Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 12

< March 11	March 13 >

March 12

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 - SimonP 05:31, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ephebophobia

Neologism. Four Google hits apart from articles apparently made by the same author, who has also written Ephebosexuality (a word with one Google hit, from a pro-pedophilia advocacy site). Apparent theme of apologia for ephebophilia. Original research, non-notable, POV. Delete. -- The Anome 00:21, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity neologism, prolly a stealth ad for something, too. Wyss 01:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Ephebiphobia has 1,850 hits, which I think is the term the guy MEANT to write. As another note, it's also misspelled on Phobia, but not -phobia. Also, the page itself is fairly POV. Pay close attention to the "Pathological Forms" section, and you'll see what I mean. "Humiliating an underage adolescent in public"? Come on... Wakuseino 03:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- comment to comment: Ephebiphobia gives 1,850 hits, but 209 pages, if you try to click thru goolge reports. Mikkalai 04:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Fair enough point. Not nearly enough to count for the Google Search. Delete, but we really ought to fix the spelling on Phobia too once we're done with this. Wakuseino 06:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Del neologism. Mikkalai 04:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Redirect to Ephebiphobia. Ephebiphobia is the right word, and it has more hits in Google than Ephebophilia (which has only 950 hits - shouldn't be the case for deleting also this word ?). Ephebiphobia has been mentioned so far in 15 news articles in the US alone, according to the Newslibrary.com, and there are other English-speaking countries. It is listed in the About.com official psychology glossary. The word is also listed in the NYRA (National Youth Rights Association) Glossary (see www.youthrights.net), whose website is affiliated to the Wikipedian system. It is also mentioned in several phobia guides across the net. It is the title of a Conference in Alberta, Canada, to be held next April, 2005. It fits Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of words.
Content. I've just created ephebiphobia copying the previous content of ephebophobia. Anyone who dislikes part of the content has the opportunity to edit it. That's what Wikipedia is all about.
Delete. Wikipedia is not about promoting newly-invented wrods. Rick K 05:16, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - David Gerard 15:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Quite obviously a pseudo-scientific justification for pedophilia.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 05:32, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Lagduf

This character is so minor that he is mentioned in exactly one sentence of the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, to state that he had been shot. I don't see how a character mentioned once in passing even warrants an entry on a list of minor characters, let alone a whole entry. Arkyan 00:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, I remember ol' Lagduf, he's LOTRcruft. Wyss 01:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Orc (Middle-earth). Megan1967 01:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to discourage recreation. Do not merge unless perhaps someone feels like adding a "list of Orcs named by Tolkien". I am generally all in favor of Tolkien-related articles, but this is ridiculous. -Aranel ("Sarah") 04:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to discourage recreation, like Aranel suggested. Wakuseino 05:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge. I'm curious to see how much LOTR fans can write about this obscure character. They can always redirect and merge it themselves if they can't expand it, you know. VfD doesn't have to do everything. It's a better approach to let something like this be handled by editors interested in the subject. Everyking 09:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I am interested in this subject, and the problem is that there is no room for expansion on this character. The character's entire role is to be mentioned. Nothing is said of who he was, what kind of orc he was, or even what he did. Again, the only time his name appears in the entire trilogy is to say, and I quote, he and another orc "ran through [the gate], but they were shot." Not a single other reference is ever made to him. Arkyan 12:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - I suppose. What about whoever started the article, or made that table at the bottom, what do they think? Personally I think a redirect to a list of similar minor characters could be a good idea, but I've never read the books or even seen the movies, so I'm not qualified to say, really. Everyking 12:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - I am qualified to say. There is really, truly nothing more to add. I'm not even convinced a list would be useful, but I suppose we could list Orcs somewhere. (It wouldn't be hard. There aren't very many of them.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 14:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - Comment: In the satirical game MUNCHKIN, there is a monster card "2,614 Orcs". I would consider that "very many of them" if they were trying to kill me and take a ring from me. Barno 16:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - OK, well, whatever you think is best. I'm sure a reasonable solution could be reached without involving an already massively bloated VfD. Everyking 14:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge to some list of Orcs. And why don't we have a Great Tolkiencruft Purge while we're at it... -- Riffsyphon1024 09:19, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, no merge necessary. DaveTheRed 09:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
keep or merge and let something like this be handled by editors interested in the subject, and not by me (no offense). Kappa 11:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm all for inclusion, but this character is just too minor for inclusion. He got just one line in the entire trilogy and died in it. Delete, because he can't be expanded. If there's actually Orcs around that have more info available on them, I'm not opposed to a list of Orcs, but just listing all Tolkien's Orcs by name without any other info seems unencyclopedic to me. Mgm|^(talk) 14:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Wikipedia isn't a memorial: Shouldn't this count for fictional orcs as well? Mgm|^(talk) 14:46, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, or redirect to an appropriate article. The itty-bittiest of bit parts; there isn't any more to write about the character than appears in this substub. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:03, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this is not even a minor character. Radiant! 20:07, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The article says everything that could possbily be said about this "character", adn it still says next to nothing. If Tolkien farted would a Tolkien fan write an article about it? Probably. -R. fiend 02:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Tolkien cruft. One mention in a book does not make a character notable. -- Cleduc 04:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm in favor of keeping a lot of Tolkien stuff, but this goes beyond the pale. Rick K 05:17, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect ... somewhere ... to discorage recreation. Protect redirect if necessary. Include a pit of vipers and barbed wire around it if need be - David Gerard 14:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm a fan, but there's never going to be much that can be written about a fictional character who was mentioned once in all of Tolkien's works, nor is this notable. Jonathunder 22:41, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
Delete too minor even for list inclusion Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
KEEP - Tolkien's orcs articles merit more development than the present wide spread use of journaling in Wikipedia to cover adult material. -- John Gohde 14:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, beyond tolkiencruft. ComCat 02:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — mark ✎ 09:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ninjapirate

This article is about a Maddox knock-off. I don't see why it is notable, and therefore I am listing it at VFD. WhisperToMe 01:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, ad (graphic's kinda cute though). Wyss 01:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity page. Andrew pmk 01:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity ad. Megan1967 01:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity, and I hope the image gets noted for deletion too, possible copyvio (no copy information). Tygar 09:00, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete ad - David Gerard 14:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, more nn ninjacruft. ComCat 09:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 05:34, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Alicia Lopez-Harrison de Lardé

This article doesn't say anything more than what is already in the Nash article. Did she have any individual achievements that deserve a page? If not, she should be deleted (well not her, the article!). Treborbassett 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to John Forbes Nash. Megan1967 01:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no encyclopedic content here. Wyss 06:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect - David Gerard 14:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Article is sitting on the "pending deletion" shelf. Joyous 16:56, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Bakali

As it is, the article is practically a candidate for speedy deletion due to a lack of definition. I can't even find enough material on the subject to write my own. Given that it hadn't been touched since August, it either needs to be expanded soon, or it needs to go away. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Most probably the author meant the family name 'Bakali'. Mikkalai 04:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- There's a minor race of dragon-worshippers in some role-playing game that (alas!) appears to be more well-known than the surname. But I'd encourage them to be placed in a "list of minor races in X" article (with a 1-line disambiguation at the top of an article about any real-world Bakali), in any event. Uncle G 11:07, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, little or no content with no context, else as foreign dicef with inept text, else genealogy, else vanity, else ad. Wyss 06:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Lacks definition and context. Possibily genealogy, vanity and ad. Mgm|^(talk) 14:51, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Um, what? Delete as completely useless - David Gerard 14:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Bakali is the plural of bakalus, a rank of the Roman priesthood whose sole purpose was to wax stoats and make miniature carved sculptures of feet out of owl bones. Um... delete Grutness|^hello? 09:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — mark ✎ 10:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Derek

It's a vanity page, it's not encyclopedic, and it's not useful. I recommend deletion. Dpark 03:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not much else to say. Mo0[talk] 04:18, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not to mention that he's not even the most important Derek known to man -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:22, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just to be fair, I put him through the Google check by the name given in the article, "Derek Chan", despite the fact that the page is just labelled as Derek... 3870 results. Derek Chan and Heavy Metal? 17, and they're not even all about the same Derek Chan. Rock? 374. For someone who's a "very renowned Hong Kong rocker", he's... not very renowned. Not enough for Wikipedia yet, at least. Wakuseino 05:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment Of course, this is also noting the fact that for being so renowned, it hasn't even listed anything he's done, except "promote heavy metal and theater cultures". Wakuseino 05:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hah! Even a nobody like me's got more Google hits than that! -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:01, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, and now he's promoting himself. Wyss 05:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Ellsworth 16:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete without verifiability - David Gerard 14:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "Derek Chan, a very renowned Hong Kong rocker" is just not notable enough, yet. When he is, maybe someone else will write an article about him. Jonathunder 22:24, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Although the current article is a definite delete, IMHO, we have articles on onther names. Could this not be turned into a list of famous people called Derek? To quote Peter Jackson, "I'm a Derek - dereks don't run!" Grutness|^hello? 02:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Derek Chan is a "very renowned" rocker AllMusic.com doesn't know anything about. Vanity. vlad_mv 12:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — mark ✎ 10:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TRUFAX

According to the article itself, this is a "very obscure" bit of internet slang. If this catches on and becomes a very popular bit of Internet slang, at that point it may be encyclopedic. I did a search on Google but there are several companies with variations on this name (all of which use lowercase letters) and I couldn't find any examples of the term being used as described in this article. No matter what you think about the Google test in other areas, it's a fairly reliable way to judge popularity of things whose sole claim to fame is their popularity on the internet. -Aranel ("Sarah") 04:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

del. Mikkalai 04:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, slang dicdef, obscure online term. Wyss 05:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Eh? Regio-n-specific neologism. Delete. Tygar 09:01, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Obscure slang term - so obscure I'm not convinced the author of this article didn't create it him/herself. Grutness|^hello? 10:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As the author of the article (way back in my first days on the Wikipedia), I can say it's genuine, but it is pretty deeply obscure. Besides which, it's really more of a Wikitionary entry. Origins lie in Popbitch's forums and spread from there, according to some. Socka tume 14:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Slang dic def. Mgm|^(talk) 14:53, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete neologism - David Gerard 14:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete but thank it for being kind enough to self-identify as obscure for us Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn slangcruft. ComCat 09:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn, unverifiable. vlad_mv 12:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Verifiable, actually (if you know about it, which I guess doesn't count) [1][2] but still very obscure. Socka tume 14:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — mark ✎ 10:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Business Intelligence Network

