Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 7: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:39, 7 May 2005

May 7

Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.

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. – AB CD 19:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Raven Darktalon Blood

This seems like somebody doesn't understand a joke from Penny Arcade. Why do you think they would have it optioned for 5 films when even huge franchises aren't optioned in that huge of an amount? An article this cluelessly made deserves deletion. -- LGagnon 01:08, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, this is a very recent Penny Arcade joke. Perhaps someone thought that the (real-world) Penny Arcade artists were seriously entering the movie business with this title??? Master Thief Garrett 01:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either a joke, or the victim of one. Alai 02:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a joke. The text is taken verbatim from the comic strip. --Fastfission 15:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Misunderstanding or joke. --Sjender 16:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why, but this account seems to have been created for the sole purpose of casting this vote... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It just so happened that casting this vote was the first thing I did with the account. I created the account because I like having accounts on stuff just in case I want to do things. Is it poor etiquette for your first action to be one of destruction? I mean, I don't want to make anyone nervous or anything. --Sjender 17:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Votes from very new users tend to be discounted in VfDs, because they're intended to develop a consensus in the Wikipedia community, and new Users (and anons) are thought to be not yet part of the community. There's a template about that, which I'll try to find and stick on your talk page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, If the character isn't already listed as a recurring character in the Penny Arcade article, merge the relevant information. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:45, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- He's only *just* been introduced, we won't know yet. Most new characters in the strip do end up being recurring, but this one might not. Master Thief Garrett 23:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, he's been around for a while [1] [2]- He started as a running joke in 2004. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:32, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Probably a joke, noone could be that stupid. MonsterOfTheLake 01:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You've never visited the GameFAQs boards, have you? Master Thief Garrett 02:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 21:38, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Employment Pathways for Interns and Co-ops

Advert for IBM recruitment program. The spamlinks aren't even valid. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too obscure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:00, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to assume good faith on the part of article creator User:TerraFrost: it's something potentially interesting they had knowledge of and quickly wrote up. Indeed, the employment practices and programs of large employers are notable; the second section in IBM is Culture including subsection Diversity and workforce issues. I'd hope this information, modest as it is, could go somewhere. Samaritan 00:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I only got 24 googles for "Employment Pathways for Interns and Co-ops" IBM RJFJR 01:16, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into IBM. Does not have the notability to stand on its own. Bubamara 04:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with IBM. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with IBM. I agree with Samaritan's take on it. DeweyQ 06:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge My intention in creating this page wasn't to provide IBM an advertise, but regardless, I, too, now think this article is pointless. In fact, I've pondered voting this article for deletion, myself, several times, heh. TerraFrost 07:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - agreeing with Bubamara - Andre Engels 09:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with IBM. Megan1967 11:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 19:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Jiang

Vanity. The only possible notability I can come up with is he coded SimpleAIM. Delete. —Mar ka ci 2005-05-7 T 00:23 Z

Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:54, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I might be biased by the diaristic nature of the content, but does not seem very notable at all. Alai 02:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Bubamara 03:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to User:Kelvin Jiang :) MicahMN | Talk 03:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be autobiography of a non-notable (or at least not-yet-notable) person - Andre Engels 09:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, as personal page clearly implies. User:Vladdraculdragon
Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 19:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6th Magic Kingdom Novel

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, page is misnomer, all hits seem to link back to "us" therefore probably non-notable. Doesn't even give the REAL name of the book. Master Thief Garrett 00:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1: Tried to Speedy it for no-content but Golbez removed the tag, saying "this has been on here for hours; apparently no one thinks it's delete-worthy, and no one wants to remove the notice. I will. Put it on vfd; maybe they have ideas." It was NOT my intention to drag this thru Vfd but it seems I have no choice. Master Thief Garrett 00:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since we don't even know what the title will be... or anything else about it. RJFJR 01:09, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
I'd say merge into Magic Kingdom (Terry Brooks), but it's already there. So delete. Bubamara 04:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not likely that someone will search under that name anyway. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if there had been actual information, I would have voted merge instead - Andre Engels 09:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect to the author, is this factual or just a guess to get first-posting props ? Delete and keep deleting until there is some substance. --Simon Cursitor 07:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no info. --Marianocecowski 10:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:38, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Mitchell Adriel Gardner

Mitchell "Mizzatch" Gardner was born on December 23rd,1990 and is the Guitarist and vocalist to an American Punk/Rock band named Semper Dingus. He promoted his own band and now is opening the uterus to being a noticed with Semper Dingus ...hoping to be noticed via a vanity page in Wikipedia, I guess. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. I would expect to have heard of a 14 year old punk-rocker if there was any trace of notability. WCFrancis 03:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bubamara 04:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - his only credit to fame seems to be being a member of a band which is non-notable even on itself - Andre Engels 09:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
- Unsigned vote by User:Vijaykrishna [3]
Delete. Crap. Postdlf 18:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:38, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Lifeless People

Alexa rank: 135,225, and looks like promotion for hosting and is not even funny. Feydey 01:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tiles 02:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, forum promo. Megan1967 03:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Megan1967. Bubamara 04:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is. Needs to prove notability and be rewritten with an unbiased POV to stay. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - might be notable, but no evidence of that has reached us yet. - Andre Engels 09:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable

Hello - advert !! Delete--Simon Cursitor 07:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:40, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Entropia (band)

non-notable band, Delete RJFJR 01:06, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Two gigs and no recordings before breaking up. Delete —Wahoofive (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be the band of the same name listed on allmusic.com. However, I eagerly await the band's web page due sometime next year. Gamaliel 02:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 03:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:26, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The Entropia listed on allmusic.com would be a borderline case for inclusion. However, these guys aren't. Capitalistroadster 23:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:40, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Nolan Sinkler

An auto-biography trying to promote oneself. Georgia guy 01:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oi. Delete, vanity, non-notable. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 02:05, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - vanity article Tiles 02:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another non-notable high school student. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bubamara 04:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity, not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Sorry...didn't read the guidelines. Yeah...delete it. NolSinkler (Talk) 10:31, 7 May 2005
- Thank you NolSinkler for your show of good faith. Samaritan 16:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:19, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Fantasia's Youth

non-notable. One of many teams raising funds through the American Cancer Society's Relay for life. This seems to be part of a fund raising project. While I applaud their efforts to raise money to fight cancer there are a lot of teams doing the same thing. Delete. RJFJR 01:36, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, 100% failure on the google test (both Fantasia's Youth and Garrie Turton only one hit, being a copy of Wikipedia content) - Andre Engels 09:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good intentions aplenty, but I see no reason to have pages on every charity fundraiser in the universe, much less the individuals & teams who participate in them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:41, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Medianet group

This may be a speedy delete canidate, but I felt it would be better to bring it here. Article is currently bordering on nonsense, and a search through the page history does not show anything of much merit related to the article title. Closest match to the title on a Google search is at http://www.medianetgroup.com/, homepage to a small (multi-level marketing?) company of limited notability. --Allen3 ^talk 01:41, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I couldn't work out what the article was about, but it was probably not notable. Sjakkalle 07:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The first line is not even close to being enough for an article. The rest of the text is copied from the article Border Gateway Protocol and has no visible connection to the subject of the article. - Andre Engels 09:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Agree with Andre. I wonder if the copying was an honest mistake of some kind or an attempt to pad out the article beyond a single sentence with an irrelevant info dump. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:42, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Timeline of American music and radical politics

