct capitalization?) --Carnildo 22:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You're probably right about UNSW revues. Bambul☯ 03:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm all for increasing our coverage of universities, but this is taking the cruft factor a bit too far. Ambi 05:28, 1 Jun 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. —Xezbeth 07:03, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Carolyn S. Packard

Vanity Denni☯ 02:14, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails the Google test: 0 results. Would have recommended for speedy deletion. --M412k 02:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not a speedy, probably, as this is likely a genealogy page. Definitely delete, though, as we are not the county registrar. Geogre 04:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obvious vanity.
  Harro5
  04:07, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Personal genealogy page. The author of the page
  talk · contribs) also created another page Edwin B. Marshall for his father which is yet another genealogy page. --Ragib 08:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete nn, vanity. - Etacar11 17:17, 26 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. —Xezbeth 07:06, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Tarutius

Article on very very minor mythological character. (He was cuckolded by Hercules. End of story.) Has been a stub for 2-1/2 years without anybody adding to it. ----Isaac R 02:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Hercules. AиDя01DTALK 02:35, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand to mention the cuckolding thing.
  Kappa 02:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • So every character in every myth or story or book deservers an article? ----Isaac R 02:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mythological figures are more notable than fictional ones, and it's more convenient for the user to have them on separate pages.
      Kappa 03:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• I generally believe that every mythological figure should have an article. However, this fellow is so unbelievably minor that I can find not a single author who refers to him after the Classical period. No kidding. That means that it's exceptionally unlikely that anyone will encounter the name and need an explanation, so, reluctantly, I have to agree to delete this particular substub. The reason is that it simply can't expand beyond a medium length sentence. Geogre 04:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Hercules. Megan1967 06:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; information on him is already at
  탉 07:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: Can't this at least be redirected so someone trying to look him up will find him?
    Kappa 08:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• L'Emprière's has him listed as
  WP:FICT guidelines of redirecting minor story characters.) A translation of Plutarch's text mentioning Tarrutius can be found here. Also note that others when they mention Tarrutius are referring to a "16th-century astrologer, Lucius Tarrutius of Firmum" (asserted to be "original research" at Talk:Romulus and Remus, incidentally, but clearly tertiary source material in need of cleanup to demonstrate the disagreements in scholarship on this matter — treat it as we would a disagreement in religious scholarship: report the fact that for centuries people have analyzed the story as if it were true, and what the disagreements amongst the analysts are). Also further note that this asserts that Plutarch's Tarrutius was actually Carutius, an Etruscan. Uncle G
  09:39, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
• Keep Can't think of a good reason to delete this. Perhaps someone will want to merge with redirect, but that's not something I feel moved to express a preference on. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. -Sean Curtin 23:50, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep until we have an article named "Minor characters in XXXXX mythology", then merge and redirect. I knowI DON'T know enough of this subject to be comfortable casting a delete vote. --Unfocused 02:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)(correction)--Unfocused 12:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge, and please expand, Uncle G. Eixo 10:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As I understand it, he was a rich Etruscan who left his wife a substantial landholding which was later left to Rome. St Augustine refers to a different version of the story in The City of God. Interesting myth capable of forming a nice little article. Capitalistroadster 15:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded the article accordingly. No change in vote from Keep. Capitalistroadster 04:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all articles on mythological figures. An article need not be long to be encyclopedic. --
  ^talk
  17:41, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep both (no consensus to delete). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alexander MacGregor & Toronto Institute of Pharmaceutical Technology

This was originally created as a vanity article (content as written by original author). Rather than VfD it, an editor apparently ran MacGregor through Lexis and found a couple items, which were added to the article (result). The content added casts MacGregor in a rather negative light, and a complaint has been made to the Wikimedia Foundation implying the possibility of legal action.

Considering the complaint, we should only have an article on MacGregor, if at all, that we are confident meets our standards and is unimpeachably relevant and factual. I reviewed the article and removed the biographical material from the original author because it is not verifiable. For similar reasons, I removed information about his educational credentials that cannot be traced to a verifiable source without original research, and a paragraph whose only source has retracted the story. None of this content is acceptable for an encyclopedia — see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources.

