Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 1

< December 31	January 2 >

January 1

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. Carried out at 00:11, 7 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality

List of black metal genres

Complete mess, written from 1st person point of view, already plenty of info at Black metal. --Szabo 20:18, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep. Firstly, bad articles want fixing, NOT deleting. Yes, the existing article is awful but that's not a reason to delete it - the article has the potential to be encyclopedic. It should be noted that this article is linked to from Template:Blackmetal. We need someone who's knowledgeable about the subject to create at least a good stub. David Johnson [T|C] 21:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't seem to be an article at all. hydnjo talk 22:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this is not an article. Wyss 22:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, if the Sub-genres section of Black metal ever gets too huge, it can be split off. Until then, we don't need this. —Stormie 22:32, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, agree with Stormie. Rje 02:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unnecessary list. Megan1967 03:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete 217.29.133.200 02:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. David Johnson's argument that the list is linked to from the template is a good one, but it it not good enough. The subsection of Black metal, as noted by Stormie, makes this article unnecessary. →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 03:38, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
Delete, it's junk -- why not speedy? ;Bear 19:41, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
Delete. I would have speedied it. We should have a list of black metal genres, but what is there now is in no way a step towards making it. Tuf-Kat 23:39, Jan 6, 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 on 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. 07:33, 7 Jan 2005 Wile E. Heresiarch

Stone Puppets

under 150 google hits for the phrase (i.e. not really many for the band). They are Australian, but I have never heard of them (though that's not really much).--ZayZayEM 02:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete as band vanity. Neither Dusk Furrow nor Stone Puppets score on allmusic.com. Rje 02:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 05:16, Jan 1 2005 (UTC)
Keep but expand and categorize. There are plenty of pages here for bands just as obscure as this one. 23skidoo 07:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for your research, but if you really want the appreciation of your colleagues you'll finish the job by listing them all for VfD. --Jerzy (t) 00:50, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
Delete. nn, unless someone can prove otherwise. --Viriditas | Talk 11:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless someone can show that they were notable for some reason. David Johnson [T|C] 21:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Wyss 22:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough for inclusion. Megan1967 03:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and if there are any bands similarly non-notable, they should also be deleted. Tuf-Kat 23:41, Jan 6, 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 on 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 ambiguous. I count 4 clear delete votes, 4 clear votes to [m:transwiki|]] and 2 conditional votes. A quick review of the Google hits for the first four lines of the song all attribute the song to "Traditional". This leads me to reasonably believe that it is in the public domain and eligible for transwiki. I concur with the decision to transwiki and will put it in the queue. Rossami (talk) 23:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Knees Up Mother Brown

Speaks for itself doesn't it? Wikipedia is not a ditty lyrics depository.--ZayZayEM 02:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Can't this be speedied for patent nonsense? LostCluster 02:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No. Lyrics and song are genuine. Radical redefinition of "patent nonsense" would be needed. Is PD, so if anyone wants to transwiki to anything (I don't know what; Wikisource?) go ahead. JRM 02:49, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
Trankswiki to WikiSource: It is a real song but Wikipedia isn't a lyrics website. DCEdwards1966 02:51, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki (obviously); there should probably be an article about the song at some point, however... James F. (talk) 04:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'll agree with transwiki --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki... Wyss 22:27, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia isnt a lyrics depository. Megan1967 03:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
ONLY Transwiki if the lyrics are out of copyright. Delete. Rick K 06:42, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki if legal. Otherwise, Delete. →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 03:40, 2005 Jan 6 (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 on 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. 07:34, 7 Jan 2005 Wile E. Heresiarch

Office rabbit

I have tried to verify the information on this page but could find nothing to suggest that it isn't nonsense. --Kevin 02:23, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless someone can verify that this was a widespread fad. DCEdwards1966 02:44, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete The word "takeyami" suggested in the article flunks the Google Test. LostCluster 03:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No verification seems coming. "Office rabbit"+Japan pulled up more porn than anything else, not that its all that suprising.--ZayZayEM 06:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless it can be verified. David Johnson [T|C] 21:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this sounds sorta Japanese, but also sounds like a hoax, article provides no means of verification. Wyss 22:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I've never heard of this supposed fad, and the word takeyami is, as far as I can tell, completely made-up. Rather reminds me of the "Bonsai Kitten" joke. Shimeru 22:33, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless verified. Newfoundglory 01:44, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, loooks like a hoax using Google Test. Megan1967 03:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete: I'm in Japan; I've asked; people haven't heard of it. Hoary 05:11, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
Delete 217.29.133.200 02:05, 6 Jan 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 on 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. Carried out at 07:35, 7 Jan 2005 Wile E. Heresiarch

Stefan Rajahkumar

Probably vanity, certainly not notable. Rje 02:31, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Vanity, non-notable and article content is barely a sub-stub. --Kevin 02:41, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, almost a speedy, nn, possible vanity. Wyss 22:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Megan1967 03:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. first of that name to write his own Wikipedia vanity article, too. Cleduc 07:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I thought about userfy but the IP has quite a few edits. Delete for now. Alphax (talk) 13:29, Jan 3, 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 on 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. Carried out at 07:35, 7 Jan 2005 by User:Wile E. Heresiarch

Psycle

This is unwikified advertising, looks like it has been cut and pasted from somewhere. Rje 02:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete: No incoming links, blatant advertising. --Kevin 02:59, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ad. --ZayZayEM 06:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete: I can say that IT HAS BEEN cut and pasted maybe i was the one even that pasted it. But is it bad in this case?
Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable or popular enough to be in an encyclopedia. David Johnson [T|C] 21:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nn, ad. Wyss 22:23, 1 Jan 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 on 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. Carried out at 07:36, 7 Jan 2005 by User:Wile E. Heresiarch

Mark olynciw

Obvious vanity. Hopefully, the new speedy deletion criteria will be passed so that we can stop clogging up VfD with these types of pages. Delete. --Slowking Man 02:52, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

I was just about to VFD this myself. 143 Google hits is not much for one renowned for blogging. Delete. - Vague | Rant 02:56, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, please. Rje 03:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- DCEdwards1966 04:18, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete--ZayZayEM 06:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as silly vandalism. Wyss 22:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Cleduc 07:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as vandalism Dhmorris 01:52, 7 Jan 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 on 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 apparently speedy delete. Carried out at 05:54, 1 Jan 2005 by User:Fennec

Dapaper

This could possibly be a speedy. It's pretty close to nonsense. DCEdwards1966 03:09, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy, it's either a test page or vandalism. Rje 03:29, 1 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete following a move to user space. Carried out at 07:25, 1 Jan 2005 by User:Chris 73

Azmirul Hamzah

Vanity as far as I can tell.--ZayZayEM 03:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. Rje 03:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete & Move to User Page, Sorry guys, I don’t mean to create a vanity page. I didn't realize wikipedia have a user page. I'have moved the content to my new user page Azmirul Hamzah, 1 Jan 2005

Speedy deleted because author moved it to User:Azmirul Hamzah. He has no login yet, though. (see User talk:219.92.87.2) -- Chris 73 Talk 07:27, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. Megan1967 03:15, 2 Jan 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 on 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. Carried out at 07:38, 7 Jan 2005 by User:Wile E. Heresiarch

Mary Burford

No evidence that this person exists. DCEdwards1966 03:20, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, seems to be part of the Mark olynciw vanity thing. Rje 03:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just stupid. --ZayZayEM 06:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Is she known under another name, maybe? Deb 12:27, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as silly vandalism. Wyss 22:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, possible hoax using Google Test. Megan1967 03:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Cleduc 07:04, 3 Jan 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 on 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. Carried out at 00:15, 7 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality

Wikipedia:WikiMaster

Wikipedia is not a role playing game. See Wikipedia:WikiWhacking Sortior 03:28, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, this one has to go as well. Rje 03:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete: DCEdwards1966 03:48, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete--ZayZayEM 06:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Newfoundglory 11:10, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and delete. Andre (talk) 21:53, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research (heh heh). Wyss 22:19, 1 Jan 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 on 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, apparently as a speedy. Carried out at 23:59, 2 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality

Paul kuehn

Clear vanity. Rje 03:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- DCEdwards1966 03:52, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete --ZayZayEM 06:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Newfoundglory 11:11, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, surname uncapitalized (vanity). Wyss 22:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Megan1967 03:16, 2 Jan 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 on 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, apparently as a speedy at 23:53, 2 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality

Wikipedia:List of extraordinarily long discussions about extremely unimportant matters about which hardly anyone gives a toss, and which do nothing towards resolving the matter anyway