This is a list with one entry. It has been vandalised but rather than revert I suggest that the page be deleted as it appears to add no information about either American music or radical politics. Tiles 01:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the version with the most complete list if anyone wishes to consult it. No vote. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, wrong version. I was tracing a vandal's contributions. But I still think Delete - Tiles
Delete, looks to be someone's class project. Lecture notes on vfd in the past have been deleted and I dont see any difference with this list. We already have (X) year in music for every year on Wikipedia so even if complete it wouldn't be all that necessary. Megan1967 03:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From the first version of the article: This page began as a site for work undertaken in Chris Smith's seminar of the same name at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, TX, in the Fall 2004 semester. Principle among its offerings is a timeline of American Music and Radical Politics, a collaborative work-in-progress by Dr Smith and the students of the seminar. - No vote - Andre Engels 09:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What on earth does "Jamaica founded" have to do with the article title? Seems like original research and largely redundant with the 'year in music' series. Niteowlneils 20:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Orangs and oranges. Mikkalai 20:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You can't make a list on two completely unrelated subjects, especially if it's not a list at all. Mgm|^(talk) 21:07, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, class project. K1Bond007 05:36, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged - SimonP 21:40, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Lollerskates

Pointless internet slang, article makes no effort to establish that it is encyclopedic --Stormie 02:03, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect ~~to internet slang~~ as per SPUI. Heh, I remember this coming up on the IRC channel. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 02:09, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
How about a merge to LOL (Internet slang)? --SPUI (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 03:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to LOL (Internet slang). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I think it's not valuable enough for a merge - Andre Engels 09:18, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, notable. Grue 18:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, agree with Grue Ralphael
Merge with LOL after a thourough check. I suspect a large portion of the included list is neologisms. Mgm|^(talk) 21:10, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research CDC (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to/with LOL (Internet slang). Bloodshedder 02:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge R adiant _* 13:02, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Merge, definitely. Also, be on the lookout for the possibility of these existing or being created: Lollercaust, Roflcopter, and Lmaonade. Encyclopedia Dramatica also has listings for those things if there's any sort of redirect for those things...--Badlydrawnjeff 15:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep or mergeis ok too Yuckfoo 18:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE, not merge. I there isn't any knowledge, even about slang, lost by deleting this. Even slang has to be more than just words people say or type, or even word substitution, there still has to be meaning behind the expression. I see an internet meme, but no meaning. Steamloller this to death. If they're willing to accept this at Wiktionary, put it there, but I wouldn't be the one to submit it. --Unfocused 14:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Redirect and I'll tell you why. It may well be a valid article, but there's way too much that smells of original research in there at the moment. I'll keep it in the history if someone else things they can resurrect the good bits. Golbez 00:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Bro

wikipedia is not not a dictionary, and certianly not a dictionary sourced by original research, and definitely certainly not a dictionary of wrong original research. (Brother began with monks? Check out the Bible for an earlier citation... --Samuel J. Howard 02:07, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Delete —Wahoofive (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV original research. Megan1967 03:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't even mention current-day use here in NZ... like in "kia ora, bro!" hehehe... Master Thief Garrett 04:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to brother - pretty common nickname version. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 05:52, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
Redirect -- to brother - Longhair | Talk 08:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to brother. Grue 18:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, keep. It is no more of original research than the article on dude, and there is a chance someone could make it neutral and factually correct. Grue 07:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to brother BigFatDave 19:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, if necessary. It's no worse than the dozens of other slang terms in Category:Slang: dude, geek, &c. — RJH 19:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to brother, unless someone can provide correct research. Don't forget to include the link to the bro disamb. Mgm|^(talk) 21:12, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Don't redirect because it has evolved into more than just an abbreviation. I have "bro's" that are not related to me, and I also have a brother who I would never call a "Bro". It's not a dicdef because there is encyclopedic information about it's use in different cultures. This is not original research. It's not a new term or a new definition of an old one (WP:NOR criteria). The background info should be condensed and verified though. —Teknic^Talk/Mail 03:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Agree with Grue. --L33tminion (talk) 04:34, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete. Slang dictdef. Plainsong 06:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, VfD isn't cleanup— agree with Grue and Teknic, has potential. —RaD Man (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redir as above. R adiant _* 14:44, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Transwiki to Wiktionary if they want a copy, but I suspect that there's too much original research/made-up material here, particularly in the "origins" section. --Carnildo 20:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely, the bit about the monks is, as far as I know, utter twaddle. I've read screeds and screeds of info about monks and nothing in that led me to believe they would abbrieviate or "trivialise" each others' titles. I don't know that abbreviations even *existed* until the 20th century. Master Thief Garrett 23:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki this belongs on wiktionary. ALKIVAR™ 02:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless and not even factually correct. Uses vague language to connotate connections that aren't even there. Pacian 03:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let voters know, this is already on wiktionary, and we don't want original research there either! --Dmcdevit 03:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Gamaliel 05:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:19, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

McKenzie Calabrese

The subject of this page seems to be non-notable, with only 360 google hits. --Canderson7 02:15, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

The article borders on being incorrect:
- "She started acting at a very early age" - she has not done anything since
- "is a child actor" - apart from being female, she also had her only role between birth and third birthday, it would be doubtful whether at that age it should be called 'acting'
Single role, age (under) 3, shared with her two twin sisters. I would say delete - Andre Engels 09:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB only shows one role for one season shared by three people. Delete, but a short mention in Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman wouldn't hurt. Mgm|^(talk) 21:15, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Redirect. No content worth merging, however people may look up the name. Golbez 00:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Lila Lipscomb

No offence to the woman, but I doubt she rates more than a mention on the Fahrenheit 9/11 article, and doesn't need her own article. Grutness|^hello? 02:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Fahrenheit 9/11. Her scenes are an important part of the movie, but she's not notable otherwise. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 07:37, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- In case my comment "I doubt she rates more than a mention" is the reason for the "important" comment, I should "disambiguate" that comment. I think that in the Fahrenheit 9/11 article she deserves more than a passing mention, but I do not think she rates a mention other than on that page. Grutness...wha? 11:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no need to merge, since Fahrenheit 9/11 already tells more than this article does. - Andre Engels 09:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fahrenheit 9/11, but the content isn't really worth merging. Philthecow 14:57, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Keep seen in a notable propaganda film. Klonimus 17:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Fahrenheit 9/11. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fahrenheit 9/11 can cover this. Gamaliel 18:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fahrenheit 9/11 until there's actual info to warrant a seperate article. Mgm|^(talk) 21:17, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Being in a single propoganda film does not make you notable. (Anyone remember a person from a single WWII propoganda film?) - Tεx τ urε 17:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 23:59, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Muliebrity

Lovely dicdef: Muliebrity is the state of being a woman. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Info - This word appeared in Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. (1995), as well as The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. (2000). It appears to already have a Wiktionary entry Knoma Tsujmai 03:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gender role, its already in Wiktionary. (vote of Megan1967; changed below; <mikkalai>)
- Keep and expand. I noted there is already an article on Virility which is the opposite of this term. Megan1967 04:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't the opposite of virility! Wel, it is, but most have never heard of it, unlike virility. Who's *actually* going to enter this as a keyword, AND get it spelled correctly, AND expect it to actually BE here??? Master Thief Garrett 04:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, the opposite would be femininity. (from Latin, 'vir' = man, 'femina' = woman, 'mulieber' = not a word). Radiant_* 13:04, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  - I hang my head in shame, I should have thought of that. I took five years of Latin and I can't even point out a simple word origin like that? Master Thief Garrett 23:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now you may hang the rest. A traditional opposite for feminine is masculine from "masculus". And those who know Spanish, will readily recall the word mujer <- mulier. Mikkalai 23:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Have you done a survey Mr Garrett? Redirects are cheap.~~ Megan1967 05:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a big difference between "cheap and useful" and "useless redirect", some are even of misspellings for goodness' sake... but, yes, you don't want to delete possible redirects or the ~~inclusionists~~ natives get restless... Master Thief Garrett 05:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~I wont buy into the inclusionist v's deletionist debates - redirects have nothing to with inclusionism, otherwise the vote would have been keep not redirect.~~ Megan1967 07:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Megan1967 (although I was tempted to say redirect to Francis the Talking Mule - get it? Mule... celebrity... -- BDAbramson ^thimk 04:56, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
Question: Does this mean someone will add information about Muliebrity to the [Gender Role] page? Why redirect to a site that doesn't even contain the word? Knoma Tsujmai 05:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Don't redirect to a page which doesn't explain why the word is being redirected there. Delete. Rick K 05:28, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Good point, on the off-chance someone *does* search for it, then they should at least be rewarded for their efforts! Master Thief Garrett 05:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neither this term nor Virility has anything to do with Gender roles. Whether this is a real word is not the criterion for Wikipedia. It's still a dicdef, and no one has yet argued it will ever be more, and redirecting it to a marginally related topic isn't that valuable.—Wahoofive (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary, then delete. Dictionary definition that is unlikely to get anything more anytime soon. - Andre Engels 09:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for organic growth. This is a notable concept in gender studies. Klonimus 17:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete. "being a woman" is womanhood. Mikkalai 20:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is it hurting anyone taking up a few bytes on the servers? I know nothing about this topic and never heard the word before, but now I'm interested in wanting to know more. Hopefully, I will be able to return in a few months to see a complete article. -- Samuel Wantman 07:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What, please tell me, will you expect to see here that is not already in femininity or similar? Master Thief Garrett 09:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it. Muliebrity is not quite the same thing as womanhood. The word is used in gender studies.