What is left is the present article (and Toronto Institute of Pharmaceutical Technology, included in this request). The verifiable facts about this man boil down to: 1) he runs a vocational school; 2) he was sued successfully by an employee for firing her when she was pregnant; and 3) he was found guilty of a domestic violence assault shortly before he was supposed to receive a local civic award. I submit that an article that amounts to nothing more than this is not one we should keep. --Michael Snow 02:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not verifiable, not likely to become encyclopedic Trödel|talk 03:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC) (I agree with Fred Bauder, below, that a new article may be needed - but only for the School where MacGregor can be listed as the founder. Trödel|talk 18:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 1,690 google hits for "Alexander MacGregor", but a larger number of these links are for other MacGregors. I can't find evidence of notability here...and quite frankly, I have little patience for those who write vanity articles about themselves, the truth about them comes out, and then they go and threaten legal action. func(talk) 04:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both articles. The school, although not a liberal arts college, is post-secondary, so it seems notable, without reference to the ongoing schools debate. I lean toward thinking that the head of such a school would always be notable, but even if some or most of them aren't, a school official who's managed to get into so many publicized scrapes is. JamesMLane 08:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As it stands the article is too partial (in both senses) to be NPOV. Brief research suggests that the preparation of an acceptable article would involve interviewing the subject or consulting archives in several countries. The former is unverifiable and the latter is improbable. --Theo (Talk) 09:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the existing article but leave open the possibility of recreating the article in a form which avoids the use of news reports of matters which were alleged but not proven. The effect of setting forth all the details of a news report which was latter retracted with an apology is to republish it. Fred Bauder 12:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. Radiant_* 13:02, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, president of notable institution. Grue 13:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And keep the Institute too. More notable than random school. Grue 18:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Preferably the wife-beating conviction story should be sourced directly to the court report, but the newspaper article doesn't seem like an unreasonable source in view of the criminal conviction. Michael Snow removed some general biographical information; this was a very bad move in my opinion and the information should be restored. The details of his Scottish birth, his distinguished academic career, and emigration to Canada, at least, should not be omitted without good grounds. If the article is partial, it should be edited, not deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC) Delete. I will follow Fred Bauder's lead in this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason they were removed is because they're presently unverifiable without original research. If you can verify his biographical information, feel free to provide the sources and restore it. --Michael Snow 16:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It seems to me that aside from the legal scrapes, there's nothing notable here and even less that's verifiable. I was unable to find much of anything factually relating to either article. For Alexander, I found mention of the human rights issue and the wife beating. There was no indication of any research articles, lectures, conferences, or other items of scientific value that's come from him. And not a shred of biographical information to be found. The school doesn't seem notable to me... no mention of research or great academic achievements, although maybe it's notable because of it's post-secondary education? Not sure exactly what the policy on that is. Overall it doesn't seem like it will be possible to produce an article of the appropriate quality. SirGeneral 17:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• For what its worth, there *is* some biographical detail about him available on the web, though perhaps of limited usefulness [8]. This text, and several variants thereof, seems to be the boilerplate he uses for conferences. In general it is consistent with the information from the original vanity article. Fawcett5 19:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. "Toronto Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences" yields 22 Google hits, of which 12 are unique. One is its own web-site (it trades as Pharmacy Prep), and the rest are directory/portals. They all read "Offers preparation courses and study books for Canadian phamacology exams (PEBC)" and the contact information on the Institute's web-site includes a mobile telephone number. It is not to be confused with "Toronto Institute of Pharmaceutical Technology", which yields 985 Google hits. I am not convinced that an evening class school with no notable alumni is encyclopedic but I am stone cold certain that the president of such an institution is not encyclopedic when his only verifiable achievement may be a conviction for a crime unrelated to the school. [For the record, I was also born in a country, gained several post-secondary academic qualifications, and lived in several countries; I look forward to reading my Wikipedia entry any day now]. --Theo (Talk) 16:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm off to create TheoClarke, International Man of Mystery. ;-) func(talk) 16:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  More comments In my attempts to verify some of the personal history and the college I have found that the institute has not been accredited, nor is there any evidence that they have filed for accredidation. Trödel|talk 16:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  This is incorrect. TIPT is properly accredited registered in Ontario as a private career college. See: [9] Fawcett5 17:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  What you're showing is that it's registered with the provincial government as an educational institution, which is probably required by law. Accreditation is an entirely different issue, and likely not handled by the government. --Michael Snow 17:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, I stand corrected. As further regards notability of the school, it is worth pointing out that they verifiably participate in the manufacture of drugs used in human clinical trials. Whatever it may be, it is not quite your average vocational school. Fawcett5 17:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  The Institute's own web-site says that it has had 2400 alumni since 1992. --Theo (Talk) 18:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I didn't realize this vote was for two pages before. So I listed the second one in the header to be clear - if two seperate vote pages are the norm can someone familiar with VfD let me know on my talk page and I will put the second article up for a vote seperately. Trödel|talk 16:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article on school; unverifiable, not notable. Keep article on MacGregor. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep both of these please they seem notable too Yuckfoo 18:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both articles. Nothing here seems notable enough. Plus, a man who beats women has tried to sue Wikipedia? He should be deleted from the Universe himself! Sarg 20:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with the caveat that either could be recreated as encyclopedic articles rather than attack pages (as per Fred Bauder). Nothing currently on either page is useful, we don't really want the vanity/attack stuff in the history, and it would be best to start from scratch on both. However, I would say that either would be an acceptable topic for an encyclopedia if/when verifiable and NPOV information about them can be found. -- Jonel 21:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Fred Bauder. --Carnildo 22:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the content can be verified. - SimonP 23:40, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.
  Beta m (talk
  )
• Delete both, not notable enough. Incidentally, I don't like Beta m's way of boilerplate voting (see
  ✎ 09:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I've reviewed the articles and rethought my vote... but arrived at the same conclusion on the
    Beta m (talk
    )
• Keep the school, it is post secondary and thus notable, merge Alexander MacGregor into that article. Sjakkalle 09:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons stated by User:Jonel except that from what I see and can extrapolate, I do not believe Alexander MacGregor is encyclopedic even if the school turns out to be. Also, private law suits that do not go to the very mission of an organization are not, in my opinion, relevant or encyclopedic. If a school is charged for financial aid fraud or criticized for lack of academic standards (i.e., a "diploma mill"), that is different and fair game (if verifiable). DS1953 17:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I might note that there is a difference between public post-secondary institutions and private vocational schools run, apparently, by "some guy". In general I support the idea of Wikipedia having a wide variety of school articles, but not every tiny vocational school. --Dhodges 18:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the school as it is notable and merge and redirect any pertinent information from the Alexander MacGregory article into it. Bahn Mi 20:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: This user is believed to be a sockpuppet of User:GRider, who is banned by the Arbitration Committee from participating in deletion debates. --Michael Snow 21:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep MacGregor and merge the school into it. Add the threat of legal action against Wikipedia (which should certainly be verifiable) both here and in
  Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Votes_for_undeletion. Septentrionalis 21:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Threats of litigation are a dime a dozen. This one certainly doesn't belong in the Wikipedia article, and I'd be extremely dubious about putting it in MacGregor's article. JamesMLane 03:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both articles. —RaD Man (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the "institute", for the reasons given above by Theo. (Incidentally, I note that the "reference" cited in the article is to a page whose main text is written in the first person.) Delete MacGregor, who is of no note as the head of an "institute" of no note. The award he won seems rather obscure. The allegations made against him are -- very unfortunately -- routine, so he doesn't cut it even on grounds of notoriety. ("Want to get into Wikipedia? Simple -- just beat up your wife!" Er, no thank you.) -- Hoary 06:15, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
• Keep. --
  ^talk
  17:45, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
• Keep school, merge person.
  Kappa 21:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete both articles. They seem like mostly smear campaigns, and not notable at all, except for the local media coverage of the allegations. Blackcats 06:52, 7 Jun 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?) 01:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

United States Senate Simulation

This article really seems to be an ad for an online roleplaying game -- if it had any information on why someone not involved would care, it might be different but it doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic. Greyfedora 04:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fascinating idea, but I looked at the site and it seems to be dead as a dodo. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete game ad. - Etacar11 17:19, 26 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. Joyous 02:46, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Lenix

Vanity nonsense dicdef with no claim to notability. --EvilZak 04:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nonsense. RickK 04:38, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 06:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nonsense definition. Sjakkalle 07:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vain nonsense. --Aurochs

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.

Colored_shadows

This article reads like marketing; there's nothing informative or encyclopedic about the band. If I didn't know better I'd say it was a satire on modern music reviews. Vircum 04:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Band advertising, and rock journalims cannot be satirized, for all parodies are plausible. Geogre 13:56, 26 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. —Xezbeth 07:08, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

DOOM 4

Wait until it hits the stores. Delete for now. Denni☯ 05:09, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

• Delete.
  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Simple enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk
  ) 08:11, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Way too early for this speculation. Nestea 11:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but re-create once it's announced. Upcoming, anticipated games like
  Civilization 4 are notable, but it's too early.-LtNOWIS 13:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Wow! How about Doom 45? Sarg 20:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand if something apart from the fact that it's the next number after three is known. Otherwise delete.
  Beta m (talk
  )
• Delete unless a wealth of information on this is uncovered in the next five days. Mr Bound 21:00, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 22:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not even announced yet.
  Thunderbrand
  03:05, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• keep who knows this might be true. namela 2:22,june 1, 2005

