Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2004 December 30: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 28: Line 28:
{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/*-to the*-to the*-to the*-to the*}}
{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/*-to the*-to the*-to the*-to the*}}
{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/5th Heaven}}
{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/5th Heaven}}
{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Triangular Earth Calendar}}
<!--
<!--
When adding the heading for a new day, it would be helpful to
When adding the heading for a new day, it would be helpful to

Revision as of 16:27, 30 December 2004

December 30

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 18:48, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Charge of Aradia

I'm not a Wiccan. Is this really important/encyclopedic?--ZayZayEM 07:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's an encyclopedic enough subject. The Aradia thing apparently came from a Tuscan woman called Maddelena via Charles Leland. Leland produced a book called "ARADIA or the Gospel of the Witches" in 1899. There are some doubts about its authenticity, but many Wiccans take this stuff just about as seriously as a Wiccan can take anything. This article could use some cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Charge of the Goddess, and discuss the several variations and some of the history of the text there. This text from Aradia is the literary source of that one. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:20, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with this suggestion.--ZayZayEM 00:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but needs a definite clean up and expansion on the history of the Charge. Megan1967 01:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth/expansion. GRider\talk 18:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Charge of the Goddess Jayjg | (Talk) 03:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep with a suggestion to merge. A merge tag is already at the article page. Joyous 01:08, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists

Wouldn't Registered Nurse and Nurse anesthetist (or simply Anesthetist/Anesthetology) cover this material better?--ZayZayEM 07:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes. Merge into registered nurse or similar and delete- Skysmith 11:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge with Nurse. This is a significant specialty within nursing and is noted at Nurse. I have linked this page there. hydnjo talk 00:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If Kept the title should be singular as well as it's link at Nurse. hydnjo talk 01:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus reached. The votes to delete were roughly equal to votes for merging and keeping. That said, more of the "don't delete" votes suggested merging, so I'm adding a "merge" tag to the article and listing it on WP:DA. Joyous 23:48, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Shane MacGowan's Teeth

I'm not quite sure whether this qualifies for speedy (as patent nonsense), so I'm listing it here. Smoddy | Talk 00:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Not nonsense, see patent nonsense. Delete though. --fvw* 00:03, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nyuk nyuk nyuk. And Shane MacGowan seems to need some NPOVing in places, being a little too fanshippy. JRM 00:11, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whilst Shane MacGowan's oral health is legendary, it doesn't need its own article. Rje 00:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • BJAODN, redirect to Shane MacGowan to prevent recreation. Kappa 00:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge. This belongs on the Shane MacGowan page. It's a paragraph, not a stand-alone article. LostCluster 01:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, interesting and notable. Move to Shane MacGowan's teeth and list on cleanup. Possibly merge if it isn't significantly expanded within a few days. Everyking 03:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: No need to merge. DCEdwards1966 04:18, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Articles like this should be quietly merged rather than listed for deletion. But in this case, delete is fine too since there is no encyclopedic content, it's an unlikely external link and there are no internal ones except for deletion links and one from Shane MacGowan. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with the main MacGowan article as a trivia item, as this physical feature is notable and something of a trademark for the man. That said, in some respects devoting a separate article to this subject could be almost seen as trolling MacGowan. And it's about as appropriate as an article wholly devoted to Dolly Parton's breasts. 23skidoo 16:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I think you'd need two articles for Dolly Parton's breasts. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Shane McGowan, as long as you understand that by merge, I mean merge only the fact that he has bad teeth, and none of the other bits of speculation. I would be fine with deleting and not merging as well. Tuf-Kat 22:28, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
    Already there. Quote: "He has very few teeth (his dental situation has been part of his "reputation" for years) [...]". I think that's enough. Nothing to merge here, move along. :-) JRM 22:39, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
    There is no speculation contained in this article. Shane Mac freely admits to the causes of his rotten teeth in his book "A Drink With Shane MacGowan. Kurt Shaped Box
    Well zip-a-dee-do-dah and a merry-go-round for all. :-) How about adding this, plus source if possible, to the main article then? (And yes, Shane MacGowan's Teeth does present it as pure speculation, citing "possible reasons" — how is a poor reader to know those are supposed to be factual?) JRM 01:47, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
    I was most doubtful about the crack and meth reference. By all means, cite the book and put it in the main article. And FTR, I'd be more inclined to accept an article on Dolly Parton's breasts. Tuf-Kat 03:26, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
    Added references to Shane's book and removed unsubstatiated rumour. I say we Keep this article, as Shane's teeth are as much a part of his appeal as the man himself... Kurt Shaped Box 21:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I like it!--Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 11:02, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge or Keep new version. Kappa 19:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or Keep. chocolateboy 15:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep!!!!! left unsigned by 195.140.170.39
  • Merge plain and simple merge... I think merging would be more appropriate in the first place rather than listing for deletion. Pedant 22:38, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Proposal: Looks like a strong consensus for merge. If there are no objections in twenty-four hours I propose to perform a redirect and merge and delist this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Strongly object: there are several plain keep votes, and some votes in favor of deleting without merging. That's no "strong consensus". Everyking 20:40, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Proposal withdrawn. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd like my vote to be Merge without redirect, but that's not an option under the GFDL. Therefore, I must vote Delete because I do not want this article to exist, even if I want the information to be in the main Shane MacGowan article. Article on his teeth is not large enough to be separate. JRM 22:13, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete at 03:40, 31 Dec 2004 by User:Niteowlneils who wrote misplaced user page, blanked--content before blanking was: 'vfd Kenesis is an underground Drum and Bass DJ from Canada. He is new to the Drum and Bass scene. No known material has been r...' . Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kenesis

