Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 2

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zantastik marked this vfd on March 25, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm completing the nomination; my vote is "I wish this was speedyable, and wouldn't shed a tear if someone were to do so out of process." —Korath (Talk) 00:40, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Sanmartin
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 03:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, no chance for expansion.Howabout1 03:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. Article labels somebody a troll. --Smithfarm
• Delete. POV, NN --Hooloovoo 00:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. Dhanakorn

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I came across this article with the intention of wikifying it, but after reading it I'm of the opinion that it's not useful. It's a very short first-person account of a Civil Air Patrol training event that offers no new information worth merging into the existing CAP article. It's an unremarkable boot camp story, not an encyclopedia article. Fernando Rizo 02:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:41, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with Fernando. --Smithfarm
• Delete per Fernando. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 00:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

have no idea what this is after reading the one-sentence article. Wolfman 19:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - Its a company that makes Airsoft-style replica guns. They're just one of many small/medium-sized companies in that market. Not notable. I did add the wikilink to Airsoft in the article so others reviewing it would have some background. Chuck 21:15, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Does not establish what it is. I don't learn what an AEG is or why I need to know it. Geogre 21:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable company. — Gwalla | Talk 01:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Airsoft. Not sure about notability, but this substub is hardly understandable. Since it's just one sentence and the same information is given in Airsoft in a more understanable context, I would redirect it there. In addition to everything else, the substub is factually inaccurate. The company's website says that Classical Army is a brand, not company name. The company's actual name is Yick Fung Industrial International Ltd.. Andris 14:48, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect: WP is not a product catalog. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:28, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesn't explain anything, advertisement, as above says, Wikipedia isn't a catalog. Luigi30 13:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 09:19, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Just found this on Dead-End pages and put on VFD; then saw that a vote had taken place last Sept, but article is still here. Sc147 01:02, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - appears to be a brand/advert, if its requested back and the author wants to put more in that makes it not so..fine max rspct 01:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This doesn't appear on any VfD daily log pages. (It wouldn't for September, of course.) I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution, though I was awfully tempted to mark it {{delete}} based on the above. —Korath (Talk) 00:45, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I remember an article very similar to this one on VfD; mistitled, no-context article about paintball equipment. IIRC, it was Deleted, and so should this one be. android↔talk 05:29, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

~Delete I agree and have nothing further to add. Oliver Keenan 17:08, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 17:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not sure why homework page is on an encyclopedia. Doesn't seem to fit. Whatcanbrowndo 20:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, homeworkcruft. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:58, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:46, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Worthless and personal.
• Delete. (speedy?). User test. Jonathunder 08:41, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Infrogmation 17:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 17:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Andycjp marked this vfd on March 30, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just listing it here; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 00:54, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - personal band, isn't it?
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 03:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website doesn't exist.Howabout1 03:37, 2 Apr 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 concensus. - Mailer Diablo 11:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• delete. notability. Mikkalai 00:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think all Wikipedia community members need to rethink the policy of notability and refrain from frivolous application. In the matter of high schools there are institutions of public record, and therefore pass the notability test. Notability should only be used in conjunction with an objection over verifiability, or not at all. Sniffandgrowl
  • Comment. Sniffandgrowl, please read WP:POINT and BEEFSTEW. Zzyzx11 02:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Sniffandgrowl's second day. Most edits are to VfD discussions.
• Delete. This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. While I don't usually vote on these foundlings, this is a textbook vanity page. —Korath (Talk) 00:57, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree totally with Sniffandgrowl.--Centauri 01:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. From looking at this, and comparing it to the BEEFSTEW checklist, I think it only gets 2 points (A,B). Zscout370 02:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This article is both verifiable,notable and of public record. Let's allow a process of organic growth. Klonimus 02:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing encyclopedic here. Gamaliel 02:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Achieving Beacon School status as an example to other schools in the UK makes it notable in my opinion. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agreeing with Sniffandgrowl. Kappa 02:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not pass the BEEFSTEW test. Zzyzx11 03:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • On second thought, after reading about the Beacon schools programme, that status is notable enough to supersede the BEEFSTEW test. KEEP. Zzyzx11 03:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What we NEED to do is try again to find a consensus. In the meantime, high schools aren't notable simply because they exist, just like weathermen aren't notable just because they're on tv. --InShaneee 06:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'm on local radio and I probably don't exist.  :^P Existential (and probably ecclesiastical) questions aside, this seems to be a fairly functional stub that establishes at least a degree of notability. I'm unfamilar with the Beacon School status, but I'm going to trust Capitalistroadster on this and vote to keep. - Lucky 6.9 08:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. School vanity, not notable. Jonathunder 08:42, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
• Delete. High schools are inherently nonencyclopedic. --Angr/_(comhrá) 09:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Municipal wastewater treatment plants and landfills are in the public record. Should we include all of them? Remember that virtually all high schools are notable only for people who attended them. IMO this qualifies them as vanity pages. Elementary schools are next! --Smithfarm
  • High schools are notable not only to people who attended them, but to a substantial number of Vfd voters. I think this particular school is also notable for anyone who's interested in how they get above-average exam results from an average mixed-ability intake, possibly something to do with their "accelerated learning" program, which appears to be one of the most notable of its type in England [1]. Kappa 10:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Municipal wastewater treatment plants and landfills are in the public record and definatly notable. All major public works are an expression of our civilization and thus worthy of being in a truely great enecyclopedia Klonimus 18:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The property boundary between my garden and the public footpath next to it is in the public record, and is an expression of civilization (especially when it is gaily adorned with wind-blown junk food wrappers). Moreover, the overwhelming majority of schools are not major public works. Uncle G 17:49, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Keep per the usual. - SimonP 18:22, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Does pass the Renner, South Dakota test (it's a real place) Ejrrjs | What? 00:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --JuntungWu 10:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 02:49, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• keep' Yuckfoo 02:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete secondary schools are not notable. Grue 07:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Cramlington and delete - Skysmith 07:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Has potential to become encyclopedic. --Andylkl ^(talk) 08:28, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, has no potential to become encyclopedic. Radiant!Radiant_* 12:00, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• User:Dr Zen/keepschools —RaD Man (talk) 00:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand.--BaronLarf 02:02, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — Instantnood 07:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - As with all schools, I vote to keep. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:24, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• very, very,very, very weak keep. The fact that this is an award-winning school gives it just enough notability to be worth recording. -- Dcfleck 01:38, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
• Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 16:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. As long as Granbull exists, so should this. brian0918™ 02:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Noisy | Talk 10:34, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 17:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A webcomic with only twenty "issues" so far, it falls way short of even the most liberal of inclusion guidelines from Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics. As such, I suggest that it should be deleted for now. If the comic sticks around long enough to meet the inclusion criteria, the page (currently a stub) can always be recreated. --Ray Radlein 10:07, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC) comment: FWIW, I apologize for not completing the VfD nomination process last night; immediately after I saved this page (but before I could make a VfD log entry), Comcast decided that the internets had better places to visit than my computer. --Ray Radlein 01:33, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I think I've voted keep on every webcomic which has shown up on VfD, but this one has been around less than one month. Come back after a couple months and we'll see. Gamaliel 17:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was a worse one once: I checked its web site and discovered that it consisted of only four single-panel(!) comics, and was a couple of weeks old, tops. That may well hold the record for webcomic submissions. --Ray Radlein 01:33, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Just personal. Non-encyclopaedical.
• Delete. Only in existence since March 2005. I wish the author the best of luck, but this isn't anywhere near notable yet. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A far too new to be notable. Dsmdgold 11:40, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, advertising. --InShaneee 22:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete like InShaneee said. -- Dcfleck 01:40, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 17:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neologism. Zzyzx11 01:36, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, it is personal foolishness. And the image too.
• Delete, not notable, vanity neologism. Megan1967 03:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Howabout1 03:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the whole thing just because the eyebrows give me the willies. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, not notable. Jonathunder 08:43, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
• Delete. Children at play. --Smithfarm
• Delete sillyness, personal vanity. Delete redirect Ghookup and the illustration Image:Daveg3.jpg at the same time. -- Infrogmation 17:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. hilarious and true, Dave G is a god among men and deletion will bring the wrath of god upon us. Lt.Spiers 15:15, 5 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: above vote is by User:24.87.172.143, their only edit thus far. -- Infrogmation 23:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Stupid vanity site. -- Dcfleck 01:41, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (already transwikied). – ABCD 19:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is more like a dicdef. Zzyzx11 01:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki it to Wiktionary User:Sanmartin
• Wiktionary. Megan1967 03:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The original author added the same text to Wiktionary:toodeloo a few hours after the VFD notice was applied to this article. No need for transwikification. Delete. Uncle G 17:14, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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. – ABCD 20:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should be merged into Terri Schiavo and replaced with a redirect, since Greer's only claim to notability was his ruling in the Schiavo case. Michael Schiavo does not have his own page (the link redirects to Terri Schiavo), nor do Bob and Mary Schindler (ditto). There are thousands of local circuit court judges in the United States, and simply ruling on a single noteworthy case shouldn't be enough to qualify for a solo article. 63.173.114.141 01:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. We already have articles on judges who are merely notable for being judges. This judge actually is notable. Gamaliel 02:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. To me this raises the issue of categorizing people who have a lot of small things going for notability... here is someone who is the presiding judge in a cause celebre, and a former legislative officer in the governing body of a fairly large city, and once roomed with Jim Morrison, albiet briefly... to me the big thing plus the curious details add up to a keep. -- 8^D ^gab 02:41, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Terri Schiavo. There was no need to go to VfD to do this, by the way. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Seconding Gamaliel's comments: Clearly a notable government official regardless of how he gained this notariety(sic). unsigned vote from User:Newprogressive
• Keep Judges in notable cases are themselves notable. Klonimus 03:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Markaci 2005-04-2 T 05:10 Z
• Keep - He is a central firgure in a very controversial case. It should be noted that there is a wikipedia article on Lance Ito, the O.J. Simpson case judge. - permanentblue
  • Improperly signed. Page history says: 67.173.188.6 (talk · contributions) 06:08, 2005 Apr 2
• Strong Keep as independent article and expand. He didn't simply rule on the case, he lived it for close to a decade, with substantial media attention to his role and substantial infamy among those who disagreed. The article needs to document and explain his rulings, what his own contribution to the case was, what effect it had on him, i.e., the death threats, etc; having all that in the Terri Schiavo article would either reduce it to mere summary or make her article even more unwieldy than it already is. Postdlf 08:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and Expand, but use caution, we want to avoid making it a POV fork. --Kitch 14:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. N-Man 00:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP Deletion? are you kidding me? all U.S. federal judges should have a wikipedia article. Kingturtle 23:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Greer's a Florida state court trial judge, not a federal judge. Postdlf 00:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable. —Seselwa 06:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Schiavo. Radiant_* 12:06, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. A person of consequence in a notable event (even one) is inherently notable. The media coverage and criticism of him makes it a no brainer and a merge inappropriate. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The original nomination was "merge and redirect". Since that action does not destroy history, any reader/editor can be bold and carry out that decision. If it turns out to have been a controversial decision, it should be discussed on the respective article talk pages. This should never have come to VfD. Rossami (talk) 03:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merging at this point would already be more than a controversial decision because based on the above votes, it would be contrary to expressed community consensus. Though the nominator could have taken that unilateral action initially without any kind of sanction, the result of this VfD discussion is that the subject will keep a separate article unless future discussion reverses that consensus. Postdlf 03:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 17:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neologism. Zzyzx11 02:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Smithfarm
• Delete. Nn neologism. Zero google hits. Speedy this junk to keep it that way fine by me. -- Infrogmation 17:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete speediest. -- Dcfleck 01:42, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 18:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Needs content to pass the Notability and Music Guidelines. Zzyzx11 02:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 03:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity Klonimus 04:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity Neilc 05:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verifiable evidence of notability is supplied. Dsmdgold 00:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. -- Dcfleck 01:43, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 18:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Charles Gary is the principal of a local highschool. Not encyclopedic. 67.116.49.163 02:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That was me, and delete. Gentgeen 03:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Neilc 05:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not remotely notable. --InShaneee 22:47, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. -- Dcfleck 01:43, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Milpitas High School should go too. Dsmdgold 22:51, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Then nominate it. Be prepared for a shouting match. :( —Korath (Talk) 04:18, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted (19:32, 2005 Apr 6 Neutrality deleted "Forever twisted" (Incoherent)) - IceKarma 09:51, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Vanity ad for a non-notable online gaming web site. Zzyzx11 03:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not-notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems non-notable to me. jni 12:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. --InShaneee 22:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, advertisement. -- Dcfleck 01:45, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted, incoherent vanity. Neutrality^talk 02:33, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete (11:31, 2 Apr 2005 SlimVirgin deleted "Omirix" (website commercial)) - Mailer Diablo 04:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity, advertising. P Ingerson 03:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It's gone. Speedied - Mailer Diablo 04:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The movie has not been confirmed just Peter Jackson saying the movie is least 4 years away. [2] Way too early to make an article about it. Wikipedia is not a movie gossip website. In addition, a $300 million budget? Man, inflation must raise the price of a blockbuster movie big time if it is true. --Anonymous Cow 04:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I had some trepidation along those lines - I tried to spruce the article up, having heard things to the same effect, but I found little substance to work with. At this point, I'm willing to concede that it is probably irretrievable, and should be merged into The Hobbit until a deal is inked. -- 8^D ^gab 05:11, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
• Delete. As much as I desperately would like this to be true (please please please please) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There's very little that could be merged into The Hobbit apart from the sheer speculation, and I don't think that belongs in that article, either. This should just go away until it's a for-sure thing, or at least as for-sure as things get in Hollywood. android↔talk 05:38, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not only is it speculation, it's terribly poor speculation... I just noticed that whoever wrote this listed Ian Holm as playing Bilbo again. Right. Ian will be 79 years old in 2010. That's a tad old to play a 51-year-old hobbit, especially considering Elijah Wood was 20 when he was cast as the 33-year-old Frodo. android↔talk 05:46, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --InShaneee 06:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, though a reference and link to the story should probably be included on Peter Jackson's article and the Hobbit page under adaptations. Just no need for an independent article on a movie that isn't happening yet. Postdlf 08:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until any sort of official announcement is made. --Kitch 14:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the appropriate section of The Hobbit page. It can be split out later if the movie happens. — RJH 17:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete imaginary fancruft. --Smithfarm
• Delete, this is garbage. All real or relevant information can be found elsewhere. There is no evidence to support a 2010 release either. K1Bond007 19:12, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Waaaaaay to early for this sort of thing. Wait till there's an official announcement. I think it's OK to perhaps include a one-liner about a speculative movie in the The Hobbit article, but we certainly can't list any cast members at this early stage either. 23skidoo 00:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Idle speculation at this point. 23skidoo's comment about a short note in The Hobbit is a good idea, though. -- Dcfleck 01:47, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not mention it anywhere. Wikipedia is not in the business of making predictions or reporting rumors. Rossami (talk) 03:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 18:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Previously "db|google 6 hits, Unknown group.". Probably band vanity. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete egregious violation of policy. --Smithfarm
• Delete. Not-notable. Dsmdgold 20:50, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 18:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Only notable content is that he is a webmaster of a web site. Lacks credible encylopedic information. Zzyzx11 04:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• By the way, the web site, peopleperception.com, looks like it is a humor/parody web site. Zzyzx11 04:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wow, my high school's librarian! Well maybe not the same guy, not that he would be notable :) Delete. Adam Bishop 04:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nateji77 05:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Anonymous Cow 16:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 18:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advertisement --Anonymous Cow 04:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Hmm...just did a little more research. I don't know, now. It was mentioned in a USAToday article, Dems think Clinton can deliver Arkansas and more]. I still nominate it for deletion, though.--Anonymous Cow 04:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, under the bar of notability, ad. Megan1967 08:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. --Smithfarm

