Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 16

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< May 15 May 17 >

May 16

Soft redirect to: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 - should be merged - SimonP 00:07, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Targeted Memory Erasure

Fictional medical procedure created as plot point for the movei Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. An elaborate website describing the procedure was created as a promotion for the movie. As fiction it is unverifiable, and it merits only a mention in the article on the movie. -Willmcw 23:53, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Unverifiable and devoid of meaning outside of the movie. Kelly Martin 04:42, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect --the wub (talk) 08:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. DS 11:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge Jeremybub 23:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ditto. Master Thief Garrett 08:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about this one, it's a bit long to merge (as per WP:FICT). I would disagree that it is unverifiable because it's fiction, we have plenty of long articles on fictional places, people and things. On balance I say keep. -- Lochaber 09:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, merging an informative article of this size is inappropriate. Kappa 22:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Informative? It has no existence outside of the movie. Someone has created a special category just so that this can be categorized with its movie: category:Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It would be much shorter if it did not pretend to be describing a real medical procedure. -Willmcw 22:29, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's informative to fans of the movie, and to anyone else interested in memory manipulation in science fiction. And what's wrong with creating a category for it? Are categories in short supply? Kappa 22:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merging does not necessitate losing information, though in this case it really needs to be re-written to better indicate that it is a movie gizmo with a backstory rather than any kind of real science. The pseudo-science has to be carefully attributed if it's gonna stay. The original version was clearly written to appear as science, by an editor who can be said to have a sense of humor. user:TrojanMan. Is there an article on fictional memory erasure and replacement? It's a frequent plot element. -Willmcw 23:20, May 21, 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 00:09, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Eudemism

The article is about a religion, Eudemism, that is apparently so obscure that neither of the two Google hits mention it. Google Without any sources to support it, this article appears to be fantasy, not even an honest, attributed neologism. However, I'd be happy to be proven wrong if anyone can find a verifiable source for this information. -Willmcw 09:39, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep -Obscure but still encyclopedic.--Jondel 10:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you support your contention? RickK 18:49, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - and those two Google hits dont even refer to this specifc philosophy. Megan1967 10:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - --Xorkl000 10:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. DMOZ and the dictionary don't mention eudemism either. Furthermore, the user who posted this article doesn't have an immaculate track record (to put it friendly). At this point, it seems like fantasy, and is therefore not encyclopedic. It eudemism really exists, an article can always be added. Until then: delete. Aecis 10:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is without references and may be just a fantasy. Ben please vote! 11:58, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, possible fictitious religion, obscure even if existent. — Phil Welch 14:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not verifiable, no indication of significance. Barno 19:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, smells made-up to me
  • Delete. Without a source, unverifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment perhaps the poster was thinking of our old friend Eudaimonism? Some similarities in concept, slightly different root. -- BD2412 thimkact 22:24, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
    • They may be the same, though Eudemism (according to our article) seems to go beyond philosophy and into the afterlife. It posits a supreme being who would judge the souls of the dead according to the moral purity of that soul rather than the religion they followed. I can't find any reference to Eudaimonism to being judged by a deity.-Willmcw 22:48, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Stancel 23:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... at least for a while to see what comes out of it. It might be interesting to watch, at least, and then delete it afterwards.
  • Delete sounds like the Raelians only more made up! Master Thief Garrett 08:27, 19 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 00:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

SchoolRanking.org

Advert for nonnotable website. According to google, nothing links to it. There is no Alexa report. Article itself says it started in "early 2005." Delete as advertisement. Postdlf 01:03, 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 - deleted - SimonP 00:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Tv:616

Article comprises two brief lines and an external link; completely unencyclopediec boosterism for an obscure rock band. Three pages link to site from Google. Delete as advert. --Brownsteve 02:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete looks like just an excuse to post a link to the bands page. No content just an plug for the band.
  • Delete Band vanity. Ganymead 03:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, band-van. Master Thief Garrett 08:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete orphan vanity article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet the significance bar for a musical group. Kelly Martin 04:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 00:12, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Australian international relations

Research essay on Australian international relations since WWII, with lots of POV opinions, unreferrerenced and un-encyclopedic--nixie 02:36, 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 - deleted - SimonP 00:13, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

GameDAILY Community

As far as I can tell this is just an average webforum. The article doesn't establish anything notable about the site, and appears to be a community vanity article. The forum has 561,000 posts made in two years and as far as I can tell has had an entirely uneventful history. Google has no results for "GameDAILY Community" outside the forum itself [1]. Joe D (t) 03:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • [Lies. Get your facts straight. It's closer to 1,463,258 posts]
Note: two anons have been adding bracketed comments to users' posts. I have moved them to below the points of contention. Master Thief Garrett 03:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a small forum, with nothing particularly notable about it. Only 5500 members. --Carnildo 04:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even the "fads" part of the page lists nothing that hasn't been seen on a thousand other forums... Doozer 04:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • [most of the fads listed are unique to 404. You don't see "lolicron" everywhere.]
  • Delete, non-notable. Or, at least, if it were I would add ZFGC, which gets ~20,000 posts a month. Master Thief Garrett 08:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • [404 is larger than ZFGC. Not sure if it's older though.]
  • Delete all but the most notable forums. --the wub (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Note: I AM the person who wrote the original version of the wiki, so I may be biased. Admittedly it isn't a forum of great note, but I don't see anything in the rules against putting in forums - it exists, has existed for a good amount of time and seems certain to exist for at least another couple of years or so. If you look elsewhere on wiki, small schools have wikipedia entries, and we don't have people demanding that those be deleted simply because they are not famous schools that have produced many famous people. The fads section is set to ONLY contain fads spawned on this forum - if you've seen another one elsewhere and it doesn't state who made it on the forum, delete that fad. The actual post count is higher than 561,000 - GD has been hacked and wiped twice, we have had croppings of old topics before and two months of posts were lost due to a technical error. And of course Google's not going to have results for it, we only changed to that name a few months ago, and also, if something came from a board and is credited, who on earth is going to bother to write out GameDAILY Community. This is the very internet that is primarily compromised of people too lazy to spell out "you" properly. --LupusCanis
    • "If you look elsewhere on wiki, small schools have wikipedia entries, and we don't have people demanding that those be deleted simply because they are not famous schools that have produced many famous people."
      Er.. yes, we do, and always have. Bad example, the threashold notability for including schools is one of the longest running and most vociferous policy debates on Wikipedia. Joe D (t) 18:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. What is this page hurting by just being here? --ReiOf404

Rei's Reply: I just registered, jerk.

  • Keep if expanded Well, I figure that the actual GameDAILY website carries a lot of importance to the internet gaming world, as it is a rather often-visited web site. However, the forums are not very notable, so I suggest that if the forum section were to stay, then the article needs be expanded to primarily serve the website, but also feature the forums. -- Davis Hurley 23:19, 18 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 00:15, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

William Creighton Chamberlain, Creighton Chamberlain, Heroine Sheiks, Shannon Selberg

Vanity Page --Daveblack 03:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Added in three more articles, seemingly from the same user. EvilPhoenix 23:26, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Google returned no results on this person. Ganymead 03:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. -- BD2412 thimkact 04:34, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity page. --Zoso 17:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete orphan vanity page. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

last three articles submitted after preceding votes. EvilPhoenix 23:27, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all as vanity. One or the other of the first two is borderline on the band significance test, but falls short. Kelly Martin 04:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • weak Keep Heroine Sheiks; borderline passes WP:MUSIC due to 1. association w/ Swans (band) and The Cows, who are also notable even tho we don't yet have an article on them (lots of national U.S. tours, nine CDs on Sub Pop and Amphetamine Reptile, two of the major 90's indie labels) and 2. they definitely tour the U.S., although sporadically. Delete the rest. Also:
  • Strong Comment. All of these articles should not be grouped together. The first two, sure. The second two, O.K. But grouping all four together simply because the same user "might" have created them (or hell, even if he did) strikes me as assuming bad faith and biting the newbies. Since the articles are about at least two different subjects, discussing article content or subject notability is ridiculously complex. We are now, essentially, passing judgment on the author, not on the content or possible content of the articles. Wikipedia is not paper; it won't kill us to have 2 or 4 seperate Vfds on the above pages. Soundguy99 09:52, 17 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 - found to be a copyvio - SimonP 00:18, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Glug

It's a recipe for an alcoholic beverage. For obvious reasons, it's hard to get sensible results out of Google, but it seems that if such a beverage exists, it's named "glogg" or "grogg". --Carnildo 03:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I listed this as a copyvio, from this page and removed the VfD notice. The content may have a place on Wikibooks though, if a copyright free source can be found. --bainer 05:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or if it gets re-written. Recipes cannot be copyrighted, although a specific expression of a recipe can. --Carnildo 05:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glögg is the Scandinavian version of mulled wine. It already has an article but could perhaps be merged with its English cousin (German Glühwein already redirects there). Make glug an additional redirect when the copyvio has been deleted. Uppland 11:20, 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 - one kept other deleted - SimonP 00:20, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

No Pants Day and Knighthood of Buh

On campus nonsense, delete--nixie 03:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep NPD as widespread and notable pseudo-holiday ("No Pants Day" gets 40k Google hits, I've heard of it before with no connection to UT). Delete KoB as non-notable student group. -- Jonel 04:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nitpick: it's not a "pseudo-holiday" if thousands of people celebrate it. Of course, it's a very silly holiday, but that's not the same thing! ----Isaac R 00:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I was unclear. "Holiday" to me usually means "public holiday" whilst "pseudo-holiday" is what I use to refer to things such as Groundhog Day or the like. -- Jonel 02:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NPD. NPD is not restricted to... Austin (or wherever the KoB are). It's probably true that it's observed only by students, but students across the nation. LizardWizard 05:06, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, No Pants Day is notable both in the United States and abroad (I heard it mentioned here in Perth, Australia the other day). Cedars 09:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I was born and raised in Perth and I've never heard of this particular day being mentioned or people walking around the streets wearing no pants - which would indeed be noticeable. Megan1967 10:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NPD and expand. Particularly with regard to the geographical scope of NPD. I've just expanded Talk:No Pants Day. -- Smjg 10:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NPD, Delete KoB. I've heard of it in the US, and a friend in Canada was talking about it this past week. It's a North American phenom at the least and if it's been mentioned in Perth, that makes it notale on that scale. --Mitsukai 13:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NPD, Delete KoB. No Pants Day seems to have gotten away from the Knighthood and become a cultural phenomenon. --Carnildo 22:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep real things and both part of UT tradition, and known well beyond the school. --Brjatlick 02:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No Pants Day (widespread tradition). Delete Knighthood of Buh (not widespread at all). Kelly Martin 04:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I was first familiarized with the group during my time at its originating institution, but there are celebrants of its No Pants Day and upholders of the ideas of KoB (in name not simply action), in a number of the places I have visited throughout the US. Even if I have been strangely lucky (or unlucky) in running across their incidence, it would seem appropriate to give KoB its own page simply as the originator of the apparently more clearly widespread NPD (with regard to the previous comment). Of course, if we were voting for deletion based on taste, I would be the first to vote against keeping it. --eleuthero 04:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If KoB is a widespread group that originated (rather than simply "promotes" as claimed in the article) NPD, then I would say "Keep" it as well. - Jonel 07:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep #1, delete #2. Radiant_* 14:27, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep No Pants Day; Merge Knighthood of Buh → No Pants Day. —Markaci 2005-05-21 T 18:14 Z
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 00:21, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Abercrombie Kids

Page is obviously poorly written advertising. Unless someone can fill it with useful information, it should probably be deleted. Doozer 04:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as soon as possible. What a horrible article. Aecis 10:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete page is obviously satire, but it does not belong on Wikipedia 80.202.222.90 15:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If somebody can write a valid article about this notable store, then I would vote keep, but if the article stays as it currently does, then I vote delete. RickK 18:50, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
There's already a good article on Abercrombie & Fitch Co., or is "Abercrombie Kids" a separate new offshoot? Oy vey if so. Moncrief 05:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Abercrombie Kids has their own store line. RickK 19:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete terrible POV trash. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just dreadful in every possible way. Moncrief 22:21, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's satire &/or parody--even clever at that--but the writer can consider submission to The Onion instead. GeeZee 22:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant advertisement; alternative, merge into Parody as example. (No, please don't.) Kelly Martin 04:54, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's a parody, I think it's Abercrombie Kids' actually ad copy. RickK 20:56, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- advertisement. - Longhair | Talk 10:22, 19 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 00:22, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

The Real Rubyrulez

The Real Rubyrulez cartoon series is coming soon to the net., delete--nixie 04:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No Google hits [2]. Obvious advertisement. --Doozer 05:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crystal ball. Master Thief Garrett 08:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete prognostications. Things that are "to be released" are only significant when they are related to already released things, or when their vaporness is so profound as to be interesting in its own regard. Kelly Martin 04:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - 00:22, May 22, 2005 (UTC)~

Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli/Temp

'Temp' version of a completed article at Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Hemanshu (Nonsense) --cesarb 01:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kuroskism

I can find no evidence (via Google) that anything here is true. Algebraist 21:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, nonsense. I've already speedied other articles by the same anon.-gadfium 05:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (speedy). Not this first time this fine content has been deleted here before. Kelly Martin 05:43, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, author has blanked the page. Megan1967 06:34, 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 - kept, could be merged - SimonP 00:26, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bajarl (Monster Rancher), Joker (Monster Rancher), Dragon (Monster Rancher), Ducken (Monster Rancher), Durahan (Monster Rancher), Nya (Monster Rancher), Pixie (Monster Rancher), Naga (Monster Rancher), Golem (Monster Rancher), Zuum (Monster Rancher), Beaclon (Monster Rancher), Tiger (Monster Rancher), Hare (Monster Rancher), Baku (Monster Rancher), Gaboo (Monster Rancher)