While at one time this was probably funny...it has run its course and time for it to go. If someone thinks it is worth keeping it should go on BJAODN . Sortior 03:36, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, hardi-har-har. Rje 03:39, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- DCEdwards1966 03:43, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage/Humour and delete. Neutrality^talk 04:10, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
- I did it. Neutrality^talk 23:53, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Kappa 05:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete--ZayZayEM 06:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Move. Agree with Neutrality. This is part of the history WikiProject Peerage. Mackensen (talk) 06:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Move to BJAODN, because it's remotely funny. -- benjaminong 07:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nn. Wyss 22:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough for inclusion. Megan1967 03:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just delete it -- not funny enough to bother keeping. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete - just an old joke. Timrollpickering 00:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A comment - with the move, the thing doesn't make any sense, because the title is no longer there, and is not mentioned in the text of the article. I'd tend towards delete, but maintaining it in the current form is just incomprehensible (especially with the link from the main wikiproject). john k 03:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ha. ha. ha. Cleduc 07:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Carrp 02:35, 4 Jan 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 on 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. Carried out at 07:38, 7 Jan 2005 by User:Wile E. Heresiarch

Wikipedia:Wikipediphile

Never more than a dictdef. Duplicate of Wikipedia:Wikipediholic Sortior 03:49, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete A little too close to pediphile for my taste. DCEdwards1966 03:55, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
- According to old dict i presently have at hand, a pediphile would have to be something along the lines of a foot fetishist, as pedi- does not apply to children as pedo- sometimes does. But this term does indeed confusingly evoke pedophile (which my old dict is too old to admit is a word worth listing; 1930 Second International for those interested). --Jerzy (t) 06:53, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
Delete. But DCE should examine words like psychrophile, thermophile etc. --ZayZayEM 06:27, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Del. Confusing, unneeded, unestablished term. --Jerzy (t) 06:53, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
delete but paedophile has an a in it. Dunc|☺ 12:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- If you are lucky. Smoddy | Talk 23:50, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- And pedophile does not. By 1957, pedophilia made it into the 2nd Intl, the largest dictionary documenting English as spoken by the vast majority of its first-language speakers, and neither paedophile nor paedophilia was recognized even as a variation or an obscure word at the bottom of the page.
Speaking intuitively, though, such an appeal for the Mother Tongue contributes to the gut level impression that America's former masters are still hoping to add the first English edition of Kraft-Ebbing to their monumental pornography collections, trying to square the luminiferous aether with the Michelson-Morley experiment, and probably practicing droit du seigneur. You blokes might find it worth lightening up. --Jerzy (t) 18:19, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
Delete dicdef. Rje 13:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as a trivial construction. Wyss 22:16, 1 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Page has been redirected to canonization. Joyous 03:40, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Cannonization

This article still has a VfD notice, but is no longer actually listed on VfD (or was it ever?) Was this ever resolved? -- Curps 07:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was listed on vfd. As most votes are for deletion or redirection, I've redirected to canonization. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Obscure Simpsons triva. Neutrality^talk 04:08, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- DCEdwards1966 04:10, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep It's a real word. Search it on Wikipedia. [ by 68.251.209.16 04:21, 1 Jan 2005]
- Uh, yeah. It's a real word because it's on Wikipedia. Now that's circular logic. Delete. Rick K 22:46, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Real word spelt wrongly and incorrectly defined by obscure Simpsons trivia. --Kevin 04:28, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete --fvw * 04:40, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
Delete--ZayZayEM 06:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep for the time being, ideally move/merge to episode article. The content will be sorted out eventually, unless we delete it first. Everyking 06:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, supporting Everyking Kappa 07:50, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dicdef. iMeowbot~Mw 08:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Dicdef? It's a joke from an episode of The Simpsons. You think that should be in a dictionary? Everyking 08:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - I don't think that it belongs in a serious dictionary either. That's why I voted to delete, not to transwiki. iMeowbot~Mw 09:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-encyclopedic Simpsons fancruft. Rje 13:27, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This was a bad joke before the Simpsons used it. DJ Clayworth 17:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete this trivial but funny bit of cruft. Wyss 22:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough for inclusion. Megan1967 03:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to canonization (plausible misspelling), do not merge. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, no merge. -Sean Curtin 06:56, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Cleduc 07:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect without merge. GRider\^talk 23:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, no merge→Iñgōlemo← (talk) 03:51, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
Redirect to canonization, without merge, as with Wile E. Heresiarch. -- Hadal 04:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect (w/o merge) seems reasonable. RadicalSubversiv E 13:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to canonization without merge. Martg76 22:43, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Curps 07:45, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Melaen 11:42, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Made-up words in The Simpsons -- Kaizersoze 18:52, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Made-up words in The Simpsons --Bart133 19:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nope, the VfD is still alive. However, since no one is taking any action, I vote, Keep.

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 on 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. Joyous 02:42, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fiona Ma

Article (if you can call it that) fails to establish notability. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment: a bit of Googling suggests that she does get a lot of press. I wouldn't dismiss her notability out of hand. iMeowbot~Mw 06:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Still not really notable for being a boardmember. Delete.--ZayZayEM 06:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Will be an article one day, no reason to delete it now. Dan100 12:04, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep this article on a notable San Francisco politician. Dbiv 18:06, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, ditto. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand, please. Wyss 22:14, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep expanded version. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough for inclusion. Megan1967 03:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. Megan please explain what "notable enough for inclusion" actually means. —RaD Man (talk) 11:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The article does not state any notable achivements by her, accept that she held certain political positions. There is nothing in there which explains anything notable she achieved during her time in office. Megan1967 23:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Certainly merits more of a article; I'd say any city council member from a major city is encyclopedic if someone wants to write the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\^talk 17:46, 4 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to MJOLNIR MARK. Carried out on 10 Jan by User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

MJOLNIR MK VI

Trivia from Halo 2. Should be merged if useful. DCEdwards1966 06:32, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Merge, List of Halo 2 changes appears to be a repository for this kind of thing. Rje 13:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge, aaaarrrrrgggghhhh (thanks for listening). Wyss 22:14, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge, into List of Halo 2 changes. Megan1967 03:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge into MJOLNIR MARK V and move them both to a better title. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merged it Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:03, 2005 Jan 10 (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 on 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. Carried out at 23:58, 2 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality

Mexican Night

I'm sure it was a fun party, but it ain't encyclopedic. DCEdwards1966 06:51, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Rje 13:31, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Speedily. george 15:40, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Tuf-Kat 18:02, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete under criterion #4 (Very short articles with little or no context). David Johnson [T|C] 21:40, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as a 4, adios, muchacho... Wyss 22:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. William "Will" Reese? I know him. He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great. JRM 01:45, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough for inclusion. Megan1967 03:21, 2 Jan 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 on 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 [m:transwiki|]] to Wiktionary Rossami (talk) 23:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Infelix

dicdef DCEdwards1966 06:55, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Move to wiktionary if appropriate minus the "vanity" part Kappa 07:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd agree on the move, only I'm not sure Wiktionary has a latin language project. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Quoting Wiktionary's Criteria for inclusion "Words in any language are encouraged, but the explanations should be in English". Actually I think Klingon is a bit controversial, but Latin isn't. Kappa 20:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary. After checking with a dictionary, I can say the translation seems to be correct. Ливай | ☺ 04:09, 2 Jan 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 on 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. Carried out at 07:38, 7 Jan 2005 by User:Wile E. Heresiarch

Dave McClure

Not related to Troy. Not notable/Vanity. --ZayZayEM 06:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete: You may remember me from such VfD's as... DCEdwards1966 07:05, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, "Vanity Rides a Horse". Rje 13:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete ...and waves a CV. Wyss 22:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. wow. Cleduc 07:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Amounts to an advertisement. --Slowking Man 07:07, Jan 3, 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 on 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. Carried out at # 07:39, 7 Jan 2005 by User:Wile E. Heresiarch

Dengue Fever (rock band)

I like to support indie music, but not notable for encyclopedic value sorry.--ZayZayEM 06:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, this sort of LA cover band is nn in the extreme. Wyss 22:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough for inclusion. Megan1967 03:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete: promo, no evidence of notability in sight. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless article establishes notability Tuf-Kat 23:42, Jan 6, 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki. Joyous 02:46, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Mechanoluminescence

dictdef DCEdwards1966 07:03, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. So should heve been {{move to wiktionary}} not VfD. Jeff Knaggs 08:39, 1 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Joyous 02:47, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Rajkumar