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 18:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a duplicate of Richard IV of England, and is similar but inferior to the latter page — I don't think there's any content that needs to be merged into Richard IV of England that is found on this page. There are no remaining links to King Richard IV (fictional character), so I think we should just get rid of it. Neilc 05:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agreed - it's a duplicate. --Smithfarm
• Delete inferior duplicateTjc 09:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

On a straight vote count, I get 3 clear "delete" to 2 clear "keep" votes. Tjc made a conditional vote about clean-up but it's a hard call to say whether that condition was adequately met. Smithfarm's subsequent comment also casts doubt on his/her final intent. I am going to have to call this one as no concensus which defaults to keep for now. If not expanded past the current sub-stub stage, it may be appropriate to merge this article into another larger article (though no one has yet suggested an appropriate target) or eventually renominated. Rossami (talk) 05:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advertising. - Mailer Diablo 05:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: It is a professional and legitimate magazine that has no been around for a year. (web page) I agree that the article should be rewritten to be less of an advertisement. --Fuzzball! 06:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless rewritten within a certain time (one week? two weeks?). As it is, it is just an ad. --Smithfarm
• Keep Only if wikified and less of an advertisementTjc 09:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• No vote. Can anyone tell us the size of the circulation? Shimmin 12:13, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Update Rewritten to be less of an advertisement --Fuzzball! 17:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, presumably notable in the crowded field of women's woodworking magazines. Kappa 21:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there are plenty of craft magazines and there's nothing much special about most of them. Radiant_* 12:41, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I just realized that the appropriate category for this article would be, to coin a word, craftcruft <grin>. Radiant_* 12:42, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Couldn't one say the same thing about a lot of songs that are listed within Wikipedia? Fish Heads comes to mind... but I don't think we should go weeding out most of the listed songs because we don't feel that they are special enough. I think the question is more notability, which in this case would be determined more by how long they've been around and how large a subscriber base they have. I can't find info on subscriber base but I think the fact that the magazine has been around for over a year without signs of dying has to indicate that is has, at least some, notability. (None of this was meant as a personal attack and I hope you don't see it as such Radiant. I just wanted to carry on a friendly debate.) --Fuzzball! 04:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm always open to friendly debate. I'm simply not convinced that this magazine is notable (considering that my local bookstore carries over a thousand magazines). There's also a recent tendency around here of creating new magazines that disappear (go bankrupt) after a couple of months. It may be useful to set up some guideline for magazines (and related publications such as newspapers) (which should probably cover 1) how long it has existed, and 2) circulation size). Radiant_* 11:01, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: In my opinion, established paper magazines are inherently Wikipedic. They may not be notable enough for a paper encyclopedia, but Wikipedia should take them, as long as the articles aren't written like adverts. --Smithfarm
• This appears to be one of thousands of magazines serving niche markets. There is no evidence presented that this magazine is at all significant even within their niche. Evidence to the contrary: They have only been around since Jan 2004. They have only published six issues so far. Their associated website scores 1,083,686 (substantially improved in the past few days, but I'm guessing that most of that improvement is based on investigations by participants of this very discussion thread). No evidence presented about their subscription rates, impact on the market, etc. Delete unless further evidence can be presented. Rossami (talk) 03:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 11:11, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable fraternity, vanity.

Klonimus 05:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, Cleanup, Expand - Fraternities with multiple chapters recognized by different universities (which a quick search suggests this one has) are inherently notable. An effort to create a fraternity centered on an ethnic group that has never before made such an effort is even more notable. We have listings for many fraternities, with no regard to size, function, or any other aspect other than the contributor's interest in writing the article. -- 8^D ^gab 05:28, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

• Far be it from me to deny inclusion. If you can make a good article go for it. Klonimus 05:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, looks like notable. Grue 07:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• "the first fraternity established for South Asians." if that comment can be confirmed to be true, keep as notable. Radiant_* 12:04, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 17:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 18:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think: Vanity for non-notable (as yet) web comic. I note that the main character does not yet have a name. 24.245.12.39 05:36, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. agree with the above; maybe he/she means the main charecter's (sic) name has yet to be revealed. Nateji77 05:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Place in underground bunker until halflife passes. --Smithfarm
• Coment also a notable content management system Jackliddle 18:50, 4 Apr 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 delete (13:39, 2 Apr 2005 SlimVirgin deleted "May C. Ryan" (about a non-notable student)) - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Apparently a sorority founder. No relevant googles found. Slac speak up! 05:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Gone. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 18:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

vanity. Nateji77 05:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete band vanity Klonimus 07:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Smithfarm
• Delete and consider blocking user. These edits are all over the place. - Lucky 6.9 08:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 12:10, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Band vanity. 800 Google hits for "zen lunatics" band, not all of which are relevant. allmusic.com entry exists, but is blank. Band does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for musicians. android↔talk 05:57, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 08:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless proven notable. --Smithfarm