Vanity page. Delete.-gadfium 00:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, agree, vanity. Dbenbenn 01:03, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Rje 01:04, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity and not notable. Megan1967 01:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Come back when you're notable. LostCluster 01:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Was vanity, but now author blanked - can we speedy such articles? David Johnson [T|C] 00:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Johor Bahru City Square

  • Del. Non-notable shopping center building. Mikkalai 23:50, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete --fvw* 00:13, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Rje 00:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's about time deletionists gave reasons for wanting articles deleted that actually bore some relation to the deletion policy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this article. It is about a real thing, which it is possible to verify, and forms part of "human knowledge". This is not a paper encyclopaedia, so we can potentially include all knowledge. This is a wonderful and inspiring sentiment. Trying to cut it down to one's personal taste is not.Dr Zen 05:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • And by wanting this article to remain one could argue that you too are using personal taste in your judgement? I would like to think Wikipedia is democratic enough to allow dissenting voices to be heard, this is afterall Votes for Deletion not Votes for Retention. Megan1967 01:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • It's both, Megan. It's where deletionists try to enforce their personal taste, and those who want a broad encyclopaedia attempt to influence the community not to permit them. If you'll note, I'm not suggesting deletionists should not vote, only that they should give reasons, as they are asked to do, that show why the article should be deleted according to the deletion policy. "Not notable" is not in the policy, Megan.Dr Zen 01:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • One could also say: "It's where inclusionists try to enforce their personal view of Wikipedia as being a repository of all factual information, however miniscule and unimportant that information might be on those who wish to preserve Wikipedia as something that is still recognizably an encyclopedia." Neither side is evil, they just have different views of what Wikipedia is/should be.
On notability: of course it is a valid reason for motivating a deletion. In addition to there being ample precedents of articles being deleted for this reason, point 17 of "What Wikipedia articles are not" clearly states that "The people who have biographies here should be important or otherwise notable for some reason." And I would like somebody to explain to me why being "important and notable" should then also not applies to fictional characters, beasts, weapons, etc. as well as to real-life things such as schools, malls, buildings, etc.
In addition, even if it wasn't covered by the above, "What Wikipedia articles are not" also clearly states that the list given is not exhaustive, but gives only the items on which there are consensus. Nowhere in the procedure does it state that other reasons that do not correspond 100% with the currently listed points cannot be given as a motivation for deletion, as long as they fall within the (admittedly broad) categories of: No potential to become encyclopedic, Original research, Inappropriate user pages in excessive or stubborn cases, Vanity page, Advertising or other spam, Completely idiosyncratic non-topic. "Non-notability" of a person, object, etc. is a perfectly valid interpretation of "No potential to become encyclopedic".
So, please debate each article on its own merits and don't browbeat people who use a motivation on VfD that you don't agree with by using the statement "it isn't in the policy" - there is ample room in the policy to permit non-notability being used as a motivation for VfD-ing an article. Elf-friend 21:15, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm browbeating no one. I try to form a consensus by discussion. That discussion should be guided by the policy. It's perfectly acceptable to suggest that deletionists should give reasons that are coherent with the policy for getting rid of articles. The policy clearly is not deletionist and is not in favour of losing information. "Notable for some reason" is extremely broad, Elf-friend. Even if it did cover nonpersons, which it clearly does not, since the mention of notability is only in the section on biographies, "Notable by reason of being a mall used by hundreds of thousands" would cover it. I don't know of any definition of "encyclopaedic" that demands "notability" of inclusions in an encyclopaedia, and certainly none that suggests that "notability" has a particular level. Our own policy wisely doesn't set any particular bar. The page in question in fact suggests that articles should include what readers would expect to find under the heading of the article. If I search for Johor Bahru City Square, what do I expect to find? According to you, nothing. I expect it to be beneath notice. That's a very personal view, but this is not an encyclopaedia for you or for me. It's for everyone. I think you should only vote that an article is "not notable" if it is truly your belief that no one, or at the least, a vanishingly small number of people, would look up its title and expect to find something.Dr Zen 05:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Public facilities are inherently notable and encyclopedic. Keep, obviously. --Centauri 06:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • So are public toilets but that doesn't mean there should be an article on every public toilet. Megan1967 01:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • A public toilet or a pizza hut or any fast-food restaurant should not be compared with a notable office building in the hub of a metropolitian city like Johor Bahru. Please, give respect to the status of the article. Chan Han XiangChan Han Xiang 10:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Inherently not. Shall I write an article about every Pizza Hut place? About every street in every village? The same logic as with people. Some notable, others not. Anyway, there is some zen in Dr Zen's. And there is another way to deal with this. Changing my vote.Mikkalai 07:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Inherently affirmative. Just because you don't want to know about every Pizza Hut in existence doesn't mean it is not a valid topic of study. If the analysis of history shows us nothing else it is that all sorts of apparently irrelevant minutiae can become immensely relevant over time and when viewed by the right people in the right context.--Centauri 22:37, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base", just because it exists does not mean that it should be grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. See point 7 Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The argument that every piece of detail including irrelevant detail should be included, is against Wikipedia policy. Megan1967 00:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • View Point If you write every notable building in the Johor Bahru article, there will come to a point when you have to condense the article. This will result in the re-creation of such articles.

This city square article has a lot of shopping centres, and it is a notable 50-story building with a lot of offices, half as notable as the petronas twin towers.