Bad title. I can't anything particularly special that doesn't already exist at Rajkumar, so I think deletion is probably simplest.--ZayZayEM 07:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't redirection be simpler? Googling "Dr. Rajkumar" kannada gets 3,860 hits so it looks like a common alternate name. Kappa 07:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment: somebody Be Bold and turn this into a redirect. David Johnson [T|C] 21:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect... Wyss 22:09, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Megan1967 03:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've decided to be bold and add a {{merge}} to both. That should clear the whole mess up, I think. Alphax (talk) 13:26, Jan 3, 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 on 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

Scorpions (band)

Maybe this can be a speedy. The article was made to make a point. If this is an issue it can be brought up at Wikipedia:Requested moves. DCEdwards1966 07:23, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why this was nominated for VfD. Simply make it a redirect to "The Scorpions" or do a cut-and-paste switch so that the main article is "Scorpions (band)" and "The Scorpions" is the redirect. I'd do it myself right now however that might place the legitimate article on the band in danger of being deleted. 23skidoo 07:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- A cut-and-paste move is not acceptable. If there is a concensus that the article needs to be moved (and I don't know that there is) then this article needs to be deleted and The Scorpions moved to this location. DCEdwards1966 08:23, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  - Why? I'm really at a loss to understand this, considering the page that is the subject for VfD has no content. If there is a Wikipedia policy about this, please send me the link via my talk page. Otherwise Andrewa below probably has the best comment on this subject. 23skidoo 16:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - The reason a cut and paste move is unacceptable is that it would lose all of the edit history for the article being moved. The correct way to move an article is to use the "move" button. DCEdwards1966 22:14, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This really belongs in requested moves not here, and it is already listed there too. As the target page has no significant history I see no problem. Andrewa 08:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The original creator of the article could have just moved The Scorpions to Scorpions (band). I have no preference either way as to the name of the article. DCEdwards1966 22:14, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
I've redirected it. If there is consensus to move, I can do so -- just let me know. Tuf-Kat 18:06, Jan 1, 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki. Joyous 01:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Guardian Angel Prayer

Unless someone can supply the history of the prayer or some other information, this should be transwikied to WikiSource. DCEdwards1966 07:26, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki. This belongs on Wikisource, not here. Lankiveil 13:07, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC).

Transwiki to Wikisource. Rje 13:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki if it can be verified. Wyss 22:07, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Megan1967 03:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki article as it stands. I for one can provide some vague verification that this is a common prayer. Some source information and history would be nice, though. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 19:13, 2 Jan 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 on 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. Carried out at 07:40, 7 Jan 2005 by User:Wile E. Heresiarch

Yourself Fitness

Looks like an ad. DCEdwards1966 07:47, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Corrected certain parts of the document for a more informative view. holodoctor1 08:28, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
- User has less than 50 edits at this writing. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless more information can be added, making the article actually useful or informative. Brother Dysk
Delete, still an ad for a nn product. Wyss 22:06, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, clean up the article first. Megan1967 03:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Still an ad. WP != product catalog and/or yellow pages. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising. --Carnildo 08:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep as well. —RaD Man (talk) 11:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Del. Advertising & non-notable. --Jerzy (t) 04:57, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
Delete. If anything, the threshold for notability ought to be increased for commercial products. RadicalSubversiv E 13:12, 6 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:24, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Henry, the short lived

No evidence that this name was ever used. The baby is mentioned in the articles about his parents. That should be sufficient. DCEdwards1966 07:51, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Birth and (corrected) death date have been added to Henry VIII of England and Henry, Prince of Wales (disambiguation) now points there. That should be enough for people to learn about him. iMeowbot~Mw 10:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The name, which ought to be Henry the Short Lived, or perhaps more appropriately Henry, Prince of Wales (1511) or something. The title Prince of Wales has to be created, and is not automatic and the Prince of Wales page does not record it being created in this case (but neither does it for Henry's other son Edward VI), so this needs expert attention really. Dunc|☺ 12:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It's a very strange one. Henry staged a huge bash for this kid's arrival, and there was major hype surrounding the birth. That should be a fun one to track down, whether or not the formalities of creating him were completed. References disagree. iMeowbot~Mw 18:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Prince of Wales makes pretty clear which ones were and weren't; perhaps Prince Henry of England might be a more appropriate title. It has possibility of expansion along those lines mentioned, I suppose. Dunc|☺ 18:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - This is why the bureaucratic details (or lack thereof) would need to be confirmed. If the creation was never formally undertaken, his coolest title would be Duke of Cornwall. Isn't this title stuff fun? iMeowbot~Mw 01:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So Keep it. Wyss 22:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Other articles already have the scant info, and the child has never been referred to as "Henry the Short-Lived", right? Delete it, then. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
AFAIK this child was never referred to in this manner historically, at least not officially, and didn't live long enough to receive the title Henry, Prince of Wales. Therefore delete -- Francs2000 | Talk| (Graham) 19:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. How is he notable? Many royal princes died young and few are worthy of more than a line or two in their parents' entries. Gdr 19:42, 2005 Jan 3 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Article already deleted as copyvio. Joyous 01:24, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wade McClusky

Someones account of the Battle of Midway. Looks like a copy and paste (with copyright info). DCEdwards1966 07:59, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Google agrees. [1] I've blanked it and moved it to WP:CP where it belongs. —Korath (Talk) 10:36, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, copyright violation. Megan1967 03:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. wax it. Cleduc 07:07, 3 Jan 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 on 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 unclear. The general concensus was to [m:transwiki|]] this to Wiktionary. However, the last vote posted to redirect is the most compelling to me since this term already was defined in the Guadalajara, Jalisco article - proving the logical connection. I am choosing to exercise discretion on this one and redirect rather than transwiki. (I doubt there would be any objections if someone created the definition in Wiktionary independently.) Rossami (talk) 02:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tapatío

dictdef DCEdwards1966 08:02, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete or move to Wiktionary. Phils 13:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki Lev 14:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki and Delete. Wyss 22:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 03:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect and merge to Guadalajara, Jalisco. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:51, Jan 3, 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 on 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. Carried out at 07:40, 7 Jan 2005 by User:Wile E. Heresiarch

Ryx

Cruft of some kind. Maybe it can be merged if a suitable article exists. DCEdwards1966 08:21, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

We have nothing on the Realm series except a paragraph in Realm. The rest of the article deals with 'realm' as synonym of 'kingdom'. The only John Allen article we have isn't even about the author. There's nowhere this could be merged into. Delete. Phils 13:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as non-encyclopedic. Rje 13:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete this game cruft. Wyss 22:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge, if a suitable article exists. Megan1967 03:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete: gamecruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's not gamecruft. Special:Contributions/68.58.235.85 has been inserting bits about John "Gorgeous" Allen's Realm series in several articles. He's an author but I don't know if he's been published. Mrwojo 22:21, 2 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Laserdisc. Joyous 02:01, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Pioneer HLD-X0

Article about a non-encylopedic laserdisc player. DCEdwards1966 08:27, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

It's safe to delete. Laserdisc includes a description of the HLD-X9, pretty much the same player but with a flip mechanism. iMeowbot~Mw
Redirect to Laserdisc. Newfoundglory 11:43, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-encyclopedic. Rje 13:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Laserdisc to help HLD-X* lovers find the information. Kappa 21:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect or Keep. Wyss 22:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to to Laserdisc. Megan1967 03:29, 2 Jan 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 on 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, apparently as a speedy at 00:01, 3 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality

Gustav Stenmark

J. Random Programmer. Has a nice girlfriend named June Hammervald. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Delete. -Slowking Man 10:20, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Newfoundglory 11:36, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. How about writing an article about that guy working at the local McDonald's next time? It might interest someone... Phils 13:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And the McDonald's guy's girlfriend... Delete. Lev 14:31, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete Vanity. Rje 13:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, v. Wyss 22:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Words (almost) fail Peter Shearan 12:46, 2 Jan 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 on 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, apparently as a speedy at 00:01, 3 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality

June Hammervald

A nice young woman. Gustav Stenmark is her boyfriend. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Delete. -Slowking Man 10:20, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Newfoundglory 11:31, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Rje 13:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Lev 14:31, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. ✏ OvenFresh ☺ 16:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. And her little boyfriend, too!!! DJ Clayworth 17:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, v. Wyss 22:00, 1 Jan 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 on 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. Carried out at 07:41, 7 Jan 2005 by User:Wile E. Heresiarch

Marco of Alexandria

[I have not individually signed format corrections, including my moving of votes to the start of their respective entries for clarity.----Jerzy (t) 06:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]

