Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 8

May 8

for deletion/Log/2005 May 8?action=purge Purge the cache

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:08, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Roman Baska

This was originally created as a link page by the same IP address that added the name to a list of "Notable Cinematographers" on the cinematographer page. A vanity page? A quick search of Google reveals little exceptional work, nor would the IMDb indicate otherwise - in fact, not a single one of his works is even available at Amazon. I have no idea which Oscar or what category the last bit refers to. In any case, I don't believe that the body of work at all has justified a 'pedia entry; there are thousands of DPs working around the world, most without any mention here. The entry to the "notable" list, admittedly, ticks me off - virtually all of those names are widely recognizable and respected among the cinematographic community. --User:Girolamo Savonarola

Weak delete. IMDb entry has a few credits, but the current content is wildly over-enthusiastic. Second choice, send to Cleanup and delete if it doesn't more accurately reflect reality within a reasonable time.

• Delete unless it's cleaned up by a cleanup taskforce member (or anyone else) in, say, a month. This version is overenthusiastic, unwikified and generally unencyclopedic. Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

ttt

• Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 11:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable cinematographer with plenty of verifiable credits and awards. I wasn't able to verify the Oscar claim, but one of the films he shot did win an Emmy. I have since cleaned up the article, which sadly needed a complete rewrite to remove the unverifiable stuff. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • A London Film Festival Emmy...not quite the same thing. The problem is that Baska is not really an exceptional artist within his field, nor has he worked on anything terribly high profile. Virtually any working cinematographer can list various awards the films he's worked on have garnered. His own site only lists one cinematography nomination. I'm sorry, but I have difficulty believing this is not complete vanity - he's not even listed on the Cinematographer's Encyclopedia, which has many many names listed that we don't. --Girolamo Savonarola 15:43, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
• Delete. I am convinced by Girolamo Savonarola's research. This person does not appear notable enough for inclusion. Indrian 16:01, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable three years ago when his last film was made, not notable now (if you go to his site, his current work is wedding (etc.) photographer. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 23:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Silversmith 16:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:09, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Berfontaine

Something smells fishy about this one. According to the page history, it seems to be a place in Andorra. BUT: Google gets ONE hit for Berfontaine, and it ain't a place in Andorra. No Andorran official website I've found seems to mention any of the communes listed, and several of them have names which don't look French, Spanish, Catalan or even Basque or Occitan. I suspect a hoax. Please prove me wrong. Grutness|^hello? 00:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• I looked hard for anything that would back this up and found nothing. The commune names seem to be from Bulgarian, Catalan, German and other languages, but I'm no expert. None of them came up as a commune or village, but a few are islands, hotels or just everyday words. It just doesn't seem like a hoax though, and google doesn't know everything. No vote —Teknic^Talk/Mail 05:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It doesn't even contain a single sentence in it, just a list of names labelled "communes." Worthless even if there actually is a Berfontaine. It really should be speedy deleted for having no context. Postdlf 09:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just a list of red-links. Not verifiable either. Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 11:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. -- Infrogmation 05:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• delete, unless verified. --Simon Cursitor 08:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no content. Whig 06:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. as per above reasons. --Silversmith 16:16, 13 May 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 DELETED. Postdlf 21:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Old Testament prophecies

User:Happyfeet10 nominated this - but forgot to follow through - but I'm very happy to second it - indeed it prophesies its own demise - a soapbox job --Doc Glasgow 00:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, though I suggest a speedy delete by an admin.--MikeJ9919 01:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• What in the hell IS this? Delete. --Whimemsz 01:24, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we are not a theosophical society, and we certainly do not allow pages to be used for the sole purpose of theological debates/arguments. MikeJ9919 put it up for Speedy but didn't add the tag. I've done that now. Master Thief Garrett 01:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • original speedy was rejected by admin--Doc Glasgow 02:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh? It's still there though... that, or he re-added it... Master Thief Garrett 04:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't contain any useful information at all. StuTheSheep 02:43, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, garbled and asinine. A legitimate article could be written under this title, but this isn't it. Firebug 02:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Bumperstickerism

The term "bumperstickerism" does not seem to be in widespread use, and is not an appropriate article title. The content may be more at home in the bumper sticker article if appearing on bumper stickers is the defining feature, otherwise epigram, aphorism and the like may be more appropriate --Tabor 00:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Also, if "Bumperstickerism" is an emerging slang term, perhaps wiktionary would be appropriate --Tabor 00:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that if it's an emerging term, it should be a Wikitionary entry. Aside from that, it's nothing more than a nuisance page.--Mitsukai 01:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, too obscure —Teknic^Talk/Mail 05:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Only 19 unique google hits. Postdlf 09:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into bumper sticker where it belongs. Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 11:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't pass the Wha test. hydnjo talk 23:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with bumper sticker Stancel 23:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redirecting to "bumper sticker" would be ok, but with so few web hits IMO is unnecessary. -- Infrogmation 05:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redirect/merge to Bumper Sticker. Whig 06:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with bumper sticker. --Silversmith 16:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:10, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Zip day

Non-notable, dead-end and semi-original research. Linuxbeak 00:47, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable. -- Mariocki ^TALK 03:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, appears to be a joke? NN anyway. K1Bond007 04:06, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the model of NN. —Teknic^Talk/Mail 05:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Lots of communities have marked (in some small way) "ZIP Code Day"; in Worthington, Ohio we had it on April 30, 1985 (ZIP: 43085). Apparently, it wasn't just us: [1]. Minor holiday marked by post offices and elementary school children. Not sure if we should move this to ZIP Code Day or just have a section of ZIP Code on it. Chris Johnson 07:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with ZIP Code Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:51, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm gonna sue the guvnmnt cuz I got a crappy ZIP an' thats just disincriminationing. Plane an' simple. If sumbuddy has a speshul ZIP then we all shul'd too. Thats the American way anyway aint it? ;-) hydnjo talk 23:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• A hypothetical holiday for one place that the article says isn't observed? Delete. -- Infrogmation 05:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• "As a holiday it is not currently observed" -- so why do we need to know about it? Delete --Simon Cursitor 08:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even "original research". Looks to me like somebody is trying to promote their pet idea for a new holiday. ---Isaac R 22:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - until there is a Zap Day - Tεxτurε 21:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. To quote the article, "As a holiday it is not currently observed." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 23:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing to see here, move along. Whig 06:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Silversmith 16:17, 13 May 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 13:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sister Unity

The group this individual is a part of, The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, looks to me to be of only borderline notability. Therefore, I do not think that any specific individual of the group who has not done anything particularly distinguished belongs in wikipedia. There is nothing in the article to indicate that she is notable for any of her activities. Delete. Indrian 00:59, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Looking for the final evidence that this should be deleted? We need read no further than the first line of her bio: "Sister Unity was born when the radioactive remnants of a comet passing through Earth's path around the sun filtered through our atmosphere and struck a vat of orange mylar in a Massachusetts glitter factory." --Stan

• Has bio from website which has Copyright punkk.com entertainment. 2001-2002 mentioned. Copyvio. I would also be willing to delete for non-notability. Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, copyvio, complete load, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, expand, and clean-up the article. Or merge with Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence is notable because I have seen the group's name in several Wikipedia articles. Stancel 23:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 04:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Concur w.Megan --Simon Cursitor 08:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Mergewith those Sisters. Radiant_* 12:10, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep non-copyvio information; clarify what is fiction/role playing, possibly merge based on the judgement of editors as to her importance in her own right. Samaritan 15:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Spinboy 19:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Whig 06:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge if any info is worth merging. --Silversmith 16:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect (I can't say "merge" because there's nothing worth merging...) as per Starblind. RussBlau 19:26, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:11, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Berkshire Hills-Ryu Aikido

This page is nothing more than advertising for the center. If there was any value to it, the article would have been made longer or stubbed, or at least merged into the article on Aikido or somehow related to. --Mitsukai 00:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• "Center, or hara"? Center of what? Meanwhile, hara is Japanese for "belly". Er, where was I? Delete. -- Hoary 08:10, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 08:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advert. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:55, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Lots of we and our stuff here. If they can't even figure that out well then .... buh-bye ;-) hydnjo talk 23:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 21:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nuthin' there. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 23:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Empty. Whig 06:24, 13 May 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 both.