I also agree with Zen to keep. I write this so that people can get a bigger view of Johor Bahru. What encyclopedias are for? Let people to have more knowledge about notable places and things. This is surely notable enough to be an article, as I recently noticed that it even have an website.

User:Chan Han Xiang

  • Merge and redirect to Johor Bahru.Mikkalai 07:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge to Johor Bahru and delete. Significant only as a part of the local landscape - Skysmith 11:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Johor Bahru Icundell 11:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Johor Bahru. Redirect-ify or delete this entry, as long as the information remains. iMeowbot~Mw 11:55, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge. Nothing to distinguish this from any other mall. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:47, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete This is once again, let's name it for what it is, vandalisme by author. This page was vfded at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/City Square. The author once again ignores the community. He did it yesterday by recreating Medical Specialist Centre against vfd conclusion. He did it again Taman Johor Jaya by riding against vfd conclusions. Gtabary 12:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This isn't really a mall. It's the central square of the second largest city in Malaysia. Practically every city and town on the planet have at least one central square, mall, place. But it doesn't follow automatically from the size of the city that its central square is notable. I have no way to know whether this case is notable, since the article does not say. In fact, all the article tells me is that Johor Hahru has a city square, which I could have guessed. The article doesn't tell anyone anything that he didn't already know before he clicked on the link to the article. If there is anything to say about them at all, it makes more sense that central city locations are documented in the articles about the cities, unless they have notability beyond that of the city itself, or the article about the city has grown too long. --BM
    • Comment: I'm more inclined to the 'mall' hypothesis, as their web site seems to indicate. Kappa 13:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as re-creation of previously VfD'd article under a slightly different name. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:39, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Gordon, the content added in has a potential to have information that is very different from the old outlook. What's wrong about this article? Furthermore, it is a very tall building with lots of offices and malls, like the structure of Taipei 101 and Petronas Twin Towers, except it is not that big. Chan Han XiangChan Han Xiang 10:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • What's wrong with this article is that the information is better served in the main article. It has a context and point there, and adds local color. By the way, Chan Han Xiang, there's a RfC on you. You might want to stop by and defend yourself. hfool/Wazzup? 03:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete for recreation of previously deleted content. It's time for the inclusionists to go over to Everything2 or Wikinfo, if they get upset that other people have standards. Donut shops affect thousands of lives. Pay telephones can be the only ones for miles. The sewer cap could be very near dozens of important stores. The things every place has are not encyclopedic content. Only the things that stand out from the others are encyclopedic. Otherwise, go to Mapquest if you want to know the main drag of a city, go to the county courthouse if you want to find out how many students go to the high school. Geogre 04:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge to Johor Bahru, with potential to spin it out to an article when there is enough content. I can imagine that this shopping center might be worthy of an article, but this has better chances of expanding as part of an article someone would be likely to look up. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:02, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Listen up, Guys! I have a new suggestion. It is very hard to merge with the Johor Bahu article. Why don't instaed add the content into Shopping centres of Johor Bahru and expand from there? I think that is better than merging with Johor Bahru since other city articles never had one. User:Chan Han Xiang 16:26 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • What is so hard about it? Just add a Landmarks section to the end of the article and mention it. The article is still short. If the editors Johor Bahru don't think it is important enough to be mentioned, then that is good enough reason to delete a separate article. An article dedicated to a list of shopping centers in one city is not good idea. Every city on the planet has shopping centres. People shop. Would you want an article for the shopping centers for each of tens of thousands of cities in the world? Wikipedia is not a shopping center directory. --BM 13:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Either merge or keep. Do not destroy this information. GRider\talk 23:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. No apparent valid reason for deletion given. Dan100 11:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete' or change Wikipedia's tag line from "The Free Encyclopedia" to "The Free Miscellany of Information" Elf-friend 21:15, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Johor Bahru as a local landmark. I am a Johor local and I agree that we have to look at the bigger picture. Shahirshamsir 22:20 GMT, 1 Jan 2005
  • Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - SimonP 16:24, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Carried out at 06:11, 3 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ripped silence

Band vanity. By the sounds of it they are still learning their instruments. Rje 00:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Megan1967 01:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable vanity. LostCluster 01:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Tuf-Kat 22:25, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable at this time. David Johnson [T|C] 00:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable yet. --CDN99 01:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, garage band vanity. Ливай | ☺ 04:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:40, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Imeca group

Advertising for an economic group in Detroit who score 26 Google hits. Rje 01:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not where you post your press releases. LostCluster 01:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Damm, I wish we could speedy articles containing press releases. David Johnson [T|C] 01:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Carried out at 04:23, 3 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Coalition for a New American Society

I doubt this organization even exists. If it does, this is a pretty good article, and I'll surely retract any requests it be deleted. However, a Google search only leads to pages that mirror this Wikipedia article. I think any potentially bogus articles need to be vetted a lot more closely, and deleted if they don't pass muster. --chbarts 01:36, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Political fan fic. If Google says this "group" doesn't exist outside of WP and its forks, it probably doesn't. Szyslak 02:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified. Gazpacho 06:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mikkalai 07:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can verify it and establish notablilty. David Johnson [T|C] 01:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Ливай | ☺ 04:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:41, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Carlos Delgado (Gin Cocktail)

Non-notable cocktail--article seems to say it's only known at one bar. Only relevent hits for "Carlos Delgado" vermouth gin are Wikipedia and a few mirrors. Niteowlneils 01:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Megan1967 02:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified -- Cyrius|✎ 03:20, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, or move to Wikibooks:Cookbook? ~ mlk ✉♬ 03:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) ~
  • Delete. Possibly transwiki to Cookbook if they want it and somebody can verify that it tastes nice :-) David Johnson [T|C] 01:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • One of our local TV stations has a Carlos Delgado as a field reporter. He'd probably get a kick out of this! Delete here and transwiki to the cookbook. Sounds tasty, actually. - Lucky 6.9 02:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Carried out at 04:12, 3 Jan 2005 by User:Jayjg.