Obvious vanity page with no useful information. Earlier today this page was listed for speedydelete but got reverted by the anon - however its not obvious that criteria for speedydelete apply, so VfD is the correct way to go. -- Solipsist 08:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep Verified Information. User:Dr Ali 9:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Del. Vanity. Not encyclopedic. ~~Delete.~~ -Slowking Man 10:21, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Newfoundglory 11:29, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
The following valid vote was struck thru solely on the excuse of violating etiquette, and has been restored by me. --Jerzy (t) 06:54, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
Delete. Worthless vanity rubbish. Lankiveil 13:09, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC). [Vote struck thru by 62.135.55.199 17:03, 2005 Jan 4, as noted by Jerzy (t) 06:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]
VfD etiquette:
- Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, and civility before adding a comment. [Unsigned by 62.135.55.199 17:03, 2005 Jan 4, as noted by Jerzy (t) 06:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]
The following valid vote was struck thru solely on the excuse of violating etiquette, and has been restored by me. --Jerzy (t) 06:54, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
Delete this horrid vanity page. Phils 13:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) [Vote struck thru by 62.135.55.199 17:03, 2005 Jan 4, as noted by Jerzy(t) 06:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]
VfD etiquette:
- Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, and civility before adding a comment.[Unsigned by 62.135.55.199 17:03, 2005 Jan 4, as noted by Jerzy (t) 06:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]
  - This, and the preceding identical complaint, have some basis in the rough language used. But the rough language does not rise to the level of personal attacks, and thus does not justify Dr. Ali's changing of signed contribs under our "remove personal attacks" policy. In fact, IMO even personal attacks would not justify any change other than to
    Del. [Reason given entails a personal attack, and has been removed pending its author's restatement of their reason for their vote]
  And IMO the time-stamped sig of the user making the excision should be appended, with notations that clearly distinguish which is the exciser's sig and which the intact sig of the voter. (The purpose of VfD is voting, so votes and their sigs must be left clear; an entry with a sig states that the words are those of the signer, so changing them and leaving the sig is forgery.) As to the etiquette aspects, VfD work is onerous, and IMO those who do it regularly (more regularly than i!) deserve some slack when they try to relieve the drone with some purple prose, as long as personal attacks are avoided. "Horrid" and "Worthless ... rubbish" are value judgements, and VfD can't be done without value judgements; my harshest criticism would be that quality is primarily a question for cleanup, and low quality per se is not a ground for VfD. Quality should not be complained about, IMO, without at least lip service to the issue of whether the low quality (in terms of WP's standards of what an article should be and do) is irremediable bcz it is inherant in the concept of the article. But a vote is a vote in any case; it stands despite any bad etiquette, and the remeid is in the hands of the result-caller for this VfD, who is encouraged to take quality of arguments into account, and may slight a vote for low quality of the reasoning, just as they may discard a registered user's vote for apparent sock-puppethood, and should normally discard IP votes (tho listening to IP arguments).
  