I count 11 clear "delete" votes for Thirteenth grade, 6 "keep" votes (but two discounted - one anon user and one probable troll) and one "redirect". I count 13 clear "delete" votes for Fourteenth grade against one "keep" by a probable troll. I count three votes as too ambiguous to call though their tone is skeptical. I note that many people continued to vote to delete Thirteenth grade even after the rewrite, leading me to believe that the early voters deliberately chose not to change their votes. Rossami (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Thirteenth grade, Fourteenth Grade

• Are these term common in the United States?? I always thought the standard terms were college freshman and college sophomore. Georgia guy 01:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete...never heard of this. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--MikeJ9919 01:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Reiterate my delete vote for 13, and add my delete vote for 14.--MikeJ9919 15:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• We used to have a grade 13 in Ontario (otherwise known as Ontario Academic Credit), but as far as I know it doesn't exist at all in the US. Adam Bishop 01:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• I believe Grade 13 used to exist in several Canadian provinces. An article on its gradual elimination would be great, but this current page is not of much use. - SimonP 01:20, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. No, they are not common terms in the United States. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Thirteenth grade certainly exists in some European nations like Germany, but in its present state this is a pointless article. Harro5 02:02, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Thirteenth grade does exist in the US, but it's almost entirely at private schools, and is rare there as well. --Mitsukai 02:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Until recently there was a "Grade 13" in Ontario. In the mid 1980s it was renamed OAC and was abolished altogether a few years ago. 70.50.112.188 02:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As mentioned above, there's a lot of past and present examples of a thirteenth grade. However, they do call it "Grade 13" not "13th Grade" in Canada. --Madchester 02:52, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
• Keep thirteenth grade now, rewritten. The article nominated was "Thirteenth grade is the first year of college in most countries. Students are 18-19 years old and are called college freshmen." The article now is a helpful disambiguation page. No vote yet on fourteenth grade. Samaritan 03:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • No one uses "Thirteenth grade" when speaking of a College Freshman - at all. That kills that one. A disambig that states "a year of study at some private schools" doesn't say much to me at all either. I mean I can pick that possibility up from the name. Thirteenth grade should be redirected to Ontario Academic Credit or "Grade 13". And "Fourteenth grade" should be deleted. K1Bond007 04:05, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 13, Delete 14, new DAB page looks good, "fourteenth grade" only gets couple hundred hits. —Teknic^Talk/Mail 05:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. Not many hits, and among them, many are forums and/or other uses. Niteowlneils 07:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both' or redirect them to college freshman and college sophomore Stancel 23:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, made up terms. RickK 23:41, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. "An uncommon term in the United States for a College freshman's year of study" should really be "a completely nonexistent term in the United States for a College freshman, except for the odd third-grader who's aghast to learn that he still has to go to school after twelfth grade", and neither of the other meanings remotely justifies an article. Fourteenth grade doesn't have even that much usage. —Korath (Talk) 00:18, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or replace with redirects per Stancel. Radiant_* 12:10, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• keep please thirteenth grade is used Yuckfoo 17:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, no vote: I know my friends and I have used terms like "thirteenth grade" to refer to university or college that is neither prestigious nor particularly difficult (University of West Florida comes to mind for me). Mike H 02:12, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe there's an article somewhere about 13th grade, but this isn't it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Made up references combined with Grade 13 in Canada. If necessary redirect to Ontario Academic Credit - Tεxτurε 21:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Possibly Redirect to College Freshman, College Sophomore. Whig 06:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Thirteenth, Delete Fourteenth. "13th Grade" is a sarcastic or derogatory reference to a college that's not academically rigorous; the rewritten page is all that's needed on this topic. RussBlau 19:29, May 13, 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 13:37, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Partial Sums (band)

Article offers no information about this band that gains no relevant google hits (serch term: "partial sums" band "South Carolina" -math). Thryduulf 01:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Couldn't verify and I wouldn't expect this article to ever grow a second sentence. —Teknic^Talk/Mail 06:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - no Google hits, garage band vanity. Megan1967 08:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bandvanity. Postdlf 09:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:56, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Whig 06:28, 13 May 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 13:37, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Wah Game

A game that this group of people have made up to play while drunk. Not notable in the slightest. Thryduulf 01:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, it incorporates the idea of meme theory. If there is an entry on Rock, Paper, Scissors then there is no reason not to have an entry on this as well. --Sludge 01:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Plus there is whole fact that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_game exists, but that is another story...

• Delete. Google retuns 115 pages, and most of those are not actually about this game. And to respond to Sludge, "Rock, Paper, Scissors" is a game played world-wide; the first page that comes up on Google is the 2004 Rock Paper Scissors International Championship. StuTheSheep 03:00, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. You can't initiate a meme on Wikipedia. —Teknic^Talk/Mail 08:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not known outside circle of friends of author. Hence, not notable. It should be known at least on a national level before being entered into Wikipedia. Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:03, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• WAH! Er... I mean, delete. Nestea 22:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as possibly offensive to Native Americans, non-notable, and it's a stupid idea for a game anyway. Now if it was a good game I'd probably vote keep but not today. Stancel 23:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not feeling that its OK for anyone to edit as they please and then leave a mess like this for others to clean up. Maybe I'm just going through a stage. :-( hydnjo talk 00:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 23:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hey, I just made up a game! Let's put it on the Wikipedia! Not. Whig 06:31, 13 May 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 13:38, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Rareexception.com

With an Alexa rank of ~300,000 and Overture inventory count of only 30 this site does not appear to arise to Wikipedia's standards of notability. From other edits by user, it appears to also be self promotional. Lotsofissues 01:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree that other edits make this highly suspicious. Also, the website itself doesn't seem very popular. It didn't work in Firefox, but after visiting in IE, the forum appears to have something like 18 members. Aerion//talk 06:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 08:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete website promotion. Can anyone actually search the page? All I get is a logo and some error and deadlinks. Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd like to be under the sea In an octopus' garden in the shade He'd let us in, knows where we've been, In his octopus' garden in the shade.
  See, I can copy too. hydnjo talk 00:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete. Did anyone look at the site? they don't just copy songs, the forum appears to be broken (not unpopular with only 18 members), I didn't have any problem searching, and they've been online since 94 which alone makes them notable. 2:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not every web site deserves an entry. Being around for 11 years doesn't make them notable. They need to have more traffic, make the news, be discussed or linked on other web sites, or otherwise notabilize themselves before we should give them space. ---Isaac R 22:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Rareexception.com has been referenced countless times in university publications and received recognition from royalty, children, professors, and students." Wow. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 23:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad. Whig 06:32, 13 May 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 13:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Mezangelle