The Pokestubs are bad enough, but Monster Rancher is even worse. There are hundreds dozens of Monster Rancher monsters, and other Poke-alikes; do they all need to be on Wikipedia? A Man In Black 06:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1: Only Bajarl (Monster Rancher) was originally submitted, I added all those after it. It is only fair that they should all share the same fate. However votes below my last one may not necessarily be intended to apply to these additional pages. Master Thief Garrett 09:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

>Hundreds? There are 50. And if you delete the Monster Rancher stubs, by that token, you need to delete all the Pokemon stubs for the same reason. And the Neopets stubs. And all the other virual pet pages. And to a lesser extent, any stubs on videogame "ripoffs". And possibly stubs on dervivative movies and franchises, too. Why have stubs on Family Guy when you could argue that it's a Simpsons look-alike? And why not delete the Star Wars pages? They're just like Star Trek. Wikipedia is supposed to be totally comprehensive. Deleting pages because YOU don't like a franchise is just immature and goes against the inherent spirit of the Wiki. Please give a reason that's better than that. The page isn't offensive, false, spam, or vandalism. Just because you don't like the franchise or have the OPINION that it's superfluous is no reason to delete pages on it. I vote to keep any wikipedia page that isn't false information or vandalism. Too much information never hurt anybody. Keep, obviously. - Zeta7 06:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - See Wikipedia:Pokeprosal; it's currently being discussed whether the Pokemon stubs are worth keeping or consolidating. The Monster Rancher monsters aren't terribly excyclopedic, because, to be honest, nobody but fans of Monster Rancher really care about them. Contrast this with the more important Pokemon or the Star Wars characters and concepts, which have significant cultural and pop culture impact. A Man In Black 06:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second that. If we're already planning to un-important-ise the phenomenally successful (by anyone's reckoning) Pokemon franchise, surely THIS should share a similar if not "worse" fate. I'm happy to see it moved as per what A Man In Black said below though. Master Thief Garrett 09:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when has notability been a requirement for a wikipedia page? Once it's established that anything too indepth or obscure can't be included in Wikipedia, I'll give you the point, but until then - none of these arguments actually adhere to real wikipedia policy. Unless there's a notice that says "Hey, don't write TOO much or else!", I don't see how Wikipedia could BENEFIT from NOT including articles that are factual. Wikipedia is not a real book with a limited amount of pages to write in. There are a number of articles on obscure data, facts, movies, or videogames that could just as likely be deleted. But I don't see how this website could ever claim to be comprehensive if "some information is just too much". Maybe you could just get rid of ALL the fictional pages? Or split wikipedia into fiction and non-fiction? I mean, all of my friends told me how great this place is because it accepts a high volume of data. I had no idea that it would be so discriminatory based on tastes. Oh, and A Man in Black, I notice that a high volume of your edits are to Pokemon pages. I wonder if your opinion on this franchise might have been infulenced by something else. These pages don't hurt anyone, and they don't violate policies. I don't see how you could argue for their deletion unless you change the policiy of wikipedia to exclude "information nobody wants". Which is an absurd idea - Zeta
  • Notability has nothing to do with how big an article is. There could be 2000 lines on this or more and it would still not change the fact it scores only 270 hits [3]. While Wikipedia might not be a paper encyclopaedia, wikipedia is also not a general knowledge base - it is policy not to include everything in the known universe. Megan1967 10:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded again! Both those pages would be valid, logically organised, and interesting. As an aside I think this "List of" prefix is redundant, so I would prefer to find it at Monster Rancher series monsters or something like that. Master Thief Garrett 09:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or consolidate with similar articles to create one covering some larger subset of the monsters in the game. Murgatroyd 07:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia is not paper and because it seems to be a collection of different but related monsters. Kappa 08:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite frankly I HATE people constantly spouting "oh this isn't paper!" as a reason why others' notability/(something)cruft deletion votes are silly. Why document the side details of a (comparitively) non-notable franchise? It's not favouritism, it's realism. Do I start pages about every single Golden Axe character and monster just because I love the franchise and could easily write a detailed page for each with "fascinating" (to me and other fans that is) details? No, because it's NOT important to most of the world. This is certainly far more noteworthy than Golden Axe is (I'll readily admit to that) but does not quite transcend into timeless culture the way Pikachu does. Master Thief Garrett 09:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say, or mean to imply, that your deletion votes are silly. Kappa 13:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, well, I was speaking somewhat out of context about paper votes in general. Master Thief Garrett 05:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, or a site for the collection of all trivia about the latest kiddie craze. These individual creatures do not have any literary or cultural significance separate from Monster Rancher. Average Earthman 08:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Monster Rancher series monsters or similar, nn, other reasons and concerns as those voiced above. Master Thief Garrett 09:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete for the reasons above. Nestea 11:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge, cruft of the worst kind. The idea that those should be enyclopedic is laughable. Martg76 11:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if it's laughable. The same should apply for them as for many other TV/book etc characters. E.g. there is Homer Simpson, Bart Simpson, etc. or Admiral Forrest from the Star Trek: Enterprise. Where to put the border? It's not paper! Ben please vote! 12:18, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no potential to become encyclopaedic, WP is not a knowledge base. Most first appeared in a sequel which doesn't even have its own article yet. The Simpsons comparison does not hold - there is an article on Homer, yes, but the non-regular characters are listed in One-time characters from The Simpsons, not in their own articles. The same should apply here. --bainer 12:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I haven't even heard of Monster Rancher. It would be better to have the info all one page. There is no point in having a bunch of small articles that people have to wade through, when one article will provide the information in a more readable fashion. I agree with bainer. Orange Goblin 12:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most of the entries just say "No Encyclopedia Information" or junk like "Poison (Pixie/???) They say it is hysterical. But the truth is unknown." BTW I was looking at the Pokémon articles earlier, perhaps when Monster Rancher has spawned 2 anime series, a live stage show, 8 movies and no less than 33 video games, and still be growing, it could possibly be considered notable. --the wub (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of themStancel 14:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Non-notable. Quale 16:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into as few articles as possible. Preferably only the Monster rancher article. Just a short description of each main breed of monster should suffice. -MarSch 16:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. See, this is why I hate these group nominations. There are fifteen articles being nommed here. Fifteen. I'd be surprised if anyone had the time and patience to individually determine notability for each of them. I know I sure don't. The first one, Bajarl, has 1,450 Google hits, which is enough for a cartoon character in my book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:42, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes there are fifteen. The original nominator only nominated the first, and I, as noted at the top, dutifully added the rest. Or would you rather have a separate Vfd for each of the identical (notability-wise) characters? The less time this takes on Vfd the better, surely. Master Thief Garrett 05:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge all. Well-written articles about an awful but notable anime. —Xezbeth 16:45, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep so long as all of the Pokecruft stays. RickK 18:51, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge - more useful to users thataway anyway. -- BD2412 thimkact 20:10, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Keep. Topics shouldn't be omitted from Wikipedia only because of their perceived childishness. -Hapsiainen 20:37, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia's strength lies in great deal in it's ability to have information even on things this obscure. Besides, Monster Rancher is really fun. -Birdboy2000 21:06, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • keep. Wikipedia will one day be a great cultural resource, and factual articles about pop culture are interesting in that regard. (I would also be happy with a merge.) Brighterorange 21:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the series is notable enough to keep, then the monsters are notable enough since they'll add extra info to somebody who hasn't played the game but is looking for info (For example, the articles tell what the specific monsters look like, which can help somebody decide what the graphics in the game are like, or it can help somebody who reads that you can create different monsters with disks but who doesn't understand how the monsters vary.

(There maybe doesn't need to be a separate article for each monster though--you could probably make one "Monsters in Monster Rancher" article and merge most of the info together. 

-Cookiemobsta 21:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Monster Rancher monsters as per WP:FICT. --Carnildo 22:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't we just delete all of this so-called "fancruft" while we're at it? Why does Homer Simpson need his own article? *rolls eyes* Keep. They're just as notable as all the Pokemon pages; heck, just as notable as pages on all fictional characters. Ketsy 00:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because none of these have any independent importance outside of Monster Rancher? Because Homer Simpson, the character, has notability, cultural impact, and is used as as a cultural referent outside the world of the Simpson's? Because Homer's distinctive annoyed grunt ("D'oh!") has made it into the Oxford English Dictionary? Because, ultimately, your reductio ad absurdum is, as the saying goes, not even wrong? --Calton | Talk 01:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I personally don't think that Homer Simpson is a notable fictional character. Who cares if others think so? What matters is what I think, obviously, since these Monster Rancher characters are being nominated because the nominator thinks they aren't notable. Ketsy 20:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, you seem to be using the phrase reductio ad absurdum in a negative manner. If you look at the article on it, you'll see that not all redictia ad absurdum (is that pluralisation correct?) are "silly arguments". Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 02:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main article or List of Monster Rancher monsters. --Calton | Talk 01:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. -Sean Curtin 01:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Merge into the main article or List of Monster Rancher monsters. Jessicab 02:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge). Kelly Martin 04:58, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge. I could care less which, because Wikipedia is not paper.--Unfocused 06:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them, without even looking at the articles, as per consensus. — JIP | Talk 06:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't triviapedia, nearly endless storage doesn't change our charter. Most fictional material only makes sense inside an article discussion the actual fictional work. Gmaxwell 06:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the lot of them, just like we're doing for some Pokemon. WP:FICT. Radiant_* 14:27, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the lot with extreme prejudice. :) — 130.76.32.16 15:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and merge and redirect the bejeezus out of them. Extreme fancruft. -R. fiend 20:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of work has been put into these - I'd hate to see that go to waste (or to risk losing another contributor to WP as a result), jguk 22:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and do not (try to) merge. Usually we merge things like this, but how on Earth are we going to merge together fifty articles of that length? Sjakkalle 08:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, Wikipedia is not a place for this lameness. Grue 18:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge. Despite the apparent belief of its fans that these Monster Ranchers are on par with Darth Vader and Homer Simpson for pop culture impact, such arguments are, to put it politely, far-fetched. They are too insignificant for the amount of attention they're getting--- Scimitar 3:17 18 May 2005
  • Keep or merge. Monster Rancher characters might not be as culturally significant as say, Homer Simpson, but there are plenty of pages here that deal exclusively with characters, etc. that people not in that fandom wouldn't care jack about. Just in the realm of videogame players, Cecil Harvey and Kain Highwind both FFIV characters, have their own pages, and I think the Monster Rancher series probably has had more cultural impact than Final Fantasy IV did (as it first came out before the series got truly popular in the U.S., and it's rerelease made relatively little cultural stir outside of die hard FF fans). Goodrobot 2:09 20 May 2005
  • Keep or consolidate into one page, as per Goodrobot. —Markaci 2005-05-21 T 18:48 Z
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 00:32, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Fractal stone

Original research in incomprehensible English. See how the Italians are voting. -- RHaworth 06:33, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

  • delete completely baseless. Snowdog 08:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extensive patent nonsense. Delete. -- The Anome 08:52, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - The article was probably meant as a "promo" for some book or websites, but the translation makes it really funny. --M7it 08:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it wasn't encyclopedic in its original Italian, it certainly isn't in mangled incomprehensible English. --the wub (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like original research to me. I think. Kelly Martin 04:59, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patent nonsense. -Murgatroyd 06:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: pardon me for intruding, but a quick eyeball of the "mangled incomprehensible" hints to me that this may well be an article about recent discoveries of fractal patterns in stone strata. This could really do with peer reviewing, by someone who can tell fact from f*ction. --62.25.106.209 06:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See [4] for examples of the extraordinary claims being made, and [5] for the only example given as "proof" of these assertions. Even if you don't consider it patent nonsense (which I do, see vote above), this is certainly original research, and apparently unverifiable. -- The Anome 07:08, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe I qualify as "someone who can tell fact from f*ction" in a discussion of fractal-related material. This article, and the sources linked, are slightly more scientific and coherent than Time Cube. -Murgatroyd 07:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone can translate it in a way that English speaking people can understand AND convince us that logic, as we know it, has been disproven. --Fazdeconta 12:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Baseless. Linuxbeak | Desk 02:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Filiocht (speedy candidate) --cesarb 01:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Harkness

Looks like a hoax. I mean, an article on a 16-year-old gay activist who openly professes his love for being "a fat gay man"? Unless this is verified, I'd put it down to a schoolboy joke. Harro5 06:37, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • lol...i admit, this was a joke. THe guy got pretty cut when he saw it today...but hey, he's a fat gay man! delete this if you want. - Chris Fuller
    • Can we please now fast-track this VfD? It could go to speedy deletions, but it's here now, so it can be dealt with from here. Harro5 06:46, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete admitted hoax. Gazpacho 07:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable - only Australian Google hits are for a rheumatologist in Malvern, Victoria and a web developer called Darren James Harkness neither are whom likely to be 16 years old, admitted hoax. Megan1967 10:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless article. -Imperialles 11:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like it was deleted already. Jonathunder 18:58, 2005 May 16 (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 - deletion request withdrawn - SimonP 00:33, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