  --Jerzy (t) 10:46, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Rje 13:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Del Not a speedy, ~~Delete~~. --fvw * 19:41, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
Delete. Note to User:Dr Ali, could you please not alter what other people have written in this discussion? Many thanks. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, could be a speedy because of the link and minimal content. Vanity. Wyss 21:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No it couldn't, the only CSD criterion that comes close is Very short articles with little or no context, which this obviously isn't. --fvw * 22:06, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
Delete as vanity and ad. The article seems to exist only as a platform for a web link. The author had also edited Egypt to insert the name and web link, which causes me to doubt that this was in good faith. Shimeru 22:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Changing my vote to abstain. The article that's there now still doesn't quite convince me, but it's much better than the version that was put up for VfD. I'd suggest that the original author, or other supporters, add detail to the article that makes Marco's noteworthiness as an artist more obvious. Shimeru 23:11, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Egyptian artist who has been exhibited and who has sold paintings to a major international corporation, among others. Article needs bias removed, but subject is notable and encyclopedic.--Centauri 22:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~. Really? Then the article should reflect that. Which corporation would you be talking about, for example, and can any reputable source confirm? Delete in current form. JRM 01:39, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC) [This struck thru vote is by the user who cast it, who registered their intent to vote "abstain" in an edit stamped "20:58, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)", as noted by Jerzy (t) 06:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]
Keep. Well, fine Agreed that the Article might need some modification to make it "Encyclopedic"; It's not a vanity article at all, This is a real exhibited Artist as Centauri said and I have been following his work; so maybe the article needs to be redone and I can collect information and do that; all tips and guidlines are welcome. I suggest we * Keep this one and allow it to be modified. Regarding the links in Egypt and Alexandria. I think they are very much in place! As he is an artist in Egypt and Alexandria and to be honest I haven't heard of some of the names mentioned in those Articles. Reem[(User:62.135.55.3)] [02:42 & 02:45, 2005 Jan 2, as noted by Jerzy (t) 09:43, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]
- Anonymous users can't vote I'm afraid. --fvw * 16:58, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Megan1967 03:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete: vanity, promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable artist, just another stub awaiting expansion. Imagine if we'd always deleted such articles; Wikipedia would not exist. Dan100 15:56, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Imagine if we'd always keep such articles; Wikipedia would be an advertising board. Notable or not, the current article is just an ad for his website. Delete and start over. I for one can't improve the article, because I'm unable to find external sources on this man's activities. JRM 17:00, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
THE URL HAS BEEN REMOVED ... I don't understand WHY people always think that posting websites = advertsing, in my opinion this is limited thinking ... my bet is that when Dr Ali wrote this Article (or whoever wrote it) he couldn't upload any pictures because he wasn't signed in, so he simply refered to the welsite! Anyway the Website address has been removed and some other changes have been made to the article. ~~KEEP~~ .... I found many pages of other artists that are not as notable as Marco and who have very small articles that INCLUDE EXTERNAL LINKS!! .. examples include Takashi Murakami, Miltos Manetas, Ran Andrews, Dennis Bellone, Dennis Bellone, Louise Bourgeois, Christo, Dr. Hugo Heyrman, Marco Evaristti, and many many many many more!!!!!!! if you Vote to delete Marco of Alexandria's page, I suggest you ALL put those other pages on VOTES as well!! Being unfair is not a good thing and Also writing abusive words as Worthless vanity rubbish. Lankiveil and horrid vanity page. [User:Phils|Phils]] doesn't make the subject less notable but it makes those users less objective and thus less noteworthy. (unisgned comment by User:62.135.55.192 on 19:17 & 20:44, 2 Jan 2005)
You misunderstand. Merely including a URL isn't advertising — having an article that consists of almost nothing but a URL is, or more generally, an article with information coming only from one source, which happens to be the subject. I agree that some votes could be worded more tactfully. Finally: arguments of the form "we have this and therefore we should have this" are not valid; we can't be everywhere at once. Maybe some of those articles should indeed be deleted — or expanded. Unless some of them went through VfD already and created precedent, that has no bearing on this particular vote. Present version is moderately better than the original, if not by much. Giving verifiability the benefit of the doubt in the presence of contributors, and given that I don't vote on notability, I'm abstaining. JRM 20:58, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Oh dear, you've picked some bad examples there. Now it is true that Wikipedia has a way to go before it has decent articles on many artists, and I don't immediately recognise all the names on that list, but Louise Bourgeois(!?!) She's one of the top international sculptors today - many people here will know her giant spiders. Christo(!!) The man who wrapped the Reichstag and just about anything else he could lay his hands on. These are artists who anyone with even a passing interest in art would know - I hardly think they are 'less notable'. -- Solipsist 18:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep [For reasons stated above, beginning "THE URL HAS BEEN REMOVED".] [Refactored from unsigned comment by User:62.135.55.192 on 19:17 & 20:44, 2 Jan 2005 by Jerzy (t) 06:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]
Keep notable artist - I don't see any reason for deletion. Abrahams 01:55, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
Delete - Vanity and addition of links to Egypt show commercial aspect --BrianJ48 02:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, rewrite: written as vanity, but I strongly suspect notable subject. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:53, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. vanity. Artist is author. Wikipedia is not LiveJournal. Cleduc 07:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep Don't make assumptions Artist is not author, But it seems that it is someone who knows of the Artist! 17:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Left unsigned by 62.135.55.116, whose only conribution is to this VfD. JRM 17:39, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Has also already voted previously in the anonymous vote signed as Reem (whom the user of this IP in other edits has claimed to be). --fvw * 18:34, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH the MARCO OF ALEXANDRIA article? Why do u keep trying to make sure it doesn't get listed in Wikipedia???? is it something personal? I know that there are 2 Marco paintings in Den Haag, Holland!! is one of them owned by someone you don't like??? This seems very personal!!!!! 62.135.55.116 19:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) Don't cross out what others have have written, I am NOT Reem, I am her friend Dina and we are both Students in the Faculty of Arts and we are both followers of Marco's work, and we are all using the same internet cafe that is close to the Faculty of Fine Arts and that is why we have the same Address!! .. If you want to cross something out, cross out your own BIASED remarks. [Unsigned by 62.135.55.116 19:28, 2005 Jan 3, as noted by Jerzy (t) 06:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]
Delete. The good news; the article has some content now, and it looks like the original author, or a friend, has signed up as User:Abrahams (by the way those images need GFDL or similar copyright tags to avoid deletion). From comments on the article's talk page I was half way convinced that this artist might be notable and despite a shakey start the article could become useful. The bad news; I've been persuaded to do some digging and I can find no evidence of notability. In a Google search on 'Marco of Alexandria', the top three results are all self authored gallery pages - for a notable artist you should be able to find at least one independent reference. www.artfacts.net tends to be pretty inclusive and has plenty of Marco's but no results for Alexandria, similarly www.artcyclopedia.com. The list of international collectors was plausible, but really these could all just be friends from college. The editing behaviour of a number of anon users with very similar IPs doesn't help. I don't know, but without some independent evidence of notability, I'm going to have to go with 'delete'. -- Solipsist 19:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Some external websites exist!! www.branchesquarterly.com/3.4/Contributors3.4.htm; Marco Of Alexandria - Artist Portfolio at absolutearts.com ... and also there was an exhibition!!!! A Solo Exhibition!! If you will delete this based on the fact that Marco doesnt have enough web space, then you may as well Delete 70% of all the artists mentioned on this website! Anyway, it up to all of you really to make this a Real online Encyclopedia where you can find info About Any REAL entity or just a weak copy of britannica. I will not talk about this again neither me or any of my college friends!! We were all very excited about this new resource we discovered, but it seems that it isnt a resource after all and that it only serves the purpose of a FEW people, God know for what vested interest! How can friends from college exist in different countries, be of different ages, and have completely different careers!!!!!??? Give me a break Puleeeeeeeez! ... The Collectors page is plausible, I wish I could be on it one day! [ 19:28 & 19:38, 2005 Jan 3, as noted by Jerzy (t) 09:43, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]
  Left unsigned by 62.135.55.116. Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). JRM 19:48, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- I checked artfacts.com and it is nothing like wikipedia and does not provide FREE INFORMATION for the sake of Information. No, it is a sponsored site, sponsored by the galleries that are listed on its pages and its main purpose is to promote the works owned by those galleries, and that is why when you check someone like Picasso, you will find that they only show a few unknown pieces of his, simply because there are the pieces available for sale in the sponsoring galleries. They also rank artists according to their value to them!! i.e. which artists have more work shown in sponsoring galleries and thus more dollars into artfacts.com's pockets. The site immediately lost its credibility when i discovered that they didnt rank Vincent Van Gogh among the TOP 100 Artists!!!! but the answer was clear there were only 3 pieces in the sponsoring galleries. I don't think Wikipedia could use such a commercial site to judge who is a notable artist and who is not! ~~Keep~~ 62.114.188.45 04:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep [bolding removed] The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is an international non-profit organization dedicated to encouraging the GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and DISTRIBUTION of FREE, multilingual content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge. Wikimedia relies on public donations to meet its goal of providing FREE KNOWLEDGE TO EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD. [end of removed bolding] == When I read comments like the ones above on vfd pages, I always remember what WikiMedia is all about, and I always realise that those people who opt to delete pages because they don't like them or because their ego got stuck somewhere are the very same people who are against the Wikimedia and Wikipedia mission of [bolding removed] FREE KNOWLEDGE TO EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD [end of removed bolding] I dont see anything wrong with the page or any reason for its deletion, regardless of whatever has been said on this page, the article itself is valid, informative and encyclopedic!! ~~KEEP~~ 62.240.117.138 22:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep [for reasons stated in response of this date & time beginning "I checked artfacts.com"; refactored from edit signed "62.114.188.45 04:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)" by Jerzy (t) 06:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]
Del. Shouting, boldlettering and changing other people's votes are good reasons to vote ~~Delete~~. Rick K 00:35, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is about the article and not the formatting of this discussion page Mr RickK 62.135.55.131 00:59, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Those are really bad reasons to delete, Rick. It's about the article, not the people who wrote it. I say give it the benefit of the doubt and ~~keep~~ it, but it's pretty borderline.Dr Zen 01:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The last 3 votes include a dialogue which would be more comprehensible if the two replies were indented below the vote they are responding to. (And the votes made as separate single-bullet points, of course.) Rick's argument is not fully developed, but i think i grasp his drift, and i agree: the abusive and even dishonest tactics of the supporters betray insecurity about the unvarnished facts carrying the day. So the tactics are evidence of inadequate notability. --Jerzy (t) 10:46, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
Borderline Delete. As far as I can understand, notability is the issue here. Progress towards establishing notability on the article's talk page has not satisfied me that the artist is notable: I would like to see further proof (ie references) to show the artist's notability. I managed to find http://www.alexmarco.com/ex.html but I don't see why one single exhibition renders an artist worthy of an article. The quote don't add much to the article in my opinion either. I have to say that the heated anonymous keep comments (which approach flaming) here do not help the case to keep. If the article is to be kept it needs NPOVing, expansion, distancing from the artist and further proof of notability ie with references. Having said that, the artist might be notable (at least from his own website). But this VfD discussion is about the article and in it's current state I am not satisfied that is is suitable for inclusion. Request: would the users in the 62.136.66.xxx segment please read Wikipedia:Etiquette. Grox 07:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps you would have more success in establishing notability via the internet if you understood Arabic. Or perhaps an artist from a developing country doesn't need to have the same web presence as an American artist to be notable. Philip 13:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - I accept that might be true; perhaps you might like to provide links to Arabic sites for the purpose of verification/translations rather than nebulous assertions. Perhaps you might even agree to translate them for us or you could put them up for translation. I agree that web presence is not always proportional to notability however in my experience the two are directly proportional. Are there any books which mention Marco's art? If so, why don't we have ISBNs/titles/authors? That would help the keep case somewhat. Printed literature? Newspapers/art journals? Having said that, web presence is not the only thing that I am basing my delete vote on. Just because one company buys someone's art does not make them notable. Example: my friend's mum paints as a hobby and has been bought by BHP Billiton amongst others. Does that make her notable? No. Grox 11:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - I don't know Arabic. I was not intending to make "nebulous assertions" but what I thought were quite significant points about the difference between developed/English speaking World articles and other articles. There are some people on here who seem to think that not being famous in America makes someone not notable. This guy is an established professional artist. IMO that makes him at least as notable as some actor in a trashy TV series that a few hundred thousand people watch. Philip 03:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - Your point about Wikipedia's English-speaking world bias is not a new one. I accept it as valid. A least the keep vote lobby could provide real proof that he is notable - even if it isn't online or in English. I do not accept that just being an "established professional artist" makes one notable. The people who chalk up pavements with beautiful pictures in Melbourne are by your standard "established professional artists" but this does not make them notable or deserving of a Wikipedia entry. I for one will change my vote to keep if proof of notability is provided. [Sig omitted by Grox, 03:54, 2005 Jan 7, as noted by Jerzy (t) 05:55, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)]
        I can provide proof of Notability. In The March 2004 issue of Al-Qahira Newspaper (translates to Cairo) which is the Leading (only as far as I know) cultural newspaper in Egypt, there was an article about Marco's one man show which was held in the same March! I dont think the paper is available online, but I could send xerox copies of the one I have to anyone who is interested. (its in Arabic of course) Omar Filini 04:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        
        I mean can you believe that this "Encyclopedia" contains a full-length article on Cosmo Kramer and that some voting is going on in Favor of Keeping Dogfart and you people here are actually considering deleting a notable artist like Marco, simple because you don't know whether or not he is notable since he comes from Faraway Land! Yet a Fictionous Character like Kramer is Notable and occupies a whole page on Wikipedia? I mean I love Cosmo, he is the only character on Seinfeld that makes me laugh; but Guess What?!!? He isn't real, Marco is!! And then the people fighting to keep Dogfart on Wikipedia, I don't see any of the names that voted to delete Marco voting to delete the porn entry of Dogfart!! I guess Porm means more to the Western WikiPedia, than an Artist from the Middle East! Oh or is it a Global Wikipedia? I cannot be so sure anymore. Omar Filini 04:50, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep He has a website that isn't in his native language, and has sold to collectors in at least five countries. The corporate collector listed is BAT which is a British company with a market capitalisation of nearly $40 billion. It's best to give the benefit of the doubt on notability when you don't know the subject area, and I doubt that any of the people who have voted to delete know enough about the Egyptian art scene to express a valid opinion on the issue. Philip [13:12 & 13:13, 2005 Jan 5, as noted by Jerzy (t) 09:43, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]
- I'd like to point out the fallacy of arguing that purchases by a major corporation (with a market capitalisation of nearly $40 billion, no less) says anything about this artist. Corporations will buy anything to put on the walls; indeed, the larger the art budget the more likely that they'll sweep up something truly insignificant. Next time you're in a corporate office take a look around. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - I was responding to an earlier poster who wanted to know about his clients Philip 03:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - I doubt that BAT sends its staff wandering through the back streets and garrets of third world countries in order to "sweep up" bad art for their boardrooms. They are likely to buy from galleries, and any artist whose work has been exhibited and sold in a gallery is notable.--Centauri 03:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - Not really. Thery buy from wholesalers who buy in bulk, not for quality. Rick K 06:15, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
- In real estate the rule is "there's no such thing as an unsaleable house, there are just overpriced houses." Although there is such a thing as unsalable art, the ability to sell your art if the price goes low enough does not make you notable. Especially since, as Rick notes, art is today a commodity where size and dominant color relative to the rest of the planned decor can easily trump artistic merit. --Jerzy (t) 10:46, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
Keep i dont belive it would be a great ide to remove this post because i think an artist sould be able to express his information freely, and it souldnt matter if it where a painting other Pracket 01:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep Actually I came here and started browsing Egypt sites and doing searches on names of Egyptian Towns, historical figures and contemporary artists! I did a search on Marco and was really glad I found him and then I was shocked that some people voted to delete his page!! I really don't understand why or what those people mean by Vanity!!!!!!!!! I see no vanity in that page, just neutral information about the Artist which is all accurate to the best of my knowledge. In fact after my vote I will try to refine the article a bit more, as I think that I might know another fact about Marco that isn't written in the article. Omar, 217.29.133.200 01:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Del. May be, or turn into, a notable artist, but the standard is verifiability, and by no means "the benefit of the doubt" or a begged-for "break". If you can't prove it in a language we can easily get translated, your recourse is to work toward publicity in the languages we can use for verification. (But don't try to use WP for that publicity.) --Jerzy(t) 10:46, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
- This is supposed to be a global encyclopedia. No one owes it to you to conduct a publicity campaign in one of your list of approved languages. Philip 03:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - This is a global encyclopedia. Everyone owes it to WP to use its resources in a reasonable way, or go start their own project with their own resources. Our monetary resources are limited, but generally adequate to cover our hardware needs and unable to cover hired personnel. Because en: is a volunteer English-language 'pedia, its human resources are generous in the line of English-speaking editors, limited in editors bilingual in English and the languages of industrialized countries, and near zero in editors bilingual in English and the languages of less-developed countries.
  WP is worthless if we don't limit our content to what is verifiable. That combined with our human-resource mix enforces some degree of undercoverage on our contents. If people who have skills we are short in don't want to provide them, that doesn't make them bad people. But people who want us to sacrifice verifiability in order to reduce undercoverage by sacrificing our verifiability criteria are doomed to frustration.
  