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete even though he's the youngest person to be married in Canada. --Smithfarm
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 09:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 12:16, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete absurd vanity. --InShaneee 22:05, 2 Apr 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 Andrewa (Reposted material, CSD general case #4) --cesarb 01:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is back after having been deleted before, previous VFD referenced below. Looks like some mythology has been invented to pad the article and try to save it from being deleted again, but I can find zero sources to back up the claims that Mephion was a mythological dragon. Delete on the basis that it is unverifiable and a bad attempt at hiding bandcruft behind something purportedly more inclusion-worthy. Arkyan 16:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy deleted, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General criterion #4: Reposted material. This archive page should probably be reverted to its former state when discussion originally closed, but I'm not sure where to document this recreation and redeletion. Andrewa 17:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This sentence from Google is why: "Your search - mephion "santa clarita" - did not match any documents. " "Mephion" by itself got 269 results. -You can also probably speedy it under "recreation of deleted material". -Idont Havaname 17:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, see above. Andrewa 17:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Currently fails to pass the Notability and Music Guidelines. Zzyzx11 06:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A 3-month-old band? Is that a new record for VfD? android↔talk 07:06, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 09:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 12:16, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Plug piece for new, non-influential band with no major commercial success. 3 months is nothing, we had one band put up about three days after they were founded. As I said then, bands that new are only notable if they have someone very famous in them. Average Earthman 16:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Smithfarm
• Delete as bandcruft. I think the record for the newest band with a vanity article was for a group less than three days old! I got a chuckle out of that one. - Lucky 6.9 04:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Looks like Average Earthman remembers that three-day-old group as well. - Lucky 6.9 04:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep though the decision is split on whether to keep as is or keep as merge with a more comprehensive article. I would argue to merge this since the current content is a single line. However, that is an appropriate decision for the respective Talk pages and not appropriate for the VfD decision-making process. Rossami (talk) 05:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Currently is a one sentence self-promotion for an NES emulator. Zzyzx11 07:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

iNES is actually pretty well known in the emulation community. Although it isn't as popular now as it once was, iNES and Pasofami were the first usable NES emulators to be developed around 1995-96. Thus, this has some historical significance. A Google search for "+Nintendo +iNES" turns up over 28,000 (!) hits. Although it's currently a stub, I think that it could have some encyclopedic value if a history was provided. Firebug 08:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Currently, it reads as a one sentence promo, which is why I marked it as VFD. But as long as someone provides notable, historic, encyclopedic value then it probably will be OK. Zzyzx11 10:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I put in this entry because there was a link on the Console_emulator page that lead to the page for International Nuclear Events Scale. Should I have just removed the link instead?

• No, don't remove links to things which deserve an article, but try to write a little bit about them if you're going to make an article. But I vote Keep as a harmless substub. Kappa 12:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Potential for expansion. Hardware emulators are inherently Wikipedic. --Smithfarm
  • Why are hardware emulators inherently Wikipedic? Carbonite | Talk 18:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've always thought that Wikipedia was known for its good coverage of computer hardware and software. N'est-ce pas? --Smithfarm

• Keep and allow for organic growth Klonimus 18:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Second Klonimus.—Boarder8925 21:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into NES emulation as there's very little to say about individual emulators that isn't common to the lot of them. Radiant_* 12:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into NES emulation or something similar for now. —RaD Man (talk) 00:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I count 6 clear "delete" votes and 4 valid "keep" votes (1 probable troll, 1 anon and 2 users whose accounts were created after the voting started are discounted). Despite a majority to delete, the decision did not reach concensus and defaults to keep for now. Rossami (talk) 06:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Promotion for software that has not yet have an official release. Zzyzx11 07:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep phpbb, vbulletin, IPB, and more have a Wiki. Why not MyBB? -- nakile
• Delete. Vanity. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:17, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's plenty of notable software out there that has not yet had an official release. Does anyone with affirmative knowledge of the software want to comment? --Smithfarm
  • I'll comment. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Star Wars Quake just closed on vfd about 10 minutes ago or so before I could vote. Try comparing Google stats between the two. —RaD Man (talk) 01:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I looked into this. Google search for "mybulletinboard" generated "about 44,400" hits. Google searches for "star wars quake" and "star wars" "quake mod" had 130-136 hits. The VfD result for Star Wars Quake was a keep, on the grounds that it was "notable vaporware", whereas I gather this is real-world software that people are actually using. --Smithfarm
      • Try the same searches in Google Groups; see below. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, advertising, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --InShaneee 22:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The MyBB group provides releases from their homepage and they have labeled them Release Candidates leading up to a major update. Dennistt 21:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic topic regarding forum software. --Andylkl ^(talk) 08:30, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable software. Radiant!Radiant_* 12:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Google disagrees with you. 91,300 hits found for "MyBulletinBoard". --Andylkl ^(talk) 14:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep phpbb has a wiki. This is a notable piece of software and has the potential to be more. Not vain since not submitted by creator but by user. --decswxaqz 13:49, 4 Apr 2005 (GMT)
  • No such user as decswxaqz. Nulled vote was cast by 138.253.79.32. Please sign up with Wikipedia and have some edits before voting on VfD. --Andylkl ^(talk) 14:07, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep and delist. Highly notable forum-ware. —RaD Man (talk) 01:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agreeing with Radman and the "nulled vote" above. Kappa 11:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please Yuckfoo 01:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• "not yet officially released" means that we have nothing verifiable to say that can get this article past a sub-stub. Google hits are a poor guide to notability or impact for software. Google hits about free bbs software are particularly poor. For example, of Andylkl's 91,300 hits above, the number drops to 49,400 merely by excluding the myboard.com domain (the software's homespace). Reviewing the first 40 hits, the most common reference (19 if I counted correctly) are announcements of a particular security vulnerability. The remainder (download sites and help requests) does to little to convince me that this is a groundbreaking new innovation. Delete. Rossami (talk) 03:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that new software has to be groundbreaking before it can be included in Wikipedia? --Smithfarm 06:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • And you consider 49,400 hits as "mere"??? --Andylkl ^(talk) 07:58, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Yes to both. Let's take the hits first. My review of the hits convinced me that the straight hit-count was a very poor measure for this particular product. 49k hits when most of them are duplicative and/or trivial do not establish significance on their own. I could be convinced by other evidence but the hit counts don't do it for me in this case. To Smithfarm's question, yes I do think that new software has to have some measure of significance if we are to have an article with the potential to rise above the level of sub-stub and that will draw enough knowledgable reader/editors to successfully monitor the article against subtle vandalism. Minor software products, like all other minor products, increase the maintenance load on our population without adding sufficient value to the encyclopedia. Again, I'm willing to be convinced that this software package is non-minor but the evidence I've found so far doesn't do it. Rossami (talk) 14:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Hit counts in a Google _web_ search are easily inflated in many ways. Hit counts on a Google _groups_ search are somewhat harder to inflate artificially and people usually don't bother to do it, so they are a good cross-check. Generally, you'll get on the order of 1/5 to 1/10 as many hits in Groups as you do in Web. For example, a Groups search on exact phrase "star wars quake" yields 44 hits. In contrast, a Groups search on "mybulletinboard" yields no hits at all. Given that USENET is especially interested in computer-related topics, even more so than on the Web, if a piece of software were important and eagerly awaited someone would have mentioned it on USENET. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Rossami, please don't remove the strike tags from in the invalid vote above. This is because the "userpage" has no contibutions at all, and if you check the history tab, there's also no such user, only an IP address. --Andylkl ^(talk) 15:23, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: According to WP:GVFD, you did the right thing by tagging the comment with your findings. That was sufficient to make sure that the deciding admin knows that the vote was made in bad faith. Unfortunately, our experience on this page has shown that taking the extra step to strike out the invalidated vote confuses and upsets new users and should be discouraged. Rossami (talk)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This supposedly "famous gay activist" doesn't show up in a Yahoo! search. (The few hits for "Mike Krivoruchko" and "Michael Krivoruchko" have nothing to do with this article.) Probable hoax. I'd love to see it speedied but I couldn't see any of the criteria that it fit, so the vandal who wrote it gets to tease his friend Mike about it for the next five days. Delete. JamesMLane 07:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it were true, this man's main claim to notability would be his own claim to sexual promiscuity. But this claim is unverifiable and unnotable. Delete. -- Hoary 08:01, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Zzyzx11 07:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, though it's more likely reverse vanity, or whatever we call it when adolescents use Wikipedia to play stupid jokes on their friends. JamesMLane 07:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, prank. Megan1967 09:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 12:08, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Zzyzx11 07:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nonnotable. JamesMLane 07:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Please. - Lucky 6.9 08:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 09:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• What the Heck, let's Delete Dsmdgold 00:41, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Mentions Bryan steeksma who is also on VFD. Zzyzx11 07:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Doesn't think much of herself, does she? Couldn't even be bothered to capitalize her last name. Sheesh. Delete with extreme prejudice. - 08:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) (This vote was from Lucky 6.9.)
• Delete. I've heard the stereotype that the drummers are the dimwitted ones, so that perhaps explains the miscapitalization. JamesMLane 08:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 12:09, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity Dsmdgold 20:49, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity and vexation of spirit. Jonathunder 05:34, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

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

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

I count 22 clear "delete" votes to 22 "keep" votes (with about 5 of those explicitly "keep as merge/redirect"). A number of anonymous or very new users were discounted (with votes on both sides of the debate). Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to keep for now.

Reviewing the comments in detail, I find the main objection to be the level of detail. Many of the "keep" votes, all of the "merge" votes and quite a few of the "delete" votes expressed support for a merger of this article back into the parent. Since merge/redirect is a reversible decision, I am going to be bold and exercise my discretion as an ordinary editor to redirect this article to Harry Potter fandom which already has what appears to be a very good overview of this topic. Any further discussion on the appropriateness of that redirect should be made on the respective article Talk pages. Rossami (talk) 06:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I'm not going to trouble with whether or not Harry Potter fandom should have an article, that one topic of that should be drawn out to such a gargantuan essay, with no apparent sources other than message board postings (and what other sources could there be?), is something that just begs for deletion. Delete as nonencyclopedic, essay, personal research, and for good measure, wikipedia is not a travel guide. Postdlf 08:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) (ok, that last one didn't apply)