Del. Notability. For a website to get less than 800 google hits would mean it does not exist. Mikkalai 04:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, depends on whether or not those were unique hits, but this is an ad. Wyss 05:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete ad - David Gerard 14:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — mark ✎ 10:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live Number 548

When this article was first posted, it contained some lightly reworked copyvio content from here. Now that I've removed the copyvio, there's pretty much nothing there. I don't see anything wrong with articles about TV episodes per se, but this kind of falls under the bar of notability for me. For SNL, articles about notable sketches or characters are much more useful than articles about individual episodes. /sɪzlæk ˺/ 05:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unencyclopedic. Wyss 05:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, SNLcruft. Megan1967 06:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep, interesting to SNL fans, Halle Berry Fans, Britney Spear fans, etc. Kappa 07:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, SNLcruft. DaveTheRed 08:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete this article, move info to the SNL article. Tygar 09:01, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, there seems to be precedent for keeping episode articles...or are The Simpsons and Star Trek the only ones? Funnily enough, I remembered which songs Britney sang on the show, so I added that. Everyking 09:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Begin the Great LorneCruft Purge. Delete -- Riffsyphon1024 09:30, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Samboy 10:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As noted above, popular sketches and characters are the natural units to report on with SNL, rather than entire episodes. Unlike the episodes of Star Trek and The Simpsons which–though probably only borderline notable–at least tell a cohesive story, episodes of SNL are at best only loosely tied together. Performers who have made notable SNL appearances can have those appearances mentioned in their respective articles, and should appear in List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge into an article on the season. - SimonP 17:39, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What encyclopedic value can there be in just a list of sketches that were done in the same show? --BM 19:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Ten. Radiant! 20:07, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, the significant information, the host and the musical guest, are covered elsewhere. -R. fiend 02:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - verifiable, of third-party interest - David Gerard 14:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. It strikes me as perfectly reasonable, and completely within the spirit of Wikipedia, to have this level of detail on a notable and sometimes important cultural phenomenon. Wasn't it Jimbo Wales who, early on, supported the idea of an article for every Simpsons episode? How in the world is this project, with useful links to real people and events, any less worthy? Might it not be helpful for someone searching for information on, say, Ralph Nader, to be able to find information on the date and content of his SNL appearance? Similarly, if someone in the future is researching popular viewpoints on Gerald Ford, might not they find useful to be able to find dates, subjects, and details of SNL sketches featuring Ford? Jgm 16:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Block compress error: pending deletion. Joyous 16:54, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Cantabria Surrealist Group

Delete extremely non-notable Vanity Page article created by close friend (seem familiar?) Wikipedia user Daniel C.Boyer in June 2004. See also, advertising and spam, possible recommendation for speedy deletion as well. This, "surrealist group" only brings up 200 plus hits on Google, look at the second and third listings on your google search, Wikipedia encyclopedia mirrors. Article was created to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. Typical attempts by contemporary, "surrealist" groups having articles created on Wikipedia to exploit the benefits of exposure. Note: No significant cultural history on this group can be found anywhere.Classicjupiter2 05:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I am not a close friend of anyone in the Cantabria Group. This is an allegation without any other basis than Classicjupiter2's anti-surrealism; if I am missing something, please let me know. Furthermore, why is "surrealist" in quotes -- on what basis have you decided this is not a surrealist group? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: 117 google hit for "Cantabria Surrealist Group"; without word "Wikipedia", 86 hits. -- Infrogmation 05:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- P.S.: If it is decided to delete this article, I reccomend deleting Siamés: Comunicación surrealista - Imaginario crítico. as well (a stublet on the publication of this group, linked only to the Cantabria Surrealist Group article. -- Infrogmation 05:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Agreed, delete that as well.Classicjupiter2 05:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - No. Should perhaps be merged or deleted (I think merging is the best solution), but if it is to be deleted and not merged, should go through own process. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Siamés: Comunicación surrealista - Imaginario crítico.. Postdlf 22:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, speedily so as vandalism. Wyss 05:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't put it in the category of vandalism; if there's a problem it seems to me to be overly generous inclusiveness. I'm seeing a need for Wikipedia guidelines for notability in art related article similar to the music notability guidelines project. Pondering, -- Infrogmation 06:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I (amicably) disagree, it's pure bad-faith vandalism, these are hoax articles meant as platforms for self-promotion over a period of time... throw up a few dozen and maybe a few will stick, then seed them with links and names and poof... worldwide notability via mirrored WP. Speedy delete 'em. Wyss 10:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On what basis is it self-promotion -- why do you believe a member of the Cantabria Surrealist Group created this? Or have you decided to strip the adjective self-promotion of all meaning by using it in a very vague way synonymous with non-notability, which is a very different thing? On what basis do you think the Cantabria Surrealist Group is a hoax? Let me guess, you won't answer one of these questions. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You guessed wrong. Now, I never said the article was created by a member of that group, or that it wasn't notable. I said that it (in combination with the flurry of other surrealist articles) is a hoax, a stealth platform for ads. Please feel free to do whatever self-promotion you can, that's part of being an active surrealist and that's ok (Dali did it, after all), but not here please, since WP is not a promotional resource. Wyss 05:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly clear that you don't know what the word "hoax" means -- or do you really think the Cantabria Surrealist Group has no existence outside of the Wikipedia article and was created for the purpose of playing a practical joke on Wikipedia readers, or some other ulterior motive inclusive of the nonexistence of the group? Give me a break. Could you stop with these idiosyncratic attempts to strip words of meaning. Oh, and the period of Dali's greatest self-promotion was after he and surrealism parted ways, and is certainly not characteristic of surrealism. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We have at least one of these non-articles listed at VfD every day. This looks to be stark vanity, spam, and vandalization of Wikipedia. Speedy deletion!!! Tygar 09:05, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: While, so far, I have listed each VfD surrealist article for deletion it is due to the fact that they 1) do not establish notability other than stating that they exist 2) give a very brief idea of where they are located and who their founders are and 3) provide you external links and nothing more, even though a few have been listed as stubs for several months. If we find one that is in the process of development, or, contains more than 1), 2), and 3), it will then be a different story. But, based on the pattern of blitz-submission of ongoing surrealist articles, I stand by my speedy delete vote for the majority of these articles that come to VfD. Tygar 09:18, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  - Nothing more than a stark admission of anti-surrealist POV. Every article should be considered on its own merits, not as to whether it is part of a pattern. Clearly some of these groups could be notable and others not, none of them could be notable, or they all could be notable, but the notability of one should not be artificially linked to whether the existence of other articles is justified. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - In the case of articles that are primarily the work of a single contributor, the nature of the past articles submitted by the contributor is relevant. For example, if an article is proved to be an actual hoax, other contributions from the same account will probably be deleted with only cursory due diligence. Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion is always available to correct any mistakes.
Comment I'll speedy it. But continue to list on VfD. It is better to have a discussion to refer to, as this is identifiable as vandalism only in the context of a pattern of articles, not by itself. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) Damn, can't be deleted for technical reasons. Blanked and protected in lieu of deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn, vanity, not surreal enough. -- Cleduc 04:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Keep Deleted whichever the case happens to be Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Note Daniel C. Boyer's request for undeletion is now under discussion here. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment I'm now going to irritate everyone by vacillating. I've been brooding about this and have concluded that on the basis of Classicjupiter2's description and an inspection of Daniel C. Boyer's recent edits, the surrealist-related articles don't really rise to the level of vandalism. It's not as if they were being rapidly created in defiance of consensus, or anything like that. So I've decided to unprotect and revert the article and let VfD run its course. This doesn't mean I think the article should be kept, just that I think I was needlessly precipitous. Sorry. The article has now been restored. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, for good reasons give by others above. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It hasn't even declared itself a sovereign nation or issued stamps, yet. - Nunh-huh 01:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of notability. Postdlf 03:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment, I do see these "Surrealist Group" articles as vandalism (never mind if they've slipped through the cracks for awhile or if the odd one now and then happens to describe an existing group), and also noticed (when I checked it the other day) that Daniel C. Boyer's user contribution history doesn't follow the usual pattern for such activity. Nevertheless, although Daniel C. Boyer's user page does provide some evidence that he is a practicing surrealist, which might account for his enthusiam in voting to keep apparently dodgy articles in his area of interest (where self-promotion abounds), readers are invited to read his posts on my talk page and decide for themselves what they mean. Wyss 04:28, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I should say, if I happen to think something could be speedied (for example an article stub about a group of surrealists that doesn't seem to exist), but for whatever reason it's allowed to go through VfD, that's ok by me. Wyss 04:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh my! What do the, "surrealists" friends of Daniel C.Boyer really think about Wikipedia? Plus the real reason on how to promote online by, "surrealist" ewbragg, friend of Daniel C.Boyer (read the post on how he tells the other, "surrealists" how to promote online! Go here, http://p217.ezboard.com/fsurrealismfrm2.showMessage?topicID=51.topic

it all makes sense.Classicjupiter2 06:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm shocked... shocked... to see this blatant evidence of self-promotion by surrealists! (grin) More power to 'em, truth be told, 'cause surrealism can blow out the cobwebs now and again. Dali (to use an example everyone's heard of) had loads of talent in addition to being a shameless self-promoter and huckster. I'm not too keen on the ol' melting watch motif, but he did a couple of things in the late 40s ([3] [4]) that I actually like. Whatever talent these guys have isn't the pith of it, though. WP's not for self-promotion, or advertising, or auto-bios, or stealth spam. Funny thing is, if they put some of this same energy into getting some real-world exhibitions, performance art, local press coverage or whatever, I'll bet they could weasel into WP by the rules (heh heh). Wyss 06:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Read the Manifesto of Surrealism to see what Breton and surrealism thinks about "talent" ("Forget about your genius, your talents, and the talents of everyone else"). Notice that Dali and surrealism parted ways. Note also that surrealism is not an artistic movement. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wyss's talk page will show Daniel's inability to prove anything factual concerning this matter. One of the best books recently written on Surrealism was by Kristen Strom, called, "Making History" (it came out around 2002) and it focuses mainly on the surrealist groups of the 20's and 30's. It shows you the pictures, writings, etc., etc., of group members together and seperate, but what I am getting at is, you have facts right in front of you, that prove that there were active surrealist groups. Upon researching surrealism from its beginnings up to now (2005), one needs to ask oneself, why so very little material on contemporary surrealists that can be easily validated, especially in this day and age of Real-Time Internet, Media, etc., etc., and all the reference material that you can get on the current, "surrealist" groups is mainly an article on Wikipedia, with two to four sentences.

