Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 5
March 5
[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 NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 16:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, this page has been tagged for both cleanup and attention, and has had its problems addressed on its talk page for some time now, and no one is doing anything about it, so I'm thinking it should just be deleted. The similar List of Republican celebrities was on VfD some time ago for all the same reasons. For a detailed discussion on this see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Republican celebrities and just read "Democrat" wherever it says "Republican". It's the same thing. Being "liberal" does not make you a Democrat. Voting for a Democrat does not. Joining the Democratic Party does. Those who can be verified as being registered Democrats can stay but all the others need to go, or the whole page should be flushed. If this can be made more like the more accurate and cited List of celebrities with links to the US Republican Party (which still has major issues) maybe it could remain, but as it is now it's unverified, and we'd be better off without an article on this than with an inaccurate one. It's only marginally useful even if it were factual. It's a shame I have to hold a gun to the head of this article to get it fixed, but that's what it's come to. -R. fiend 22:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, what constitutes a democrat and what constitutes a celebrity? Criteria seems to be loose and POV subjective. Megan1967 02:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Absolutely delete. This smacks of tit for tat article creation, and the same lack of logic is at work here as there. Further, while all lists are of dubious motivation, this one really seems pointless. Finally, as with the other, it is entirely unverifiable (and then we ask whether they were once Democrats and switched or once Republicans and switched). Geogre 02:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, a similar list of republican celebrities has already been deleted this year--nixie 03:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Um, no, it hasn't. Keep until List of celebrities with links to the US Republican Party is also deleted. RickK 06:29, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. This list has all the same problems List of celebrities with links to the US Republican Party had back when that article was on VfD: it's unsourced, arbitrary and full of speculation and possible original research. But like its nearly VfD'd cousin, this article can be saved. The first thing we need to do is change the definition of "Democrat". The way it is now the article defines the term "Democrat" as "not a Republican" or "not a conservative". We can't always assume "Democrat" and "liberal" mean the same thing, just as not all American conservatives are Republicans. The reason I voted keep despite this article's grave problems and pitfalls is that I consider this an encyclopedic topic. For better or worse, people are interested in the political views of celebrities, and a good, encyclopedic article on the subject does have some value. Not that this will ever be a featured article or anything, but still, there's a place for information like this. /sɪzlæk˺/ 06:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) (P.S.: I also voted Keep for the Republican list.)
- Delete (also delete the Republican version). Many of these figures are just listed based on supposition, and in any case there is really no justification for this category. "Notable Democrats" could be included in an article on the Democratic Party. BTfromLA 09:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not encyclopedic, and generally unverified. What is the definition of "celebrity"? What does it mean to be a "Democratic Party" celebrity? Registered to vote as a Democrat? A contributor to a Democratic candidate for office? All of these have problems. If someone is notable as a supporter of Democratic party candidates (etc), it can be mentioned in the article about them. If someone isn't notable as a Democratic activist, then putting him or her on this list is about as encyclopedic as List of celebrities who use Crest brand toothpaste --BM 15:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, unless it is replaced with a version that is more like the Republicans list. - SimonP 18:12, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep — These polemic lists are actually meaningful to some people, although a category would probably serve as well. — RJH 00:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm not crazy about the republican list either. The problem with lists like this is that the decision of who makes the list is both POV and binary, making it nigh impossible to keep neutral. DaveTheRed 03:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Concur with BM, and delete. Radiant! 10:50, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I believe it is appropriate to have a list of celebrities who politically identify with the Democratic Party. I also agree with those here who have said being a "liberal" isn't the same thing as being a "Democrat", and I do think only the people on the list should be those who have identified with the Democratic Party, and only identifying as "liberal" by itself (without identifying as a "Democrat") doesn't qualify for the list. In addition, I also don't think voting for a Democratic candidate qualifies for the list. There may be factual accuracies on the list (such as people on the list who identify as "liberal" but possibly not "Democrat") but that would mean putting a factual accuracy dispute warning on the page would be the most appropriate thing to do, not to delete the page entirely. Q0 05:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete both this and the Republican version, for reasons given. Lacrimosus 06:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep like List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Republican Party and base on some verifiable criteria. Kappa 21:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: "Keeping" this page and making it like the List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Republican Party is changing both title and content. Does that really constitute a keep? I would hope that if this page is deleted and recreated along those lines later on it will not be considered a CSD as recreated material. I assume I am not alone in this. -R. fiend 05:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It is notable but the title needs improvement (as does the Republican version). Definitely in need of clean up and additional sources. Why is this article still listed here on VfD? zen master T 07:35, 16 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:06, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Alphonso I of Spain redirects to Alfonso I of Asturias. There was some discussion on the Village Pump about this, as it's incorrect -- this Alfonso predates the creation of the Spanish kingdom by about 800 years, and is only one of many Alfonsos who ruled the various kingdoms which eventually formed Spain. I would delete this article myself, but prefer to get a bit of community consensus first! -- Arwel 00:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Convert to a brief explanations page (almost a disambiguation page for one article). Folk may search for this article name and should be given the chance of determining whether Asturias is what they want. If alternatives to this appear, it would become a true Disambig page. --- SGBailey 00:31, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
- Good idea. I've turned it into a disambiguation page for Alfonso I of Asturias, Alfonso I of Aragon, and Alfons I, Count of Barcelona. -- Arwel 02:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Good work. Antandrus 16:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Good idea. I've turned it into a disambiguation page for Alfonso I of Asturias, Alfonso I of Aragon, and Alfons I, Count of Barcelona. -- Arwel 02:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as disambig page, as done by Arwel. Antandrus 16:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as diambig as performed by Arwel. Capitalistroadster 12:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as disambiguation page. James F. (talk) 17:58, 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 MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 23:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is this considered to be trekkie-cruft, or encyclopedically notable information? 94 hits on google: [1]. --GRider\talk 00:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge or keep, useful detail to Star Trek: Voyager fans, father of Naomi Wildman. Kappa 01:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, and expand. Megan1967 02:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and do not expand. ComCat 02:35, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect with either the wife or the daughter. Gamaliel 07:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Tygar 09:04, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to List of minor characters from Star Trek: Voyager or similar. Miss Pippa 11:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge as minor character. Radiant! 16:51, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Naomi Wildman. The mother character (Samantha Wildman) should also be similarly merged. There's about three paragraphs of information between the articles; fragmenting it this way makes Wikipedia less useful, not more. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Naomi Wildman. Character never actually appeared on the series; was only mentioned in passing in one episode. 23skidoo 05:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge/redir to Naomi Wildman. Agree with TenOfAllTrades that the mom probably doesn't need her own article--maybe merge them all to Wildman family? Characters that only exist as a name in a sentence or two of dialog I don't even think meet the 'minor character' threshold. Niteowlneils 02:19, 8 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 keep and redirect to Dax (Star Trek). BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Question: Is this encyclopedic? 136 google hits. [2] Shall I carry on? --GRider\talk 00:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge or keep all beings which have been intimate with Leonard McCoy. Kappa 01:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- redirect (and merge) to Dax (Star Trek). RJFJR 01:53, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, and expand. Megan1967 02:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nn fancruft. ComCat 02:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Dax (Star Trek). -Sean Curtin 02:40, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Dax (Star Trek) and then let's go after all the Trekkie cruft and get it under better control and organization. Geogre 02:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Dax (Star Trek). Do not delete. Gamaliel 07:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge, redirect. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect. Miss Pippa 11:23, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect. There are plenty of Star Trek characters with articles, however I think all the past Dax's should be together under one roof. Jadzia, Ezri, and arguably the one who came before Jadzia (whose name I forget) are notable entities within the Trek universe so therefore deserve separate articles, but Emony is too minor by herself. 23skidoo 17:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Dax (Star Trek) as above. breaking up the different Dax symbionts into stubs makes information harder to find, and takes it out of context. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect. Minor Trek trivia related to a major Trek character. Psychonaut 03:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect. Bearcat 06:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Dax (Star Trek), don't delete. All of Dax's hosts are notable enough to be mentioned, but not notable enough to merit their own articles. — JIP | Talk 10:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge/redir this and all the other _name_ Dax characters that didn't appear on-screen into Dax (Star Trek). FWIW, the one 23skidoo couldn't think of the name of is probably Curzon Dax. Niteowlneils 03:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to the appropriate Dax page as suggested by Gamaliel. —RaD Man (talk) 08:09, 8 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 ambiguous. I count 8 clear "delete" votes (including one that looks like an anon user but actually has a well documented history) and 8 "keep" votes (two real anons discounted). Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the article is kept for now.