Is there an existing record for Most Unofficial Wikipedia Policies Violated in One Article? --AceMyth 16:33, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Let me just note that all the information on the Shipping in the Harry Potter fandom was moved from the Harry Potter fandom page. I gave it its own article as the section was taking up too much space. [comment by 67.171.180.209]
  • And let me just note that I'm voting to delete this article without remerging it, so thanks for aiding the process by separating this content out. Postdlf 09:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Hmmm... Delete. Not exactly encyclopedic. But perhaps it does no harm. --ScottMorrison 08:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Fancruft in a new, pathological dimension: truly mindboggling. View with shock and awe, then delete. -- Hoary 11:45, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
• Dude, I'm the main contributor to that article and now that you put it like that, I see that somehow an inconspicuous informative description of an odd phenomenon on Harry Potter fandom has turned into a bloated monster of information, and perhaps indeed not all of it is necessary. I vote keep, solely due to the fact that I'm well aware that any vote that is not "keep" helps little in the effort to prevent it being deleted altogether. I hope it ends up condensed and simply merged back where it belongs. Also, no need for condescending boggling and that horrid word "fancruft". Where has the wikilove gone? --AceMyth 12:01, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article could be trimmed here and there, but I agree: it's well written. Well done. The subject strikes me as staggeringly unnoteworthy, that's all. -- Hoary 08:29, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
• Keep. There is a rather lively discussion at Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article#Size about splitting out articles into subarticles when the main article becomes too long. This article is a perfect example of when a subarticle should be created to cover a more specific topic. slambo 15:11, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — Not exactly my cup of tea, but I see no strongly-compelling reason to delete it. — RJH 16:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ah, the famous Wikipedia obsession with pop culture. This is all, of course, completely bloody irrelevent. The plot is what Rowling says it is, and all the wild speculation in the world is just that. As for splitting it off because the original article was too long - just because someone can wildly expound at great length on a topic does not mean that that topic is of any worth as an encyclopedia article - often it just means they should get to the point. The section in the Harry Potter fandom article is sufficient and to the point, and is all that is needed on this subject. Otherwise - well, you have your own websites for this subject, don't you. Average Earthman 17:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup/condense as necessary. No reason wikipedia shouldn't document existing wild speculation. Kappa 17:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is. --InShaneee 15:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Harry Potter fandom has certainly become notable, and if some of the more devoted Potter fans think this is a valid subject, I'd leave it be. -- Infrogmation 18:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I think you deserve to know the precise reason for the move. It wasn't just space; almost all contributions were focused on this section, which is how it got to be so long and out of proportion with the other section. Therefore, I thought it might be good to split it off and I suggested the idea on the talk page a long time ago, but I got no worthwhile response.
  • Unsigned comment by user 67.171.180.209. --InShaneee 15:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Can anyone confirm that this "shipping" thing is a phenomenon outside of a small set of forumgoers? Unless a large portion of the Harry Potter fanbase is familiar with this kind of stuff (I, for one, am not), I don't see why it should be kept. Also, consider a title change; referring to romantic relationship speculation in popular fiction as shipping is just bizarre.
  • response to comment. Well, J.K. Rowling is familiar with it, has commented on it and has referred to it as "shipping". Clearly she didn't have to find a small, obscure set of forumgoers to run across the phenomenon. It's unquestionably the most prominent trend in HP fandom- if it's deleted on the grounds on non-notability, then Harry Potter fandom should get the axe as well. It seems that HP shipping gets the flack here simply because of its inherent "WTF" factor. --AceMyth 21:21, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • In that case, I vote to liberally condense and Merge back into Harry Potter fandom. That article isn't really that long; it's the long list of external links that contributes most to its unneeded length. (WTF factor, indeed.) android↔talk 21:39, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Response to Comment. If it had just been a small set of forumgoers, then this thing wouldn't have gotten to be so long, now would it? — Unsigned comment by 67.171.180.209.
    • That doesn't make any sense. A small set of people could have easily written an article of this length. In fact, there's only one IP address listed as a contributor to the article, aside from the VfD tag and a minor edit. D'oh, obviously, if this was moved, other contribution history is not recorded there... android↔talk 22:09, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Response to Comment: Is "shipping" a large part of fan culture? Sure you jest. It's huge. It's freakin' huge. The answer is YES. That being said, just being huge and labyrinthine doesn't mean its complexities are encyclopedic, so this should not be taken as a 'keep' vote. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • A minor distinction, to be sure, but I wasn't speaking about fandom in general, but Harry Potter fandom in specific. android↔talk 21:39, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A brief summary in Harry Potter fandom is surely enough. --G Rutter 20:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Harry Potter fandom and put in two sentences in that article. RickK 21:54, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. If it's gotten this long and detailed, surely a decent number of people think it a worthwhile subject? Sure, maybe only a few people have contributed to it since it's been moved, but it started out as a subsection of the Harry Potter fandom article and this particular section has undergone many changes, even in just the last few days I've been watching it. Furthermore, J. K. Rowling herself has said that shipping will become more of a theme in future books. I think there are sufficient reasons to keep this page as its own page and not merge back into the Harry Potter fandom article. Hermione1980 22:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. For both the size of the information and the fact that shipping IS most of the fanculture (but by no means all of it, hence a separate article). It's written rather well as well, better than some more serious topics, I'm a bit dismayed to see. humblefool® 22:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Original research and lots of it. --InShaneee 22:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Voters should also be made aware that Shipping (fandom) exists, which deals generally with the phenomenon of which this article is just one permutation—all popular books, movies, and television series have these kind of fan arguments. No reason to treat all of these discussions in and of themselves as noteworthy or to treat the Harry Potter one as uniquely notable. The phenomenon is notable. Its individual manifestations fail to be. Postdlf 23:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I may well be wrong here, but doesn't this stuff seem a bit suited to Wikibooks? From what I gather, this is the kind of stuff many Wikibooks feature: a long analysis of specific literary titles. Anyone interested in doing a Harry Potter study guide, with this content as a starting point? It will no doubt be useful to the hundreds of high school students who will be studying and writing essays on Harry Potter or the Harry Potter films.

Response to CommentThis has more to do with the views of Internet fans than anything else.

• Delete voluminous fancruft. Fire Star 00:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Megan1967 03:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, delete, delete. If the word "fancruft" had not already been coined, it would have to be invented to describe this article. --PHenry 07:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Tough one, since fandom is inherently less encyclopedic than the original books. However this is probably one of the most noted topics in HP fanfiction, and a lot of good work has gone in to making this article. Sjakkalle 08:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now It is one of the more notable and widespread shipping phenomenons, so this article will make sense to more people than articles on ships of other fandom worlds will. It may even serve as an example of the shipping culture. For these reasons, I find it useful. However, once the final book is published, will we really want to keep an archive of debate over questions which will have been resolved? I think the article should be reconsidered for deletion after the last book has been published. Sinistro 08:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Condense and merge. Above and beyond fabcruft. -R. fiend 20:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. First you box it, then you ship it, then delete. Jonathunder 05:37, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Yikes, delete Grue 07:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Tough one. If it were just about fanfic, I would have wanted it deleted post haste. But this is genuine analysis of a famous series. I don't think looking for deeper meanings to character development in a book is necessarily original research either, nor does 'not a crystal ball' apply since this doesn't speculate much about future books, but rather tries to find meaning in the existing ones. So I can't really find a solid argument for deleting it. And I found it interesting. So keep. Oh, but it should certainly be renamed since 'shipping' means 'naval transport' to most people unfamiliar with fanfic. Radiant_* 12:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• • The name of the article was simply taken from the original section at Harry Potter fandom, which 1. provided context and 2. also contained an introduction (which the person who moved it decided to leave back there, for some reason). I'm sure the person who moved it had good intentions but with current Wikipedia policy, taking one sub-aspect of anything out of its original article's context and giving it its own page is at best useless and results in re-merging, and at worst is signing its death-warrant. --AceMyth 17:40, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