Its very difficult to make out what this article is saying, but from what I gather its about a language made up by two people through online communication. The rest of the article seems to be trying to define several neologisms related to it. Thryduulf 01:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: This article perhaps doesn't make sense to the user voting for deletion because of a lack of context re: net.art. Maybe more work needs to be done on the Net.Art article and surrounding area of internet art / new media to help bring this article into context? - Arcae 03:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • This users only contributions [2] are to this VfD. Thryduulf 09:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Dude, editing other people's votes is unacceptable. And posting comments against other users in a VfD discussion is offtopic and rather rude. Trust the admin to evaluate the votes properly, and talk about the content, not the user.---Isaac R 22:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. I've never heard of any of this stuff before and I doubt any of you have either, but don't just vote based on that. From what I could tell it's not so much a language but a form of artistic composition. It's definitely not mainstream and never will be, but it's real and just interesting enough to deserve an article. —Teknic^Talk/Mail 06:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, Delete as original research/invention in light of Mez's comment below (sorry Mez, give it some time then let somebody else write the article) —Teknic^Talk/Mail 08:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, last time, I promise. Keep in light of Mez's new comments. Established artform. —Teknic^Talk/Mail 21:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Thryduulf - agreed re: difficulty level of the original article edit [I'm the writer, so hello]. I've made several changes to the 1st draft, including relevant links and cues as to the context of the net.art genre, where mezangelle slots within this, some historical foregrounding, and links to other/potential wikipedia articles. This article is my first wikipedia foray, and is the testing ground for subsequent net.art-based/satellite articles [I'm especially keen to flesh out the article on codework and assume merging several of the articles could be a option]? I also assumed that edits were essentially an integral part of the wikipedia policy, and constructing the article through various rewrites was acceptable, rather than establishing from the get-go a polished, cohesive write. I intend to rewrite aspects of it given the overlap within the intended article-set devoted to the net.art field, with a comprehensive list of citations to accompany it/them [there is a mammoth amount of critical theory surrounding this genre]. If you require current validation of the genre/language/citations listed in the article, please feel free to google relevant terms such as mezangelle, Mary-anne Breeze, netwurker, codework, net.art and judge their historical/educational value? Mez 06:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete'. 100 hits for Mezangelle "net.art"--doesn't seem to have gained sufficient traction. To compare, invented language Tavo (tavo language) gets 6,000 hits. Niteowlneils 07:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Postdlf 09:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, sockpuppet-supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Please reconsider the article and your votes. I rewrote it to match Wikipedia's style and editorial policy. It should now be better understandable to a general readership. This is a useful entry that explains an important, recognized part of codework and Internet art. If the article will stay, the articles on codework and Portmanteau words should link to it. Cantsin, 14:51, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • User's 19th edit, and only the second edit since July of 2004 (the first being to the nominated article itself).[3]
    • In fact, I wrote most of the articles Stewart Home, Istvan Kantor, Henry Flynt, Luther Blissett, including the recent edits, but wasn't logged on when I edited them.
• Delete, non-notable vanity conlang. —Korath (Talk) 00:21, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Deletishago. I better start an article to translate my vote. Gotta go. hydnjo talk 00:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Pertinent to the article about net.art, also ties into visual poetry, codework and really the article is most interesting as documentation and example of a style of artistic technique. I don't understand why others in this thread are equating Mez's work with code poetry with a conlang. If one took a few minutes to read some of her work, the connections to conlang are almost non-existent. —Memexikon
  • User has no edits before this VFD was made. —Teknic^Talk/Mail 05:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Do not edit other users comments. See above.
  • Not true. I've been adding small edits to a few entries for some time now. Did just create an account, however if that's what you meant to say.
• Keep, Obscurity is not a valid reason for deletion; consider a bird-watching guide with only the most common birds listed. I am an independent researcher at Indiana University and have been studying Mezangelle as a legitimate artistic style in the context of network formation. The style is referenced by multiple users across several locations in blogs and discussion boards and has the valuable qualities of distinctive form, unique name, and traceable dissemination across multiple internet locations. Unique, small, distinctive, labeled artistic styles have the benefit of allowing easy mapping of known (i.e. searchable in Google) links. Mapping searchable references to unique words is an effective tool for studying the dissemination of knowledge through the Internet and has value to research. Mezangelle is a genuine style used by multiple parties over a considerable period of time. Please leave the entry as a key means of communicating the definition of mezangelle to other researchers. 68.22.241.118 08:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)John Burgoon
  • User's first edit. Thryduulf 11:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Kill the socks delete Radiant_* 12:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all articles that give me a headache from excessive use of jargon I mean, no original research, and we are not here to serve as a forum for communicating with whatever other researchers might actually exist. Soundguy99 02:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, never heard of it. They can't all be Verdurian . . . Wiwaxia 04:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's pretentious crap, but a lot of people take it seriously. Which is a good description of most of what gets called "Art" these days. If a form of expression has a big following, then it rates an article, no matter how stupid you think it is. ---Isaac R 22:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, not notable, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - original research - Tεxτurε 21:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Again, mez here, the initial writer of the article under question. I'm resisting responding to any relevant comments or votes that do not adhere to officially stated Wikipedia Policy e.g. please do not bite the newcomers, wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility. I'm also unkeen to respond to opinions or comments that aren't stated as recognised policy, such as referring to the content of the article as "not notable" or those votes based on material that could be considered spurious, speculative, or unsubstantiated eg "sock-puppet supported". I'm assuming those votes/actions/opinions that trangress those policies will be automatically discounted in the admin's final appraisal. What I am keen to address, however, is those comments and votes that do correspond to offical wikipedia policy and manage to successfully address the article without flippancy, sarcasm, or personal attacks. One of these comments/reasons is "original research", which is listed as a reason to support deletion votes. I'd like to suggest a reassessment of all votes based on this after considering the following information, which includes citations of relevant articles from 2003-2005 that list [at minimum] one peer-based review journal. I've also listed selected publications from this 2 year period [rather than a more comprehensive list from the decade preceding this] that have analysed or included mezangelle projects or exhibitions. The citations are not APA formatted, and include one of three New York Times articles involving mezangelle. Based on the citation-checking behaviour of the editors involved, I'm citing this evidence here for ease-of-access as it appears that they have not examined this material previous to voting:
  • Source texts used and analysis of mezangelle in The Writing Experiment: strategies for innovative creative writing by Hazel Smith, Allen & Unwin, March 2005 ISBN 1741140153.
  • Mezangelle analysed by Stephanie Strickland in First Person New Media as Story, Performance, and Game. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan (Eds.) January 2004.
  • "Inappropriate Format][ing][: Craft-Orientation vs. Networked Content[s"] in the Journal of Digital Information, Volume 3 Issue 3 Hypertext Criticism: Writing about Hypertext.
  • Mezangelled Texts in _the >wartime< project_ which press included the following: Cornwall24, UK, January 22nd 2003. Graziarosa Villani, L'espresso, Italia, January 25th 2003. Tiscale Art, Italia, January 28th 2003. CTarkus, Tijuana Indymedia, México, February 1st 2003. R. Bosco / S. Caldana, CyberP@is, El Pais, Espagne, January 30th 2003. Matthew Mirapaul, New York Times, US, February 3rd 2003. der Standard, Österreich, February 3rd 2003. Graziarosa Villani, Liberazione, Italia, February 15th 2003. Antonio Riello, Dolce & Gabbana (art & web), Italia, February 2003. Euia, Espagne, February 2003. Repeat, Star Tribune, Minneapolis, US, February 9th 2003. Corriere della Sera, Italia, Febuary 14th 2003. TAZ, Berlin, Deutschland, February 18th 2003. Centre International d'Art Contemporian De Montréal, CA, March 2003. kopenhagen.DK, March 19th 2003. Liberation FR, March 29th 2003. Neural.it, June 29th 2003.
  • Mezangelle described/analysed in "Interferences: (Net.Writing) and the Practice of Codework" by Rita Raley in the Electronic Book Review.
  • The Language system mezangelle and mez works discussed in Culture Machine, "Deeper Into the Machine: The Future of Electronic Literature" by Katherine Hayles, Edition 5, 2003. Also in the Electronic Literature Organisation"State of the Arts" Symposium 2002 Book.Mez 15:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gibberish. While we're at it, someone should do a VFD on mez as equally non-notable vanity. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 23:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If this article were actually expanded to provide information to the reader on the subject, rather than just pointing a bunch of links to other places, it might be interesting. As it is, there's not much content there now, and ought to be deleted if not improved. Whig 06:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Mez is thoughtful and creative. Mezangelle is poetic, unsettling, intriguing, and thought-provoking ... as the cited documentation reveals. I am not impressed by critics who seem like mere Yahoos, unable to make a coherent argument. I think Wikipedia should be open to creative investigations ... such as Mezangelle. Don't we have enough stifling institutions and processes in the world as it is? --[[User:Séamas Cain131.212.109.27 15:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)|Séamas Cain]] [4]
• Keep. Not my cup of tea, but might stimulate organic (cyborganic?) growth of related articles. FreplySpang (talk) 16:28, 13 May 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 13:43, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Quinta

DicDef. Quinta is portuguese for farm. --Nabla 01:49, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

• Comment. Does this have legitimate use as a geographical term? Aerion//talk 06:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, in Portugal Quinta usually means either farm (land) or farmhouse, exactly as the article states. Other not so commonly used meanings are a set of five... (playing cards/musical notes) and a fencing position. --Nabla 21:16, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
• Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 08:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to La Quinta, California (see clusty results). Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per Mgm's suggestion. hydnjo talk 00:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for comments see Talk:Quinta Javier Jelovcan 18:06, 10 May 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 13:43, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Randall L. Smith

Entire article content is: "Randall L. Smith ,(b.1959), is an Oklahoma City CPA and Peace Activist." This smells like vanity to me. Thryduulf 01:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Couldn't agree more. It's definitely vanity. --Mitsukai 02:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• No inbound links. Samaritan 06:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:05, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Randall L. Smi... er, I mean hydnjo talk 00:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 21:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - oh vanity. Whig 06:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your honest assessment. Yes, please delete this. I now know that awful people like Ann Coulter deserve to be in the Wiki because...?? well just because they are on TV. They have never contributed anything to our society. Rather, they have taken massive salaries for nothing, similar to Rock Stars. Randall Smith

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 13:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Flintstep

Is this true? Svest 01:58, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

• delete - its a neoglogism at best. Thryduulf 02:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary, it is apparently not a neologism (e.g. [5]), but I don't see how this can be expanded into an encyclopedia article. Sietse 06:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• merge into our Flintstones article, one sentence should be enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:08, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, minor trivia. The sparse google hits do not indicate that this term is in widespread use. Martg76 13:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Like, was this an earlier version of MJ's moonwalk? hydnjo talk 00:54, 9 May 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 - should be merged - SimonP 13:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality and morality

A needless article. All of the information should be moved and often is just duplicated from these articles. This is just an un-needed article with the entitlement of "morals", which by definition is philosophy and religion.

• Gay rights
• Homosexuality and Religion

*Causes of sexual orientation

• Homophobia
• Anti-gay slogan
• Societal attitudes towards homosexuality

Apollomelos 23:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is needed only if an article on "Heterosexuality and morality" is also needed. But I don't see what use it would be to discuss either matter in such a context. Perhaps we could consider an article on the morality of sexuality instead. I vote "delete" if not ammended as indicated. Haiduc 04:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think that's a little reductive? The fact is that homosexuality is a distinct issue, and there are moral concerns associated with it. Saying "this article is needed only if an article on 'heterosexuality and morality' is also needed" is ridiculous. Should we also have one on "heterophobia," "anti-hetero slogan," "societal attitudes towards heterosexuality," "heterosexuality and religion," "hetero rights?" Though I agree the article is poorly written, especially the "reactions" section which needs some serious editing in the name of neutrality, and personally I don't think it would be missed if it were deleted, but if it were heavily revised instead, it would serve a valid encyclopedic function. Archaist 18:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Improperly nominated. I'm just finishing the submission. No vote. —Markaci 2005-05-8 T 01:59 Z
• Delete. Inherently POV. Invites articles with "{anything} and morality"--just random original research. What's next, Lamb and morality? Leather and morality? Oral sex and morality? Science and morality? Ego and morality? Niteowlneils 07:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• We already have Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. Merge it there. I agree with Niteowlneils that it should be renamed. Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Also delete Pie and morality, Bassoons and morality and Jigglypuff and morality if they should ever be created. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. DeweyQ 19:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Exploding Boy 23:06, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Stancel 00:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Oh sure, someone is apt to type this articlename into a searchbox, not. hydnjo talk 00:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comments. Regarding POV of content: This type of article is not designed to report whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. It is intended to collect what various parties think and say about the subject. It can easily be NPOV in that a variety of viewpoints are covered, and no one in particular is favored by the article. Regarding the need for a "heterosexual foo" for every "homosexual foo": Such parallelism is makes for significant redundancy and a very short "heterosexual foo". It's much more useful, I've found, just to make "sexual orientation foo", and cover all aspects. I should note that we also have Sexual morality, Sexual norm. Causes of sexual orientation is no longer its own article, by the way; I merged it into Sexual orientation. Pies and bassoons are different from sexuality, in that whatever moral implications their use may have, they are not the subject of raging national cultural and political controversies. -- Beland 02:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge if you must. Sexual morality and Sexual norm split discussion along a religion/rest-of-society line. It's fine with me if Homosexuality_and_morality is merged with Religion and homosexuality and Societal attitudes towards homosexuality along the same divide. Though if I had my pick of articles to merge and purge, it'd be Anti-gay slogan, which seems a little one-sided. -- Beland 02:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. -Sean Curtin 04:54, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Move information to other articles as appropriate. There is also a case for moving some information to a new article: Homosexuality and ethics, since there have been specific ethical positions consistently used to both condemn and justify homosexuality (natural law theory, divine command theory, and Kantianism on the one hand, and utilitarianism as a good example of the other). I suspect an explanation of this may have been the original intent of the article. -Seth Mahoney 08:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this article has always been an attractor for POV regarding homosexuality, with its implicit and biased assumption that morality and homosexuality are somehow fundamentally interlinked - we don't have a page for Woman and Morality for example? This VfD is long overdue. Much of the content is repeated elsewhere so a merge would be redundant here, IMHO. --Axon 08:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. --Spinboy 19:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this is an encyclopedic topic. Morality is not religion. Merge with Societal attitudes towards homosexuality Klonimus 22:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork. There is nothing really here that is already in existing articles on homosexuality. Megan1967 01:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or Move to the obvious entries, with appropriate links. Peter Ellis 02:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. POV fork. Jonathunder 13:31, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Delete. POV magnet. Sheldrake 04:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. Nothing wrong with having a decent article on this topic, only this isn't it. -- AlexR 17:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle 09:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Impossible wheel