However, I note that the fundamental verifiability of the article's content was never satisfactorily addressed. If, after a reasonable period of time, this article remains unverified, it may be appropriate to renominate it. Rossami (talk) 00:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Says she became the new "world's oldest person" after the death of someone a decade younger than she. Is this just a rumor or true information?? Delete if no one can prove it is true info rather than a pure rumor. Georgia guy 00:55, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up. She is listed as the "oldest documented supercentenarian" in that article on the limits of the human lifespan. Jonathunder 01:39, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of Records. Megan1967 02:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, notable. ComCat 02:38, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Gamaliel 02:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: She is in the longevity article, and there isn't enough to say about her. A single event or record is almanac stuff or a records book. A breakout article is only warranted if the subject is the target of searches or has some complexity that cannot be contained in a list article or other discussion.
Geogre 02:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to supercentenarian--nixie 03:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This is a longevity myth, plain and simple, and needs to be rewritten to reflect that or Deleted. (I speak as someone who has for years been supplying the Guinness Book with the people they DO recognize,and has attended international gatherings on the validation of extreme age claims). This claim is essentially a piece of self-promotion by a Brazilian recordbook.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 05:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Here is the news source [3]
- Delete and redirect to supercentenarian. Simply living a long time isn't sufficient information to base an article on. --Carnildo 06:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, looks like it's gaining credibility news-wise. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, notable. 80.255 10:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- (responding to Tim Rhymeless,there is no trace of the case "gaining credibility", Stan Lehman's Associated Press story relying on RankBrasil's self-promotion has just continued to circulate without evidence being produced. More broadly, a significant number of supercentenarians (documented ones, as well as famous pretenders like Elizabeth Israel have bio articles...could there be some standard criteria here? Any real SC is more "notable" IMO but the extravagant fakes need to be pointed out as such.)--L.E./12.144.5.2 14:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- In response, I think that even if it's proven to be merely a myth, in the next few weeks, she's received enough media attention that the page should be kept. That is why I believe this should be kept. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to one of the pages mentioned above. Radiant! 16:51, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - if the fact that she's 125 is a longevity myth, then she might be 125, or she might not. Until it is confirmed whether or not she's 125, keep. -- 67.81.191.226 | 01:23, Mar 6 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This is either notable truth or a notable hoax. -- Curps 06:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It's not on Snopes.com, though, which makes it doubtful as a 'notable hoax'. Radiant! 10:52, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems notable enough. Capitalistroadster 12:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, of course. Extreme longevity is notable if it attracts any significant attention, as this woman has. Not to mention that if she is indeed the world's oldest person, she'd be de facto notable anyway. Everyking 20:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- But her extreme longevity is unlikely to be as extreme as her promoters claim (no pre-1970s documents have been produced,a convenient 1960s fire destroyed her earlier paperwork,and the birth certificate on the RankBrasil website was issued in 2000 or 2001.Lots of REAL supercentenarians have their own articles and deserve them.If we added one for every off-the-wall claim to be older than ever proven,we'd be snowed under.CLAIMS TO BE this old are nothing new!--Louis E./12.144.5.2 23:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, she got into the news. I'd say that, whatever her true age is, it is at least a notable claim. And that combined with the possibility that she was indeed born in 1880 is enough for a keep vote from me. Everyking 02:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- But her extreme longevity is unlikely to be as extreme as her promoters claim (no pre-1970s documents have been produced,a convenient 1960s fire destroyed her earlier paperwork,and the birth certificate on the RankBrasil website was issued in 2000 or 2001.Lots of REAL supercentenarians have their own articles and deserve them.If we added one for every off-the-wall claim to be older than ever proven,we'd be snowed under.CLAIMS TO BE this old are nothing new!--Louis E./12.144.5.2 23:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as 1) unverified, 2) if a hoax, not a notable one, 3) no way to expand past the stub. If it had been verifiable, a mention in the longevity article would have been sufficient. And just to make matters worse, isn't the picture a copyvio? Rossami (talk) 01:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it's unverified in the sense that we don't know if she's really that old. But then again, many, many totally encyclopedic things have such mysteries associated with them. The question should be whether it's verifiable in the sense that: is there such a woman who is claimed to be that age? And the answer to that is plainly yes, considering the news reports about her. And that's enough for me, personally, to consider her notable. If I've heard about her here in the U.S., then I have to assume she's a lot more famous in Brazil. Everyking 02:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and rewrite/clean. I guess there's not a lot of info on her, but she seems notable and the article needs to be one of a higher quality. Bratsche (talk) 19:37, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Why didn't this Vfd template get closed even though 2 weeks have gone by?? Georgia guy 17:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- VfD closing is running a bit slow right now. --Carnildo 21:13, 20 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. Carbonite | Talk 14:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable: a google search [4] produce wikipedia and clone disambiguation at HOPE and one blog. --Henrygb 01:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It's blog (at http://www.hopeinamerica.blogspot.com/), Delete unless notability and relevance demonstrated. RJFJR 02:02, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. ComCat 02:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide, and web guides are not blog guides. Geogre 02:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This group did briefly receive international press coverage thanks to provocative press releases, but their 15 minutes came and went without making any real impact. Their much-publicized CD exchange program managed "hundreds" (by their own accounting) of responses after said exposure, even after the program was expanded to cover dozens of recording acts. --iMb~Mw 07:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Only 7 Google hits for the full name, not good for something that seems mostly Internet-based. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:59, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete This page is more like an advert! Who are they anyway?