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

Basic Cable, Tuna Lowers My Inhibitions, 1942 Beacon Street

Non-notable, vanity. We probably should have an article on basic cable as it relates to cable tv, but this isn't it. RickK 05:12, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep this, I'm a Boston College student and 1942 beacon is a junior stronghold. They supply happiness to the rest of the student body. This is far more valuable than even a frat. Keep this one around.
• Delete, pleeeease. Very vanity. FreplySpang (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, a couple of mates and a six-pack doesn't make you encyclopedia material. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 07:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect
  Basic Cable to Cable television. Delete the other two as vanities. Sjakkalle 11:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect
  Basic Cable and bomb the others. It amazes me that freshman humor never changes. Geogre 14:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect
  Basic Cable to cable television, delete the others. --Carnildo 22:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect
  Basic Cable to Cable television. Delete the others. JamesBurns 11:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect/delete. per Geogre, et al. Niteowlneils 19:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep It would seem there is somewhat of a double standard being applied when a fairly detailed article about princeton's eating societies is permitted, but not this equally venerable fraternal institution, the only one of its kind at Boston College which expressly prohibits fraternities.
• KeepKeep this page, every entering Freshman at Boston College should have a place of reference to learn more about the social scene at their new college, and 1942 is the epicenter of that.
• KEEP it is a work in progress page and it will be fixed and amended to show the true value of this organization
• Keep 1942 Beacon Street. It needs to be improved, no doubt, but it could prove to become a very interesting entry if more of a history of the building could be posted. Paul
• Delete Tuna Lowers My Inhibitions unless one of the creators come up with some more original material and gain some national exposure ;) Paul
• Redirect
  Basic Cable" Paul 12:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all except basic cable which should be redirected -- somehow I doubt that Wikipedia was created solely to provide freshmen at Boston College a social calendar... 67.101.113.10 June 01 2005
• KEEP It is a valid page and if fraternities and dining clubs are allowed on, then this entry should be as well. Also, wikipedia is a tool of the masses. It is for everyone to use. Be it geeks who are upset they have no social life, or freshmen at BC. Dont descriminate and be pompous because your college experience was subpar due to the lack of fun you let yourself have.

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?) 01:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Icon Grill

Non-notable restaurant. Denni☯ 05:15, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

• Delete, Advertising. Megan1967 06:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Zagat refugee. Geogre 14:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --
  Sn0wflake 14:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete ad. - Etacar11 17:23, 26 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?) 02:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Buddha's Family

Non-notable band. No mention of them at artistdirect or allmusic. I can't figure out if they have actually released any records, their website is in Spanish, but there doesn't seem to be a discography thee, and when I just tried to access the productions website, it said its bandwidth has been exceeded. Note that this has been a red link at Reggaeton for a long time. RickK 05:46, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, does not meet Wikipedia music guidelines. Megan1967 06:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and rewrite. Google gives a lot of sites where they are mentioned.Vorash 09:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please point to some other than fan pages. RickK 20:19, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete doesnt meet Wikipedia music notability guidelines. JamesBurns 11:47, 27 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. —Xezbeth 07:10, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Pakistan Social Democratic Platform, PSDP

• delete: Pakistan has many political parties and groups. Pakistan Social Democratic Platform, or PSDP, is unfamiliar to me, and googling it found only one non-wikipedia result. The article has what I believe is a promotional link to a website on bravepages. FactNTact 05:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unknown non-notable group. --Ragib 05:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• They have an unfortunate acronym, which makes me think it could be a hoax designed to pass a careless Google test. However, this google (read it carefully to filter out financial references to the acronym) and this one produced a few more links. Keep as political parties are inherently notable. Vashti 14:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PSDP is a very widely used acronym in Pakistan, standing for "Public Sector Development Programme." It is also the acronym of a small party called the "Pashtun Social Democratic Party" which I don't think has anything to do with this group - if it's real. Delete for now. If they become well-known, we can always add them back later. Egalitus 18:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• UNDeleteThis group was formed in 2003 at Yahoo and its gradually expanding. undelete.
• Delete Spam. CryptoDerk 05:43, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No evidence of notability. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 19:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed 11 anonymous votes which have been added by two contributors (216.113.2.51 and 207.96.224.163). - Mike Rosoft 19:51, 31 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?) 02:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anakyn

Article on someone's cat not wikipedic. Tom Barnwell 06:14, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: Not encyclopedic, either joke or vanity (not for the cat, for the owner). --Ragib 06:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The VfD notice was removed, and a speedy delete notice was added. Redirected to Darth Vader as a misspelling of "Anakin", which you have to admit is funny. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:21, 26 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. —Xezbeth 07:03, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Edwin B. Marshall

Clearly promotion of family history.

• Delete: promotion of family history. --Ragib 06:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, genealogy, family vanity. Megan1967 07:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  탉 07:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete doesn't seem notable. Vanity. - Etacar11 17:32, 26 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. —Xezbeth 07:09, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Fab The Dog

Looks like a vanity article of someone's dog. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "The World's Most Popular Dog" has 10 Google hits. --EvilZak 06:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even though he has "influenced countless lesser dogs". This sounds like it could be BJAODN... ;-) ;-) --Idont Havaname 07:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dog vanity. Sjakkalle 07:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN. --Blackcats 08:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think it's a parody of a typical wikipedia vanity article. I wouldn't count it as quite amusing enough for BJAODN, though of course opinions on that may vary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:04, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It is kind of funny, but only in a punch-drunk sense. On the other hand, there is that dog in Germany that has demonstrated knowledge of new toys by name, showing symbolic thinking. He will need (probably has, given the wikiworld) an article. He's fab, but he ain't Fab, though. Geogre 15:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Aww, cute dog. Delete. Ben-w 16:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. The author should try Dogster. - Etacar11 17:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Crufts (sorry, couldn't help it). Leithp 21:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pet vanity. Megan1967 05:06, 27 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 rewrite. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bryan Adams (album)

Covers exactly the same ground as the Bryan Adams article Tom Barnwell 07:00, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete but let the red link stand. If someone wants to make an article about the album, go ahead. Sjakkalle 07:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This album was his debut on A&M Records and didn't have any hits from it. I might have a go at writing an article on this. If there isn't an article on this album by the close of the debate, it would be better to delete this than keep it but I would vote keep for even a decent stub. Capitalistroadster 07:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have rewritten the article so that it is about the Bryan Adams album. Capitalistroadster 06:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as duplication, unless rewritten as a proper album article. If article has been redone by the time the tally on this vote is taken, please change my vote to keep. 23skidoo 14:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, content duplication. Megan1967 05:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as duplication. JamesBurns 11:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep teh rewrite. Grue 14:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Above average article about an album by a more famous than average act. CalJW 23:35, 29 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?) 02:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dark Sniper

Google suggests non-notability [10].