I don't think this is an encyclopaedic article, or that it has potential to become any more than a (joke?) dicdef. 66.245.206.230 00:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I found it somewhat informative when I stumbled on it, besides I never knew what to call it, so might as well KEEP it is my vote. Gzuckier 04:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Improperly nominated. I'm just finishing the submission. No vote. —Markaci 2005-05-8 T 01:59 Z
• merge into unicycle. The article is informative, but I don't think the topic is worthy of an article on its own. Thryduulf 02:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to B.C. (comic). Does the concept exist outside of this comic strip? StuTheSheep 02:54, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wow, this thing actually exists. People need to do research before VFD'ing. —Teknic^Talk/Mail 06:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, actually exists. Kappa 07:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although it does indeed appear impossible to use. Suggestion: add a graphic of some kind, either a photo or sketch. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:42, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to unicycle. Niteowlneils 07:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Why?, do you think there is a limit on how many articles wikipedia can hold? —Teknic^Talk/Mail 08:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Wow, it exists. I guess it's a keep then. Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and I actually learned something today. Cool. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Here are some pictures of a guy riding the wheel. Uppland 18:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, real thing, though not very practical.  :) RickK 23:47, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: illustrate & contextify --Simon Cursitor 08:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Made me laugh. Very well, keep, but let the article demonstrate that it exists outside the comic. Radiant_* 12:13, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, worth it for the external link, but there should be more content here.

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 Already deleted. Golbez 17:38, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Traduki

Delete, merging some contents with specific articles (see talk page). tresoldi 19:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Talk:Traduki,

I am the author/mantainer of this project and I'm suggesting this article to be deleted, possibly moving some parts of it to specific articles (such as tokenization, etc.). This article page was set up by one developer a long time ago and probably isn't very useful nowadays. The project is not actually "dead", the development has moved to an active project on computational linguistics (at [6]) that, one day, could result in a "new" Traduki. However, at this time, Traduki is almost inexistent and certainly is useless - thus this article can be quite confusing. As the author, it would be really good to have an article on it, but only when the software actually cames into existence. What do you people think?

tresoldi 19:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Improperly nominated. I'm just finishing the submission. No vote. —Markaci 2005-05-8 T 02:00 Z
• Delete because of author's request for it to be deleted and the fact that the project does not exist yet. It does sound like a good project and the article is well developed but I have to vote delete because of what the author/mantainer of the project asked Stancel 23:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wow, this article is a mess. At first I was leaning towards keep and cleanup, however considering, as noted, the project is incomplete and the author wants to ditch it, delete it is. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 23:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If User:Markaci is working on the submission, and given that this is an open-source project, the original author's intentions do not control whether this project is actually unmaintained. Whig 06:50, 13 May 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 13:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

CoyoteVille

This page has no encylopaedic content. VFD.

Unsigned nomination. From the page history: 23:24, 2005 Apr 28 Marc omorain (talk · contribs)

• Comment: Improperly nominated. I'm just finishing the submission. No vote. —Markaci 2005-05-8 T 01:59 Z
• Keep, 22,800 google hits [7] Kappa 05:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but Google hits may not be the best criterion for a webcomic. There are also some real places called Coyoteville which are inflating that hit count. Aerion//talk 06:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point. Kappa 06:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Alexa rank of 3,975,783--doesn't meet webcomic project inclusion guidelines by a long shot. Niteowlneils 07:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 21:47, 12 May 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.

Not notable indeed...Go ahead and delete it..see if I care..Your weapons are innefective against me!!!!!- Steven Graziano

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. Golbez 17:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

insidious

For the prior VFD discussion of this article see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Insidious/2005 May 8.

This three-word article about a word was nominated for deletion on 2005-05-08. SimonP closed the discussion as Wiktionary without checking Wiktionary first, where he would have seen that as the Wikipedia discussion had trundled along, completely independently a Wiktionarian had created a proper Wiktionary article at insidious. Much as I dislike immediate re-nominations, this discussion needs to be re-opened because the choice made at closure had actually disappeared as a valid option almost a week earlier (a day before Texture said "if it isn't already there", moreover). Wiktionary has no need of this three word article. No adjective→noun redirects come to mind. And there's no concept/place/person/event/thing for an encyclopaedia article to be about. Uncle G 15:26, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

• Delete or speedy delete as duplicate material. If it already exists at Wiktionary, then I believe this is CSD, and not even VfD. If it cannot stand as an encyclopedia article (and it sure as shootin' can't), then there isn't any debate. 162.39.237.201 18:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle 09:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Grand Buffet

Non-notable band vanity. Fawcett5 02:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

NOTE article was previously deleted following Vfd: Wikipedia:Deletion log archive/November 2004 (2)

• Keep - it's a legit alt/indie-rap band, it links to other notable bands associated with (Cex and Sage Francis), has a nearly ten-year track record. They're not selling out arenas, but they're an important and active East Coast/Pittsburgh band connected to a genre of rising prominence. Full disclosure: I did edit this article, but I didn't originate it (original was written on "Grand buffet", not "Grand Buffet" - check history), and no, I am not a member of the band. Just because they're not mainstream doesn't mean they shouldn't be here. --Girolamo Savonarola 03:43, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
  • Also looking at WP:MUSIC section, they have clearly qualified under criterion number 2 (see Official site) as they are currently touring in Europe; they have done this before, as well as going on several US nationwide tours and at least one tour of Canada (see article). I'd also argue criterion 6, although that is of course not as objectively verifiable as number 2. They also have representation via the Kork Agency, which handles many significant indie music acts; they've played SXSW; and toured with Wesley Willis. --Girolamo Savonarola 04:04, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
• Keep. Well written article about notable band. Buy tickets. Previous VFD is irrelevant because the content of that article was "the most awesome duo ever!". —Teknic^Talk/Mail 07:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable band--claims of European tour unsubstantiated by their website. Amazon.com hasn't heard of them--allmusic barely has--lists one album--doesn't meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines criteria. Zero hits for "Grand Buffet" rap swsx--above claims highly suspect. Both Keep votes by users with very few edits. Anybody can cut CDs in their garage nowadays--doesn't mean they should have articles. Niteowlneils 08:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Girolamo Savonarola has over 150 edits going back to July, 2004. User:Teknic has over 200 edits dating back to February, 2005. That's nowhere near "few" enough to discount them. Postdlf 10:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

1. 12 city European tour is substantiated by their website. Please familiarize yourself with the music notability criteria.
2. Wow, I got zero hits for "Grand Buffet" rap swsx too. Don't see how that's relevant though as it's "sxsw", not "swsx"
3. Like Postdlf said, both Girolamo Savonarola and I have far more edits than the minimum for voting. —Teknic^Talk/Mail 14:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• • SXSW page, See "Sage Francis" entry under Tour Dates link, and Extensive European and US tours go back to February 2003. I am happy to show verifiable information to back up all sections brought into question. --Girolamo Savonarola 14:45, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, sections of this article are unverifiable. Megan1967 08:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Such as? --Girolamo Savonarola 15:18, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a bad article, band has AMG entry (however brief it is). Previous vfd not binding on this completely different article. Postdlf 09:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Allmusic and a European tour for a U.S. band clearly indicate notability and pass WP:MUSIC. Meelar (talk) 22:10, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Allmusic.com shows two albums albeit on small indy labels. Tour shows that they meet at least 1 of the Wikimusic guidelines.Capitalistroadster 23:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, two albums and a tour is good enough for me. Kappa 20:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep since it meets wp:music Yuckfoo 17:58, 10 May 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 13:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Neticide

No, it isn't. The only web hits in English are a student story from the 1980s and a Linux mailing list post, neither using the word in this sense, one expired URL, and a Wikipedia mirror. 20 Usenet hits show it might be a bit of an in-joke on rec.music.makers.percussion; no serious hits even from alt.suicide.holiday, and no inbound links. Samaritan 03:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Geez. less than 30 hits--non-notable neologism. Orphan status indicates not in common use. Niteowlneils 08:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although I remember hearing about the phenomenon (apparently it is a problem at some Japanese beauty spots) and it probably deserves a mention somewhere (suicide perhaps? There is already a link from Internet). This neologism wouldn't be any use as a redirect based on the above. Thryduulf 10:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. If it ever does become a word, I doubt it'll have this definition. It would seem to be the most logical term for the destruction of sentient neural networks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly a neologism. (Incidentally, Miriam-Webster starts publishing their 2005 list the day after tomorrow.) DeweyQ 19:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. But if internet suicide pacts get out of hand (such as it being a major concern on news and media) and they coin that word, then it would probably be legitimate here. Nestea 22:44, 8 May 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 13:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Chainsaw (computer program)

Although Chainsaw might be a fabulous piece of software, the term "chainsaw" is not widely used as this article contends. Also, this is not really encyclopedic in nature.