- (Above from 206.17.143.136) --iMb~Mw 05:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Moved from top:
A yahoo search reveals over 1000 pages making note. They were also featured in an AP article as recently as last week. The mis-spellings seem to be the larger problem.
This page is now preserved 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. (2 D, 4 K) Carbonite | Talk 14:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This band does not appear to meet the guidelines for musical notability. What sayeth the court?
- Delete as originator of VfD. HyperZonktalk 02:45, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, three albums, been going since 1991, "LA's favorite country rockers" according to the LA times, making them a prominent representative of the local scene of a city. Kappa 10:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, notability established. Radiant! 10:52, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, if it made the LA Times they must be notable. --Oarias 10:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the released albums are enough for me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:31, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 14:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Neologism. Google results mostly pertain to the last name of Quipert, not what this article refers to. I've never heard of this word, and I propose delete. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-5 03:26 Z
- Delete - six Google hits. - SimonP 03:57, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Heh - it seems like the article creator is hoping that we will be quiperts. Don't think so. Delete. DS 14:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-article dicdef of dubious neologism. -- Infrogmation 19:08, 5 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 keep and redirect to Eldar. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Some sort of literary fan-fic stub, nowhere to merge it--nixie 03:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Fancruft for a book that doesn't even have its own article. Google says it's Warhammer 40,000 related. —Korath (Talk) 16:29, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Eldar. Radiant! 10:50, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Fancruft. --Carnildo 21:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Eldar or keep. Kappa 21:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep --84.154.117.89 23:07, 10 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Un-notable free software developer--nixie 03:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity page. - SimonP 07:04, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, the link that is there is just to his advertisement loaded unimpressive search engine. Now his alexa traffic rank for munky.com is 1,904, which is good. But a google search - related:http://www.munky.com - did not match any documents so maybe he's just spam supported. Actually the noteable bits weren't even mentioned, googling results about 109,000 for David Kopel and his home page's alexa rank for davekopel.com is 309,105. However as his front page is all political POV stuff, my delete stands without major revision and some evidence of the 'Dovid Kopel is an active member of the Free Software Community.' assertion. -- Dbroadwell 21:51, 5 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:09, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Recommend delete. Non-notable website, non-notable commercial, and non-notable topic. SUV safety is already discussed at Sport Utility Vehicle. --Milkmandan 05:46, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
- It's looking like this is actually somewhat notable. I suppose this is what I get for not owning a TV...or an SUV. --Milkmandan 04:26, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
- No vote, but would point out that this is a major (if idiotic) ad campaign by the U.S. govt., with significant resources put behind it, and has garnered some media attention. Not sure if this will affect voters here. Meelar (talk) 05:54, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep major advertising campaigns. Kappa 10:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Rl 22:38, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, as much as I hate to see my tax dollars paying for crap like this. Notable, if misguided, advertising campaign. Android79 23:46, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep If I've seen it on tv, given the amount I watch, it's gotta be notable. Though I would not be disappointed if it were merged with Sport Utility Vehicle]. Denni☯ 02:51, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
- Keep this or merge with SUV; I though Esuvee was the most halarious SUV-related TV ad. --GoofyGuy 19:32, 10 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Shameless self promotion, non notable. Delete --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - SimonP 06:57, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity Tygar 09:05, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity and/or hoax. A contemporary Christian cover band that disbanded as the result of a bloody bar fight... right. Android79 22:03, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 01:27, 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. Carbonite | Talk 14:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
New user submitted dicdef of Internet slang. Already suggested a look at wp:wwin. What more to say? Meelar (talk) 06:13, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- It's 4chan's /b/tards acting up again. As they say on /b/: Kill it with fire. -- Bobdoe (Talk)
- Delete - SimonP 06:53, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Oh my god (or, mogz!)! is that some chickens? Delete. Tygar 09:06, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-article dicdef of dubious neologism. -- Infrogmation 19:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this junk. Android79 22:08, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable neologism. Megan1967 01:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete with extreme prejudice. 62.214.57.236 05:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable subculture slang. — JIP | Talk 08:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:01, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 14:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Unverifiable. This sounds like something related to a game, but nothing links to it and searches on relevant terms come up empty. SWAdair | Talk 07:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Orphan article with no context to determine if it is anything other than nonsense. -- Infrogmation 19:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The article doesn't contain any information about where this so-called "S-Penalty" is used. This makes it non-verifiable and non-notable. — JIP | Talk 08:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Does this fall under the WP:CSD criteria #1 for articles? --Carnildo 21:15, 8 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 keep. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A list of first names is non-encyclopedic. A list of "hypocoristics" (at least I learned something -- never heard that word before) is even less so. And why are we starting with Spanish names instead of English names? RickK 08:06, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. A well thought out list - not just a list of given names (such as one which was rightfully thrown out recently). Castellanos is quite distinctive in the way that there is a standardised set of nicknames which seem to bear little relation to the full version. For example Paco for Francisco or Chuy for Jesús. -- RHaworth 08:25, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
- Keep. Proposer fails to establish any reason for deletion. Martg76 09:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Non-encyclopedic is my reason for deletion. Don't attack other Users. And voter fails to explain his vote. RickK 10:01, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, it should have been "proposer fails to establish any good reason for deletion." The list is interesting and encyclopedic. There should be no preference for English over other languages. Martg76 14:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Non-encyclopedic is my reason for deletion. Don't attack other Users. And voter fails to explain his vote. RickK 10:01, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep; encyclopaedic, provides a useful and coherent compedium of information. The fact that there is no article covering English hypocoristics means that someone should create one, not that all other articles of the type should be deleted. 80.255 10:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per above, and expand hypocoristics. Kappa 10:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge the intro and a few examples into hypocoristic. Move the actual list to Wiktionary, which has an appendix for given names. —Korath (Talk) 14:03, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems a valid bit of trivia of possible use and interest to some, and no harm to our non-paper encyclopedia. -- Infrogmation 19:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Concur with Korath's Merge suggestion above. Android79 22:05, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