  --Jerzy (t) 06:30, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
Delete, neither the article nor the discussion here provides any evidence of notability. RadicalSubversiv E 13:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neutrality^talk 22:24, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as the only claims to notability found so far comes from anonymous users who are acting in an untrustworthy way. If the person really were notable that fact probably would have turned up by now. DreamGuy 22:59, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
- On what basis do you assume that? How many Egyptian artists and art collectors do you think monitor this page? This is supposed to me a global encyclopaedia, not an Anglosphere one. Philip 03:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless the article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 23:52, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Commment. Material headed "****This was found on Solipsist's Talk page under the Heading Marco of Alexandria!" has been removed here. At present it is either an unfocused personal attack, or material of no known relevance to this already overly long page. It is appropriate for any material justified by prima-facie evidence of non-personal-attack relevance to appear here, but for now the material in question should be viewed, by those with enough interest, at User talk:Solipsist#Cleanup of his VfD. Careful researchers will also read the beginning of the dialogue it is part of at User talk:Jerzy#VfD Marco of Alexandria

--Jerzy (t) 06:30, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Vote Tally

As of 17:21, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

Delete
1. Solipsist 08:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Nominator)
2. Wyss 21:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
3. Graham ☺ | Talk 19:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
4. fvw * 19:41, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
5. Slowking Man 10:21, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
6. Newfoundglory 11:29, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
7. Lankiveil 13:09, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC).
8. Phils 13:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
9. Rje 13:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
10. Megan1967 03:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
11. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Already counted as voting as #1: Solipsist 19:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - Solipsist points out in the summary of an edit (that fixed this in a less explicit manner) that i (Jerzy (t)) counted both the nomination and the immediately above explicit vote, whereas Solipsist considered the nom as falling short of a vote. In any case, we agree that Jerzy (t) previously counted two votes from Solipsist, and should not have. --Jerzy (t) 16:33, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
12. Cleduc 07:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
13. Rick K 00:35, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
14. Grox 07:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) ("Borderline")
15. Jerzy (t) 10:46, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
16. RadicalSubversiv E 13:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
17. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
18. Neutrality^talk 22:24, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
19. DreamGuy 22:59, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
20. Tuf-Kat 23:52, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Keep (presumably qualified users)
1. Centauri 22:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. Dan100 15:56, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
3. Jmabel | Talk 05:53, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
4. Dr Zen 01:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
5. Philip 13:12 & 13:13, 2005 Jan 5
Keep (IPs and short-term users)
1. User:Dr Ali 9:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) (7 edits over 31 minutes; last was the one on this page, politely not called a pair of forgeries, at 19:49, 2005 Jan 1)
  - [The "pair of forgeries" comment next to that vote was by me in my edit of 09:43, 2005 Jan 6, where i did the tallies. It was not utterly objective, and a bit out of place in that otherwise technical and (i think) opinion-free edit; added to that, i then proceeded to explicitly address, in my next edit at 10:46, 2005 Jan 6, "the changing of others'" votes in the same 'graph with "forgery", potentially causing confusion about who thought the term "forgery" had been not been used, and when. --Jerzy (t) 16:33, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]
2. Reem[(User:62.135.55.3)] 02:42 & 02:45, 2005 Jan 2
3. User:62.135.55.192 on 19:17 & 20:44, 2 Jan 2005
4. Abrahams 01:55, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC) (13 edits over 56 minutes)
5. Dina, 62.135.55.116 17:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) (has shared an IP with Reem)
6. 62.240.117.138 22:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
7. 62.114.188.45 04:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
8. 62.135.55.131 00:59, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
9. Pracket 01:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) (only edit)
10. Omar, 217.29.133.200 01:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain
1. Shimeru 23:11, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) (cancelling 22:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC) vote)
2. JRM 20:58, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC) (cancelling 01:39, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC) vote)

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 on 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. Carried out at 22:31, 6 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality

GeArcani

Advertising for a non-notable online game, bordering on spam. Rje 14:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, it is nothing but a platform for the link, nn spam. Wyss 21:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete: promo, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. promo, unverifiable, not notable, etc. Cleduc 07:09, 3 Jan 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 on 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. The article defaults to keep, and has been moved to Alexander Gordon. Joyous 02:12, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Alexander Gordon, b 1635 in Aberdeen, Scotland

This article is on a non-notable person, and appears to be a platform for a link to a genealogy site. Rje 15:04, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nn genealogy. Wyss 21:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary, Wikipedia articles are not "genealogical or biographical dictionary entries." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If the legal case really is notable, and he really is one of the founders of Exeter, New Hampshire, then Keep (although not at this title). Rick K 00:30, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is not a genealogical entry as it doesn't even give details of his parents and children. Also the definition of "biographical dictionary entry" used on this site appears to be an Americanism, because in British English, "no biographical dictionary entries" means no general article about Churchill. What I think is meant is "no articles about people who are of no interest to people who don't know them". There is every chance that this a genuine historical figure and the article needs expansion, not deletion. Philip 03:18, 7 Jan 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 on 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. Joyous 02:17, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Francis Sant-Cassia

Reasons for deletion:

This page is not written in the style of an encyclopedia. It is largely written in the first person and gives personal opinions about the outcome of a the investigation into the murder of said Francis Sant-Cassia, which makes it an opinion article.

Quote: "Who and why he was murdered in such manner. Were there many high positioned peoples involved perhaps in Government and the Church who had been involved in a cover-up? The Courts of Malta and the Police, including Scotland Yard unable to pinpoint the real reason of his murder?