• do not delete, i beleive its an interesting topic. (by 203.11.167.254)
• Delete: nn, unverifiable. If he gets his own television show, then we'll add him back in, but right now he's just a dork in the outback somewhere. Marblespire 09:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:02, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable scammer. Sjakkalle 12:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. - Etacar11 17:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:07, 27 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?) 02:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Clark

He and his brother Don Clark have played in two bands, Training for Utopia and Demon Hunter, both of which are decently notable within their genres but not quite notable enough to give band members individual articles. TfU is broken up, so unless Demon Hunter gets huge, I don't see how this could get beyond a stub without becoming band fancruft. Redirect to Demon Hunter. Idont Havaname 07:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming both bands were notable, I think we should keep these. It's easier than trying to work mention of Training for Utopia into Demon Hunter and vice versa. Meelar (talk) 13:53, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Um, no offence,
  Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. Soundguy99 16:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep per Meelar, if someone's been in two notable bands makes it easier for users to have a separate article.
  Kappa 16:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Demon Hunter. Not notable on his own. Megan1967 05:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Demon Hunter. JamesBurns 11:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Clark is head at Asterik Studios in seattle, they do a lot of art work for a lot of bands.

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?) 02:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz CLE-Class

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Gets at the most 53 Google results. Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:17, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Needs severe cleanup, but Merc has been dangling this one under punters' noses since at least 2002, so there's enough to write about. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article on a rumor as a rumor is one thing, but an article that participates in the rumor is quite another. Non-verifiable. Geogre 15:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, I'll clean it up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Megan1967 05:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep . Vorash 09:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. James F. (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  Autobild of this week announces a SLT-Class Shooting Brake for 2007, why not create an entry then ? and the MLK-Class ? etc etc[reply
  ]
  • Comment: Good question. Why not? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:53, 29 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?) 02:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vittujen kevät

I think it's nonsense, but I don't know Finnish so I can't tell, but "Vittujen kevät" "Haistakaa vittu" only gets 6 Google hits. The article was created by a User who was running around vandalizing User pages. RickK 07:22, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, the translation is about right... um. Bearing in mind that my Finnish is dire, none of the Google hits seem to talk about the group, they mostly appear to be people whining about the rotten spring they're having. Pending a confirmation of this by someone fluent in Finnish, delete as vanity. Vashti 09:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a bad joke / nonsense. All the band member names listed are obscenities in Finnish. Googling the band name produces a lot of results as it is a common curse.
  (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Yeah, that's what I thought. Thanks for confirming it. RickK 17:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, garage band vanity. Megan1967 05:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. I'm especially fond of the category it's in:
  _{tɔk tə mi} 05:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. It was my intention to nominate this for deletion few days ago while I fixed other vandalism by the same author, but somehow forgot. I didn't find any related hits on Google, only random profanity (Finnish is my native language). Vashti and Jonnabuz are correct. jni 10:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per
  Jonnabuz comments. Who?¿?
  07:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vanity page for a band with "Mike on drums," "known for their ambition to play on Top of the Pops." No evidence that the band has ever released a record or performed in concert. BTfromLA 07:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• If they play Top of the Pops, they will have had a hit record in the UK and meet the WikiMusic guidelines. Delete unless evidence of compliance with such guidelines is shown. Keep given Morwen's research. Capitalistroadster 01:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC) Capitalistroadster 07:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If you'd done even the slightest bit of research, you would have discovered they have a number of singles out already, and an album out on Monday. They have been prominently featured in NME, and at least one of their singles has gone top 40. Morwen - Talk 13:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mea Culpa: I responded to the article itself rather than looking for independent verification, which I ought to have done. It appears that the band has released two singles and received some notice in the UK music press. There is a little promo video for them at the NME web site [11]. (Not bad, at that.) I still question whether that is sufficient for a wikipedia entry: it isn't my impression that the goal is to provide an encyclopedia entry for everyone who ever released a record or published a book, is it? But clearly the band exists outside of the mind of the article writer, so it was not fair to dismiss it as sheer vanity. BTfromLA 14:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: They seem to be a medium fish in a small pond. They have had one single get to number 22 on the Indie charts, but that seems to be a pretty low bar [12] google cache Wikibofh 14:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the link you provided, you will see that the week before the position of that single in that chart was 12, and it had entered at number 4. Morwen - Talk 08:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as they've been written about in a number of publications, and I believe they've technically done an international tour. Beyond that, even if we do decide to delete this article, chances are that, given the buzz they're generating, this article will resurface shortly anyway. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, thanks for the research Morwen and others.
  Kappa 16:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Vorash 09:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have expanded the article. No change from keep.Capitalistroadster 05:13, 28 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?) 02:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

God Sent Lunatics

This is a stub, with no in-links, no out-links, and a sketchy and unverifiable content Simon Cursitor 07:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Odd/prankish -fu. I thought it would be a band, but it's not. Unverifiable. Geogre 15:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 05:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverifiable, sounds like a joke--Sophitus 10:01, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Caitlyn Par

Sweet, but it possibly isn't notable; it hasn't happeend yet; and when the Cosmic PandaBear eats us all next Thursday it possibly won't Simon Cursitor 07:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles, can we please also have a Meta page telling us that people in love should not be allowed to edit articles? Uncle G 09:56, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and administer an insulin shot: Very sweet, and we wish them well, but we cannot send them gifts of articles at this point. Geogre 15:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and ewww. Vanity. - Etacar11 17:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity. Oh, and second Uncle G about the Meta page :-) Hermione1980 23:05, 26 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?) 02:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hindu University of America

This was tagged for deletion a month ago but never listed on VfD. Looks like vanity for a yoga and meditation school. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:19, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:57, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I looked at the faculty listings. The University President is Kuldip Gupta who has been a professor at the
  University of Colorado since 1983 [13] and has been associated with Hindu University of America since 1986. Most of the faculty seem to be educated to at least masters level in western universities, and to have relevant qualifications in the field they're teaching, so I don't see any reason to doubt their competence. As this is no fly-by-night institution I think it merits an entry in Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep — appears sufficiently notable. — RJH 15:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tony, thanks for checking it out.
  Kappa 23:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, promo. Megan1967 05:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 11:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, cleanup. If it was a pure advert for
  ^talk
  17:49, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
• keep this please this is out of control Yuckfoo 22:52, 3 Jun 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?) 03:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Da Vinci Game

Delete. Advertising for a game that hasn't been released yet. — P Ingerson (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete This game was designed to include a lot of symbolism, based on feminine divinity. Rather than deleting it, I would be very happy to expand on this aspect of the game and link to other relevant articles on Wikipedia and elsewhere to do with symbolism, goddesses, feminine divinity, etc. If possible will you please email me on [email protected], or perhaps we can discuss this here.