The introduction is on both pages. (unsigned comment by user 67.171.180.209. --InShaneee 15:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Spinboy 05:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. I may not be interested in it, but NPOV tells me other people just might be. The JPS 20:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• ANNIHILATE. Neutrality^talk 03:59, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• My magic wand goes Delete. —tregoweth 04:42, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, trimming any original research if applicable. To the extent that it's a widespread phenomenon, it's noteworthy enough to be encyclopedic for Wikipedia's purposes, deservedly or not. Wiki is not paper. If enough people care about it, let them have their page about it. And if "shipping" is the term widely in use, well then so be it... it's not the first case of ambiguity that Wikipedia has had to deal with. -- Curps 04:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. First, the shipping problem is very common among the readers of Harry Potter, which is growing in large amount everyday. As a very common series worldwide I believe that the interpreting of the Harry Potter series is going to have a worldwide, though might not be very significant, effect on a population, not only a few individuals. Secondly, to many of these readers, choosing their ship is not a random act but is also a belief they uphold, based on and strengthened by continuous changing of reasons, I believe that Wikipedia should give an account of the development of these ideas over time, which may help us to understand our own minds. (e.g. moral values) The shipping problem is also a very entry point and an alternative way for us to understand characters in the book better. If the major characters of the Harry Potter series have an entry in Wikipedia too, I see no reason why this page, which discussed the relationships (if any) between these characters in such a detailed way, should be deleted. I must admit that I consider myself to be a heavy reader of the Harry Potter series, and I won't mind if you believe my reasonings are heavily biased, but please tell me what you think too! -- Computor 19:40, 6 Apr 2005 (GMT +0800)
  • User's first edit.[3] Postdlf 00:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, I suppose. Nicely written, but.. erm, a bit long for an article about "love"-speculation by fans of fiction. ✏ OvenFresh² 21:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I think the only thing the length and detail of this article signifies is the depth of systemic bias on some quarters of the wiki. Slac speak up! 00:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The worst example of fancruft I have ever encountered. Wikipedia is not a fan discussion site. Please delete. --Bucephalus 11:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme Delete as above. Martg76 14:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete I have read the books, and seen the movies (and liked both). I read this article in question. It is not an article about popular literature (Rowlings books). It is an article about a discussion held amoung fans of the literature. Furthermore, the way it is written, there is not enough context for a reasonably intelligent outsider to even understand the article. (I pretend to be intelligent, and I still don't exactly know what shipping means in this context. Morris 16:48, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Way too detailed fanstuff. --Conti|✉ 15:53, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, followed by destruction by irradiation, fire and corrosives. I've seen some bad articles, but this takes the cake. -- Karada 16:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If this article gets deleted, would it be possible to put an abridged version as someone's sub-user page? I really do think the article is informative, as NPOV as you can get with this subject, and deserving of staying, but I've already voted, so I have no more say. Hermione1980 20:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - The information presented in this article has a very definite bias towards certain "'ships" that seems self-serving, as well as occasionally citing works that do not really pass muster as being particularly well-known or authoritative where their subject is concerned. Moxy 08:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep—need for NPOV rebalance and editing aside, the topic is a fascinating (or at least, amusing) and significant phenomenon in a significant fandom. As far as personal research goes, it's no more so than any other self-descriptive community article on Wikipedia, and let's face it, WP's a magnet for such communities. -- Perey 09:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - the Harry Potter fandom is one of the largest and most noted ones on the Web; it would be shame not to have an entry on it. Plus, it basically IS the fandom - without shipping, you have no fandom.
  • Note: Unsigned comment by User:68.52.205.80. Postdlf 04:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and condense. "Shipping" is the biggest part of HP fandom, and HP fandom is damn huge. That said, this article focuses too much on the relationships and not enough on the phenomenon. --Carnildo 23:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I say remerge in a highly condensed form, keeping the introductory paragraphs and summarizing the arguments for/against each ship in a couple of sentences. Anyone looking for further discussion can follow links to fan sites. neatnate 06:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Sabel4 23:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: that vote was not made by "Sabel4", who doesn't exist or anyway has a grand total of zero contributions, but instead was made at 00:25, 2005 Apr 13 by 216.96.122.135. -- Hoary 03:00, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Delete, speculation about fictional characters in not encyclopedic. --nixie 04:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article serves no real purpose.---Gaterion 16:57 Apr 13
• Comment: Just trying to sponge some of the acid out of a few comments here. Fancruft—no, not essentially. Fancruft is detailed information on a topic only of interest to hardcore fans. This article is about the fans, not about Harry Potter minutiae. There may be some fancruft in there on the background of the 'ships', but that's no reason to delete the whole article. Original research—hardly. I respect the intent of the 'no original research' guideline, but I dislike seeing it used to oppose articles written on valid personal experience—articles to which rules regarding academic research are irrelevant. Unencyclopaedic—this article is about a cultural phenomenon, so it's encyclopaedic in origin; it's huge in scope and range, so it's encyclopaedic in noteworthiness; and it's not 'speculation about fictional characters', as was claimed. (It's about such speculation, it doesn't essentially consist of it; see fancruft.) If after cleanup and decrufting there's only a few lines left (doubtful), then by all means merge. -- Perey 01:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "This has driven supporters of this pairing to look for reasons why it could happen on other fronts, resulting in many theories suffering from the same ad-hoc symptoms characteristic of the Harry/Hermione theories they have been so quick to label as irrational, but also in several meaningful finds—mainly in the areas of literary pattern analysis, relatively simple foreshadowing, and Rowling's teasing comments when asked about Harry and Ginny." How inane can you get? silsor 21:49, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- I found it very informative, and think it is an asset to the Harry Potter sections of Wikipedia -- Drak2 16:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Most shippers will even admit to avoiding the debates, as they consider them childish, pointless, and generally wanky.—What a perfectly apt description of this article. Keep as an excellent example of the sort of thing that's driving so much of Wikipedia's growth. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 16:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bolonization, to the best of my abilities, only exists as a rather obscure chemistry term. This article is nonsensical/hoax. And I'm pretty sure, certainly according to Google, that the Marquis de whatever-he-was never existed. Delete.--Dmcdevit 08:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete joke page. We're all serious here. --Smithfarm
• Speedy delete as prank entry. -- Infrogmation 18:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax Dsmdgold 00:26, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seems like vanity to me. Non-notable. Mtiedemann 09:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Mtiedemann 09:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The vast majority of this is vanity drivel, and what might not be is unverifiable. Average Earthman 17:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is currently all vanity. Zzyzx11 10:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 11:57, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN vanity. --Smithfarm
• Delete. Not notable. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin [4] confirms that his high school band (number about 100) played at Carnegie Hall, but that does not make him personally significant (there was a seven minute violin solo, but he wasn't playing it.) Average Earthman 17:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:08, 3 Apr 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 transwiki to Wiktionary. – ABCD 22:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be a worthwhile article, if it defined the word that it is about, and if that word was used in English as well as Dutch. At the moment, there is nothing to say what "Pulsen" means, and the term isn't used in English. At best, in its current form, it belongs in Dutch Wiktionary. But unless it gets much more information, and quickly, it doesn't belong here. Grutness|^hello?   10:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone explains what it actually means. BTW, if it belongs in a wiktionary, it belongs in the English one, because the article is in English. Kappa 12:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it's not a dic def as it doesn't explain what the word actually means. If it is explained transwiki to wiktionary. Mgm|^(talk) 12:34, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I provided the definition and a few ext links with a photo. Recently I saw an Eglish-language documentary where the word was being used and decided to create an article about it. Of course the current stub should be expanded but I don't understand the urgency of "...and quickly". I think it belongs to EN edition because the event was international. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Update my vote: my 2nd choice is to transwiki to wiktionary. Thanks Mustafaa for help with geography of Europe. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki, dicdef complete with etymology. - Mustafaa 04:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki, agree with Mustafaa. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 00:34, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Changing my vote to Transwiki - looks far better now than it did when I first listed it. Grutness|^hello?   08:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable website. Alexa stats: rank 867,109; speed slow; Other sites that link to this site: 3. Delete. utcursch | talk 11:44, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• It had the biggest Anime HUB in the whole world. Do you understand what that means? :)
  • Unsigned comment from user 213.5.57.177. --InShaneee 15:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable website. In March 2005, AnimeXclusive server was erased at a mistake. How sad, now let's erase this article deliberately! jni 11:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. --InShaneee 22:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable Dsmdgold 00:49, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website advert. Megan1967 03:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Malmö without merger of current contents. Rossami (talk) 06:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be advertising/vanity for a non-notable publication. This "newspaper" is "available for free in bars and clubs all over Austria". Even though I belong to its target group, I've never heard of it. Martg76 12:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Malmö --Angr/_(comhrá) 05:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Austria, possibly under the 'miscellaneous topics' section. Don't redirect to Malmö (it is not related to the city of Malmö in Sweden). Paradiso 06:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There's nothing wrong with merging with one page and redirecting to another. However, this article still shouldn't be redirectered to Malmö, because unlike German, Swedish does not use "oe" as an alternative to "ö". "Ö" is "ö" is "ö" and no two ways about it. — JIP | Talk 12:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Malmö. Not everyone is able to write "ö" using keyboard. "oe" is a standard ASCII replacement. Grue 07:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Keep in mind that, despite sounding the same, this article has nothing to do with Malmö. Paradiso 07:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I stand by my vote above. Malmoe should be a redirect to Malmö because (1) not everyone knows that Swedish ö cannot be expanded to oe (as German ö can), and (2) even if they do know, not everyone can conveniently type ö, as Grue pointed out. The fact that the article under discussion is not about Malmö is irrelevant. The magazine Malmoe is IMO not notable enough for a merger with Austria. --Angr/_(comhrá) 14:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. – ABCD 19:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unreferenced apparent neologism, complete with name of creator. Delete as apparent original research and neologism - David Gerard 12:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: 3,780 Google web hits for "Gothcore". -- Infrogmation 18:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. The -core suffix for musical genres needs to go away almost as badly as the -gate suffix for scandals. android↔talk 19:52, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I've heard the term bandied about, but I'm not sure if the definition is concrete enough to write about yet. --InShaneee 00:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 03:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, many of the "core"-suffixed musical subgenre are noteworthy. WP could use more articles on these. Paradiso 06:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, valid term and subgenre. —RaD Man (talk) 01:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but seriously in need of cleanup and expansion. -- Lochaber 16:47, 7 Apr 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 (10:16, 2005 Apr 3 MacGyverMagic deleted "Rocky (A.K.A. Vamanan Yogendran)" (patent vanity)) - IceKarma 13:52, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Not notable. Possible vanity. Delete. utcursch | talk 12:25, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonsensical drivel. jni 12:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, maybe humorous but not encyclopedia material. Kappa 13:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not good enough for a move to BJAODN --Fuzzball! 19:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete This is a main part of the history of Dulwich. It gives people an insight into the life of the founder of burberryism and should be respected as historical fact worthy enough to go into this encyclopedia.
  

(unsigned comment by User:Wrightginger)

• Do Not Delete I believe that this Vamanan Yogendran must be a really cool guy to have an accomplice of his write this about him.Indeed I am very pleased to see that he has taken the time to pay his respect to the Chav community.
  

(unsigned comment by Dr. Ziggy Simpson)

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 delete as nonsense. Mgm|^(talk) 15:05, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Page consists entirely of the sentance fragment "Salem Colony is" -- Dcfleck 13:21, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

• Sentence fragment and no useful history would make this a speedy, so I do it. Mgm|^(talk) 15:05, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 (08:07, 2005 Apr 2 MacGyverMagic deleted "Newton and associates" (attack page)) - IceKarma 13:53, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Entire page consists of insults concerning commercial firm. -- Dcfleck 14:47, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. – ABCD 19:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• delete - vanity. Anonymous Cow 16:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not simple vanity, this is a genuine established child actor, managed by the A&J Management Agency [5] Note the top entry - he is currently playing one of the major roles (Michael Banks) in Mary Poppins at the Prince Edward Theatre in London, with Richard Eyre as director [(Guardian)]. Note that the Mary Poppins article already mentions the play. Playing a major role in a West End theatre? Notable enough for anyone? Hmm? Average Earthman 17:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Nice points. Keep. Anonymous Cow 19:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep actors playing major roles in West End theatres. Kappa 18:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep established child actors. He played both in theater and on TV. Wasn't he the guy who played Michael when the Mary Poppins cast performed on Comic Relief night in the UK? If it is, I've actually been trying to look him up. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:54, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep He seems to be well established. It could use a rewrite though. Dsmdgold 13:32, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• keep all television actors Yuckfoo 01:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 02:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Superfluous article, material all covered on Monocotyledon. Three comments on the Talk:How to distinguish a monocot from a dicot page all favor deletion. | Keithlaw 15:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not the place for a how-to. --InShaneee 22:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Too obscure for a separate article, too unlikely a title to be worth keeping as a redirect. Alai 07:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Information would be useful as a table in the Monocotyledon article, merge--nixie 09:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 11:23, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

These are straightforward terms that can never be more than a dictionary definition. Move to Wiktionary. --Smithfarm 16:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Kappa proved me wrong. Nice edit. Withdraw nomination. --Smithfarm 17:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity and talks about an underage preteen girl...speedy delete or vfd? --Anonymous Cow 16:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable, orphan, likely vanity. -- Infrogmation 18:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity Klonimus 19:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Currently looks like neologism because I cannot find a reference on Google. Entire text reads: Can refer to the philosopher and political thinker Karl Marx. Zzyzx11 16:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Next time, feel free to redirect these, rather than bringing to vfd. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 17:47, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't stop to think it could be a common mispelling, which is why I posted on VFD instead of using a redirect. Also, it was prematurely speedy deleted at the exact same time I marked it as VFD -- which is why the database incorrectly lists that I first created it. Zzyzx11 18:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, do not redirect. -- Infrogmation 18:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Article has been redirected to Karl Marx. I would not object to its deletion, however, as this is a misspelling that I have not seen before. 63.173.114.141 22:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Even after redirect. Pavel Vozenilek 22:47, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete redirect and see what we can do about getting people to stop changing pages being voted on. --InShaneee 00:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Remove the redirect. There is no reason to have a redirect for uncommon, ridiculous mis-spellings. --BM 01:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. Megan1967 03:13, 3 Apr 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 move to User:Erebus555/debate1. – ABCD 22:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

non-encyclopedic, maybe put a talk page somewhere to discuss why we use it.Howabout1 16:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Note: Nominator forgot to list this on the VfD page. No vote for me yet. Zzyzx11 17:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't think pages in the wikipedia namespace have to be encyclopedic. Kappa 18:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The only contributor to this article and its related talk page is Erebus555. Seems to me to be a rather one-sided discussion. Userfy if appropriate; Delete if not. android↔talk 19:45, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comment sorry, sorry. I didn't notice it was a wikipedia page, i'll be more careful about putting pages on VfD. Anyone can take this off VfD.Howabout1 21:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy I highly doubt this fits any sort of inclusion. --InShaneee 23:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I only put this on yesterday. It may seem one sided because no one has seen it yet. And if oyu want me to, I will take the "Wikipedia:" off the beginning - (Erebus555 11:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC))
  • Don't do that, because if you intend to use the article as a discussion forum, it is inherently POV, and does not belong in article space. android↔talk 15:49, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • POV? Erebus555«╬»TALK
      • Point of view. android↔talk 11:06, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• I have an idea. I will add it to part of my user area. something like User:Erebus555/debate1 or something like that. What do you guys think? (Erebus555 11:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC))