• Delete - *sniff* smells like vanity. I can't tell if it actually is or not, but it's certainly not notable. (Especially as most good compression software provides this functionality.) Aerion//talk 06:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Smacks of vanity. DeweyQ 19:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As Aerion said, most good compression software provide this functionality. Those are notable. This is not. Nestea 22:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The term is data striping and that article could mention some examples. This, however, is an advert for a non-notable program. Gazpacho 05:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. People in alt.comp.freeware voted it as Pricelessware in 2004 and several other years, so it is somewhat notable. -Hapsiainen 22:58, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:09, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Continental Flight 11

Not encyclopædic. --W(t) 03:21, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

• Delete, just some nonsense. DariuszT 03:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not encyclopaedic. -- Mariocki ^TALK 03:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --FCYTravis 03:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• At best an attempt to learn English by posting patent nonsense to Wikipedia. (For the record, entire text since creation: "Going to the limit in transcontinental flight try Flight 11. When boarding talk to the stewardess or the cabin crew to determine their impact on your flight. Ask for a window seat so as to observe best what is going on outside the plane. There is no better way to observe large continental experiments than from the air. Have you seen Chicago from the air? How about San Francisco? Air views are different. Try one!") But as the talk page points out, this Continental Flight 11 was extremely notable. Speedy the nonsense, request and keep the bombed plane. Samaritan 04:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• As noted by Samaritan, there ought to be a legitimate article about Continental Flight 11. Unfortunately, the current content is totally irrelevant. Delete, possibly speedily. Aerion//talk 05:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Forward to BJAODN. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:48, May 8, 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 13:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Miles Glaspole

Doesn't establish notability. --W(t) 03:30, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable vanity page. -- Mariocki ^TALK 03:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Sietse 06:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, non-notable. Stancel 23:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 21:48, 12 May 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 - should be transwikied - SimonP 13:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Iawtc

This should go to Wiktionary.Svest 03:45, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Move to Wiktionary. -- Mariocki ^TALK 03:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 101 google hits for an internet slang acronym does not merit a transwiki. Compare lol (5,800,000), iirc (945,000), ianal (90,800), yhbt (11,100). —Korath (Talk) 02:47, May 9, 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 DELETED as recreation of vfd'd article. Postdlf 10:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Pube Muppit

Delete. I don't think this meets the criteria for webcomics. Also, I can't see the old page but this may be a re-creation of the VFD Pube Muppet article. Can anyone see if it's the same subject matter or anon user even?? --Ricky81682 (talk) 03:56, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this one was previously deleted Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pube Muppet. Also note a redirect to the target that was deleted earlier, Pube Fozzy, is on RFD. K1Bond007 04:11, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as a repost of a vfd'd article. Same subject matter, almost identical text. Postdlf 09:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:10, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sergio Verduzco Flores

Vanity. --W(t) 04:01, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

• Delete - oh dear! vanity. -- Mariocki ^TALK 04:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle 09:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Little Cranberry Lake

non encyclopaedic. -- Mariocki ^TALK 04:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, though it'd be nicer if someone could write someone coherent about this lake. --W(t) 04:06, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
• Delete, garbage K1Bond007 05:41, May 8, 2005 (UTC), Keep per revision. K1Bond007 03:59, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't even pretend to be legitimate. Aerion//talk 05:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Whatever. Content gets created. Content gets refined. If your only possible contribution to the "encyclopaedic" quality of this topic is to suggest its deletion within minutes of its creation, I suggest you acquaint or reacqaint yourself with the WikiWay.

Public WikiWay()
{
 If(live)
 {
 LetLive()
 }
 Else
 {
 WriteLine ("The WikiWay is twofold: pen and sword, in accord.")
 }
}

BTW, for my information, how does one create a "stub" topic on wikipedia? --Korby parnell 07:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I think what Korby is trying to say is that the article has been rewritten. It is now much better than it's former self. And to Korby, I don't know what's up your ass but you can't expect anybody to wait around for that bad of an article to be rewritten. It should never been written like that in the first place. —Teknic^Talk/Mail 07:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm adding the "higher standard of quality" template. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:55, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup the rewrite. Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewritten article. Martg76 13:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, real place, I suppose, but I am highly dubious of much of the info in the rewrite. I removed the prattle about 'no fish' as a quick google search proved that incorrect. In addition, on a lake that small, it's hard to imagine a human-made dam involved, and neither google nor a topo map of the area had any evidence of such a dam (altho' there is a "Little Cranberry Dam" on nearby Cypress Island). Also, if you go to this topo map[8], click the "Large" radio button and select 1:100,000 scale in the dropdown and look at the legend, you will see that there is no way in hell tiny Fidalgo Island could have a '10 mile morain' there--2-3 miles, tops. There's at least four other "Little Cranberry Lake"s in the US alone--I wonder if someone is getting them mixed up. Niteowlneils 19:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Real lake. Possible opportunity for disambiguation given Niteowlneils comments.Capitalistroadster 23:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -Its an interesting, encyclopedic article on a notable lake. :) -CunningLinguist 23:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rela place, though I can understand slapping a VfD notice on I know this lake like nobody else and live right down the street. To access Little Cranberry, which is a secret Gem in the Anacortes City Parks system, drive up 32nd Street to the very, very end, park your car, walk one block north along the swamp, take a left onto the trail, and then walk 1.25 miles in a west, northwest direction.. RickK 23:51, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, now the article has been re-written I'm happy to change to keep but the disambiguation, as noted by Niteowlneils, should be cleared up. -- Mariocki ^TALK 01:05, 9 May 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 13:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Leon del Muerte

I believe this is not notable.Svest 04:15, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable vanity. -- Mariocki ^TALK 04:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN K1Bond007 05:45, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable vanity. Leon del Muerte doesn't sound like a real name anyway, it's spanish for "lion of death". I think this is what this person calls themselves but it's definitely not their real name. Stancel 23:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 21:49, 12 May 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 13:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Fern Green-Lowe

Delete - Thanks for hosting my Mother's Day e-card. I'm done with it now. (Jason Green-Lowe)

Nothing says VFD like nonexistant ISBNs. --W(t) 04:19, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

• Delete - vanity (despite the fact she may be 'one of the most fantastic mothers ever to set foot on the face of the earth'). -- Mariocki ^TALK 04:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly vanity, however it is kinda funny. "Evan is only available in his forteenth, or MAYBE if you're lucky his fifteenth edition, due to concerns by the author about inconceivably rapid evolution." Heh. K1Bond007 05:50, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity. To the author: unless you have adminship, you won't be able to delete the page yourself, although you can blank it. Considering that you're not logged in, I bet you don't have adminship. Relax, it'll take five days for this to go through, so your mother can still enjoy your gift. Aerion//talk 05:52, 8 May 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 13:57, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

David M. Patterson

• Please Delete. My daughter was kind enough to make this for me, but I'd prefer it to be deleted, (she can't use my account any more). Sorry. -- User:koshnaranek0 10:50, 9 May 2005

non-notable vanity page. -- Mariocki ^TALK 04:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I believe it's vanity too. Svest 05:05, May 8, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}
• Delete. Non-notable vanity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity K1Bond007 05:37, May 8, 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. This seems like one of the less contentious high school debates. Sjakkalle 09:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Archbishop Williams High School

Not notable, school vanity. Jonathunder 05:43, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