Delete. Exploding Boy 23:07, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. Would support a redirect to femininity if people really want, but this is just a misnomer. Radiant_* 13:04, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- It is a bad habit to vote without being informed within reasonable limits: femininity has no article yet. Mikkalai 00:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everyking 00:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Lommer | ^talk 22:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a neologism, and at best the article could be slimmed down and transferred to Wiktionary. I note that Mikkalai has added to woman an isolated sentence that links to this article and to femininity (despite the fact that, as he himself pointed out above, there's no article on the latter). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep eyeing women! Yes, I did it, but this "isolated" sentence serves its purpose of introducing these terms irrelatively the existence of the articles. Also, making more links increases chances that someone willing to write will stumble onto them. And it is isolated because I have problems with knowing women. Mikkalai 16:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also. I am curious why don't you scorn me for 4x expanding the article I am voting to delete? Mikkalai 16:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure that I understand all the above, but I can see little use introducing any of these terms, when one is simply a modification of the article title on normal English grammatical lines, one is a mere dictionary definition under VfD, and one is a redirect to an article linked to in the article's summary. As to expanding the article under VfD, why should I think that there's anything wrong with that? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful (216.191.154.61 did not sign off)
Keep, and expand. A good start by Mikkalai. Leanne 05:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It still does not change my opinion that it has to be deleted. I tried hard to find evidence in its defense (I am not a deletionist by nature), but found pitiful material. I put it into the article simply not to let my work wasted (Mel, that's what it was). All this may be safely moved anywhere where all "effimacies" may be discussed and meanings compared. Taken isolated, the article has little usefulness. Mikkalai 17:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Pacian 07:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been expanded, and is not a dicdef any more. Also, has sufficient Google hits not to count as a neologism nobody has ever heard of. -- AlexR 08:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's turned into a debate between "I've heard this in gender studies" and "I haven't heard it in non-related fields." If it exists in gender studies, you can't say it doesn't exist if you don't study it! Otherwise non-technical people would be voting computer/engineering terms out right and left, because they never heard of them. -- kronchev 4:48, 14 May 2005
- Put it another way, what *exactly* does this word describe and mean that femininity doesn't? Are they synonymous or different? Master Thief Garrett 10:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't live in 19th century. If it is important in gender studies, it most certainly must be discussed online. It is not. It is only used, rather chaotically. Mikkalai 17:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful gender studies concept. Expand. -- Aliceinlampyland 03:50, 15 May 2005 (GMT)
Keep and expand. Useful topic. Iam 06:41, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Why do't you "keepers-expanders" try to expand it yourselves, to see that this is impossible? Mikkalai 16:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it has been expanded, and per the results found by AlexR. Jonathunder 18:49, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Keep expanded article. JamesBurns 07:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 23:56, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Angela Piland

Angela Piland (born April 17, 1981) is an obscure American transsexual glamour model. Too obscure to be on Wikipedia. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, they gave themselves away... Master Thief Garrett 04:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hi, I'm not notable - please delete me! -- BDAbramson ^thimk 04:51, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
If it's going to be deleted, also remove the mention on 1981 and glamour model. No vote - Andre Engels 09:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already deleted the 1981 entry. Average Earthman 18:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How many transsexual models are there? Unless it's more common than I think it is, I think it may be worth keeping and expanding. (But it needs to not be promotional). Mgm|^(talk) 21:20, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
No vote, real person, minor notoriety. I dunno. (but if I look long enough to the guy's picture I will go for Delete!!) --Marianocecowski 11:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obscure. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 23:55, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Allies (comics)

No text, short list of redlinks, Dead end page - basically no content whatsoever. Delete

Delete. Seems to be some comic club. Not-notable. User:SoM, remember to sign your nomination. Sjakkalle 07:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops :( - SoM 22:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No context. Mikkalai 20:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain for the moment. They are a group that appeared in Young All-Stars, a DC comic written by Roy Thomas. Can't grow more than a stub.. Since the name is actually wrong, as per Hiding's reference, I change to my vote to Delete. Incidentally, there was a group named Allies, and they appeared (or were slated to appear, you can never tell) in Rob Liefeld's Youngblood. --Pc13 10:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at it -- can't make any sense of it. Abstain, but needs to be killed or expanded & contextualised. 1 in-link, 4 (dead) out-links. --Simon Cursitor 07:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No content - Borders on nonsense - Tεx τ urε 17:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Abstain~~ Further to Pc13's comments, according to Unofficial Who's Who to DC Universe they were known as The Young Allies. Whether that makes them more notable or means the page needs renaming, I'm not sure. In line with Pc13, I change my vote to Delete because of incorrect naming.Hiding 15:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my count on this discussion was 22 clear "delete" votes, 9 "keep" votes and one ambiguous vote. I exercised my discretion and counted the one anonymous vote. The tone and context made it clear that this was not an attempt by a sockpuppet to bias the outcome of the vote. Despite the confusion over the various versions of this article, it is clear to me that all the voters in this decision were basing their decisions on the current version and were not merely reacting to the "out-of-process" accusations. Rossami (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:18, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Josh Homan

Vanity. Turns up in Google as a student. If he's notable so am I, and I'm not. Delete Sabine's Sunbird 05:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless we really want to include each PhD-student. - Andre Engels 09:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another vanity article of a non-notable college student. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 11:41, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity, not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:56, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Newpage by an anon with no other contribs. hydnjo talk 20:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 13:30, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Vril magic eye

This doesn't sound very plausible. A Nazi technology that has the "ability to emerge and submerge dimensionally- appearing and disappearing at will". Kappa 05:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I now vote merge/redirect per JRM below Kappa 22:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. looks like nonsense... Bushytails 06:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best this is pseudoscience, more likely it's simply nonsense. - Andre Engels 09:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. jni 10:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, this is hysterical! Please, Delete - there's a room reservation for it at Hotel BJAODN. --Mothperson 15:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What Mothperson said says it well. hydnjo talk 20:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Vril. Eliminate all the nonsense and summarize, of course. JRM · Talk 20:30, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Vril. Note: as someone who KNOWS German Secret Weapons for over 25 years let me explain some things that you people don't know. Here's a list of OTHER German claimed weapons that seemed like fantasy that were later confirmed as real:

1) Kugelpanzer- lierally a round, ball tank shipped to Japan and used for light recon. Seems ridiculous, yet one was captured by the Russians and is on DISPLAY in the Kubinka Museum. Tale proved TRUE. 2) Mystery "N-Material" (aka modern Greek Fire) developed by the German Army and supposedly dropped only to be picked up by the SS for production. Again, seems like a pure fabrication. Material was discovered to be CIF3 and WAS produced at its own facility at Falkenhagen. So dangerous was the material that four water towers all connected to the central storage unit in case of ignition. CIF3 can literally repel water once ignited and only a huge amt. of water that is under pressure can ensure that CIF3 burns out underwater without spreading. The German facility had to submerge the storage area to the ceiling and had bleed shafts built into the structure for water overflow. Strange but TRUE. 3) Mystery V-4 missile. In most missiles books just a bluff to keep Sweden from turning to the Allies in 1945. But on Misdroy launch catapults pointing NORTH were found along with several Pabst ramjets and rocket launch cylinder units. The V-1 by comparison pointed WEST and used a chemical cylinder to produce steam for launch, not a rocket... and the V-1 used a crude Argus-Schmidt pulsejet, not a Pabst ramjet. Tale proved TRUE. 4) Mystery V-7 weapon. Considered a complete hoax. Only problem is the patent of it by Bruno Schwenteit as the Elektrische Luft turbine und Raumschiff, crediting Rudolf Schriever and Dr. Richard Miethe. Proved TRUE. These are just a few waffen used as examples. No one claimed that the Magic Eye worked or flew... only that a lab model was being tested by early 1945. Vril from the start concentrated on channeled flight using manipulation of gravity through intense rotating EM fields to produce strong frequency oscillations that intensified would open a small channel through spacetime. A black hole simply uses its intense gravity and imploding mass to punch a hole in spacetime. Vril tried a limited white hole effect. But no one has claimed that their JFM, Vril series of discs, or the huge cylindrical Andromeda machine actually accomplished this. Rather the opposite. The Vril 7 that tried from Arado-Brandenburg in late 1944 was completely wrecked in one experiment. Their claims are on the Vril page and no one is deleting that page. All I'm saying is that these people who come here don't know enough about the subject to credibly disprove the claims. Come back when you know more about German Secret Weapons technology, which at one time was 11,000 tons of military documents at Wright Field postwar.

Merge to Vril. Megan1967 11:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Jeez, damn, well I didn't know that. We better tell Mothperson about this right away so that the reservation at Hotel BJAODN can be cancelled and perhaps get our deposit back. hydnjo talk 22:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:45, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Motarded

At best a dictadef, but really a neologism and a insult. And not a clever one at that. Sabine's Sunbird 05:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism. Megan1967 07:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. - Andre Engels 09:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. neologism. jni 10:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of conflicting usage from Google. hydnjo talk 20:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Davion Washington

Seems like either a vanity page or someone not noteworthy. In any case, it barely qualifies as an article... Bushytails 06:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - either this article is wrong, or the St. Louis Rams fail to mention their best player who makes an average of 5 touchdowns per game anywhere on their website. Somehow I think the former is more likely... Google finds no "Davion Washington", there are some people called "Davon Washington" but no famous football players. - Andre Engels 09:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inane vanity, not notable. jni 10:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reasons have been stated by others. hydnjo talk 20:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity - Tεx τ urε 17:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 21:43, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

The Decline of the West/German

Comments moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

I'm not sure what the function of this page is, but I suppose it should best be listed here. Martg76 14:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) ["here" in that remark meaning Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English]
Looks like a partial table of contents, or a table from somewhere in the book. Would someone with good German, and more familiar with the topic, let us know if there is anything worth keeping here, or if this should just be VFD'd? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:49, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Although it is tagged as "inhaltlich aus dem Buch zitiert", this timetable and possible table of contents (and it seems just to be a part of something larger, as it hops between Old Egypt, Mesopotamy and others), smells very much of copyvio, although I think one won't find anything by googling; I'll have a look into our library, but t´his may take a day or two..Lectonar 06:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - I found it in the German Wikepedia (Der Untergang des Abendlandes), the Decline of the West, which is already around here; the german article is slightly larger, including the part above, taken from the synopsis. I think the english article is just fine, and there is already a redirect from Der Untergang des Abendlandes. Perhaps this one here is just a temp article from someone trying to translate it. Lectonar 06:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've had a sniff round Thames' user page, and from his (I think "his") predilections and the edit summaries in the history of the German Decline page it would appear that he is using this German material to enrich the English article. Probably we should leave it alone, unless Thames appears to leave it adrift. Dave1898 14:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the deference Dave1898. Lectonar is right that i used the this temp page for translation purposes. But my translation is retardedly bad, even when aided by google language tools. So I put in a request over at translation to english. Hopefully they can do a better job than I could. I guess you guys can delete it if you want--I'm not done the translation, and machine translators won't translate that far down the German article. So if you delete it, I'll have to rely entirely on the wikipedians over at german-to-english. I do admit, I've been in quite a lull recently. But if you all feel the deletion is urgently needed, go for it. —thames 08:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page doesn't add anything which isn't accessible at DE wikipedia [4]. Physchim62 12:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to DE wikipedia, someone can always translate this some time without us keeping this redundant page around. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:36, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.

Despite a clear majority in favor of deleting the contents of this article (only 4 votes to keep), there is not a clear concensus to delete. After reviewing the content of both articles, I can not find anything to merge that improves the stem cell research article. I am going to exercise my discretion and call this one as a straight redirect. Rossami (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike May

I'm not convinced he is notable enough to warrant his own article. Grutness|^hello? 06:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - Andre Engels 09:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another potential human interest article. If the deletionists want to do something useful why don't they delete articles about boring stuff like Pokemons or technical internet jargon things, and leaving potentially inspiring or motivating real-life stories alone. — P Ingerson (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, this was posted here by an inclusionist who has saved or help save far more articles on vfds than he's put here, but who happens to have been sorting through the substubs this week. :) Grutness|^hello?
  - Inclusionism is about maintaining wikipedia's coverage. Kappa 15:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, making sure it goes out to small places like Zebbug, Malta and Mangateparu. Grutness|^hello? 23:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a surgery patient does not make one wikiworthy. If his operation was unusual or unique, it should be mentioned in the article(s) about its branch of medicine. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:59, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
keep because of medical interest, not human interest. Merging somewhere would be ok. Kappa 13:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Stem cell research. - Aaron Hill 13:49, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Blind people regaining sight from stem cells is notable. Klonimus 17:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-informative, nonnotable. Mikkalai 20:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Stem cell research. I see nothing noteworthy enough about this person to merit an article. If he happens to be the *first* successful example of this treatment, then I believe it would be a good article subject - but absent any evidence that he's more than another guy who got a new medical treatment, he doesn't get a whole page. --FCYTravis 21:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice article in teh Guardian, but not really notable. Ganymead 06:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, needs definite expansion. Somewhat barely more notable than Brandenn Bremmer. Megan1967 07:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Stem cell research. --Tabor 20:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Quale 05:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. R adiant _* 13:06, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - not notable - if it were worthy of merge then my name should be in the Wikipedia article... - Tεx τ urε 17:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uninformative, not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 21:45, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Edward II of England infobox

Infoboxes are not encyclopedia articles and should not be in the article space. This is a bad precedent -- do we want infoboxes on every person, every species, every planet/moon/asteroid in the article space? Rick K 07:41, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- article space is not the template space. - Longhair | Talk 07:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the article's discussion page. Eixo 08:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Edward II of England and delete. - Andre Engels 09:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with RickK. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect into Edward II of England. JYolkowski // talk 13:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article space is not the template space. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Mislocated. Move to template space. If it's no use list it on WP:TFD.~~ --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC) Delete, it's utterly pointless. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move, as Tony suggests. James F. (talk)
Apart from Andre Engels and JYolkowski it seems most so far have misunderstood the premises of the discussion. This is not a template, and was never meant to be. Again I would ask you to please look at the article's discussion page. Eixo 19:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Un-VfD :: refer discussion page to policy level for a decision on the points raised. Alternatively, sell the article to Cunnan and cross-refer. --Simon Cursitor 08:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we already have a policy that templates should not mask as article content. R adiant _* 13:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete a) template already exists, this is just a use of the template (so don't move) b) this approach is obviously not good (you would never look for a topic "xxx infobox") so can be deleted. c) if needed an alternative would be an article "Edward II of England summary" or something similar (facts and statistics?), but it should be a proper article, not a disembodied infobox. Mozzerati 18:25, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
Delete. Mozzerati is right. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no point in having a stand-alone article or a redirect with this title. —Tokek 20:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:16, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Base year