- You are at it again, with the "Real-Time Internet" [sic] &c. You do realise that books, newspapers, magazines still exist, right? Why are you continuing to duck the question of why you discount them? What about the fact that at least one of the "surrealist groups of the 20's and 30's" (you give no reason whatsoever as to why you have picked these decades out of a hat) -- The Czech Group -- continues to exist today and has had an uninterrupted history since that time? Not that I agree with your characterisation; what you are mainly doing is excluding reference sources that go against you, based on a variety of ever-shifting excuses. Oh, I know, "too many gaps to establish credibility". --Daniel C. Boyer 15:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wyss hit it right on the mark, as did a few others. These, "surrealists" and "surrealist" groups today say they exist. OK, lets take their word for it for a moment.

- Who are the "they" if they do not exist? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then why is there practically next to zilch online that the public can research regarding their: Exhibits, Documented Group Activity (in newspapers and any press. Breton and co. used to get tons of press back in the day, from the 20's up until the 60's) Protests, etc.,etc., etc.

- And the Chicago Surrealist Group, e.g. has gotten tons of press in The New Yorker, in the Chicago Tribune, the 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition in Art News &c. Oh, but these are not legitimate sources because they are not online. And in this era of the "Real-Time Internet" (whatever that is, that's all that counts. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Granted you have a menu of Geocities websites, self-made do-it-yourself websites like the bogus, "surrealcoconut" (that Boyer is also on) and PLENTY of Wikipedia articles, no less, that tell you that contemporary surrealism is an active movement, but why is there so much protest from their main promoter here on Wikipedia, Daniel C. Boyer? The reason is clear: Your exposure to the public is very rewarding if you have an article on Wikipedia, where it can be mirrored, replicated and placed on practically every single encyclopedia website on the net. Thus, you exist!!! This is a Hoax.Classicjupiter2 07:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- You're not sure what the word "hoax" means, are you? Are you saying that there's no such person as "Daniel C. Boyer"? Then why are you so concerned about him? Classicjupiter2, ask yourself why you are so upset about this? It should be none of your concern, let it go, &c. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Daniel, as for The Chicago Surrealist Group, you or somebody should provide the references and sources that you keep on mentioning. Then I will change my vote on that article. As for all the other articles, you better explain why you are using the Wikipedia service to promote your friends. You still provide no evidence. Your friend, Eric W.Bragg's statement on how to promote your surrealism online certainly proves that your assertions on an active surrealist movement is a hoax. "...no need to rely on Wikipedia then". Busted!Classicjupiter2 17:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am hardly "busted" because of this latest entry in your pattern of mischaracterisations which it is difficult to see as other than deliberate. Bragg is essentially saying that one cannot count on Wikipedia articles to accurately discuss surrealism. Saying that his statements prove that "an active surrealist movement is a hoax" is such a reach (it might be a hoax, it might not be a hoax, but clearly his statement wouldn't control that) is hardly worth discussing. You are certainly aware of Arsenal, Surrealist Subversions, WHAT Are You Going to Do About It?, S. U. RR., Anologon, the World Surrealist Exhibition, "Totems Without Taboos", &c., &c., yet if my guess is correct you will find some reason that all of these are fraudulent. This, however, will be nothing more than a (novel) POV, a POV to be discussed in the relevant article(s) but certainly not a basis for deletion. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What denial! I am not going to argue surrealism here with you Daniel. This is an open source encyclopedia that is based on the presentation of facts in the articles on here. You are busted. Eric W.Bragg's statement proves it, and that is just one piece of evidence. You had every opportunity to provide your evidence to back up your articles and the votes prove that they are a hoax. Granted, I will recognize the Chicago Surrealist Group as a group, but I see the obvious (again I really do not want to argue here), that it is a group of artists and poets that allege to be the chosen representatives of Surrealism. Mr.Rosemont (and his wife) both have built their artistic careers on the notion that they met Andre Breton, and if I was an historian, I would have much difficulty in believing them that they had direct contact with him. Granted, I believe that they went to Paris and that they attended an exhibition while Breton may have been present, but the "facts", presented in Rosemont's account is very vague and too many obvious gaps. Dan, if you were a role model of mine, (and if you were the greatest influence on me and my beliefs), and if we were writing letters to each other for 3 years, then I get the chance to meet my role model and hero(you), I certainly would document that in a picture for history no less.

Notice how Rosemont's reputation in the art world is only limited to Chicago, or am I wrong again? You love pointing out that I am wrong, but I see the obvious. Anyway, forget Rosemont and his group for the moment, the issue here is the promotion of your friend's groups and that is being examined here on this VfD by fellow Wikipedians. Why do I have to go through all the trouble to verify your articles? Why does it take a VfD to ,(all of a sudden), get you to start coming up with such informative answers that are still vague and really baseless? Dan, you keep on shifting the examination here? If you are going to promote your friends on here, at least give us something more than two to four sentences and practically next to nothing on a topic that is going to be mentioned in an encyclopedia no less! Dan, have you really read the feedback posted by the fellow Wikipeidans?

As for the Chicago Group, I will change my vote on the exception that I recognize them as a commercial outlet for retrospective surrealism from 1967 to 2003. Dan, have you noticed when the last time that Chicago upgraded their website? Anyway, the other articles are a hoax. These are your friends that only do all this as a platform for exposure. Look at your friends forum.Classicjupiter2 21:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dan, pictures are very helpful for researchers. I recommend that you get a hold of pictures(fast) of these people to try to save your articles, just to at least prove that they exist.Classicjupiter2 21:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment Presently, I am more concerned about the unsourced statement, added by Daniel C. Boyer, that a cantaloupe can be a charge in heraldry. I'd like to think this is an obscure but interesting fact about modern heraldry (the cantaloupe not being known in the middle ages) but I'd be much happier if this were sourced. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Appears in arms of Santo Estêvão in Portugal. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Please continue discussion in Talk:Charge (herald). This site identifies the melon-like objects on the arms of Santo Estêvão as "gold rocks." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It isn't proven to be active and significant. All the Google hits for "Cantabria Surrealist Group" have something to do with Wikipedia, expect a paragraph in Surrealcoconut. "Grupo Surrealista de Cantabria" gives 44 hits. -Hapsiainen 14:51, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as vanity. Radiant _* 10:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — mark ✎ 10:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Devastatin dave

Apparently there is some guy who calls himself "Devastatin' Dave - The Turntable Slave" where the external link on that page points, but the rest is extreme nonsense. Note how he was "born as the first test tube baby to an African American couple in 1954", his father was "martyred" in the imaginary "Second Great Anglo-Zanzibar war", his mother had hopes for him to become a "Professor of Advanced Discrete Analytical Multi-variable biphasic topology" (but doesn't every mother?) etc. I nominate to delete.--Pharos 05:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Do not BJAODN, do not collect $200. - Lucky 6.9 06:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, obvious hoax. Megan1967 06:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, speedy as pranking is fine by me. -- Infrogmation 06:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As fun as it is to look at, I think Pharos's description of it was enough for me to remember this by. Wakuseino 06:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article is nonsense. Maybe I should start calling myself Devastatin' Dave. DaveTheRed 09:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Krazy Klerk Killer (KKK)"? Definitely a joke. But why couldn't this go in Wikipedia:BJAODN? -- Riffsyphon1024 09:39, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Although funny, Wikipedia is no place for humor. Except for Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. --Arm
Delete, unwikified nonsense. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ho ho hoax. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 15:00, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, but deserves a spot on BJAODN. Ellsworth 16:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ha ha ha. Delete - David Gerard 14:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, but also comment: Note that the album exists and is a mini-meme, just because it sucks so much (the cover doesn't help, either). See [5] for a example. A non-patent nonsense article might be okay, but this one's obviously got to go. -- grm_wnr 23:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — mark ✎ 10:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

GameFAQSASCII

Non-notable, vanity, etc. Alexa rank #4,700,000+. CryptoDerk 06:19, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. Tygar 09:07, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity article. Mgm|^(talk) 15:01, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete ad - David Gerard 14:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 05:36, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

What's up

This article was previously nominated for deletion on 2005-02-15. The result of that discussion was "no consensus". You can read the prior discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/What's up.