HK Golden Forum

This forum is probably not notable. Thue | talk 06:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After the rewrite I withdraw my vfd request - keep, seems to meet minimum requirements for notability and wikipedia is not a newspaper. Thue | talk 11:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No encyclopedic content, blatant vanity. Author has requested deletion [6]. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 12:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The author is 218.102.193.1, not 203.218.104.98 who wrote "Please delete this page". Thue | talk 20:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article has been rewritten. I am changing my vote to abstain. - Mike Rosoft 12:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising spam. Harro5 06:56, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 10:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but the most notable forums. --the wub (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Re: "This forum is probably not notable." Is it necessary to be internationally notable to have an entry on Wikipedia? — Instantnood 13:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cleanup or rewrite. The forum is a well-known one, but it is not like what the creator of the entry had written. — Instantnood 14:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have rewritten the entry at the lower half of the page. The upper half will be deleted. — Instantnood 14:58, May 18, 2005 (UTC) The original entry was replaced by the rewritten one. (To read the original entry, see the upper half of this version from edit history.) — Instantnood 06:36, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only notable to (some of the) Hong Kong people. P.S. I'm living in Hong Kong. --minghong 15:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Well by the same logic all movie articles have to be deleted because only some of the people see movies. :-P — Instantnood 16:12, May 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 - kept due to Vashti's unrebutted evidence of worthiness. - SimonP 00:38, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mars Bar party

Patently non-encyclopedic, neologism. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as patent nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 06:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nonsense, albeit enticing. Harro5 06:56, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Not encyclopaedic. --Daveb 10:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, slang neologism, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 10:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedic, but I'd like to try it some time. — JIP | Talk 10:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-encyclopedic Stancel 15:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. Chiacomo 15:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not a slang dictionary.--Heathcliff 03:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • you could always redirect to Rolling Stones :) Grutness...wha? 03:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect to mars bar. Radiant_* 14:30, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite - this is pretty well established UK slang, as I was hearing it on the streets 12 years ago. Google shows a bunch of references, some of which could be used to improve the article. Vashti 12:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does it have the same meaning in UK slang as in this article? This was the first time I heard the term anywhere. — JIP | Talk 12:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it does - the section at playgroundlaw.com relates to what I used to hear. It's British playground slang, but it's hardly a two-minute neologism that WP has no business with, IMO. Vashti 12:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • So it's an urban myth? What a pity, now I won't get to try it after all. =) — JIP | Talk 12:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vashti's evidence, notable urban/playground myth. Kappa 22:13, 21 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 SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 19:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Hebron

  • Investigate further, probably Delete. Patrick Hebron is not on google, and there is almost no data on the man in this one sentence article. Also, the "article"'s author, who has no username, has made some extremely dubious edits. --Zantastik 07:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails the google test and author's other contribs are nonsense. Rhobite 07:31, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. User test? Vandalism? Maybe a user test of how we react to vandalism. Postdlf 07:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like my last guess was correct; check the recent edit history of the article. This should be speedy deleted as an obvious user test. Postdlf 07:44, 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 - deleted - SimonP 00:40, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Brothers from other mothers

Vanity page, suggest deleting. Michael Geary 07:32, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per VfD). Master Thief GarrettTalk 07:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood brought down John Kerry

This article appears to be somebody's personal commentary - even if it were to be rewritten, I can't see any hope of it becoming a properly encyclopedic article. -- ChrisO 07:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Inherently POV. --EvilZak 07:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an editorial, original research, pov, not an encyclopedia article and with no potential of becoming one. --Zantastik 07:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculation doesn't seem like the stuff encyclopedias are made of--nixie 07:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't Freep-o-pedia. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 09:23, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV essay, very likely copyvio since it incorporates two people's articles verbatim. Author: This is what external links are for. Gazpacho 09:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious political POV essay. Nestea 11:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV. Ben please vote! 12:21, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obviously someone seems to misunderstand what the concept of encyclopedias are about. --Mitsukai 13:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zantastik stated it best. --Unfocused 13:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Impossible to make this NPOV as it currently stands. Agreed possible copyvio. 23skidoo 14:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this bullshit Stancel 14:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NPOV, original research, unencyclopeadic. --capnez 16:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - inherently essayist title, non-POV summation of the info can take up a line or 2 in the Kerry article. -- BD2412 thimkact 22:14, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Comment The user that created this article should be blocked. Stancel 22:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - badly written politically biased rant. Rogertudor 22:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 00:43, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sister Theresia Unno

Tagged for speedy with not reason given. Here's the current content: "Sister Theresia Unno is a Japanese nun who made a commitment to help the Japanese Mestizos living in poverty at Baguio, Philippines. She helped churches, houses to be built." I have the feeling she's notable in the history of Japanese immigrants to the Philippines [7], and vote keep, but your mileage may vary. Kappa 08:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -Notable not only for Japanese immigrants but Christianity (in Japan- her origin) .--Jondel 10:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable - 8 Google hits [8]. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 10:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only has Kappa stated reasons enough, but the first link Megan1967 provided shows she belongs. I added a bit to the article from that link. Google is not the measuring stick of the world. Especially when looking for history. In Asia. --Unfocused 12:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The article is worthy, but it's going to need some expansion. There are bits and pieces about her on Google but nothing solid, so whoever wants to tackle this has their work cut out for them.--Mitsukai 13:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course they do. She is dead. With only 8 Google hits you'll never get anything more than a stub regurgitating what is already written. Megan1967 04:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You never know, there may be more google hits with her japanese name, and perhaps someone skilled with japanese language could add more information about her. Stancel 14:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Already tried looking in Japanese; she's Japanese ethnic of Filipino birth (Japanese-Filipino), so there's no Japanese name other than her surname. What might be needed is someone with Tagalog or Ilocano language skills. --Mitsukai 15:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with only 170 googlehits for Theresia Unno. and that is without quotes, cause then only 8 remain. -MarSch 16:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No need to justify. -- BD2412 thimkact 22:12, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Keep and stop using Google to determine if a person is notable. And also stop using notability as a sole criterion for deletion. NPOV, nonsense, and self-promotion are much better criteria. Dystopos 00:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • An editor in a previous VfD has claimed that "nonsense" amounts to a personal attack. No matter what you say on here people are going to dislike whatever reason you put up - especially if it's their own article. Notability still should be taken into account when considering an article. Megan1967 04:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject founded a significant charitable organization. Kelly Martin 05:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Peter Ellis 06:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, how is it significant if it's found in so few sources? JamesBurns 05:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • so few internet sources Kappa 22:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless you can expand and improve the article to a considerable extent. Wikisphere 23:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Unfocused. —Markaci 2005-05-21 T 18:35 Z
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 00:43, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sailor Toadstool

I'm sorry, but this fails the Google test. Consequently, I doubt the existence of this character. Perhaps if there was a picture of this particular character available, I would not have submitted this article for deletion to begin with. Denelson83 09:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is not a character. This is a supposed anime series crossing Sailor Moon and Super Mario Brothers. Fanfiction alert. Nestea 11:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, so it is also the main character. My mistake. Nestea 15:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax article. Not only is Sailor Toadstool a fanfic character, but nothing in the article is correct to begin with. --Mitsukai 13:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but a picture would certainly be amusing. --the wub (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fanfiction or hoax Stancel 23:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable, hoax. Megan1967 04:20, 17 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 00:45, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Lindsey Marshall

Vanity article. 青い(Aoi) 09:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No useful info; vanity. --Daveb 10:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 10:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability not established nor even suggested by article. Disambiguation: there's also a woman named "Lindsay Marshal" with high-skin-content photos posted online; not WP-worthy but more notable than this man based on Google results. Barno 19:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This page was blanked by anon vandal 12.222.214.151, and I've reverted it to the previous edit. Barno 14:42, 17 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; article reverted to the point in its history where the notability is clear before a vandal overwrote it. --Neutralitytalk 04:41, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wilson Rawls

Incomplete? Geneaology project? Doesn't appear notable. Gazpacho 10:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 10:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I reverted the article back to the point in its history where the notability is clear, before someone overwrote the stub data with an incomplete biography . Please check the earlier versions of articles in their histories before nominating them VfD. It certainly is still a stub, but it clearly belongs. --Unfocused 18:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally removed the VfD notice from the article. I'm putting it back.--Unfocused 18:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unfocused's version is notable enough -Cookiemobsta 19:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable Children's author. A Google search for Wilson Rawls returned 26,200 results. [9]

Capitalistroadster 19:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, thanks for the research Unfocused. Kappa 20:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Klonimus 21:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough. Jessicab 02:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widely published author. Kelly Martin 05:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Totally keep. Didn't recognize name despite reading Where the Red Fern Grows in school. Come to think of it, I remember nothing about the book either. Gazpacho 08:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have expanded this article from a stub. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 09:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Where the Red Fern Grows is one of the classics of American childern's literature. Dsmdgold 20:26, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:46, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Altaa

German slangdef nominated by User:Nebiros. Gazpacho 10:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete. This word is more or less unknown in Germany. If any, it would be Alder. -- 84.176.194.61 11:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC) delete MarSch 16:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 22:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the slangword "altaa" (or its variants) might be non-notable, they certainly exist. I have read a German comic book where one character always says "alda". Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. — JIP | Talk 06:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen, Alter! (I mean, Delete, dude!). This particular spelling isn't well established enough for a Wiktionary entry. --Angr/comhrá 06:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just transwikied it. --Dmcdevit 23:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- 1) it doesn't seem to be that common in German so it won't be used in English (and this is the English wikipedia); 2) this isn't a dictionary

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 00:47, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Cerol

A dictionary definition in Portuguese: not appropriate for an English encyclopedia. I also can't find its meaning in a Portuguese-English dictionary, which suggests that it may be some kind of dialect or slang. Sietse 11:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments copied from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
    • I don't regognize the language. RJFJR 17:26, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • Portuguese. It looks to me like a dictionary definition - the act of "cerolizing", whatever that is. --Diderot 18:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as dicdef. The second line goes Confusion, tumult, incommodance, generalised disorder... Looks like were dealing with Brazilian slang, for which en:Wikipedia is not really the place. Physchim62 21:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete MarSch 16:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment cerol (page 1947, Dicionário Houaiss da Língua Portuguesa) Ceroto (Latin cerotum) cera + ol 1) composition of wax, grease and pez (I dont know the name of this in English) used by shoemakers 2) cutting mixture of crushed glass 3) Cegregação 4 ) sugar variety of low quality 5) fear, consternation -Pedro 17:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ASAP. If kept (by some miracle), it needs to be translated into English. Moncrief 22:23, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 1) This is the English Wikipedia, 2) Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 22:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, unless there is a Portugese Wiktionary to transfer it to. Rlquall 02:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 04:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef (and doesn't even mention the most interesting definition of the term, a solution of crushed glass and glue used on a kite's string to be able to cut another kite's string, as described on kite flying). --cesarb 00:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to http://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/Cerol (which doesn't exist yet) and then delete here. --Angr/comhrá 06:29, 18 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 00:48, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Continuum calculator

Appears to be primary research. No reliable resources are given, the text is far from being understandable. There is a VfD running at de.wikipedia. You might be advised to check for related articles of the same author. -- 84.176.194.61 11:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with 3 googlehits -MarSch 16:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The link in the article shows that this is a German-language neologism promoted by a single author. Not notable until (if) if receives attention in the field of AI. (The article is also not comprehensible.) The author also inserted links to Continuum calculator from a bunch of other articles that should be removed. Another related article, Information continuum, should also be deleted. Quale 17:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone can provide evidence that the idea was published in an scientific or technology journal.--JiFish 20:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Week keep - I am now convinced this was published in a peer-reviewed journal, making it intrinsically notable. --JiFish 13:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep, article has reference to publication in what appears to be a peer-reviewed journal. Gazpacho 22:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I Thought that was self-published. But my German is very poor. If someone can confirm that this a peer-reviewed journal, I will change my vote to merge with neural networks or weak keep.--JiFish 23:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be a mistake to keep if the term has only been used in a single German language publication, even if peer reviewed. If no one else in the AI field finds the work interesting enough to cite, critique, or build on, then WP would be showing tremendous arrogance to decide that the idea is notable if it elicits a collective yawn from experts in the field. Quale 01:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone shows that this is more than speculative meanderings by a minor author. If Stanley Schmidt had written this, I might be interested. Kelly Martin 05:04, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • speedy delete. Utterly meaningless. Robinh 11:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - didn't find any other reference, style is poor. Pavel Vozenilek 01:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to no vote. It still feels poorly written but perhaps expert should be asked in this case. There's link on pretty old source code and executable. The exe doesn't wipe out the disk if someone wants to try. Pavel Vozenilek 17:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for an opinion on talk page of Artificial neural network. Pavel Vozenilek 17:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article describes knowledge that has been published several years ago in a journal of the german Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. under the term Information Continuum. I must admit that it is very special knowledge and it is not interesting for everyone, quite as many other articles about specialized knowledge. I have added a link to the internet that allows you to download two example implementations and their source code files. This should proof evidence that the article describes working reality, not just a vague theory. Furthermore, I have replaced the image links by proper images. I know that my english is not perfect and I am willing to increase the comprehensibility. Please make your criticism about the comprehensibility more precise. -- Karsten88 15:01, 21 May 2005 (CEST)
  • Article has been substantially expanded by Karsten88 but still appears to be original research. There's little question that this was published in a journal, but my knowledge is deficient as to whether Informationstechnik und Technische Informatik is a peer reviewed journal (or whether the article in question was published as a peer-reviewed article or merely as an unreviewed "letter"), so I'm dropping my delete vote for now. Perhaps someone more literate in German than I can provide more information. Kelly Martin 14:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article has been updated. I appreciate the effort and it's prettier, but I still cannot change my delete vote. Although the work was published in a single journal, there's still no evidence that any other AI researchers have given this theory the slightest bit of thought. There are hundreds of thousands of journal articles published each year. This WP article is essentially a vanity article solely for that single journal article which appears to be entirely insignificant. If WP goes down this path, expect articles for each of the tens of thousands of masters and PhD theses published each year. Sorry, it's a nice looking article, but still orginal research and non-notable. The bar for scientific theory has to be higher than a single publication of an obscure theory that appears to be ignored by experts in the field. It's a mistake to keep WP articles like this because they give the reader who is not familiar with the field an entirely distorted view of what's important. Quale 22:08, 21 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 00:50, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Php-net, Phpnet