Those I have meet have all found the late Count to have been generous in all manner, so why and who murdered such a man of high privilege? Now Malta has joined the EU, should it be taken up to be resolved? His descendants and relatives still suffer to this day and I pity them tremendously. The Noble family of Sant-Cassia suffer not knowing who murdered their family member and why should it be left unknown. Bring to justice all of those associated to his death and those who had something to benefit from his painful death."

The author also makes a personal plea for the beatification of this man, giving the article a lobbying slant in the bargain.

Quote: "Lets promote the cause of Count Francis Sant-Cassia’s beatification. A SAINT of Malta’s 20th century should be remembered for his good deeds and honors then his horrible departure."

This page should be thus be deleted because, as is, it has little place in body of encyclopedic knowledge. --80.58.20.235 15:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here we have the typical case in which the decision to put an article on VfD is influenced by the article's poor style. Francis Sant-Cassia, as it stands, is an essay and thus completely unacceptable as an encyclopedia article. However, I would argue that baron Sant-Cassia himself deserves an article. He has a certain importance... Phils 16:40, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've rewritten the article, and tried to distill the facts from the former version, although this made it basically a stub. Unfortunately, there were not many facts in the previous version. At this point, the notability of the subject seems to rest mainly on his being the heir to a major Maltese title of nobility who was the victim of an unsolved murder in 1988. The original article mentions unspecified philanthropic activities, and the author made an unsupported appeal for his beatification, which I removed. What remains probably amounts to sufficient notability for an article, although I don't look forward to edit wars with people determined to restore the former hagiography. --BM 20:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep I am the original writer and did this article in such a manner mainly because this Count/Baron left a mark in Maltese society. His murder yet unsolved. It was best to leave such record in that manner, as people need to be reminded of who he was and remind those of what they did. If we expanded on who might have been involved, then wikipedia can easily be summonds to court on what it knows. Thats not fair. Maybe the Count should be remembered for his good deeds to society and his untimely death. Just a thought. Charles Said-Vassallo - www.maltagenealogy.com
Comment. Charles Said-Vassallo removed the VfD tag, and I have reinstated it. There is no policy against an anon editor submitting a n article to the VfD process. As I thought he would, he also reverted to his own version, which according to the Talk page, he considers to be "perfect". I won't change my vote here since VfD hinges on whether the subject is notable, and not on the writing style or demeanor of an article's author; however, I am quite concerned about the neutrality and encyclopedic style of all these articles on Maltese nobility. They need significant cleanup and NPOV work. --[[User:BM|BM] 21:07, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I second that. Phils 21:09, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

~~Strong Delete~~, Abstain. This article is a platform for an underlying Maltese political agenda and needs massive cleanup, NPoVing. Wyss 21:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Can you say more? Are you saying that the subject is not fit for an encyclopedia article? --BM 22:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. He's notable enough. However, the version by Charles Said-Vassallo should not stand, as it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Shimeru 22:08, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
- As a side note, though, it seems most of the Maltese nobility articles could stand to be looked over. Shimeru 22:12, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep after the heavy cleanup from BM. And yes, Wyss, you do need to say more — mere POV is not grounds for deletion, for one, and certainly not Strongly (the latter is supposed to imply that policy clearly supports deletion (Wikipedia:Deletion phrases), which just isn't so. Deletion cannot be used as a stick to discourage POV pushers, if only for the reason that attracting only "neutral" persons to work on Wikipedia would leave us with a very thin user base indeed. :-) JRM 01:35, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
Delete, non NPOV. Megan1967 03:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep it. Tsk, tsk, Megan1967. POV has never been a reason to delete an article, you should know better of all people. —RaD Man (talk) 11:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- One only has to look at other Vfds like Clitoris (censored), for example, to see that precedents have been set before and after on POV. Megan1967 00:50, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As said, POV isn't a reason for deletion. Just needs fixing. Dan100 15:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. mark for fix. Cleduc 07:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I am the author and have decided to have it removed. Charles Said-Vassallo
No, you are not. You are the original author. The present version has little to do with your original. Even if it did, you already gave us permission to use it, and you cannot retroactively revoke it. I point you to the boilerplate at the bottom of the editing page: "All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Project:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." (Emphasis in the original). You are still free to edit the current version, and you are free to vote to have it deleted here, but you do not get a special say for being the original author. JRM 11:42, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
Comment: This VfD was nominated by an anon. Why are we discussing this at this time? Shouldn't we wait for a valid VfD nomination to exist before we vote? Alphax (talk) 13:24, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Have you read BM's comment? He reinstated the VfD tag after it was removed, so that would make it "valid", no? More importantly, there is no policy that a nomination from an anon is "invalid", as far as I can tell: not on Wikipedia:Deletion policy, not on Wikipedia:Deletion process and not on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Why would anyone's nomination be "invalid" to begin with, if we have to judge the article on its own merits? If anons are disrupting VfD with obviously bad-faith nominations, that's another matter, but that's clearly not the case here. (It's true that the nomination was "invalid" in the sense that the original article was just heavily POV and nothing else, but I take it that's not what you're getting at). If anon nominations are a serious issue, then please make it explicit policy. I seriously object to all anons being "guilty by suspicion" on certain matters just because they're anons. You might have a case for claiming they can't vote here, though even that is iffy, but implying they can't even nominate here needs more justification. JRM 16:49, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
Keep as re-written. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:44, 6 Jan 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 on 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. Image has been listed on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion and subsequently deleted. Joyous 02:25, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Olan.JPG

Obvious drivel. Egil

Delete Phils 16:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Should be listed on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:55, 1 Jan 2005
Done. Egil 20:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)(UTC)
Delete. Megan1967 03:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Isn't there speedy delete for images like this? Cleduc 07:11, 3 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:26, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Jan Magne Herstad

Totally unnotable local politician. Image is probably nicked. Egil 15:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Grotesque at best. Phils 16:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn mayor. Wyss 21:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, mayor of a small town in Norway - non-notable Marcika 22:09, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge article information (at this point, just that he's with the centrist Senterpartiet) into Naustdal, to which it's perfectly relevant. Samaritan 05:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge done (in infobox) Egil 19:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. not notable. now if he kills somebody... Cleduc 07:13, 3 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Magnar Falkenstein

Totally unnotable local politician. Image is probably nicked. Egil 15:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, political ad, probable vanity. Wyss 21:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable member of Norwegian political splinter group - Marcika 22:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The article does not state what governing body he sits on, if any. Merely being a member of a political party and occasional candidate for election (where candidacy is easily achieved) doesn't make you notable. Average Earthman 22:41, 2 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:55, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

note: pending deletion.

Daniel Shanks

Self-promotion. No general interest whatsoever.

NOTE: Seems there is also a mathemathician of this name, who may warrant an article (I don't know)

You're not thinking of William Shanks, are you, who calculated pi to 707 places, only 527 of which were accurate, are you? Just asking... Dpbsmith (talk) 19:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, the timeline of mathematics says:

1961 - Daniel Shanks and John Wrench compute π to 100,000 decimal places using an inverse-tangent identity and an IBM-7090 computer,

Egil 20:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Egil 16:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity, not notable yet. Rje 19:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as vanity for now. Wyss 21:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not yet noteworthy. Shimeru 23:00, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:35, 2 Jan 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 on 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. Image was listed on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion and subsequently deleted. Joyous 02:29, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Image:119-1966 IMG.JPG

Self-promotion. Egil 16:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Should be listed on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Done. Egil 20:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Megan1967 03:35, 2 Jan 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 on 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. Image was listed on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion and subsequently deleted. Joyous 02:29, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Danny nmu 2004 70.jpg

Self-promotion. Egil 16:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Should be listed on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion -- Graham ☺ | Talk
Done. Egil 20:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Megan1967 03:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Under what circumstances are we deleting this? What if its being used for a personal user page? There are exceptions to the self-promotion rule. I am voting KEEP unless I can be persuaded otherwise. —RaD Man (talk) 11:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, but its not linked to a personal user page RaD Man (Is that short for Radioactive Man?) Megan1967 00:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The copyright status is unknown, and the user, in his short Wikipedia history from Oct 22-25 2004 seems to consist of mostly uploading copyvio images and articles of no notability. Egil 13:23, 3 Jan 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 on 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. Carried out at 19:50, 1 Jan 2005 by User:Francs2000

Cidershire

It seems there was a VfD consensus to delete this article. It still exists, and I don't think it was recreated. It looks like it simply wasn't deleted. --BM 16:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Should be speedied. Xezbeth 17:15, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
It should be speedied in either case. Rje 19:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedied as vfd consensus to delete has already been reached once. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Previous VfD Discussion