This is a non-notable and unencyclopedic song. It isn't even encyclopedic enough to merge into the album it came from. Why? 08:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

...It appears we're voting on the expression, not the song? Anyway, the song was popular and a favorite of mine in particular, so it should have an article of its own, not just a redirect to the album page. Everyking 09:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The VFD was botched and the expression is certaintly notable. Samboy 09:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep popular songs and Everyking's favorites, and expressions that spawned major advertising campaigns such as Wasssssaaaaap (sp?). Kappa 13:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
While I'm all in favor of continuing a discussion if it has not established consensus yet, this should be done by extending the existing thread. Starting anew means people will have to repeat themselves or their arguments might get ignored.
- Personal vote is to merge/redirct to 4 Non Blondes. Radiant! 20:12, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Article spouts some complete garbage about Yiddish, hard to see how it's relevant. ~~I await rewrite before voting.~~ No redirect forthcoming. Delete Lacrimosus 21:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge, redirect, delete, anything, just kill it - David Gerard 14:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete or redirect, wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Gazpacho 20:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 09:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Marc Overmars. —Korath (Talk) 04:53, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Mark Overmars

This article appears to be the vanity page for a unnotable writer of non-libre free software. Samboy 09:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Being bold and redirecting this to Marc Overmars - an easy mistake to make. Chris 14:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've played Gamemaker games, but I don't find Mark Overmars particularly notable. Keep the redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 15:04, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Hey! I don't know if it's the same person, but Mark Overmars was the co-author of a notable book on computational geometry. — JIP | Talk 08:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep redirect to footballer - David Gerard 14:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 05:37, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live Number 466

Same reasons as the Votes for Deletion for episode 548 and the one for 364: non-notable, useless, unencyclopedic. /sɪzlæk ˺/ 09:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment. And just how much space will having every episode of SNL for the past 30 years take? -- Riffsyphon1024 09:22, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. See my reasoning at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Saturday Night Live episodes. Tygar 10:20, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Samboy 10:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, covering every episode of SNL for the past 30 years will take up a negligible amount of space. Kappa 11:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge into an article on each season. - SimonP 17:38, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for the same reasons at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Saturday Night Live episodes. DaveTheRed 19:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Saturday Night Live episodes are not like episodes of dramas or sitcoms. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable as an individual episode. Megan1967 01:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I've never seen an article use so many words to say absolutely nothing. "Action 8 News Watch: Anchorpeople and reports make references to stories coming up at "later in" or "at the end of" the hour." WTF???? To those who take the stand that wikipedia should never delete any information, please explain to me how that qualifies as "information". -R. fiend 02:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - verifiable and of third-party interest - David Gerard 14:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, my reasoning is already expressed in the other SNL episode VfD entries. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep interesting information not easily found elsewhere Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep; comments at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Saturday_Night_Live_Number_548.
Keep: Information is verifiable, informative, and of interest to end users. —Caesura 17:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: If anyone is even going to think about keeping this page it needs major work. It's written assuming the reader knows exactly who all the recurring characeters are, and most of the brief synopses are utterly uninformative. You know how sometimes a friend will try to tell you something really funny he saw on TV the other night, but screws it up so badly that it's not only unfunny but nonsensical? That's this article. I also wonder if this article is even accurate. There's an entry (a sketch I guess it's suppsoed to be) that only reads "1-800-EAT-SHIT". It says absolutely nothing, and is very possibly a prank. You can't say "shit" on TV, even after 11:30. A few hundred other articles written like this would be a travesty for wikipedia. -R. fiend 22:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 05:39, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live Number 364

More of the same: non-notable, useless, unencyclopedic. /sɪzlæk ˺/ 09:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we delete them all then? -- Riffsyphon1024 09:24, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. See my reasoining at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Saturday Night Live episodes. Tygar 10:20, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Star Trek individual episodes can have Wiki entries' why should SNL be any different? Samboy 10:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yea, but then everyone will want an episode list. The trek episodes should really be in Memory Alpha. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:48, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Star Trek episodes have a unifying plot. SNL does not, so needs no article to describe each episode. DaveTheRed 19:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, episodes of star trek, and notable comedy shows are important enough for an unlimited encyclopedia. Kappa 11:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I have a strong suspicion that most Star Trek episodes shouldn't have their own articles, and that we would be better served by a few articles summarizing key plot arcs and characters. As I've mentioned elsewhere, we already have articles on notable SNL sketches and characters, and a list of all the hosts and musical guests. This is too much granularity. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What encyclopedic value can there be in just a list of sketches that were done in the same show? --BM 19:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable as an individual episode. Megan1967 01:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Everyking 02:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Utterly useless, as above listing. Not encyclopedic at all. -R. fiend 02:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - verifiable and of third-party interest - David Gerard 14:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep interesting information not easily found elsewhere Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no potential to become encyclopedic--nixie 01:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep; comments at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Saturday_Night_Live_Number_548.
Keep: Information is verifiable, informative, and of interest to end users. —Caesura 17:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 05:40, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

List of Saturday Night Live episodes

This is a list for the Saturday Night Live episode articles currently on VfD. There's definitely a place for lists of sketches, characters, etc., but a list of individual episodes doesn't really serve a purpose. The big, crucial difference between SNL and most shows that have a lot of articles on WP is that on SNL, sketches and recurring characters are far more notable than individual episodes. /sɪzlæk ˺/ 09:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, gee only three of them. Gotta go. Delete this before it starts growing. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:28, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. But, expand the article to include all the trivial information that is in the Saturday Night Live Episode #### articles so this becomes one GIGANTIC article. Delete all the individual show-numbered articles as being borderline spam, pure triviality, or unencyclopedic/not notable with respect to the larger purpose of Wikipedia. If this gigantic page gets too gigantic because the information can't be condensed, then I would suggest "List of Saturday Night Live Episodes 1-500" and "List of Saturday Night Live Episodes 500-1000", or something similar, that doesn't result in the blitzing of short, show-specific, individual SNL articles. Tygar 10:25, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Samboy 10:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete all. Individual episodes of comedy shows are not encyclopedic. Martg76 10:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'd say some are. The Martin Lawrence one comes to mind, the Ashlee Simpson one, the Sinead O'Connor one as well. I say keep, as I'd expect a grouping like this would have a lot of referrals. Badlydrawnjeff 17:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, episodes of notable comedy shows are important enough for an unlimited encyclopedia. Kappa 11:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The most notable aspects of most SNL shows are already covered in List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests. Particularly noteworthy skits and characters also already have their own articles, linked from the SNL page. We don't need a summary of every event in every episode. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - but merge specific episodes into one page. - SimonP 17:37, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Having articles on individual episodes of SNL makes no sense. The reason we can have an article on an episode of, for example, Star Trek, is because Star Trek episodes have a central unifying plot. SNL episodes are just a series of unreleated sketches, and thus don't need an article to describe them. DaveTheRed 19:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The three episodes listed are on VfD. If they survive, this list has no point. If they don't survive, the purpose of this list can be served entirely by a category. --BM 19:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. They don't even have names, just numbers. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Ten. Radiant! 20:08, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, not notable or encyclopaedic as individual episodes. Megan1967 01:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Everyking 02:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests is much better than this. -R. fiend 02:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Or maybe a redirect to above page? -R. fiend 17:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete - should be a category - David Gerard 14:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable SNLcruft. ComCat 09:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 04:54, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Websense

The article is pure spam. delete --User:Arm

Speedy deleting as spam and copyvio of http://ww2.websense.com/global/en/ProductsServices/WebsenseEnterprise . – Clockwork Soul 16:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 05:43, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City

Should be deleted (or re-directed) and possibly merged into Grand Theft Auto: Vice City - TigerShark 12:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and merge it. Mgm|^(talk) 15:07, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
The main article is actually getting close to the 32k mark. The list of characters should be split out of the main article into this one, with redirects adjusted accordingly. -Sean Curtin 00:45, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Everyking 02:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Sean said it best. - Lucky 6.9 07:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep as the main article is full. Expand - David Gerard 14:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Then I vote to merge the character descriptions from the main article page and this list page into a new page about Characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Most of the active links on the list page are merely redirects back to the main article. — RJH 18:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me. TigerShark 18:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep If we deleted it, people would probably create articles on the individual characters. Lists like these are a good thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, Mar 14, 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. Joyous 16:52, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Brian Jewkes

Get's two google hits that refer to him. For a supposed author, that's poor. Xezbeth 12:24, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

True, with 2 short story sales he can be considered a published author, but I doubt that's enough to be included in an encyclopedia. If it is, I'll be in here soon myself. Delete Mgm|^(talk) 15:10, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Borderline delete - vanity, trivial - David Gerard 14:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged - SimonP 05:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Wheaten bread

Dicdef for a straight forward variation of soda bread that substitutes whole wheat flour for regular flour. No references at http://www.foodtv.com/ or http://allrecipes.com/ although I did locate a recipe here [6]. --Allen3 13:02, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

After further reflection I realized that this should be Merged and redirected to soda bread. The work has already been completed. --Allen3 14:44, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's a bona-fide common term in Ireland, but it is sufficiently related to soda bread to be listed there. zoney ♣ talk 18:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Soda bread. Megan1967 01:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep redirect - David Gerard 14:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:45, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Angel One

This is a randomly chose Star Trek: The Next Generation episode. Since other "fancruft", such as episode guides, book chapter guides, jedis knights, pokemons, digimons etc are getting merged or deleted, Trek episodes should go the same way. Kappa 13:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Retaliatory VfDs are pointless, by the way. Xezbeth 13:24, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- This Vfd is just aiming for consistency. Kappa 13:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I should have mentioned my vote is merge or keep as for other fancruft. Kappa 13:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You nominated this page for deletion and then vote "merge or keep"? Come on, please don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Keep. Carrp | Talk 13:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - These trek-cruft things will have to be Vf'd eventually, I don't think it's disruptive to consider an example at the same time as many similar things are coming up. Kappa 15:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Kappa, I don't get your logic here. Even if this survives VfD, this or some other Star Trek episode may be put up for VfD in the future. Zzyzx11 02:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - I think it's less likely that they will be re-Vfd'ed if the question of them being allowed to stay is discussed now, when things are in flux, instead of later, when they are likely to be a standout island of cruft. Kappa 02:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Individual episodes of Trek are notable enough to have articles, plus Angel One IIRC has already survived a VfD. And a second reminder to the nominator to review WP:POINT 23skidoo 16:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - SimonP 17:37, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and require the proposer to perform any merge/redirecting. --iMb~Mw 18:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. And lord knows you're not the first one to think of this particular point. --Fastfission 21:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expand. Unlike SNL episodes, ST:TNG at least have a coherent storyline notable enough for inclusion. Megan1967 01:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep of course! Yes Angel One is a boring episode, but eventually I hope to have all Next Gen episodes covered eventually.It takes time. My suggesting is: if you don't like then don't look at it. Unless Wikipeda has a shortage of drive space, which I heard they don't since this place nearly doubles in size on a monthly basis, then keep it. There are a ton of other STUPID CRAP here to get rid of in the meantime. Taking out Trek stuff is a waste of time. Plus Memory Alpha sucks. Their site way more disorganized than this place, and they have more issues with downtime. Cyberia23 07:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Nominator should be censured for blatant WP:POINT violation. This sort of thing is even listed there - David Gerard 14:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Where? Kappa 16:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep Why, Kappa, why? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable trekkiecruft. ComCat 09:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep pop culture encyclopedic Tjc 12:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, of course. Question---I've just hopped back onto VFD after a long hiatus, and so I missed the first part of this lovely drama. What got deleted that pissed off Kappa so much? What point is Kappa trying to make? grendel|khan 15:11, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
- The direct comparison is with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Saturday Night Live Number 548. I wasn't any more pissed-off than usual, although the nomination probably sounds grumpy because of the cold medicine I'd taken. This was a real attempt to get more consistency, which I value despite what WP:POINT says. Kappa 23:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyvio is now replaced by non-copyvio version from temp subpage. Mgm|^(talk) 15:17, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Zilwaukee Bridge

Somebody learned their lesson after copying other peoples' content to generate an article; now, they have their own words to say on the temporary page to replace the copyright violation template page with.