• Keep, non-notability not established. —RaD Man (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep No valid reason for deletion mentioned by nominator. CalJW 06:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Vanity' is a valid reason for deletion. Radiant_* 12:16, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Only if there is evidence, which there isn't. Gillian Tipson 06:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've expanded it to include sexual abuse allegations, a major labor dispute and lawsuit, and details of the organizational change to the school, all as reported in the media and sourced. Also information on a $12-14 million capital expansion from the school's website. Samaritan 06:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep All that is very notable. Klonimus 08:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Samaritan R Calvete 07:01, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
• Keep, schools are wikipedia:important. Kappa 07:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - passess the BEEFSTEW guidlines admirably. Although having said that the contrast between the first section and the lists in the second section is a little jaring. Thryduulf 09:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep contains more info than the average school article and passes BEEFSTEW. Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable school. It fails BEEFSTEW as it does not establish any of the points E-I (apart from G for regional news, and only very weakly passes J). There is nothing that establishes this school as any different to similar schools. --G Rutter 13:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: BEEFSTEW doesn't require the article to contain ALL points. It's content on the abuse distinguishes it from numerous other schools. Mgm|^(talk) 14:40, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • And it has no validity anyway. Gillian Tipson 06:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Please remember that notability is not a deletion criterion. James F. (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • That's simply not true. Notability is an established and widely used shorthand that well captures many deletion criteria. Please see my earlier explanation on this point. See also the guide to VFD shorthands. A strict formalism doesn't accomplish anything here. Postdlf 21:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, the working reference given above is a clear demonstration of the fact that "non-notability" is not a valid deletion criterion. A mere personal shorthand used by some editors is not a policy consensus - as the immediately adjacent reference to "unencyclopedic" even more clearly shows. --Gene_poole 23:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Postdlf, what you 'understand' to be policy may just possibly not actually be policy. :-) I would agree, however, that it is indeed erroneously becoming "established" - this is exactly what I'm trying to fix. James F. (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Since when did we need a policy consensus on what words we could use to express ourselves on VfD pages? It's the substance that matters, and the substance of "not notable" is not only always tied to specific deletion criteria, it often overlaps more than one. I went into quite a bit of detailed explanation to show how notability is at the heart of at least most of the deletion criteria—can you elaborate on "no, you're wrong," or "no, we never approved that word for expressive usage"? Postdlf 04:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Umm, whut? Where on Earth did you get the impression that I was objecting to the word? I'm pointing out that notability - the concept, not the word - is not a ground for deletion. You can bend over backwards to show that other people have been using it as such, and indeed this is helpful to show where people have erred, but they are using it wrongly. There are many occassions when things that are unnotable also aren't suitable for the encyclopædia, but this is not a causal link. James F. (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
            • I think you're still missing the whole thrust of what I was saying, but let's drop it here. If you want to take the time to explain to me what specifically you disagree with as to how nonnotable things always fall under one or more of the stated deletion criteria, please do so on my talk page. Postdlf 17:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic instutional vanity-page. --Gmaxwell 18:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Admirable job of expansion. --FCYTravis 19:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it is well written and passes beefstew Yuckfoo 20:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-written schools article thanks to Samaritan. Capitalistroadster 23:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are enduring physical and social institutions worthy of record in a truly encyclopedic encyclopedia. --Gene_poole 23:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, troll-supported. —Korath (Talk) 23:51, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Which of us are you personally attacking and calling "troll"s, exactly? James F. (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Here you go. —Korath (Talk) 02:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • I noticed all schools on VfD were eventually posted there and on Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch, so if I saw a new school and didn't post it to both, I would just be leaving more work for someone else. Is there a reason why I shouldn't? My talk. Samaritan 16:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Braintree (town), Massachusetts and delete - Skysmith 10:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Skysmith. Radiant_* 12:16, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and refine policy to prevent future VfD nominations of school articles. In my opinion, schools with more than a few students should automatically be considered "encyclopedic"/wikipedia-worthy. Wikipedia will not be improved by the deletion of this article. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 20:45, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Is it just me, or is there a certain kneejerk quality to recent school deletion listings? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. High schools should not have notability requirements, and this article now has a considerable amount of verifiable information.--BaronLarf 12:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article has a near-perfect BEEFSTEW of 9. Pending the response from the school's development director it may just become a 10. Bahn Mi 21:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Intrigue 18:23, 12 May 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 13:58, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Singlespeak

Non-notable blog: notability of writer not established, no new entries for half a year, two google hits for "Andrew Summers singlespeak". Sietse 06:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Sholtar 06:10, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (Insert deletion sound effect here.) Aerion//talk 06:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity/advert - Tεxτurε 21:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Loganberry 01:05, 13 May 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 13:59, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Dan O'Connor

Not notable. Hasn't done anything notable since Idol, was not a top ten finalist, and the stub has remained relatively unchanged as a result. Last VfD back in September resulted in no consensus. JamesBurns 06:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• I guess this is now my standard Idol contestant vote: Keep. By the policy that each episode of a major television series merits an article, we could recast all the losing contestant articles into Australian Idol season 2 episode (Dan O'Connor eliminated), etc., or however we'd title them. Or we could just accept short individual articles on the singers themselves. That makes more sense. Samaritan 06:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Why? That would be similar to giving all losing contestants on game shows their own articles. JamesBurns 07:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Idols are limited series with far fewer episodes than most game shows, and top 10 or 12 contestants are subject to a mass public vote based on their appeal in a field, singing, in which Wikipedia otherwise legitimately has articles on thousands and merits articles on hundreds of thousands of artists. Samaritan 13:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, top 12 is nearly top 10. Kappa 07:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• And top 15 is nearly top 12, and top 20 is nearly top 15, and top 30 is nearly top 20, and top 112 is nearly top 100, and "close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. Delete. Soundguy99 08:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • IIRC, depending on the season and country, it's either the top 10 or 12 who go through the main public voting and elimination process. See the table and inbound link to O'Connor from Australian Idol... Samaritan
• Delete, hasnt produced any recorded material since Idol, no allmusic.com entry - fails notability test. Megan1967 08:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment - please note the bias against non US artists in the allmusic.com website - it also fails to mention Casey Donovan who won Australian Idol in 2004 and has recorded. I do not think reference to this web site is a valid test for non US musicians.--AYArktos 01:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as reasoned by Megan1967. --Feydey 10:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Soundguy and Megan. Hasn't done anything notable since losing Idols. Article also lacks content. Merge into an article on the show and delete it. Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Australian Idol. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Australian Idol. --G Rutter 13:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

*Merge and redirect to Australian Idol. --ScottDavis 15:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)Keep - it seems he's going to do something else notable, so his own article will be able to tie his activities together. --ScottDavis 01:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect --Gmaxwell 18:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't support a redirect because there are other notable Dan O'Connors. A quick Google turned up a novelist, a 19th-century baseball player, a graphic artist, a researcher, and a comedian... and that's just on the first two pages! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:54, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep this person has ongoing notability - Dan O'Connor is now starring in a soap opera in Australia, but quite a different one as it will feature on mobile phones (please see updated article and associated link to Sydney Morning Herald article). The proposal to delete this article was too soon (only just over 6 months after the chap was eliminated from Ausralian Idol). It seems that in Australia an Idol finalist is likely to have a career break into the entertainment industry. A search on Australian google (it is a common name after all) indicates that he has been employed in bits and pieces since the television show. There are plenty less notable biographies on Wikipedia. --AYArktos 23:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "Bits and pieces".. that is an argument for notability? There is nothing on imdb or tvtome to indicate otherwise. JamesBurns 03:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Both imdb and tvtome like the allmusic.com website are US web sites. It seems to have escaped some people's notice that he is an Australian. Like other Australians he is under-represented in such US web sites. Reference to representation on these web sites is a fine criteria for evaluating a US actor or musician - it is not OK for other places in the world. Australian soaps are extremely popular in the UK and Europe and thus it is quite an export industry for our nation. Hence in Wikipedia there are a lot of minor soap stars with wiki biographies - eg the entire cast of Neighbours past and present seems to score their own individual entry. This person is at least as notable as the others.--AYArktos 08:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I think O'Connor being an actor in the mobile phone soap - a 'first' in Australia - makes him notable enough. I think the article needs editing to put more weight on this, with the Australian Idol info as background. --Takver 02:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Merge per above. Radiant_* 12:18, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Leanne 05:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Iam 06:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Twelfth place. Yeah. --24.34.45.235 01:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, other than an ad for some supposedly forthcoming thingamabob. Whig 06:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:11, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Bridge Street Cafe

Paraphrasing entire article: "The Bridge Street Cafe is a small Cafe on Bridge Steet, in Sackville, New Brunswick, Canada". Not notable. Sietse 06:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I spoke with a friend who knowns Sackville and she reported that while the cafe has good tzatziki dip it is in no way noteworthy. - SimonP 22:27, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 04:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, unless my old wings and beer place (Morty's) is written and kept. If it is, then.... still delete. --Deathphoenix 03:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and the Bloomfield Bridge Tavern is a tavern just off of the Bloomfield Bridge in Pittsburgh. So what? Whig 07:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kingturtle 02:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle 09:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Westlink M7

Notability not established. A freeway that hasn't even been built. JamesBurns 06:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep urban freeways, even while under construction. Kappa 07:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - the largest road infrastructure project in Australia, costing $2bn and the missing link in Sydney's road network deserves to have a page. It will be complete in next year ahead of schedule.
• Delete, wikipedia is not a crystal ball, cruft. Megan1967 08:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no crystal ball involved - the road is under construction! Thryduulf 10:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all significant motorways and motorway construction projects - the significance is established by the article. Thryduulf 10:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Major road construction projects are significant and noteworthy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- large road infrastructure projects are notable - Longhair | Talk 13:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a major infrastructure project. Deletionism gone mad. Ambi 13:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong strong keep. The Lower Manhattan Expressway was never built but is very notable; this is very notable because it's being built, and even if it wasn't it would be notable. --SPUI (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it is a major project resolving traffic issues in Sydney (Australia's largest city) but causing controversy for out of towners because of the new toll system.--AYArktos 21:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, major construction project, is being built. Article is quite detailed. Slac speak up! 22:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable Sydney roadwork. Capitalistroadster 23:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable for any vehicle driver wanting a direct route from the Hume Highway to the Pacific Highway (Australia)--Takver 01:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - either it will be built, on schedule and under budget, or you will have the basis for an(other) article on porkbarrelling in 21st century politics. --Simon Cursitor 08:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Other freeways and highways have articles. --ScottDavis 08:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Cyberjunkie 15:49, 9 May 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 14:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Buxton University

Wikipedia is frequently being targeted by diploma mill spammers trying to legitimize their products and the few articles on diploma mills we have (see List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning) need occasional reverting from anonymous contributors attempting to remove incriminating information. Buxton appears non-notable even for a diploma mill. (The poster has on a previous occasion fraudulently added Buxton to the List of British universities and removed it from List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning.)