Self promotion, not sure if notable since hard to Google. Orange Goblin 12:37, 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 - kept - SimonP 00:51, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Dao (political)

What has to be in that article is already in #China section of Circuit (political division), and #Provinces since the division of Korea section of Provinces of Korea. --Puzzlet Chung 13:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Just because a topic is small and is mentioned completely elsewhere does not mean that it should not be mentioned here. For a start, list the Daos. At worst, redirect it to province. Dunc|☺ 14:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, do not redirect Kappa 16:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable in Chinese and Korean history. Capitalistroadster 19:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Rlquall 02:24, 17 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 - made into a disambig page - SimonP 00:57, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Verity

Dunno if this is a speedy candidate. It's at least a completly non-notable character. --Conti|✉ 13:44, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 01:01, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Zohar Manna

Vanity. While he seems to have written a few papers, there's nothing to indicate that he is anything beyond a computer instructor at Stanford. If he is, then this article is badly in need of expansion. As I see it, though, it just needs a delete. --Mitsukai 14:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this vanity. -MarSch 16:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's nothing more notable to add, then delete. Nateji77 03:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I hate to use the inherently notable argument, but he has written several books, and I think this article would be quite good if expanded on. Since I'm not quite interested enough to do the expansion myself, I suggest natural growth be used (or if someone offers ...) -Scimitar
  • Keep Full professors at Stanford University are notable. Klonimus 19:35, 18 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 01:01, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Luis von Ahn

Marsch linked this to another VfD but I think it should stand on its own --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does not pass the average professor test, vanity and/or self-promotion. (nominated by User:MarSch, 17:52 UTC 15 May, 2005)

  • (Voting for myself) delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable grad student. He is linked from captcha. As one of the originators of the acronym he deserves the mention he is given in that article. He isn't yet notable outside that context, so a separate article is not appropriate at this time. Quale 16:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Graduate students must be extraordinary in some way to justify their own articles; this stub doesn't demonstrate extraordinariness. Kelly Martin 05:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, grad student vanity --nixie 07:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing notable David D. 17:10, 17 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 01:02, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Heilkunst

  • RETAINI have studied medicine, including homeopathy, intensively for over 10 years in an effort to address my son's chronic ills related to Autism. This article clearly explains why the full understanding of Hahnemann's whole system of medicine, which includes Homeopathy, has the capacity to broaden our scope and imagination for true remediation and a reliable systematic cure. Hahnemann himself was also subject to the emotional plague reaction where the establishment attempted to suppress true knowledge. My son demands a better way. (AAMc)
User:64.230.76.156 first contribution.Geni 13:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that this article is aboput homeopathy which we already have an article about.Geni 15:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain - This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of information; it seems this author has provided information. Hahnemann called his major work "Organon Der Heilkunst". Therefore this needs to be a part of wikipedia, so that the information can be available to the readers of this encyclopedia.--Scottish lass 17:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
congratulations on your first edit to wikipedia.
  • Delete this ranting vanity. -MarSch 16:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd suggest merging with homeopathy but the author has already put most of this information there (replacing much of the original homeopathy article in the process). The author is apparently promoting an organization that he is associated with. [10]--Lee Hunter 16:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with all comments above. --capnez 16:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The author is definitely promoting an organization, of which he is head. That which is called "Heilkunst" in the English-language world is taught at his school and his school alone. Here's its website. --Homeoinsider 21:34, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • RETAIN I have read this article, and it provides useful information that shows clearly that Heilkunst is not part of homeopathy, but rather the other way around - which is fascinating. I've studied homeopathy 27 years and practiced for 18, and this is food for thought. This fulfils the mission of an encyclopedia, I think, in providing factual information and references/resources for readers to do further research. homeowiki--Homeowiki 23:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain- for reasons set out in comments below - rudiverspoor
  • Please Do Not Delete This is not the same as homeopathy. Homeopathy is a part of the greater system of Heilkunst. Not the other way around. This has nothing to do with the argument about mainstreams acceptance of homeopathy or heilkunst. I appreciate having a definition. Heilkunst includes things like regimen eating the right food and homeopathy is about remedies. I found it informative and i wonder why more people do not know about it.[ marlasw1
    • Welcome to Wikipedia, Marlasw1! Because your only edits are to this page, I'm guessing that you're associated with Heilkunst and you already knew a lot about it. Most readers don't have that background, though. The article might survive if it's promptly re-written to show the nonspecialist that this subject is notable and that we need a separate article on Heilkunst. In its current form, the article is so jargon-laden and unencyclopedic that it's practically impenetrable to those of us who aren't steeped in homeopathic teachings. Another possibility would be to re-write it as an article about the Hahnemann Center for Heilkunst, if that institution can be shown to be notable -- although the article would still be obvious vanity (our term for an article authored by the subject or someone closely connected with the subject) and would attract some deletion votes on that ground. JamesMLane 01:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Btw German Wiki redirects this word to Medicine. Pavel Vozenilek 01:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain I have been studying material related to Homeopathy for over 12 years, and this article is one of the most lucid and acurate pieces of research that I have seen. The material is "unbiased" in the true sense of being actually based on the facts of what was written in the historical texts in question, and not on any current political or social bias.[JKorent]--69.156.80.121 01:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • retain this article and stop the fear of traditional and other medicines place on humankind --64.230.7.162 01:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)mousie[reply]
  • RETAIN It seems to me that Wikipedia was created for everyone to share knowledge. Heilkunst and homeopathy are both worth some reading, which I have done. And I hope to continue doing in this wonderful medium. To remove an article for the presented reasons seems to me a simplistic solution. Let it be and evolve as most other topics have grown in Wikipedia. Certainly none of the calls for deletion have impressed me exceprt with the lack of courtesy and information - and I hope it is not the criteria on which Wikipedia bases such decisions. I for one, find heilkunst fascinating and a vast theme worth examining in more detail and I hope to be able to do so on this forum.(Z.Alex) (The foregoing was from User:24.114.164.108.)
  • Delete and watch for sockpuppets. All the keep votes above me are by users who have only edited the article in question, this vfD page, and Bioresonance. ESkog 03:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite -- Rudiverspoor has made numerous edits to Homeopathy, notably to insert this same "Heilkunst" material (as the lead section, no less) and to remove valid data about skeptics. His multiple reverts of Homeopathy have not, however, been accompanied by any posts to Talk:Homeopathy. JamesMLane 04:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • RETAIN. I have been studying and working with homeopathy for 10 years and after reading the article on Heilkunst have a better understanding of how Homeopathy fits into Hahnemann's greater system of healing. This gives me more alternatives to work with and as such is invaluable, it has increased my knowledge base, which after all is the function of an encyclopedia.--Thornton 09:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bold textRETAIN. There is so much more to Samual Hahnemann's complete medical system - Heilkunst - of which homeopathy is only one part of it. Embrace the complete genius of Hahnemann and take it to a place beyond that which it is being kept at by some homeopaths who resist the change! Therefore Heilkunst should stand on its own in order for it to be recognized for what it is - a complete medical system including homeopathy, not the other way around. Congrats to those who boldly go beyond where anyone else has gone. I vote for keeping the lines clear between Heilkunst and Homeopathy and retaining this page. Sherlock. (The foregoing was from User:198.103.184.76.)
  • Delete and Kill the socks. Radiant_* 14:38, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Homeopathy and Heilkunst are not the same thing at all. There are only 2 things that I see that link them. The first being that they both claim Hahnemann as the father of their art. This is true. The second being that homeopathy uses remedies that are potentised and are chosen on the law of similars. This is true for heilkunst as well. That is where the similarities end. From what I understand, that is the extent of homeopathy, and heilkunst goes further into the lifestyle of the individual, as was detailed below. It seems to me that homeopathy and heilkunst can be compared to pharmacology and family medicine. One is a part of the other, but it is not the same. - S. Guttman (The foregoing was from User:70.81.98.6.)
  • Delete for self-promotion, pov fork, sockpuppetry, (and for making me use so much jargon). CDC (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is just an attempt to write a POV article on homeopathy. A remarkable number of votes for retention coming from sockpuppets. Jooler 12:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • An argument about mainstream medicine seems useless here. Mainstream changes constantly, so mainstream medicine is hardly mainstream. Homeopathy is a fact and it seems from what I understand that Heilkunst is also. I do not profess to be an expert, but the reasoning is sound based on my readings. -jowiley--Jowiley 00:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr. Lane has some amusing thoughts on homeopathy, which is part of the National Health Service in the United Kingdom, where there are homeopathic hospitals, where it is a fully recognized medical option for many countries in Europe, and in India. No form of homeopathy is accepted by mainstream medicine? Guess again. The first practitioners of homeopathy 200+ years ago were medically-trained physicians, and many MDs (and DOs, RNs, FNPs and PAs) STILL include homeopathic medicine in their practice. Check the membership directory of the National Center for Homeopathy in the US, for example (www.homeopathic.org). The first medical association in the US was homeopathic, then the AMA was formed (a few years later). The first medical association in Canada was homeopathic, then the CMA was formed. Please check your facts before you comment on things about which you obviously know nothing. --Homeowiki 23:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have indeed been tireless (is that a fault?), but in correcting factual errors, removing attacks that have little room in such an article, which does keep the basic idea that homeopathy is not accepted by mainstream medicine - point noted, let's move on. Everything that I have written I can document, with sources and quotes. I referred people to the website where much of this is done, but I can do it in more detail if anyone wants. As for Heilkkunst being taught in only one place, that is indeed a true, if sad commentary, which shows that Hahnemann's legacy, which goes way beyond just homeopathy, has effectively been ignored, misunderstood or maligned by his supposed followers. At the start of any new issue, there will not be widespread acceptance. If homeopathy had just come on the scene today, I'm sure it would receive the same reception, such as that "homeoapthy is not an English word." Well, many of the words in the English language were not English at some point, but from Latin, Greek, German, French, etc.

The fact is that the "homeopathy page" is about homeopathy and Heilkunst is about Hahnemann's complete medical system, part of which is homeopathy. To claim that homeopathy encompasses Hahnemann's complete system and genius is patently false and demonstrably so. (Again, I would be happy to provide the evidence to any who cares to take the time to read). This is documented in the texts I have cited by Hahnemann for anyone to read, which few people do, I have found. Heilkunst is Hahnemann's term, as is "homeopathy" and is legitimate as a topic for an encylopedia. The issue should now be focussed on the content. There is much yet to add to Heilkunst and while much is already distinct from the homeopathy page (some overlap, yes), it will be very different. - Rudiverspoor

  • This author has been tireless in attacking the Homeopathy article, to remove information (such as actual studies) that reflects badly on this quackery, and to re-insert his own idiosyncratic views. I might be amenable to having a separate article about "Heilkunst" if doing so would make it easier to preserve a genuine article on homeopathy. Of course, this separate article, if kept, would have to be suitably NPOV; it should state that no form of homeopathy is accepted by mainstream medicine, and that, even within homeopathy, "Heilkunst" is a small splinter practice (with an explanation of how it differs from other schools of homeopathic thought). JamesMLane 22:31, 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 - deleted - SimonP 01:04, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Chavmenian Rhapsody

Oh dearie me! Advertising/spam, whatever. Part of a spam campaign by User:131.111.8.101 delete --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Be advised that this is an IP address belonging to one of the Cambridge University Web Cache Servers and as such is shared by at least several thousand distinct users. --capnez 16:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Thanks. I did check and decided that there were a lot of good faith edits coming from that IP. Even this one is borderline--more likely a newbie or occasional editor who misjudged what is acceptable on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oh, by the way, the Computing Service has a tendency to come down hard on twits who abuse its resources, and a stock of LARTs to do it with. -- Karada 17:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Algebraist 19:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert. Megan1967 04:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Cole likes to wank small boys, and play with their willies. --84.9.103.212 22:17, 21 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 - kept - SimonP 01:05, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Pete Tyler