How is this any more encyclopedic than a List of Spanish first names? RickK 22:25, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- either Merge or delete. Megan1967 02:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I submitted this article (before I registered). I'm new here, I admit; haven't found anywhere an official definition of what is considered encyclopedic (except for 'compendium of knowledge'), only what isn't (ads, vandalism, jokes etc.) For me, and maybe others, this is useful knowledge. And I'm confused; original submitter for deletion seems to keep implying a list of English hypocoristics would be encylcopedic, and Spanish ones only after an English list is created, but not if it comes before. Why should the order of creation matter? Please excuse me if my article/response are against the rules. Inhiding 03:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or if necessary Merge with hypocoristic. I agree with RickK. I think his point was not that the list of English nick names should come first, but that this list is as unencyclopedic as a list of English nick names would be. DaveTheRed 03:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I would like an article on hypocoristics, but not a list of them (and need I point out that such as list would be necessarily incomplete, as anyone can add their fave nicks for their friends, or people named footfootfoot, to them). As such, merge with hypocoristic. Radiant! 10:58, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. James F. (talk) 17:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. -- Necrothesp 15:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and transwiki as per Korath. --Carnildo 21:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't care whether we keep or merge or transwiki to Wiktionary, but certainly we should make sure it doesn't get outright deleted. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:34, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Nomination seems to be founded on false assumptions.--Gene_poole 01:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with Korath. A few examples in hypocoristic, the full list belongs elsewhere (probably Wiktionary). Rossami (talk) 01:40, 9 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. Carbonite | Talk 14:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable performer. 13 Google hits. RickK 08:22, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Odd. The user who created this page seems to be on a quest to push his buddies into WP. Check out other pages created by this user, and this change. Rl
- Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 01:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Musician vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 01:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as not notable, vanity. Jonathunder 23:26, 2005 Mar 10 (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 and merge into Jesco White. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Only two Google hits for "Donald Ray White" +"tap dancer", zero Google hits for "Donald Ray White" +"tap dance". RickK 08:25, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, try searching for "D. Ray White" + "Talking Feet" (and not, as the article mistakenly claims, "Happy Feet"). Personally, I'd merge the info into the entry on his son Jesco (4550 hits). DS 14:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- either Merge or delete. Megan1967 02:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge onto his son's article. Radiant! 10:50, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:12, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion this article is 99.81% POV and doesn't look salvagible, should either be competely rewriten (which not much would be left) as I oppose the article and dispute its factuality. I am a bad cadinadte to do the work myself, I will check the article left and if it is neutral should not bug me. In my opinion this information is a political discussion and wikipedia is not a soapbox for those. Regardless of factuality article is not neutral and a good number of people would be "offended" and go into a revert spree.
- Delete or completely rewrite --Cool Cat| My Talk 08:23, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This is one of a series of articles that includes Pan-Slavism as well as Pan Arabism, Greater Germania and Grossdeutschland, and Greater Albania, Greater Poland, Greater Romania, Greater Serbia. These should be referenced at Pan-Turkism under "See also". --Wetman 08:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Contrary to what you think, Coolcat, the article describes a real political/cultural movement and is therefore relevant. Add/edit if you think some of it could be bettered. The article is reasonably widely linked and has not resulted in any revert warring. Refdoc 09:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup as necessary. Kappa 10:38, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep a real movement which deserves an article. Pan-turkism is in Encyclopædia Britannica[5] and I consider proof enough for notability. Jeltz talk 15:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Notable topic, and not even a rampantly POV article. Alai 19:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, and rewrite. Megan1967 02:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep.Seems a reasonable article to me and on a notable subject, being the philosophy of Enver Pasha who was a key figure of the Armenian genocide and an influence on Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern turkey. Obviously the Britannica thinks so too. Capitalistroadster 18:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up. Binadot 20:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Doesn't look POV at all, and certainly it's accurate, if not long enough to be too informative. - Mustafaa 06:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I completely agree with Mustafaa.
- Keep. What's the problem with this that warrents deletion.--Briangotts 21:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. ;) --Nerval 05:13, 19 January 2006 (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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Looks like an advert for a ringtone website. Darkcore 08:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - blatant advertising Nick04 09:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, advert. Tygar 09:31, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this ad. Jeltz talk 15:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Inter\Echo 15:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, orphan advertising spam. -- Infrogmation 19:18, 5 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 keep. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Advertisement. This is a straight marketing plug for the company and its services. Cje 08:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) Desptire rewrite this is still an advertisement - see also author's page User:Mrichman. May be good software company but its not notable (as defined by Wikipeida) --Cje 11:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep; I've removed the underbrush and promotional-writing. In context with other medical software systems, the information could be valuable. 80.255 10:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 01:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- Still reads like an advertisement to me. Tygar 01:57, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. 800 google hits, a significant amount which are unrelated, is below the bar for a software company. Radiant! 11:15, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. Grue 16:51, 13 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 KEEP. – ABCD 21:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Radio station that does not establish notability. I'm beginning to treat these like middle schools. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless radio station can establish notability.Keep, article seems to be developing appropriately. Tygar 09:14, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)- Keep and move to CFMB or something similar. Unlike middle schools, radio stations are rarely vanity pages. —Korath (Talk) 16:13, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. — RJH 00:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, article does not establish notability, stationcruft. Megan1967 01:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Move to proper title CFMB and keep. I've expanded the article a bit; more expansion is possible with additional research. I believe it's generally accepted that broadcast stations merit articles, as long as they're properly written. Bearcat 03:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Move to proper title CFMB and keep. --Spinboy 03:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and move to proper title. All licensed radio stations are notable. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Sepper 17:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep; while I disagree that all radio stations are notable (e.g. very low-power localized ones aren't), this one is significant. Radiant! 10:52, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-7 23:15 Z
- Keep. Appears to be worthy of an article. -- James Teterenko (talk) 02:46, 8 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 keep. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This college does not establish notability, is a stub, and is already listed in the Visalia, California article. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep:
- 1) It's a college, an institution of higher learning, so it is a priori notable by Wikipedia standards.
- 2) It's a stub, in need of time for expansion, and
- 3) It was a stub all of 3 minutes old when you slapped the VFD tag on it.