Nothing in the original article was verifiable and even the website of this "university" has no useful information, at least not without a password. I have tried to completely rewrite it (please see the diff) with whatever little information I have found elsewhere, but I am uncertain whether it is keepable. Beware, though, that if it is deleted, it will probably reappear at some point, so a NPOV article may be better and will to some extent defeat the original purpose of the spammer posting it. upland 06:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep as anti-advertisement. I will put it on my list. —Teknic^Talk/Mail 08:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not every semi-legal organization needs its own article. Notability not established. Martg76 13:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• No vote I'm a bit torn on this one. I think we have a certain responsibility to debunk, but the very VERY low Google count (275 hits, mostly unrelated) might suggest that this is too minor to be worth debunking. I also shudder at the thought that even a critical article might lead to them advertising their "school" to be "as seen on Wikipedia" or similar. You're right that it might be recreated though if we delete. No vote, not sure, rather uncomfortable either way actually. Of course, there's always this... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Debunking hoaxes is fun, in a perverse sort of way, but the average diploma mill is even less notable than the average high school, and nothing in either the original ad nor the writeup rewrite suggests that this one stands out. Keeping an article around on a non-subject just to prevent another spammish advertisement is self-defeating. I'll put this on my watchlist too, just in case. —Korath (Talk) 23:56, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you please state why you think the subject is NN? What policy are you basing this on? —Teknic^Talk/Mail 01:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Notable, as in "Worthy of notice; remarkable; memorable; noted or distinguished." There's nothing here to distinguish it from any other diploma mill. —Korath (Talk) 02:55, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • You don't find it "worthy of notice" that an institution is selling fake diplomas and degrees and trying to pass themselves off as legit? To me, that kind of thing demands notice. —Teknic^Talk/Mail 05:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
        • The kind of thing demands notice, but this particular instance does not (e.g. Burglary is informative, but My neighbor's house was broken into last week is not). Delete as NN. Radiant_* 12:20, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
          • Your example is not relevant as you are comparing an establishment to an event (news). When deciding whether or not to annihilate the product of somebody's time and work, please consider the pros and cons of your actions. In this case keeping could provide valuable info for someone who might have otherwise made a big mistake, even if just one person is helped it's worth the cost, which in this case is one more article to be maintained by the 7,000 active editors who are presently capable of handling half a million of them. Are you worried that we don't have enough ink for 500,001 articles? —Teknic^Talk/Mail 18:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like nn. Grue 05:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Will keeping this warn off some unsuspecting would-be graduate from wasting their money ? --Simon Cursitor 08:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I'm afraid not, because they are unlikely to look here. A fool and his money... Radiant_* 12:20, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but merge content as appropriate to an article on, say Diploma Mills.
  • (If such an article doesn't exist (as that particular link doesn't work), perhaps it would be a good one, with a list, and then redirect this article there. Whig 07:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Diploma mill. Gamaliel 05:21, 15 May 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 14:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Streets in Darien

A list of streets in the town of Darien (I don't know which one). I think that this is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia: too specific. Sietse 07:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not only does the article fail to establish where the town is. A list of streets without their location in relation to each other mentioned is useless. Especially, when the majority of the streets don't deserve articles themselves. Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• It's in Connecticut (given Boston Post Road). The list is also rather incomplete. Weak keep and hope it expands to something better. --SPUI (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. RickK 23:55, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Has wikipedia actually come to this? Not encyclopedic; another stupid list. -R. fiend 02:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Darien, Fairfield County, Connecticut and delete - Skysmith 10:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, we have such lists for several other towns, e.g. List of Hoboken streets - SimonP 14:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Transitionist

Unencyclopedic! Svest 07:59, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Ow. My head hurts. Delete. Bearcat 08:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Some kind'a essay or somethin'. I'm not really sure what the point was. But it's not an encyclopedia article, that's fer damn sure. Postdlf 10:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original somethin'. jni 13:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Unless this is something massively profound that I just don't get, it seems to be patent nonsense. A Man In Black 06:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• I like it.Yes, I agree that it's not encyclopedic, but that's because it's new. Feels like a cutting edge concept to me. Thseamon
  • Then when it's cohesive enough a concept to be encyclopedic, then it can be added. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG DELETE. Patent nonsense, indeed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - belongs on someone's personal blog, perhaps, but not here. Whig 07:08, 13 May 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 14:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Small penis humiliation

Penises come in different sizes (though not as differently as some people appear to enjoy thinking). Sometimes they're "small". It might be a bit "humiliating" (or embarrassing or discomforting or whatever) to be a postpubertal male and have one that's small (or bent over, or bifurcated, or green, or decorated with the "Louis Vuitton" monogram, or whatever). Thereupon you'd have "small penis humiliation". It's a string of words that appears to be used by sellers of snake-oil, or perhaps I should say trouser-snake-oil, to the gullible and nervous; and also perhaps by easily amused teenagers, etc. It's too trivial, a mere arbitrary string of words to be giggled at.

But perhaps I'm wrong. Could somebody with medical or psychotherapeutic knowledge set us straight? Then I might change my vote from delete. -- Hoary 08:05, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

PS OK, OK, the phrase isn't arbitrary. But I still see no reason to think that it involves more than a tiny number of people. -- Hoary 09:50, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

• Why delete?? This term, SPH, is increasingly popular. Some people might come to Wikipedia to find out what it means. ... anonymously posted at 07:58, 2005 May 8 by 213.7.215.29
  • Few people would otherwise guess that it meant, say, "humiliation for having a large right ear". -- Hoary 08:05, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
• Delete. Crap. Postdlf 08:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic, and just plain useless. The quicker it's gone, the better for everyone. Harro5 08:18, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• It's crap, but it's slightly different crap than Hoary's description; it's not about run-of-the-mill embarrassment at having a small penis, but about a form of sex play that involves actually being subjected to a partner's verbal humiliation regarding one's penis size, and could conceivably be engaged in even if one were hung like John Holmes. People really will get off on just about anything. (And it might actually help explain why there was such mixed "he's big" vs. "he's tiny" reaction to the Fred Durst sex tape, come to think of it...) Vote changed; m/r to erotic humiliation as per suggestion below sounds like a good idea. Bearcat 18:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Don't delete It is a paraphilia, analagous to exhibitionism or cuckoldry or some other oddity of human sexuality. Don't shoot the messenger. The paraphilia is a fact, exists , especially in porn and on the internet. It seems like people are opposed simply because they don't like the practice. I think it is becoming a bigger factor now as the media draws more attention to the size issue. See the BBC's new autobiographical documentary called "My penis and I" about a man with a small penis. No joke. ...posted anonymously at 09:03, 2005 May 8 by 213.7.214.181