Obliterate the copyright template and merge in the proper temporary article in with the real page. --GoofyGuy 03:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete so Zilwaukee Bridge/Temp can be moved there - it might be nice if speedy covered this. --SPUI (talk) 14:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just added this to VFD, as the nominator hadn't gone all the way. --SPUI (talk) 14:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and did the move. I don't think you need to go through vfd to get rid of a copyvio. Just ask an admin to delete. Mgm|^(talk) 15:17, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 04:57, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

19:08, Mar 12, 2005 Neutrality deleted Largest relegion (content was: '{{db|typo clutter}}#REDIRECT Religion')

Largest relegion

Redundant with Major world religions and the individual articles, but I don't think any content needs to be merged. Some content pasted from [7], I don't know the copyright status. Also, misspelled, so delete but don't redirect. Thue | talk 14:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Move to Largest religion and then redirect. Kappa 15:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 04:57, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Iustin Capra

This article needs a reality check at least. I don't get any english google hits for his name. The article also says he invented an "anti-gravity machine which reduced the weight with 30%", which I think I would have heard of. Should be deleted unless verified. Thue | talk 14:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Note to nominator: please follow correct procedure for nomination. particularly used of subst: Chris 14:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Why use the subst? It is much cleaner to just use {{vfd}}. Thue | talk 14:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Using subst: expands the tag, so changes in diffs are easier to spot. Speedied article as hoax. Mgm|^(talk) 15:22, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Which changes are easier to see? it is perfectly easy to see when a non-subst vfd-tag has been added or removed. Thue | talk 15:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Really? Some people don't use the Edit Summary field for adding the tag, and vandals occasionally remove it usually without touching the edit summary. When you're looking at a diff, {{vfd}} doesn't stand out, whereas the removal of a whole bunch of lines does. Also beware of unauthorised changes to the template reflecting on every page that has it included directly. Chris 21:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - I am not convinced; at least I am capable to see the removal of {{vfd}} in a diff. Vandalism of the template doesn't happen often enough, and is corrected quickly enough, that it doesn't convince me to use subst. Still seems like a rule for the rules own sake, so I will continue using {{vfd}}. Thue | talk 08:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:09, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Geoffrey Ruddick

This was tagged for speedy, but it at least makes some claim to notability, so I'm bringing it here, although I don't think it has much chance. He didn't have a professional career as a sportman, presumably because of his injury, and I don't think the boy's football club played for, Walls Ends Boys Club [8], is exclusive enough to make all its alumni notable, even by my liberal definition. I vote delete unless the club is very exclusive or he was an elite part of it. Kappa 14:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 14:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete We're onto notability-by-association again. You are not notable just because you went to school with someone famous. Chris 14:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no verifiability supplied - David Gerard 14:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete no notability-by-association Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, Mar 14, 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. Joyous 16:08, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Roger Ellman

Artist of questionable notability - main google presence is the artist's homepage. Possible vanity page. JeremyA 15:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete without third-party verifiability - David Gerard 14:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete articles on people of less apparent notability than myself. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:07, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Mario Rossi

Article makes no claim of notability. Should be deleted. Thue | talk 16:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete pronto. Deb 16:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete reads like a caption to a 70's porn mag. Hilarious. nn, vanity. -- Cleduc 04:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete - David Gerard 14:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook. —Korath (Talk) 00:58, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Roast Potatoes

This page is nothing but a recipe. Rmhermen 00:21, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Delete : Yumminess is not a qualification for inclusion (at the moment!) – Clockwork Soul 16:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yummy-sounding recipes should be transwikied, using a {{recipe}} tag. Kappa 16:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
'Transwiki to Wikibooks cookbook. No particular cultural significance to roast potatoes and nothing here but a recipe. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:03, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki, see ibid. Ellsworth 23:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki. Megan1967 01:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Easy transwiki - David Gerard 14:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki sounds delicious! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Keep all food articles. Grue 20:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:07, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Humphrey Lynch

Non-notable bar tender. Rmhermen 01:23, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Delete : Can I have an article too? – Clockwork Soul 16:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No. --BM 17:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 01:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no evidence of notability. -- Infrogmation 05:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- P.S.: If this is deleted, I suggest Humphrey Moynihan should go as well, as it's the same article with a different last name. -- Infrogmation 05:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable - David Gerard 14:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Block compress error; to be deleted later. Joyous 16:05, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

International Political Forum

Internet forum in existence for less than a year. No more notable than any other website. JeremyA 16:05, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Seems to actually be less notable than many other websites. ;) Splinter groups of more significant forums are common and not particularly exciting. -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 01:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete ad - David Gerard 14:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, Mar 14, 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. Joyous 16:01, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Kimachi Media

Is this company notable? Was marked as a speedy delete. Thue | talk 16:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, article and a quick google search doesn't find an indication of notability. Thue | talk 16:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertising. Ellsworth 19:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, company promo. Megan1967 01:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete ad without third-party verifiability anyone cares - David Gerard 14:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:01, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

The Last Place on Earth Antiques

Article doesn't indicate notability. Should be deleted unless notability is established. Thue | talk 16:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. I like the name though. DaveTheRed 19:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising. Ellsworth 19:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, company promo. Megan1967 01:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, advertising. -- Infrogmation 05:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Deeltee without third-party verifiability - David Gerard 14:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Contributor to Transwiki it to Yellowikis. -- RHaworth 10:10, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
Delete. Who set this up for the un-speedy process?--Wetman 10:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete yellow pages. --Aranae 05:32, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:00, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

James W. Anderson III

Article doesn't indicate notability. The only specific fact in the article is that he is developing The Realms of Legend, but a google search for "James W. Anderson III" "The Realms of Legend" only gets 3 google hits. Delete as not notable. Thue | talk 16:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete Also seems to be a self-confessed autobio, which I feel we should be somewhat stricter on. Alai 22:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity without third-party verifiable evidence anyone cares - David Gerard 14:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Harry S. Truman. There was nothing to merge. —Korath (Talk) 01:02, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Mary Jane Truman

Subject is only of geneological interest. Ellsworth 16:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete or redirect unless she's done anything worth mentioning in her own right. Treborbassett 23:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Harry S Truman. Megan1967 01:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete or redirect as above. No evidence given of notability. -- Infrogmation 05:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. Then it can be broken back out if there's, ahh, an article to write - David Gerard 14:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. I would suggest that this be the standard procedure for stubs about otherwise non-notable family members of notable people. Note also that doing this doesn't require a VfD. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What is there to merge? Where should it redirect? --Carnildo 08:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 05:01, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Rich

Delete - dictionary definition Treborbassett 17:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's a disambiguation page, not a dictionary definition. --iMb~Mw 18:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, disambig page. Disambiguation pages are very helpful! :D Tygar 18:42, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, although we probably only need the wealthy and Richard links, not the multiple definitions of rich. DaveTheRed 19:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually this is a dicdef, it only disambigs between several possible applications of the word. As such, I'd say transwiki except that Wiktionary already has it, so Delete. Radiant! 20:09, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment I maintain this is a dictionary definition. If someone comes across the word 'rich' and wonders what it means, presumably they are in need of a dictionary. If someone wants to look up 'wealth' in Wikipedia, they will search for 'wealth' not 'rich'. All the other meanings of 'rich', except perhaps "Richard", here are straightforward dictionary definitions. In the case of "Richard" this page, if kept, should simply be a redirect to that page. Furthermore, "richness" redirects to this page - this seems, if anything, the wrong way round to me. At any rate, it seems strange to have even a disambiguation page for this word. Treborbassett 20:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- P.S. I apologise for the inconsistency of inverted commas in the above! Treborbassett 20:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it is disambiguating between the concept rich and the name Richard at least. Thue | talk 20:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment rich isn't the name of a concept; richness is, but the richness article redirects here. That seems wrong to me. Treborbassett 20:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: So replace rich with wealth in my vote above. My vote stands. Thue | talk 23:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - It's inherent in the nature of disambiguation that it be between encyclopaedia articles that (would) have the same (common) name. There's no ambiguity when the names are different, such as "wealth" and "Richard" are. Uncle G 00:17, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
    - I can imagine somebody searching for "rich" when they want to read about "richness" or "wealth", and I can imagine somebody searching for "rich" when they are want "Richard". Keeping the page as a disambiguation page on that ground makes sense to me. Thue | talk 00:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This page could probably be expanded and I'm against removing disambiguation pages in general. Carbonite 22:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I have nothing against disambiguation pages, but this is barely one. It offers a link to 'wealth' and 'Richard' (and nothing else - it defines some other uses). Who would enter 'rich' to look up 'wealth'? It seems strange to have an adjective (in all cases except Richard) as the title for an article, disambiguation page or otherwise. Treborbassett 22:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For a page to be a disambiguation page, there have to be more than one encyclopaedia article that could conceivably be at the title. There aren't any encyclopaedia articles by this title. The actual encyclopaedia articles are all under the name Richard, which is itself a disambiguation page, and which also mentions "Rich". All that this page is actually doing is disambiguating between a dictionary entry and a redirect to Richard. Redirect to the Richard disambiguation page and link to Wiktionary:Rich and Wiktionary:Richard from there. (I've done the latter two steps .) Uncle G 22:59, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
Keep. -Sean Curtin 00:48, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as disambig page. Megan1967 01:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment. While I agree it seems to be a dicdef disguised as a disambig (as opposed to a real disambig), there is an awful lot that links there. I was tempted to change Richness so that it redirects to Wealth instead of to Rich, but then it occurred to me that for me at least "richness" is more likely to refer to the creaminess and heaviness of foods like egg nog than it is to be a synonym for wealth. But I don't see that richness in that sense is worthy of an encyclopedia article. As for the name, first names belong on Wiktionary, not here. --Angr 12:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard 13:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep as valid disambiguation for Richard versus wealthy. The other, dicdef entries can probably go, but they don't seem to be acutely harmful. I've added a link to rich in Wiktionary. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Christ's College, Cambridge. —Korath (Talk) 05:04, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