Comment: Hoaxes are explicitly not speedy delete candidates (even though they are a form of vandalism). We have too poor a track record as individuals of sorting the true hoaxes from the real but obscure topics. We have a much better track record of sorting out the hoaxes as a group. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Janine green

Google on "Janine Green" turns up no pages that I can find that are related to auto racing or Mazdas. Either vanity or hoax; take your pick. Kelly Martin 01:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. the "Pinnons to PetSmart" route, hmmmm. Vanity/hoax methinks. Rje 02:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment author's next edit is to an article that mentions Congresswoman Janine Green; a bioguide search finds no such member of Congress. There is however a famous model by that name. Smells like a hoax. Delete Michael Ward 02:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Michael Hughes is not the mayor of Rockville, IL, either; that would be Doug Scott. Kelly Martin 02:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- speedily if possible because hoax = disruption. DreamGuy 04:33, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pure vandalism and justifiable speedy IMO, but there's been some debate about this recently. Andrewa 20:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. All the signs point to this being a hoax, so we can speedy it under criterion #3 (IMO). David Johnson [T|C] 01:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted as a hoax. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Carried out at 04:13, 3 Jan 2005 by User:Jayjg. While the speedy was probably inappropriate (hoaxes are not speedy candidates), the deletion outcome was probably correct in this case. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Michael Hughes

Apparent hoax. Listed as Mayor of Rockford, IL. He is not; Doug Scott is and seemingly has been for a while. Article mentions he interned for Congresswoman Janine Green. No one by that name has served in Congress [1]. Author User:Wikiweirdia previously warned over adding nonsense to wikipedia. Article discovered by looking at history of author for Janine green article, which is up for vfd as possible hoax. Michael Ward 02:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete Hoax. The mayor of Rockford, IL is Doug Scott and there is no Congresswoman by the name of Janine Green. See City of Rockford, IL home page. Kelly Martin 02:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- speedily if possible because hoax = disruption. DreamGuy 04:33, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Amgine 06:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. Although, considering the user's previous edits, this could be Speedied as vandalism. Rje 15:45, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, IMO it's pure vandalism, although there's been some discussion of this recently. Andrewa 20:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. All the signs point to this being a hoax, so we can speedy it under criterion #3 (IMO). David Johnson [T|C] 01:10, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted as hoax. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 03:44, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

ReWire

Non-notable software technology. Too close to an ad. LostCluster 02:47, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Strong keep, notable audio protocol. iMeowbot~Mw 03:06, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete poor software review with no information about the technology. Could potentially be expanded, but this isn't encyclopedic. - Amgine 06:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, appears to be notable. —RaD Man (talk) 11:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons stated above, but clean-up and expansion needed to make it sound less like an ad. 23skidoo 23:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, could do with expansion and more specifics on the technical aspects of the software. Megan1967 01:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but NPOV and clean --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 11:01, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Marginal keep. GRider\talk 18:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, no apparent reason for deletion. Dan100 11:58, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keeeeep. Andre (talk) 21:33, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. chocolateboy 15:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:47, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Philosophical Perspective on the Spirit of Christmas

This is a personal essay and therefore not an appropriate encyclopedia article.--Jiang

  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 04:16, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable original research vanity essay. DreamGuy 04:33, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete humbug well-written POV essay. Gazpacho 04:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikisource if anywhere? - Amgine 06:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, same reasons as DreamGuy. Rje 15:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete?,
why? because a notably named user (DreamGuy) accuses vanity? a more humble user states "personal essay" finished by "not an appropriate encyclopedia article" yet another with a "humbug" for good measure? is this why this article should be deleted? well let us hear what Webster says about an encyclopedic article:
"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Encyclopedia En*cy`clo*pe"di*a, Encyclopaedia
En*cy`clo*pae"di*a, n. NL., fr. Gr. ?, for ? ?, instruction
in the circle of arts and sciences: cf. F. encyclop'edie.
See Cyclopedia, and Encyclical. Formerly written
encyclop[ae]dy and encyclopedy.
The circle of arts and sciences; a comprehensive summary of
knowledge, or of a branch of knowledge; esp., a work in which
the various branches of science or art are discussed
separately, and usually in alphabetical order; a cyclopedia.
now, outside of the fact that this article is filed under "Philosophy" which is either art, science or both depending on your viewpoint --- this vote was opened by stating this article appears to be an essay...and I ask what essay is not at least art? further I wonder what author cannot be accused of vanity for simply believing that upon writing their ideas and or dreams on medium someone might actually want to read what they have written -- quite vain I'm sure.
humbug is right. I should hope more for a rebuttal of the ideas in this article via written perspective than a blatant deletion of a completely unique niche subject and article in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
so delete it lest you feel compelled in a fit of weakness to add your philosophical view regarding the spirit of christmas...because obviously that would be vain and no one else is doing it... - Gabriel Kent 19:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
>||:)
See What wikipedia articles are not nos. 8 and 9. --Jiang 18:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's a place for this, Gabriel, it's just not here. Try Wikinfo maybe. Andrewa 20:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete for being original research/essay. Tuf-Kat 22:24, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • "Humbug" was a joking reference to A Christmas Carol, Gabriel. Sorry if it didn't sound that way. I like the text, but it's not an encyclopedia article. Gazpacho
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Move to the user's user page if they want to keep it. David Johnson [T|C] 01:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non NPOV. Megan1967 01:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Not that it's bad, but it doesn't belong here. (also, fixed formatting for above two votes) --TexasDex 02:00, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, sorry, original research. -Ld | talk 05:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. Josh Cherry 00:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, personal essay/original research. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:51, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Fusilatelist