- Keep colleges and universities, and please reread civility. —Korath (Talk) 13:06, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Note: Changed from stubstub to stub. Also, I find your passive-aggressive snarkiness very uncivil and unfounded: if you think drawing attention to a bad practice is uncivil, well, it can't be helped that you'll be offended by feedback frequently, then. --Calton | Talk 13:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Calton's rudeness in this subject as well as others does not help matters, only hinders them. At the same time, smacking VFD on a stub three minutes after it's created does not help matters either, and serves to bite newcomers, if the page isn't vandalism or patent nonsense. Mike H 21:02, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree with above. —ExplorerCDT 22:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I have no problem with keeping colleges, even junior colleges. But I repudiate both Mike H's and Calton's comments. RickK 23:03, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, all universities are notable. Tygar 01:59, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's an edicational institution.--Centauri 06:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- LOL, I take it that none of them institutions ever got you "edicated." (sic) —ExplorerCDT 07:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) (had to)
- You could have kept that one to yourself. Mike H 11:53, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- LOL, I take it that none of them institutions ever got you "edicated." (sic) —ExplorerCDT 07:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) (had to)
- Keep. James F. (talk) 17:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Colleges are notable in my book. Also, please remember civility and wikilove when making your comments. Capitalistroadster 18:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Wincoote 02:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. -- Necrothesp 15:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Calton said it best.--Gene_poole 01:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: a college with 10,000 students is just as notable as a town with 10,000 people. hike395 12:49, 11 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. Pending deletion. Carbonite | Talk 14:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Veracity highly dubious. No references, anywhere. Web searches return nothing. Possible a Bad Joke. 80.255 10:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifable, unless some confirmation is found, -- Infrogmation 19:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Sounds like a hoax, or some recluse in the Welsh countryside trying to get off. —ExplorerCDT 22:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 01:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete patent nonsense. Owain 16:00, 14 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 keep. sjorford →•← 16:39, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nothing here establishes that this architect is notable except that "Lord" in his title. If this article is worth expanding on then it should be done, however I don't see that happening. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a stub. LoopZilla 10:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- But what is in question is the notability of this person. What have they done that makes them Wiki-worthy? -- Riffsyphon1024 10:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the v.f.d. went on 4 minutes after I created the page to look for extant references, of which there were 4 or 5: now there are 10 LoopZilla 07:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- But what is in question is the notability of this person. What have they done that makes them Wiki-worthy? -- Riffsyphon1024 10:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable. 80.255 11:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. A simple Google search for Lord Palumbo will reveal his notability. Miss Pippa 12:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but move to Peter Palumbo, Baron Palumbo. Apart from being a significant property developer (some would say notorious rather than notable), Lord Palumbo has been a member of the British House of Lords since 1991. --Henrygb 13:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, very notable indeed. -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, significant public figure. --Charles Matthews 17:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and move. The fact that he is a member of a parliament such as the House of Lords indicates notability as does the awarding of a life peerage in the UK. Former chair of the arts council in the UK as well. Capitalistroadster 18:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Nomination was unresearched and should not have been made. Wincoote 02:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Very odd nomination. -- Necrothesp 15:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This article has grown since its nomination. If you go back into the history, you will see that it definitely was not this large or detailed. Page on March 5 Do not assume. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:41, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
- I quote you: "If this article is worth expanding on then it should be done, however I don't see that happening". Why, precisely? This second comment suggests you didn't bother to check out his notability before nominating. Therefore, I think people's comments are rather justified and nobody is assuming anything. -- Necrothesp 20:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You may be correct on me forgeting to check, sometimes I have hunches that certain articles may be crap. However, I was wrong, and was proven wrong. But might I bring up something of interest? Most of you are from the UK, are you not? As an American, I was simply not aware of this person as you may be, so may I escape ridicule for not knowing of his notability? Since this article has grown to an acceptable Wikilength --and-- has proven notability of this person, then I cannot wish for it to be deleted anymore. Dispute over. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:22, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- I quote you: "If this article is worth expanding on then it should be done, however I don't see that happening". Why, precisely? This second comment suggests you didn't bother to check out his notability before nominating. Therefore, I think people's comments are rather justified and nobody is assuming anything. -- Necrothesp 20:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This article has grown since its nomination. If you go back into the history, you will see that it definitely was not this large or detailed. Page on March 5 Do not assume. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:41, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Simply because I found the page very useful when looking for info on the father of the owner of Ministry of Sound. ZephyrAnycon 23:12, 19 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 keep. sjorford →•← 16:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Dicdef. Miss Pippa 11:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, expand if at all possible. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, more than a dicdef, expansion possible. Anyway keep definitions of real things. Kappa 12:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- How is expansion possible? Famous crew cuts in history? List of people who have crew cuts? List of people who used to have crew cuts but don't any more? List of people who might have a crew cut in the future!?! Seriously, what makes this hairstyle more notable, more encyclopedic than any other? Miss Pippa 12:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It could include people who are well-known for having crew-cuts. It could mention boy scouts wearing them. It could discuss different periods when crew-cuts were fashionable, and why. It could discuss how a crew-cut is made, and the fact that it's quick and simple to do, and easy to comb or wash afterwards. It could discuss how long they last. It could discuss they symbolism of crew cuts, including that a woman with one is likely to be interpreted as butch. If you need more ideas, try Category:Hairstyles. Kappa 13:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- How is expansion possible? Famous crew cuts in history? List of people who have crew cuts? List of people who used to have crew cuts but don't any more? List of people who might have a crew cut in the future!?! Seriously, what makes this hairstyle more notable, more encyclopedic than any other? Miss Pippa 12:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Already expanded beyond a dictdef. —Korath (Talk) 13:53, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, and create a haircut category. --Pgreenfinch 16:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand further. Not a dicdef. 23skidoo 17:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's more than a dictdef, and could be expanded more as this hairstyle has had historic social and political affiliations. -- Infrogmation 19:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Other hairstyle articles are just as important. Psychonaut 03:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Absolutely.--Centauri 06:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Hair styles can form interesting articles as part of social history. Capitalistroadster 19:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, famous hair style. - RedWordSmith 19:14, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. As pointed out, it's already well beyond the basic dicdef stage . - Lucky 6.9 05:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep dido above Mayumashu
- Keep Lyo 23:28, 19 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Vanity, non-notable. Rl 13:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Note: Edit war on that page. VfD note had to be restored, will probably be gone again soon. Rl 08:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity page. - SimonP 15:34, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Inter\Echo 15:55, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In Limbo Let's see some of the work that she's done before voting to delete her. I mean, for goodness' sake, the woman is an advocate for orphans! whoknew?