CCPQS

Delete this article and merge content into Christ's College, Cambridge There isn't much here and there seems to be little that could be added. Treborbassett 17:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Redirect and merge, there is no apparent reason to use the more complicated delete/merge process. --iMb~Mw 18:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - yes perhaps that's better. Treborbassett 20:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect - David Gerard 13:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as per above. Please note that "merge & delete" is an incompatible vote. vlad_mv 13:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus, should perhaps be merged - SimonP 05:52, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Articles on Caltech dormitories

This proposes the en bloc deletion of the articles on the Caltech dormitories. (See Caltech#Housing system). The article on Lloyd House already went through VfD (See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lloyd House) and the consensus was to delete. It was subsequently recreated as a redirect and protected after several attempts to recreate it, probably by students in the dorm. Ruddock House was also deleted after a VfD, and is currently tagged as a CSD after being recreated yesterday. Most of the rest of the articles are currently stubs. The articles in question are: Blacker House, Dabney House, Fleming House, Ricketts House, Lloyd House (deleted), Page House, Ruddock House, and Avery House. If deleted, I recommend that after being deleted, redirects be created and protected, to avoid continued vandalism. Delete all. --BM 17:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete all. Dorm buildings = not inherrently notable. Redirect and protect. DaveTheRed 18:49, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I should have noted in the initial paragraph that essentially all the useful information in these stubs is in the Housing section of main Caltech article. --BM 19:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. College dorms have practically no potential to ever become encyclopedic, unless something important has happened there. -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as vanity. Radiant! 20:09, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Caltech Houses are unique and are NOT DORMITORIES. They were specifically modelled after various fraternities and Housing systems in Europe and America in the 1930s when the South Houses were originally built. While I admit that the detail on many of the House entries leaves much to be desired, I would like to mention that when Ruddock House was first nominated for deletion in February a friend of mine significantly updated the page so that it was much more detailed than many Fraternities and yet the administrator apparently couldn't be bothered to read more than the one bold word per vote to see that there had been votes in favor of deletion, then a major change, and then slightly fewer votes against deletion and to apply common sense (in my humble opinion) to refrain from deleting the entry. As Caltech Houses are probably most accurately Institute owned Fraternities with a close-knit and strong family atmosphere and not run-of-the-mill dormitories deleting all of these is, in the mind of those people who attend or have attended Caltech, on par with deleting every Fraternity because they are dormitories. As a side note, the Ruddock article was NOT recreated by a Rudd (a member of Ruddock House) but by a member of another House. While, yes, I cannot deny that it was probably stupid to put up the joke Ruddock House entry, said person was probably just wondering why there was no entry and put up something funny to insiders in hopes that we would put up something meaningful. Therefore, I believe these pages should neither be deleted nor redirects created/protected and that Ruddock's old page immediately prior to its February deletion should be undeleted. After Finals (now through next week) and the GREs (April 2) I will help update each of the 7 House pages with meaningful information. Furthermore, if for some reason you absoltely cannot wait that long, at least do not prevent us from recreating meaningful pages at that time. Finally, in response to the deletion of the old Ruddock House page, I propose a change in wikipedia deletion policy that before deleting a page that has had a major change made to it, there must be at least one vote for deletion after said major change (or some fraction of total votes or something). 131.215.172.30 16:15, Mar 12, 2005 (PST)
Keep - or merge into one article. - SimonP 03:48, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
- You wouldn't be saying merge if you had read the articles, because essentially all the information in the separate articles is actually already in the "Housing system" section of the Caltech article, with the exception of some pretty unencyclopedic information in the one or two of them that are more than a sentence. --BM 04:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, first of all the entry in for Ruddock that was deleted in February had some unique information. I would personally be willing to update all of them except for the last time my friend updated a page so that it wouldn't suck it got deleted anyway because of all the votes for deletion from before he even updated it and so I have no way of knowing that my work would be worth it due to those of you who already voted for deletion. Oh, that and finals are right now so I can't put the time into it anyway. 131.215.172.30 05:05, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to the Caltech article. Rick K 05:32, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Caltech and split off if it becomes too big. --SPUI (talk) 12:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to the main article, split off only when too big - David Gerard 13:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Caltech and split off if it becomes too big. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Caltech. If the housing section starts to get overgrown within that article, then split off into Caltech housing system or somesuch. If there is so much on any individual dorm that it seems to need its own article, then the text probably needs a judicious application of red pencil. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand - The Houses of Caltech are not dormitories and their history and culture has had influence reaching far beyond the Caltech campus. For example, the slogans DEI and FEIF were secretly engraved on the Voyager space probes and have also often shown up in computer games and other places. Therefore I think that information about the Houses have great value. -- Spoon! 23:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, as per BM. vlad_mv 15:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge - The houses at Caltech are certainly more on par with fraternities than regular college dorms, and each has a unique history and lasting effect; however, fraternities are national organizations encompassing orders of magnitude more people than students in the Caltech houses. I agree with Spoon! that there are definitely things to be said about each house, but until such time (perhaps even a few days) as more meaningful and encylopedic content can be written (at which point they will then deserve their own articles), I propose that they be merged into a separate Caltech Housing System article. I believe a redirect would be inappropriate because some of the information in the articles (such as the histories in the Dabney and Blacker entries) would be out of place in the main Caltech article. -- Anonymous Caltech student, 01:11, 22 Mar 2005 (PST)
Keep or merge into new "Caltech Housing" article. Seriously, it's not like a small clique of people is putting together personal homepages on Wikipedia; these Houses have years of history and thousands of members. Anyone looking for insight on life at Caltech should be able to get information about the Houses. Also, the information on these pages may not be directly relevant to the main Caltech page, so it seems a bit out of place to just dump this information back into that article. I could see a separate "Caltech Housing" option, though, if it were felt these pages didn't deserve an existence on their own. -- Caltech student 65.3.0.25 01:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge into an article on the House System at Caltech (not the "housing system"). The House System is unique among American educational institutions, is certainly of interest to anyone interested in life at Caltech, and is not without its impact on broader culture (as others have mentioned). As they stand now, some of the pages are just fine (Dabney House's is quite nice, I think), while others need help (the page for Blacker House, of which I was a member, is poorly organized and indulges in needless detail about room numbers). I am disappointed that I am unable to see the Lloyd and Ruddock pages which have been deleted, shouldn't old versions be accessible from their history pages?. I was tempted to vote to keep the pages as they are, but I do see the danger of vanity editing. I thinking having all House information on one page will help discourage that, and would also be a good place to collect history and traditions that are common to multiple Houses. --BlueMoonlet 01:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You do know that by VfD rules, a "Merge" vote means "Merged into an existing article" (emphasis added), right? If you want a new House System page, you should vote for Keep. 65.3.0.25 02:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Okay, fine. House System at Caltech now exists, and I invite you all to start making it better. I will do no more work on it. I certainly hope that whoever tabulates these things will take notice that not everyone voting "merge" is voting for the same thing. --BlueMoonlet 07:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. These pages are a valuable source of cultural information. As mentioned earlier, pieces of this House System culture have reach far beyond the walls of Caltech. While it is true that several of the pages are stubs, a number are reasonable and have bean growing for the past year or so. The reason that these pages are not the most descriptive is the same reason that they should be kept: there is such a small pool of experts in the field and we want to increase that awareness. --sligocki
Keep as separate articles, though creating a new House System at Caltech is not a bad alternative. The Hovses have a LOT of history and traditions due to their unique setup; the problem here is that the pertinent information hasn't been put up yet. Just look at gdbg.org, especially the FAQ page - and that's all for just one Hovse! If anything this shows that these articles definately do have the potential to become encyclopedic. If the pages are kept, I would be willing to contribute some material myself, and to encourage others to do so as well. If there's concern that there still won't be enough material, a House System at Caltech article with sections for each Hovse would be preferable to total deletion or merging with the main Caltech article; if any section or the whole article becomes too large, the individual Hovse page could then be split off again. --JPS (Caltech Student, affiliated with 3 of the 8 Houses)
Keep The individual caltech houses have as much tradition, if not more, than say, the Harvard Dunster and Kirkland houses. Likewise, they have their share of famous alums. Looking at the Kirkland house article, they mention the selection process, the history, the steroptype of the house, the traditions, famous alums, and other bits like the cats and the custodians. ALL of the Caltech houses have all of these things, and if that's not enough to make the article encyclopedic, I don't know what is. -GZ Caltech student
Keep. Christ, people, if there are Wikipedia entries for every single Pokemon, then entries for specific university dormitories certainly aren't any more trivial than that. Luvcraft 19:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just another group of students at a university. National fraternities are encyclopedic. Fraternities local to one university are not (precedent). —Korath (Talk) 23:19, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
- The Houses of Caltech are NOT FRATERNITIES; fraternities have not existed at Caltech for 75 years. Unlike a fraternity system, all freshmen are selected in one of the Houses in a unique process called Rotation. Each House and its traditions are unique to Caltech and are not branches of some other organization. Nevertheless, the Houses have a deep history of making noticable impact in the world by way of pranks and other things in ways that I think few student organizations have ever done. --Spoon! 02:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- In addition, if you were to suggest the deletion of the articles of the Houses of Caltech then wouldn't you certainly advocate for the deletion of the articles for Dunster House, Kirkland House, Mather House, Currier House, and Pforzheimer House of Harvard University; as well as Baker House, Bexley Hall (MIT) of MIT; for the Houses of Caltech are certainly no less notable or encyclopedic than these? --Spoon! 02:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - If you're not arguing that they're the equivalent of fraternities, then they deserve to be here even less, as "just another building that students sleep in". And yes, I'd vote delete on all of those. —Korath (Talk) 06:40, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
    - Comment: We should probably use the Discussion page for posts which aren't either votes or direct replies to votes; in that spirit, I've posed the question of defining "encyclopedic" over there. -- Caltech student 65.3.0.25 07:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) I decided this was the wrong way to address my concerns.
Comment: Guys, remember that being non-encyclopedic is not bounds for deletion. I quote from the Guide to Votes for Deletion article: "'non-encyclopaedic' is shorthand for 'Something that traditionally does not belong in an encyclopaedia, and doesn't fit the traditional definition of things that do'. This in itself may not be enough to justify a reason for deletion, unless the article is clearly a case of what Wikipedia is not. Note that some users use this term and 'non-notable' interchangeably." Also note that an article is not non-notable (i.e., is notable) unless "1. it is patent nonsense, or 2. it is original research, or 3. it is unverifiable, or 4. it is uninformative, or 5. the subject of the article is of potential [emphasis original] interest to only a small number of people (eg. 100 people), or 6. it does not otherwise belong in Wikipedia (as per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not)." Since there are more than 900 undergrads at Caltech at any one time, and the number of alums exceeds 10,000, these articles do not apply under clause 5; enough of the articles have content that deleting them all under clause 4 is inaccurate. I ask again: What grounds other than vandalism are there for deleting these articles? -- Caltech student 65.3.0.25 09:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete all. As a Caltech student, I agree that these fraternities (and yes, they are just another set of fraternities) are inherently unnotable. The fact that my fellow students so adamantly defend their inclusion is just a symptom of usual college-student self-importance. They've deluded themselves into thinking that anyone else cares about their silliness. Just look at the information in the article: nothing but bizarre, pedantic lists of traditions that, while important to a few college students, are hardly encyclopedic. Take this: "TTBOAI = the two being one and inseparable; Blacker tradition provides that whenever someone mentions "the Church and Hovse of Blacker", everyone else so responds." That belongs in an encyclopedia? -- Caltech student

