Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 20

[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. As the article stands now, with corrections, this is a valid article to keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Logical framework approach

[edit]

According to the talk page, the author created this page because he is hoping to prompt someone to write about this, as he needs to learn about it, he says. No evidence that this is a notable or distinct planning technique. The external link does not go to a website that has apparently anything to do with it. Delete. --BM 00:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete Short, no content. --InShaneee 02:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. Probably a newbie who does not know about Wikipedia:Requested_articles. Zzyzx11 09:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I have expanded the article slightly and corrected the link. The reason I did not put up a request for the article was that felt that I knew enough about it to start the article. I intend to expand the article further within the next 24 hours. Anders 12:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — It looks like there is now enough information to justify its existence, and there's plenty of material on the topic available from the internet. — RJH 17:34, 21 Feb 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 merge. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Masonry

[edit]

Article about opposition to/criticism of Freemasonry. Should be merged with that article. It is fairly well established that articles should be split based by subtopics and not by POV. --BM 00:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge anything useable to Freemasonry, no redirect. Megan1967 08:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Freemasonry. I concur with the previous statements. Zzyzx11 09:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete to Freemasonry and let them hash out the balance there. Perform GFDL-friendly merge, then delete, no redirect. Death to POV breakouts. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We don't seem to have an article yet on radical pro-carpentry activismoh wait, this is referring to Freemasonry? Merge and redirect to Freemasonry. Criticism of a topic belongs in the article on that topic. — Gwalla | Talk 02:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Freemasonry, no redirect. Jayjg (talk) 05:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge selected content to Freemasonry and Redirect to Anti-Masonic_Party. They ran a USA Presidential candidate who captured electoral votes in 1832, they held the Pennsylvania governorship 1835-38, and there was a very significant cultural debate that was national (and I don't know how international) in scope. Some lists of USA Presidents call the first Whig president, William Henry Harrison, an Anti-Masonic rather than a Whig. Extremely notable, unless you'd rather have the Ashlee Simpson quote from the latest issue of Penthouse. Barno 00:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Somebody will ask, so it's: "Addressing the matter of which accomplishments she has thus far achieved in her life, singer Ashlee Simpson cited her ability to 'burp the alphabet.' ..." Barno 00:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • It's here!. "She said: 'When I burp the alphabet, my favourite letter is G. It is an open consonant and it is at the beginning when my wind is strong. I can really push it. My worst letter is S. It is a closed consonant and at the end when I am out of wind.' The 19-year-old star also admitted that older sister Jessica also shares the same talent. She told America’s New York Post newspaper: 'Jessica burps the alphabet better than me. She has better wind and she is a much louder belcher.'" Dpbsmith (talk) 02:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) P. S. Do you suppose that could have been the cause of her acid reflux?

This page is now preserved 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. jni 14:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Martijn dekker

[edit]

Vanity page about an eight-year old, consisting of his birth date and place, and a link to his website. --BM 00:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

it's speedy deleted. - DavidWBrooks 02:26, 20 Feb 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 Bypassed through history merge. James F. (talk) 17:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Philip Kerry, 11th Marquess of Lothian

[edit]

This article is actually about a man called Philip Kerr, who already had an article. I have merged the extra content into Philip Kerr, 11th Marquess of Lothian. Wincoote 00:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the case of a merge, you can just redirect. (Actually, you need to redirect to preservation the authorship information.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think a redirect is appropriate for a random spelling mistake. Wincoote 14:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've history-merged the pages, with a redirect. James F. (talk) 16:54, 20 Feb 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 MERGE. I will implement Korath's suggestion. dbenbenn | talk 03:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Visit of Selassie to Jamaica

[edit]

I initiated this account under my former identity of User:Scuiqui fox. I have today merged relevant parts of the article to both Rastafarianism and Haile Selassie --SqueakBox 01:02, Feb 20, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Giaour

[edit]

The text of the Byron poem. Transwiki to WikiSource. --BM 01:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, transwiki it. ({{Move to Wikisource}} is made for this, btw.) —Korath (Talk) 01:43, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete after transwiki. Though if someone wants to write a half decent article on the poem (not just "The Giaour is a poem by Byron") then I'll vote to keep that. -R. fiend 07:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. Charles Matthews 11:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. I have written The Giaour/temp and I would like to transfer that into the space when it is Transwiki'd. Capitalistroadster 09:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Well done! Keep Capitalroadster's article after transwiki. Or move it there now. If it hasn't been transwikied yet wikisource doesn't necessarily need to get it from us. I'm sure it's available anywhere. -R. fiend 19:06, 21 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Infoshop

[edit]

Neologism/dicdef for a book shop or website distributing anarchist literature. Seems to mainly an ad for www.infoshop.org, which is an Alexa rank 82,000 web site. Delete --BM 01:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Advertising based neologism? Oy vey! --InShaneee 02:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As noted, infoshops are well established around the world (for instance, see List of infoshops). The existence of many infoshops predates the registration of infoshop.org by decades. A Google search for "anarchist infoshop" yields 28,000 results even when you exclude infoshop.org. Please note that the original version of this article (created by myself) did not mention infoshop.org. Finally, I agree that this article needs to be further expanded in order to move beyond the scope of a dictionary definition and I will help work on that. --Nihila 05:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, website advertisement. Megan1967 06:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; what is the basis for claiming neologism? I don't believe the term is terribly new... -- Jmabel | Talk 07:52, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Maybe it's a paleologism, but it's still an ad. Oh, and while we're at it please delete List of infoshops as well, as that further substantiates the ad. Radiant! 09:01, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A typical cleanup case. Mikkalai 09:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as an article about anarchist bookshops, include a list of countires where there are infoshops to keep some of the infomation from the List of infoshops --nixie 12:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, clean-up, no apparent reason for VfD listing. Dan100 12:52, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Nominations should not be made without research unless the article is nonsense. This term is common in the UK, though not primarily for this purpose. Wincoote 14:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It may not be a neologism, but it is still just a dicdef of a slang term. The factoid that for some strange reason, anarchists call their bookshops "infoshops" is not encyclopedic or expandable. --BM 15:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Would transwikiing be a reasonable compromise? Radiant! 22:35, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
No. Wincoote 07:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ComCat 08:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Considering the term has been around longer than desktop computers, yet many wiki articles are about obsure terms that deal w/ gamers or internet culture related topics, the neologism/slang argument makes no sense. And enough with the bookstore bit, an infoshop is not a GD bookstore. Bookstores sell books, infoshops act as hubs for the exchange of information (before the internet, and for those without internet, an infoshop was/is one of the most efficent forms for communicating ideas to an entire community). millerc 04:11, 2 Mar 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. Joyous 19:22, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

List of infoshops

[edit]

This is a list of anarchist bookshops, by country. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Delete --02:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per Infoshop. --InShaneee 02:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Infoshop. Please note that Wikipedia includes numerous lists of this nature (eg List of schools by country). Why single out the infoshop list? --Nihila 06:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic, Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Megan1967 06:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not yellow pages. Indrian 06:47, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Quite a few (though certainly not all) of the stores listed here are notable in their own right, and would probably merit articles. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:53, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, this is not the purpose of lists, nor of Wikipedia. Radiant! 09:09, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is notable may be merged into Infoshop, if the latter one survives. Mikkalai 09:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipdia does have lists, but this is on par with a list of starbuks locations--nixie 12:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Dan100 12:53, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For many reasons listed above. Carrp | Talk 16:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Wikipedia is not. Jayjg (talk) 16:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is true Wikipedia has other lists similar. --Jazz Remington 19:44, 20 Feb 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. Joyous 19:22, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Talcott Williams Seelye

[edit]
  • I'm actually neutral about this, but I'm not sure if there's a reason to keep it. he seems borderline in notablity, though I see the arguments for inclusion. Mostly, I've submitted this to gauge comminity opinion on this "level" of notability - Sr. Diplomat, moderately notable, but no Colin Powell. I'm tempted to suggest deletion, but perhaps his family connections make him more notable than average? Eggplant Wizard 01:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) I'm experiencing login problems, so the history shows a dynamic IP, not my name. I will link to this VfD from my user page on Tuesday to confirm my identity.
    If deleted, also delete the redirect at Talcott Seelye
    Edit: also -- (If the community consensus is a clear "keep" here, feel free to use quick removal from VfD procedure
  • Keep. Doesn't even look borderline to me. —Korath (Talk) 02:50, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The bar of notability for people in diplomacy and foreign relations should go far below the level of Colin Powell. These are people who will often be mentioned, at least in passing, in political memoirs and published diaries, or as authors of diplomatic reports used as sources in historical research. Knowing their biography and political biases is certainly of interest to many people. / u p p l a n d 07:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perhaps. Internation ambassador level should be enough. Could be set at "ambassador to major country" but then we'd have to fight about which countries are major. Kappa 07:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Notable career diplomat. Megan1967 08:23, 20 Feb 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. Joyous 19:16, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Cloud

[edit]
  • Weak Delete But keep the somewhat related Carla Howell - see my comments there. Michael Cloud isn't really terribly notable - he's a political activist, he raises money for the libertarian party, he's run for office and lost a bunch of times. 2,000,000 + google hits because he shares a name with a professional sports player. At the same time, he has written a couple of books, and is a reasonably prominant libertarian activist -- IMO he doesn't make the wiki cut, and Howell does - feel free to disagree EggplantWizard 20:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it.--Sina 21:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Just notable - 3500 Google hits ("Michael Cloud" + "Libertarian"). Megan1967 08:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Dan100 12:53, Feb 20, 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. Consensus was to keep / merge. VFD is not for suggestions to merge. Be bold and merge, should anyone like to do so. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ana Marie Cox

[edit]

Ana Marie Cox is not notable enough for her own article -- the only thing I'm aware that she's done notably is published Wonkette -- the information is relevant, but I suggest deletion, and once the vote is concluded, the creation of a redirect to Wonkette. Two contributors on the Talk:Wonkette page have already expressed support in principle for this change. Eggplant Wizard 00:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) (can't seem to stay logged in for some reason -- if you're questioning the validity of my identity, look at who added the VfD tag to the page initially over at Ana Marie Cox) Looks like I'm not logged in for that, either. I'll stick a note on my User Page. Ok - looks like I can't stay logged in to do any edits at all, and that includes submitting a bug report about the situation. so for the time being, you'll all have to take this dynamic IP's word on my identity, though I'm be loathe to condone doing so as a regular practice.

  • Please don't make suggestions about how to vote on a VfD debate page itself. This is what got Iasson in trouble. RickK 05:49, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that this page could serve as a useful redirect to Wonkette. Meelar (talk) 00:28, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or keep. Why does this need to be deleted before the redirect is created? Kappa 05:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • My understanding is that deleting prior to a redirect being created is desirable when the information is not necesarry, in order to simplify both authorship lineage and technical resources associated with the copyright of the work. Merge/keep, if I'm not mistaken, would require seperate maintenance of both pieces of authorship information. All of the relevant information is already presented in wonkette Eggplant WizardTalk 06:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • In that case, maybe they should change the Deletion Policy about "Article duplicates information in some other article". Kappa
      • Comment: Since attribution is automatically recorded by the respective page histories, there is essentially no maintenance necessary. Deletion is generally reserved for situations when it is important to remove the content from history altogether. For example, when it is libelous, a copyvio or just inappropriate. None of that seems to apply here. For the record, I think you could have been bold and redirected. Rossami (talk)
  • redirect wonkette to ana. A person is more important IMHO. Mikkalai 06:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, don't redirect. Wonkette is the name of a blog and the name of a persona; she herself is a distinct person from the "Wonkette" project/persona. This is no different from having separate articles on Glenn Reynolds and Instapundit. She was notable years earlier as a contributor to Suck.com, for those who remember that once-notorious website from the early days, and may quite possibly move on to other non-Wonkette projects in the future. So distinct articles are appropriate. -- Curps 08:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • IMO, article could be recreated if and when she were to do something more notable that was distinctive from Wonkette. As it stands, a redline and mention of her on suck.com and wonkette should be sufficient. Eggplant WizardTalk
  • Merge and redirect to Wonkette. Megan1967 08:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Wonkette. Is not notable outside of Wonkette. — Linnwood 07:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Haham hanuka 08:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ana Marie Cox is becoming widely shown as one of the fces of blogging thanks to Wonkette. Preserving the article on her personally will allow us to put in the article material not directly related to her blog. Capitalistroadster 09:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Wonkette. Gamaliel 16:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Based on the evidence available so far, her notability is entirely derivative of her work for Wonkette. (Being an Executive Editor at Suck.com might be worth a mention in that article but not a separate article.) Merge and redirect. Rossami (talk) 23:39, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - She has appeared on PBS and MSNBC as herself. Wonkette is a property of Gawker media, not Ana Marie Cox. Stirling Newberry 23:50, 22 Feb 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. Joyous 19:14, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

CBMaster Networks

[edit]

A quick google search reveals one hit for "CBMaster Networks". There is also a CBMaster Inc. website, which has apparently been visited by a grand total of 24 people (and may now be for sale). The article itself is borderline subliterate. CJCurrie 02:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete since there doesn't appear to even be a company called that anymore ( whatever they were doing can't have been that interesting} --nixie 12:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "Extraordinorial" delete -- Cyrius|✎ 21:44, 20 Feb 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. Joyous 19:05, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

MPs elected in the UK general election, 1885

[edit]

This article was given for clean-up but as it stands it isn't even an article, its just a name with two dates and the start of an incomplete list. I'm also not sure whether a list of MPs elected in the general election of 1885 is really relevant, and I don't think theres much chance of this being expanded on. -- Hedley 02:40, Feb 20 2005

  • If someone wants to start a wikiproject developing these lists and working on them for all years general elections were held in the UK, then I would vote to keep. I'm not starting such a project, and don't really want to encourage one. This article is useless, and even if it were complete, without a real effort to do a series of these it would be a meaningless experiment. Delete. -R. fiend 07:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep now. Hopefully it will be completed before too long. And hopefully in the future these pages will be worked on by those who intend to do it right, not someone who feels like tossing a single name onto a page haphazardly. -R. fiend 18:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur, Delete. Radiant! 09:12, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid, notable, encyclopedic, useful, interesting, historically verifiable content. Stop the campaign of deletion-cruft.--Centauri 12:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and leave for expansion. Part of a series, certainly relevant for WP. sjorford →•← 12:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Dan100 12:54, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just adding that, as it stands this article is completely empty bar one name. Is it worth keeping unless something is done to it? Hedley 13:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plenty of effort has been put into lists for other elections, and I dare say this one will be attended to one day. Wincoote 07:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep. Completely useless in its current form, but could be expanded. Articles should not exist in this form. Carrp | Talk 16:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. James F. (talk) 17:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've added a few more and put it into the format of the ten other pages in the series. Mtiedemann 13:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • In this new form I am now for keeping this, it has now been turned into meaningful content as opposed to a name with nothing else as it was before. -- Hedley 17:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - good to see it is expanding. Warofdreams 13:10, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, though it might be better to have a page on the election results instead on simply on the successful candidates. CJCurrie 02:32, 25 Feb 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. Joyous 18:59, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Robert May's

[edit]

This is just another comprehensive, most schools have had a famous alumnus at some point. One of the two famous ex-students is also listed for deletion. Rje 04:35, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, BEEFSTEW score of 1 (F). —Korath (Talk) 08:24, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing notable here. Zzyzx11 09:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Nothing notable? Are you serious? This 'enyclopedia' is purporting to collect and accumulate knowledge over time; you are right, Robert May's is "just another comprehensive"; why does that make it applicable for deletion? It exists, and as such has a legitimate right to exist on Wikipedia. This site is supposed to be unbiased; it sounds inherently political to me. unsigned contributions by User:80.235.142.76 (contribs) at 03:39, 20 Feb 2005
  • Obvious keep. --Centauri 12:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established. Wikipedia is not schoolpedia, and yes, "exists" and "exists in Wikipedia" are not interchangeable: Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Nevertheless, I agree that there is ground for discussion. Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/schools. vlad_mv 15:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Vlad, 'delete. We could add a line into the articles of those two notable people, stating which high school they went to. Radiant! 15:45, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Korath and Vlad. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 16:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge, if it has two famous alumni. Schools have a significant influence on their pupil's lives. Kappa 21:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - magic eight ball says "this is not an article". -- Cyrius|✎ 21:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Having alumni who are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles is not in and of itself a major accomplishment. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable schools. Just as notability is not transferred to one's parents, it is not transferred to one's school. — Gwalla | Talk 02:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established by article. Note that about 3/4 of the article's text is word-for-word identical to text at http://www.hants.gov.uk/schools/4511/ . I have placed strikethrough markup around it for now. If the article survives VfD I will delete this portion of it as a copyvio. If you remove the copied text, all that is left is a substub and two not-very-notable alumni. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Jayjg (talk) 05:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It should be noted that one of the two 'famous' alumni, Arthur Roberts, is also up for VfD; and neither of the individuals' articles suggests that the school was relevant to their success. TSP 15:38, 21 Feb 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. jni 14:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nicholas Booth

[edit]

Umm.. This is Nicholas Booth. I didnt write this, but it is flattering. Maybe stick it in the joke section, I'm sorry about the mistake. Thankyou for writing whoever you are. Unsigned comment by 68.237.82.179, that was added to the top of this vfd page.