Pure fancruft. A character who only appears in one episode of a long-running TV series. Miss Pippa 17:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. My normal preference is to merge minor or one-time characters, but this article is big enough that merging would be difficult. It even has a picture! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:11, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • The fact that it's too big to move proves that the article is fancruft according to the official definition: "too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole." Miss Pippa 18:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid, useful and interesting to fans. It seems to me that this is article is a perfectly appropriate size, given the subject. Someone cared enough to post this, others collaborated to make it into the well written article we're reviewing in under three days; its self-evident that there's an interest for it! VfD should be used only as a last resort. Useful, coherent, well written and organized data belongs here. --Unfocused 18:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you say: " Valid, useful and interesting to fans." To fans. From the official definition of fancruft: "it is of minimal interest to non-fans." Miss Pippa 18:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a valid reason for deletion. The page you point to is not official policy, but opinion. From the same: "Whether it is beneficial or detrimental to an encyclopedia to describe a work of fiction in complete detail when there are no such critical views to report on is still very much an open question." --Unfocused 18:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is nothing more than cruft. C W Merchant 18:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fancruft definition could apply to any number of Shakespeare articles out there, too. Wikipedia is not paper 23skidoo 18:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I love Dr Who, but comparing it to Shakespeare is really quite rich. Quale 22:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Over the top but harmless. Oliver Chettle 19:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Doctor Who or List of one-time characters in Doctor Who, per WP:FICT. Appearing in a single episode of a TV series would not be very encyclopedic had his role not disrupted SPACE AND TIME AS WE KNOW IT!, causing temporal-disruption cleaner-uppers to come devour anachronistic things, etc. Fortunately, these effects were only in fiction. Barno 19:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm the one who expanded it. If it were up to me, I would not have created the article in the first place, but someone else did, so rather than go through the agony of proposing a vfd I decided the next best thing was to expand it to at least a semi-decent standard, and that's just what I did. I'll leave it up to others to decide if it should stay or not, but I do agree that he's a minor character. --khaosworks 19:44, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Unfocused. Kappa 20:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft. Quale 21:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everything below the Spoiler Warning is a retelling of the episode itself, making all of the information redundant. The opening paragraph may be re-used or merged with a list of minor supporting characters, but the overall article should be deleted. Ravenswood 22:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No harm in keeping; adds to information about a popular, long-running TV show. Moncrief 22:19, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fancruft. Maybe merge the opening with another article. --Carnildo 23:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valid well written article. Megan1967 04:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but delete spoiler element, as will/should be in ep.listing entry. The back-stories of the Doctor's companions are often used as plot-hooks in future episodes & therefore, within the milieu, are going to have significance. --Simon Cursitor 07:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge, whocraft. Martg76 08:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge WP:FICT. Radiant_* 14:30, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, valid article
  • Keep he is the major charcater of that story, just edging him over the dividing line into article-worthiness --TimPope 06:43, 21 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 - made into a disambig - SimonP 01:06, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Richard Sackville

Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. The article contains nothing about this man, only a list of some of his relatives. Gdr 17:08, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

  • disambiguate his grandson was an important Richard Sackville who was Member of Parliament [11], and there appears to be several Earl of Dorsets with the same name, so I suggest an initial change to a disambiguation page. It may turn out that the one mentioned was somehow notable, and if he is notable then his children are important, but I can't see anything. Dunc|☺ 17:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support replacement with disambiguation. Gdr 20:12, 2005 May 16 (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 01:08, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Rene Elizondo

Someone who apparently is notable only for having been married to Janet Jackson. This title was once redirected to Janet Jackson but an anon user re-created it a few months ago. RussBlau 18:19, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable on his own, nothing to say. RickK 19:01, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:26, 17 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 - kept - SimonP 01:15, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Nez

Listed person either does not exist or has not done any of the claimed feats. There have never been any Grammy awards awarded to a person with that name. Also, the name of the listed person (Ebru Mercan) does not match the title of the page.

  • After removing the Wikipedia mirrors, there are only three Google sites with the name "Ebru Mercan", all in Turkish. She may be a famous Turkish singer, I don't know. There is an artist named "Nez", she has one album listed on allmusic and artistdirect, the album is also called Nez, released in 2003. She seems to be a Turkish rock singer. I would vote keep if all of the fantasy is deleted from the article. RickK 19:07, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not really up on pop - but I think I'd have heard of 'one of the most famous' stars in the world. There may be a real artist out there somewhere - but this isn't a description of her. Delete unless totally rewritten. --Doc Glasgow 22:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person does exist. See here for "Nez" on allmusic [12]. She is Turkish, and there was one article I found on Google about popular turkish musicians and it said Nez was like a "Turkish Shakira". Although the article may need to be given more factual accuracy and cleaned up. Stancel 22:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I cleaned up the article and made it into a stub about the actual Nez. I'm having trouble finding info about her in English though. Stancel 23:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RickK, ty Stancel. Kappa 23:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable enough. No biography on the allmusic.com site. An editor will have their work cut out trying to add anything else to this microstub. Megan1967 04:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, to be honest, even after the clean up, the artist is so obscure, I see little point in keeping her on Wiki. You can't even buy her album on Amazon. Kel-nage 12:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_* 14:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 01:17, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Coleman

This non-notable generates a number of google hits, some of which seem to be related to this "child star". Upon further inspection, however, none of these hits seem to establish notoriety. May some day deserve a wikipedia entry, but not this day. Tomer TALK 18:52, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. There's no doubt that he did appear in the television programme (a number of Web sites, such as [13], [14], and [15] attest to that). Even assuming that you're not really arguing that one has to be notorious to get into Wikipedia, but only notable, he seems to me to make it. The facts in the articles ar NPoV and accurate. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Keep Thanks to Mel Etitis for the research. --Unfocused 19:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was unaware that Wikipedia was a catalog of non-notable child television starlets. That's what IMDB.com is for. As for my use of the word notoriety, I meant it in the sense of "famous", not "infamous". You'll notice if you go through the list of "former cast members" at [16], that most of them do not have Wikipedia articles. With the exception of those who are mentioned as relevant in the All That article, in fact, I would recommend that those that do have Wikipedis stubs (as they all are), be removed. Wikipedia is not a catalog for all knowledge past present and future. Sorry...I should have been more thorough in my criticism from the outset. Tomer TALK 20:19, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is a catlogue of tiny U.S. villages, of nondescript schools, of Pokemon characters(!) as well as characters and even fictional hardware from countless computer games and comic books, of roads, of individual power lines, of radio masts, of minor politicians of whom nobody but their constituents (and not even most of them) have heard, and so on and so on. I'd place this person above them all (speaking as one who has never seen or even heard of the programme, and who has no desire to do so). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Yes, many would like to see a lot of those get removed or put into another wiki. So, I'm not sure that using them as an example builds a case for keeping or builds a case to get a lot of stuff moved into other wikis. Personally I think it helps build the case for another wiki. Vegaswikian 22:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, famous enough. Kappa 20:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete says nothing that is not said in the main article. If there is really enough about this person, and I doubt it, then expand the article, but unless this happens before the deadline I'm sticking with delete, not notable.--John 21:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, and why encourage the pop-culture systeic bias? --Calton | Talk 04:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Bk0 04:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_* 14:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 01:18, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Governor of Columbus, GA

Unverifiable. The Columbus government website makes no mention of a "governor." This seems to be someone's little fantasy. RussBlau 19:09, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, very few google hits for the phrase (34), many seem to be about the "Military Governor of Columbus". This was the best site I could find [17]-I think that says it all. I say delete as I don't think it exists.--John 21:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable. --Carnildo 23:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity nonsense; damn, that picture is scary!. RickK 23:46, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Somehow I think that if such a unique office were to exist in reality then the city's official website would make note of it, which it does not seem to do. Rlquall 02:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already mentioned. Incidentally I once knew a man who claimed to be the mayor of the portion of Portland, Oregon that was within seven feet of the ground, as well as being a soceror [sic]. DanielCristofani 11:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search of the city's website turns up a single hit for "governor":
ELECTION AND REGISTRATION, BOARD OF:
This board was established for the purpose of carrying out the duties heretofore exercised by the Muscogee County Board of Elections and the Muscogee County Board of Registrars and which have the powers relating to the conduct of elections a primaries and the registration for voters and absentee balloting procedures that are provide for in the laws of Georgia. It has five members, consisting of one each from the two major political parties and three appointed by the Columbus Council. (Act No. 149 (H. B. 941) signed into law by the Governor on April 4, 1991) Its executive director is also appointed by the Columbus Council. [18]
To me, this is pretty clearly talking about the Governor of Georgia, who works out of Atlanta, not Columbus. Even if it were talking about the Governor of Columbus, I think it's pretty telling that such a supposèd personage has done nothing, at least worthy of mention on the City's website, in the past 14 years... Tomer TALK 03:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Interestingly enough, there does appear to really have been such a thing as "Governor of Columbus". Unfortunately for this article, he appears to have been a military governor, and that, of Columbus, Kentucky, and that, in the era of Reconstruction. No help for this article there... Tomer TALK 04:25, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 01:19, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bandwidth Throttling

bad english, wrong category, simple view on something that isn't, wrong title, explanation wrong, nothing links to it. Biot 19:13, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


Keep. It needs cleanup, not deletion. It is a valid topic for an article, it just needs improved slightly. Perhaps some stuff could be pulled from the main Internet page which would help to reduce its horrendous size --Cynical 19:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. If there was some other article that linked to it or if the article got cleaned up and expanded, then I'd say keep it for sure. The article in its present form isn't worth keeping, but since it's on the wikipedia a year from now it'll probably be a featured article :) -Cookiemobsta

  • Cleanup and expand, encyclopedic topic, title needs last word decapitalized. Substub barely touches on content but (at this writing, I haven't yet reviewed edit history) isn't nonsense nor false, just weak and incomplete. Barno 19:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs expansion.--John 21:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Capitalistroadster 23:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge somewhere. This is more of a dict-def. I'm not even sure that the article as written is even correct. Vegaswikian 02:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Valid topic. Megan1967 04:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that there's an article called "Bandwidth throttling" (note the difference in capitalization), which is actually quite good. I should have spotted this before VfD'ing this page, and just redirected it instead; it's the obvious thing to do. I've gone ahead and done it. Sorry about the mess. - Biot 08:34, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 01:21, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bo Bice Band (now redirecting to Sugar Money)

Insignificant garage band formerly containing American Idol contestant Bo Bice—Wahoofive (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete AmericanIdolcruft Stancel 23:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bo Bice. Delete (but seriously, don't be rude) Mike H 02:04, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you say "merge"? Did you read the article? Let me quote: Bo Bice, an American Idol contestant is in the Bo Bice band, thus the name, Bo Bice. Listen to the music, and you too can Bo your Bice. What exactly is there to merge?—Wahoofive (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I didn't read the article. Don't be rude, though. Mike H 14:12, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • The info about the bo bice band is already in the Bo Bice article. Stancel 13:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, idol cruft. Megan1967 04:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bo Bice where the band is mentioned in the only context that it is currently notable. Dalf | Talk 03:03, 19 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 01:25, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

11:11

Not explanatory, pointless, no need in an encyclopedia.-72.20.132.7

Comment: User:72.20.132.7 put the VfD header on the page but never listed it on the VfD page. I am adding it here, this is not a vote. RickK 21:00, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for obvious reasons. Should have been speedily deleted. — JIP | Talk 21:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it isn't brilliant at the moment, but I think it has potential. There are 25,700,000 hits on google for 11:11, although I expect most are nothing to do with this, the first page mostly is. I think it has the potential to become a good article, with an explanation of why this happens.--John 21:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless, even as numerology goes. -- Egil 21:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this article is totally p o i n t l e s s. Unless Kappa says its a keep. Then I'm confused. As always Yours truly, Feydey 22:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GeeZee 23:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete patent nonsense Stancel 23:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, John is correct. This is notable nonsense discussed by notable Uri Geller [19] and other possibly notable websites. Also the name of a horror movie [20]. Possible merge with numerology, although that's quite long. I added some external links. Kappa 23:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to a suitable logical fallacy. --Carnildo 23:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's logical enough for that kind of redirect Kappa 00:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup to cover the movie, with a note about the phenomenon. I have the same experience with 3:14 and 12:34. Gazpacho 02:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "People who are having the so-called 11:11 experience see 11:11 on digital clocks everywhere." Or maybe it's just eleven minutes after eleven and they are nitwits. CDThieme 04:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, bordering on trivial nonsense. Megan1967 04:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Not even amusing enough for BJAODN Gmaxwell 05:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I have had a similar experience, only with the time 10:47. Perhaps I should start that article.....EvilPhoenix 06:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. People looking at clocks at 11:11 are likely to see the numbers 11:11 on them. If the movie is notable then maybe an article could be written on that. Separate issue, though. -R. fiend 21:08, 17 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 01:25, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Zach Zarzycki

Entry is a Wikipedia:Vanity_page and the author's IP address has only been involved in vandalism --Swift 21:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --Swift 21:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Moncrief 22:18, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but with some sympathy --Doc Glasgow 22:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you are the author of the article, please visit the articles
  • Delete, From the author, I was unaware of the bio pages.

discussion page. EvilPhoenix 06:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 01:27, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

German military occupation of Norway during World War II

This article was a result of a move from Nazi occupation of Norway, as well as apologist edits for the Nazi regime, e.g., that the invasion was a result of Allied aggression against vital supply of iron ore from Sweden to Germany.