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to keep for now. Reviewing the contents of the article and the comments and evidence presented, I am going to call this one as a strong recommendation to merge however. Rossami (talk) 06:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only Supershit 666 release was an eponymous 6-track E.P. on Inferno records released in 1999. They have never played any gigs, and a minimum of rehearsing and recording time was used for the record. Klonimus 19:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I feel I must try and justify this article. The band, although having one release - are made up of some of the biggest musicians in Swedish rock music today, as well as Ginger from the Wildhearts (a UK band with a large following). The record has sold thousands of copies and because of the people involved in the project (and the fact that 3 other long-standing articles already mentioned the band) I would class this as a notable entry. Scandinavian rock 'n' roll is something that isn't covered much in Wikipedia, and this record is something which, arguably, is an important part of it. Ants 20:25 2 Apr 2005 (GMT)
  • I forgot to add that this record is still a current release being sold globally after nearly 6 years, and Google searches for those involved turn up a great number of results. I would class this as notable. Thanks! Ants 12:39 3 Apr 2005 (GMT)
• keep Scandanavian "supergroups" assuming at least two members are notable. Kappa 20:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, under the bar of notability. Megan1967 03:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Not notable on its own, Merge information to notable band members. Grue 07:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Grue. Radiant_* 12:27, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

• del (vote changed, below). A non-notable fire. Every second there is a fire around the globe. Mikkalai 19:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Yet another sad entry in the histroy of abuse and maltreatment of mental patients Klonimus 19:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Abuse, maltreatment? A bit of overstretch, I'd say. Knowing things a bit, I'd say Soviet and post-Soviet carelessness, which pervaded the whole life, mentals being but a tiny segment. Mikkalai 22:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, let's not start a precedent. This could have been a Wikinews article at the time, but it's non-notable as an encyclopedia article. RickK 22:04, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's as notable Fernald School Experiments or Titicut Follies Klonimus 07:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Article has been merged with Alexander Lukashenko. 63.173.114.141 01:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Rolled back. Relevance. Mikkalai 05:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think that 30 people died make it much more notable than the average fire. (E.g. average fires don't get press coverage from AP). If this had happened in your home state rather than Belarus, it may seem more notable to you, so let's try to keep an objective head about this. Pcb21| Pete 10:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It is notable as news, but not as encyclopedic entry. Every day TV reports something horrible happening around the world. This is life. And saying that death of two persons is less notable than death of 30 may sound very antihumane to many, especially those who work on Terry Schiavo article. We have an article about her, but not about thousands of other on coma. Why? Notability of the case, not the very fact of death. Belarussian deaths, sad as they were, teach nothing and lead to nothing. Mikkalai 18:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • From an objective perspective, The Station nightclub fire and Belarus mental hospital fire have the same degree of notability. However as we have seen time and time again, VfD nominators and voters do not act objectively. They act on gut instincts about notability, and their gut instincts are far too often too provincial, which is why this is on vfd and the nightclub fire never has been. Pcb21| Pete 19:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • You have your point here. Provinciality speaks. But against your argument is the fact that neither Russian nor Belarussian wikipedias cover the event, despite being of local notability. Mikkalai 21:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Separately, it is very unlikely that these deaths will teach nothing and lead to nothing. It is almost certain that safety and construction procedures will change as a result of this incident, just as they will because of the Chicago. The fact that you think the deaths will lead to nothing (because from your perspective, they will lead to nothing) is an example of the bias we should be trying to get rid of on VfD. Pcb21| Pete 19:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think. I don't see. If you see consequences, please write. Mikkalai 21:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, persuaded by Pete, above. Kappa 21:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable as an example of decay of Lukashenko's Belarus. Grue 07:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, might belong in wikinews, but not here. Radiant_* 12:27, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Given that the event occurred 15 months before Wikinews existed, I think that is a rather unfair objection. Pcb21| Pete 07:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Doesn't Wikinews archive old news? It could have been retroactively added. Radiant_* 11:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• I have renamed and restructured the content of this article to make it more Wikipedia and less Wikinews. Delete votes above this comment should be considered with this in mind. Pcb21| Pete 07:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Very well. Abstain for now; do we want articles on individual hospitals? And if so, what about fire stations? Shopping malls? Convenience stores? (intended as open question) Radiant_* 11:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • We probably don't have to answer questions about 7/11s in order to determine the inclusion of this article. Even the most hardcore deletionist would include notable such institutions. I don't think anyone is going to deny the notability of an institution that was in newspapers around the world. Pcb21| Pete 11:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep the renamed artcile. A good idea I should have thought myself. Now at least the article is about a thing and has a potential of expansion. Mikkalai 18:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The title and order have been changed but without quite a bit more to say, this is still a WikiNews story, not an encyclopedia article. It was in the news but only because of the fire. The case has not yet resulted in safety or construction regulations. If it does lead to verifiable change, we can recreate the article then. In the meantime, transwiki to the Wikinews archive. Rossami (talk) 03:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh come on, don't be ridiculous, you talk as if having this verifiable, notable information around is damaging to the encyclopedia. Pcb21| Pete 07:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Is the topic (which is now the hospital, not the fire) significant enough that it will attract the critical mass of knowledgable reader/editors to keep the article safe from subtle vandalism? Can the article ever be expanded past this sub-stub stage in a way that will also be verifiable? If not, then the article increases the maintenance load on our population without adding enough value to the encyclopedia. That is, of course, a value judgement but I think a reasonable one. Rossami (talk) 14:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I think this contains some incorrect reasoning - see User:Pcb21#Unpopular_articles_-_negative_value?. Pcb21| Pete 16:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though needs some expansion and a mention in Alexander Lukashenko wouldn't go amiss -- Lochaber 17:11, 7 Apr 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 delete (07:53, 2005 Apr 3 Jni deleted "Sandbox 2" (user test, content was: '{{deleteagain}}{{please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)}}')) - IceKarma 09:48, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

No need for a sandbox in user space. "No need for additional Sandboxes in the main article space". Delete FreplySpang (talk) 19:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• You probably meant: "No need for additional Sandboxes in the main article space". Delete and explain creator on how you can make them in your own user space. We don't need to link all tutorial sandboxes. If we do they should be linked in the regular one. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:48, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Sandboxes in user space are great. Thanks for catching my mistake. FreplySpang (talk) 21:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as user test/vandalism. Note that the creator keeps removing the vfd tag. sjorford →•← 23:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

non-encyclopedic, verging on personal attack FreplySpang (talk) 20:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN and cruel --Fuzzball! 20:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. I wouldn't say its cruel -- people in the public eye have to expect some slings and arrows. But no reason why wikipedia should be commandered as a quiver! By the way, whoever wrote this article ought to pay more attention in his English classes. He seems to want to say that it is generally known that no students like her. What he actually says, though, is that there is one single student who doesn't like her. Or, at least, the latter is as fair a reading as the former. If you pay attention in class, buddy, you may be able to write less ambiguous attacks in the future. --Christofurio 21:22, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I've edited the article so that it now consists of the single sentence:

Judith B. Colton is the principal of San Rafael High School in San Rafael, California.

Earlier comments refer to its previous form, in which it contained the second sentence: "It is a generally known fact around San Rafael that she is not well-liked by a single student."

• Delete, non-notable. Could also be a redirect to San Rafael, California#San Rafael High School, which already identifies Judith B. Colton as the principal of San Rafael High School. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Article has been redirected to San Rafael since it contained no additional information not found in that article's San Rafael High School section. 63.173.114.141 22:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That redirect doesn't make sense. Delete. RickK 23:59, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • The redirect to the only relevent article if someone were looking for info on "Judith B. Colton" makes sence to me. Still, IMO we'd be better off here with a delete. -- Infrogmation 01:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I personally don't much care whether it's delete or a redirect. But a quick check shows that currently Google search on Judith B. Colton does not turn up the San Rafael article, though the Yahoo search does. That to me is a case, but a very, very weak one, for keeping the redirect. It's a stronger case for getting our Global Search feature working again. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I would not object to a deletion. I included the redirect as an interim measure. 63.173.114.141 01:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons given by Infrogmation. If you know who Judith "B." Colton is, you probably already know she's the principal of this school. Anilocra 01:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 22:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scout Willis is the child of Bruce Willis and Demi Moore. Other than that, this person is not notable. Zzyzx11 20:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Her entry in IMDB lists that she has had minor roles, but I do not think it is enough to be in WP. Zzyzx11 21:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into parents' articles until (s)he becomes notable themselves. Mgm|^(talk) 21:50, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable on her own. RickK 22:05, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for now. Being born does not establish notability. --InShaneee 00:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as I've said before - being related to someone notable does not in itself make that person notable. Megan1967 03:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any info to Bruce and Demi articles and redirect to... Bruce Willis I suppose (you can only redirect to one of the parents right?). She often shows up in articles about celebrity children with strange names so I'd say people have heard of her. -- Lochaber 16:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's nothing to merge, even if she merited a redirect, which she doesn't. Zzyzx11's delete nomination has literally five times the information than is in this article. —Korath (Talk) 00:21, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to head butt. – ABCD 20:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Has been moved to Wiktionary, can now be deleted. RickK 21:12, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Why not redirect to Head butt? That seems more like an encyclopedia entry. Xezbeth 21:14, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, well spotted Xezbeth. Kappa 22:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah. I didn't know that article was there. RickK 22:07, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete (17:11, 2005 Apr 2 Jpgordon deleted "Rindwater" (Hoax)) - IceKarma 09:53, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

From Cleanup: No Google or Clusty hits. Suspected hoax. If no one can verify its existence, please delete. Mgm|^(talk) 21:46, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Hoax. --InShaneee 23:04, 2 Apr 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 Transwiki. Rossami (talk) 06:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't actually wish for this article to be deleted, but am VFDing it in response to a similar article which was VFD'd, List of General Slocum victims, which lists the ~1000 victims of the General Slocum disaster. From the VFD page for that article, users either claimed it was a memorial, that it should be deleted along with 9/11 lists such as this, or that it should be moved to Wikisource (where a similar article was VFD'd and people said to move it to Wikipedia). So, I propose that one either support this deletion, or oppose it and support the current undeletion request of the General Slocum article. Thanks.