Somewhat self-deprecating, but vanity nonetheless Preisler 04:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. It might be amusing to read for some, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Gemtiger 06:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. All vanity. If Nicholas Booth "is an avid user of Wikipedia," then I do not understand why he is not aware of what Wikipedia is not. Zzyzx11 09:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Your extraordinary amount of charisma didn't convince me -- Longhair 03:14, 21 Feb 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. Joyous 18:58, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust controversy

[edit]

This isn't an article, completely POV. AndyL 04:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • DeleteAndyL 04:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic. SlimVirgin 05:21, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even an article, just links already in Holocaust denial. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 05:45, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Holocaust denial already covers the subject. --Viriditas | Talk 06:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable to Holocaust denial, and add redirect. Megan1967 08:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge etc. per Megan. Mikkalai 09:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect. -Sean Curtin 17:27, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Shanes 19:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete. Improve. Check out the talk page and explore scholarly journals if you have access. Holocaust denial does not seem to be what the article was created for. There are lots of debate about different points of the Holocaust that have nothing to do with whether it occurred or not, which is what is covered under Holocaust denial. unsigned vote from 160.39.194.93
    • Note: 160.39.194.93's 15th edit. Jayjg (talk) 04:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 19:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and all other POV forks. Szyslak 19:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. Severely cleanup. I see nothing wrong with the intention of the article, and it is obviously not a POV fork. It is a separate article on points of contention on histories of the Holocaust, not representing any single point of view. The Holocaust article is huge already and this is a way of allowing it to tell the mainstream history while this article can talk about what points are disputed or may be slanted.
    • Note: 128.59.156.197's first edit. Jayjg (talk) 04:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Note: That may be, but looking at the history page of the Holocaust article I see a rash rv from your side recently (see last two days). unsigned comment (and second edit) by 128.59.156.197
  • Delete. What is in this that isn't in Holocaust denial? HyperZonktalk 02:40, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV essay, anything of value already covered in Holocaust denial. Jayjg (talk) 04:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This "128.59.156.197" again. Please substantiate your claims. What in the Holocaust Denial article is covered in the Holocaust Controversy article? What between the two articles is the same in terms of intention? I also see no responses in the talk page of the Holocaust Controversy article. I strongly see controversies that do not have to do with Holocaust Denial, meaning not having to do with whether the Holocaust really occurred, whether there is some kind of Jewish conspiracy, or in numbers of Jews that died. There is healthy debate in academia regarding the politicization (and commercialism) of the memory and history of the Holocaust, its uniqueness, and its moral implications. Ariel Sharon, for example, recently justified Israeli foreign policy on the basis of the Holocaust. I'm not saying he's wrong, but that's quite a statement. I would hope Wikipedia could reflect the debate within academia.

This "128.59.156.197" again again. Take a look at the talk page for Holocaust Denial. You will Jayjg completely denies any possibility for legitimate revisionism when it comes to Holocaust histories when for academics, nothing is beyond revision. He seems to be either using multiple identities or working in conjunction with a group to shout down anyone that tries to differentiate between deniers and serious academic revisionists. I think it's gross that people would deny the actual occurence of the Holocaust. But do you think the strong feelings of nationalism during the time of state-formation of Israel would influence their view of the history of the Holocaust? This is a well-known phenomenon that is illustrated here: The Future of the Past: Historiographical Disputes and Competing Memories in Germany and Israel. Daniel Levy. History and Theory, Vol. 38, No. 1. (Feb., 1999), pp. 51-66. He talks about nationalism influence German and Israeli views. That's why I think Sharon's statement is important. He's not necessarily wrong but he has a lot more incentive to take one perspective over another in order to justify current Israeli foreign policy. I apologize for listing here, but no one is going to the talk page of the article to discuss there so I felt this was the best way to encourage substantial debate.

Three other editors reverted your changes before I ever even saw them. I have no idea who two of those editors are. Get a grip. Jayjg (talk) 15:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
128.59.156.197, are you the same person as IP 160.39.194.93 who created the Holocaust controversy page? SlimVirgin 07:56, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not him, though you know what's interesting? That paper is from a class I took on the Holocaust. I wouldn't be surprised if he's at another university taking a similar class.--160.39.194.93 08:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Or even the same university. Both 128.59.156.197 and 160.39.194.93 are registered to Columbia University in New York. Also, 128 complains that no one's going to the talk page, but hasn't done so himself/herself; but 160 has, so I think even 128's getting confused about which IP address s/he's used to post where. You're not supposed to vote twice. SlimVirgin 08:51, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Okay great, now see, I'm the one that brought up the university connection and I guess I should've done a reverse lookup, but doesn't that make even more sense that two university students, now I suspect having taken/taking probably the same class even, would be the only one posting serious papers? Don't you think if I wanted to I could register a bunch of names and do it that way in a lot more concealed way? I think we should focus on the issues here.--160.39.194.93 18:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think there's any info worth merging. Carrp | Talk 06:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Linnwood 07:39, 21 Feb 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. 9 Keeps, 15 deletes, 1 merge. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Niles North High School

[edit]

If every high school had it's own page Wikipedia would double in size. Preisler 04:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Has potential to become encyclopedic. --Andylkl 05:44, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established, and this is not even an article. Wikipedia is not a yellow pages. Indrian 06:50, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, BEEFSTEW score of zero. —Korath (Talk) 08:27, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as high schools are not inherently notable. Radiant! 09:00, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Mikkalai 09:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. ALL schools are inherently notable.--Centauri 11:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • See m:Wiki is not paper. Keep Dan100 12:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Since that argument can be equally applied to keep each and every single article, it's not particularly valid. Quality is more important than quantity. Wikipedia is not the internet. Radiant! 15:44, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
There is no logical reason or necessity to delete any article in Wikipedia that is not nonsense, vanity or original research.--Centauri 13:05, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This and all school articles. Wincoote 14:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't see how Wikipedia doubling in size would be a bad development. - SimonP 15:34, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Not all schools are inherently notable. The point is not size limit, but the very concept of what is and what is not encyclopedic. vlad_mv 15:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Schools are not inherently notable. This is non-notable. Carrp | Talk 16:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established. Article in its entirety reads "Niles North High School in Skokie, Illinois is part of District 219.", and there's one external link. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, We have kept many school articles and as stated, a school in itself is notable due to the function it has. This article could need a rewrite and expansion though. Inter 18:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge: I just added a list to the Illinois page, Illinois#High_Schools. The information on the page-to-delete could/should be merged into the school's entry on that page. Courtland 19:40, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
  • Delete. Schoolcruft. Gamaliel 19:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - there's no content here. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the person who created the article doesn't even attempt to establish notability, I don't see much chance for improvement. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bogus nomination (not in line with deletion policy) - David Gerard 00:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment:That's nice. Please read up on: Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Wikiquette. Thank you. Preisler 00:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Given the lack of civility and assumption of good faith that he's evidenced on this page, you might consider writing up an ArbCom complaint. Oh, wait, he's an arbitrator. --BM 01:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. If I wasn't such a sucker for irony that would be really sad :) Preisler 02:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is nothing whatsoever bogus about this nomination. RickK 00:11, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable school. Pretty soon we'll be arguing with the keep-everything crew over whether individual preschools and day-care facilities deserve articles. — Gwalla | Talk 02:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • They do. What's your point? --Centauri 13:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I remember some people saying that "of course" all preschools should be included (who it was, escapes me at the moment). I disagree. Make a mention in Skokie, Illinois and delete - Skysmith 11:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Jayjg (talk) 04:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Norman Rogers\talk 09:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG delete as yet another example of some kid typing something totally and utterly banal and incomplete on a school computer. This is NOT an article. It is a single sentence. District 219? What the hey is that? There is more content in this discussion than in that statement. I refuse to call it an article. - Lucky 6.9 23:06, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I refuse to call it an article as well. But it is a valid stub submission so keep it.

—RaD Man (talk) 02:39, 25 Feb 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. jni 14:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zenapse

[edit]
  • del. Yeah, please delete this. its embarrassing. I was drunk...etc..etc. sorry for the spam (stephen@blackroses.com zenapse.org)
  • del. neologism. Mikkalai 05:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete concur. article appears to be an advert for author's blog. Unless proven otherwise, deletion is the best recourse. Fernando Rizo 05:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, blogger promo. Megan1967 08:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism is my call. "Zenapse is a fabricated word" says it all. Zzyzx11 09:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, self-promotion. jni 14:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What they said. --Phil | Talk 12:14, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ditto. Not to mention that "snowballing inertia" is a direct contradiction in terms! Grutness|hello? 09:51, 25 Feb 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. Joyous 18:52, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Framing (social communication theory)

[edit]
  • del. neologism, original research. Mikkalai 05:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, something went wrong with my search. Yes, it is in wide circulation, in this very meaning. Mikkalai 10:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it might be a neologism but it's not original research, and "lakoff +framing" gets 97,000 hits [1] Kappa 05:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is not original research since Professor Lakoff has discussed a concept called framing. But I thought it was in terms of "Social Psychology" and/or "Cognitive Linguistics," not "Social Communication Theory". Zzyzx11 09:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Notable. Megan1967 10:28, 20 Feb 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. Joyous 18:50, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Snookus

[edit]
  • del. nonnotable yet. Mikkalai 05:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, company promo. Megan1967 07:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just another company using Wikipedia to self-promote themselves. Zzyzx11 09:32, 20 Feb 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. Joyous 18:48, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Timeline of social developments

[edit]

It seems like a good idea at first glance, however this is basically already covered in another broader timeline. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • The problem with most of the wikipedia timelines is that they are too specific. There has to be some kind of generic line where all can intersect. Civil rights issues, Gay rights issues, women's rights issues, event simple things like attitude changes are social not cultural ones. For example: In 1936, King Edward was forced to abdicate precisely because he was marrying a commoner and a divorcee. Charles the present Prince of Wales, a divorcd, is about to marry a divorcee and the issues that forced one king only 60 or 70 years ago to abdicate no longer seem to apply, since it is very likely that Charles will inherit the throne without much opposition based on this issue alone. That is a significant social development. the kind that this page could track. There are others whether one looks at censor ship policy or civil rights issues they all pertain to siginificant social change one this page can track. AT present I am not aware of a broader timeline where all these issues connect and I have the List of themed timelines on my favourites -- at least not one that covers all these specific issues. -- [User: Kskooper 10:48 pm Feb 19,2005 (UTC0]
  • del. Vague. Almost everything is "social development" (putting Prince of Wales marriage and bird flu on one and the same list is a really fascinating idea, though :-) Mikkalai 05:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur, delete. Radiant! 09:11, Feb 20, 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. Joyous 18:46, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Timeline of economic developments

[edit]

del as way too general. martha stuart conviction as "economic development" cornerstone, great! Mikkalai 06:02, 20 Feb 2005

  • Delete, the page has no content of consequence, and though a timeline of economic development may be an encyclopedic article, this page is not--nixie 12:37, 20 Feb 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. Joyous 18:44, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Civil rights timeline

[edit]
  • del. The current content is for Gay rights timeline. We don't need a generator of timelines, especially general-purpose ones. There is a List of themed timelines, for specific themes. If it is necesary, start it from at least a dozen of entries. Mikkalai 06:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Putting just one event on a timeline feels kind of POV to me... anyway whatever information could be put on here is very likely already on one of the other timelines. Delete Radiant! 22:33, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Is POV, effort to make Gay Rights part of the Civil Rights movement. Also redundant. — Linnwood 07:42, 21 Feb 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. jni 14:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Boshtang

[edit]

Seems to be shamless self promotion of blog by user of the same name, delete. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • del. Mikkalai 06:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete -- Hoary 07:37, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
  • do not delete -- So what? It is still information. --Boshtang 07:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • But it is information in the style of a self-promotion. Zzyzx11 09:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Your contributions show that you have a reasonable sense. Please use it here as well. Mikkalai 09:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • If this is how you all feel go ahead. However I am deeply disappointed. --Boshtang 03:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's useless information. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As it is now, it looks like just another web site using Wikipedia to self-promote itself. Zzyzx11 09:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another nn. blog. jni 12:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, It's all been said. Inter 18:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per above. vlad_mv 13:45, 23 Feb 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. 5 Keep, 4 Delete. No consensus. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Graeme Devine

[edit]

del. Notability. promo. Mikkalai 06:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, and expand. Just notable - 1600 Google hits ("Graeme Devine" + "programmer"). Megan1967 07:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems to be just a programmer who worked on some notable projects. Another name in the credits. Google is slightly skewed in favor of programmers and such. -R. fiend 08:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have also worked on notable software projects but that does not automatically guarantee a Wikipedia article about me. Wait, he also claims to be a forefather of file compression? Such a claim would benefit from some references, like refereed papers by him for example. jni 12:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Expansion could make this an interesting article. -- Longhair 14:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, he is well known in the game industry. Needs factchecking though. Rhobite 18:26, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup - notable game programmer, former chair of the International Game Developers Association. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Present article does not establish sufficient notability. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with R.Fiend, Delete. Lots of people are involved with any large project, simply because it is a large project. That doesn't make them notable. Radiant! 15:23, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - GD is a notable game programmer in the Mac scene. Jlbrt 03:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC).

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I counted 25 keeps, 25 deletes. (I have a lower threshold for "very new user" than whoever made the table.) dbenbenn | talk 06:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

La Shawn Barber

[edit]

This discussion thread has become very long and extremely difficult to sort out. In an effort to assist the admin who must eventually make this decision, I propose the use of a recap table. In addition to your vote and explanation below, please record your name in the table. Comment: For this to work, please keep all comments below. I've taken my best guess at the current opinions of the discussion participants. If I've missed anyone or listed anyone's vote incorrectly, please fix it. Rossami (talk) 02:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

table header inserted to allow section edits

[edit]
Keep votes  
Keep
  1. Randy
  2. Kappa
  3. Daniel11
  4. Loweeel
  5. Android79
  6. TimShell
  7. Wefa
  8. TenOfAllTrades
  9. Meelar
  10. Ray Radlein
  11. HyperZonk
  12. Linnwood
  13. ObsidianOrder
  14. Pentegamer
  15. savantpol
  16. Boothy443
  17. Opusaug
  18. Phenry
  19. Stereotek
  20. Dan100
  21. Hoovernj
  22. wwoods
  23. GRider

Anonymous/very new users

  1. user:68.72.59.148
  2. user:67.153.224.90
  3. User:The Baron
  4. user:24.136.207.2
  5. user:24.0.171.130
  6. user:24.166.165.79
  7. user:66.169.61.223
  8. User:Jambork
  9. asciident
  10. user:68.5.67.75
  11. amphigory
  12. user:65.94.139.188
  13. User:Jmcnamera
  14. user:12.203.217.218
  15. user:Vanderleun
  16. S.B.
  17. The Baroness
  18. Miranda V
  19. ..-..
  20. You Belong
  21. Egghead
 Redirect
Delete
  1. RickK
  2. Riffsyphon1024
  3. Hoary
  4. Megan1967
  5. Zzyzx11
  6. jni
  7. Jayjg
  8. Gamaliel
  9. Vanu
  10. Dpbsmith
  11. Yeff
  12. CDJones
  13. Mike Rosoft
  14. Lucky 6.9
  15. Carnildo
  16. Carrp
  17. Korath
  18. Snowspinner
  19. gadfium
  20. Fredrik
  21. Lan3y
  22. Rather

Anonymous/very new users

  1. Mixed
  2. user:68.50.241.28
  3. TimeH
  4. Sledgehammer
  5. The Met
  6. user:68.0.102.243
  7. Xof
  8. Shawn Colv
  9. GrazingCow
  10. CHALK
  11. Westlake
  12. Big Ben Clock
  13. Bonsai K
 Abstain or Ambiguous vote
  1. Phils
  2. Sommerfeld
  3. Rossami
  4. Deathphoenix
  5. R. fiend

Anonymous/very new users

  1. user:24.4.125.147
  2. user:134.126.206.33
  3. User:Gruffbear
  4. user:208.44.21.13
  5. 172.159.142.199
  6. Chiniski
  7. Crea

arbitrary break to allow section edits

[edit]