The original article is correctly titled, for several reasons:

  • Although there haven't been other German occupations of Norway, labeling it "Nazi" makes it precise and less ambiguous
  • It was not only a military occupation - in addition to the role of Quisling's illegal regime, Terboven ran the civilian organizations that occupied Norway but had no control over the military forces there
  • In truth, not just Germans were involved in the occupation - there were Norwegian collaborators and Austrian troops
  • There is no reason to embellish the fact that this was a Nazi act of aggression. I'm certainly not trying to diminish the fact that the Nazi leadership was German, but the responsibility should be laid at the feet of the Nazis first and foremost. --Leifern 17:55, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
If there existed a "Nazi occupation", there must also exist a "Zionist occupation" or "Likud occupation" of Palestine, and a "neo-con occupation" or "republican occupation" of Iraq.
Concerning the Austrians, Norway was occupied by Germany as a state. Austria did not occupy Norway as Austria did not exist as souvereign state at the time in question, Austria was part of Germany. Also, military occupation is the correct term here. Consider checking what a military occupation actually is.
Please stop trying to drag the Jews and the issue of Palestine into this. RK
We have to use one standard for all countries. Thus contemporary American and Israeli occupations are relevant to the debate. Courage 20:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We might as well include the Palestinian occupation of British territory, the British occupation of Turkish territory, the Turkish occupation of Crusader territory, the Crusader occupation of Muslim territory, the Islamic occupation of Roman territory, the Roman and Greek occupation of Israeli/ Jewish territory, and the Jewish occupation of Canaanite territory.... and on and on and on, back to when Homo erectus occupied the territory of whatever animal was king or queen of the Levant before his or her coming. It's ALL relevant, but it makes quite a bit of work to do. Besides, it's easier to refer to border changes and conquests than occupations, and, even then, "occupation" should refer to takeovers that are temporary. Much of Israel's "occupied" territory is under Israel's jurisdiction in a manner intended to be permanent or long-lasting; therefore, "colonizing" or "annexation" is really a better term. (Or Manifest Destiny. Or expansionism.) — Rickyrab | Talk 18:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Leifern 17:56, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --RK 17:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Ulflarsen 19:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the one reason that this is a carbon copy of the article Nazi occupation of Norway (done by User:83.109.191.208). There obviously seems to have been some POV fight back at the original article, and this need to be settled, but that is a seperate matter. Forking of a copy is not the way to do it. -- Egil 21:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and delete the article with Nazi in the title - during World War II the German Government was Nazi; but it was Germany as a soverign state occupying Norway not a Government party. We would not refer to the Bush administration's occupation of Iraq but rather accept that the US, UK, Australia and other countries are acting as sovereign powers. --AYArktos 21:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would argue that the Nazi regime in Germany was illegal in and of itself; please see point 3 above. Also, you surely can't mean that we should limit the meaning to a "military" occupation? --Leifern 22:53, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
The German government "illegal"? LOL. If this is not POV, I don't know what else would be. Note that Leifern is a notorious pro-Israel POV pusher known for his right-extreme viewpoints from Norwegian websites.
The above is perhaps the purest usage of the ad hominem fallacy I have ever seen. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the anonymous "editor" who has instigated this sees a clear connection between the two topics, in the sense that it's "Jewish propaganda" (as he put it on my Talk page) that is the core problem. --Leifern 10:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Leifern, you are correct. We unfortunately have a number of people who attack those who are Jewish (or anyone who doesn't hate the State of Israel), and usse any debate as a pretext to use anti-Jewish polemics. I would think that this Judeao-obsessive anger is reason enough to disregard their views on any subject, including this one. RK
Antisemitism is a big problem - it's POV, and it is, essentially, a bunch of lies with a few embarrassing truths thrown into the mix (the truths being that Jews want their old homeland back, they have it, and they don't intend to go anywhere). — Rickyrab | Talk 18:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Who bears moral responsibility is not the issue - the fact is that Norway was occupied by the German military not simply the Nazi party --Doc Glasgow 23:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with AYArktos. Following the logic of those who prefer term: "Nazi Occupation", for consistency purpose, ALL of the occupations during the last 60-70 yrs. by Germany, Soviet Union, China, Japan, US, Israel, etc. should be renamed using the name of the political party in power at the time. --Ttyre 15:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all POV forks, and work out the proper name for the original article on the article's Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Leifern's explanation above. As he points out, the occupation was not just military, it was political. The analogy between Nazi/Germany and Bush/USA is faulty. However much a shmuck our president is, he was legitimately elected and complies iwth our constition about as well as most presidents. While the Nazi party was a political party, it was also a paramilitary organization; Hitler was legally named Chancelor, but no one seriously believes his government has any kind of legitimacy (one of the issues at the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal). World War II was unique in many ways, because of the ideological and political dimensions of the conflict — it was not just another war, and Germany was definitly not just your typical occupying power. And, as Leifern points out, the occupation involved not just the self-interested kind of collaboration that always occurs, but politically motivated collaboration. "German military occupation" is history without politics. This is bad history, especially in this case. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and use the 'Nazi' wording. It's a more obvious and more well known title.--Fangz 23:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the above title, and allow the original article Nazi occupation of Norway to remain. For goodness sake has no-one heard of Vidkun Quisling, the original "Quisling" himself!? The Nazi party is fully responsible for ALL the activities of the Third Reich, including whatever the Wehrmacht did or did not do in Norway or elsewhere. Hitler and the Nazis were the supreme leaders of Germany from 1933-1945 and they bear full and complete responsibilty and guilt for all foreign and military actions, the army was following orders. IZAK 23:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • sheesh - Can't say I'm that bothered over this - Nazi may be a more obvious title - and I certainly don't want to minimise Nazi guilt - but listen to yourself - is just 'following orders' now an escape from moral culpability?? --Doc Glasgow 23:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doc, note very carefully, I did not write "just 'following orders' ", what I did write was that the German army "was following orders" of the Nazi party, not as a judgment of its "morality", but as an aspect of how the occupation worked and how the system worked as a totality as a whole in Nazi Germany and beyond its borders: It was a clear "Pyramid" with Hitler at the top, the Nazi party below him, and below them came the army and then the rest of the German people and below them their foreign (Axis) allies and collaborators, all of whom share "moral" guilt, but this is not about guilt as such, this is about how the political system of Norway functioned at that time. IZAK 00:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK noted but you did say that the leadership bore 'complete responsibility' Doc Glasgow 00:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No redirect. El_C 23:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This appears to be the result of a copy-and-paste move from Nazi occupation of Norway, so simply deleting the other copy is not an appropriate way to rename the article: it won't preserve the edit history. --Carnildo 23:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but clean up the move properly. Sam Spade 00:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No redirect. And yes, keep the Nazi occupation of Norway title. --Calton | Talk 04:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fork. Radiant_* 14:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the article and the redirect. As long as one is a redirect to the other I just can't get all that worked up about the title. Either one works for me. — 130.76.32.16 15:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like the above I can't get too worked up over Nazi or German - but I'm curious as to why this has been speedied - without a clear consensus? --Doc Glasgow 18:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to Special:Log, it was deleted on the grounds that it's a copy-and-paste move of Nazi occupation of Norway. --Carnildo
      • I created the duplication, but I realized that this was not the proper way to move a page, so I requested that the duplication was deleted. Courage 20:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the government of Germany was recruited from the Nazi party, but it was not the Nazi party who occupied Norway, but the German army, German government and German police forces. Also, to me the promotion of the term Nazi when speaking about the state of Germany seems like one of the ways to promote the view that it was a bunch of Nazis that were responsible for WWII, and not the state and the government of Germany. As such, I find it quite POV, when used outside of the purely political context. Halibutt 19:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or refer to Wikipedia:Requested moves. After merge, create a redirect. Keep preferable to deletion if any information was to be lost. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDeirYassin 19:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Witkacy 20:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create redirect Szopen 06:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete this and keep Nazi occupation of Norway; or vice versa. In this case, the longish current title should be shortened to German occupation of Norway (unless used metaphorically, an occupation is always military, and the only German occupation of Norway was in WWII, so there is no need to disambiguate in the title). Further, I suggest not to hype the supposed difference between the attributes "Nazi" and "German". The above objection that speaking of a "Nazi occupation" would necessitate to speak of "'Zionist occupation' or 'Likud occupation' of Palestine" or "a 'neo-con occupation' or 'republican occupation' of Iraq" by analogy does not hold water, neither does Halibutt's comment that it "was not the Nazi party who occupied Norway" - Halibutt, is it possible that you are reading too much stuff of this kind? ;-) The Nazis were not just another party that happened to be in power at the time, but a totalitarian regime which established a firm grip on German society. By the time WW II broke out, the German government, state apparatus and society at large had become largely synonymous with the Nazis. It is a commonly accepted practice to prefix the name of the country with the name of the totalitarian regime which controlled it (that is why we have a "Fascist Italy", a "Nazi Germany", a "Soviet Russia", but no "Republican United States" or "Likud Israel"), and to use the ideology's name as interchangeable with the name of the country proper. Thus, "Nazi occupation" and "German occupation" are equally correct. --Thorsten1 09:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, I neither like nor read the Wyprost weekly, they are far too rightist for me. My oppinion is equally valid as yours, BTW. As to the Nazi being synonymous to Germany - not really. There is a strong belief in many of contemporary historians that the German army was not that Nazified - and it was the German army (not Nazi military units!) that carried over both the invasion and the occupation. Also, the civilian German authorities were not always Nazi. The Nazis were indeed a totalitarian regime, but it is the governments and armies that wage wars, not the regimes as such. It is John Doe and Jane Smith who might be Nazis, but the whole army and whole state? Of course, there is a common practice to add a prefix to the country's name in order to make it clear to which historical period we are referring. However, here the case is not about adding the prefix, but about replacing the whole name of the state with a name of one of the political factions. Also, as someone pointed out, there was only one German occupation of Norway, and there was only one German state at that time, so there's really no point in disambiguation. Halibutt
"Not really, I neither like nor read the Wyprost weekly, they are far too rightist for me." I am pleased to hear that, no offence intended. :-) However, it seems that their opinion-forming power in Poland, even over those who try not not swallow their polarising line, is easily underestimated. Quite irrespective of that, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion that there are people who "promote the view that it was a bunch of Nazis that were responsible for WWII, and not the state and the government of Germany" - even if it is strikingly close to certain conspiracy theories emanating from Wprost's editorial office. However, those unnamed "people" seem to receive more attention in Poland than elsewhere, including Germany - the situation is similar as with the ominous Polish death camps, a term actually rarely heard outside Poland. I have a vague idea that this might be why you are reading more into the issue of "German" vs. "Nazi occupation" than there actually is (or should be, in my opinion). Note that I was not arguing for or against either attribute; my point is simply that the difference is not really as defining as you (and the author of this article) seem to think.
As for your comment on the German army - yes, ironically the German foreign service and military, milieus shaped by traditional, aristocratic conservatives, were a stronghold of anti-Nazi opposition. However, "stronghold" is a highly relative term here. In the end, the uppish generals executed the orders of the proletarian Nazi upstarts; and it should not be overlooked that every German soldier was obliged to swear an oath to Hitler as a person, not just as an incumbent of a constitutional office. The few officers who actively or passively opposed the regime, and attempted to assassinate Hitler as late as 1944, did so on their private initiative, not as representatives of the military or any constitutional body. The government consisted of Nazis, the army would not have started the war without receiving an order, and would certainly not have occupied Norway. In this light, your objection that it is "governments and armies that wage wars, not the regimes as such" appears like a distinction without much difference. "It is John Doe and Jane Smith who might be Nazis, but the whole army and whole state?" No, the army and the state were obviously not Nazis, as party membership was restricted to physical persons such as John Doe or Jane Smith. However, while not every single German John or Jane D. was a party member, the army and the state as a whole were executioners of Nazi policies. As for replacing "the name of the state with a name of one of the political factions" - I am sorry, but this statement does not reveal much historical competence. In Nazi Germany, the Nazi party was not simply "one of the political factions"; Germany was a one-party state, membership in many of the party's affiliated organisations (most notably the Hitler Youth) was compulsory. The party was not just one political faction - it was the only and defining political force from 1933 to 1945, and it was not governing within an existing state structure, but reshaped the state to fit its own ideology. It controlled each and every aspect of social life, leaving a degree of autonomy only to the two major churches. A key difference between Italian Fascism and German National Socialism was that the former saw itself as a kind of deus ex machina to preserve and strengthen the state, whereas the latter considered the "party" as the supreme incarnation of the general will. Although the Nazis never bothered to formally revoke the Weimar Constitution, it became waste-paper within weeks of Hitler's appointment as chancellor, and you will certainly not find any authority to refute that the Nazi state was an entity essentially different from the Weimar Republic. In the light of all this, there is really no compelling reason to replace the existing title "Nazi occupation" with "German occupation"; although, on the other hand, there is no compelling reason to keep the original title, either. --Thorsten1 15:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply incorrect that "the government consisted of Nazis". The government consisted of people from different political camps. The minister of finance was not a National Socialist, but a conservative which did not belong to any party. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the discussion. It is absurd to claim it was "Nazism" and not Germany which occupied Norway, and no serious Norwegian historian would support this ridiculous claim. Courage 19:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So you found a minister who was not a party member ? Eureka, the history of Nazi Germany needs to be rewritten! ;-) Not all ministers during the 12 years of Nazi rule were party members; in the very beginning, there were only three Nazis in the entire cabinet, and Hitler was hoped to be outmanoeuvered within months. As any history book will tell you, this did not help much. While the Nazis still had to be considerate of the conservative political establishment in the beginning, foreign minister von Neurath's replacement with Ribbentrop in 1938 marks the definite end of that period. The occupation of Norway occured afterwards. Apart from that, nobody claimed that "it was "Nazism" and not Germany which occupied Norway". If you choose to read this "ridiculous claim" into the title "Nazi occupation", that is entirely your business. --Thorsten1 20:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist on replacing Germany with Nazism, you are certainly making such a claim. Courage 20:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you would care to actually read my statements you might discover I never did that. Instead, I doubted the relevance of the distinction. --Thorsten1 20:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with the initial points that brought this issue to deletion. Etz Haim 10:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Neria 10:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Almog 10:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 13:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - but delete the word military from the headline --Soup man 11:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep i think this title is more appropriate. add a redirect from "Nazy occupation" as well. Gilgamesh he 12:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the German government was ruling power, most articles and references to that time in German history refer to Nazi rule and not German rule. Accurately or not, the Nazi regime is usually viewed as an aberation in German history, and thus should be distinct. In addition, the existance of non-German Nazi's is not included in the title "German Military Occupation." Mikeage 13:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There should definitely only be one article, so the issue of the name needs to be resolved on the page. As far as the naming, I think it should either be German or more correctly Axis...but I am not knowledgeable enough about the naming conventions, and I do agree that whatever is the norm among historians should be continued. PhatJew
  • Delete either this one or the other one. I suspect a good title would be "German and Nazi Occupation of Norway during WWII" for the remaining page. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I would like to suggest "Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany". Is that an option, or can I only say nay or yeah? gidonb 07:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this solution as one possible compromise (note my comment above, though). --Thorsten1 09:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany" is a title that covers the actual situation quite well, and so gives meaning and knowledge to the one reading about it. So I support that. Ulflarsen 10:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I support this. Tuohirulla 12:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with that title. --Leifern 13:01, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
That's a good title. Jayjg (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great that my suggestion is being appreciated. So what can I do next? Just change the title? Suggest it here or elsewhere? I am terribly unexperienced at this. If somebody would like to take over from here that would be fine. Otherwise, I would like some directions what to do next. gidonb 13:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you get enough support for the new name, it can just be moved. Why don't you give it a couple of days so that other people have a chance to comment? Jayjg (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok lets go for it. I would like to suggest the following title for this article:

Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany

Rationale

  1. Nazi Germany is a well-known and unbiased name for the period that Germany was ruled by the dictator Adolf Hitler, also known as the Third Reich.
  2. Including Nazi Germany gives a similar temporal specificity as "during the Second World War" (WWII).
  3. It includes both the word Nazi and Germany, which each side demanded.
  4. The title combines the unbiasedness and specificity of both proposals.