• Still advertising. Delete - Skysmith 09:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT a crystal ball. Radiant_*
  09:55, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:55, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: An essay in advertising copy. Geogre 15:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Frjwoolley 16:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ad. - Etacar11 17:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advertising. Megan1967 05:13, 27 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?) 03:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Fans

I think I worked out what the article refers to. The

• Merge since it's kind of interesting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:55, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or entirely rewrite to be about the band. There was a group in Athens, GA called The Fans that acted as the Mother Love Bone or Green River for the Athens scene. They had one single, on db Records, but they kicked off the whole thing, from B-52's to Indigo Girls. Geogre 15:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivial, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:53, 27 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?) 03:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Tuck

Cannot verify. As

• Never heard of; live in UK; read newspapers. At a guess: a hoax, delete. But I could be wrong --Simon Cursitor 11:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - probable hoax - no google results on "Ryan Tuck" + Maze or "Ryan Tuck" + Kray--AYArktos 11:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:53, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Sjakkalle 12:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unverifiable, strong suggestion of a hoax. Supposedly this guy is suspected of killing one of the two
  Kray Twins--which one of them is not mentioned. Reginald Kray died of inoperable cancer in October, 2000, having been freed on compassionate grounds. Ronald Cray died in Broadmoor secure mental institution in 1995, no suggestion of foul play. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Unverifiable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete probable hoax. - Etacar11 17:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, definite hoax. Claims to have escaped from a prison three years after it had closed down. Average Earthman 18:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. Megan1967 05:14, 27 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?) 05:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hai Jie

Doesn't establish notability, and as it is a 16-yr-old, I am guessing this is a hoax article.

• Delete. Not notable. Sjakkalle 10:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hopeless vanity, not even an attempt at notability in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:49, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. Unverifiable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete teenage vanity. - Etacar11 17:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:15, 27 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?) 05:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

James ballance

Googled with "James ballance" ninja and "James ballance" "Howard Bettany" with no relevant results.

• Delete Another hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:54, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Geogre's Law failure with the added joys of a prank. Delete or speedy delete as vandalism. Geogre 15:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity/hoax/doesn't know how to capitalize. - Etacar11 17:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. Megan1967 05:15, 27 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?) 05:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alex Ching Yu PO

A personal CV. One Google hit titled "My Test Page".

• Delete. A CV and not an encyclopedia article. Sjakkalle 10:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a place to post a CV. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Please post your resumes elsewhere. --Aurochs
• Delete vanity/cv. - Etacar11 17:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:16, 27 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?) 05:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anton's Law

Not verifiable. According to his edit on

• Delete. Concur. Sjakkalle 10:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is such a thing as Anton's Law though, it's a nickname for a US law regarding children's auto safety belts. Perhaps an article could be made about that, but we'd be better off without this bogus one in the history. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:48, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The equation described is the same method as that for finding the output of a voltage divider circuit, but the presentation as "Anton's Law" seems to be bogus. --Aurochs
• Delete. No such law in common electric circuit knowledge; no references cited. Samw 21:04, 28 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?) 05:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Muhammad Furqan Khan

Seems to be nothing but Vanity --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:29, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity, no significant notability claims in article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:44, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Joe Schmoe. — RJH 14:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. - Etacar11 18:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:17, 27 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?) 05:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Martin Bryant

Very POV, verging on

• Keep. This a quality article about one of Australia's most well-known serial killers/mass murderers. Very notable, as his actions brought in the newest round of gun law reform in Australia. - Mark 09:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, this is a bogus nomination from an alias IP of
  talk) 09:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment yet another example of lies being told by administrators. 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a bogus nomination, it is by
      User:Thebainer is not an administrator. Zero out of five. Ben-w 00:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC).[reply
      ]

Comment: --

WP:POINT - no vote. - Longhair | Talk 12:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• • • I am not an administrator. --
      talk) 23:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep. Nonsense vote. Even if there were POV problems that is no reason for a deletion.
  Dysprosia 09:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Very big POV problems. 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, nomination was made in bad faith.--
  nixie 09:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The page is not consistent with Wikipedia rules, so it must be considered for deletion. 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, nominator is either unfamiliar with recent Australian history, or as Thebainer says above, a troll. -- Chuq 10:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Or should we delete jack the ripper, Timothy McVeigh etc..... Xtra 10:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, with a redirect, is what was suggested. Why keep a separate page when there is no actual correct history about him on there, other than inaccurate POV arguments? 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Have you also contacted the worlds' media to have them correct their reporting? Start there, then come back here. -- Longhair | Talk 22:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's busy "correcting" the media about things like the December 2004 Tsunami being caused by a nuclear explosion and how cigarette smoking cures lung cancer. Certifiable nutjob at work.
• Speedy Keep - this user is almost certainly an alias IP of User:Internodeuser based on the contributions from the IP address that nominated this VfD. As per comments by Mark above the article is worth keeping about a notable subject--AYArktos 11:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I am suddenly a bad user? Goodness gracious. After all you've done? 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing sudden about it. Ben-w 20:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and speedy KEEP: I have reservations about anons being allowed to nominate articles for deletion in the first place.--
  Cyberjunkie 12:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Oops sorry, forgot to log in. 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sour grapes. Bad faith listing by someone with a conspiracy theory to peddle. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a conspiracy theory. Rather, a factual recursion of events. Conspiracy theories are things which you're not sure if they happened or not. There is a difference. 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep (delist) as very likely bad-faith nomination. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please forget about this potentially being "bad faith", as that is being peddled by people with a hidden agenda. Treat it legitimately, and then vote. There are serious and grave concerns about the content of this article. If the guy's rights weren't taken from him, no doubt he'd be suing Wikipedia right now for
    libel. 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete and Merge as patent nonsense. Needs to have many more references, especially when referring to things like psychiatric illnesses, which are proven elsewhere to be entirely false. 203.26.206.129 13:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders why you object to the point on psychiatric illnesses. Are you a

Scientologist? A2Kafir 01:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge with Port Arthur Massacre - Karol 13:33, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Vandalism by a bogus VfD nomination. Keep the article, delete User:203.26.206.129 as patent nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 15:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Regardless of the user's personal feelings on the matter, this article is NPOV and accurate. There is no place for revisionist historians at Wikipedia. Scimitar 15:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, can't see anything that warrants deletion. If part of the article is incorrect, it can be corrected. Mgm|^(talk) 15:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This nominator continues to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and this bad-faith nomination is typical of the pattern. He has some wild personal theory about Martin Bryant and the Port Arthur Massacre, cannot accept that the consensus does not support his unique POV and insists on trying to force it through creation of spurious pages and malicious vfds like this one. Nominator needs to be fully aware that (a) his POV is not widely accepted (b) he has failed to provide sufficient evidence or cogent argument to make it widely accepted (c) no amount of dissembling changes the fact that these repeated edits, page creations, and nominations for deletion are disruptive and contrary to policy regardless of how he feels about the matter (d) these tedious, bad faith, disruptive tactics will not work. The world will not wake up one morning and experience a Damascene conversion about what happened at Port Arthur. Ben-w 16:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Bad faith nomination. Even if the article were POV (of which I haven't seen any proof) there is no reason whatsoever to put it on VFD. Sarg 19:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and delist. Bad-faith nomination. --Carnildo 23:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; very notable fellow for unfortunate reasons. A2Kafir 01:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - the man behind the largest massacre by a single gunman is an encyclopedia topic. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold got an article. Cedars 14:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Port Arthur Massacre made news worldwide as Bryant killed over 30 people. It led directly to tightening of gun laws in Australia which had a noticeable political impact most notably in the temporary rise of the
  One Nation Party. It seems to me to be a bad faith nomination because the nominator can't get his way on the content of the article. Capitalistroadster 15:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Clearly a bogus nominatin made in bad faith. Delisted for that reason. Tannin 11:15, 28 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?) 03:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Profundity