Non-notable blogger with a lot of puffery. RickK 06:30, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • nomination was immediately blanked by anon user:68.72.59.148. restored by RickK
  • Puffery is right. Delete with a vengeance. None of this advertising crap needs to be here. Plus if the author deletes this again, they will be banned indefinitely. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • vote vandalized by user:24.81.18.42. restored by user:Rdsmith4
    • Non-notable? You must not be in the know... See, e.g., TTLB Blogosphere Ecosystem #17 as of 2/20/2005. Please provide support for your "non-notable" smite. Is this just a bias against successful conservative black women? It sure seems that way...The Baron 07:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • unsigned comment by anon user:68.72.59.148 who had previously blanked the nomination and later returned to sign as "The Baron". later edited by anon user:134.126.206.33
      • I had no idea she was either black or a woman, and I don't care in the least about her politics. But the fact that you needed to include all of those quotes trying to assure us of how famous and well-liked she is is pretty good indication that she isn't. RickK 06:43, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • unsigned personal attack left by anon user:68.72.59.148. appropriately deleted by RickK
        • "I had no idea she was either black or a woman, " I find that hard to believe. You began the delteIt movement here. A nano-second's visit to her site reveals, via a photograph (upper left) , that she is indeed black and female. Why would you lie about such a thing?
        • Hey RickK, she's the very definition of "Notable." Top 50 (traffic) out of 8,000,000 pretty much speaks for itself. Stop going after the non-socialists. Jack Rousch, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Keep La Shawn. (RickK, I find it interesting that you defend your vote by saying you had no idea that she was black or a woman. Does that mean you didn't visit her blog to determine her "puffery"? hmmm unsigned comment by anon user:67.153.224.90. later deleted by RickK. Restored by user:Rossami
          • That was quite "honest" of you to delete the entries in support of La Shawn...The Baron 07:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) unsigned comment by anon user:68.72.59.148 who later returned to sign as "The Baron"
            • Where did I do that? You've already had your vote, you don't get to vote more than once (and as an anon, your votes don't county anyway), and what I was deleting was your continued personal attacks on me, which I will now stop doing since all you're doing is making your arguments even less meaningful. RickK 07:08, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Why don't you put the two comments in favor of La Shawn back up. The first dealt with the communist collection on your site and suggested your disagreement with La Shawn may be more political than substantive. The second questioned how you did not know she was both black and a woman if you had been to her site. After all, you claimed she was full of "puffery." How did you know that if you hadn't been to her site? I vote to keep La Shawn Barber.The Baron 07:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • The above was posted by User:The Baron, the User's only post to Wikipedia. Probably the same as the anon who's been attacking me on the page, who isn't aware that sock puppet votes aren't counted, either, but then, he or she hasn't voted, have they? RickK 07:21, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
          • I have saved two screen shots of where the comments were listed and then deleted, of which one was mine questioning your lack of knowledge in not knowing she is black. I admit that I'm not a wikipedian, however, in review of 1.5 Decision policy, it seems to me that the grounds for deletion have not been met. Andy--67.153.224.90 17:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • this comment first left by anon user:67.153.224.90 and later edited by user:The Baron
  • I get 252,000 google hits for "La Shawn Barber", which seems awfully high. If she's an established columnist she may well deserve an article (being a blogger gets nowhere with me, though). If someone can write a real article I may well vote to keep, but delete this puffery. -R. fiend 07:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Rewrite looks pretty good. I guess she seems notable enough. Keep now. -R. fiend 20:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Looking into it a bit more, and partially thanks to MirandaV's commentary, I'm going to abstain. -R. fiend 14:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If you read her about page you would discover she is "a freelance writer (and blogger) with articles, book reviews, columns and essays published in print: Washington Times, Washington Post, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Denver Post, Baltimore Times, Today's Christian Woman and other publications. My work also appears online in Jewish World Review, Townhall.com and other sites." Hard to argue she is "just a blogger," though I would argue even bloggers may be worthy of an entry.The Baron 07:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • unsigned comment by user:The Baron who later returned to sign the comment
  • In current form Delete, needs a serious non promtional rewrite.--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep after further review, of credientials of person, and changes in the article. Though i am not impressed with the "as i see it": sockpuppet like campaing that the anon seems to want to persist on using.--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It reads more like an advertisement than something you would read in an encyclopedia. Mixed 07:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User only has three Wikipedia edits. RickK 07:35, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • R.Fiend, that's a fair assesment of her popularity. However, since you are the "arbiter" of what gets nowhere with you, then maybe Wikipedia is a nowhere blog that doesn't deserve its reputation as the go to spot to learn more about any topic or subject. IOWs, bloggers need not apply nor reference it. Could you please refer me to the section of the rules that states anon/sock puppets can't vote? I voted once to keep La Sahwn, came back to find it deleted. Is that kosher to delete votes you don't like? Andy
    • unsigned comment by anon user:67.153.224.90
    • As a anon your vote should not have been removed, but it would not be recorded in the final tally. As for no anons or sockpuppets voting, that is an established policy. I've been here long enough to know most of the policies here, but not necessarily where they all are written down. There should be relevent links if you look at the VfD page as a whole. -R. fiend 08:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this advertising. -- Hoary 07:41, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
  • Keep if this is advertising, then so is Wonkette, Instapundit or DailyKos -- 07:50, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
    • Note: 67.153.224.90's first edit was to this page. Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Note: Actually it is 67.153.224.90's fifth edit. (The first two were deleted between 06:30 and 07:30, 2005 Feb 20 by ??). Nonetheless, I'm getting the hang of how things should work. Andy--67.153.224.90 17:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • All your edits have been to this page, including your first edit, which was to vote "Keep". And if you're getting the hang of this then you should realize that vote tallies are based on consensus of Wikipedia editors, not people who log in for the sole purpose of subverting that consensus. Jayjg (talk) 23:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • If my first edit wasn't tossed into the memoryhole, that would have been the end of my vote. It ain't about stuffing the ballots, or sock puppetry as wikis call it, it's whether Wikipedia is what it's cracked up to be. Tally my edits if you've nothing better to do. Andy--67.153.224.90 01:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • If you read any of the articles in Category:Bloggers, then you will see the articles actually have content rather than just a collection of opinionated quotes. Mixed 08:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Which is exactly why we should keep it and clean it up so it's an article and not an advertisement, as Phils says below. --asciident 13:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • All this debate over ad vs encyclopedia format, why don't the gatekeepers come up with a standardized and objective format? I've looked at a number of examples, such as Wil Wheaton (who I loved in STNG), Wonkette, Instapudit, Powerline, Atrios and DailyKos (come on, 3 or 4 pages of a marketing brochure for what is supposed to be an encyclopedia? Even my Worldbook don't give that much space to individuals. So far, this is looking more like a venue for ego trips to up or down others. Again, if Wiki is going to be serious, then create an approved format template for each category. If you can't do it, there will be another free encyclopedia to eat Wiki for breakfast, a la Alta Vista. Andy --67.153.224.90 17:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, bloggers promo. Megan1967 07:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an ad. I hate ads. All right-thinking people hate ads. Delete this ad. A lot. I'll reconsider if someone cares enough to rewrite it into an encyclopedia entry instead. —Korath (Talk) 08:16, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC) (superseded below)
  • Delete. Currently it is in the style of an ad, even with a section of testimonials. Zzyzx11 09:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment If the content is inappropriate but the subject is worthy of an article, shouldn't this be listed on one of the cleanup pages, and not here? Phils 12:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. blogger, advert. jni 12:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It looks like basic information. If you think it is too much of an ad, just clean it up a little. It appears as if people are letting their politics interfere with other peoples knowledge. 12:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: 24.136.207.2's first edit. Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This is the end of Wikipedia as a credible medium, right here. Stick a fork in it.
    • Note: 24.4.125.147's second edit. Jayjg (talk) 17:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. As bloggers go, she is among the upper-tier, and whatever information we gather could be more important as the years go by. Randy 14:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, since it's being cleaned up, and R Fiend says she's notable. Kappa 14:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: There is plenty of precedence for keeping it and I do not see where the deletion policy applies!
    • Note: 24.0.171.130's second edit. Jayjg (talk) 17:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • At this point, the nomination was vandalized by page-blanking by anon user:67.82.95.164
  • The page should stay - there is no reason whatsoever to delete La Shawn's entry. She is an excellent writer and blogger and has a large audience. If LaShawn's entry is deleted, then all blogger entries should also be deleted, including DailyKos. unsigned comment by anon user:24.166.165.79. accidentally overwritten when Carrp restored the page
  • Keep, There is nothing wrong with it in it's present form. Isn't the point of an article to give someone at least basic information on the subject? Doesn't it do just that? User:FletcherSC
    • Note: User FletcherSC does not exist. 66.169.61.223's first edit. Jayjg (talk) 16:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is just stupid. --Daniel11 16:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep:She's published. She has a following and is quoted in the major media. Isn't Wikipedia the place for us all to go to quick-find info on folks we see, read and hear? I always like to know a commentator/reporter's politically lean and history. Keep the listing. User:Jambork
    • Note: User's first edit. Jayjg (talk) 16:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- This debate isn't even worth having. There are articles for Charles Johnson and LGF, and he doesn't even publish articles outside of his blog. Loweeel 16:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete- Post is the style of an ad. Eddie3 11:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: User Eddi3 does not exist. 68.50.241.28's first edit. Jayjg (talk) 16:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Notable conservative blogger, and the advertising seems to have been cleaned up. However, in its present state, it needs some fleshing out. Also, another wrinkle: Ms. Barber does not actually wish to be listed on Wikipedia. This may change the minds of those who have voted to keep. Android79 16:28, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Perversely, it might also change the minds of those who have voted to delete.--Sommerfeld 17:28, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
  • Keep - This entire movement to expunge people with whom one disagrees is shameful. And if George Bush or the Pope decided they didn't want to be in Wikipedia, would they be deleted?
    • Note: 68.5.67.75's second edit.Jayjg (talk) 17:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, non-notable, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg (talk) 16:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - removing an article just because you don't like the subject violates NPOV. TimShell 17:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That is not the reason I listed it, I resent the assertion, and I demand an apology. 20:58, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok, I was mistaken in implying RickK wanted to delete for POV reasons; I thought he was referring to Barber's writings as 'puffery', but he explained he was referring to the article contents, which may indeed have been puffery before they were edited away. I still say keep, on more general eventualist grounds. Sorry, RickK if I pissed you off. TimShell 21:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - if there is room for improvement, improve. I don't see any advantage in deleting an article with imformation someone might find usefull. Wefa 17:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Tentative Keep and cleanup. Seems notable, but I can't say for sure. The fact that she doesn't like Wikipedia or want to be in it should have no bearing on whether we have an article—if you blog and write newspaper columns then you lose your right to complain about other people commenting on you. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepThis is out of control. This is an information resource, not a way for certain political groups to say that someone is not important just because their views are different from yours.--amphigory 18:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • this vote was made then immediately deleted by User:Amphigory, then later added back by cut-and-paste (which corrupted the signature - now restored).
    • User's only edits are to this discussion.
  • Delete the article on the non-notable blogger and delete all these sockpuppets. Gamaliel 18:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Her radical and wrong-headed opinions don't deserve this kind of endorsement from us! We must not let her have even 5k of space on our glorious servers of the revolucion; we must not give her an outlet for her reactionary words! Vote for social justice, vote for deletion! Vanu 18:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. That last post is certainly one of the more scary things I have read in a while. Anyway, the TTLB listings place her quite highly. She does has some journo credentials. Given the scope and power of new media such as bloggers, I would vote that she be kept even if there is some difficulty with her points of view. unsigned vote from 65.94.139.188
    • Note: 65.94.139.188's first edit. Jayjg (talk) 23:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No one would be arguing this if she was on the left politically. -jeff
    • Vote from User:Jmcnamera. User's second edit.
    • Hey, can I borrow your telepathy machine? Apparently you must have one since you think you know what our motives are. I for one would just as quickly vote delete for an obscure left-wing blogger. Gamaliel 20:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--fairly notable writer as measured by print appearances, google hits. Meelar (talk) 20:27, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Stereotek 13:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