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 - redirected - SimonP 05:53, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Commodity operating systems

Extremely minimal dicdef that has seen no expansion in a year. Transwiki if Wiktionary wants it, but delete even if they don't. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not encyclopedic. Tygar 22:39, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary won't want this. I'd suggest Redirect to Category:Operating systems, were it not for three things. First, I'm not completely sure that such redirections are technically possible. Second, the term is not correct as defined. Third, the only reference to it is in ChucK, written by the same author at the same time, anyway. What really needs to happen is for ChucK to be modified to explicitly list the operating systems that it runs on (by consulting the external web page), since the term "commodity operating systems" is at best ambiguous. Third, the term is unused. Delete. Uncle G 23:18, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
'Keep
- Above was unsigned - David Gerard 14:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to operating system. Useless, but a redirect will discourage recreation - David Gerard 14:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV Minghong 10:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 05:12, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

19:08, Mar 12, 2005 Neutrality deleted Category:White Civil Rights groups in the U.S. (Nazi trolling.)
07:23, Feb 6, 2005 Neutrality deleted Category:White Civil Rights groups in the U.S. (Per CfD)

Category:White Civil Rights groups in the U.S.

This category should be deleted because it is being used for POV white supremacist viewpoints by User:24.176.84.131, who has been blocked for one month in the past. He/she has resumed adding white supremacist POV to Creativity Movement and this page since the block expired. Delete. Andrew pmk 18:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Categories belong on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. —Korath (Talk) 18:31, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 05:55, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Casque & Gauntlet Society

It seems the guys from Dartmouth College are back and creating articles about their unimportant student organisations. Dunc|☺ 18:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, merge with Dartmouth College. Tygar 22:40, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect unless third-party verifiable evidence of anyone else caring can be found - David Gerard 14:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Founded in 1886 and includes Nelson Rockefeller among its former members. Student societies which have been around for 100+ years are notable enough, and certainly more so than fictional spaceships etc. There is some more on the society here. / Uppland 18:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Dartmouth College. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment Last year, Peter C. Wayner, author of some well-regarded books on cryptography, and visiting computer science professor at Dartmouth, was teaching an introductory course for non-programmers. To give them the feeling of what an open source development project was like, he gave them the assignment of writing Wikipedia articles. The assignment clearly stated that they were to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not before beginning.

It is estimated that about 350 articles were contributed, most pretty good and therefore unnoticed by VfD. For a typical example, see Sanditon, an article about an unpublished Jane Austen novel.

Unfortunately, a relatively small fraction of the students created breezy pieces, written in promotional language, about minor campus activities. Perhaps thirty or forty of these were contributed, to the astonishment, dismay, and eventual disgust of VfD regulars. Many thought, incorrectly, that Wayner had advised or suggested the creation of these crufty articles. An animus against Dartmouth persisted to the degree that even articles about Dartmoor in England have gotten comments about "the Dartmouth students are at it again."

The episode, while perfectly understandable, was not Wikipedia's finest hour. Let's try to put it behind us and not make snide remarks every time a Dartmouth-related article comes up. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That would mean deleting this society is appropriate, no? Radiant _* 14:19, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:31, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Charlotte Brooke

Bondage model who also sells erotica/pornography. Page looks like an advert. Not the most notable Charlotte Brooke [9], but before replacing the page with something about the Irish writer, I would prefer consensus first on regarding this one as non-notable and advertising so it does not have to be preserved elsewhere. --Henrygb 18:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Only two hits for "Charlotte Brooke" + "elbow" and 11 for "charlotte brooke" + fetish, so I doubt that she's particularly famous in her field. Unless evidence of notability is provided, delete and remove the links from Bondage model. Kappa 19:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as ad unless third-party verifiability is supplied - David Gerard 14:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete — RJH 18:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Spam. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 14:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:46, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Concurrent user

Extremely minimal dicdef. Hasn't been expanded in 11 months, and I don't see that happening...ever. Wikitionary if they want it, but delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep, harmless stub. I expanded it a bit. Thue | talk 19:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rename, and add a disambig at Concurrence which is currently only about the legal kind. Radiant! 20:20, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this can be defined more than a page in Wiktionary. Tygar 22:42, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, more than a dicdef. Needs refs, though - David Gerard 14:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep — okay it's expanded a little. — RJH 18:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 05:57, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Seduction strategies

Wikipedia is not a HOWTO. Transwiki to Wiki After Dark and delete. Thue | talk 18:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I think it might be possible to source these strategies, which would make them encyclopedic. Seduction says "Magazines such as Cosmopolitan Magazine and books such as The Rules (http://www.therulesbook.com/) have gained notoriety as resources for seduction strategies used by women." Kappa 20:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: If the article was founded in real research (*academic* research ;) ) then this could be a great topic for an article. But since the current article doesn't have any references I assume it isn't. Thue | talk 23:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pickup (seduction) should make for informative reading at this point. Uncle G 23:19, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
Delete. Seems to be much the same as pickup (seduction), which had consensus for deletion. -Sean Curtin 00:54, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: As I recall, that article only addressed one sex, and was very different to this one. And you did vote keep for a complete rewrite in the previous discussion. Uncle G 02:19, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
Delete as an inherently NPOV how-to. Joyous 02:35, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'd say transwiki to books if it had any substance - David Gerard 14:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Trying... to... stay... calm... but... article... is tempting me... there's an inappropriate comma in the first sentence but I won't let it affect my judgement... "apealling" [sic] is misspelled but I must not be affected by it... "agressor!" [sic] "AGRESSOR!" [sic] It's too much! I've been moved to a point where I cannot control myself! Delete delete delete delete delete delete delete DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE. Aaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, I've been burnt before: no more using Wikipedia for romantic advice. :) Lacrimosus 22:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) Delete
- However, Wikipedia meetups are a swell places to meet hot chicks. Ever see a babe wearing one of [www.cafepress.com/wikipedia.18984617 these]? Wow!
Delete. How-to articles do not belong in WP. --Zappaz 02:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (as redirect). —Korath (Talk) 01:06, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Portmanteu

Delete. This is a misspelling of portmanteau. - Lev 19:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Lev, From: Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for?: Misspellings. Zzyzx11 01:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
~~Why not Redirect and Merge!~~ TAS 20:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) It is a redirect? Then delete TAS 09:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We could just redirect it. (Is it a likely enough misspelling that someone else might make it?) -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. Common misspelling is not a reason for deletion. --Andylkl 20:42, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- It is a redirect. But why encourage misspelling? If someone links there and the link is blue, people will see it and think this is the correct spelling. Anyway, common (?) misspelling is not a reason for keeping. - Lev 21:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Lev, please read Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Zzyzx11 01:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Oh no, I've just created a redirect mispeling -> misspelling ;-) Lev 20:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete; I support Lev's argument for not making it a redirect. Thue | talk 22:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep as redirect and take redirects to wikipedia:redirects for deletion. Kappa 01:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Turns up 208 googles, which goes to show for the average American's speling skilz. As such, keep as redirect. Radiant! 02:06, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Not all of those results are from American websites. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-13 05:52 Z
Keep as the redirect it is now. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-13 05:52 Z
Why encourage laziness? All of our articles should be coded numerically and our users should be required to own Wikipedia card files. Keep the redirect. Articles should be easy to find, even for spelling bee rejects. Rhobite 06:01, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep present redirect - David Gerard 14:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Policy is to keep common misspellings. Eric119 22:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep as the redirect it is now. It's likely a common misspelling. Jonathunder 22:30, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
Redirect if possible. ComCat 09:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 05:58, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Sushie (video game character)

This sort of article is not really what Wikepedia is for and would be of more use on a fansite, which Wikepedia is not! ~~81.79.114.45 19:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)~~ Wrong it was me TAS 19:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge or keep. Playable characters are important parts of games. Kappa 20:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge with main game article. Radiant! 02:05, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopaedic, gamescruft. Megan1967 02:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, all the other Paper Mario playable characters have their own article. If this is merged, then all the other characters would need to be merged as well.--Matteh (talk) 07:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- CommentMerge them too! See my comment on Category talk:Mario characters TAS 09:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge/redirect, don't just delete - David Gerard 14:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Extreme delete, fancruft. Martg76 14:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep playable character from an extremely famous game Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:43, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn gamecruft. ComCat 09:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. One more for the "pending deletion" page. Joyous 22:30, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Arab Surrealist Movement