No context, possible copyvio. Ben-w 07:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dictionary definition giving what does not seem to be the most common meaning of the term. - Andre Engels 09:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep preferably, also an important concept in statistics. Failing that merge with award. Kappa 13:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless substantially clarified. PatGallacher 16:33, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
Delete. narrow dicdef, unless expanded for other applications of the term. Mikkalai 20:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this year. hydnjo talk 00:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no content or reference - Tεx τ urε 17:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Rossami (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drop letter

transwikied dicdef. Grutness|^hello? 07:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary - Andre Engels 09:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has already been transwikied. --Allen3 ^talk 12:34, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Merge, maybe with post office or keep. Kappa 12:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with post office. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article fits well among the other links at the Post office section General postal concepts. If deleted, then add link to Wiktionary within the post office section referenced. hydnjo talk 00:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 13:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Two lumps

Nn webcomic. Of the 37 unique Google hits for "Two lumps" +grant +hynes, I only count 26 that are about this comic, and some of those are postings to web forums. Rick K 07:55, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

"Two lumps" +Ebeneezer +Snooch (the full title seems to be "Two Lumps - The Adventures of Ebenezer and Snooch") gives 141 hits. No vote since I'm insufficiently into webcomics to know where to lay the boundaries for those - Andre Engels 09:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't even have an Alexa rank at all as far as I can tell. Really cute artwork though, I hope this one makes it someday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Two Lumps is a very popular web comic. It's ranked fourth among all comics hosted at Keenspace.com in terms of page views, according to Keenspace's rankings. --Beedub 15:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm the original author of the article. I'd just like to point out that Alexa doesn't count any sites hosted by Keenspace, so that probably shouldn't be used as a criterion either way. Scarybaldguy 04:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vaNNity. R adiant _* 13:08, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 21:46, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Furniture Today

advertising about a DVD that hardly anyobody knows about it. vanity, delete -- Chris 73 Talk 08:19, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Note: Same author also created Jeremy Broun, which also needs at least more NPOV -- Chris 73 Talk 08:31, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

The anon signed this article as Jeremy Broun. I've now listed that article on VfD as well. Delete both. Rick K 09:48, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- possible self promo - Longhair | Talk 08:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV beyond repair - Andre Engels 09:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ae there rules that say I cannot list myself as a designer on this website and also write an associated highly informative article using my name or am I expected to use another name ? Please explain this curious reaction ? JB

This is ridiculous - I have to promote my lecture in order to educate people about this subject. How is this breaking the rules ? I have already amended my article to conform to your rules. I make very little commercially from this. You apear to be extremely quick to attach and pre-judge. Your criticisms include errors and spelling mistakes. Who are these adminstrators ? Young computer experts ? JB

I simply wish to use this site to expand the knowledge base on the field of contemporary furniture. You include Norman Foster as a furniture designer. He is an Internationallly renowned architect and his entry promotes him ! What is wrong with that ? Why one set of rules for him and another for me ? Please explain ! JB

If you do not know who I am then read one adminstrator's comments at the "Votes for Deletion" at Jeremy Broun.

Delete. POV essay. Original research. -R. fiend 14:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:No original research. Samaritan 16:18, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Salvage informative parts into Furniture. Mikkalai 20:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't read at all like an encyclopedia article. It has a very odd, boosterish tone. The author is obviously very excited about the furniture he makes, but this is a vanity article. --Stan.
Delete period hydnjo talk 23:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am passionate about my craft ! Is this a crime ! Are these the criticisms of educated people whose opinions count ? In view of these astounding comments I am withdrawing my article. Jeremy Broun 8 May 2005

Is this an enclopaedia article, or a William Morris -esque tract ? ??NPOV?? --Simon Cursitor 08:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

9 May. Despite my withdrawing my article due to these comments it still appears and therefore attracts further comments. The article is a copy of one I have recently published in the UK and is a development of one I published in 1989 for a magazine called "Woodworking International" called "The Golden Age of Contemporary Craftsmanship" !!. Jeremy Broun (Jeremy Broun 16:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - vanity - Tεx τ urε 17:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: assuming this is deleted, "Furniture Today" is also an American trade magazine. I've written a stub at this discussion page. I assume I can recreate this article? Samw 01:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 23:51, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yoruba Naming Ceremony

Original research? Somebody's speech? Not an encyclopedia article in this form, though I could see an article being written on this subject (at Yoruba naming ceremony). Rick K 08:29, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- somebody's speech for sure. -- Longhair | Talk 08:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikibooks or wikisource. Kappa 12:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yoruba if copyright is okay. If rewritten substantially before end of VfD, instead move to Yoruba naming ceremony. JYolkowski // talk 13:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to redirect? Yoruba says nothing about it? Kappa 14:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's not well written at the moment, but there is some genuinely encyclopedic stuff in it, I propose adding a Cleanup to it (how does that fit in with the VFD process?). PatGallacher 16:38, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
Keep or merge with yoruba. Klonimus 17:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What can possibly make anybody want to vote keep on this? This is a speech, it's original source material. At best, it belongs on Wikisource. Don't just knee-jerk vote keep without reading the articles. Rick K 21:06, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

- I have gone to the trouble of re-reading the article, and I still vote to keep. It does actually contain some useful information about Yoruba naming practices. I recognise that copying a speech verbatim is generally not a good idea, but sometimes it can be a useful starting point for an article. Do I detect an element of First World chauvinism here? PatGallacher 01:54, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Delete - if anything useful and verifiable can be gotten from it, I suppose a blurb could be added to Yoruba about the naming ceremony. But this article is not encyclopedic. -- Jonel 23:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote
Comment
Sig

Delete
See comments by Rick
hydnjo talk 00:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article looks like its a copyvio from somewhere. Either way as it stands its not encyclopaedic and not even up to transwiki standards. Megan1967 08:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Megan. R adiant _* 13:09, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Read Megan's wise comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Deleted by author. Golbez 03:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

A History of Designer Makers and The History of Designer Makers

Not an encyclopedia article, but a (conference?) paper. Copyright status unclear. Delete or move to Wikisource if copyright is OK -- Chris 73 Talk 08:39, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Personal essay. Author (Helpfully listed above in the VFD list) has been posting vanity a good deal today. Didn't even take his byline off this one. Delete. Trylobyte 10:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this today. I dont understand how this article can be described as "Vanity" and is likely to be deleted ? It is a well considered, articulate, informative, factually correct and unique ! I am a professional writer and published author ! Please advise . I have tried getting in touch with an adminstrator.

I improved the first article called "The History of Designer Makers" by changing its name to "A History of Designer Makers" assuming I could start afresh. What is a "byline".

There is a rather patronising implication that I am deliberately breaking the rules which is not the case. I am a respected practitioner in my field. I am merely attempting to expand the knowledge base of this amazing website so please do not be so quick to jump to criticism and kindly explain to me why you consider my article is "Vanity" . It is repreentatative of what is going on in my professional field TODAY based on a long and important tradition.

Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. Worthy topic that could be a good article on Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and merge both articles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~:If you are "a professional writer and published author", then you should know what a "byline" is... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

I apologize. There are a lot of people with anonymous IP addresses that come to Wikipedia and claim to be an expert, or impersonate someone else. Because you have not created an account, we cannot be sure that you are the real Jeremy Broun or an imposter. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now. Let's remember to assume good faith here, at least. Jeremy Broun is a real person and can reasonably be called an expert on the fields of furniture and woodworking, but do you really think he's the sort of person that people would impersonate online?!? That's a real long shot, there. And to what end would this supposed impersonation be carried out? This isn't exactly a super-controversial topic here. To assume that a user is an imposter [of Jeremy Braun!] without the slightest shred of proof is against the very spirit of Wikipedia! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been overreacting since I have been burned by many vandals damaging my talk pages in the last 24 hours. [5] [6] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am staggered by these remarks ! No I do not know what a "byline" is and yes I am a well known International author - one of my books "The Encyclopedia of Woodworking Techniques" is published in several languages including "USA English". Check out what "Starblind" has said about my entry at Jeremy Broun and my reputation.

If I am accused of "self promotion" of course through this knowledge base I am hoping to promote my proessional field which is neglected in Popular culture. Why is there this immediate level of aggressiveness ?!! My article is a historical document NOT a piece of propaganda or commercial advertizing. There has been very little written so far about the British Crafts Revival and you are fortunate that i am sharing this knowledge with you !

If you would like to contribute articles, please follow our Manual of Style. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sat 7 May - from Jeremy Broun (UK). I have learned a lot today and obviously I am a little naive as the above comments about imposters and vandals caught me totally by surprise. My aplogies for not registering/logging in. My only excuse is that I am a member of a dynamic UK WIKKI site (a forum for UK furniture makers) and we all edit freely, but having said that we are given a password. I was obviously too enthusiastic to submit my entry and two articles. I am sorry to have created such a stir when my intention was to add to this amazing knowledge bases which I came across by accident. I am the real Jeremy Broun if you care to enter my name in Google you will find numerous pages connected with my work. I am primarily an educator and if I promote myself in the process it is because I have learned it is necessary ! I do not participate in "Vanity" publishing but write objectively about a variety of topics.

Might I suggest you delete the first article "The History of Designer Makers" and allow "A History of Furniture Makers" to stand. I would like to add to the article something about the English Cotswold School of Designer Makers in the 20th Century which I had missed out.

I apologise if we gave a rude introduction here. You see because Wikipedia is popular free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we are a target of vandals and imposters, either added nonsense to existing articles, or making up rubbish articles. Every day, new cases are added to our list of Vandalism in progress. So it sometimes gets many editors, including me, on extra, extra alert. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apology also. Of course I should have read your guidelines first and I fully appreciate the need to check authenticity. Sadly this wonderful tool called the Internet is abused. I have now registered and therefore hope that any contributions I make are accepted wihout raising the alarm. Jeremy Broun.(It does take a lomg time to digest the extent of the protocol !)I have also re-edited my article called "Furniture Today" and trust that is now acceptable.

Delete, unless a huge cleanup is done to make an encyclopedia article from this rhetorics. In the current state it is useless. Aslo the title is too broad. Does the article cover designer makers of jewelry? Also it looks like original research, disallowed in wikipedia. References are required. Mikkalai 20:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So, I'm wondering who would ever enter "The[A] History of Designer Makers" into the WP searchbox. OK, right, I don't like the pagename for openers. And if I should stumble across this article I wouldn't know what to make of it. It doesn't look or read like an encyclopedia article but rather a page from a book about an obscure something that doesn't fit in here (and I really do like Random page). There may be good information here but it is so poorly formatted that it is almost unreadable. Perhaps a massive rewrite and a more logical pagename would get my vote to keep. hydnjo talk 01:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Jeremy Broun - in view of the last comment (by "Hydnjo") I have withdrawn my article. The article was originally written last week for a British Furniture Designer Makers Internet Forum after time consuming research and was entusiastically received. The title obviously refers to Furniture not Jewelry or other crafts because it was sited on a Furniture Design listing. I am not prepared to have my professional writing abused in such a Phillistine way when I submitted it in good faith to help broaden this knowledge base on my subject. I have made several changes to my article in my attempt to conform to your "rules" but it is just inviting further insult. Perhaps it would be a good idea to highlight and summarise the key rules for any new subscriber as it was misleading to me that this is a freely editable website as obviously the rules are extensive. 8 May2005.

Now that the author has blanked the pages, they should be speedy deleted, shouldn't they? --Angr/_comhrá 08:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Any merging or transwiking or what not is now beyond the scope of this debate. Golbez 23:48, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

John 20 and all of the linked verses

I deleted the entire text of the chapter. There are also links which appear to be an attempt to discuss every single freaking verse of the chapter. Is this a real necessity? Is this original research? Is all that commentary in the verse articles copyright violations? The World English Bible is certainly copyrighted as of 1997, so listing every verse in it is a copyvio. Rick K 09:24, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Of course keep, the Bible as a highly notable religious text needs to be covered in comprehensive detail. Everyking 10:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why would it be original research, when the articles give references to published commentaries? Up land 10:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the discussion and conclusion to keep on VfD John 20:16. Commentary is not original reseach. Commentary on the verse does not violate copyright - commentary on a text is always within the bounds of fair use; it is the actual copying of a text beyond the bounds of fair use that violates copyright, including excessive quotation. There are almost certainly non-copyrighted versions of the bible available if there was any doubt about the amount that was being quoted.--AYArktos 10:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 12:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep John 20. ~~Merge and redirect~~ the rest ~~to John 20:1-10 and John 20:11-18 or~~ keep if they're large enough. Also, AFAIK the World English Bible is public domain, and if it isn't we should fix our article about it. JYolkowski // talk 13:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I've had a look at all of the verse articles now and I think all of them are big enough to stand on their own, so change that to a keep. I would still recommend that short articles on biblical verses be merged into passages though. JYolkowski // talk 18:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "I deleted the entire text of the chapter." Thank you. Simply repeating the text is not encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not a primary source. "There are also links which appear to be an attempt to discuss every single freaking verse of the chapter. Is this a real necessity?" How the articles are structured is a minor concern VfD need not be bothered with. Summary articles can be instituted as appropriate for verses that do not merit individual articles. As for the discussions themselves, they are notable and verifiable, vide the sources listed, and must be covered. Wikipedia aims to be complete. "Is this original research?" Not as long as the commentary is sourced. "Is all that commentary in the verse articles copyright violations?" The commentary? Of course not. If any parts of it are, remove and rewrite as appropriate. "The World English Bible is certainly copyrighted as of 1997, so listing every verse in it is a copyvio." No, for two reasons: a list of verses in the Bible is not copyrightable, this scheme having been established long before any period copyright can be applied to, and second, what AYArktos said. JRM · Talk 13:50, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
Delete. Keeping John 20:16 was a bad idea when it was up for VfD a while back, and keeping this is a bad idea now. What we need is a new sister project like Wiktionary or Wikisource, maybe called Wikibible, where this sort of thing can be discussed. But it's just not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Angr/_comhrá 13:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please notice your examples of sister project, as is the case with all Wikimedia sister projects, are medium forks (as in, the kind of information presented, not content forks. It is an utterly ludicrous notion to determin that every group of articles which may run into the thousands should have a seperate project. Why don't we get rid of all the anatomy articles? As you rightly point out, this has already been discussed and the community has decided to keep. Finally, what is unencyclopaedic about it? --Oldak Quill 10:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John 20:16 was held only a few months ago, I don't see much reason for a second debate on this issue when the last one seemed fairly clear. Also the reason the World English Bible was chosen is because it is public domain and we don't need to worry about copyright issues. If I had the option I would much rather have used NIV or another better known version. - SimonP 14:44, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, concurring with all arguments to keep above (except no vote on the merge/redirect proposal). Samaritan 16:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seem to be well written articles. Excellent stuff. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has discussed the copyright violation on the World English Bible. Rick K 20:54, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Actually two people have already mentioned that it is in the public domain. See also their website - SimonP 21:07, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

If there are copyvios, replace the quotes by equivalent references to the KJV e-texts or another public source. Deleting the articles would seem to a bit overkill. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We have attempted to discuss the copyright issues - please see my vote above and also the comments of JRM and SimonP. According to this encyclopaedia the World English Bible (confirmed by the web site of the World English Bible) is public domain. Secondly all of the verses of Chapter 20 in the Book of St John equate to less than one page's text in my version of the Bible (King James) and there are well over 800 pages - no way would quotation on this magnitude violate anybody's copyright law - but this is a tangent as the version of the bible being used is copyright free.