arbitrary break to allow section edits

[edit]
  • Comment: New users should be aware that votes by anonymous and very new accounts are generally very steeply discounted during these discussions. We have had significant problems in the past with abuse of the voting process and attempts to bias the outcome by users creating sockpuppets. Hard facts which add to the discussion are appreciated. Opinions and qualitative judgments are likely to be ignored. —Korath (Talk) 20:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that it's been cleaned up. (And thank you for the lovely vandalism of my user page. I shall cherish it forever and ever.) —Korath (Talk) 20:34, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC) (superseded again below)
  • Keep - The fact that we have people on here arguing NOT to include one of the web's most prominent conservative bloggers and social commentary writers is just more evidence that Wiki has turned into a joke of politically-motivated slap fights. Ugly. (DJ 20 Feb 2005)
    • Unsigned vote from 12.203.217.218.
    • Comment. Jonah Goldberg and Instapundit are among "the web's most prominent conservative bloggers and social commentary writers". This woman is not. Gamaliel 22:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Re Susan Estrich, "The political blogosphere provides another clue. Although its geeky Usenet roots were (and are) testosterone laden affairs, there are still no formal barriers to entry here, no old boys club in the usual meaning of the word. Yet if you take a look at the Blogosphere Ecosystem, which for all its faults is probably the closest thing we have to a consensus measure of popularity for political blogs, you will find exactly two women in the top 30: Michelle Malkin and La Shawn Barber. (There are a few group blogs in the top 30, but those are very heavily male dominated too.)" -- Kevin Drum, Political Animal Andy--67.153.224.90 02:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not voting because I Am Not Worthy. /sarcasm But it's funny that Gamaliel has been over at La Shawn Barber's site doing some lobbying of his own in the comments of her blog. That's a lot of effort from someone who thinks that this blogger is insignificant.
    • Unsigned vote from User:Gruffbear. First edit.
    • What exactly am I lobbying for, besides to get people to act in a civil manner and not make baseless accusations? Gamaliel 22:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • "This woman is not." Coming from you, that's so sweet. Nevermind that this woman has written for Townhall.com, among others (heck, look at the archives from early this morning) and not only has Instapundit has blogrolled her, she's insta-lanched on a regular basis -- pretty insignificant. Dig a little deeper before you make baseless accusations -- but then again, who cares. /shrug I think I found a new source of entertainment for the next few days until I get my 100 edits, fisking wikipedia elites that missed the cluetrain. Andy--67.153.224.90 22:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, the wicked Wiki cabal is in desperate need of wisdom from random anonymous internet trolls. Fight the power! Gamaliel 23:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. "La Shawn Barber" gets only 30 hits in Google Groups, "lashawnbarber.com" only 7. Compare 1,140 hits for andrewsullivan.com. Typically a Google Groups search will yield about 1/4 to 1/10 the number of hits as on Google Web. In cases like this I believe a Groups search is much more reliable because Web searches are often distorted by gaming and "search engine optimization." It is very hard to believe that a truly notable political blogger wouldn't receive more than 30 mentions on USENET. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Only 30 hits? Ah yes, defining down. Google Groups returns 49 hits on first page, and page 2 drops to only 18 hits. Methinks something is wrong with the Groups engine. Is it relevant that a relative newcomer (1.5 years) doesn't use usenet? Compare 184,000 hits for "Dan Smith" on Google Web, and 25,800 in Groups, yet those hits aren't all for the same person. Not notable, since we can't determine which is the real Dan Smith in question. What are the odds that there are more than 2 or 3 La Shawn Barbers (250K Web hits) making a web prescence? Andy--67.153.224.90 23:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • That's why I also included the results of searches on the WEBSITES lashawnbarber.com and andrewsullivan.com. There may be many andrew sullivans but I don't think there are many andrewsullivan.coms... Her website gets less than 1% as many mentions in USENET as his. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Two more data points. Google Groups: instapundit.com 1,110 hits = 160 × lashawnbarber.com. Jonah Goldberg doesn't seem to have a single website but it's not a common name and exact phrase "Jonah Goldberg" gives 8830 hits = 290 × exact phrase "La Shawn Barber." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Your data points would be relevant if we're talking about "lashawnbarber.com" the website. On the contrary, ya'll supposed to be voting on "La Shawn Barber" the writer, who happens to have a blog. Ther'e plenty of Google hits that have nothing to do with her blog and everything to do with her published works. Andy--67.153.224.90 06:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Original charge by the less than straightforward Rickk was "Non-notable blogger with a lot of puffery." Author of several serious books by reputable publishers is not, by definition, a person without note, articles in numerous hard-copy and online publications adds to notability, "blogger" is a null pointer as far as notability here is concerned since notability is established beyond blogging, "puffery" is a pure high point of view value judgment from the Wiki-ite who moved for deletion. The claim by same that he didn't know Barber was black and female is dubious from the photo posted on Barber's site. Finally, an author, writer, speaker, and blogger whose is black, female, and conservative has obvious value in the market place of ideas by being both rare and representative of an emerging trend. unsigned comment by user:Vanderleun
    • User's first edit, and they decide to make it a personal attack. I smell footwear. RickK 23:39, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • User's Nth edit. I'd suggest changing socks, but that's optional. The problem with having "lots and lots of wikiedits" and not being shy about preening is that they tend to reveal more than you intend. The pattern of interjection into the process here, which is evident in the thread above, does not lead me to believe you are as confident of your postion as you proclaim. As to the question of "personal attack," I suggest you read your opening call for deletion with an clear mind. "Non-notable" and "puffery" pretty much set the tone, as did the subsequent claim of "Oh, I didn't notice her race and gender." Several others have noted this and have either had comments deleted or you have chosen not to address it. Seems to me you can't have a full and frank discussion when you've got a hidden agenda. As to my "first edit" -- well, let's look at the substance of the objection to your personal pogrom and not just count coup. unsigned comment by user:Vanderleun
        • Please share with us how you acquired knowledge of RickK's "hidden agenda". Another new user with a telepathy machine? Gamaliel 00:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Telepathy doesn't enter into it. Most sensible people know it is not usually able to operate in a distributed system. You should seriously rethink you own belief in it and not look to it as an explantion for the obvious. One can, as many realize, discern what a user is hiding by what he says and responds to along with what he does not say or respond to. That's usually impossible in a short one-response thread but Rikk helped everyone out with non-notable and puffery. After a thread reaches critical mass, which this one did about 5 or 8 responses in (Hard to tell since there were some deletions early on before they were called), the pattern of respones begins to reveal the inner workings and motivations of the user who continually engages only to disparage or degrade. That would include, among other things, the continual "ranking" of users opinions in order to disparage them. This is a technique that seems to be heavily in use here. Indeed, the tag team for this, if you examine the thread above, would be none other than Rikk and your good self. Seems to me that a thread that is a call for deletion should be one in which we see Wiki Vets such as yourself display the NOPV ethic as an example, not a series of small lessons in how to game the system and drive out new users. unsigned comment by user:Vanderleun
            • That's a lot of words to say "I'm making a guess based on absolutely no evidence at all". Gamaliel 17:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
              • I don't think user:Vanderleun is a sockpuppet. On the other hand, I think I know who he is: so, Boswell, how's Laguna Beach treating you? Still stirring up trouble for its own sake? --Calton 01:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please note, the Blogosphere is beginning to take up discussion of an apparent WikiPedia editorial POV in all matters savoring of politics; this discussion, and especially the tone of a lot of it, cannot possibly help matters. Keep in mind, It is no more possible for WikiPedia than for anyone else, to be "a little bit pregnant." CDJones 01:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • And the Neo-Nazis are taking up discussing of our "apparent Wikipedian editorial POV." The Communist Party of the United States probably thinks we're biased, too. So, what's your point? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I think I'll rest that one on Godwin's Law. CDJones 01:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, now (especially since she doesn't want it, heh, heh), and add a cleanup tag to it for the time being. As long as its contents are those of a reasonable and NPOV article, I'd say she is (just) sufficiently notable --Ray Radlein 01:48, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't care if this La Shawn Barber discovered a cure for cancer. She has done nothing noteworthy at this time that makes her stand out from an average blogger. TimeH 01:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. From reading the article, she sounds like an ordinary writer. She has not accomplished anything that makes her noteworthy compared to any random professional writer. Sledgehammer 01:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Let's go around the question of telepathy and inference to a direct question. Rikk, as the topic starter, you claim "I had no idea she was either black or a woman..." Are you saying that you called for deletion without once visiting her blog which has a photograph at top left that confirms these qualities? That would be the only way I can see that you "had no idea." If that is the case, how would you even begin to be able to judge that she was a "non-notable" with "puffery"? Are you in the habit of calling for the deletion of things you don't know about or investigate? I thought one of the purposes of Wikipedia was to expand knowledge. unsigned comment by user:Vanderleun
    • No, expanding knowledge is not one of the purposes of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and the sections on personal essays and original research, and "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base." The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia and Jimbo Wales has been very clear on that point. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Came across this quote: 'Jimbo Wales created this site and other Wiki products. He ownz your soul, along with Gates and Wal*Mart. You have been warned.' Well that 'splains it all. Since the La Shawn Barber entry isn't neat, you must De-lete. Andy --67.153.224.90 06:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't know if RickK had a hidden agenda or not, but I definitely would have VFD'd this myself after reading the pre-vfd revision of this article. The article is suppose to establish it's nobility or else it will deleted. I certainly wasn't convinced at all this person was notable from the ad-like prose of putting together a bunch of quotes; it might as well had included a comment from Ebert and Roeper. All the information that is suppose to make the subject notable should be included in the article. Otherwise, the writer risks giving readers the message that the topic is too obscure to have anything of substance to even write about in the article. It certainly isn't helpful to Wikipedia to force the users to click on an external link to find out more about the subject, it makes it look like the writer's sole intention was to have readers go to the link to find out why this person is notable rather than having it fleshed out in the encyclopedia entry. The Met 02:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • (User's first edit). Dpbsmith (talk) 02:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • "The article is suppose to establish its nobility or else it will deleted." Perhaps you should propose this as an update to the rules for such things. CDJones 02:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • There's no need to. The article has been properly vfd'd and will soon be deleted. The Met 02:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, looking at the article now it looks better. Since the recent revisions now establishes a little notability compared to that crap in the earlier revisions. I will change my vote if I see this article establishes a little more notability in the incoming days as it currently doesn't pass my threshold for notability. The Met
  • 'Please note' La Shawn Barber quoted 'twice' on 2/16 episode of MSNBC's Coast to Coast = notable. Ms. Barber is 'highly' notable within the political blogosphere. In fact, mentioned on Instapundit today (2/20) (DJ 20 Feb 2005) (UTC) comment by user:12.203.217.218 placed in the middle of the discussion thread. moved here to restore chronological order
  • My my my how I hate getting involved in wars. However, Keep. She is reasonably well-known for a political blogger (a huge class these days, I realize). If for no other reason, let's keep her because she doesn't want to be here (*evil grin*). Okay, maybe it's false modesty, but the simple fact that she's created such a controversy almost convinces me that she's notable in itself. HyperZonktalk 02:47, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • She hasn't "created a huge controversy" anywhere but here. This is a routine VfD nomination and a routine VfD flamewar. POV-pushers interested in winning rather than encyclopedia-building frequently believe they can get their way through pitbull tenacity, sockpuppetry, and allegations of bias. When this occurs, the result is huge VfD battles which are of interest only within Wikipedia and do not in themselves bear on the notability of the topic. Even a huge VfD battle only involves the partipation of a few dozen personae. In USENET, which is absolutely famous for political flamewars and controversy, her name has only been mentioned thirty times and her website has only been mentioned seven times. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Is this anon in any way a reincarnation of this pest: anon or is it a mutation like B-Blogger Bandit? Anyways, delete this useless stub. Yeff 03:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Having reviewed all parts of this, my vote, for what it's worth, is to delete. This has nothing to do, though, with the reasons or intent, or the quality of the reasons or intent, in the original request. From what I've seen, even the best incarnations of this material are, at most, a paragraph from some other topic, yet to be written. Perhaps that topic, whatever it is, deserves encyclopedic treatment; this blurb does not stand well without it. CDJones 06:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Is notable blogger. This VfD is politically motivated — Linnwood 07:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Unless you can prove this assertion, you owe RickK an apology. Gamaliel 17:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • And I WILL be expecting an apology soonest. RickK 20:20, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • Despite discussion about this topic, Linnwood refuses to apologize for his characer assassination. He apparently prefers to attempt to read my mind rather than to Assume Good Faith. RickK 21:58, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • There is no apologize needed. Everyone can see this for what it is. — Linnwood 22:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Can you please provide evidence for those who can't "see this for what it is" and disagree that words like "non-notable" are evidence of a liberal plot? Gamaliel 17:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable blogger and columnist. Capitalistroadster 09:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "'Delete'". I don't read her, but this is not productive information that Wiki should include. It's merely cowardly criticism. [User: Sadie]
    • Note: User:Saidie does not exist. 68.0.102.243's first edit. Jayjg (talk) 16:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ObsidianOrder 13:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • No evidence of notability. (Site has Alexa rank of about 160.000.) Due to the bogus votes and original spam content, delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • If you delete her article, you make a martyr of her. You will only succeed in keeping knowledge of her away from those who already accept you as arbiters of THE TRVTH, and convince others that you have an agenda. I haven't made up my mind on that yet, but the way you deal with this one will tell me a lot about your commitment to your stated neutrality. (Now go ahead and dismiss me as anon. That way you can safely ignore the truth of what I have to say.) - The Monster** edit history shows this comment was left by user:208.44.21.13
  • Keep She's a prominent enough commentator. I've definitely seen worse stubs out there. Pentegamer 21:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vandalism at this point. I'm conservative as well, but you don't see me trying to write articles about myself. The sockpuppetry has gotten completely out of hand at this point. So have the subtle accusations of racism. A martyr? Give me a break, already. Listen up, socks: You aren't fooling anyone. - Lucky 6.9 23:19, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • My vote is a big-ass KEEP. Oh, give me a break. Do you think you can just simplify the injustice by glibly comparing your own self to the great La Shawn Barber. If you are, then you definitely need to look in the mirror and realize that your self image is much more grand that what it actually is. La Shawn Barber is MUCH MORE notable than you will ever be. Have you ever been published online? I bet you haven't by seeing how emotional you get when someone compared La Shawn Barber to a martyr. There is one GOOD reason why this entry should be kept - La Shawn Barber is a conservative, black woman. She has been the very FIRST black woman to be a conservative. Have you ever been recognized in the record books as being a pioneer in politics? To everyone voting delete, you're all being brainwashed why the liberal menace. Open your eyes and see that the world is being tainted with liberalism. It all starts out even in kindergarten when the pledge of allegiance was taken out. PLEASE change your votes to KEEP and stop the reckless MURDERS of FAMOUS PIONEERS in international politics. S.B. 04:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Apparently, the above sock named "Stupid Bitch" didn't fully read my comments. Therefore, I shall repeat them: A: You are not fooling anyone. B: I'm a conservative. C: The racism accusations are out of control. For the record, I've not only been published online, I wrote a weekly newspaper column as well. Deal with it. - Lucky 6.9 23:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • At this point, Curps put a cute header on the discussion thread which, sourpuss that I am, I removed. no vote. Rossami (talk)
  • Keep She is well-enough known for someone to want to look up a reference article about her. Considering all of the people I try to look up who aren't obscure (i.e. Gloria Borger, USN&WR writer and CBS commentator), it's nice to have at least something. I've not seen the original page, but it looks fine now. savantpol
  • Delete. This "writer" is not notable enough. If I asked everyone I've ever known I bet nobody would know who this person is. In fact, Cletus' wife Brandine from "The Simpsons" is vastly more famous that La Shawn Barber and we don't even have an article on Brandine. Until I see that she has actually done something to make her more notable than other writers my vote is to delete. It would probably be better to have the article rewritten in a standard resume format before it gets deleted. That way everyone will know that her work experience in writing are no more notable than the average writer. Xof 03:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 04:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I suggest everyone here apologizes to one another. I've been on this earth for decades and this is the most vile infested "discussion" I have ever seen in my whole life. I would vote delete to rid the world of at least one source of disharmony. Shawn Colv 06:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep In its current state, not nearly the advertisement some other bloggers' entries are. Argue about how influential she is all you want, but I can cite page after page with what most people would consider useless Star Trek drivel. If this needs to go, there's a lot of deletion neccessary in Wikipedia. Opusaug 14:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • If you'll nominate them, I'll vote "delete". --Carnildo 00:32, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If Wikipedia can have an article on Fart fetishism and Two Hit Wonders, then La Shawn Barber definitely belongs in Wikipedia. Everyone, fight the Cabal of Liberalism and RickK's hidden agenda by voting KEEP on this article on one of the world's most famous poliical revolutionaries and quite possibly the world's most heroic figure in the political world. The Baroness 16:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User's only edit. One wonders if this person is the same as User:The Baron? The hyperbole of quite possibly the world's most heroic figure in the political world is quite breathtaking. RickK 06:13, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough for inclusion. Carrp | Talk 16:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: As Android79 pointed out, La Shawn Barber mentioned on her site that she doesn't want to have an article about her. What does Wikipedia generally do about biographical articles where its subject doesn't want to be included in it? --Deathphoenix 20:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Cordially invite them to take a flying leap, perhaps? I don't see why the wishes of an article's subject should have anything at all to do with whether it should be kept around. --Paul
    • The last time that happened, there was a whole lot of edit warring as the subject tried to remove the article or bias it in his favor. The article got a lot better as a result. See Sollog. --Carnildo 00:32, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It pains me to do so, as I have less than no use for La Shawn Barber, but I have to vote for Keep - she's fairly well known as right-wing bloggers go, and I don't see any reason to assume that's going to change any time soon. --Paul 23:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Whatever the outcome is, La Shawn Barber will always be more notable than Wikipedia will ever be. 172.159.142.199 07:16, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It's good that you're not being petty about this at all. Gamaliel 07:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, once Barber stops being what user:Vanderleun (if he's who I think he is: hi Gerard!) calls a "useful idiot" to the modern conservative movement, she'll fade into nothingness, I'm sure. Oh, and for the moment, keep, since she's a notable useful idiot. --Calton 01:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep People voting delete would you at least think than be mindless sheep following RickK's liberal crusade in murdering this article. As a last desperate attempt to drum some sense into the thick heads of the people voting delete, I will PROVE to you dunderheads that La Shawn Barber is the metaphorical keystone holding the whole political infrastructure together. I will use her words and my comments to make my points. Miranda V 08:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why you should change your vote

First and foremost, I'm a believer in and follower of Jesus Christ. I am also a former liberal and current renegade supporter of conservative ideals.

The very notion of a black woman supporting conservative ideals has made La Shawn Barber a noted individual in various printed records. This includes the title of the FIRST black woman venturing out into unknown territory. There has been no other black woman conservative before her. This definitely shows that she is a PIONEER in the political realm and deserves a mention in an encyclopedia, even in a poor-quality encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Anyone who would refute this is either out of their minds or politically motivated to prevent La Shawn Barber's legacy from spreading - ignorance or malice but not both.

For most of my life I've wanted to be a writer. I often talked about writing for publication, but keeping a personal journal for over 20 years was the only disciplined writing I'd ever done. I graduated from South Carolina State University and Temple University School of Law, where I wrote a weekly "humor" column for the law school newsletter (which I wouldn't call disciplined for some reason).

Even early on in her life, La Shawn Barber was already being noticed for her writing skills. I doubt anyone here voting delete has the mental capacity to write a weekly "humor" column for a law school newsletter - or even anything humorous to begin with. La Shawn Barber is one of the world's greatest writers based on this and she deserves to be included. I doubt anyone would vote delete the article on Einstein's article despite the fact that he should a great talent for physics at an early age. Anyone who brushes off Barber's great writing accomplishments as puffery is definitely acting out of malice and hatred.

I've held a variety of interesting jobs. I was a flight attendant, which was very interesting but not nearly as entertaining as working for a Democrat on Capitol Hill during the Impeachment trial.

Wow, the last sentence says a lot about how great La Shawn Barber really is. How many people here worked on Capitol Hill during the Impeachment trial? Nobody, I bet. How many people here even know someone who worked on Capitol Hill during the Impeachment trial? No one. Not only was La Shaw Barber one of the lucky few who earned the grand honor to work on Capitol Hill during the Impeachment trial, she has also been a versatile member of society. Her talents have graced various industries including the luxurious airline industry.

One day I realized I was almost 30 years old (!) and still trying to figure out what I wanted to be if and when I grew up. But I had a few things to deal with first (Read "A Sobering Truth").

Another great accomplishment being buried by the liberal cabal. Not only has La Shawn Barber dealt with arduous trials, but she has also managed to finish reading an epic literary masterpiece. This demonstrates that she has the ability to comprehend esoteric writings, but can multitask in between the great burdens she was faced with. This doesn't sound like a "non-notable" at all.

After I became sober and gave my life to Christ, I knew it was time to write. A few months after my 35th birthday, I penned my first opinion piece, which was published in the Philadelphia Inquirer the week after I sent it in. I was encouraged, to say the least.

Another great feat. Has anyone here been published in an Inquirer periodical? Nobody. She definitely has a great knack for writing and now professional publications are vying for her masterpieces. In fact, her writing is much better any article that can be found in Wikipedia.

Two years later, I'm still at it. In my spare time, I'm a freelance writer (and blogger) with articles, book reviews, columns and essays published in print: Washington Times, Washington Post, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Denver Post, Baltimore Times, Today's Christian Woman and other publications. My work also appears online in Jewish World Review, Townhall.com and other sites.

The plethora of professional publications paying millions of dollars for her articles is a sure sign that she is notable. Who here has even had one written piece published in any of the aforementioned publications? No one. To classify the millions of companies publishing her work as "non-notable" is tantamount to boiling a male's genitals and calling it a recipe for making cream of mushroom soup. It's just plain illogical. It's notable that companies are paying her millions for her writings.

My bi-weekly political column is published on GOPUSA, MichNews.com, Grace-Centered Magazine, TheRightReport.com, American Daily and other sites. See "My Writing" for samples.

Seems pretty notable. Now, online sites and magazines have been added to her list of publishers. To just ignore this, is to go along with the liberal conspiracy and deny La Shawn Barber any acknowledgment of accomplishment. A reasonable person would really have to question the ulterior motives of the deletionists and their claims of non-notability.

Writing has opened up new opportunities and adventures, including public speaking. I had the pleasure of speaking at a conference in July, Conservative University 2004, sponsored by Accuracy In Academia. I was on a discussion panel with Star Parker (on the right). I wrote about the event (and having lunch with Star) on my weblog.

She is also a noted public speaker, who was invited and paid millions to speak at a famous university. She is also an ally to powerful and influential people in power such as Star Parker. Definitely, not a non-notable.

I also spoke at a women's retreat. The president of the church group invited me to be the opening night speaker after reading an article about my spiritual journey in Today's Christian Woman.

She is also a very spiritual person. This is of definite notability. None of the sorry deletionists here care that the illustrious Today's Christian Woman featured her in their retreats.

I've been a guest on a few radio shows, including "The Savage Nation" with Michael Savage, and "The Jesse Lee Peterson Show" with Reverend Jesse Peterson of BOND.

Now, she is emerging in field of radio. Not even the news of Ashlee Simpson's lip synching spread faster on the radio airwaves than La Shawn Barber's appearance of these radio shows.

I've been interviewed in print: "Blogging Brothers (and Sisters)" in National Review Online (8/12/04), "The Proper Biblical View Is Accountability" in The Daily Dispatch (7/9/04) and a few others.

The interviews don't seem to stop. La Shawn Barber has changed the world and will continue to mold it for a brighter future. Now, I hope some of the delete votes change to keep. Fight the Liberal conspiracy and vote against injustice. Help keep this article on Wikipedia. Miranda V 08:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    • Apparently you never read How to Win Friends and Influence People, because you'd know that insulting people with playground taunts like "dunderhead" is not a good way to sway them to your side of an argument. Your hyperbole will not help, it will just induce laughter and eyerolling. But I'm sure none of this will make a difference because you've already convinced yourself we are a fully owned subsidiary of The Evil Liberal Conspiracy (TM). Tell you what, you come up with a single piece of solid evidence that this routine, standard vfd listing and discussion is politically motivated, and I will change my vote. Gamaliel 20:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Apparently, your political intentions are clear when you call her legendary accomplishments as "hyperbole". Miranda V 02:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I made no comment about her accomplishments, I was obviously referring to the language you used to describe those accomplishements. Perhaps you'd care to explain how pointing out that a metaphor about boiling genitals is ridiculous makes my "political intentions clear"? Gamaliel 02:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Keep on trollin'. First conservative black woman? There's prior art there. Android79 02:57, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
          • Actually, La Shawn Barber was the first. Rice just became more successful in politics than Barber. Crea 03:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable blogger. One worthy of inclusion wouldn't need an army of sockpuppets posting drivel in her defense. —Korath (Talk) 10:05, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
I still think she's (just barely) notable enough to warrant a short, NPOV article. Can we just delete her idiotic sock puppets instead? --Ray Radlein 11:30, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think they're HER socks Ray, but otherwise I'm with you. A few more of these over-the-top testimonials and I might just change my vote.Opusaug 14:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is just a random black woman who happens to be a conservative. There's no notability on this "feat" as suggested by the Condoleezza Rice link. Her writings is equal to that of any other writer in the U.S. Also, Miranda_V's stupid points about Barber's alleged notability is laughable. If you read this: link you will see that La Shawn Barber is nothing, but an insignificant woman calling herself "notable". The whole idea of having an article on her reeks of advertising and vanity. This deserves to be deleted along with most of the other cruft in the Wikipedia before it gets worse like those Ashlee Simpson articles. GrazingCow 03:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That blog you linked is really no better than Miranda_V's diatribes above. Android79 03:24, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ashlee Simpson is notable for being a lip syncher. La Shawn Barber is notable for being a popular blogger. They both deserve to be on Wikipedia. Also, I disagree with Miranda_V's comment about Ashlee Simpson. The news of Ashlee Simpson being a lip syncher spread faster than La Shawn Barber's radio appearances. ..-.. 21:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Seems to me that in both cases, the news would, by definition, have spread at the speed of light. --Ray Radlein 06:11, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I always thought Wikipedia was not paper or a junkyard, but this whole situation has shown me what Wikipedia really is. If I actually met with any of you people in real life, then I would slap you all silly. I'm tried of the excuses everybody uses. It's your notability debate, and I stayed out of it. It's your fight, do as you see fit. But get this through that I don't approve of what you all did for your case of keep or delete. If I'm the only witness to all your madness offer me some words to balance out what I see and what I hear. I want to say "What's the Matter here?" but I don't dare say. Chiniski 07:43, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ..-.. 21:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ban many sockpuppet voters currently supporting. Give RickK a pony. Snowspinner 21:59, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The ONLY reason this magnificent article was dumped into VFD is because of a vast left wing conspiracy. I have a feeling that either RickK or some other individual is trying to remove all conservative-related topics to pollute Wikipedia with only liberal topics. Just looking at the article, I don't see any so-called "puffery" or any reasons why anyone would dismiss Barber's writings as "puffery". The conspiracy needs to be broken before Wikipedia becomes a haven for every type of bleeding heart. You Belong 00:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no vast left wing conspiracy trying to delete this article, but from the looks of it there is a vast right wing conspiracy trying to keep this article. CHALK 07:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bloggers are not notable as such. (I was brought to this page by User:You Belong's posting to the Village pump. I don't consider myself part of a vast left wing conspiracy).-gadfium 01:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am personally amused that this alleged vast left-wing conspiracy is supposedly putting out all of this effort to carry out LaShawn Barber's wishes — i.e., to remove the article which she has said she doesn't want Wikipedia to have... --Ray Radlein 06:11, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is clearly a notable presence on the Internet. In fact, I even paid money to see him give a speech. La Shawn Barber deserves to have an article no matter what other people may think of him. Egghead 02:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • "Him"? Are we even talking about the same person? —Korath (Talk) 03:15, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • I meant her. Egghead 03:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Note: Egghead's contributions to date (aside from this page) consist of 5 acts of vandalism and 1 legitimate edit. Android79 04:17, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if cleaned up otherwise Delete. Crea 03:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've had the unfortunate incident of meeting & communicating with her online and by my standards she is non-notable. CHALK 07:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Puffery. Fredrik | talk 12:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable. Lan3y - Talk 19:33, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Dan100 22:10, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The list of places where her work has been published are of questionable notability. I don't see how this alcoholic black woman, who pretends to be a conservative can ever be notable in anyone's eyes. Westlake 03:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Westlake's second edit, coming on his first day editing Wikipedia. What exactly does it mean that one's "work has been published (in a place) of questionable notability"? Is it the person or the publication that makes one notable? As for his description of her character, we should note that Hemingway was an alcoholic writer who pretended to be a conservative, and I'm fairly certain he eventually amounted to something, even though he was just another white male with a huge ego. Apparently Miranda V's opposite twin.Opusaug 23:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