This page is now preserved 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Looks like a hoax, Google comes back empty. Not exactly my area of expertise, though. Thoughts? Rl 13:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete seems like fiction. - SimonP 16:30, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds awfully hoaxy, but who would actually know about this if it were true? Delete based on the stupid-sounding name, I guess. Isomorphic 16:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable. Dubious. No google hits for his supposed real name "Josphef Hortetelli" (nor the less improbable "Josef Hortetelli") for that matter. -- Infrogmation 19:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 01:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP, My grandfather is from Italy and I asked him about this wrestler. He said he remembers the character. He was very famous before the War. I guess the weird name actually sounds menacing in Italian. Danny_d2005 02:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The above from 64.221.145.252; Danny_d2005 does not exist. —Korath (Talk) 00:55, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP, THIS IS REAL! I'm a huge wrestling fan and props to the person who posted this. The Cap was a huge celebrity, i have a book, published in the 30s that talks all about him. Wrestlefan 06:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Wrestlefan's only two edits. Even casual inspection shows him to be the same as 64.221.145.252, above and below. —Korath (Talk) 00:55, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP, UPDATE: My grandfather showed me an old book about Italian athletes from 1937 called "I Campioni" ("The Champions") and there was a picture of Captain Pulleyhead (Capitano Capo della Puleggia) jumping off a rope. It might be the same book the previous poster was talking about. He was a real person. His name, as far as I can translate, came from the way he used enter the ring when he was lowered by a pulley. -Danny
- The above from 64.221.145.252. —Korath (Talk) 00:55, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Sockpuppet-supported hoax. It's these legit-sounding articles that torque me off more than just about anything else on this site. - Lucky 6.9 06:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious sockpuppetry going on above. Oh, but now there are two Google hits: Both VfD pages. I agree with Lucky 6.9: "real" hoaxes tick me off. Bratsche (talk) 19:41, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP, There's more to research than just using Google. This guy was real. Weird, but real. I've seen his picture.-Danny
- The above from 64.221.145.252. —Korath (Talk) 00:55, Mar 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it is realGeni 14:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No signs of such a virus on a Google search. Could be a hoax. - Mailer Diablo 14:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Juvenile fiction. -- Cleduc 04:39, 7 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 inconclusive, but I have taken the liberty of redirecting the article to List of cities by latitude, for which there was some support. sjorford →•← 16:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I see no reason how can it be encyclopedic (Especially the title), even if it's some sort of trivia. - Mailer Diablo 18:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I was considering this one as well. I left it alone because I can imagine how a table of cities sorted by latitude could be interesting (we could even add Cities by latitude#35-40degrees links to city articles), and WP won't be able to dynamically generate one anytime soon. Too bad this tiny substub thingy is so indefensibly useless, I don't like the precedent its deletion is going to set. Rl 19:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Concur with Antandrus (Redirect to List of cities by latitude, which provides exactly what I wanted). Good find. Rl 08:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Trivia, non-encyclopedic. With all respect to Rl, I think deleting this article is a good precedent. If you need to know cities at the same latitude, lay a ruler across a Mercator projection. Cities being coincidentally at the same latitude may be moderately interesting, but I'm having trouble finding its encyclopedic value. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 22:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)- Redirect to List of cities by latitude, since that already has the information. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Josh Cherry 01:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, trivial. DaveTheRed 04:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- delete, or alternatively, propose "pairs of cities which can have a straight line drawn through both of them" and "groups of three cities which can hvae a parabola drawn through their centres". Mozzerati 17:31, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
Delete. Probably the best way to handle this issue is to have a list of cities sorted by latitude. (I can make one pretty easily if anyone wants.) Antandrus 04:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)- Never mind; there already is one: so Redirect to List of cities by latitude. Antandrus 04:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of cities by latitude. Grue 16:55, 13 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Foreign slang dicdef. Vote to delete. -- Brhaspati (talkcontribs) 19:09, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
- Delete Agree. -- Infrogmation 21:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki to wiktionary if it's a real slang dicdef. Kappa 01:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable foreign slang. Megan1967 01:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wiktionary. — JIP | Talk 07:41, 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Vanity, non-notable. Rl 20:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Needs more notable content than that. Zzyzx11 21:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks like a self-generated article, lacking in anything particularly notable. Average Earthman 23:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:00, 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not encylopaedic; probable prank. (Only google hits are to Beadel as a name.) Alai 21:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with Alai --Neigel von Teighen 21:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable slang. Megan1967 02:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, or move to Wikitionary if any legitimate reference comes up. WpZurp 05:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Could find no such reference on Webster or OED online. Corvus 04:57, 7 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. Rossami (talk) 23:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Grad student vanity. Android79 22:15, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity --Neigel von Teighen 22:17, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems like a vanity. - SimonP 23:19, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Jonathunder 04:58, 2005 Mar 22 (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 4 to keep, 1 to merge and the delete vote by the nominator withdrawn. Sounds like a clear keep Sjakkalle 15:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Keep. Not an actual article, but an explanation of why the article should not merely be a redirect to another article. Nothing salvagable in history, either. Android79 22:19, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up (and I'll work on that tonight). Let's treat this one as the misplaced article request that it was, and fulfill it. --iMb~Mw 04:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) (and yes, that will include cleaning up Hall effect).
- Merge into Hall effect. -- RHaworth 07:34, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
- That was quick! Thanks to iMb, this is now an actual stub, so I withdraw my VfD nomination. Android79 07:45, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Well done iMb. The article looks good.Capitalistroadster 19:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, though this vote may be a moot point anyway. Great stuff! - Lucky 6.9 08:23, 9 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. Rossami (talk) 06:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Member of a skateboarding group that happens to be a friend of somebody on MTV's Jackass. Android79 22:22, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable on his own merit. Rje 23:16, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:05, 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. Rossami (talk) 06:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Non notable. Don't think it reaches the Notability and Music Guidelines. --Woohookitty 22:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable. Note that anonymous user 161.253.10.116 recently blanked the page, including the VfD notice. Android79 23:49, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Thanks Android79. I'll monitor it. --Woohookitty 00:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, tough to call. They got 29,300 unique Google hits. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:28, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. I count 7 "delete" votes (one not terribly clear but that's the best I can interpret it) and 5 "keep" votes (1 probable troll vote discounted). Failing to achieve a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to "keep" for now.