I would appreciate if the participants to this discussion will consider my proposal. gidonb 13:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The country was not called "Nazi Germany". This awkward term is only used by some Germans who claim "Germany" had nothing to do with WWII. It is an ahistorical apologist title, which is completely inappropriate in formal uses. It suggests that the German government of the time was not actually the "real" German government. We shouldn't use this title for the same reason that we shouldn't use "Republican US", "Bush USA", or "Likud Israel". Courage 21:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right that Nazi Germany never was the name of Germany. However, the names 'Third Reich' and 'Nazi Germany' are widely accepted names for the temporal phase of Germany (then officially Deutsche Reich) during which Hitler was its ruler. Nazi Germany is wider accepted in English, yet neither was an official name. In German the term Third Reich is more commonly used. See also the article Nazi Germany and its talk page. A hardly used term is the 'Thousand Year Reich'. To overcome the trap that someone may think that Nazi Germany was not Germany, I believe it is good practice to use the names interchangeably in the text of articles on this era (that is Germany for Nazi Germany; not the other way around). In the title, however, the specificity of Nazi Germany can add to a better identification of the article's content. I do not see what Israel or the US have to do with this issue. gidonb 21:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Courage, I do not see a real point in discussing with you when you do obviously not even care to read your opponents' statements, and either ignore them or claim that they mean the opposite of what they actually say (see our exchange above).
Just for the record: The claims you are making above are totally out of line with what everyone else seems to think. Not only is Nazi Germany, as Gidonb has pointed out, a perfectly common name throughout the English-speaking world, the conventions of which we should follow here. To my knowledge, no one has ever implied that the Nazis were not "real" Germans or that the term "Nazi Germany" was apologetic. This remains your own, highly idiosyncratic interpretation.
As for "Likud Israel": Israel is a liberal democracy in which the Likud was elected to govern, based on parliamentary support and within the constraints of a coalition, for a constitutionally determined duration. Nazi Germany, on the other hand, was a totalitarian state shaped by Nazi ideology. Not only were there no functioning democratic procedures to change the governement again or to articulate dissent; dissent itself was forbidden on pain of death. Similar can be said of the U.S. I repeatedly explained the difference; your consistent refusal to consider this gives me an idea that you are not really seeking to discuss the German occupation of Norway at all: Is it possible that you are really just looking for a venue to criticise Bush and Sharon? If so, rest assured that the title of this article is not the most effective choice. --Thorsten1 08:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

I AGREE that the title should be: Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany

  • Agree for reasons given above gidonb 13:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. --Leifern 14:01, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. Ulflarsen 14:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Gzuckier 14:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Mikeage 14:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, disregarding the content of the article, but if the content is OK (which I'm not sure) than this can be a proper title). MathKnight 15:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - including MathKnight's remark. Almog 15:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, if this compromise helps to appease editors who have somehow been led to believe that the attribute "Nazi" minimises German responsibility (see above). Nazi German occupation of Norway might be less awkward, though. --Thorsten1 15:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the insistence on German military occupation was intended to have the opposite effect: to depict a version of history that makes the occupation seem like a conventional, neighborly occupation that was justified by British aggression. The person who proposed this title accused me of "Jewish propaganda," though it isn't clear to me how religion enters into this discussion. --Leifern 18:39, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
I am always puzzled how people will relate anything to American, Jewish or Israeli people, organizations or features. Why not just discuss topics "as is"? This may be one of the very few points shared by the far left and right. gidonb 18:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree seems like a reasonable solution to me. PhatJew
  • Agree. Jayjg (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. --Soup man 15:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree as well, although "Nazi and German Occupation..." would also work. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Cybbe 22:15, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Aye. Tomer TALK 01:15, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree It is absolutely ridiculuous to try and state that it was purely a military occupation and had no political motives. Certainly Nazi Germany was about nationalism, but it also was over and above about politics, which includes racism. Evolver of Borg 18:23, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. Remembering disputed outcome of voting on Gdansk Vote shouldn't the clear general voting rules (e.g. eligibility, deadline) be established? --Ttyre 17:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. --Duffman 17:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I DISAGREE that the title should be: Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Moncrief (speedy delete due to consensus - utter nonsense, classifiable as speedy delete rather than vfd) --cesarb 00:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haley welby

Aside from improper title capitalization, this looks like a vanity page. --Laura Scudder | Talk 21:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Horrifying. Really should be a speedy delete. Moncrief 22:24, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy patent nonsense--Doc Glasgow 22:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete patent nonsense Stancel 23:26, 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 speedy deleted by Golbez (vanity) --cesarb 00:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda johnson

Apparent vanity page related to Haley welby. --Laura Scudder | Talk 22:02, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per VfD). Master Thief GarrettTalk 07:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steakhousian

This is a made-up word. Google returns no hits. While it might be useful to have an adjectival form of "steakhouse" in the English language, we don't currently have one and so this article does not reflect reality. Delete. Moncrief 22:10, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per VfD, vanity). Master Thief GarrettTalk 07:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Steinmetz

apparent vanity page --Laura Scudder | Talk 22:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Main accomplishment seems to be authoring Harry Potter fancruft, which could result in millions of new entries if deemed encyclopedic, and being the niece of a purportedly-published author, which, even if true, would be grounds for articles on nieces of John Updike, Norman Mailer, Phillip Roth, etc., which could result in tens of thousands of equally non-encyclopedic entries. Rlquall 02:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 01:29, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Aztec Pyramids

No links to this article, content looks as if it were slapped together in a couple of seconds. The external links might worth merging into another article. -- llywrch 22:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. RickK 22:51, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. But move to Mesoamerican pyramids, since even the ExtLks aren't exclusively Aztec. –Hajor 23:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Stancel 23:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but should be renamed to Mesoamerican pyramids with Aztec pyramids being a redirect as the article discusses the pyramids built by other civilisations. Capitalistroadster 23:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the VfD was added while I was trying to improve the article shortly after it was posted. Since then, the article has been completly redone and is now a very good article. Vegaswikian 01:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now a good, serviceable article which in the right hands could be on its way to greatness, given the inherently-fascinating (to many) nature of the topic.Rlquall 02:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Definitely worthy of an article. Grutness...wha? 03:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good topic nominated within 14 minutes of creation, had two good faith links in it. That's sure to be discouraging to new users. (And yes, I did look at the awful text that was there when nominated.) VfD should be a last option, not a first reaction. --Unfocused 05:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excellent cleanup job. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep Wikipedia Rocks!!! -- BD2412 talk 19:59, 2005 May 18 (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 01:30, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

4minutes33

Bandity. Three Google hits (one of them a faceparty.com entry for one of their members), no entries at allmusic or artistdirect. RickK 23:24, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete--Heathcliff 03:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • either delete or redirect to John Cage. Grutness...wha? 03:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was just looking at this one myself today and almost ran it through the motions. ESkog 03:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 04:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Vanity page. Swift 05:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 4'33" Robinh 11:06, 19 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 - kept - SimonP 01:33, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Barrington High School

Current content is "Barrington High School is a high school in Barrington, Illinois." Delete. Neutralitytalk 22:51, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 01:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tell me something beyond the obvious. Gazpacho 02:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all of the above reasons and it really says nothing. Vegaswikian 02:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, just because any high school has potential to have an encyclopedic article written about it IMO. Having said that, this is not it — it has been a sub-stub for entirely too long, and as currently written says almost nothing. Rlquall 02:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - may develop in time. Lupin 02:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't resist cute cheerleaders. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 03:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added a little to the page. Hopefully someone who is more familiar with the school will beef it up. DS1953 03:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This school is ranked #581 on Newsweek's list of the Best High Schools in America. -- BD2412 thimkact 03:49, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable - SimonP 04:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • Keep schools. Frustrating anyone who spams the VfD pages is merely a pleasant side effect. Stop wasting our time so we can add content. First, preserve knowledge. Second, increase knowledge. --Unfocused 04:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable (I've even seen the place), reasonable topic. Kelly Martin 05:09, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Instutional vanity. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. Gmaxwell 05:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopædic. --Swift 05:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Lake Country, Illinois and delete - Skysmith 09:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic schoolcruft/vanity. Master Thief Garrett 11:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete pitifully unnotable. Dunc|☺ 12:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Lotsofissues 13:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_* 14:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 15:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable CDC (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to have expanded nicely. It's a shame it takes a VfD listing for expansion to occur, but that's life. JYolkowski // talk 20:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 22:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear case of deletion BrokenSegue 00:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clear cut case of inclusion. —RaD Man (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All schools are notable by nature. Verifiable and NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, ergo it is encyclopaedic. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 13:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sholtar 13:29, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. (1)We don't even have a policy about schools yet, (2)schools are important and should be included, (3)this massive deletion campaign is terrible. Introduce a limit of 3 vfd nominations per day. Visit Project Schoolwatch. --Zantastik 22:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nice article, verifiable, important topic. Kappa 22:18, 21 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Doc (?) 23:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bel Air Middle School

non-noteable school, little information, not encyclopedia material. Coolgamer 23:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - consensus - SimonP 01:35, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bel Air Middle School

Not in Bel Air, Los Angeles, California—which possibly would make it notable—but in Bel Air, Maryland. Non-notable two-line middle school substub—delete. Neutralitytalk 22:59, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, notable enough. Kappa 23:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. The entire current article is "Bel Air Middle School, built in 1960, is a secondary school situated right next to Bel Air High School. It is a rather large middle school, especially for a one-level school. Its population rests at about 1,300 students and staff. The current principal is Nancy Reynolds." — this makes it notable enough? Also, "current prinicipal" without providing dates is an unsatisfactory statement in an encyclopedia in any case. Quale
  • No vote, but I'd like to question the statement that being in Bel Air, Los Angeles, California makes something any more notable than being in Bel Air, Maryland. Why is that? --FCYTravis 01:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bel Air High School, which is apparently adjacent and has a fully-developed article, in which this middle school could be appropriately and briefly mentioned (with slightly more detail). Rlquall 02:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Rlquall's suggestion Lupin 02:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They seem to be two completely separate schools, for all the proximity. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 03:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Harford County Public Schools, the local school district. --BaronLarf 03:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Calton | Talk 04:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. --Unfocused 04:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the usual reasons. Kelly Martin 05:09, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a trivia base. Gmaxwell 05:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into whichever Bel Air, Maryland is appropriate and delete - Skysmith 09:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into applicablelocation and Delete. Master Thief Garrett 11:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    delete Dunc|☺ 12:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_* 14:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 15:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 22:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maryland All schools are notable by nature. Verifiable and NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, ergo it is encyclopaedic. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 13:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (1)We don't even have a policy about schools yet, (2)schools are important and should be included, (3)this massive deletion campaign is terrible. Introduce a limit of 3 vfd nominations per day. --Zantastik 22:30, 20 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 - kept - SimonP 01:36, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bellemoor School

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 23:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, notable. Kappa 23:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Inherently notable. R Calvete 01:40, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep Lupin 02:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 03:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable - SimonP 04:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. All the article does is make a weak case that the school has notably poor academics, but so do thousands of other schools around the world and they aren't encyclopedic either. Quale 04:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • Keep schools. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. --Unfocused 04:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the usual reasons. Kelly Martin 05:10, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Instutional Vanity, wikipedia is not triviapedia.Gmaxwell 06:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Southampton and delete - Skysmith 09:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge where applicable and Delete Master Thief Garrett 11:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete; Dunc|☺ 12:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_* 14:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No more notable than The Walgreens two blocks down the street from me. --InShaneee 14:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 15:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 22:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kaep (Keep) All schools are notable by nature. Verifiable and NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, ergo it is encyclopaedic. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 13:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article in its present state does not serve the reader and there's no evidence of serious effort to improve it. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give us a chance, it's not the only recent school nomination. Kappa 22:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (1)We don't even have a policy about schools yet, (2)schools are important and should be included, (3)this massive deletion campaign is terrible. Introduce a limit of 3 vfd nominations per day. Project Schoolwatch. --Zantastik 22:30, 20 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 - kept - SimonP 01:37, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bergen County Academies

Absolutely no context. Establish notability before the end of the five-day period or delete. Neutralitytalk 23:07, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - I live in Illinois and had never heard of this school, but checked on Google and quickly found:

  • Teams from Bergen County Academies took 8 of the top 12 spots in the 2003 Superbowl of High School Calculus, competing with 191 teams from around the U.S. In 2004, the school fielded 3 teams, all finishing in the top 10.
  • Nine students were listed as semi-finalists in 2005 U.S. Physics Teams (compared to 3 students from New Trier High School and 3 students from the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy which, by almost anyone's standards, are notable high schools)