Was listed as speedy, but it is a slang term... -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete as dictdef without the potential to become encyclopedic. (There might be an article lurking in Fusilatelism though. Except that it's a neologism without any google hits. -K) —Korath (Talk) 05:03, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic, expand existing mention at Telephone card. (It's also inaccurate, as a calling card is card with one's name on it, with or without contact info, formerly used when "calling" in person) - Amgine 06:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Rje 15:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was article deleted while discussion was in progress. Joyous 03:53, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Rainbow kiss

Previously listed as speedy... it is a sex position, and we do have sexual positions in the Wikipedia... even though this description is very disgusting. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep We can't get rid of things just because they're disgusting. The goal is to present all knowledge, whether we like it or not. 24.60.189.129 05:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with List of sex positions. - Amgine 06:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge ~ mlk ✉♬ 07:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) ~
  • Keep Why is this disgusting? You guys need to lighten up. Isamuel 07:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blannked as copyvio. Mikkalai 07:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Disgusting" of course, is POV and not a reason for deletion ((not a big oral sex fan, but always up for the occasional "period piece" (sorry, kind of an in joke with my ex)). However, this appears to be a rarely used, vague, ill-defined, slang neologism, with less than 1000 hits for "rainbow kiss" -finian[2]. Note that if you read the top hit (a forum) it has different meanings for different people. Delete even if it tries to make a comeback via the 'temp' page. Niteowlneils 18:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I gave it the original speedy, which I still think it deserves because it seems like a prank article. --LeeHunter 18:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gigglecruft. We tend to be a bit oversensitive and anxious to prove we're broadminded here. It's not prudish to delete pranks. Andrewa 20:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Articles on named sex positions don't seem all that encyclopedic, generally, and it seems sufficient to have List of sex positions. If this slang term has any actual currency, include the position in that article. --BM 00:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Niteowlneils (well, the second part of his comment anyway!). David Johnson [T|C] 01:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep if it can be cleaned up to avoid copyright violations. Megan1967 01:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Disgusting and fcked up, yes. But it does have rather consistent google hits so it ought to be included. :: DarkLordSeth 03:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: YEUCH! (I'm just saying.) Ropers 03:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Weak Keep, on second thought. I still find it effing revolting, but if I had previously read "rainbow kiss" somewhere I wouldn't have known what was meant and I would have tried to look it up. Merging with List of sex positions would destroy "lookupability" ;-) Ropers 23:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Alabama (song)

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 and a suggestion that a disambiguation page is in order. Joyous 01:40, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

This is more suited to Wikisource. This is a "Mere [collection] of public domain or other source material," which is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. 24.60.189.129 05:08, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, but transwiki the lyrics to Wikisource, indeed. James F. (talk) 05:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, move to Wikisource. - Amgine 06:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, move lyrics to Wikisource, if it would not be a copyvio. Mikkalai 07:10, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Alabama and trim to omit lyrics --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Already a good stub, with a stub notice. As for the lyrics, we have them for many national anthems, including Advance Australia Fair (two versions), La Marseillaise and The Star Spangled Banner. So why not state songs? Alabama is bigger than some countries (although not those three). Andrewa 13:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep There is a Category:U.S. state songs that is collecting the lyrics to all the official state songs, which seems worthwhile. Sortior 19:59, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Megan1967 01:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Transwiki the lyrics to Wikisource. And write an article on Alabama song (song): "Oh, show us, the way to the next whiskey-bar/Oh, don't ask why/Oh don't ask why/For we must find the next whiskey-bar/For if we don't find the next whiskey-bar/I tell you we must die/I tell you we must die/I tell you, I tell you, I tell you we must die!/Oh moon of Alabama/We now must say goodbye/We've lost our good old Mama/And must have whiskey, oh you know why." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:35, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • This may be the first time I've seen a likely copyvio in a VfD discussion. But, yes, that song does deserve an article, although Alabama Song will do for an article name. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:10, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
Fair use! fair use! This is scholarly discussion! (This is scholarly discussion, right?) Dpbsmith (talk) 01:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: It would need a 3-way disambig, it's also the name of track 8 on Harvest (1972 album), which IMO wouldn't qualify for its own article but which got a lot of airplay and people will search for it. No change of vote. Andrewa 19:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Again, that's a song called "Alabama", not "Alabama Song". -- Jmabel | Talk 21:44, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
          • Aha! So we have two songs called Alabama and one called Alabama Song, and an article called Alabama (song) about one of the songs called Alabama (whew). IMO we need to disambiguate all three songs, exactly how doesn't worry me. Andrewa 00:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • Disambig as you will, but I've started an article at Alabama Song on the Brecht/Weill song. It's a stub, help is welcome. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:47, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, on the same basis as national anthems. Don't care either way on whether lyrics are moved to Wikisource. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:10, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep article, keep lyrics. Neutralitytalk 22:33, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
In any case the author of the lyrics died in 1918, these are in the public domain.Sortior 22:44, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki the lyrics. Discussion of the song should really place it in Mahogony, as well as Brecht's life/Weil's career, and the hundreds of remakes of it. A discussion would be encyclopedic, because this particular Brecht/Weil song has a place in the Modernist theater, pop music, and all sorts of people trying to be daring with their song choices. Geogre 13:39, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • No, no, that's not the song here, this is about the state song of Alabama... We are all so confused. Show me the way... -- Jmabel | Talk 21:47, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Carried out at 08:16, 6 Jan 2005 by User:RickK. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