In keeping with the community practice in many other decisions about schools, I am going to be bold and keep it as a "merge and redirect" this article to Edgware. Rossami (talk) 06:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable school, only just opened. --Henrygb 23:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it exists[10], but has no intrinsic notability beyond being a school. It was recently renamed, not opened, btw. And "recently" was probably before 2002, given this planning permission request[11]. JFW | T@lk 23:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- (expanded). Keep, necessary to coverage of its local area, and one of the early members of the DfES' "open academies" program. Kappa 01:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep; one of the pilots of a new kind of school in the UK (well, E&W, but near enough). Move to London Academy or somesuch, however. James F. (talk) 17:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It's a school. Wincoote 02:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non notable, very weak beef stew. Jonathunder 06:14, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable, school vanity. Radiant! 10:49, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Infinitesimally more encyclopedic than any article here on Wikipedia pertaining to Pokemon, minute one-time characters from Star Trek: The Next Generation, or any other imaginary creation from the make-believe realm of Mario World. --GRider\talk 23:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If you think the Pokemon characters/Star Trek/Mario articles shouldn't be here, then by all means nominate them for deletion. I'd do it myself, if I weren't afraid of the resulting lynch mob. --Carnildo 22:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Just like every other school.--Gene_poole 02:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 22:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Secondary schools are not inherrently notable. DaveTheRed 07:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- keep this please. Yuckfoo 20:54, 18 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. Article is pending deletion with a block compress error. Joyous 18:32, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Another video game map. We've already got one of these listed for VfD (see above). Non-notable cruft. RickK 23:41, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Seems to be talking about the same map as DotA Allstars. I highly doubt either is notable or worth a merge, though I don't follow Warcruft. —Korath (Talk) 02:13, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Given the tons of user-made maps and mods for video games, I fail to see what's particularly notable about 99% of them. As such, delete. Radiant! 10:44, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. --Saforrest 13:30, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete user maps. DaveTheRed 07:52, 9 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 KEEP
Wikipedia is not a repository of jokes. RickK 23:55, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I am keeping an eye on this article with the very goal not to allow to turn it into a joke repository. It was separated by me from the Russian humour article. As it is kept now, I don't see how it can be worse than the very Joke article. This is not a repository of jokes created in Russia. It is a normal aricle that discusses types of jokes of Russian peculiarity, each topic being exemplified by 2-3 jokes. In particular it doesn't contain sex, wife/husband and other common topics. Knowing Rick as a reasonable editor, I am a bit surprised by this nomination. Mikkalai 00:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Because I like it. Yes, it's skating on thin ice in many ways. But it's interesting. It's the result of a reasonable amount of work. It's not simply a repository of jokes, it's an attempt to indicate something about Russian culture as illustrated by jokes. It's not material that can easily be found in a better form in some other place; I know lots of places to go for jokes, but I don't know lots of places to go for Russian jokes. It appears to be the work of a reasonable number of collaborators and hopefully they know what they're talking about and are keeping an eye on verifiability, POV. (BTW: without examining the article I would have expected an article on "Russian jokes" to be about "Jokes told by English-speakers about stereotypic Russian immigrants." You know... as in the jokes told about another Slavonic ethnicity). Dpbsmith (talk) 01:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- A place where the ice is particularly thin is that it borders on original research. A couple of references to scholar work on Russian humour would be handy. Despite my noticeable presence in the history of the article, my major contribution is trimming it mercilessly, and I have no particular scholar interest in humor. Mikkalai 01:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, it's an article which contains jokes, not just a repository of them. Kappa 01:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, concur with Rick. The jokes in the article are not inherently notable or encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a reasonable study of the kinds of humour one finds in Russian culture, and devotes adequate effort to explaining their context. A couple of examples of each type, which is mostly what we have, is quite reasonable. Equally it would be encyclopedic to have a "polish joke" article or "irish joke" article, but neither should turn merely into a list of jokes. This does need (and I don't think it has) a link to the "In Soviet Russia" joke meme (even if that's a meme Russians don't use). -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 02:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It does not. It is an american joke. You are free to write Soviet emigree jokes article. Mikkalai 03:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It may be appropriate to rename this article Humor in Russia. If not, it probably needs to be listed on WP:UA, as precedented by No soap radio and Meta-joke. -- Brhaspati (talkcontribs) 03:41, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
- There is nothing unusual or hilarious in the article to be listed elsewhere other than in category:Jokes. Mikkalai 06:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That was not my intention. The article itself is perfectly fine, but the title may make one believe that this is an instance of a Russian joke. My point about UA was to shield it from such assumptions, not to single it out. But of course, it was only a suggestion. -- Brhaspati (talkcontribs) 12:48, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
- There is nothing unusual or hilarious in the article to be listed elsewhere other than in category:Jokes. Mikkalai 06:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Russian humour or baring that, Keep. We have an article on You have two cows, so why not this? BTW, that comment box in the upper right of this nomination is hilarious. DaveTheRed 04:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I've already written above, it was actually split off the Russian humor because of article size problems. Mikkalai 07:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep — it's an article about jokes, that happens to include examples. ➥the Epopt 05:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with Kappa, John Fader and The Epopt. It's an article about various kinds of jokes in Russia, with examples of them, not just a big repository where people write their favourite Russian jokes. — JIP | Talk 07:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This article presents a whole definite slice of Russian culture. It can't be reduced without losing it's completeness. ellol 11:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) The article seems to me so alive, that it cannot be deleted; only killed. ellol 14:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- keep. It is a really good article, and not a repository of jokes. To be that it would have to have tons of examples under every topic... Even though we would come to a conclusion that it DON'T belong on Wikipedia, I think the content still should be saved and moved to wikibooks instead, where the article would be allowed to grow to enormous sizes. Btw... I think the article should be renamed.. Not sure what the new title should be though... --Konstantin 12:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- keep but also summarise briefly in Russian humour; Wikipedia is not paper, so we can afford to keep this kind of article, especially if it's well written and interesting. Mozzerati 17:15, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
- Keep. Interesting and well-written article. Capitalistroadster 19:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Comprehensive and useful article. Perhaps we can merge it with Russian humour. Binadot 21:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep it is no way a repository, I think we need such an article for every nation, any jokes represent some shared meaning between people and very closely relate to culture. BTW I agree that it should be renamed to something else, maybe to set a future standard for unambiguous naming of this class of articles Gnomz007 00:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Not just a list by any means; it's a discussion of common themes in Russian jokes, and of their history, illustrated by examples. - Mustafaa 07:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- While I understand the arguments that this is supposed to be an article about a particular class of jokes rather than a listing of them, the current version does not read that way. I believe this would be better in the Jokebooks section of Wikibooks. (The Russian humor article can easily cross-link to it.) Transwiki. Rossami (talk) 01:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The article gives pretty accurate insight on typical anekdot short stories, whose popularity in Russia is on the same scale as comics in the US. The jokes might not be easily understandable due to cultural differences or translation difficulties, and being Russian, I don't think the selection of stories represents the best of the genre, but it's still a remarkable piece of work. A summary could be incorporated into the corresponding section of Russian humour. --DmitryKo 16:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree that rather than simply being a repositary of jokes, it is an attempt at showing the Russian sense of humour, largely via their jokes. However, maybe it could be shortened slightly and merged with 'Russian Humour'? - User:Bez
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.