arbitrary break to allow section edits

[edit]
  • Delete. This article can go into detail about Barber and everything she has written, but it still won't make her notable. I'm a writer and have had my writing appear in a lot of publications, but I know I am not notable. If I'm not notable, she's not notable. Big Ben Clock 07:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Comment: a lot of people are using "sockpuppet" when I think "fanboy" would be more accurate. —wwoods 19:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Anons and people who did not exist prior to their votes are by definition sockpuppets. RickK 06:52, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • "By definition"? No. They might be, but then who are the old Wikipedians creating the fake users? More likely they're real people who'd never been to Wikipedia before they read about it on Barber's blog. —wwoods 17:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Whether sockpuppets or new editors, they don't represent the will or consensus of the Wikipedia community. Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Death to non-notable topics/fancruft. Rather 06:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A non-notable woman who writes non-notable puff pieces and other trivial junk. Bonsai K 08:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and agree with —wwoods. --GRider\talk 23:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Off-topic question So I was driving home and heard on the radio that someone had been "arrested in connection with the December 2002 shooting of LaShawn L. Barber of Springfield, Massachusetts." Stories here and here. So... is there any connection between the two? Is La Shawn Barber her real name or is it a pseudonym in honor of the 2002 victim? Or what? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. She's pretty insignificant. Also, I think it's sick, depraved and disgusting IF she changed her name to be more like the famous shooting victim. That's like all those people trying to sell pieces of the World Trade center on eBay after the terrorist attacks. If she wanted to be notable, then she should use a more respectable name and write on more serious topics rather than a lot of puffery. Issa2 06:03, 6 Mar 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. jni 14:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Peanut Foot

[edit]

This looks like obvious vanity. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Amateur vanity. Look at the page history. Hasn't this already been deleted? --Wetman 06:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair 09:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. The author of the article has already removed all of the text (minus the vfd tag of course). Zzyzx11 09:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, so somebody added some content back in at 00:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC). But the problem is that it still is not notable, and it references Melvin and Teddy who has also been marked as VfD. Zzyzx11 06:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. website. IMHO all cases were original author goes highly erratic after seeing his blatant vanity crap being put to VfD should be CSD candidates. jni 12:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it I improved it. Now it's good. (At least I think it is.)70.57.72.83 16:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete We don't need a listing for every Flash animation ever made Zetawoof 03:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per above. vlad_mv 04:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 06:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I give up! You guys win. I just wanted to write an article. Go delete it.--70.57.72.83 16:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it and get it over with. X-Bunny...AAAAAYUH! 21:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What the hell is on there now? Crappy looking cartoon, that apparently the author of the article made? -- Riffsyphon1024 06:28, 23 Feb 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. Joyous 18:41, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Godawful Fan Fiction

[edit]

God--, well, demiurgeawful prolixity about a website. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Hoary 07:34, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Delete Edited this argument because am an idiot. 3) This is my first wiki article. It will be cleaned up. Pyresun 07:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Send for Cleanup. otherwise Delete. The sub-forum descriptions need to go. - Mailer Diablo 08:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • On it. - Pyresun 08:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually we certainly can have one website and refuse others. We can have, say, ebay, because it is an international phenomena that has altered the economy of used merchandise, while, say, rejecting an article on ploog.com, because, quite frankly, it really isn't anything, as far as I can tell. As for this article, I'm going to vote delete unless further notability is established. -R. fiend 08:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Right now I'm rewriting the article to be based around terminology and just general info on fanfiction terms used across the internet, would that be okay?
      • If it's going to be an article on fanfiction terminology then it would certainly need a different title. Depending on exactly what you're doing I might suggest trying to work it in as a section in the current fanfiction article. -R. fiend
        • Good point. Changed my thing to delete, and vow to do better next time. ...at 08:38, 2005 Feb 20 Pyresun forgot to hit the twiddle key
  • Cleanup and change terribly POV title. If this is a reference to a website called "Godawful Fan Fiction" (I really can't tell it's such a mess) then the word (website) needs to be added to the title to preserve NPOV. 23skidoo 16:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Sean Curtin 17:33, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see the notability here. --Woohookitty 18:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, This article is somewhat of a mess, POV and it fails to obtain notability. Inter 18:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. — Gwalla | Talk 02:38, 21 Feb 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. Joyous 18:38, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

MOOism

[edit]

Joke. Could be sent to our special section for jokes, but definitely not encyclopedic. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This was tagged as speedy, but it doesn't meet the criteria. Although I moved it to VfD, I'm nevertheless voting keep since it fits in Category:Joke religions along with Church of the Subgenius and others, and seems to be marginally sufficiently notable. -- Curps 07:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Silly, but notable. As mentioned on the talk page, MOOism is documented in Christopher Partidge's New Religions, and Google hits over 1000 pages for "MOOism". GTBacchus 03:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reasoning: Joseph Campbell said that there is only one story and each generation dresses it up in different clothes. (I'm paraphrasing baldly here but check Hero With A Thousand Faces and Power of Myth before disagreeing with me please) This is merely an example of exactly that process and as such is significant and worthy of documentation. Helped my research at least. envygreen 2.24.05 8:05p.m.
  • Keep. Has been around since at least 1991 and is well known among internet subcultures. —Brim 14:30, Feb 26, 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. Joyous 18:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Creambo

[edit]

Only 8 Google hits for "Creambo". RickK 08:39, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete. Mikkalai 09:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - --Haham hanuka 09:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair 12:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Gilgamesh he 16:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) its a famouse israeli snack 17,900 hits in google of one writes in hebrew - [2]
    • Comment. If that is the case, please expand on what it is as quickly as possible. As of now, the article reads as a non-notable dicdef. Zzyzx11 19:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if it's a famous israeli snack. Kappa 20:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • How famous can something be that only gets 8 Google hits? RickK 20:50, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Israeli cuisine? Radiant! 22:29, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic foodcruft. Megan1967 22:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I haven't seen enough arguments to suppport the notion that there should be an individual page for it. Is it notable enough in Israel? By the way, before writing an article on Creambo, one may consider the suggestion of writing an article on Israeli cuisine, as per Radiant! There is no such page in Wikipedia so far. Conceptually, even a stub on this subject would seem more acceptable to me than an individual article on Creambo. vlad_mv 04:45, 21 Feb 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.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted under G4 recreation of previously created content and A1 short page with little or no context. Capitalistroadster 16:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oberin

[edit]

NN ad for RPG. "Is still in beta so I can not go into great detail". jnothman talk


Oberin

[edit]

This is a computer game that is still in its beta test version and not available to the public. No Google hits for its developer, Creative Vision Interactive. Delete. — Brim 08:58, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not a part of an established franchise so this article is a tad premature, rewrite if it ever gets released --nixie 12:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Four year old private beta. -- Longhair 13:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As a private beta, it is too early to be in Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 19:29, 20 Feb 200 (UTC)
  • CommentDrizzt2"- Four year old private beta. -- " Longhair
  • Wrong, its been private beta for 1 year and a half, nice try tho.


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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agility Bug Tracking Software

[edit]

Non-notable software. 13 Google hits for its title, related website gets Alexa ranking of 3,450,822. JoaoRicardo 09:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Looks like cleverly hidden advertisement to me. Non notable. Inter 18:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reads like an ad. Zzyzx11 19:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:57, 20 Feb 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. Joyous 18:34, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Californian Accent

[edit]

This page appears to be made up "original research" (using the term loosely). Daniel Quinlan 06:05, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

See also VfD for Californian Dialect mutation article. Mikkalai 22:40, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. As a native Californian, I can tell you that there is no such thing as a statewide accent. (Maybe the O.C. but that's another story). The immigrants from other countries and the migrants from other areas of the United States that have come over the years have made that impossible. Zzyzx11 09:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Robert Pendray 09:43, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Californians would call it "California accent" anyway. The use of the word "Californian" as an adjective is not a California usage. RickK 09:45, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep or rename if references can be provided. The idea that there is no Calfornia(n) accent is POV. I get 1,670 google hits for "califonian accent" [3] and 3,370 for "california accent", although a lot of them seem to be about california accent pillows and car rentals, whatever they might be. Kappa 14:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • One reference: http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/californian/
    • Comment - Until you cite some references to research papers from notable linguistics, colleges and universities, I will stand by my Delete vote. Zzyzx11 19:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • That's ok, but at least it refutes the 'original research' theory which is the basis for this nomination. Kappa 20:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment:Well that source confirms that there is no single "California Accent". There are many California accents. As a native Californian, I have also noticed the many different accents. — J3ff 21:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • So should we try to cover them or not? Kappa 23:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • Beware orig research. Let us better try to "notice" a book on the topic. Then it will speak in favor of the article. Mikkalai 00:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Citizens of some other states seem to sound the same to me. There's no such thing as an accent within the borders of California. Plus, California is home to people from all around the world, who speak English with their own accent, so who's to say what California's one accent is? There's no need for this article. Evanwohrman 00:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Two reasons ... I've heard people in media sciences (and in the tech side of entertainment, where my experience is) refer to this as the "Western Regional Dialect," not the Californian Accent. Secondly, the article doesn't have it right ... now if they had noted that "o" as in "not" becomes "aw" as in "nawt," well, then they might have a point! HyperZonktalk 02:51, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: 3 google hits for "Western Regional Dialect", including this one bartleby . Kappa 11:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete homogeonous californian accent is questionable, and even if it wasn't, there already exists a Regional accents of English speakers article. --DaveTheRed 04:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There's now a redirect on Californian Dialect pointing to this page. Rl 20:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, mainly because, well, Californians don't sound like that. --Yath 22:45, 22 Feb 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. jni 15:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aidwe&co

[edit]

Non-notable software company. Gets 900 Google hits, most seem unrelated; 5 Usenet hits; website is "in progress". JoaoRicardo 09:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable software company -- Longhair 13:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reads like self-promotion. Zzyzx11 19:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - promotion for non-existent software company. Site is hosted on freewebs.com and has been under construction since 2003. I don't know why the hell they bothered. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:52, 20 Feb 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. Joyous 18:32, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Aldo A Rossi

[edit]

Non-notable, vanity. User:68.8.146.121 on a quest to document family history (cf. original article for Alejandro Velasco Astete). Rl 10:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Does not appear to be notable. Inter 18:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible family vanity. Megan1967 22:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS; thus the article is kept. —Korath (Talk) 18:27, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Al-Jazeerah Information Center

[edit]

No evidence of notability. Gets about 200 Google hits, related website has an Alexa rating of 59,115. JoaoRicardo 12:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep That Wikipedia ranking sounds like an argument for doing so to me. If you hadn't mentioned it, I probably wouldn't have looked or voted. Wincoote 14:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, reads like an advertisement. Megan1967 22:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I wrote it, and I'll go for weak keep. This site is particularly notable for being frequently confused with Al Jazeera, and its articles are quoted in at least one other Wikipedia article. - Mustafaa 23:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. If that is the only reason, I believe a brief mention in Al Jazeera should be enough. JoaoRicardo 01:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Concur with Joao, Merge. Radiant! 10:02, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge, even Google News had them confused for awhile so complete clarification is needed somewhere, and all in one place probably makes the most sense. 3 Mar 2005

This page is now preserved 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 proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 00:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ashley Bloom

[edit]

Marked for speedy deletion but is not a speedy candidate so moved here. This does not appear to be the same Ashley Bloom who was referred to by the previous incarnation of this article (deleted in Feb). No vote JeremyA 17:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For a prior VFD discussion of this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ashley Bloom/2005 Feb 26.
  • DeleteSpeedy as re-creation. Even if the text isn't an exact copy, this has no chance to pass VfD at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:48, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This is not a re-creation of deleted content. The previously deleted article was about a man, this article is about a woman. I agree that it will probably be deleted, but I think that current Wikipedia policy grants it a week on VfD first. The first paragraph of the previously deleted article was: Ashley Edward Bloom (born December 13, 1988) is a young man living a middle class life. He is considered to be a polite and handsome young man, blessed with great perception, wisdom and intelligence beyond his years. -- JeremyA 22:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're probably right. I revised my vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:50, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a tough one Delete I mean Keep Oh wait, I definitely mean Delete (I think). Now with regard to Speedy, let me see, Speedy no wait a minute here VFD. No, too slow, Speedy I think. OK, this is it: Speedy Delete (I think). Sorry Ashley. hydnjo talk 02:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even close to notable. MysteryDog 18:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 06:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TarProxy

[edit]

Non-notable anti-spam idea that hasn't been implemented and hasn't gone anywhere. Doesn't merit an independent article. --BM 12:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect with Tarpit (computing) and Teergrube. Contrary to the above paragraph, the technique is established and used in the field. I believe that teergrube is the most common term, even in the English language. Pilatus 12:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is a brand name for a non-existent tarpit. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Cyrius, Delete (although a redirect is appropriate, there is nothing interesting in this article to merge) Radiant! 15:01, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with Radiant! --Neigel von Teighen 15:09, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Might be useful in the future, if the tecnology is readily available to the public. Bratsche 16:41, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement for vaporware. Do not merge. —Korath (Talk) 17:54, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 18:30, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Bishop's College

[edit]

A college in Sri Lanka. No evidence of notability. JoaoRicardo 12:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. A 2,000 student private school founded in the 19th century. One of the first English language schools in the country. Nomination phrasing is a disguise for "I disapprove of school articles." Unresearched nomination made essentially on the illegitimate grounds that it is a stub. I have categorised to Sri Lanka and added a link to official site. Wincoote 14:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe a decent criterium would be that high schools are not notable, but colleges are. Keep. Radiant! 15:43, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, what Wincoote said. - SimonP 15:29, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. James F. (talk) 16:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. College are notable in themselves is an established precedent. HyperZonktalk 02:52, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Best Video Game Ever

[edit]

Fork of NiGHTS Into Dreams. --BM 14:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- NPOV problematic title. Content exists elsewhere. Longhair 14:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - article forks are bad, name is awful, redirect would be useless. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The title "Best Video Game Ever" will always lead to a POV article. Zzyzx11 19:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant article, title is inherently POV. — Gwalla | Talk 02:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV. vlad_mv 04:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a good article about NiGHTS Into Dreams on its own right, but calling it (or any game, for that matter) the "Best Video Game Ever" is a blatant violation of NPOV. 193.167.132.66 07:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Right. I'm not even dure what I was THINKING when I did that. It's gone. — unsigned vote by User:69.141.8.245 (contribs); same IP as page author
  • Delete. At one point I put up a question in vfd's discussion as to why people are so willing to delete rather than redirect duplicates. This is not an example of what I had in mind. What I had in mind were titles which may be useful redirects. This title is not useful and can safely be deleted. I have a hunch that this article may be an experiment. 129.177.61.123 10:12, 23 Feb 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. jni 15:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Brave Noodle

[edit]

Advertising/vanity for a non-notable Alexa rank 4 million (!) website. --BM 14:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Deøete, Although a better attempt than most, WP is not a web directory. Inter 18:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a web directory, article does not justify making an exception. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 19:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As it is now, it is in the style of a self-promotion ad. Zzyzx11 19:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I actually laughed out loud! My own domain, in the measly 2,000,000 rank range, is more popular. And note that I did not even link it here, much less create an article. /me continues to laugh maniacally. HyperZonktalk 02:26, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. We keep plumbing the depths of the ranks on Alexa. I didn't know before last week that they went below 2 million. Now we know that they go down much further. My wife's web site where she posts family photos and our daughter's art has an Alexa rank of around 1,000,000. --BM 21:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete of course. --Wetman 21:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The webistes directory is to full as it is. Oberiko 11:55, 25 Feb 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. Joyous 18:28, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Brown University's Undergraduate Finance Board

[edit]

Article about a student organization, apparently part of Brown's student goverenment. Too low a level of granularity. Delete --BM 14:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, student vanity. Megan1967 22:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, anything that's worthwhile might be merged as a "controversy" section to Brown University, but even that is probably not a good idea, in my opinion. HyperZonktalk 02:55, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge what can be salvaged to Brown University. This fork in unencyclopedic. vlad_mv 04:53, 21 Feb 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. Joyous 18:27, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Cody Didymous Thomas

[edit]