Since moving to Wikisource doesn't seem to be an option, I'll VFD on the basis that Wikipedia is not a memorial. --brian0918&#153; 21:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I think a lot of people are going to tell you to read WP:POINT which advises you to accept the inconsistent nature of wikipedia as a "desirable thing". Kappa 22:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • So I cannot use previous VFD's of similar articles as precedent for deleting another, or the failed VFD of a similar article as precedent for not deleting another? How did any policy ever come about in the first place without the use of precedent. --brian0918&#153; 22:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • No, you shouldn't make a bad-faith nomination to prove a point. If you don't really want this to be deleted, than why did you nominate it? android↔talk 22:50, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Can't we simply transwiki this to the September 11 Wiki? Mgm|^(talk) 22:36, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki per MacGyver. android↔talk 22:50, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Can I get a comment about what should be done with disaster lists such as this that haven't been given the privilege of their own wiki? Thanks. --brian0918&#153; 22:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki as above. The event is noteable; the individual victims are not, as per Stalin. For the record, if there wasn't a Sept 11th wiki, my vote would be Delete. --InShaneee 23:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • So, how do I go about getting a wiki set up for the General Slocum disaster, and the Great Lakes Storm of 1913, and all other disasters in history? --brian0918&#153; 23:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Neutral. This article can easily be transwikied to the September 11th memorial, or perhaps even Wikinews, but this calls all such pages into question. Casualty lists have been used in the Wikipedia before (see Jonesboro massacre, List of dead in Bolivian Gas War, Columbine High School massacre, List of Hillsborough disaster casualties), but not extensively, and this is such a gray area that I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole. So far, I'm leaning as to not permit any similar list types on the Wikipedia at all--but they'll be listed on the "external links" portion of the page, I hope. Too many factors are a party in this decision; I literally have a headache. Phobophile 23:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • External links? These lists don't exist elsewhere online. There are other sources besides the internet. --brian0918&#153; 23:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Maybe you could take them to wikinfo, I don't think their inclusion policy has so many gaps. Kappa 05:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the September 11th memorial Wikimedia project. Failing a consensus to transwiki this article, please count this as a vote to delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --BM 01:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• As BM said: Transwiki as above. If consensus to transwiki is not achieved, count this as a vote to delete. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the memorial wiki. --cesarb 02:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this one and all similar lists. Dsmdgold 00:30, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Rossami (talk) 03:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki as above, or delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to September 11th memorial wiki, as this fits perfectly with my understanding of their raison d'être. Thryduulf 12:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Appears to be a completely fictional 'biography' of a non-existant "antipope". -- Dcfleck 22:15, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

• Delete unless verification and evidence of notability can be estabished. We have some good articles on antipopes of actual notability, but I find zero google hits for "Justin Vermillion" Pope. I suspect this is a hoax or personal joke. Delete redirect Pope Sextus XIV by same user as well. -- Infrogmation 01:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Also note the blanking of this page by IP users. Hedley 03:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, empty article. Megan1967 03:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain You folks do realize that the saginaw line of pope's do not beleive in using the internet to promulgate the faith, since that was in introduced during the reign of Pontiff John Paul II Klonimus 04:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I doubt this guy is an antipope. More someone using vanity in light of John Paul II's death. Hedley 02:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is a completely unverifiable hoax and should be stricken as soon as possible. Omega47 16:40, 3 Apr 2005 (EDT)
• Delete just so obviously a hoax. Come on man - put some thought into it. This isn't even worthy of The Onion.--Discordian 12:36, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC=
• Delete This must be a hoax because no one is ordained at 15 years of age. Chuck it out.--Maxl 13:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Almost certainly a hoax, altho IIRC there was one real pope who became pope at age 18.165.247.184.107 17:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This man has nothing to do with the antipopes of old- Masse
• Delete The author (User:Vermin1302 ---> Justin Vermillion) didn't even check his list of popes. What's Wikipedia for??? There was already a Pius V in XVI century, only his ghost could have annointed his succesor User:Dalegrett
  • point of order Given the nature of antipopes, and the various and sundry reasons that lines of those are created, it is particularly important to understand that, even though there was a Pius V in the XVIe century, a particular line of antipopes may have seen the sede vacante as appearing before that particular Pius V, and therefore the name was still open for use.Vermi 08:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You're right about the open use, if you want to trace the vacant thaaaat back. Usually recent antipopes set the sede vacante from 1958, but it could easily be traced back to, just as examples, the times of Avignon, or the schism between the Western and Eastern churches, or since the times of legendary female 'pope' Joan (I don't remember the english word for a female pope... but indeed there could be a femenist sedevacantist movement that could proclaim a current Joan II as the real one). Maybe your vacant dates are quite logical, since it would be some kind of Native American sedevacantism claim that sees all Roman popes since 1492 as invalid because Native Americans were not taken into account for the further elections. But maybe a US Saginaw line would be firstly seen by some as a freemason and not an Indigenous movement, thus putting the sede vacante in the 19th- and/or 20th centuries. All this, of course, given that you want to continue the joke, which was actually good since all above users demonstrated little skepticism about it, instead of realizing the joke sooner. Maybe you could keep the article as your personal User profile for Wikipedia, instead of an encyclopedial article. Daniel

• Delete It was just silliness. Blah. A bit of an in-joke, and it went too far.Vermi 08:10, 8 Apr 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 BJAODN and delete. – ABCD 20:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Currently a personal essay. Zzyzx11 22:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete An essay, no content even if it was.Howabout1 22:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete of course - DavidWBrooks 23:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like something that belongs on a blog. --Fuzzball! 23:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete junk vanity test, rambling account of personal dream, orphan. -- Infrogmation 01:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• What did this dream mean? It was a prophecy that an article will be deleted. Jonathunder 05:45, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• I think I fried a synapse or two trying to figure this out. Can I sue Bomis...? Seriously, delete and consider BJAODN less the contact info. - Lucky 6.9 23:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. — JIP | Talk 09:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm changing my vote to BJAODN, then replace with an article about the game Weird Dreams and redirect to it. — JIP | Talk 12:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, replace by article about the computer game of the same name. Radiant_* 10:54, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • That is a good idea, except that the article should be called Weird Dreams. Make Weird dreams redirect to it. — JIP | Talk 12:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I've added this to BJAODN. — JIP | Talk 12:42, 6 Apr 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 userfy. – ABCD 19:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Character from a movie made by students. It won an award at GenCon, which just barely makes notability. However, this is pure vanity. The page itself mentions that the character even has an essentially meaningless role in the movie. --InShaneee 22:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) delete If the movie itself is notable, it's only eligible for a blurb in the GenCon entry, if that. This article about an extra in said film is beyond useless. BigFatDave 22:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Userfied. RickK 22:56, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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 after move. – ABCD 22:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: as of 6 April 2005 this article has been refocused and moved to Google's hoaxes