This discussion is clearly distinguished from recent discussions of excepts of the bible without commentary: VfD 1:26 and VfD Isiah 45. It is however, a seemingless gratuitous reprieve of the earlier discussion on VfD John 20:16 which concluded that commentary on bible verses was within the scope of Wikipedia. --AYArktos 21:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I would consider this, for its past nomination, an invalid listing. --Oldak Quill 10:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep factual discussion about bible verses is notable. Delete the source text as unencyclopedic, possible move to Wikisource if it's not copyrighted. Mgm|^(talk) 21:26, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, concur with Angr. Megan1967 08:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- To delete articles is a heavy responsibility. Perhaps you would like to expand on your reasons for voting delete? --Oldak Quill 10:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The community has already determined to keep individual verses, why would it be different now? --Oldak Quill 10:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. — mark ✎ 19:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just a copy and paste from the bible. It's not needed here. --Ufotofu 22:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the introduction and analysis are copied/pasted. Kappa 23:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A section of the Bible relating to the resurrection of Jesus is notable. Capitalistroadster 23:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. God cruft. Bible sections belong in wikisource and without them all that remains is original reseach. --Gmaxwell 00:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- With reference to, say, John_20:1, please point out the original research in this series of articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks, which takes annotated works. —Korath (Talk) 02:27, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Gmaxwell. Plainsong 06:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks. R adiant _* 13:18, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Keep As with previous discussion on John 20:16, it is not original research as shown by references and clearly not a copyvio. Bible commentary is encylopedic as would be commentary on any other major religious text. Put the full quoted text in wikisource if you really must, but please explain how bible commentary is unencylopedic - every other article in wikipedia consists of facts and commentary about a notable thing - how is this different? Fuzz 16:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, however, perhaps there should be a policy decision that, rather than having just one Bible version or translation, this type of page (template) needs to have a link out to the extensive list of online versions at such places as [Gospelcom.net. Peter Ellis 02:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only thing I would add to what Korath wrote above is that the commentary in this article ought to be moved to Gospel of John, if appropriate. -- llywrch 23:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about the commentary in the articles on each verse? These are far to long to be merged into the Gospel page. - SimonP 00:02, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 03:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy Broun

Highly POV vanity. User:213.40.131.65 admitted on Furniture Today that he is Jeremy Broun. If he were logged in we could Userfy this, but as it is, dlete. Rick K 09:46, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

This seems like the Gestapo ! What do you mean by 'admit' ? I am the author of Furniture Today !! What is wrong with my contributions to the knowledge base of tghis website please ? Am I expected to know what "userfy" means ?

Userfy is a local slang for moving the contents of the article into your user page. Users' personal page may contain any kind and amount of personal information (within reasonable limits, of course; gigabytes of photos will clearly be frowned upon). Mikkalai 20:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Complete and massive cleanup Article's author should read Wikipedia:Autobiography. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I just cleaned up the article a little bit and added a list of selected books by Broun. But it still needs a bit more work. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure what the standards of fame are for a carpenter to get an article, but Jeremy Broun certainly deserves an article for his writing at least. I have his Encyclopedia of Wood Working Techniques, and it's definitely a real published book (and a good one, too). The ISBN listed is 1561382094. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup: Author seems to be notable, although having an entry for individual publications of his seems to be excessive (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A History of Designer Makers and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Furniture Today. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:24, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Am I allowed to join in !!!! As author I mentioned two of my books not wishing to be excessive ! One of your adminstrators has added some of my other publications but what confues me is that i simply added my details as a listing under 'Furniture Designer' and other entries include biographical details. My entry is not an autobiography ! Please clarify where I have broken your rules . Jeremy Broun

I have just read the "cleanup" job on my entry by the adminstrator who also added my books. . Thank you !!! It does read better than my original entry. Now I understand a little more about the accepted format. My apologies for obviously not reading the small print.

Notable as an author, but this still looks like promo. weak keep BigFatDave 20:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. cleanup. Mikkalai 20:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well then maybe I'll vote to Keep I guess. hydnjo talk 00:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Jeremy Broun on 8 May 2005 - I have withdrawn my articles Furniture Today and A History of Designer Makers as associated articles to my entry, due to further negative and insulting comments by "critics". What I have endeavoured to contribute in these two short articles has been criticized under your guidelines 'Blatant nonsense' by someone and as 'too enthusiastic' by another and as 'an essay, not a piece of Wikepedia writing' by someone else. If the writing aims to educate and inform does it really matter whether it is an essay or an article. As far as I am concerned I contributed these articles in the same way I contribute to the British media (except on this occasion I did not charge a fee). My style of delivery is an important and respected feature of my writing whilt the core of my writing is objective. Any professional knows that personal anecdote adds to the interest of an article. I get the feeling that the bulk of "critics" (eg "BigFatDave" ??) on this site are young students or people totally uneducated in the Crafts culture (in the UK) I have given 40 years of my working life to ? I am not prepared to have my professional (and respected in Britain) writing abused in this way. I joined this site in good faith in helping expand its knowledge base in my particular professional field of furniture design and making which is badly lacking. It appears to be a free for all for "critics" to hurl abuse or speak utter nonsense themselves ! I joined this site fresh just 24 hours ago and am disappointed at how democracy is so readily abused by so called free speech. What are the qualifications of those who have been so quick to degrade my writing and why are "critics" so quick to aggressively attack and find any excuse to reject my enlightened writing ? What are they actually trying to demonstrate or defend ? I thought this website was an International forum ?

- Unfortunately you misunderstood the purpose. It is not a forum. It is encyclopedia. An encyclopedia must have certain rules, otherwise you don't need it: just do google search and you have tons of text. I would like to deeply apologize for the reception you've got and I deeply regret the misunderstanding. It is really sad, since it seems that we are lacking editors with expertise in your area. Mikkalai 01:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. This should be moved to Jeremy Broun's user page.
- Why? the person clearly passes notability tests and the article is currently 100% informative and neutral. Mikkalai 01:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Mikkalai -- Abstain --Simon Cursitor 08:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Jeremy_Broun. --Angr/_comhrá 08:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly object to userfying my edits of the page. It is no longer an individual contribution. Either keep or delete. Either notable or not. Google results for "Jeremy Broun" + furniture speak clearly. Mikkalai 20:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Notable author with many publications, awards and Google hits. Wikipedia is not paper and we have biographies on much less notable people.
Keep and tidy up Brookie:the wind in the grass 07:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep treekiller. Klonimus 17:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. LouisRivera 03:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Deleted by author. Golbez 03:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

A History of Designer Makers and The History of Designer Makers

Not an encyclopedia article, but a (conference?) paper. Copyright status unclear. Delete or move to Wikisource if copyright is OK -- Chris 73 Talk 08:39, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Personal essay. Author (Helpfully listed above in the VFD list) has been posting vanity a good deal today. Didn't even take his byline off this one. Delete. Trylobyte 10:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this today. I dont understand how this article can be described as "Vanity" and is likely to be deleted ? It is a well considered, articulate, informative, factually correct and unique ! I am a professional writer and published author ! Please advise . I have tried getting in touch with an adminstrator.

I improved the first article called "The History of Designer Makers" by changing its name to "A History of Designer Makers" assuming I could start afresh. What is a "byline".