Article doesn't indicate he is notable. Thue | talk 14:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • In the absence of any indication that this is a true story, it's got to go. Deb 18:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - lack of evidence of existence or importance. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Just gets me to say "So what?" and "Who cares?" Zzyzx11 19:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 22:27, 20 Feb 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. Joyous 18:26, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Outage by Cody Thomas

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a novella collection. Thue | talk 14:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - could not agree more. Rossrs 14:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Inter 18:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - if I were going to post my awful fiction on Wikipedia, I'd at least make sure the paragraph breaks showed up. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like somebody just pasted in his book report. Zzyzx11 19:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic trivial fiction. Megan1967 22:57, 20 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bunchies

[edit]

Some kind of cute character. Only a couple of hundred Google hits after you exclude references to other kinds of bunchies. Not notable. Unencyclopedic. Delete --BM 14:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Move to bunchie, cleanup. This article is atrocious, but bunchies are all over the web. The only problem with the Google test in this case is that images frequently appear without any caption or name, so most who have seen them only know them as "those freaky green galloping mutant giraffe thingies" or something like that. — Gwalla | Talk 02:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless they are shown to be called bunchies as opposed to those freaky ... etc. Notability not established to my satisfaction, but I'm open to being shown otherwise. HyperZonktalk 02:59, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Butter Palm

[edit]

Article about a 50 pound statue of a Palm tree carved out of butter, which won a prize at the Minnesota State Fair and briefly got some media attention. Not encyclopedic or notable. Delete. --BM 14:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete you seem to be mistaken though: it's not a palm tree, it's a PalmPilot! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:36, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sigh. Radiant! is of course correct re: notability. I think I let my love for the outre influence my decision. In any event, I will be expecting Radiant to archive all of these deleted trivia articles on his/her computer to restore when WikiTrivia is created! ;) Keep. Despite the trivial, it still is in Trivial Pursuit. I hate to think of kids in the future trying to confirm this an coming up empty-handed. (Only slightly tongue-in-cheek.) HyperZonktalk 18:14, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is explicitly not a repository of all trivia. "Good enough for Trivial Pursuit" is not automatically "good enough for Wikipedia". Rossami (talk) 02:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if it made it into a notable game like "trivial pursuit". Kappa 03:19, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC), at least pending transfer to a possible "wikitrivia" project. Kappa 08:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gamaliel 06:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivial is the opposite of notable. Those who are interested in trivia should go to the MetaWiki site, as there's currently talk about creating a WikiTrivia project (similar to WikiQuotes). Radiant! 14:54, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Radiant. —Korath (Talk) 17:58, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Easybets

[edit]

Advertising for commercial gambling web-site. Not encyclopedic. Delete. --BM 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup - site gets a decent number of Google hits and has a fairly high Alexa traffic rank of 5,732. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. As of now, it looks more like self-promotion. Even though it may have a decent number of Google hits, it does not necessarily mean it is notable. Zzyzx11 20:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Cyrius. Could be advertising, could be good faith, so I'll assume good faith. Kappa 20:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 20:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement, promo. Megan1967 22:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Radiant! 22:27, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --nixie 23:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tough decision, as it does smell of advertising (and possibly non-notability). However, they've been online for eight years now and are highly ranked on Alexa. Another case in which I'm open to convincing. However, it will need to be more than a dicdef. HyperZonktalk 03:03, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all promos. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please do not encourage wikispam. —Korath (Talk) 17:58, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or 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. jni 14:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1944 in art

[edit]

Er, possibly a speedy candidate but it's very long. "Nelson Patrick Hawkes" gets one google hit. Xezbeth 15:44, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, This mess. Inter 18:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - nonsense. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and direct the author to Uncyclopedia, which appears to be more their style. Average Earthman 19:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Too bad it's not speedyable. Denni☯ 20:30, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 22:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. He is 60 so presumably entering his second childhood. -- RHaworth 02:56, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. However, the concept of a 1944 in art article is acceptable given the large number of similar articles such as 1955 in television, 1965 in film, 1999 in literature, etc. But the current contents of 1944 in art have nothing to do with this idea. 23skidoo 15:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — At most 1944 in art would only list this individual under a "Year of Birth" section, and this content would go on a separate page. But he appears non-notable. — RJH 18:47, 21 Feb 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. Joyous 18:22, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Partial list of partial lists of partial lists

[edit]

Seems to be a joke page, with no content. Delete --HappyDog 15:42, 20 Feb 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. jni 14:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3B Browser

[edit]

Software advertising, complete with a link to download.com Xezbeth 15:54, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Advertising. Inter 18:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - smells ad-ish. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only an ad. Zzyzx11 20:05, 20 Feb 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 N/A. jni 14:43, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Daruma dolls.jpg

[edit]

Image moved to Commons Pkuczynski 16:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Images should be listed on Wikipedia:Images for deletion. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:15, 20 Feb 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. jni 14:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Amarsanaa

[edit]

Not suitable for Wikipedia: Not notable. One liner article identifying Amarsanaa as a student at Orchlon school. This school is in Mongolia and a previous edit contained a longer text in Mongolian (which I cannot translate) from which I deduce that Amarsanaa is a 17-year-old school student. --Theo (Talk) 17:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - straight up student vanity. Possible CSD due to lack of definition/context. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Djbrianuk 20:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 22:25, 20 Feb 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. jni 14:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Baby kissing

[edit]

I had this tagged for speedy deletion, but the article creator removed the tag and added a VfD template. He's still busy playing around with the article, but it's simple vandalism (he's also been reverted elsewhere today). Rl 17:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete, In my opinion. Inter 18:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. User is also abusing VfD tag by removing it from page, editing text into it's frame, and so on. I fixed but will probably be changed again by abuser. Hedley 19:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. I put the speedy delete tag on an article of this title yesterday evening and I saw a bit later that it was deleted. I then saw it rematerialize, and put the tag on it again. If RI is saying that he also put the tag on it, that means either that the tag was removed or that someone created the article yet a third time. --00:36, 21 Feb 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. Joyous 18:20, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Proscia

[edit]

Not clear if this is an Italian surname or just a noun. Either way it has no place in English wikipedia as it is not commonly used in English. Deb 18:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's not common enough in Italian to be in their WP or wiktionary. Even the author of the page is not sure about the meaning ("possibly"). Useless. Rl 22:04, 20 Feb 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. Delete --Rhobite 21:14, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

List of Russian language films

[edit]

del. Dead-born. Covered Category:Russian films and Category:Russian language films .Mikkalai 18:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Categories cannot replace lists, since categories cannot have redlinks. Kappa 20:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It is a valid argument, and such lists, such as List of mathematical topics serve their purpose. But lists, kind of List of French books somehow do not seem useful to me. Of course, if many people will find them useful... Well, that's what VfD is for. I say del, you say keep. Mikkalai 00:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lists are not categories. RickK 21:45, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Generally I agree with this POV, since lists of, e.g., terms, may be accompanied with explatations. But in this case the article is called "glossary". If anyone endeavors to supply this list with summaries, I will happily change my vote. I despise the habit to start a potentially thousand-item list with 3-4 entries. If such a list doesn't grow, IMO it should die. Mikkalai 00:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, lists might not be categories but this list doesnt tell the user anything, except give internal links to Wikipedia articles, no more than that - something categories do anyway, which this list duplicates. An encyclopaedia should be useful. Megan1967 22:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Megan. Delete. Radiant! 22:25, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unlike other lists, this is much too broad to be workable. Same info would be better found through other methods. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:29, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. How many Russian language films are there? Tens of thousands? How many are likely to be relevant to readers of the English Wikipedia? Most are probably already mentioned in Cinema of Russia and Soviet Union, at that. I would suggest that we don't need or want hundreds of Russian language film redlinks that will never become articles. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A perfectly legitimate complement to the category. This is the sort of nomination which is likely to lead to honest editors giving up on Wikipedia and leaving. Wincoote 07:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is far too general. The list would be massive. Carrp | Talk 07:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Far too broad. The only way for this to make sense is for it to be a List of notable Russian language films for movies with international impact. HyperZonktalk 18:21, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There doesn't appear to be anything here that can't be covered with a category. Gamaliel 18:25, 21 Feb 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. Joyous 18:17, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft Gif Animator

[edit]

Unencyclopaedic --Neigel von Teighen 18:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • delete. Mikkalai 19:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep one of the most widely-used software applets of its era: it came free with MS Frontpage and others, and for a long time was by far the most user-friendly GIF animation method available. Roughly 33,000 Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:27, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Notable. Megan1967 00:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, its Microsoft. Pretty notable I'd say. Still needs much expansion. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notepad has an entry. HyperZonktalk 18:22, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Uh, can I delete as bug-ridden, insecure, standards-breaking, designed to lock out competition, and convicted of abusive practices? No, but if this article can be kept on the basis of "Keep, its [sic] Microsoft", then my overgeneralization would be equally valid. Barno 01:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable bug-ridden attempt to lock out competition. Kappa 03:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this article is kept, does Wikipedia then condone and deem notable any product released by Microsoft? If not, which ones would not be notable and how would notability be judged? Does this suggest some sort of bias towards tech-related products or are all Microsoft products inherently noteworthy? Why would this utility receive preferential treatment over, for example, an adult film star who has "acted" in over 100 films? No vote. GRider\talk 18:10, 25 Feb 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. Joyous 18:16, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

St.Clair Enterprises

[edit]

Article doesn't establish notablity. Less than 40 displayed hits. Just another web marketing company. Niteowlneils 19:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. As it is, it is just an ad. Zzyzx11 03:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only claim to notability is that they apparently supply their customers by injection molding. I have a feeling that they actually supply their customers with items created by injection molding, so it's not notable. HyperZonktalk 18:30, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:15, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Npls spectrum

[edit]

This page appears to be a vanity page.

No offence, but there are literally thousands of theatre companies appearing at the Edinburgh Fringe each year, and in my opinion, to warrant an inclusion on Wikipedia, a company would need to be more notable than having received a 3-star Scotsman review and being "among the youngest" companies.

I frankly can't see why anyone unconnected to the group concerned would be interested. Sorry... Don't mean to be insulting, but I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia.

Cal T 19:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Check the history of the page to see the major vanity revisions I took out. I contest recieving 3 stars in the Scotsman is "notable" (with all reviews being out of 5), and I've seen younger participants at the Fringe. The only way I can see this article working is as a stub, since there's nothing that notable that I can see about the company. There must be at least two dozen or more youth groups of that age or lower at the Fringe, and I've heard nothing of their work whilst working at the Fringe (2003 - 2004). Nick04 22:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. Firstly, declaration of interest: I made, and did almost all the updating of, this page. I am obviously biased; I do not claim not to be. However, do I think it should be deleted? No. Why? 1. There is nothing factually incorrect about the page. I am in the company, and I can tell you that the details on the page are correct. 2. Just because you have never seen us at the Fringe does not mean we have not been there; and in fact we HAVE been there, 5 times as I have said. In total, well over a thousand people have paid to come and see us, and many more have seen us singing in the streets to promote the show. 3. I accept that putting a link to this page onto the fringe page was shameless self-publication, and I apologise for that. However, with the potential for updates (which I will gladly do; indeed our next show, the blurb on the page of which has been editted out, is performing its world premiere in two months' time) I do not see the harm in letting this page be. Furthermore, the qualification for "famous" is very difficult. Are we famous? Probably, but not definitlely, not. I have been approached in the street in Edinburgh with people recognsing me. Am I a celebrity? No. Are the company worth adding to the sum of human knowledge? I do not see why not. Obviously if you all disagree go ahead and delete - wikipedia has to be a democracy. But I thought an opposing view had to be heard before the guillotine is brought out. - Batmanand
  • Thank you for expressing your view, and being polite about it. However, I'm sorry to say that I'm still going to vote delete on your article. The reason is that, as you say yourself, you are probably not famous. When you become famous, one of your fans will undoubtedly write an article about you.
Wikipedia is not the sum of all human knowledge, or of all verifiable fact, merely of the notable parts. For instance, the name of my neighbor's cat, while knowable and verifiable, is not very interesting to the rest of the world. What exactly qualifies as notable is up to (heavy) debate, but we have a number of consensual guidelines. And I'm afraid you fall below them. Radiant! 15:23, Feb 23, 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. jni 14:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Garabundi Affair

[edit]

I'd call it patent nonsense, but apparently hoaxes are not eligible for speedy deletion. This is the only contribution by the author, and Google (as well as my own reasonable knowledge of Chicago history) reveals nothing even remotely close. I did add it to the latest bad jokes page. --Dhartung | Talk 21:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable if not a hoax, and a possible copyvio as well (copied from [4]). Rl 21:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, essay, hoax. Megan1967 22:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Hoax. Delete. --Slowking Man 01:15, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Linnwood 06:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 16:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was going to ask for some reseach by the LOC on this, but I think we can pretty much delete this. Good that somebody took the initiative, even if I did think of it first :-P --Theaterfreak64 01:16, Feb 24, 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. Joyous 18:13, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

CMP Radio

[edit]

Substub which is unlikely to be expanded on the now-defunct internet radio station. Sure, it was one of the more popular ones in it's time and probably returns a few Google hits but this is probably vanity from a member of the station, and a advertisement. Not of any use to anyone. -- Hedley -NB this man is a tosser 21:26, 20 Feb 2005

  • Comment: CMP was like any other net station out there, except the average age of presenters was 12. Rubbish —User:Guest (User talk:Guest) 18:31, May2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Whether it's defunct now is immaterial. While I agree with your assessment that this is probably vanity and/or an ad, I don't have time at the moment to properly research this, so no vote from me. —Korath (Talk) 21:39, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advertisement, possible station vanity. Megan1967 22:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Korath that something being defunct doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on it for VfD purposes. This time, though, I have to vote delete. Just far too many net radio stations out there, very very very few of which need articles. I'm almost sorry to vote that way because based on its homepage content it seemed pretty cool. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:34, Feb 20, 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 MERGE or DELETE. I'm going to make it a redirect to History of Christianity for now; anyone braver than me is invited to merge anything useful. dbenbenn | talk 14:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have moved this to a subpage of History of Christianity. The page is History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism. For those who want to merge, go ahead. Admins: please don't delete the subpage because we need to preserve the edit history to be compliant with GFDL once/if people start the merge. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism

[edit]