Cidershire was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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. 6 votes to delete. Postdlf 06:18, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All of 4 google hits to the same game-related website, nothing links there, and none of the pages it links to say anything about it. Fails to identify which fiction it belogs to. Suspect it is not notable. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 21:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Never heard of it. Delete. Deb 21:41, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Quaint idea, sadly made up. Delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:45, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I suspect this is "fiction" in the sense of "Rust belt" and "Bible belt" in the US are fictional names for areas. I.e. I think this is a neologism, rather than a fiction breakout. Geogre 00:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --*drew 00:34, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Mmmkay. Non-notable (made up) and odd. Nadavspi 00:46, 19 Oct 2004 (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 on 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. Carried out at 22:26, 6 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality

Billones

Newcomer writing about non-notable family. DJ Clayworth 17:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. Rje 19:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as genealogy vanity. Wyss 21:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity - Marcika 22:15, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Megan1967 03:37, 2 Jan 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 on 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, apparently as a speedy at 21:55, 1 Jan 2005 by User:Jpgordon

Armitage Shanks (photographer)

Is someone having a bit of fun here? Armitage Shanks is a UK toilet brand name. Supposed Covent Garden Opera director "Derek Sainsborough" gets no google hits. The only google hit for "Ginger Snaps and Lemonade" + "Nigel Hopkinson" is wikipedia. -- Infrogmation 17:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Speedy as part of the sneaky vandalism also involving Kimberley Clark and Nigel Hopkinson. Rje 19:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yup, that'd be speedy. Idiots having fun. Phils 21:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete this vandalism and the two (below) that came with it. Wyss 21:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vandalism. Megan1967 03:37, 2 Jan 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 on 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, apparently as a speedy at 21:55, 1 Jan 2005 by User:Jpgordon

Kimberley Clark

Supposed wife of Armitage Shanks (listed above) from the same anon editor; name is also paper company that makes tissues and toilet paper. -- Infrogmation 17:40, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Speedy as sneaky vandalism. As if the injoke name wasn't enough, none of the plays or films mentioned exist, nor was anyone of her name nominated for the 2000 Olivier Awards. Rje 19:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as stealth vandalism (well, so obvious it may as well be "silly" too). Wyss 21:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vandalism. Megan1967 03:38, 2 Jan 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 on 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, apparently as a speedy at 21:55, 1 Jan 2005 by User:Jpgordon

Nigel Hopkinson

The only google hit for "Nigel Hopkinson" + "playwright" is Wikipedia. Only articles linking here are the Armitage Shanks and Kimberly Clark articles listed above. -- Infrogmation 18:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Speedy as sneaky vandalism. This guy doesn't exist, for a start the 1996 winner of the Evening Standard award for most promising new playwright was Martin McDonagh. Rje 19:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as stealth vandalism, a hoax. Wyss 21:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vandalism. Megan1967 03:38, 2 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:57, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Youth Hostile

Band with no records mentioned and no google hits. DJ Clayworth 18:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Dbiv 18:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Jeff Knaggs 18:50, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Rje 19:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Wyss 21:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. nn. --Viriditas | Talk 03:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Newfoundglory 13:33, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 23:54, Jan 6, 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:58, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Filth mainstram

Delete, vanity, as already said. Schultz.Ryan 00:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pure vanity (and also misspelled). --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. Rje 19:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unbelievable, poor quality vanity.
Delete as pimple puff, teen boy vanity. Wyss 21:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Megan1967 03:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete; Vanity. Newfoundglory 13:35, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on 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. Article has been redirected to Worms (game). Joyous 02:32, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

WormNET

Specific game servers are not notable. --fvw * 20:20, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Delete, ad, nn platform for a link, almost a speedy. Wyss 21:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ad. Rje 01:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Worms (game) and delete. --Viriditas | Talk 03:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge, with Worms (game). Megan1967 03:40, 2 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:59, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Kellner Jr.

Vanity page. Fredrik | talk 20:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Note that authoring IP 69.143.68.212 exhibits a suspicious vandal-like behavior. To date, he has promptly removed his own vandalism but an eye should be kept on him. Phils 21:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
More information to... Delete, vanity or worse. Wyss 21:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Rje 01:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity page. "More information to come..." I think not. --Viriditas | Talk 03:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Megan1967 03:41, 2 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:00, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

KGwannaB

No evidence of notability. --fvw * 21:10, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Delete the DJ... delete the DJ... delete the DJ... delete the DJ... Delete. Wyss 21:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable even if they could keep a website up and running. Dave6 00:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Rje 01:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:41, 2 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:02, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Bianry

Typo, is this mergeable anywhere? I suspect we've got this covered already. --fvw * 21:36, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Different meanings of binary and aspects of the binary numeral system as well as binary data are throughly covered in various articles. Delete. Phils 21:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Binary numeral system has all the content of this article and more, so it does not need to be merged. - Marcika 22:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, content already exists elsewhere. Rje 01:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and optionally redirect. Gazpacho 01:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, to Binary numeral system. Megan1967 03:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it counts as a common misspelling does it? A common typo perhaps, but no more common than any other transposition. --fvw * 03:45, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
Delete, content elsewhere, and I don't think a redirect is called for (although I wouldn't object to something that harmless). Ливай | ☺ 05:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as an obvious, well-intentioned user mistake. Wyss 04:19, 3 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:03, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sgcsim

Non-notable simulator of a tv series prop. --fvw * 21:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable advertising. Rje 01:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ad. Wyss 04:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Dont Delete, This isnt an advertisment, our project doesnt need any ads, but we've had quite a few users who have been asking for me to place a listing on this site. If I was advertising, I would have put alot more details, screenshots, download links and so on, I purposly didnt do that because that would have been advertising. Also, other games are listed on this site (though our project is a simulator), see Star Trek: The Next Generation, A Final Unity or Stargate SG-1 (video game), both of these are pure games and they arent on trial for deletion. CptCox 11:02, 13 Jan 2005 (EST)

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 on 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 article was listed as a copyright problem, and has been deleted. Joyous 03:05, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

SPARSA

Advert. Masterhomer 08:28, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

comment: found this at random and am completing submission to VfD Azikala 22:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
has been copyvio tagged. --fvw * 22:34, 2005 Jan 1 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Dwellnor

In-jokes are not notable. --fvw * 22:32, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable chat vanity. Rje 01:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, only of interest or relevance to members of one IRC channel. Ливай | ☺ 05:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete ...uhm ...like they said. Wyss 04:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. IRCcruft. Rick K 23:34, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on 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) 04:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Noble Order of the Lamp and Sword

Not verifiable. --fvw * 22:43, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Delete. "[...] what is known about the Order (the bulk of which is written here) comes from rumors or from careless talk by the members. It is possible that the Order intentionally starts rumors about itself to confuse outsiders." (Emphasis mine.) The candor is appreciated. Curiously enough, this can't be an encyclopedia article especially if it's all true. JRM 01:21, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable, unless verifiable sources are provided and verified prior to expiration of VfD discussion. Verifiability is non-negotiable. It means that Wikipedia cannot have articles on any secret societies that are serious about secrecy, but that's the price Wikipedia pays for being an encyclopedia. Is it just me or are we getting more "smells-like-a-hoax" articles lately? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We've had some better-than-average trolls lately, IMO. They're still easy to ferret out, but no longer as obvious as some of the early attempts; we actually have to put some effort in (though I'd wager the editor-to-troll effort ratio is still close to 1, which means the trolls are still losing).
However, the nice thing is that we don't have to be sure whether it's a troll or not — we just apply our criteria as diligently as possible, and it'll all work out in the end. For example, this particular article, even if genuine (and I'm not making any judgement on that), defines itself as unverifiable. That more or less ends the discussion right there: pony up the sources, or else. JRM 02:42, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
Listen to JRM and Delete this campus prank. Wyss 04:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete: I flagged this (along with all secret society articles) initially at the village pump and vote for deletion as well. Samw 05:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Antandrus 05:11, 3 Jan 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 on 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) 04:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dawm Dirty Faces

No page links there. I could not find any reference to the movie nor to the director on internet. olivier 22:44, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Rje 01:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, film vanity. --fvw * 08:13, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
Delete, one can always smell an amateur by the "list of influences". Wyss 04:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No such film, no such director. Rick K 00:14, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on 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 unknown

The current link is dead. I can not find any evidence that an article of this title ever existed or was deleted. In confusion, I'm closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 02:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How to get rich using Wikipedia

This looks like Sollog crap. Perhaps I'm wrong -- if so, please tell me. I'm just doing this to see what others' views are here. This article certainly doesn't look right, but then again, it may just be some humor.Zantastik 09:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tough call. Maybe move to Meta? Pak aran 06:49, 4 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.