Delete. Article was speedied, listed on VfU, re-created before VfU discussion was complete, marked for speedy, speedy tag deleted. Article is about Google's latest April Fool's prank, a fictitious soft drink. This topic has no potential to become encyclopedic. It was not even newsworthy. An online search of The New York Times shows 26 articles mentioning Google since March 1, 2005, including an April 2nd article mentioning its expansion of GMail's online storage to 2 gigabytes, but none mentioning the Google Gulp prank. Google News search for Google Gulp shows no coverage in the mainstream press. This was no major hoax like the Orson Welles' War of the Worlds broadcast. It is basically a Google in-joke. It will be forgotten long before next April 1st. There's no way that this topic merits more than a brief mention in the article on Google, which has more than enough space for trivia of this kind. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • So, redirect to Google - I see there's already a mention if it there. It's clearly possible that someone could search for this. sjorford →•← 22:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep googlecruft "googlecruft" Kappa 23:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Kappa, 'cruft' is an argument to delete, not keep. See Fancruft. --InShaneee 23:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with google. They're arguably the most notable site on the internet, and this may become a yearly thing. --InShaneee 23:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Although not traditionally encyclopedic this article does deserves a place in Wikipedia, because everything known about everything should be included in Wikipedia, even about expressions of humor such as this one. Think of it this way: Wouldn't you like to know what kind of pranks were played 50 or 100 years ago? That's exactly why to keep it. I started this article so that 100 years from now in 2105 people will know what humor was like in 2005. Plus it's a fun article!--Mb1000 23:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep First of all, sjorford, your argument that it was previously deleted has little relevance. It was recreated as a different article, which is not the same as undeletion. That is the reason it was not speedy-deleted again and that we are having this debate. Let's ignore the status quo and have a debate on the merits of the article. To me, it does have the possibility to become a much more detailed article, and I will work on it myself if I can. The Google News test is flawed, given that a search for Schiavo currently garners much more press than one for Pope, although the Pope was the one who was official leader of 1 billion Catholics, and most of Schiavo's supporters hadn't heard her name a year ago. Whether or not it has main-stream press is irrelevant to whether there can be an encyclopedia article about it. Sjford, if you believe someone would search for it, why would you vote redirect. I ask that you change your vote to keep. InShaneee, how does Google being notable show that this shouldn't be an article. Google's notability affects this hoax, especially given that it was on Google's front page, and after Google's IPO, which some feared would take away from Google's spirit. Just because this could be a yearly thing doesn't mean this can't be an article. We could link to each year's hoax. While saying everything should be in goes a bit far, this is significant enough for inclusion. Wikipedia is not paper, as they say. Superm401 23:29, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into a larger article covering Google's pranks in general. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Google or to any new article on Google April Fools jokes. Dbiv 07:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Wikipedia should err on the side of inclusion. After all, would a major encyclopedia have articles on Menace Beach or Cheetahmen 2? Of course not, but because we have unlimited space, so long as an article is NPOV and non-vanity then it's welcome. If half the time some people spent trying to get good articles deleted was spent on writing articles here, think how much better Wikipedia would be. Zantastik 16:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, my reasoning is the same as Zantastik's. I would be fine with merging it into an article covering google's pranks or into the google article itself. - Jersyko 16:23, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Refocus into a new Google hoaxes article. violet/riga (t) 18:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • seconded! Refocus by itself this has no chance of becoming a long comprehensive article. Merging the various google april 1st pranks (Moon Base, Pigeonrank, Google gulp, etc..) would make 1 really good article that could perhaps someday be FA able.  ALKIVAR™ 20:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Fine with me. Although I don't see why we even need a separate Google hoaxes article, as there is currently plenty of space in the Google article. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect with some merging either to Google or April Fools Day, which has a section on examples of similar pranks throughout the years. -R. fiend 20:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Refocus as suggested by violetriga. — Dan | Talk 21:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This is the best solution. Dave (talk) 06:14, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Wikipedia is not paper and should not be constrained to paper's limitations. In addition, this is a well-written page which clearly explains the hoax. Andrew pmk 21:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A one day hoax does not a wikipedia article make. →Raul654 04:20, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A well-written article about an April Fools prank on a very notable website. — JIP | Talk 07:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It was a web page that was up for one day. We don't want a Wikipedia article for every web page. - Nunh-huh 07:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Refocus. We have many articles on tiny events like controversies that won't necessarily be a big deal a year from now. I'm sure this article would get 1000s of more hits than half the articles on Wikipedia. We also have a lot of articles on things like this that don't exist (like products or cities in TV shows). Google is a huge part of our culture... It basically is a main "gateway to the internet." I think the content should be kept. Anyway, I'd say at a very minimum put it into article called "Google Hoaxes" or something, as putting this and all past/future pranks into the main Google article will make it too large. newkai 08:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Changed mind newkai 08:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC))
• Merge/refocus very good idea. Radiant_* 12:26, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Definate keep May not be average wiki article but is still a historic event, should not be deleted. --Electricmoose 18:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Refocus to Google hoax article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep We've got space for it. Matt Stan 00:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, its humorously noteworthy, but not worth deleting. —RaD Man (talk) 00:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An article like this is blatant advertising. Wikipedia is NON-COMMERCIAL. 02:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • you do realize that is't selling a non-existent product, right? Dave (talk) 06:36, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • So because it's advertising a non-existant product, that makes it more notable? →Raul654 06:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • I was discussing whether or not it was "blatant advertising" violating Wikipedia's "NON-COMMERCIAL" stance, per the user above me. It looks to me like the vast majority here think it's notable enough for at least a section of an upcoming Google Hoaxes article.Dave (talk) 06:52, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia already contains articles about commercial products. How does one define what is blatant advertising and what is not? If I write an article about an e-commerce payment server developed by a commercial, privately-owned company, is it automatically blatant advertising? — JIP | Talk 08:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Perhaps you don't realize it, but Google is a for-profit company, and if you put up an entire article on this stupid "Google Gulp" promotional technique, why not have a separate article about each advertisement on television? Even though it might seem "cute" for some, the only reason for the existence of this page is to show the advertising savvy of the Google company, which is not a purpose of Wikipedia. 17:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
            • Well then, Apple Computers is a for-profit company too, yet Wikipedia has an article for the iPod. Why is that not an advertisement and Google Gulp is? Is it because iPods exist and Google Gulp doesn't? If that's the criterion, then I would deduce that the payment server I mentioned above would be OK. All I'm asking for is a detailed explanation of which articles about commercial products by for-profit companies are advertising and which are not. — JIP | Talk 08:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This article's a Wikipedia first: it's on both VfD and Featured article candidates at the same time! (Refocus to Google hoaxes, by the way.) /sɪzlæk˺/ 08:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Google's annual April Fool's gag tends to be both noteworthy and memorable (remember the pidgeon search technology one from a few years ago?) I would also consider a merge acceptable if we have an article on Google April Fool's jokes, but keep in mind that with a new one every year, said article is likely to outgrow itself and split fairly fast. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename - to incorporate future Hoax's and past. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:22, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Merging it in with other jokes would just make for a looong scroll that ought to be busted up into individual pages anyway. Point back to a main google joke or more generic joke page. --DÅ?ugosz
• Refocus into a Google hoaxes page. -℘yrop (talk) 20:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Refocus into a Google hoaxes page. I also concur on the Google's hoaxes idea, however, some of what were considered to be hoaxes, like their Infinity+1 storage, and their predictive searches (now known as Google Suggest), are coming into the realm of possibility. Sure, Infinity+1 may be "impossible" but they didn't say how soon it would come into place, and with their Gmail space counter rising like it does, it lends some potential to the idea of Infinity+1. So, certainly not FAC material, but possibly the content should be moved to a page summarizing Google Hoaxes, as there will likely be others in future. Will also post this to the VFD page. --Kyrin\^talk 21:29, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
• Keep --Bryce

• Refocus/Merge. This topic, while I think notable enuough to be included in Wikipedia, doesn't really deserve its own article. I agree with some of the earlier sugguestions of a 'Google Hoaxes.' I also thing merging it into the Google article itself isnt a bad alternative, but thats for another talk page. Acaides 01:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with a google hoaxes page as suggested above --nixie 01:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with a newly-created google hoax/joke page. This is at least the third annual google april fool's day hoax, and it seems as though it will continue, so I believe that these hoaxes deserve their own page. clarkefreak 01:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the refocussed article that lists all Google's April Fool's hoaxes. Mgm|^(talk) 19:28, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This is extremely unfair. First of all, there was not a 5 day wait for votes as the VFD page recommends there should be before action is taken. Second of all, if you feel 4 days was enough, this page should have been deleted following the merge. Instead, you are using previous votes on a different issue to now attempt to delete the Google's hoaxes page as well. That is simply unfair. I will accept that the community consensus to merge into Google's hoaxes. However, you can not twist old votes into a new deletion of that page as well. I am deleting the VFD link to this page from Google's hoaxes. If someone still wants to put that up for deletion, they need to make a new nomination with a blank slate. Superm401 19:41, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Unsigned votes:

• Keep Somebody above contested newsworthiness of the item by saying that there were only 20 odd references to Google in the New York Times. But the New York Times is not necessarily the authoritative source of what should be called news and what otherwise. Besides, using an alternate medium to dictate what an encyclopedia should contain is itself contentious and should never be the right guideline to follow. The Wikipedia's motto is to welcome all manners of entries and additions by anybody, not just whatever is "important" or "newsworthy". That would be self-defeating and contrary to its philosophy. If some do believe that the entry should be merged with other April Fool's pranks pulled by Google, that is acceptable and perhaps advisable given what is now an annual occurrence of jokes foisted by Google.
• DELETE, by any and all means! Is Wikipedia going to start summarizing articles in The Onion? This is truly ridiculous, and a surreptitious ad for the web site Google.
• MERGE Merge into a jokes section of Google article, this is a useful piece of internet lore.
• Keep And move to a listing of Googles hoax's
• Keep It's an interesting piece of internet lore and therefore worthy of inclusion. The inclusion of ?novelty articles? in Wikipedia in no way disparages the validation of Wikipedia as a serious reference tool and source of useful information.
• Keep. Amoung other things, an encyclopedia is a record of events. This event occurred and is worthy of being recorded.
• Delete This is not an "event", it is a marketing campaign for a commercial company. If Wikipedia wants to keep any pretense of objectivity it should avoid becoming a dumping ground for marketing slogans. Otherwise expect "You deserve a break today" and "I'm lovin' it" articles. If people want a record of old or joke sites there is the Wayback machine.
  • Well, we do have an I'm lovin' it article (though I admit it should be deleted). But more reasonably, we have articles like McDonald's TV campaigns and slogans. So, especially in light of the fact that Google does this every year, I vote we refocus this into a general article on Google hoaxes. Tyler 23:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis that this is a Gmail parody, somebody at somepoint in time may wish to look up the whole "Gmail phenominon" and while this is a parody it also may be useful in explaining it. Also the page is still up so it wasn't just a one day thing.Deathawk 01:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If it simply gave no additional information that the parody did not, this would be an entirely useless article. What makes it interesting is how it exposes the non-obvious parodic aspects of the joke, linking it to real concerns that Google has as a business. I don't particularly expect it to enter the slang vocabulary, but really, where else but Wikipedia would some unenlightened person find this information? Deco 02:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would also support a merge into some article summarizing the Google April Fool's Day phenomenon, if one existed. Deco 02:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Google - this was a one-off joke CDC (talk) 02:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge* with Google --Arm
• Redirect to Google. —tregoweth 04:44, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, redirect, and refocus to an article on Google hoaxes, or merge and redirect to Google. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in its current form as a redirect to Google's hoaxes. --Deathphoenix 21:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Entire piece appears to be lifted verbatim from press releases easily found around the internet. If not delete, at least change to NPOV and wikify. -- Dcfleck 23:14, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

• Delete bad title and unsalvageably POV/Copyvio'd text. --InShaneee 23:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity page. Worldtraveller 23:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity, nn. RickK 23:36, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Megan1967 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

This userpage has been deleted because it contained extensive personal identification information (see discussion on the issue). The account associated with it has also been blocked due to fears that it had been "hijacked". If its owner wishes to recover it, she should contact the WikiEN-l mailing list, wikien-l@wikipedia.org.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity page created by someone in his band. Worldtraveller 23:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity, nn. RickK 23:37, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity page created by someone in his band. Worldtraveller 23:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity, nn. RickK 23:37, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity page about non-notable trade name. Worldtraveller 23:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity, nn. RickK 23:38, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable page about ex-company. Worldtraveller 23:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity, nn. RickK 23:38, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 22:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Entire page devoted to minor Saturday Night Live character. Merge useful content to SNL, delete? -- Dcfleck 23:44, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

• Comment I think this is actually a copyvio 1. Same quotes, same order, a few less savoury ones left out, but I'm not sure about where we stand re.lists of quotes, so I didn't copyvio it. Anilocra 23:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, under the bar of notability, possible copyvio. Megan1967 03:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment As the poster of the original entry, I would argue that it is not a copyvio because the quotes have all been accumulated from watching SNL, no matter who made the list....it is the intellectual property of SNL, not various bloggers. It was noted on the site that Bill Brasky is an SNL character.
• Merge to SNL. Radiant_* 12:25, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Transfer I'd suggest that much of the article should be transwikied and merged with the relevant page on wikiquote, anything left could be merged with SNL. Anilocra 12:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki or something. Very minor guy and a shitload of quotes. Wikipedia probably could use a List of recurring characters from Saturday Night Live though. -R. fiend 20:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep You nerds need a sense of humor
• Merge with SNL and transwiki quotes. Dsmdgold 15:09, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Bill Brasky once created a website for the sole purpose of deleting wikipedia from his archives

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Band vanity. Copyvios from around a dozen sites, mostly just album reviews. At the time of this writing, his band's page, Old Reliable, is also a speedy candidate. Delete. --InShaneee 23:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, artist vanity, possible copyvio. Megan1967 03:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 00:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

None of this person's jobs would indicate that he is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. RickK 23:56, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Vikingstad 00:04, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Non-notable. -R. fiend 19:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep FroggyMoore 23:15, 19 Apr 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.