This article is an essay that is trying to argue a particular POV. The title itself clearly shows this: it assumes that the three things are linked, though this could be disputed. The article itself is full of weasel words and unsourced opinions and facts. It is irredeemably POV and I would suggest that if there is important information in there that it should be merged into the relevant articles. I am concerned that it is also original research. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, POV essay. Megan1967 22:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with the rationale of the submitter and this should be deleted in accordance with established policy. I don't have the time to read this thouroughly right now, but a quick scan gives me the impression that some work was put into the article. We should make sure any valuable information is salvaged. Phils 23:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. It is basically an article presenting the case for an alternative account of the early History of Christianity. It is a point of view, but then so is the more conventional account. There is considerable interesting material which should not just be deleted. In my opinion, it should be merged with History of Christianity. --BM 15:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, as delineated above. Borderer 15:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. As BM notes, both this article and the views expressed at History of Christianity are POV. This article does seem to be original research to a certain extent, but it draws heavily on published research. Therefore, I think there is plenty of material that is salvagable. HyperZonktalk 20:55, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge including cleanup to a section within History of Christianity, for reasons mentioned by BM and HyperZonk. Given the high age and low verifiability of the sources, and the recurring purging of competing POV-supporting sources over the millenia by church hierarchy or kings or fanatics or armies, virtually all serious discussion on this topic is (arguably) iredeemably POV. Other topics, particularly some religious ones, have shown that POV breakouts lead far more to edit wars than to compilation of verifiable knowledge about significantly influential events and movements. Barno 01:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • What is here that is worth saving is adequately covered elsewhere. Delete. Fire Star 02:00, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The article must disappear without a redirect because its title is inherently flawed for the reasons noted by TBSDY. I don't know and don't care whether it should be merged or deleted, though. --MarkSweep 12:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the salvageable, delete what can't and shouldn't be saved. This article is an essay. It draws its conclusion from the start - the subjects in the title are related. It doesn't review studies in the field, nor is it written from an expert's view. The article relies on 'some scholars', 'other scholars', and 'many secular scholars' to create the appearance of a solid factual basis. How many scholars are actually named inline? Two? And James Akin is cited as opposing the whole idea. The extensive list of sources is useless for verification, as it doesn't state where the claims originate, and its length makes it a hassle to find out. --Jill St. Crux 10:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Just how many articles specify who supports the text as written? It's unreasonable to only hold this expectation upon VFD articles. Borderer 13:42, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Borderer, all articles should notes who supports the text as written. In the case of this article, even moreso as it's a minority view and highly controversial. Not only this, but it's in the form of an essay that argues a point (which is not encouraged around here - that's not what we are about. If you want that try Kuro5hin) that is in much dispute. As for only holding this expectation on VfD articles: I don't see where Jill wrote that. I think it's fair to say that Jill, from talking to him around the place, expects it on all articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Not many articles really say much of WHO supports them, BUT: This is a debate prone issue, it must hold to a higer standard. Thinking of standards; It's article name is unendycolpedic, it's far too 'fluffy' in it's language and readily takes advantage of inductive clauses (weasel words) and the sources list is it's own POV nightmare. Delete in accordance with policy or move out of the WP namespace untill it's fixed. -- Dbroadwell 15:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • The reason I say this, is because the only time I witness a fuss over stating the scholars in the article is when it is on the VFD. I'm only saying it how I have always seen it by my own eyes, for ever otherwise there is no rabid disputation. Just because this is on VFD, does not me it should be deleted. In fact, you should have extended these discussions on the Talk Page much further. VFD votes can be a mob scene, unrighteously so. Borderer 22:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • I assume you are responding to me and have changed the levels accordingly. Firstly, I have consistently always asked for sources for just about every article I've ever reviewed. All my articles have sources for their information, in a manner that allows for fact checking. So I don't think this happens only with VfD. You should check out peer review and FAC for other places where this happens. I realise that just because it's on VfD doesn't mean that this article should be deleted. I personally think it should be deleted (and merge that information which is mergable) because the article is an essay that argues for a point and is very poorly referenced (we had pointed this out to the original author many times, but they never fixed this issue). It's very title is POV, and so it is irreedeamble. There is good info in there, but this needs to be merged into another article - I don't dispute this. However, this POV piece should be merged and then deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a POV essay. No one is stepping up to actually connect the claims made with the published research; I suspect that much of the sources that are listed are either outdated, or are primarily based on outdated research. For those who want to merge, are you able to identify the parts worth merging as they are now? Wesley 17:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We I am CheeseDreams.
You should note that TBSDY is on a campaign to supress this article completely, having started by re-writing, and removing one of the most major of arguments in this academic debate (i.e. that which the article discusses) wholesale - the most frequently cited potential template - Horus.
This occured because TBSDY was unable to provide any academic counter argument - see its talk page, so rather than let it stand as blatent inarguable truth, TBSDY is on campaign to discredit it by associating it with bad scholars, and removing the strongest part of the case to make it look mergable (by leaving a somewhat stubby and messy survival).
This sort of campaign is typical by fundamentalists -
  • (0) try arguments from faith and when that fails
  • (1) spin - make it look like the argument of just one or two discredited writers
  • (2) ad hominem - imply that the argument is wrong because the author is discredited (even if they are only discredited for seperate reasons concerning other claims)
  • (3) focus on the weakest part of the argument and ignore (i.e. delete) the strongest
  • (4) try to destroy them by a vote rather than academic counterargument (n.b. votes cannot change the truth - e.g. a vote cannot make PI=3, even if the state of Texas declares it to be so (this happened)).
How interesting. It's not true, and even a cursory glance at a site like snopes would have revealed it to be an urban legend. See [5]. You aren't helping your case any, CheeseDreams! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You should also note that the weasel words were not my choice, but Mpolo's, with whom I worked to try to balance the article; I would have preferred to drop them altogether.
CheeseDreams.
    • Those reading the slanderous comments CheeseDreams has just made should be aware of a few things:
      1. CheeseDreams is not posting from her account because she posted her password to User:Rienzo's account. It was determined by another admin that she used the same password for no less than 5 other sock-puppet accounts. All of these accounts have had the password reset.
      2. CheeseDreams is currently in Arbitratrion over disruptive editing practices and POV pushing for bypassing her previous ArbCom rulings.
      3. CheeseDreams was asked by me several times for sources (before these things happened), however she never provided them and never attempted to add them into the article. See Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/Archive_4#Disputed. Whenever I asked for sources, she merely (and absurdly) replied Wikipedia:Assume good faith. To which I was forced to reply Wikipedia:Cite sources! When I asked for where specific facts came from in her 44 books she has placed into references, she said that I should read them! In other words, she wasn't prepared to tell me where she got specific facts. This problem went on for quite a while, when she got blocked and banned from editing articles related to Christianity I gave up and started removing material that was unsourced. CheeseDreams had lots of opportunities to sort these issues out, however she decided not to.
      4. CheeseDreams uses sources like The Two Babylons as scholarly works. See Talk:Historicity of Jesus, she mentions it in the archives. Jill (who speaks Hebrew natively) tells me that there are quite a few inaccuaries in Hislop's text. I have read half of Hislops tract. It's basically a polemic stating that the Roman Catholic church is the new Babylon of Revelation. I don't think so. It's full of absurd conclusions and tenuous links and chock full of inaccuracies. If it was submitted to peer review it would be slaughtered by academics jumping all over it because of its inaccuracies and sheer downright dodginess.
      5. CheeseDreams has been deliberately disruptive when things don't go her way. She is about to be banned from submitting RFCs and RFArs because of her harassment of users. She has harassed me by implying that I am a sock puppet of Rienzo. She never has the guts to send me a message on my talk page when she disagrees about something I do, instead I find (usually by accident) that she is campaigning against me behind my back. I have always been upfront with her, she cannot show me the same courtesy.
      6. CheeseDreams left Historicity of Jesus in a totally unusable state. See [6]. Notice the following: just about all the carefully edited (for consensus) information was largely replaced by what CheeseDreams thought was important, there are no less than 4 tags on the article, there is no lead section, there are sections irrelevant to the article, there are empty sections, the entire article is POV as it comes from the POV that Jesus is the "new syncretism" (a minority viewpoint), the material is unsourced (though there is a huge list of materials in References that CD added, but I doubt most were used - for instance "Dial an Atheist: Greatest Hits from Ohio"? Yeah, right!). She expected us to not make any alterations on that article for an entire week. See [7], where the edit summary is: "SAM, do not remove the "I haven't finished making a major change to this article but will do so by next week", it is distorting. AND until you put why on the talk page, I am removing the dispute notic".
    • That's just a small amount of things CheeseDreams has done. So please, I hope that others will take this into account. I have been very open and tried not to disrupt editing. At one point, when I was very frustrated about the entire way things were going I bowed out of the articles so I wouldn't disrupt the article! Slrubenstein, Wesley and SamSpade have all been frustrated by this editor. They aren't the only ones. Many, many more people have been frustrated by the disruption and POV pushing that was ongoing in these controversial and highly sensitive articles. The article I have just put on VfD is only one of the articles CD has written. I have not placed any others on VfD, however this one is clear POV pushing. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • One last thing: CheeseDreams is under a temporary injunction. Next time I see her post from an anonymous IP address to anything but her ArbCom page or her talk page for User talk:CheeseDreams or User:CheeseDreams, then I block that IP address for 24 hours. If it's not CD, then that person is impersonating her, in which case the block would also be fair. I should note that I didn't get CD into this mess: CD got herself into this mess. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Salvage the salvageable then delete this mess - David Gerard 14:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: essay, nothing to merge, irredeemable title. Bishonen | Talk 13:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Discussion about the merge

[edit]

Out of interest, what parts do people want to have merged into History of Christianity? I'll make an attempt, but I can't see anything that is properly referenced in such a way that could be considered mergable into that topic. I could be wrong (and I am biased against the article, after all I did list it on VfD), but it seems that most of it is just original research with none too many source cited. There's whole chunks in there that seem to talk extensively about another culture but doesn't really explicitely detail how it is related to Christianity. For instance, the whole "Osiris-Dionysus" implies, but doesn't state explicitly, that there are similarities between some parts of Christianity and other cultures. The whole section seems to hinge on the text "However, some scholars think that an appropriate version of the tale was made up, inventing the figure of a particularly holy rabbi who was crucified and resurrected, Jesus, syncretising bits of the other localised versions where suitable." - however, this uses a weasel word and doesn't state implicitly which scholars hold this position.

The parts that are original research are the entirity of the "Osiris-Dionysus" section. It holds no information sourced from external sources and appears to be the POV of the author who wrote the piece. This is clear against our "no original research" policy. If this section were to be merged into any document, we would need to see an external, verifiable source.

The "Mithras Sol Invictus" I think is not such a big problem when it comes to merging. There is much in that that should be merged into the History of Christianity. However, again the proviso is that we source who has the opinions written into the piece.

With the "issues of priority", I notice that the author has written from the presupposition that Christian concepts must have had a parallel with other religions. For instance "For instance, Creation according to Genesis is a negative parallel of the Babylonian creation myth in Enuma Elish." This statement presupposes that the Genesis account must have been a negative parallel of the Babylonian creation myth. Why? Perhaps this should be more clearly stated whose opinion this is and where they are sourcing it from. I don't have a problem with merging this section into the History of Christianity article is sources can be provided. If they can't be, then I have a big problem with it. It's a pity the original author (CheeseDreams) edited in such a way that she effectively stopped information from being added into the article this was split off from (Historicity of Jesus) and has since been so badly disrupted she has had two arbitration requests and several RFCs (since then, this author has posted her password on a known trolls account, forcing an admin to find 6 of her sockpuppet accounts - and her main account - and change her password). The pity is that we now can't find out which of her sources she was using in those sections. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: I agree with TBSDY's comments. Unfortunately I just don't have the expertise (nor the resources without extensive web searches, and probably travel to private archives) to flesh out these points with proper sourcing. I hope we have a few editors who can do it. The topic is substantial but POV issues affect most people who care much about it. Barno 15:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Put a summary of it into the Roots of Christianity; perhaps a whole subsection thereof. If the Zoroastrianism part is included, then so must the Egyptian especially since the Hebrews were long associated with Egypt back to the Hyksos invasion. It would be POV to disclude this factor, considering the trail of monotheism left by Akhenaten and adopted by the Hebrews. I myself don't know much about Zoroaster, but I certainly recognise much of the Egyptian issue and I'm more of a casual researcher. It seems to me that Zoroastrian elements are tied to the Persian background, but it would be prejudiced to say that the Egyptians have no basis when they long dominated Palestine.
The Greek Pharaoh himself patroned the Septuagint in Alexandria. I find the bigotry towards an Egyptian root of Christianity to be entirely unfounded when so much of Egyptian culture was adopted by all peoples in a certain radius outwards. Perhaps this lies in traditional ideas about race; that the Hamites of Africa have not contributed anything and that the Persians supposedly were/are White or considered Japhethic as opposed to the Semites. Seriously, this Noahidic classification thing is ridiculous because these Afro-Asiatic people are undoubtedly very much alike and most uninvolved observers would say they are less White than the Greeks and Romans. I consider Persians to be Semites because they are Asian, in this context.
Give it as much credence as the Persian foundations and you will make this NPOV. I seriously suggest expounding upon both roots of Christianity and also delineating the Greek root which provided Roman impetus for adoption and proliferation. For instance, if the Greeks hadn't patroned that religious culture as their relation to Philistines, Rome would have dismissed it as everything else in their cultural relationship with Greece. Rome even rebuilt Greek Philistia as Palestine and during the Catholic Crusades, it became the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Christianity has so many dimensions, that it would be haughty to overlook its far ranging origins which even has pagan influences from Europe and Buddhist ties in Southwest Asia.
I myself used to be atheist or Odinist not wanting to deal with what I percieved to be other peoples' culture and now I look in wonder at the historical background of the Sea Peoples and the subsequent Graeco-Roman expansion in the Mediterranean Sea. There are European roots throughout the region now considered Islamic or Arab, but if we don't provide the means for people to see it we will forget it as much as the terrible destruction of the Library of Alexandria. Just think of the term Indo-European and you will understand Alexander the Great's empire. See the connection between the European fylfot and Indian swastika or the Cross and the Ankh? Please don't demolish this magnificent research, for it has been a great boon in my life to know these things. Borderer 16:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment Borderer, your comments appear to be just original research attempting to convince us, your fellow editors, of a particular POV. That's not what this is about. If you want to justify this article's existence, or its merge elsewhere, why not provide some of the missing, published sources instead? Wesley 17:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Aha; I am only stating things as I commonly have studied and heard of them. I do not propose to limit and debar other positions on this issue, therefore I am not endorsing POV. I actually requested a balanced edition of said issue, if you'd be so kind as to reread my previous statement here. The various sources I have seen via Google search appear legitimate and/or sometimes biased(as anything!), but it is not my position to judge the appropriateness of the topic. We are not to cast a POV on the issue in favour or against, just to deliver as any messenger does. The existing article on the History of Christianity provides the Persian background but does not give adequate coverage of the Egyptian or Hellenic origins, which are quite prominent. After all, Christianity had most of its evolution in non-Persian areas of the Mediterranean Sea. Tell me, how many Persian people are prominent in the Christian world throughout its history? What fractionary comparison can you draw that factually examines the amount and shows a majority of Persian elements in Christianity, compared to the vast amount of Greek specialty(as written, verified and generally known amongst the entire Christian populace) and the nursery of Christianity itself in Egypt via the Old Testament(even Jesus's infancy was spent in Egypt, in safety from Herod!)? Please, where is the background of Christianity in Persia besides 19th century racial studies? Like I've said, the Noahide classification thing has been similarly discredited and its density in weight grew most during that era for racist Indo-Aryan theories. Borderer 22:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It used to contain detail about Horus - the most frequently cited source, but TBSDY just deleted it out of inability to provide a counter argument and unwillingness to face truth. --supposedly by User:CheeseDreams
It got removed because no sources were cited. Perhaps had you given your sources I would not have been able to remove it as original research. If someone would like to provide sources and write from a neutral POV, then this would no longer be a problem. Incidently: that's what happens when sources aren't cited in controversial articles. The material gets removed after a certain period of time when it becomes clear that the authors won't provide their reference material. That you were banned from directly editing the article should not have stopped you providing us your sources on the talk page, and had you edited to form consensus you would not have been banned by the ArbCom from editing articles related to Christianity now, hmmm? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, Horus Krst, Jesus Christ and Hare Krishna seem to be the most up and current issues regarding syncretism. It's not a neologism, but an analysis of the issues as they overlap eachother. Borderer 15:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams, it's not too late to provide real references via this page or the Talk pages of the related articles. That would be a strong argument in favor of keeping this material; their absence is a strong reason to delete it. In the meantime, please restrain yourself from personal attacks. Wesley 01:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are a fine tool. Thank God for your thuggery! Borderer 15:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You're getting dangerously close to making personal attacks. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You're close to suppression of protests. I suppose you make your move right now, before the protests draw in other supporters and threaten your stranglehold on the situation. You've got a divine mission to control the flow of information and keep it molded to your content. I've got full confidence that you have it in you to be a "Master of Reality". I'm a real fan, oh and I'm a Quaker too. I hope you find that offensive as well, so much that you boil with the utmost prejudice and seek to ban me as well. Good luck and uh, sleep tight with one eye open. I'm sure the boogeyman is out to get you and disturb your sense of control over legitimate content, since you appear to have a PhD. in Nazism. Borderer 15:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In what way am I suppressing protests? What, because I don't like to be insulted to my face? So far I haven't blocked you, nor have I locked this page, nor have I deleted any text in the talk pages! So how am I suppressing protests? And exactly what are you protesting? It's not clear to me. As for saying I have a PhD. in Nazism: that's a vile and disgusting thing for you to say. I'd also like to know where you get off that I've "banned" people. CD is currently not editing from her account because - well, because of her own behaviour. It might interest you that she won't be able to get back into her account, but not because of anything that admins have done (like block her), but because she posted her user password to a known troll's account! An admin found this, got into the account before the troll could and changed that password. He has a standing offer of giving her the new password for ONE of her accounts (she had 5 with the same password!) if she can verify she is who she says she is. So who's fault is it that CheeseDreams can no longer edit on Wikipedia? Mine? I don't think so. So why don't you get a clue and do some basic research before you a) make personal attacks against myself, and b) accuse me of admin abuse? Sheesh. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Regretably, at this moment she cannot. Because of her bad faith editing, she is now under a temporary injunction. She can only edit her own userpages. She is not allowed to edit any other pages. Also, I am asking whether this really is CheeseDreams, as the editor is posting from an anonymous IP address. Is it fair to assume that this editor really is CheeseDreams? I cannot be certain that it isn't someone trying to impersonate her and cause her problems. I am also aware that it may well be CheeseDreams, however we have no way of knowing now that she has released her password to the general public and forced us to change it. Really though, this isn't our problem. This was a problem that was caused by CheeseDreams when she revealed her password for all the world to see! I'd personally like to see her only edit from one account, and until she grabs her new password from (I think) Slrubenstein, there is no way of knowing who she is. It is unfortunate that she has caused herself these problems, but that's what happens when you try to be deliberately disruptive! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Look at you gloat so obnoxiously. I bet you've been dogging her for so long now and that your plans for complete destruction of her work is at a nigh close. Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! I salute your efforts to discredit and diminish the editorial faculties of this nice individual. All she has to do is look at Wikipedia's disclaimer about editing: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." Thank you for your fundementalist(or skeptic) tirade TBSDY! Any time I need your help suppressing uncomfortable knowledge that will threaten Wikipedia, I'll just holler! That's right, you'll probably have this article deleted before she gets back! Wondrous friend, I do agree that the title should be definitely changed but to really make amends in this situation; you need to demolish and erase all records of this, which includes getting CD permanently banned! I'm sure it'll be a marvelous day when this is all over! You'll have saved us all from the crackpots and only appropriate knowledge will be be acknowledged! Send her to the Gulag! Off to Bedlam! Off with her head! If you haven't noticed, it is only YOU persecuting this body of work and its chief architect. Now that I've said this, you'll probably get your hopeful buddies to sic her(and/or me) too. Being a vigilante is only necessary when somebody has broken the law and there are no policemen around. If CD has done anything so harmful that is not commonly seen on Wikipedia as an inherent flaw in editing, then please say so now. From what I have seen, CD has done no better or worse than the majority of Wikipedians. Everybody has put up articles without sources at one time or another. Every once in a while, somebody develops an obsession with the apparent mistakes of another user and goes witchfynding. They burn Joan of Arc at the stake because her inspiration frightens them. SO, Joan hears these voices and liberates France in the meanwhile but her countrymen dispose of her as she makes them feel uncomfortable by her eccentricity. Well, CheeseDreams! I fucking hate your guts! You know that? You offer no fucking benefit to this website! You have no decency to boot! I want to institute der Nacht und Nebel Erlass upon you for treason to Wikipedia's purpose! Borderer 15:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Seriously, whatever. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You are a holy roller on a high moral ground. I hope you win; so very, very much! Borderer 15:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
FYI, Borderer, Ta bu shi da yu is an admin who has a solid history of responsible editing and consensus building here on Wikipedia and has the respect and support of many of his fellow admins. Religion is a subject that attracts editors with highly charged and often eccentric opinions on differing POVs. A conscientious admin's job isn't to suppress notable POV but rather to allow it to be reported as such, the operative word being "report." Editors on such contentious articles have to be prepared to cite their sources exhaustively when challenged to do so, as per established policy. Fire Star 15:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Just because an admin has people who agree, does not make him/her more important in the way of legitimate content than a simple editor who also has agreeable supporters. Truth is not a democracy! Your supposition that his experience gives him infallibility is inherently ad hominem towards us lesser Wikipedian peons. Make it NPOV, but do NOT delete the article. Do NOT abuse your powers to appease your own perceptions and thereby push POV. Wait for CD to come back. When she does, I am more than willing to discuss with her about the sources and work with her to streamline the article. I actually care about the content of this article, even if the lot of you do not. Borderer 16:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, there's an arrogant attitude for you. "I know best about the content and none of the rest of you know anything, so clearly you are attacking me for being a peon". Now would you care to show me where I'm "abusing my admin powers" on this article? I haven't locked it, I haven't deleted it and I haven't blocked anyone associated with it other than CheeseDreams, and then only because of ArbCom decisions. I'm not holding my breath for CheeseDreams. She's already shown that she can't work well with others. I would have been more than happy to come to consensus and to help her verify her material. If I had better material and sources I'd even try to balance the article! A good example of how I've done this is to actually start an article on The Two Babylons (a very dodgy piece of text, I might say) by Alexander Hislop. After investigation by several Wikipedians, several misconceptions have been cleared up (like for instance stating that Hislop was a "scholar" - he wasn't. He was an Anglican minister who had studied basic Hebrew and Greek and had many misconceptions about ancient history). So I actually started to research the material and attempted to balance it up with (gasp!) facts. Like I've already said: you seem to have dived in here with a misconception that we are being unfair to CheeseDreams because she supports your POV. Nothing could be further from the truth. I suggest you investigate what really happened here before accusing others of nasty things like Nazism. Oh, and as for me being over the common rank and file: that's crap. If I step out of line too much then I'll get hauled back into line: probably by Jimbo himself. And I'd welcome feedback! I'm pretty much an open book when it comes to admin decisions. I tell people honestly why I did something, and if I make a mistake I try to fix the problem and apologise to the affected parties. I also try very hard not to make personal attacks. I suggest you do the same, because it's hard to debate facts with people who are attacking your personally (like you've done to me in our current conversation several times). - Ta bu shi da yu 16:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I never said I knew everything. I already stated that CD has opened my eyes to what info I've been looking for. I have said that I don't like POV and in truth, her POV pisses me off because it seems that has gotten you to almost throw the article out. I don't box people in to their failures to communicate. I know that online, people often act differently. Some forget that online communique demands the same level of decency as in person. When I used to edit a lot from my personal studies online and from what I learned in schoolbooks, I gave people most likely the same attitude as CD. When I'd get challenged, I'd smirk and write something obnoxious. I've changed my attitude somewhat to be more responsible and I've intervened because I think I know what her problem is. Your or anybody elses' perception of who is a scholar based on modern standards flys right in the face of historical ideas regarding such a status. Back in those days, any learned man was a scholar but today we have higher expectations before we "give" a person an "important" label. I think you know why I defended CD and attacked your assault of this article, so I'm not going to reargue the issue. Borderer 19:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My. I didn't say anyone was above anyone else, I said that someone was respected becuse they have shown themselves to be reasonable and conscientious, at least to me. That implies a burden of proof that someone else will have to meet to convince my colleagues and myself otherwise. "Consensus" applies to a willingness to compromise and adapt in the light of new evidence (if such is provided). I don't want to exacerbate any arguments here, we all want the best articles possible, but we also have to learn to share our toys. That being said, while the Truth is a fine subject for contemplation in a monastery, the encyclopaedia known as Wikipedia is a democracy, with rough guidelines set out by Jimbo Wales. That means that a majority does decide content, not any individual (hence the VfD debate in the first place) except possibly Jimbo because its his playground. As I've said to others, if that doesn't suit you, and there is no reason why it should, you are quite free to start your own website and decide on its content for yourself. Fire Star 16:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
FireStar, the comment wasn't directed at you. It was directed at Borderer. I'm flattered that you leapt to my defense in such a nice way! - Ta bu shi da yu 16:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I realised that, I'm sorry it may have seemed otherwise. I just wanted Borderer to know that it doesn't seem to outsiders like they (that pesky indeterminate gender third person pronoun again!) are being picked on arbitrarily, but rather that your concerns are indeed justified AFAIC as there are policies and procedures in place that should be followed if one's contributions here are to be realistically expected to stand for any length of time, especially under the glare of a VfD spotlight. Cheers, Fire Star 16:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I will not allow article content to be decided by democracy if it is untrue. Reinforcing ignorant POV by casual observers only considerate towards policy, really sets my hair on end. Arbitrary administration is what pisses off Democrats about Bush's tenure and I voted for him, not against him. I still stand by him, which is how I see you standing by Jimbo and what would aggravate people who rather care for true Democracy instead of political machinery. Yeah, you've said the "start your own website" mantra, which I take as verification of a gang up on CD and my Devil's Advocacy. In the interests of INFORMATION, I trust rule by force less than I do rule by intellectual direction, which is different with childrearing and public service of course. Look at what you're doing when you shout policy, in order to be NPOV. Somebody who catches onesself in the middle of hypocrisy and are able to admit it freely are those I trust most to administer, as they have it in their best interest to make sure they are entirely honest. Sometimes the mechanics of a system only serves to hold down the good intent of simple people who recognise simple real things than contrived acculturations in bureaucracy. Borderer 19:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You do not have the ability to allow or disallow anything. If anyone continues to edit in opposition to a consensus after having been warned not to, then they can be temporarily blocked by an admin or permanently blocked by the Arbitration Committee as a troll or a vandal. An ultimatum by you is not convincing evidence of "intellectual direction," and you should know that your "Truth" is only as you and those who agree with you see it. Others' mileage will certainly vary, and you have to respect that. So that you know, I'm not a "casual observer," I am well versed in the documentary hypothesis and the history and theology of ancient and modern Israel as well as Christianity. As such, you should know that I find your present argumentive style as unbalanced and unconvincing as that of the aforementioned CD. You obviously care about the subject, your position can be presented and your energies be appreciated as long as you maintain civility and adhere to general NPOV policy. It isn't difficult to make people happy here, you just have to be scholarly, balanced and thorough in your presentation. Isn't that what we all want anyway? Fire Star 19:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I hope you know more than you claim. You apparently know not enough about this article besides how CD's POV is wrong. If you know so much, then add and subtract the specific points rather than destroy the article. Consensus will be achieved if you truly care for the content. Borderer 00:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Now why would FireStar do that? They've already voted that the article should be deleted. Why would you spend time on something you don't want to have exist on Wikipedia in the first place? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have made some edits to the article as requested by Borderer, to show what I mean. I still think the article is redundant and should be deleted, but now it will be much easier to merge if that is what is ultimately decided by the consensus. Fire Star 21:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ooh, that's nice work Fire Star! Good job. It might have taken me longer to flesh that out, since I'm a slow editor. Why not call it Christian Syncretism? I still disagree with some actions taken for the No Original Research rule, but I don't care to debate over these details that people will inevitably reedit back into the article in the future. The formatting is shite and the article looks horrible, but the subject matter is just as important as similar pages talking about facets in other religions. The article has a shitty title and should be Wikified. It is salvageable, if labourious to undertake. Just because it's not Wikified, doesn't mean it deserves to be destroyed. That's because several pages sit like this on Wikipedia and they might deserve to be deleted as personal fluff for the nerds that I haven't heard of nor thought important enough to know. We need a balance by adding serious academic topics and nonsense issues should be removed. Thank you for your earnest work and you deserve something for it! Borderer 22:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You want people to be able to get to the background of an article. Some people will want to verify if the content is indeed correct or at least notable, other people will want to know where to find out more if the subject interests them. So solid, dispassionate documentation is the key to keeping an article on Wikipedia. Even if it is on an emotional or distasteful subject a neutral presentation keeps it encyclopaedic and lessens the chance that someone will object. Even when things don't go your way, remember that this is just a hobby for most of us, not life or death. A cool head, listening to your fellow editors and professional manners will go a long way towards defusing arguments and a good final result for everyone. Fire Star 03:17, 28 Feb 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. jni 14:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Holy Order of the Number Seven