Delete Non-notable Vanity Page The article was created on July 1,2004 by user Daniel C.Boyer to promote his "surrealist" friend here on Wikipedia. I cannot find any solid or credible reference sources that can verify the information in this article. Note: the article is only two sentences in both paragraphs and reference source is interactivist website used by activists for self-promotion of statements. I recommend speedy deletion for this article. What is this Arab Surrealist Movement? According to the article, it only mentions one name, a friend of the user who created the article!Classicjupiter2 20:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I am not a friend of any members of the Arab Surrealist Movement, nor do I even know any of them. And what is your basis for calling the Arab Surrealist Movement one person and putting "surrealist" in quotation marks? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nearly year old stub with no modification. External link gives "Fatal error: Call to undefined function: pg_pconnect() in /home/root_www/active-cvs/stlouis/webcast/email_display.php3 on line 21". Tygar 22:43, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Title gets 58 google hits, 52 without "Wikipedia". -- Infrogmation 05:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable. Keep if third-party verifiable evidence that anyone cares can be found - David Gerard 14:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as very likely spam/vanity unless convincing third-party verifiable evidence to the contrary is presented prior to expiration of VfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Calton | Talk 02:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Postdlf 17:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as hoax. Thue | talk 08:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dan McElwain

Though the article text does indicate he may be notable, it smells wrong. Can any NHL experts verify? No google hits for "Daniel McElwain" "Crestwood Mustangs", his NHL team. Thue | talk 20:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no team named the Crestwood Mustangs in the National Hockey league. Delete - nonsense. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 02:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I believe it came from this edit at Art Ross Memorial Trophy, and this edit at Hart Memorial Trophy. Just some kids. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-13 05:30 Z
Speedy deleted as hoax. Thue | talk 08:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion, will be deleted Any Time Now. Joyous 22:29, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Brett Osborn

Unlike Tony Martin, this person isn't nearly as well-known. Article doesn't suggest further notability. Xezbeth 20:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

DELETE, insignificant article. - Evanwohrman 20:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV screed, no verifiability supplied - David Gerard 14:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:49, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Magnetrixx

Another psychedelic trance project article created by user:Ld from Germany. I recommend that its article be removed because it meets none of the Music notability criteria. It has ~~457 google hits~~ 216.119.136.113 485 Lycos hits when searched with the word "trance", about the same number of psychedelic trance fanatics with computers. The individuals behind the artistic project, Stefan Lewin and Heike Fahrmeyer searched with the word "trance" get about 26 and 13 unique google hits, respectively. The project released two albums on Tatsu records, a label which has released a total of 15 albums (6 actual, 9 compilations). Magnetrixx's 4 labelmates with actual albums are also non-notable, each scoring less google hits than Magnetrixx, ~~except Oryx with 477 hits~~ (confusion with other Oryxs disrupted that search. With "psychedelic trance" gets 110 on Lycos). Neither Magnetrixx nor any of his Tatsu Records labelmates with actual albums are mentioned in the All Music Guide. 64.154.26.251 22:05, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. According to TripOut New York Magazine, "[Magnetrixx] have joined the ranks of some of the most sought-after German progressive psytrance producers and live acts on the international circuit today." They have been on several tours in the United States, including New York and Cleveland. [10] -Ld | talk 22:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: No offense, Ld, but where is your evidence that they had more than two stops on their United States "tour" in 2004. And more than one stop on their 2003 United States "tour"? They may have toured other places, there's just no evidence for it on their website or the article. I would ask the wikipedians to judge the extent of their "touring" for themselves at [11]. They don't use the word "tour". It lists 18 dates for 2004, with two festivals, but including a birthday party and a Christmas party. Please don't add misleading information to the article to save it. Let the truth speak for itself. If you need more time to establish their notability, just say so. 216.119.136.113 23:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I did not create this article. It was created by 134.100.205.196 on 5/11/2004, and modified by several other people, including myself. See [12] for details. -Ld | talk 22:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Funny how you added a discography, external link and text about touring (calling it a minor edit) 16 minutes after it was nominated, though. You obviously take quite an interest. 64.154.26.251 22:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - In fact, this is one of the side effects of VfD. When nominated for deletion, articles are often improved with additional information to prevent them from being deleted. In fact a while back I and several others helped improve the Afghan Defense Ministry in the same fashion to prevent it from being deleted. It is now an excellent Wikipedia article. If you see a stub that you believe is not useful, it may be worth to expand it rather than nominate it for VfD. -Ld | talk 22:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Yes, I understand that improvement aspect. You know, I was skeptical about there being only 0-3 trance articles that had a problem, like you said, but you were pretty on the mark--the creds of those artists that have articles in the List of psychedelic trance artists are pretty solid. I probably wouldn't have even nominated this group if I had had the latest flashplayer and was able to go to their site to see how extensive their touring was (their record label just gave a vague sentence). [Comment: Ld had made misleading statements again on the extent of their touring on the article page. The "touring" seems pretty minimal. I probably still would have nominated them 216.119.136.113 23:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)] If you have any info you want to put in about Fuzzion touring, I won't nominate them either. 64.154.26.251 23:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - I dont know much about Fuzzion other than that they have one hit track and a number of EP releases. I'm not going to object if you nominate them. -Ld | talk 00:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        I don't think I have the heart to. It's obvious to me now that the comments that you left on the 1967 songs were meant to be a sort of a tribute through psychedelic trance artists of today to the first Summer of Love 64.154.26.251 01:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, under the bar of notability. Megan1967 02:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, two real albums and several real EPs - David Gerard 14:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above. Kappa 10:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep; notable within a significant cultural movement that happens not to be highly web-connected (good for them, maybe?). Jgm 15:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME. —Korath (Talk) 02:00, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dance Dance Revolution MegaMix

It's not just a video game. It's not just a video game sequel. It's a black market hack to a video game sequel. A web search turns up nothing useful for expanding this into a real article, and only barely confirms its existence at all. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Dance Dance Revolution Extreme. It's notable as a scam, but not on its own. --SPUI (talk) 22:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep per Spui. Kappa 01:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, gamescruft. Megan1967 02:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have merged (actually totally rewritten) it at Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME#Bootlegs. --SPUI (talk) 02:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep redirect. Well done - David Gerard 14:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:28, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Your Mom's Box

No evidence of notability. Joke article, delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Drivel. Delete.
- Unisgned vote by The Anome
Some sort of region specific pro(f/v)anity. Delete. Tygar 22:45, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
One possibility is to redirect the catchphrase to Opie and Anthony, the people whose catchphrase it apparently is. Although I'm quite happy to live without the redirect as long as when the article is deleted the dangling hyperlink goes also, lest this article comes back, as it has done once already (see the deletion log). Uncle G 23:33, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 02:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What everybody else said. Rick K 05:41, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to discourage recreation - David Gerard 14:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:27, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Dean Milan

"Dean Milan is a musician. What type is undetermined." He doesn't show up in in the All Music Guide or the UBL. He does not, as far as I can tell, meet WikiProject Music's guidelines either. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. He should at least determine what type of musician he is before he gets his own article. DaveTheRed 00:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing notable here. Zzyzx11 01:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 02:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Undetermined. I mean, delete - David Gerard 13:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:51, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Quick

~~Dicdef if ever I saw one~~ Treborbassett 23:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's actually a type 1 disambiguation between a word, a surname, and a trade name. It could do with heavy cleanup to make that clear, though. The current article is horrendously unbalanced. Uncle G 23:42, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
Keep,please.User:Andycjp13th March 2005
Needs a quick Clean up job. It should be a standard disambiguation page. Zzyzx11 01:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes you're quite right, so Keep - it is a disambiguation page, but it does need to be cleaned up. The dictionary definition of quick should go. Treborbassett 01:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Tygar 02:27, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
I've given it a once-over. It should be clearer now what this page is. Uncle G 10:33, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
Keep new form. Good work - David Gerard 13:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Randall Oestreicher

Runs a one-man firm. Article does not establish notability, should be deleted. Thue | talk 23:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete not even remotely notable. DaveTheRed 00:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Why is he notable? Zzyzx11 01:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Borderline ... needs third-party verifiability that anyone cares - David Gerard 13:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep but expand. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - keep or merge - SimonP 06:00, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Troiamon

Now here's a pretty much useless Digimon article. Any information inside (except maybe attacks) could easily fit into Ancient Warriors... and considering that as far as I know, none of the 10 Ancient Warriors have even appeared on a card... It makes more sense to Delete, I'd say. Wakuseino 23:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, digicruft. Megan1967 02:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep, digicruft Kappa 03:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as sub-trivial. Radiant! 11:30, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Painful to say, but keep. Or merge - David Gerard 13:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Mar 27, 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 speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 05:20, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

02:13, Mar 13, 2005 Rich Farmbrough deleted Deadcore (Speedy. Request by author, subject and only editor.)

Deadcore

Non-notable, clearly vanity. The bottom of the article reads: "Article written by Matt himself, in a third-person form." Darkcore 00:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not very happy with this VfD. This is an example case where VfD can be avoided - after adding {{unencyclopedic}} template and explanation his Talk apge, the author agreed the page was created in error and should be deleted (content belongs his userpage). Speedy delete as requested, and next time maybe we can give newbies more time to learn and correct erors before calling the VfD behemot. If possible, consensual deletion is better than VfD. --Wikimol 00:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, I suppose. As Wikimol said though, it looked like he mistook this for the userpage. Wakuseino 00:32, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 22:25, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Peter Coulson

Another vanity page --Anonymous Cow 00:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity. Lacrimosus 01:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Smells like vanity. Zzyzx11 01:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Such. Delete. Tygar 02:28, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 02:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete CV - David Gerard 13:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete — Exceptionally able at travelling? Hey that's me. :) But why is he on this page twice? — RJH 17:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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