• Keep The people opposed to this seem to just not like it, so they call it unecyclopedic. But much of what's in Wikipedia is not in the Britannica, and that's it's charm. It's more open, less censored, less stuffy. The delete people are just being prudes. Probably all Americans no doubt. ...posted anonymously at 13:12, 2005 May 8 by 213.7.216.40
  • Am I probably American, or am I American no doubt? If you're going to make ad hominem attacks, then do at least try to make them internally consistent. -- Hoary 15:02, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Erotic humiliation. We have a pretty good precident for keeping various sexual fetishes and techniques. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• 4890 web hits. Merge and redirect sounds good. Samaritan 14:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Erotic humiliation. Seems to be a notable sexual technique, but I currently think there is not enough content out there yet to warrant a separate article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, per google results. Kappa 21:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Viajero 21:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It could be transwikied to WikiAfterDark, but I see no reason to remove it from here. Paraphilias are encyclopedic. Haikupoet 23:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedick. Megan1967 04:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I haven't heard any actual arguments for deleting other than some people don't like it. Also merging to erotic humiliation won't work because Erotic humiliation itself redirects now. There is a page for CFNM, for instance, so there is a precendent. Google search shows 4,790 hits for "small penis humiliation" in quotes, so clearly it is not an arbitrary word phrase as someone suggested. Unless people have a legitimate and convincing argument for deleting, there's no reason to. ...anonymously added at 06:27, 2005 May 9 by Soda80
  • Well, Soda80, your list of contributions suggests that you may be a specialist so I hesitate before arguing with you, but Google gives 410 hits for "small penis embarrassment"; it may well provide hundreds of other hits for phrases involving worries about the size of mankind's most amusing appendage, but since I'm now at work I don't care to look. Any guesses about the size of the population interested in such matters? (Henry Cow is a band that "enjoyed" low sales for a few years till it broke up in in 1978; it manages to get over 70,000 hits.) -- Hoary 07:45, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
• 410 hits? My Faggoth article was rejected because it only had 409 hits... Is this a fucking joke, I couldn't imagine an intelligent person ever using the term 'small penis humiliation'. The entry on penis size, discusses size stereotypes and misconceptions and surveys determining the average penis size. Until next time...grow the hell up. - Rift14
  • Er, is that a vote; and if so, which way? I suggest you make it a clear vote. You'll have to sign it ("~~~~"). -- Hoary 08:04, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
• Merge with Verbal humiliation. I am sure there are plenty of things to say that would humiliate someone. SPH may well be a documented form of paraphilia, but (as Zzyzx11 pointed out) it doesn't seem to warrant an article of its own yet. (BTW, Megan1967, that was seriously funny.) –DeweyQ 05:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• Hoary, first you claim the phrase was entirely arbitrary. I pointed out that the phrase has 4000+ hits using quotes (not 400--why don't you correct your misinformation for Rift?)--and even has it's own forums and communities. Hell, the BBC has a documentary on the phenomenon! How many BBC doumentaries did that band get? Furthermore, the merging right away doesn't make much sense. Is it better to have smaller articles specialized for a topic and linked to related ones, or really long articles which contain everything -- a single page for all human paraphilias? All of the merge pages suggested were empty, redirects or lack content, ie. there is no big list of paraphilias. I suggest that since there is no hurry to delete this (again no real reason why has come forward, only that it is 'trivial' or 'not my thing' which is purely subjective) why not just leave it as a stub, see how it goes, and then keep it or merge it based upon the results. By the way, just reading the Wikipedia guide for deletion policy, it mentions this: "All Wikipedians, however, should try not to appear terse, gruff, and abrupt in their VFD postings. All Wikipedians should do their best to treat contributors with respect and good will." So does "grow the hell up" and "not encyclopedick" qualify? Thanks. ...added anonymously at 07:03 (and about 20 minutes later) 2005 May 10 by 62.180.212.222
  • Comment: User:62.180.212.222, I didn't give a number of hits for this phrase, I merely pointed out that (i) a similar one had 400 or so hits, and (ii) the (unrelated) band Henry Cow had very more hits. Sorry, I don't know about BBC documentaries about Henry Cow. Incidentally, I do know that Channel 4 once had a (rather amusing) "documentary" titled "The Sex Shogun of Shinjuku": it was about a porn actor/producer called Muranishi who wasn't at all like a shōgun and had nothing to do with Shinjuku (merely chosen for alliterative effect). But all right, the phrase isn't arbitrary. And I think I've treated people with good will. (Incidentally, I'm opposed to any warning against terseness. Terseness is a Good Thing: it saves time.) -- Hoary 09:50, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
    • Okay, so now you admit it is not arbitrary or random, but claim it is only a tiny number of people. Well how do you know? You don't have to answer that if you don't want to. :-) I checked Google Groups, and it gave 2000 plus pages in discussions. The phrase Wikipedia gets 60,000 there. That's only 30 times more. I'm not sure what that says about the people who frequent Google Groups (LOL) but it shows that it is a topic being discussed. Also, the terseness was not objectionable, but the rudeness (not by you but by people like Rift, who also kindly vandalized the main page before slinking off). ...added at 18:42 (and three minutes later), 2005 May 10 by Soda80
      • I don't know that it's a tiny number of people; I was wondering if there was evidence that it was more than a tiny number of people. Google (the search engine, not the groups bit) suggests to me that this phrase is used by spammers (among others); if this is indeed so, I'm not surprised that it pops up in talk forums. -- Hoary 04:35, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
        • But Spammers appeal to what sells, whether you like it or not. If ads for SPH chat lines are common, it must be because people are secretly calling them, somewhat similar to dubious penis enlargement. By the way, without quotes SPH gets 355,000 hits. Overall this shows a preoccupation with penis size, yet a taboo on talking about it. SPH certainly does exist, on the internet, in adult videos, and phone sex lines, and amateur communities. I wonder why it is so bad to actually talk about it here? ... added at 08:45, 2005 May 11 by Soda80
          • I haven't encountered ads for "SPH chat lines". I have encountered spam in which companies claim to increase dick size in order to avoid possible humiliation. That looks like the attempted inculcation of dangers that the potential customer hadn't even imagined -- a very old sales technique. Spammers also make great use of the phrase "horny 18-year-old sluts", but of itself this doesn't show (to me, at least) that WP need have an article on Horny 18-year-old sluts. 355,000 hits does sound quite a lot, but since it's not for the phrase but merely the cooccurrence of the three words this proves nothing. And I'm left wondering whether you're talking about the prevalence of this humiliation or the prevalence of talking about it. Lastly, please sign your entries with four twiddles: ~~~~. Thank you. -- Hoary 09:28, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Delete. Contains links to patent pornography rather than educational material. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Possibly merge, but it's undoubtedly a real issue for some people. Whig 07:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Conti|✉ 02:00, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a valid article about an existing phenomenon (porn, not psychology). The name's not that cute, but if that's what it's called... Zocky 09:54, 17 May 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 deleted by User:Postdlf

• 09:04, 8 May 2005 Postdlf deleted "Passage (album)" (no context; content was: 'This is the album where they changed from raw satanism to Nietszchean directions.{{album-stub}}')

Sjakkalle 07:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Passage (album)

Meaningless unless someone manages to work out who the album is by! Grutness|^hello? 08:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non notable album. Megan1967 08:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted under article criteria #1. It contains even less identifying information than the example given there. Whoever posted this didn't waste any time on it; neither should we. Postdlf 09:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:13, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Toby Osborn

23 Google hits Possible vanity

Lotsofissues 08:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I currently get zero Google hits for Toby Osborn Ut.HAX. And I cannot find any other third party credible, notable references. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 21:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN V.--Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If Ut.HAX doesn't have a Wikipedia entry, its 'inventor' shouldn't. Whig 07:14, 13 May 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 14:07, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Freeph

A "movement" barely a week old to free some guy we don't have an article on from a country I can't even identify from the article, which is written like a first-person call to action. Delete. Postdlf 09:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 11:40, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, Perhaps the article need to be moved to title Ismail Faiz, as he is highly credited for doing all the technical work required to start Internet in the Maldives, back in 1996. meanwhile I have suggested the same thing on talk page --Oblivious 13:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete political tract. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• I think it would be better to move this to page to Ismail Faiz with a few modifications N3m6 03:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a soapbox. Megan1967 04:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. "FREE PH! Why? Because innocent people need to be out there, living their lives, walking free, unhumiliated." Soapbox gibberish. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:26, 13 May 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 14:08, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Jiwang

Slang dictionary definition, website advert/promo. JamesBurns 09:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - this nomination would seem to run against the efforts of some to counter the systemic WP:Bias of wikipedia.I disagree with the nominator's dismissal of the article as merely defining a slang term and that it is a web site promotion.--AYArktos 21:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • You have no evidence to back up your claims of a conspiracy - just because the article comes from an Islamic background does not mean it should be exempt from VfD, to do so would make this encyclopaedia biased. Your reasons for keeping it are thus invalid. JamesBurns 03:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No opinion on the slang half; the website mentioned has an Alexa rank of 49,711, so it's just barely tolerable (in that they probably don't hugely benefit from us hosting an ad for them). With that abominable animated gif, though, I can't blame the nominator for bringing the article here. —Korath (Talk) 00:31, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • The editor who added the website has since removed it from the article - all that is left is the slang defintion. JamesBurns 01:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisment. Megan1967 04:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of Alexa rank + addresses systematic underrepresentation. Kappa 07:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The editor who added the website has since removed it from the article - all that is left is the slang defintion. JamesBurns 01:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. There are zillions of such sites on the web. Radiant_* 12:22, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not zillions, less than 50,000. Kappa 20:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, slang definition. Leanne 05:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Ong Eng Wai 17:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable slang. Iam 06:12, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dic def --nixie 06:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 21:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Wiktionary? Maybe. Here? No. Whig 07:16, 13 May 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.

the website now ranked 7000 on Alexa .. and been since 1999, does'nt it deserve to be on wikipedia? and the meaning is not advertising.. its a malaysian slang ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.244.161 (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was userify - Tεxτurε 21:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Robbie Trencheny and User talk:Robbie Trencheny

NN, vanity. Rl 10:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - vanity of non-notableBrookie:the wind in the grass 11:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Userify Robbie Trencheny to User:Robbie Trencheny. As for User talk:Robbie Trencheny, I do not think it really matters what the user puts on his/her talk page as long as we can leave messages on it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Megan1967 04:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Move to user namespace, delete redirect. James F. (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• This needed a be bold. Nothing could be more obvious that this one. - Userify'd by me - Tεxτurε 21:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:12, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Gayed

Spurious/offensive/badly written content created by serial vandal

Unsigned nomination by User:Dave.Dunford, 11:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone credible and/or sourced rewrites this about a legitimate use. Samaritan 13:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even legitimate uses of the word (which does exist, but doesn't mean this) could only ever be Wiktionary entries. Bearcat 17:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Exploding Boy 23:05, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not legit. -CunningLinguist 23:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this seems to be some kind of joke Stancel 23:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 03:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Leekage?" Are we talking about anal sex or shopping for vegetables? -Seth Mahoney 08:57, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, quickly. This is an embarassment. Ec5618 17:35, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Spinboy 19:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Jonathunder 13:09, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Delete now. I need a shower. Whig 07:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Homophobic idiocy. Pacian 07:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:13, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Evelyn cotton

Unfortunately non-notable to the world at large --Rjstott 10:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, is also users first edit. Feydey 11:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 11:37, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP != memorial. jni 13:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, but it is an obituary of a non-notable person. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - sad but not notable Brookie:the wind in the grass 19:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 21:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The text of this discussion has been removed. It is available in full from the page history. See also talk -- sannse (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Not notable...that's putting it mildly.