[edit]

Hoax. RickK 22:06, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Neither this 'religion' nor its component deities show up on Google. Now I feel stupid for even checking. BD2412 On second thought, move to Bad_jokes_and_other_deleted_nonsense.

KEEP why must we always be discriminated against? Because we are yet to make out web page or because we are not so widely known as to be available on google. Shame on you for attempting to stifle us, we have as much right to legitimacy as Christianity for we can back up the tenets of our religion as much as any.

KEEP My friends, family, and fellow peers are all heavy practicers of this religion. My father, Reverend Clay Jacobs is both a methodist preacher as well as a teacher of The Holy Order of the Number Seven. It greatly insults me that you would consider this for deletion. I believe the posting of this entry is great for the progress of my religion and my people.

  • Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 22:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree to the extent that it is indeed a notable hoax. ;-) BD2412

  • Delete nn and hoax, RJFJR 00:01, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete amusing hoax but still a hoax. -- Curps 08:35, 21 Feb 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. jni 14:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heptacorn

[edit]

Hoax, no google hits, see also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Holy Order of the Number Seven. Thue | talk 22:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

delete this should have been speedy-deleted - obviously it's a jok.e - DavidWBrooks 22:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'm going to block this guy if he adds one more of these nonsense articles. RickK 22:38, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree entirely. These are speedies - nonsense. Charles Matthews 10:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 23:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, states has never been sighted. RJFJR 00:02, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep who are we to dispute the validity of a heptacorn (see unicorn)
    • Unsigned vote added by anon.
  • Abstain Heptacorn means so many things to so many people. The fact that there are no google hits nor is there an entry on wikipedia is shocking. ironmike1968 23:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • No such user, vote added by anon.
  • Delete It's obvious that it's a fake. I could make up a mythological beast called a grunabeast, but that doesn't mean it should get an article. --DaveTheRed 03:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • A fake you say? --THE GRUNABEAST
    • No such user, vote added by anon.
  • Delete amusing hoax but still a hoax. -- Curps 08:32, 21 Feb 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. jni 14:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mary Johanna

[edit]

Non-notable genealogical entry. Note also that the Patrick Kennedy linked to does not have the same birth and death dates as the Patrick Kennedy indicated in the article, leading one to believe that they are not the same person. In which case the Patrick Kennedy indicated in the article does not have a Wikipedia article and is alo non-notable. RickK 22:33, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted. Short article, little or no context. Jayjg (talk) 04:49, 21 Feb 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. Joyous 18:10, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Naperville North High School

[edit]

Article does not establish notability. RickK 22:44, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Anyone up for another round of the inherent notability of schools discussion? Preisler 23:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as the article says, it does kinda suck --nixie 23:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 01:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. I wasn't around during this debate about high schools some people have mentioned here before, but apparently no consensus was reached on this issue. If it was, please point to me to the discussion. JoaoRicardo 02:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • ONE touchstone is Wikipedia:What's in, what's out. In general: 1) there is a wide range of opinion on high schools, from those who think only very notable high schools should be included to those who think all high schools are intrinsically notable and should be included; 2) the general topic has been argued interminably and there is currently no consensus; anyone stating otherwise is misinformed; 3) in practice VfD votes are strongly influenced by the quality of the article, and less strongly by the relative numbers and energy levels of inclusionists and deletionists on any given day.
  • Delete. We might as well suggest that Rambot create articles for every town reading "[name of town] High School is a high school in [name of town], [name of state];" most of them would be accurate, and VfD could always sort out the rest, right? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non notable. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Jayjg (talk) 04:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all school articles. We apply a lower lower of notablity to trash culture than to the real world, which is absurd imo. Wincoote 07:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 07:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have articles on fictional tank engines that only appear on one page of a book, why not a major school like this. Norman Rogers\talk 09:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a ridiculous comparison given that Ivo Hugh is on vfd as well and will most likely be deleted. Gamaliel 16:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Make mention in Naperville, Illinois and delete - Skysmith 11:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has potential to become encyclopedic. --Andylkl 14:08, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, high schools are not inherently encyclopedic. Note that the argument "all X are notable" is a fallacy, because for some X to be notable it must have some quality that sets it apart from other X (the obvious exception being when 'all X' is a field of study, such as ornithology that studies all birds). Radiant! 14:59, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, more notable than Pokemon - David Gerard 15:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Come on, you've got to be kidding. Carrp | Talk 15:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I don't understand what meaning of the word notable you are using here. The online Merriam-Webster defines it as "a: worthy of note: REMARKABLE b: DISTINGUISHED, PROMINENT" [8]. I don't see how this applies to this school. It may be considered more important than the cartoon, because suposedly its function is to educate children and prepare them for life. But what are people more likely to type in our search bar? JoaoRicardo 02:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe it's actually more notable than Pokémon; then, we should delete all the Pokémon articles, because they aren't notable, in your opinion. After that, having no of such articles, this article won't be more notable than Pokémon and, thus, non-notable to you ;) --Neigel von Teighen 15:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ah, nothing like another salvo in the ongoing high school discussion. If this was a detailed, fleshed-out stub, I'd likely vote "keep." Instead, I'm voting on the merits of this non-article. One lousy sentence is not an article. Should have been a speedy for lack of content IMO. - Lucky 6.9 01:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I'll redirect it. dbenbenn | talk 06:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Charlie Dog Returns

[edit]

Zero Google hits, no entry at imbd. RickK 22:57, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

This was a obscure cartoon TV show being aired after a three-month weekly run, there are many obscure material out there that haven't been discovered and largely ignored by Google. Please don't ever delete this article, someone needs to continue on creating it.

user: 4.xxx.xxx.xxx

  • Delete. An obscure cartoon TV show isn't famous enough to be in an encyclopedia. Minos 23:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is this a Scooby-Doo series? If it is, it might be a merge candidate into the main article. I cannot determine if it is. JoaoRicardo 02:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Charlie Dog has an article as a basic wikipedia search would show you, this blurb about Charlie Dog Returns should be merged there --nixie 02:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Charlie Dog. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment You may merge it, but Jeff schiller or others will delete it, he has been doing this as far as September 2004, although he denies Charlie appeared in the cartoons between 1974 and 1990. Charlie is just a homeless little hound, who searches for a master and ends up finding one, and sometimes makes friends, etc.

I am mostly 24 years old, since some of you may be younger than I am.

User: 4.xxx.xxx.xxx

What is there to merge, if there is not so much as a single mention of this supposed program on the Internet? Can somebody provide some proof that this show every existed? RickK 20:28, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:35, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sidewaysbike

[edit]

Advertising. Alexa ranking of 2,101,784. Preisler 22:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • SidewaysBike was a speedy deletion candidate. This article is self-professed advertising. Delete. Uncle G 23:02, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, advertising is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. Dpbsmith (talk)
  • Keep SidewaysBike This bicycle is a legimitate new invention covered by US Patent 6,598,892 entitled "Two wheel steering bicycle with latitudinal aligned wheels" issued July 29 2003. There has to be room on Wikipedia for the new (SidewaysBike) as well as the old. There is no product for sale.MGKillian
  • Comment: I think a page for this is probably premature, but a redirect to bicycle might be appropriate if suitable content was made available. There are only two possibilities: Either this takes off or it doesn't. If it does, it's encyclopedic. If it doesn't I think it would still be interesting enough to have a short paragraph (and even an external link) in the bicycle page, as one of many unsuccessful curiousities. On that basis, Michael, would you be prepared to licence the contents of your promotional site (expecially the photos) for use here under the GFDL? I think that's the only use of this content that we can make at this stage. PS Michael, please make yourself a userid, and please don't use a colon in the middle of it, it's confusing and asking for trouble. Sorry this is so long, and no vote as yet. Andrewa 00:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would be happy to licence the contents of www.sidewaysbike.com under GFDL.MGKillian
  • Delete. Not notable. Apparently it is not even sold yet. JoaoRicardo 02:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 1) Self-professed original research. 2) Also: not exactly advertising, but clearly intended as promotional ("it is worthwhile and newsworthy to spread the word of a legitimate invention"). It may be worthwhile, but Wikipedia is not for such purposes. 3) "The Future of this Invention It is difficult to predict the commercial success of any invention..." That is another way of saying it is not yet notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for now, inventions are more or less original research until they are actually made and -used by people-, when the bike gets made I'd support the article--nixie 02:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to User:MGKillian. If the bicycle eventually goes into production and becomes notable, this article can be reviewed again, but for now userfy. Megan1967 04:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. When it starts selling and is reasonably widely available as an alternative to the traditional bicycle, we can have an article. HyperZonktalk 18:50, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment An acquaintance of mine who spends as much time in bikeforums.net as I spend in Wikipedia said that it was at best a novelty or curiosity and not to be taken seriously. Search on "sidewaysbike" in bikeforums.net turns up nothing, seach on "sideways" turns up nothing relevant. Rather surprising as they love odd bikes (my acquaintance sends me pictures of the odder ones from time to time... ever see a bicycle made entirely out of bamboo? Or a sort of unicycle with an outer wheel over six feet in diameter, with the rider's seat entirely inside?) Sidewaysbike's inventor has been energetically posting in bike-related USENET forums, see this search, with no evidence of any serious interest. Typical comments: "mad stuff," "And this a solution to what problem?" "Well, from where I sit, that looks like a collection of novelty demo units whose sale to the general public would be the source of a certain amount of glee among the personal injury attorney crowd." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment P. S. Most favorable comment I've seen in USENET so far: "Why not just enjoy the design and engineering that went into this thing. Obviously it won't be the next new thing in bike design. But it IS a very cool design and implementation." If it were to become popular, of course, even as a fad novelty then it would be reasonable to have an article on it. Reminds me of an article in, IIRC, Science some years ago in which some researchers studying how bicycles worked, i.e. what was the actual physics involved, tested their theories by attempting to build unridable bicycles, ones on which it was impossible for a human to maintain balance. Once used a tiny little caster for a front wheel. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:44, 23 Feb 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. Joyous 16:43, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nokolisp

[edit]

The non-notable author of this non-notable programming language has already been deleted. Google search for "nokolisp" gets exactly 1 hit, not counting duplicates, this Wikipedia article, and the author's web pages. -- Dominus 23:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable, few Google hits and about 20 Usenet hits, all in Finnish. No article on the Finnish Wikipedia though. JoaoRicardo 02:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nokocruft, not notable. Consider also placing TNCODE, TNSDL, and Nokobotski to VfD. jni 09:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm about to add TNCODE and Nokobotski to this VFD. TNSDL seems to me to be sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Dominus 15:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nokolisp + Nokobotski + TNCODE

[edit]

Nokobotski and TNCODE also seem to be non-notable vanity additions by the same user. -- Dominus 16:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. Grue 13:49, 24 Feb 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_February_20&oldid=1142647952"