The term "profundity" is not used in this manner in axiology, by Whitehead or as far as I'm aware in any field. It seems to be putting across the POV of www.livejournal.com/users/mostconducive/ but is entirely unencyclopaedic. I'm not aware of any other uses of the term which might require a mere rewriting of the article as opposed to it's removal 83.67.18.175 13:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Google returns some stuff, not sure how much of it is useful though. Some of the links seems to support the claims regarding Whitehead in the article. Keep for now. Vashti 14:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Seriously POV and specialized appropriation of the term in an article comprised of a number of sentence fragments. The problem I have is not that this is true or untrue, but rather that it is original research. This is one person's attempt at synthesizing and comprehending several philosophical approaches to a particular term/concept. The problem is that this represents new work, a new synthetic concept, and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Had the article been a point by point discussion of the term in this person's philosophy, that person's philosophy, and the other person's, it might have been ok, as then it would have been a report. However, once it takes up the cudgel of "it means," it goes over to original research. Geogre 15:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for reasons well articulated by Geogre. A personal essay, not an encyclopedic review of how a technical term is used. Note the absence of any references. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Not encyclopedic. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is one of the contributions that I was referring to in
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Paradigmeter. Note also that the anonymous author has repeatedly removed {{cleanup-technical}} without modifying the article one whit to make it more comprehensible to non-experts. Uncle G
  01:46, 2005 May 27 (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 deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jamie Loiselle

This page is either a vanity page or patent nonsense. The owner reverted my CSD so I'm bringing it up for a VfD Shoaler 14:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Concur with vanity. Technically it is not "patent nonsense" since that refers to random characters such as "goshgøioshgoøirdh". Sjakkalle 14:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is another category of articles that are considered patent nonsense: those that are well-formed, but make absolutely no sense. As an example, see the entry "Binary pulsar" on my user page. --Carnildo 23:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Obvious vanity. In fact, I'm going to speedy delete it right now. --
  khaosworks
  14:59, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hm. For some reason I'm getting an error. Marking it with {{delete}} again so someone else can handle it. --

khaosworks

15:06, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I speedied it successfully but most likely it will be back. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:48, 26 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?) 05:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Lindeman

• Vanity, spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity. Shoaler 15:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. - Etacar11 18:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 05:19, 27 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 (someone else can BJAODN it, but I was only lukewarm about it). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Society for the Preservation of Waffle Irons

This appears to be a hoax. While I realise google isn't a reliable determiner of everything, all of the following searches get 0 hits:

• "Society for the Preservation of Waffle Irons"
• Society for the "Preservation of Waffle Irons"
• "Waffle iron preservation"
• "Ian L. Chalmers"
• "Ian Chalmers" "Waffle iron" (There appear to be at least three different professors named Ian Chalmers)
• "Ian Chalmers" "Red China"

Other searches do return results, but nothing apparently relevant

• "Waffle iron" "Red China" - almost all from different sections of "on this day..." type pages
• "Waffle iron" "preservation society" - various preservation society pages, the Xanau Preservation Society movie and, curiously, adverts for escort girl sites. Thryduulf 15:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Smells like a hoax. --InShaneee 15:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and kudos to Thryduulf for his diligence in verifying that this is a hoax. Meelar (talk) 15:51, May 26, 2005 (UTC)`
• Delete, please see
  WP:AN/I for the anon's contributions page, so year and day articles can also be cleared. Mgm|^(talk)
  15:52, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Definite hoax aroma. --
  khaosworks
  16:15, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:19, 26 May 2005
• BJAODN --24.158.179.87 16:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
• Delete No Brooklyn, NY telephone directories list this organization, either---Outlander 16:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and while we're at it the anon user who keeps trying to add this to the 2003 page and has had his entry reverted twice should be reported for vandalism, if this hasn't been done already. PatGallacher 16:39, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  • That doesn't mean his other edits should be reverted on sight though - [14] was a valid edit. --SPUI (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN. Scimitar 16:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or BJAODN, if appropriate. "Society for the Preservation of Waffle Irons" gets zero Google hits, as does "Preservation of Waffle Irons".
  • Unsigned vote by Deathphoenix. Thryduulf 17:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woops. One of these days... --Deathphoenix 13:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN. Someone will find it funny. --Aurochs
• Delete (Not funny enough for BJAODN, IMHO) and congratulations to the nominator for excellent and thorough research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• BJAODN. Seems like a hoax, and an almost plausible one. Given the randomness of the postings from that ip it could be a public access computer or part of an unsecured wireless network. Spotteddogsdotorg 20:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Weird hoax, but I really want to know what those call girls are doing with those waffle irons. (Check that: no, I don't.) Geogre 21:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax (but not funny enough for BJAODN). Megan1967 05:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Please check http://www.geocities.com/wafflepreservation/! (vote by
  30 December contribution was a different user with the same IP)). Thryduulf 16:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I have to say I remain unconvinced by a single page website hosted on geocities that I could have created inside 10 minutes writing the html in
    User:AllyUnion/VFD List. no change of vote. Thryduulf 16:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• BJAODN Quite funny hoax, and their website is basically the same text for the entry and frankly I am all for organisations that want to stop Wal-Mart and China. FREE TIBET! --Toasthaven 15:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• BJODN Blackcats 07:28, 9 Jun 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ashtree Primary School

A non-notable primary school. Dunc|☺ 14:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As a failing primary school, it was put on special measures in the 1990s but was mentioned in the 1999-2000 OFSTED annual report as one of only five Hertfordshire primary schools to have undergone a "very substantial improvement" in the previous year, resulting the lifting of the special measures order. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, then let's have an article on the other five too. And the ones that get mentioned in the 2001 report, the 2002 report, the 2003 report... the 2004 report, the 2005 report, and those not just for Herts, but Cambs and Oxon and Bucks and so on and mention nothing of interest at all about any of them. Dunc|☺ 16:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to start those articles. The more the merrier. -- Visviva 16:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is it with some people? This isn't Sesame Street, it's an encyclopedia. People who are interested in this information will find it; the only time that anybody else needs to look at it is when someone puts it up in one of these increasingly hopeless vote for deletion listings. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Haven't we had this discussion already? See
  Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Ashtree_primary_school. -- Visviva 15:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: Thanks to Visviva for an excellent cleanup job. This is now a very informative and useful article indeed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this important information, sorry if it's not entertaining enough for your tastes.
  Kappa 16:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Hold on, this school is notable for failing, then not failing? You think this is notable? You think anyone outside of the small little catchment area of this school pays any attention to it whatsoever? It teaches the curriculum set for it, and even notable alumni would be irrelevent (it would be like listing supermarkets with notable shoppers, since the influence of one primary is much like another). This is only of any relevence whatsoever to the very local area, the catchment area of the school, so the useful information in this article should be merged to a relevent geographical article. Average Earthman 18:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're entitled to your opinion, but do you really think primaries have little influence on future life? It seems to run contrary to my own experience and I have no reason to believe myself unusual. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it only has an effect in the immediate catchment area. The specified curriculum means that one non-failing primary is much like another non-failing primary. Besides, the water I drank in the last 48 hours has had an absolutely vital influence on my future life, but it would be daft to write an article on the specific drinks - vitality on an individual does not mean that it is individually notable. Average Earthman 08:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
  Beta m (talk
  )
• 'Merge with the appropriate geographical article. --Carnildo 23:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please this already survived vfd earlier a few months ago Yuckfoo 23:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gosh, you're right! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep Schools belong in Wikipedia. Unfocused 03:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable school. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 04:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• People should consider eating apples more often as it's good for your health, and therefore delete. Radiant_* 08:18, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Stevenage and delete - Skysmith 08:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Why do the infoboxes for secondary schools contain an entry for enrollment, with no indication of what year they're talking about? Doesn't the enrollment on these schools change every year? It does where I live. Quale 15:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. James F. (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per the general consensus and outcome of the
  previous VfD discussion for this article. —RaD Man (talk
  07:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and stop nominating schools. Ketsuban (is 1337) 03:30, 8 Jun 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. – Mindspillage (talk), 05:15, 9 June 2005