--;

Neo-something: what's the word that means "a newly coined symbol"? Neograph? This is supposed to be the internet symbol for "hammer." Is there one for a trashcan yet? -Cmprince 05:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the trashcan \_/

  • Neomoticon. Delete. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:34, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as probable spam. —Korath (Talk) 05:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to be spam/advertising, not notable site, not encyclopedic. - Amgine 06:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, \_/ Wyss 06:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC). Wyss 06:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • delete ~ mlk ✉♬ 07:07, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) ~
  • Delete, spam/vanity James F. (talk) 07:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • d is a symbol meaning Delete -- Ferkelparade π 10:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • If you're thinking about saying "Delete --;", then don't bother. It won't be original or funny, but there's always someone. Delete. - Vague | Rant 11:30, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • ->\_/ is a symbol meaning delete. Neo-something. Andrewa 12:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the symbol is a neomoticon, the article is an advert. Rje 15:37, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Very cute, Andrew. Yes, -> \_/ this. GRider\talk 18:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Cast it into oblivion. Delete Phils 21:47, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Hit it with a hammer. Maybe enough like nonsense to be a speedy candidate. David Johnson [T|C] 01:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • wow youguys take yourselves WAY too seriously. --; forever
    • Agree we take ourselves way too seriously. On the other hand, IMO you aren't taking our project nearly seriously enough. Please sign your posts here with ~~~~, it makes it easier for all of us to lighten up. No change of vote. Andrewa 19:50, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • A definite keeper. What's wrong with it? -- User:fuscob 13:11 EST 12/31/04 fake signature by User:69.172.1.249
  • Do not delete. This is a valid Item of great importance. -mrchicken
    • Thanks for improving the article, IP 65.74.90.211, this is such a rare (and to me obvious) course of action and such a good example for others that I'm tempted to change my vote... but not quite enough. Andrewa 19:50, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP... this symbol will become important to the internet eventually! --; is a symbol meaning keep! 205.188.117.12 18:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) Icey
 \ --; /
  ¯¯¯¯¯ --BesigedB (talk) 18:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • \_/ - David Gerard 18:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable symbol. (Oops, I said the "N" word ... :-O )Elf-friend 19:31, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pedant 22:48, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Carried out at 13:57, 4 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lord emo

"Lord emo" is A title given to Jordan C. in 2004, by a croup (sic) of web communities, starts this article, which continues: He is the leading editor for an emo only music community as well as an unrelated gaming magazine and website. It smells Deeply Unnotable to me, but this is only a suspicion: I post it here in the hope that some person in the "emo music community" will be able to judge if it's worthwhile; and, if it is, to rewrite it in in a form that makes sense to those who wouldn't already know all about it. -- Hoary 05:39, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity ad, article doesn't establish notability. Wyss 06:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity James F. (talk) 07:34, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity Rje 15:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Un-be-lie-va-ble. Phils 21:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 22:22, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:17, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

It depends what the definition of is is...

This article claims that "The line has come into modern American English as a catch phrase," and it simply has not. A Google search for the phrase finds no examples of this exact phrase being used to describe anything else but the Clinton Testimony. Therefore, the claim is an overstatement. There should not be a wikipedia article dedicated to a quirky use of syntax. Kingturtle 06:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So it's 15-6, with DELETE winning. it's been nearly two weeks. shall it be deleted now? Kingturtle 07:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --DrizzttBDman 06:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Kingturtle 06:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Mikkalai 07:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete James F. (talk) 07:34, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Tuf-Kat 12:01, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Professor water 12:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) This would seem to belong in WikiQuotes
  • Delete Rje 15:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Recommend rewrite, or possibly move to WikiQuote, but this phrase is alive and well and culturally significant... ("On second thought, given that he then attempts to divert attention by making exactly this distinction with reference to Dowd, perhaps it isn't so nitpicky (I guess it depends what the definition of "is" is [sorry, couldn't resist]).[3]; "Mr. Moore's grinning assertions during convention network interviews that "interpretations - lies - are OK because one is producing a documentary with a political agenda strikes me as originating in the same elitist culture as "It depends what the definition of 'is' is."[4]; This is a joke, if someone cannot afford to feed their child breakfast in the morning how can you say they're not living in poverty? Let's be realistic. This is getting to the point of "it depends what the definition of is is".[5]; He is trying to determine whether the "food tax" that would be collected at the point of sale for the purchase of food that was used, is or isn't a sales and or use tax. Remember "it depends what the definition of is is?" [6]; "The question "Do you believe in Evolution?", is simply the request to know if you accept that the evidence presented is consistant with the conclusions publicized. The whole idea of "it depends what the definition of 'is' is" makes me ill. And that is the real question you ruminate on. Are the evidences of an expanding universe and similarity of species enough to convince you that dbbeebs' family tree includes single-celled creatures." [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ad3069d3f60.htm] - JenGod
Just because others use this quirky bit of syntax does not mean they are referring to Clinton saying it. moreover, people have used the same is is sentences before Clinton ever did. i see this article as an attempt to create something that really isn't there. Kingturtle 17:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete whatever it is, it's not encylopedic. put in wikiquote under 'misquotations'. any useful content about the scandal should go in the Monica Lewinsky scandal article. Michael Ward 18:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, I guess. I have actually heard this used as a reference outside Clinton's testimony, to refer to semantic arguments in general, but just because this phrase's 15 minutes of fame has stretched to 20 probably isn't sufficient for an encyclopedia intended to be timeless. That is, I believe that all JenGod's citations ARE specifically based on Clinton's testimony, and find Kingturtle's conclusions based on the Google search innaccurate, but I really hate neologisms, and feel they need currency for a longer period than this has, so far. Niteowlneils 18:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is some sort of politcal rant, is all. Wyss 01:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • How short our memories are. If this was current we'd never think of deleting it. Famous, notable, well-written—an obvious keep. Everyking 04:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It has entered into popular American culture. That doesn't mean it should be kept. First, we're not writing a dictionary at Wikipedia. Second, it's POV. Third, discussing the context of the original remark ("You mean there's no sex?" "There is no sex?" "Yes. There's no sex?" "No." Later: "Did you lie when you said there is no sex?" "Depends on what the meaning of is is." Pinheaded lawyer mangles English and uses "there's" when he means "there has been," and this gives the witness a chance to gleefully answer "No" because, indeed, at that present time there was no sex taking place, and then that refusal to do the lawyer's job for him by correcting his grammar and answering an incriminating question that wasn't posed becomes a catch phrase for evasion) is not discussing the usage today. Geogre 04:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 06:12, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