I count 11 clear "delete" votes (including 1 from User:Seesdifferent who forgot to sign his post), 12 "keep" votes (2 anons and 1 probable troll discounted) and one "merge" vote from Skysmith who put one too many tildes in the signature). Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to keep. Rossami (talk) 06:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is a non-notable high school. It should be Deleted. --Holdek 00:31, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity. Sigh. I wish people were at least willing to come to the table to hash out a compromise on these instead of leaving everyone to fight it out three times a day, every day. —Korath (Talk) 02:17, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- What kind of compromise would you like? I suggest a {{improve-school}} tag, which spells out what a school article should contain to make it interesting/useful enough for inclusion. Kappa 08:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I think a centralized discussion on schools would be in order. We are indeed repeating our arguments nearly daily; it should be possible for us to reach a consensus through discussion. Radiant! 10:48, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- I was thinking more of guidelines for inclusion à la Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. BEEFSTEW's a step in the right direction, though I regret to say I've mostly been using it like "this article is so terrible, even the radical inclusionist party should be embarrassed to vote keep for it". I think a mere {{improve-school}} template is just another way of saying that every school is worthy of inclusion, an opinion that I respect but emphatically disagree with. I'm sure everyone agrees that every country should be in Wikipedia, and not every fire hydrant should; the contention is where the line should be drawn. That every town in the world, even those with no more than six inhabitants, should have its own article seems like overkill, though I'm willing to accept it for consistency; that every high school - let alone middle and elementary schools! - in every town also should is well on the other side of the line. There's really very little to say about most of them other than location, number of students, mascot, football team name, and similar, and such is better suited to an almanac than an encyclopedia. I also remain of the opinion that, of the school articles that get created on Wikipedia, at least ninety-nine out of every hundred are vanity pages. —Korath (Talk) 12:00, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- What kind of compromise would you like? I suggest a {{improve-school}} tag, which spells out what a school article should contain to make it interesting/useful enough for inclusion. Kappa 08:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see why notability shouldn't be a criteria. We use it for bands, people, companies, books and more. DaveTheRed 04:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Notability is a de facto criterium, because of the amount of people that use it, and the amount of articles that are deleted by the consensus because of being not notable. Radiant! 10:48, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: The "notability isn't spelled out in the deletion guidelines" argument is wearisome and false. At any rate, the difficulty for me with schools has always been that an article must give a reason for the school having a character that sets it apart. "It affects lives" doesn't work, because the local gas station affects lives. "Noted Person X went there" also doesn't work for me, unless the school as a particular school had some effect that can be identified in making the fame (e.g. J. D. Salinger's prep school would have a good case to make, but Alfred Kinsey's high school wouldn't). In this case, we have the bare facts of the school followed by a student's idea of highlights that go back 2 years and a student's ideas of the administration (that the principal's sexual orientation was a reason for removal is shocking, if this is a public school, as it absolutely is illegal to do something like that). Nothing makes this school a uniquely identifiable or significant entity. Those seeking to learn about it will do better with the county court records. Geogre 04:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a school.--Centauri 06:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, and cleanup possible POV/unverifiable. The article explains various interesting facts about the school, and schools particular characters are important to their local areas. Kappa 07:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of notability. Jayjg (talk) 07:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete until notability established. Radiant! 10:48, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I might be willing to accept the first two paragraphs if the 'top 100' claim would provide an external cite. Presidents visiting a school isn't exceptional - politicians tend to do a lot of these things, particularly when an election is coming up. Minor, amateur, age-group sporting stuff, boring. So, a potential claim to note followed by lots of irrelevent padding which is better off in your own webpages somewhere. Average Earthman 14:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep- One of the Best Schools in the Nation. Stop Bombarding the school's with vfd's! --BrenDJ 17:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- On what parameter? Cite? Average Earthman 23:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and improve --BaronLarf 17:09, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: A BEEFSTEW of nine is the best I've ever seen before. You should DEFINITELY keep this. mathwiz2020 11:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- A) +1: The article is more than two sentences.
- B) +1: There is one coherent paragraph of text.
- C) +1: Assuming each character is one byte, the article is more than 2000 bytes (excluding the Votes for Deletion header).
- D) +1: There are more than three facts. (OAR members attended Wootton, President Bush visited Wootton, and the cheerleading scandal.)
- E) +1: There is a photograph.
- F) +1: Yes, the members of the band OAR are alumni of Wootton and, considering they played at Wolftrap (a very prestigious honor), they are notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article.
- G) +1: President Bush visiting the school appeared in a White House press release.
- H) +1: The Science Bowl and Cross Country teams make the school notable AND do not fall under F or G.
- I) +1: Pleasing an alumnus is a matter of opinion but, in my opinion, it would. ESPECIALLY since it mentions some 2004 alumni.
- J) +0: Well, a teacher could learn that many teachers are often fired, but I wouldn't give the tenth point to Wootton.
- OUTTAHERE In all things, seek what is the essence... Wiki is a reference work, imho. Schools have large professional websites full of information. Take a look at [Wootton's]. GOOGLE/search engines have a place in IT !!! Columbine High School is notable and needed in a reference work. Wooten is nice but not the subject of research. The "Washington slept here" stuff is chamber of commerce style bs. IMHO.
- Keep and make room for extra extreme helpings of BEEFSTEW. —RaD Man (talk) 02:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. No such thing as school articles being vanity. Btw, great article! --Andylkl 07:02, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Rockville, Maryland and delete - 10:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No evidence of non-notability, even though notability is not a criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia. Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. --GRider\talk 23:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I added an aerial photo and a nice table. Is that enough to keep it?
- Keep Tiresome deletioncruft. Wincoote 17:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 22:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- We're looking at a BEEFSTEW of nine and this is up for deletion?!? Keep. IMO, the article establishes notability pretty well as is, but it could certainly use an external reference. - Lucky 6.9 23:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. If this were what we typically got for secondary schools, I'd be in favor of keeping them generally. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:44, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. BEEFSTEW is a poor set of criteria for determining inclusion in Wikipedia. -- WOT 17:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep. For me, this is in the grey area of minimally notable things that we don't need articles on, but if someone bothers to actually make a decent non-stub factual and properly formated article, I don't object to leaving it here as mostly harmless. -- Infrogmation 16:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You expressed it better than I could. Weak keep --Tydaj 01:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep The article looks better than some other articles that I've seen. -- 68.255.38.230 00:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. More than a stubstub, but the article still leaves one wondering how this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill high school. How is it notable? Why does it belong in an encyclopedia? Jonathunder 23:50, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
- keep this please, its a great article. Yuckfoo 21:00, 18 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.