There is a rather patronising implication that I am deliberately breaking the rules which is not the case. I am a respected practitioner in my field. I am merely attempting to expand the knowledge base of this amazing website so please do not be so quick to jump to criticism and kindly explain to me why you consider my article is "Vanity" . It is repreentatative of what is going on in my professional field TODAY based on a long and important tradition.

Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. Worthy topic that could be a good article on Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and merge both articles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~:If you are "a professional writer and published author", then you should know what a "byline" is... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

I apologize. There are a lot of people with anonymous IP addresses that come to Wikipedia and claim to be an expert, or impersonate someone else. Because you have not created an account, we cannot be sure that you are the real Jeremy Broun or an imposter. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now. Let's remember to assume good faith here, at least. Jeremy Broun is a real person and can reasonably be called an expert on the fields of furniture and woodworking, but do you really think he's the sort of person that people would impersonate online?!? That's a real long shot, there. And to what end would this supposed impersonation be carried out? This isn't exactly a super-controversial topic here. To assume that a user is an imposter [of Jeremy Braun!] without the slightest shred of proof is against the very spirit of Wikipedia! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been overreacting since I have been burned by many vandals damaging my talk pages in the last 24 hours. [7] [8] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am staggered by these remarks ! No I do not know what a "byline" is and yes I am a well known International author - one of my books "The Encyclopedia of Woodworking Techniques" is published in several languages including "USA English". Check out what "Starblind" has said about my entry at Jeremy Broun and my reputation.

If I am accused of "self promotion" of course through this knowledge base I am hoping to promote my proessional field which is neglected in Popular culture. Why is there this immediate level of aggressiveness ?!! My article is a historical document NOT a piece of propaganda or commercial advertizing. There has been very little written so far about the British Crafts Revival and you are fortunate that i am sharing this knowledge with you !

If you would like to contribute articles, please follow our Manual of Style. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sat 7 May - from Jeremy Broun (UK). I have learned a lot today and obviously I am a little naive as the above comments about imposters and vandals caught me totally by surprise. My aplogies for not registering/logging in. My only excuse is that I am a member of a dynamic UK WIKKI site (a forum for UK furniture makers) and we all edit freely, but having said that we are given a password. I was obviously too enthusiastic to submit my entry and two articles. I am sorry to have created such a stir when my intention was to add to this amazing knowledge bases which I came across by accident. I am the real Jeremy Broun if you care to enter my name in Google you will find numerous pages connected with my work. I am primarily an educator and if I promote myself in the process it is because I have learned it is necessary ! I do not participate in "Vanity" publishing but write objectively about a variety of topics.

Might I suggest you delete the first article "The History of Designer Makers" and allow "A History of Furniture Makers" to stand. I would like to add to the article something about the English Cotswold School of Designer Makers in the 20th Century which I had missed out.

I apologise if we gave a rude introduction here. You see because Wikipedia is popular free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we are a target of vandals and imposters, either added nonsense to existing articles, or making up rubbish articles. Every day, new cases are added to our list of Vandalism in progress. So it sometimes gets many editors, including me, on extra, extra alert. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apology also. Of course I should have read your guidelines first and I fully appreciate the need to check authenticity. Sadly this wonderful tool called the Internet is abused. I have now registered and therefore hope that any contributions I make are accepted wihout raising the alarm. Jeremy Broun.(It does take a lomg time to digest the extent of the protocol !)I have also re-edited my article called "Furniture Today" and trust that is now acceptable.

Delete, unless a huge cleanup is done to make an encyclopedia article from this rhetorics. In the current state it is useless. Aslo the title is too broad. Does the article cover designer makers of jewelry? Also it looks like original research, disallowed in wikipedia. References are required. Mikkalai 20:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So, I'm wondering who would ever enter "The[A] History of Designer Makers" into the WP searchbox. OK, right, I don't like the pagename for openers. And if I should stumble across this article I wouldn't know what to make of it. It doesn't look or read like an encyclopedia article but rather a page from a book about an obscure something that doesn't fit in here (and I really do like Random page). There may be good information here but it is so poorly formatted that it is almost unreadable. Perhaps a massive rewrite and a more logical pagename would get my vote to keep. hydnjo talk 01:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Jeremy Broun - in view of the last comment (by "Hydnjo") I have withdrawn my article. The article was originally written last week for a British Furniture Designer Makers Internet Forum after time consuming research and was entusiastically received. The title obviously refers to Furniture not Jewelry or other crafts because it was sited on a Furniture Design listing. I am not prepared to have my professional writing abused in such a Phillistine way when I submitted it in good faith to help broaden this knowledge base on my subject. I have made several changes to my article in my attempt to conform to your "rules" but it is just inviting further insult. Perhaps it would be a good idea to highlight and summarise the key rules for any new subscriber as it was misleading to me that this is a freely editable website as obviously the rules are extensive. 8 May2005.

Now that the author has blanked the pages, they should be speedy deleted, shouldn't they? --Angr/_comhrá 08:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 14:50, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sarcade

Has been Transwikied to Wiktionary. Delete because cannot be expanded to be encyclopedic. (Is it really necessary to bring trivial cases like this to VfD?) jni 12:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a real word? Kappa 12:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Did you know that Sarcade is a city or some place in Somalia that has 25,000 inhabitants? See this link. Do we have any Somalian here? --Eleassar777 13:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well yes, it's a place in Somalia, but the article isn't about that place, and it's kinda hard to make even a stub when we don't know if it's a village, a district or what. Kappa 13:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that's not true. See another link. --Eleassar777 14:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with jni that the original version was non-expandable, but I think we should keep the new content that it has been replaced with. Sietse 15:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now. Kappa 16:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a total useful, legit article. Bratsche^{talk random} 22:20, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Changing vote to keep and withdrawing my nomination since this has now been rewritten about a completely different, valid topic. jni 13:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Real place in Somalia with real community of interest. Capitalistroadster 23:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep geografical stub. --Marianocecowski 11:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 23:45, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

The Geometric Supposer

Delete. Commercial and/or not notable. An external link at Interactive geometry software would suffice. Physchim62 12:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nonnotable. Mikkalai 21:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Follow the link to the commercial. hydnjo talk 01:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advert - Tεx τ urε 17:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. Golbez 23:45, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

The Geometric Supposer is available also in Hebrew

Speedy delete. Link from The Geometric Supposer shows that the page is commercial. The article is written entirely in Hebrew, and it seems like such a waste of time to go running around to find a translator. Physchim62 12:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:07, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Googlepedia

Neologism created by bloggers when news broke that Google was offering Wikimedia hosting; as such, any content is original research and speculation. Furthermore, the entire concept is out of date, since nothing new has come of the Google talks, but Yahoo! -- and a handful of other organisations -- have gone ahead and offered hosting. Being discussed once-upon-a-time in blogs doesn't make a topic encyclopedic. - IMSoP 14:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia: space or meta; merge if there's an appropriate target there. Samaritan 16:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- information: meta:Google hosting is the most related meta page; more generally, there is meta:Wikimedia partners and hosts - IMSoP
Delete. Neologism that's 15 minutes have come and gone. Speculative original research. Niteowlneils 23:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice try though. hydnjo talk 01:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism CDC (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are 191 Google results for googlepedia. As long as the article does not repeat meta:Talk:Google hosting it provides useful information. PeterGrecian 10:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 23:43, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Registan.Net

Related to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Thinking-East.Net, which was deemed promotional and non-encyclopedic. I've listed this here for parity. —Xezbeth 14:39, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Alexa rank 234,166; details. Samaritan 19:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete. notability. Mikkalai 21:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I bet a list of blogs would probably kill our servers. ;-) hydnjo talk 02:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 11:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Geometric Supposer is also available in Hebrew}}
 {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Googlepedia}}
+{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Registan.Net}}