Genesis 1:1

Despite the importance of this verse in creationist theory, I hotly oppose a Wikipedia article on individual verses of the Bible. We already have Psalm 119, and even that is borderline. It should be deleted or merged with articles on creationism. JFW | T@lk 15:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• merge with
  Creation according to Genesis. btw, creationists don't have any theories. Dunc|☺ 16:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That is quite untrue. They have theories on how the Bible can be harmonised with scientific findings. JFW | T@lk 20:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into an appropriate article, either as suggested by duncharris (despite his uncalled-for statement) or into Genesis.--M412k 16:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No content worth merging. Redirect to
  Creation according to Genesis. - Mike Rosoft 16:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Good article overall but it could do with actual references in place of 'some believe that..." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep... but if you absolutely have to merge
  Beta m (talk
  )
• Keep - a bible verse (and particularly this Bible verse) is at least as influential as a primary school (and I have nothing against primary schools btw) --
  (?) 21:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  Creation according to Genesis. This Bible verse is enormously influential, of course, but there are dozens of extremely important and influential verses (where there are not nearly so many important and influential primary schools), but the question is at least as taxonomical as priority. Also, we have the entire Bible in Wikisource, so there is no need to have a chapter/verse call. The verse can be read at Wikisource. Geogre 21:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. See also
  WP:VFD/Matthew 2:16. -- Jonel 21:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and redirect to
  Creation according to Genesis. While interesting in its own regard, if Wikipedia had an article on every single Bible verse it would just get ridiculous. This might warrant its own Bible Wiki, or something, though. Hermione1980 23:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • What would be so ridiculous?
    Kappa 23:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. More than enough scholorship available to create an encyclopedic article on this verse. --Allen3 ^talk 23:19, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with
  Creation according to Genesis. --Carnildo 23:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and expand this article on an incredibly important and influential Bible verse.
  Kappa 23:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and compliments to Neutrality on the good work. - SimonP 23:36, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as long as the article contains content and not just text. IZAK 00:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I wrote the article. Ridiculous nomination. "Genesis 1:1" gets 103,000 Google hits. Neutrality^talk 00:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete! Bad precedent to start articles about individual scriptures/superstitious beliefs. Rlw 00:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • We already have many precedents, including
    Kappa 01:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Well, no. A simpsons episode can be proven to have occurred. Sure, the VFDs you cited are "precedents," but they are bad precedents. Delete. Rlw 04:15, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm pretty sure it can be proven that someone wrote Genesis 1.1.
        Kappa 06:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Keep and improve the article. Scholarship, philosophy and exegesis on this verse (and numerous others) is broad and diverse enough to warrant an encyclopedia article (albeit a specialized encyclopedia, like much else in wikipedia). Don't reduce the whole issue to a matter of +/- creationism. HG 01:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Aren't many Biblical verses grouped together on Wikipedia? I see nothing wrong with this and the following item being merged and redirecting to Genesis 1:1-5, which would cover a more comprehensible part of the Book. The whole Bible could quite probably be covered sensibly in this way, whereas covering it verse by verse would not be particularly sensible (how much can you say on "Jesus wept" (John 11:35) without referring to the chapters on either side of it?). Grutness...wha? 01:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dsmdgold 03:33, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable bible verse. Klonimus 04:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with the general principle. Why shouldn't there be an article on every verse? I have always thought that separating Wikipedia into Wikisource, etc., was somewhat arbitrary anyway. --Ezra Wax 04:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC) -Addendum against merging: This verse is interesting on its own without regard to creation. For example notes about some of the words in the verse and their meaning, why the Torah starts with the letter Beis, why the specific name of God is used, etc.[reply]
  • Because, Ezra, then WP, in order to maintain NPOV, will have to have a separate article on every chapter and verse (or analogous) of every single religious text on the planet. Seems beyond the scope to me.Delete before it's too late and WP slides down a slippery slope. Rlw 04:22, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • We have an article on every day of the year, and on every year, and on every tiny town in the United states, and on every minor character of many TV shows, books, films, and comic strips. What slippery slope were you concerned about? There is plenty of storage space. There were thousands of photographs uploaded to the Wikipedia commons. There is no problem of article collision, because no other article will be wanting to use those titles. I have no problem with having an article on each verse for each religion either. Why can't there be ten or even a hundred articles on each verse? Disk space is cheap.
    • R1w's argument is spurious. Deleting Bible verse 'to manitain NPOV' is silly - shall we delete articles on US TV episodes to maintain NPOV with other cultures, which don't have so many entries? The Bible has had an enormous cultural, religious and literary impact, rivaled by no religious text (other than the Qu'ran). There are fewer verses than schools in the US - and I suspect most of them (and certainly Gen 1:1) are more universaly notable. (I do, however, think that the parrallel translations should be deleted). Do not redirect to creationist debates - that would be POV! --
      (?) 13:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep I am hotly in favor of of keeping commentary articles on Bible verses. I completely disagree with any attempt to cast this as creationist article only. You could just as well redirect to Paradise Lost. -- Decumanus 05:22, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to
  Creation according to Genesis. Megan1967 05:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and redirect to
  Creation according to Genesis Kaibabsquirrel 07:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and redirect to
  Creation according to Genesis. JamesBurns 11:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and I'm sure this could be expanded. I agree with Decumanus. Falphin 02:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should probably be mentioned on this page.
    Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 2:16Falphin 12:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Redirect to the Book of Genesis. This article says nothing that couldn't be said there. Giving the text in 10 different translations is a job for Wikisource, not an encyclopedia. - Nunh-huh 03:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eleven, actually. Neutrality^talk 08:00, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into articles covering groups of verses. Unless someone is able to expand this into a larger article without overstepping the NPOV.
• Transwiki. There do live b:Biblical Studies projects in English Wikibooks. --Puzzlet Chung 14:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We are not voting whether every verse needs an article, we are voting on this verse and it deserves an article. At its current length, I do not think it would be user friendly to merge this into a longer article. DS1953 22:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep...this is an important verse in western civilization and has far reaching influences outside of the creation/evolution debates. KHM03 20:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why not Wikisource?