Although I may be late to this argument since I know it has been a bone of contention in the past, I don't understand how wikipedians can find that every campaign in Dungeons & Dragons, every minor character in any Star Wars episode and every ship in the U.S. Navy merits an article but that high schools are "not notable." Although the guidelines for deletion say that a person who is the subject of a biographical article should have notability, I don't think that does or should extend to a high school, particularly one that obviously participates on an equal footing with schools that I know are among the very top tier in Illinois. I agree that there needs to be more work on this article, but at least there is some information here, which is more than can be said for a lot of stubs. But I don't think it is right to keep vfd'ing every article on a high school and putting the burden on the authors to establish notability. DS1953 23:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...yes, the author does have the burden to establish notability. Neutralitytalk 01:28, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand how wikipedians can find that every campaign in Dungeons & Dragons, every minor character in any Star Wars episode and every ship in the U.S. Navy merits an article but that high schools are "not notable." I don't understand why I keep hearing this argument. I have yet to encounter a single Wikipedian who would vote to delete a high school article, but keep any of the examples you mention. android↔talk 03:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. AAST in particular is very notable. NatusRoma 00:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. How is it unfair to put the "burden" on authors to establish notability of the subjects for the articles they create? How is the reader supposed to understand why the article subject is notable if the article author can't explain it? Quale 01:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not just your average high school. Gazpacho 02:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lupin 02:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs a lot of work, but deserves benefit of the doubt. Rlquall 02:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 03:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of scope for growth here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable - SimonP 04:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. --Unfocused 04:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any school in the same class as IMSA is definitely worth an article. Kelly Martin 05:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Instutional Vanity, wikipedia is not triviapedia.Gmaxwell 06:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cute but, no, non-encyc. Master Thief Garrett 11:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_* 14:34, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, practically all schools are notable enough for an unlimited encyclopedia. Kappa 16:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 22:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 11:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All schools. Verifiable and NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, ergo it is encyclopaedic. Klonimus 13:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (1)We don't even have a policy about schools yet, (2)schools are important and should be included, (3)this massive deletion campaign is terrible. Introduce a limit of 3 vfd nominations per day. --Zantastik 22:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The school issue notwithstanding, there is a lot of junk that comes down the pipe. Limiting editors to 3 nominations a day would only make matters worse. android↔talk 03:09, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. Definately a particularly notable school-- some headlines about BCA (Google search):
    • BCA Battlebots Team Wins 2nd, 3rd and 4th Place
    • BCA Scores First Place in American Mathematics Contest
    • BCA Students Place in Top Five at Harvard MIT Math Tournament
    • Recent 5th place in Intel International Science and Engineering Fair

68.160.115.2 15:02, 21 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 - kept - SimonP 01:39, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Berkeley Carroll School

Private school of 800 students. Demonstrate notability or delete. Neutralitytalk 23:20, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, notable. Kappa 23:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Inherently notable. R Calvete 01:40, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep --Howrealisreal 02:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lupin 02:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a good stub to me. It's an independent, nonsectarian, coed day school, you know. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 03:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable - SimonP 04:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 04:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Decent stub. DS1953 04:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. --Unfocused 04:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the usual reasons. Kelly Martin 05:13, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Instutional Vanity, wikipedia is not triviapedia.Gmaxwell 06:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Park Slope, Brooklyn and delete - Skysmith 09:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into (applicable location) and Delete Master Thief Garrett 11:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Lotsofissues 14:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_* 14:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I can verify a lot of things that still aren't notable. Like how much change is in my pocket right now, for instance. --InShaneee 14:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't change in your pocket be notable if you ever wanted to buy something later? Don't give up on school articles please, there is potential for a lot of important information to fill these pages. --Howrealisreal 15:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No you can't. Reread Wikipedia:Verifiability for what the word means here - David Gerard 22:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 22:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All schools are notable by nature. Verifiable and NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, ergo it is encyclopaedic. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 13:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (1)We don't even have a policy about schools yet, (2)schools are important and should be included, (3)this massive deletion campaign is terrible. Introduce a limit of 3 vfd nominations per day. --Zantastik 22:32, 20 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 - redirected - SimonP 01:41, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bishop Kearney Field

This isn't even about a school. It's about a non-notable athletic field at a non-notable school. Delete with extreme prejudice. Neutralitytalk 23:25, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable dirt. Gazpacho 02:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vegaswikian 02:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with and create school article. Lupin 02:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pro-sports venue establishes notability, although it would be nice to have an article about the school which it serves, and the field entry a mere part of it. Rlquall 02:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with and create school article. --BaronLarf 03:29, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looking at the article I notice that it's the home field of a highly successful pro Lacrosse team. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gamaliel 03:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Calton | Talk 03:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. The Rochester Rattlers deserve an article; this field doesn't. Quale 04:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. When there's a school article, we can merge this into that. But thanks to all the VfD traffic, I have no time to do it myself. --Unfocused 04:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the appropriate school or school district article. Kelly Martin 05:14, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the article and the fruitcakes voting to keep it! come on! Gmaxwell 05:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Rochester, New York and delete - Skysmith 09:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all fields. Wait, do you know how dumb that just sounded? Because it is, it really is. Master Thief Garrett 11:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_* 14:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete trivial CDC (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone writes an article about the school before end of VfD, in which case merge and redirect. JYolkowski // talk 20:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)Looks like someone's created the school article and merged the content in, so redirect. JYolkowski // talk 02:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 22:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE No, notability is not a deletion criterion, but the logic of keeping this article implies that we create entries for all fields named after bishops around the world. Keep a perspective of a Martian who just landed on planet earth, people! Project2501a 22:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is still not a deletion criterion. It's NPOV and verifiable. That's sufficient. James F. (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable field used for playing major league lacross. Klonimus 13:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (1)We don't even have a policy about schools yet, (2)schools are important and should be included, (3)this massive deletion campaign is terrible. Introduce a limit of 3 vfd nominations per day. Expand this stub. Project Schoolwatch. --Zantastik 22:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete - I don't usually enter into VfD debates but I'll make an exception for this. BrokenSegue 00:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is the sports field of a major league lacross team, and should not become an innocent victim of the schools controversy. Kappa 22:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this goes beyond our normal "to school or not to school" debate. This is the home field of a professional sports team. - Jersyko 01:17, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 01:42, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bishop Quinn High School

Content is "Bishop Quinn High School is a small, private Catholic high school in Northern California founded in 1997." Notability not established; delete. Neutralitytalk 23:28, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, notable. Kappa 23:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Inherently notable. R Calvete 01:38, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete, article should indicate notability. Gazpacho 02:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete how can saying nothing make a school notable? Vegaswikian 02:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because, apparently, it has the word "school" in its title. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lupin 02:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand to include species of principal's dog, list of teachers' lunchtime preferences, colours the walls are painted, number of parking spots in the parking lot, names of members of the chess club. Then Delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 03:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oh I nearly died laughing at the Powder Puff cheerleaders! movie (46.3MB, worth it). Ultra cool kids. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable - SimonP 04:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • A school in NORTHERN California? I love the level of precision here. Delete. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article has been around for over 3 months, and it's all of a single sentence long. Quale 04:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For a while ... DS1953 04:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. --Unfocused 04:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the usual reasons. Kelly Martin 05:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable.. Given it's legnth it should have been speedyed Gmaxwell 05:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the local geographical article, if any of the keepists can be bothered to work out where it is rather than just saying keep. If you're not willing to improve the article, why is it that worth keeping? Average Earthman 09:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second that. Merge - Skysmith 09:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course keep voters are willing to improve the article, but what there should be is some guidelines for the original contributor, and a guarantee that work would not be wasted. Kappa 09:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • From Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "The page will also remain if it has been improved enough since the initial listing that the reason for the listing no longer applies. This requires a reason to be given initially when requesting that a page be deleted." Oh, and merge into Redding, California or wherever's best. JYolkowski // talk 20:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anywhere applicable, then Delete. Master Thief Garrett 11:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 12:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanded and cited it a bit keeep Lotsofissues 14:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_* 14:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete While I'm tempted to vote keep because they're 'ultra cool', I still don't see any basis for inclusion. --InShaneee 14:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 15:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 22:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All schools are notable by nature. Verifiable and NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, ergo it is encyclopaedic. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 13:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (1)We don't even have a policy about schools yet, (2)schools are important and should be included, (3)this massive deletion campaign is terrible. Introduce a limit of 3 vfd nominations per day. --Zantastik 22:32, 20 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 - kept - SimonP 01:43, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Brassall State Primary School

Content is "Brassall State Primary School is one of the oldest primary schools in Queensland. First opened in 1894." Notability not established; demonstrate notability by the end of the five-day period or delete. Neutralitytalk 23:31, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Lupin 02:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's still just a primary school, and there should be a pretty high bar for establishing the notability of a primary school, which this article does not do. Not encyclopedic. Rlquall 03:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with school district or locality. --BaronLarf 03:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 03:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good stub, plenty of room for growth. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge historical details with Ipswich, Queensland and Delete. Usually, any school stub I am inclined to Keep, but this one can effectively be merged into its parent article, Ipswich, with very little work. The article needed more detail to be an effective stub.--Takver 04:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. --Unfocused 04:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Normally I'd recommend merging it into a parent article, but a school that's been in continuous operation for 109 years has to be interesting in its own right. Kelly Martin 05:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Instutional Vanity, wikipedia is not triviapedia.Gmaxwell 06:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge useful facts with local geographical article. Average Earthman 08:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 12:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_* 14:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Age does not make notability, nor does a whole flock of teenagers who know how to find the internet. --InShaneee 14:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 15:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 22:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth and tender love. All schools are notable by nature. Verifiable and NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, ergo it is encyclopaedic. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 13:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (1)We don't even have a policy about schools yet, (2)schools are important and should be included, (3)this massive deletion campaign is terrible. Introduce a limit of 3 vfd nominations per day. --Zantastik 22:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or possibly merge somewhere, to unmerge if expanded. Kappa 22:22, 21 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 - kpet - SimonP 01:45, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Buffalo Grove High School

Non-notable; delete. Neutralitytalk 23:35, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Notable, keep. Kappa 23:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Inherently notable. R Calvete 01:37, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. →Iñgōlemo← talk 02:24, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable school. DS1953 02:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lupin 02:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Marginally notable in that it is a high school; article needs help. Rlquall 03:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 03:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This school is ranked #953 on Newsweek's list of the Best High Schools in America. -- BD2412 thimkact 03:39, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
    • That 953 ranking means in all likelyhood it isn't even in the top 20 in the state of California alone. Quale 04:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clear signs of organic growth. Excellent. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable - SimonP 04:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 04:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • Keep Some people act like gatekeepers trying to keep knowledge OUT of the Wiki! --Unfocused 04:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the usual reasons. Kelly Martin 05:17, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Instutional vanity, useless trivia. Gmaxwell 05:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Buffalo Grove, as the article does not indicate any notability beyond the local area. It isn't even the best school in the area, the neigbouring Adlai E Stevenson High School is in the top 100 in the country. Average Earthman 08:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 12:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • added a line keep I'm trying hard to bring something constructive out of this Lotsofissues 13:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_* 14:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless we want to start declaring articles such as Warcraft player currently ranked 493rd. Notability not even close to established. --InShaneee 14:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 15:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Buffalo Grove and Redirect to the created section in the Buffalo Grove article. If it becomes a complete article while there it can always be cut and pasted to create a new article. We all need to remember that something does not need to be an article title to be found. You can even create wiki links to sections of other articles. Search is a wonderful tool. Vegaswikian 22:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 22:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is an ACCEPTED and valid reason to include with a delete vote. The deletion criteria are not written down officially or thoroughly, and are not explicit (i.e., anything not covered is excluded). Until such time comes (read: never), people can say "non-notable", "vain", "cruft", and other fun terms all they like thank you very much. Don't gimme this bull. Master Thief Garrett 05:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All schools are notable by nature. Verifiable and NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, ergo it is encyclopaedic. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 13:20, 19 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 speedy deleted by Neutrality (Trawswikied.) --cesarb 00:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trendwhore

This is a dictionary entry that has since been transwikied. Unless it can be merged with fashions or trends or something like that, it should be deleted. →Iñgōlemo← talk 23:45, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 01:47, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jinan Incident

This page should be deleted. This page may infringe human rights, because this page is not based on a neutral position. China and Japan disagree about understanding of history between both countries, and Japan has been proposing China to hold debates on this historical problem.

(nominated by User:60.36.98.230). Grutness...wha?
See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Gazpacho
  • Keep, obviously... What's the general policy on anon VfDs? Chiacomo 05:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as for others - allowed, as long as it's done in Good faith (but anon votes tend to be discounted). Also, keep this one. Radiant_* 14:36, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable incident in Chinese history - if there are problems with POV should be listed on appropriate page. BTW, VFD template is missing. Capitalistroadster 06:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, improve verity and NPOV. EvilPhoenix 07:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
  • Stong Keep. Notable incident, if there are differences of opinion on what actually occured then that should be reflected in the article, not deleted. Average Earthman 08:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. if there's an international difference of opinion over this, it simply makes it more noteworthy. The row between China and Japan should be written about on the page. If the nominator is concerned about the point of view of the article, s/he should add the {{NPOV}} template, rather than nominating this notable and encyclopaedic article for deletion. Grutness...wha? 09:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's not NPOV, that's a separate issue. And the Japanese government's stated "understanding" regarding Japan's actions in China during WWII has proven to be demonstrably uncredible and even at times knowingly mendacious. Nateji77 12:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Gazpacho 22:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neutralitytalk 00:42, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Whoever thinks that he/she can delete history is a joke him/herself. --Miorea 20:26, 19 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_16&oldid=1081092787"