--DrizzttBDman 06:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)--DrizzttBDman 06:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Josh Cherry 00:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. (Shrug) In my experience, it does have some significant use as a catchphrase. It's in decline, and in a few years will probably be as forgotten as "To the best of my recollection at this point in time" and "I'm just a simple country lawyer." I think it's valuable to document these things. There are any number of times I've been reading an old novel and a phrase, obviously a popular phrase of the time pops up and there's no easy way to find out what it means. Like "Mother, mother, mother pin a rose on me" (1920s) or "So's your old man" (c. 1900?) Just my $0.02. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) Although maybe a mention in List of catch phrases is sufficient. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) Now it's mentioned there. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mrwojo 21:57, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or delete, depending on what the definition of definition is. Pedant 22:50, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a case of people with POVs, along with some good hearted people who want re-writes. Zenosparadox 04:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC).

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

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

Lorraine De Blanche

She is the widow of Jonathan Drummond-Webb, who committed suicide this week. Not notable enough on her own. A quick Google search didn't yield a bio page from the hospital. Merge into her late husband's article. --Christopherlin 07:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete she has no notability beyond her marriage. Rje 15:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Her article is now a redirect to his. Joyous 15:46, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redir. He's a definite keep, and she certainly rates a mention in the article on him. Andrewa 19:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:55, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ocht

Dicdef. Neologism. P Ingerson 08:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete Smoddy | Talk 10:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism used in a single nightclub. Rje 15:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 16:23, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Megan1967 01:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. While it is neologism, Cream does have national notability. Maybe merge into there. David Johnson [T|C] 01:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted at 22:48, 31 Dec 2004 by User:Neutrality who wrotePatent nonsense. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

*-to the*-to the*-to the*-to the*

Nonsense. Delete. P Ingerson 13:47, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • M to the E to the R to the G to the E with Hip hop slang or someplace like that. Kappa 14:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Hip Hop Slang. Rje 15:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge to Hip hop slang. --Ryan! | Talk 16:04, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge if there is somewhere it can go. Otherwise, delete. DCEdwards1966 16:22, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's nothing to merge because it is incoherent (could probably be speedied for the same reason) -- someone who has never heard such a thing will be no more informed about hip hop (or hip hop slang) after reading the article. Tuf-Kat 22:21, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • del. Mikkalai 22:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Megan1967 01:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted as incoherent. Neutralitytalk 22:49, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted at 04:18, 3 Jan 2005 by User:Jayjg. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

5th Heaven

This one's a bit of a mystery. Supposedly one of the best tv shows of 2004 but I can't find it on Google. --LeeHunter 15:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete as probable hoax. Rje 15:58, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, as it is probably a take on "7th Heaven". --Ryan! | Talk 16:03, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: User talk:24.91.218.114 (creator of this article) as well as the contribution history for this user pretty much say it all. iMeowbot~Mw 16:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 16:20, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. GRider\talk 18:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax and block IP. This individual has had enough polite warnings and continues to add bovine excrement to this site. - Lucky 6.9 19:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable hoax. Block IP, has been warned enough. Mgm|(talk) 22:42, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete I thought at first this might have been an article on the similarly titled 7th Heaven TV series made by someone who was clueless, but it's clearly BS. 23skidoo 23:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it looks like a hoax and smells like a hoax, it's probably a hoax. Maybe speedyable. David Johnson [T|C] 01:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everyking 04:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as disruption of Wikipedia by known hoaxer. DreamGuy 02:39, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted as hoax. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete following transwiki. Carried out at 18:46, 2 Jan 2005 by User:Jpgordon