In terms of the Bible verses articles (a perfect eg of a content issue!), my opinion (to get some list of opinions started) is that they are a waste of time/space on Wikipedia. Something like this belongs more on Wikisource, as it is in essence the presentation of an extended primary text with detailed information about every part (assuming people add more verses...) - I saw a large article which did not contain much information that can't be found in other Wikipedia articles - and yet it covered so little of what could be said about the verse. If this keeps going, it will engulf Wikipedia. On Wikisource though, something in the style of the Mishna project (see http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Mishnah as an example) (with user contributed public domain translations, see Wikibooks:The Open Mishnah Project at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:The_Open_Mishnah_Project) and concise summaries of commentaries, the uses of the verse in Jewish texts etc would be a good idea and I'd probably like to contribute to those. As it stands, I think deletion or relocation to Wikisource is the way to go. Frikle 11:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent idea. Wikisource (or wikibooks, the Bible is a book isn't it?) Radiant_* 08:19, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikisource is not an encyclopedia. Also the bible is not a textbook, so wikibooks is not appropriate.
    Kappa 08:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Books other than textbooks might be fine. Wikibooks already has b:Jokebook. --Puzzlet Chung 13:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the beginning ... of a proposed rewrite

Just revised the article on Genesis 1:1 substantially. Hopefully it is an improvement w/NPOV. (Except I am unable to do justice to the subsection on Christian exegesis, please edit and add.) I already voted to keep articles by key verse(s). The rewrite attempts to demonstrate why the article should not be merged (esp not w/Creationism) and why such articles would be useful to keep. It also conforms somewhat to the format proposed in the Talk section on 1:1. Would welcome more such Talk. HG 17:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The key overarching point of my proposal has been reverted/removed already. I had restructured the article to differentiate scholarly vs. religious views, and -- within religious views -- between Christian and Jewish (and Moslem, etc). Instead, the article showing now has sections entitled "Analysis" (aka Christian w/some academic) and "Jewish interpretation", with attendant POV issues. If you are interested, my proposed structure and initial implementation may be seen in the history [15] of the article. Best wishes, HG

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?) 05:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Genesis 1:2

Despite the importance of this verse in creationist theory, I hotly oppose a Wikipedia article on individual verses of the Bible. We already have

• Merge into Genesis or other suitable article. I agree that we shouldn't have articles for every verse just for logistical reasons; besides, it's unnecessary.--M412k 16:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No content worth merging. Redirect to
  Creation according to Genesis. - Mike Rosoft 16:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Just DELETE! We don't need all of these articles about each and every goddamn (no pun intended) Bible verse.
  Revolución 20:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete for sake of space My previous vote was too hasty. After giving the issue some thought, I vote Keep. Karol 20:07, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As Gen 1:1. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep... but if you absolutely have to merge
  Beta m (talk
  )
• Delete. Mindmatrix 21:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that the vote listed from Tony Sidaway was actually cast by
    User:Beta m
  • About the above note: when I load the edit history, it keeps changing state. What's going on? (It's not a caching issue on my end.) I'm not sure if the statement I made above is accurate. Mindmatrix 21:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disregard my notes, everyone. Apparently I'm getting incorrect edit history information from the DB right now. Mindmatrix 21:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - still more notable than your average school - although this does need some content - I didn't know we were short of space?--
  (?) 21:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect, per Genesis 1:1, reasoning as stated in that vote. Geogre 21:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See also
  WP:VFD/Matthew 2:16. -- Jonel 21:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. More than enough scholorship available to create an encyclopedic article on this verse. --Allen3 ^talk 23:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to
  Creation according to Genesis. While interesting in its own regard, if Wikipedia had an article on every single Bible verse it would just get ridiculous. This might warrant its own Bible Wiki, or something, though. Hermione1980 23:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge with
  Creation according to Genesis. --Carnildo 23:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and expand. Vast amounts have been written about this verse and the others at the start of Genesis. - SimonP 23:35, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect As above - many Biblical verses are grouped together on Wikipedia. Create Genesis 1:1-5, which covers a more comprehensible part of the Book. Grutness...wha? 01:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, could write books on the subject. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:39, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to
  Creation according to Genesis. Megan1967 05:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and expand. Single verses in the Bible have inspired reams of commentary, controversy, scholarship. --Decumanus 05:33, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
• Delete Kaibabsquirrel 07:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dsmdgold 10:25, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to
  Creation according to Genesis. JamesBurns 11:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and expand. Falphin 02:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, don't redirect or merge. I would expect this article to grow and will best serve users in its own article. - DS1953 22:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable bible verse. I;ve been adding additional translations (Modern Translations) to each of the bible verse articles. Klonimus 02:29, 1 Jun 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bellevue West High School

This vanity article's

• Comment This wasn't listed on VfD by the nominator so I've added it to the May 26 listings. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Baa Baa. Bleat Bleat. [Just to be predictably English-eccentric] --Simon Cursitor 07:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Waaah, waaah, waaah. Keep unless someone suggests an actual reason for deleting and take the drama elsewhere. Ben-w 07:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep and expand once the page is unprotected. Though I agree with Harro5, I don't want to refraing from voting and risk the page being deleted. Secondary schools are inherently notable. --BaronLarf 11:23, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a shame that the lister included an attack on those who think that schools should be in Wikipedia. Wikipedia would not get far if we all engaged in such behavior. I've looked at the local school district article, Bellevue Public Schools, and I don't think a merge would be suitable in this case. It's no longer a brief stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm also concerned at the lister's misinterpretation of the result of the last VfD. The closer, Rossami, made it quite plain that the result was no consensus and that in merging he was merely being bold. I sometimes do this myself but, to avoid this kind of misinterpretation I always carry out the editing after closing and as a separate edit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lister also writes: "The article is currently protected in a disgusting display of biased inclusionism, three minutes after the protecting admin reverted it to the non-consensus version"
  • Actually that was me protecting the article which I'd been told was subject to a revert war. When I got there there was indeed a very silly revert war in progress. I protected The Wrong Version, as is my privilege, because of a perception, which I think was quite correct, that an attempt was being made to enforce a merge without consensus. Four people up to that point had tried to get it back to an article and four people had tried to get it back to a redirect. That just doesn't happen when there is a consensus. I made a rather exasperated note about the whole silly thing on the talk page at the time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

End discussion please

I urge everybody accept the fact that this vote will end in 'no consensus', and to not increase VfD size by adding more votes. Wait for the forthcoming vote before deciding. See also