Triangular Earth Calendar

interesting stuff. fine article. but almost certainly falls under original research. only thing google turned up under the phrase was this slashdot subthread. wikipedia is not the place to promote new ideas or original research. Michael Ward 16:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete unless some kind of currency is shown, it seems a non-notable proposal. It also contains a non-Wikipedia copyright licence. Besides, you can't have a triangular calendar; everybody knows that time is a cube. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - It contains content under an open ended copyright (mine), which is free for use, and acceptable under the Wikipedia Copyright. It infringes no copyright, as it is my own original content. As for original research, I would submit that this article is just as valid as existing articles, especially those methods of time kookery and Original content based on previous concepts, which are original ideas, but only follow the standards of Wikipedia policy because of a portion of news coverage. I support TEC because it was published prior to the Wikipedia article on an independant website. It does not contain a viewpoint, but rather, which was my goal, a non-biased explination of TEC. I also submit that it is a listing of an alternative calendar format, which I support that alternative calendar formats have been very newsworthy. I have stated the key concepts, and made proper comparisons to existing work. I further submit that much of the format is already published in a lesser format as the Chinese Ten-Month Solar Calendar, which consists of 360 days, plus 5 or 6. TEC uses a similar format, but conforms to the Gregorian calendar in terms of the length of the year in days, leap years, and in the format of standard weeks. If you read on the Ten-Month Solar Calendar (google for "ten month" solar calendar), you will see that it is widely documented, and the concepts date back thousands of years, including the Romans and Chinese. Thus, it does not represent such original work, as defined by Wikipedia, but combined work, all of which is extensively peer reviewed under each seperate criteria. It also does not introduce any new terms. It uses months, weeks, days, mathematical concepts, etc. The only term that I know that it defines newly is the TEC Decimal Day which is not really a new term, but an explination simply of how TEC uses Decimal time. To summarize, I state that the concepts here are all existing, including the written formats, both mathematical, geometrical, and in script, that the original work has be prior published, that it is non-biased, and that it holds no copyright that prevents Wikipedia use. --DeWayne Lehman 18:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, no currency. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium nor a research journal. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete — I agree that it is original research not appropriate for Wikipedia. It is solely the idea of and promoted by the author. Furthermore, any copyright, even one as broad as the author's is unacceptable on Wikipedia. The cited Ten-Month Solar Calendar is not Chinese, but that of Yi, a minority culture within modern China. The dominant Chinese calendar used since the sencond millennium BC has always had at least twelve months — even a fourteen month year is mentioned on oracle bones. The Roman ten month year was used, according to legend, for less than fifty years, and furthermore had 304 days (it ignored winter). Simply citing earlier ten month years does not change the nature of the author's original research nor his copyright. — Joe Kress 20:08, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delete, because this is indeed original research. Its hard to condemn such a neatly written article when you see the junk that sometimes survive VfD only to go in orphaning forever.... Phils 21:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't mean to get off on two side topics, but Wikipedia explicitly states:

If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). In order to contribute, you therefore must be in a position to grant this license, which means that either

  • you own the copyright to the material, for instance because you produced it yourself, or
  • you acquired the material from a source that allows the licensing under GFDL, for instance because the material is in the public domain or is itself published under GFDL.

In the first case, you retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract the GFDL license for the versions you placed here: that material will remain under GFDL forever.

All original content works are copyrighted to the original writer (which I believe is most works on Wikipedia), with GFDL granted by the owner when they publish here. Even without explicitly stating it, the copyright is owned by me, with GFDL appended to it, according to Wikipedia Copyright. The only difference with appending the copyright is to state that I have granted rights for all material I publish on the TEC, on Wikipedia or elsewhere. It does not affect the fact that the GFDL is granted to the copyright of the article text. The copyright was already placed on the TEC before publication to Wikipedia, anyways, so it would apply regardless, just as McDonalds logo trademarks and copyright are not altered simply because Wikipedia has an article on them.

As for the 10-Month Solar Calendar and the Yi ethnic group, they are a population of 6,578,500 people. That may be a minority for China, but it is larger than the entire population of Minnesota. It doesn't look good for the TEC on Wikipedia at the moment. Perhaps I should get to work on an article about the Yi and their calendar first. It gets the basic idea across, at least, even if I can't include any of my own thoughts. It seems I can only hope someday to get /.'d and have at least a few hundred TEC users before I can republish this. Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent. --DeWayne Lehman 22:06, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, and encourage Mr. Lehman to write about the Yi calendar. Tuf-Kat 22:19, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • del. Mikkalai 23:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. If other articles are not appropriate for Wikipedia, then they should be deleted, too, but that does not make them a rationale for the one in question. Perhaps the Time Cube article should also be deleted, but at least it seems to have more independent references. Swatch's watches have been sold to thousands around the world and reported on by major media sources, such as CNN, so that makes it notable. -- Nike 01:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Time Cube may be kookery, but it's notable kookery. I'd favor trimming it a bit, and maybe folding into Gene Ray, but it definitely should be in Wikipedia. --Carnildo 11:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Megan1967 01:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research and acknowledged as such by person claiming authorship. Mr. Lehman is encouraged to contribute an article about the Yi calendar. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - original research/self-promotion. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: original research, promo. Interesting, though. After it catches on it can have an article. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Interesting original research, but still original. --Carnildo 11:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Moved - I have moved Triangular Earth Calendar to Wikibooks. --DeWayne Lehman 22:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Notice Lehman has changed his copyright notice to specifically grant GDPL and claim he's the original author. However, the part about copyrighting it so nobody else can is nonsense... nobody other than the original author can obtain or grant a copyright in the first place. LostCluster 03:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I've clarified the copyright because of the previous misunderstanding. I posted that I'm the original author so as to differenciate between what I have granted original work to GFDL and what others grant (in revisions). But, as it is on Wikibooks, if you wish to discuss this further, I would suggest doing it there as it is a non-issue here. --DeWayne Lehman 18:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nobody's going to adopt a calendar that has a copyright on it when there's already one that's in the public domain that everyone else is using. LostCluster 03:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete now that page's author replaced page with request for deletion. DreamGuy 02:39, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2004_December_30&oldid=8950721"