Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 12
February 12
[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. The votes were 7 delete, 6 keep. dbenbenn | talk 22:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
--I vote keep. This is not self promotion. He was on [CBC]. The charismatic voice and face at the forefront of almost every RantMedia project. Sean's miraid of shows stretch from the early beginnings of RantRadio with the WhatTheHell?!? Show to his ongoing RantTV series SKTFM.TV. ~Schnits
Self-promotion. Not a single one of the links in the article, which were external links before I wikified them, have Wikipedia articles. -- Paul Richter 05:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. This article is NOT self-promotion, as Paul Richter claims; it was started by Klipper. Also, I do not believe that anyone/anything should be judged by its popularity/publicity--it would be unscholarly and adsurd to do so. RantRadio may be a small, independent operation relying mainly on word-of-mouth promotion, but that does not warrant condemnation. Don't judge by size or popularity. Therefore, Keep. After all, the article is just a stub, plus there is already a short article on rantradio. Something to consider. ~Anonymous, 19:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by user 65.49.20.154. --InShaneee 18:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This note was removed at 18:22, Feb 22, 2005 by User:65.49.20.154. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 06:54, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by user 65.49.20.154. --InShaneee 18:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Does being a DJ/commentator on an internet radio station make a person notable? He does seem to be fairly popular within that medium. In any event, he's carved quite a niche for himself here. If he's not notable, then this image needs to be deleted, as well as a whole mess of mostly irrelevant photos at wikimedia commons. No vote yet. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 06:43, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm going to say keep. I still think there are way too many pictures on Commons, but I'm not familiar with the policies there. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 19:48, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- keep: Appologies if This comment is uncalled for, or if I do not get to have a say in things (I'm new to wikipedia ... there is a fair amount to read; expect this comment to be deleted if I don't actually get a vote or something if I find time to read through it all), but Sean is hardly just "a DJ/commentator." Thereis the entire KULT chapter of his life(albeit over) to consider. This must be weighed in; this man had a good deal of very radical people following his every word. But hey, come to the right conclusion; There is no doubt that Sean made an impact in the world, and the lives of thousands if not tens of thousands of people. I don't have any doubt in my mind that Sean's activity in some ways have been notable (being _the_ inspiring force in a lot of musicians, performing at clubs, organizing group after group, whatever); the hard part is seperating what happened with KULT with what sean is directly responsible for. Is this enough to justify a wikipedia article? Hard to say; but If my say counts, I'd err on the side of yes. I agree with Ashley Pomeroy, he was a quasi-Moussolini-type and this article likely needs work. And is the picture really neccesary? Perhaps if the picture was removed, those who feel that he is not popular enough, or whatever, can feel more at ease that he's getting less of the spotlight.themusicgod1 1:57:21 21 Feb 2005 (???)
- Comment, Google yields 1900 hits for "Sean Kennedy"+dj. The first page seems to contain articles about this person. Inter 10:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Searches for "Sean Kennedy"+Rantradio and +Kult return quite a few hits, and judging by this [4] he seems to be notable as a quasi-Mussolini-type figure, as you can tell from the commanding gaze in his photograph. Article as stands needs a lot of work, though. Are any of the WFMU DJs Wiki-notable? -Ashley Pomeroy 11:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP, he isn't exactly a DJ, he's a talk show host, news reporter, video show host, etc. check out some of his stuff and you'll understand! i don't see anyone trying to delete Howard Stern! --Klipper 15:15, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
- User:Klipper is User:68.202.3.109 (evidence), who created the page. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 19:09, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- This note was vandalized at 18:22, Feb 22, 2005 by User:65.49.20.154. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 06:54, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Sure if this guy was as big as Howard Stern, we wouldn't delete an article about him. But that rather begs the question: which is, how big is this guy? --BM 00:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- User:Klipper is User:68.202.3.109 (evidence), who created the page. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 19:09, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Rantradio is an internet radio site based in Langley British Columbia that has been online since 1999. It broadcasts three channels. They seem to have received a fair amount of publicity, judging from theGoogle hits. But according to Alexa, www,rantradio.com has a rank of 582,000, which isn't very impressive. How do you tell if an internet radio station or one of its DJ's is notable? There are a lot of them now. Arbitron does rankings of Internet radio stations, but Rantradio isn't ranked. Internet radio is a notable development, of course, and maybe a particular station is notable even with low traffic if it is a trailblazer, etc. But I'm not sure that would extend to one of its DJ's. --BM 22:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Vanity page (complete with publicity photo): unless some hard evidence of notability, delete. --Calton 01:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the most notable person on Rantradio. Rantradio itself is noteable, and I'm shocked there isnt an article on it yet. ALKIVAR™
06:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Alkivar, what is your source for rantradio being notable? --BM 13:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The fact that i've seen ads for it in person in more than 4 states. All of which are on the east coast ... and its west coast. thats a hell of an advertising campaign. 2) Results 1 - 100 of about 11,100 for rantradio 3) i dont need to justify my decision to you. ALKIVAR™ 06:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I wasn't asking for you to justify yourself, I just thought you might have some handle on the notability, so that I could decide how to vote. But I did, already. --BM 01:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The fact that i've seen ads for it in person in more than 4 states. All of which are on the east coast ... and its west coast. thats a hell of an advertising campaign. 2) Results 1 - 100 of about 11,100 for rantradio 3) i dont need to justify my decision to you. ALKIVAR™
- Alkivar, what is your source for rantradio being notable? --BM 13:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Sean describes himself as "the open source celebrity". if you have any question as to the notability of Sean, just check out the links provided on the article. tales from the afternow is a great story! patrolling has changed me quite a bit. the sean k show provides hours of laughs and good info. the scabbed wings of abbadon is an impressive book. just take 10 minutes to check it out, i think you'll be glad you did.... unless your a scientologist --Klipper 18:21, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
- Comment: Klipper, this isn't a discussion about whether Sean or rantradio are entertaining; no doubt some people think they are. It is about whether the website or its talent are notable. I spent quite a long time last night trying to understand how one would determine whether an Internet radio channel, or its on-air talent, were notable, and it seems to be very hard. Arbitron and a couple of other similar services are doing ratings of audio streams on the internet, similar to their ratings of conventional radio stations. According to Arbitron, the Top 15 networks twelve months ago included AOLRadio Network, Yahoo!'s Launchcast,MSN Radio, Virgin Radio, and several regular radio stations that stream their content on the internet. Rankradio was not in the list; so who knows what its listenership is? Even the 15th on the Arbitron list had only 38,000 listener-hours during the measured week. Rantradio also didn't make it onto the list of the Top 20 stations that was released by Webcast Metrics. On the Webcast Metrics, the 20th ranked station, only had a daily CUME of 11,485, meaning that only 11,485 unique IP's were recorded as listening for at least 5 minutes during the measured day. Since being 20th on this list isn't too impressive in absolute terms, one has to wonder about the notability of a station that isn't even on the list. --BM 21:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: i don't think that popularity would constitute a station's significance. what if someone in a mental institution had come up with plans for a flying car or something, but no one would listen to them because they were 'crazy'? their plans may not have been very popular, but still significant! that wasn't a very good analogy, but i'm sick and it was the best i could think up :P --Klipper 21:57, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't understand the point of your analogy. If you would like to suggest some other criterion according to which internet radio stations and their talent might be deemed notable, please go ahead. Are you trying to say that the station and its primary DJ are notable because they are notably inventive and innovative? That might be so, but it would have to be demonstrated that they were inventive and innovative and not just by the say-so of some Wikipedia editor. There would have to be citable sources that stated this, and I don't think I would accept if it was just their own bragging. Being innovative in secret wouldn't count either; for one thing, I would want to know if it is so secret, how do you know about it? --BM 02:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: i don't think that popularity would constitute a station's significance. what if someone in a mental institution had come up with plans for a flying car or something, but no one would listen to them because they were 'crazy'? their plans may not have been very popular, but still significant! that wasn't a very good analogy, but i'm sick and it was the best i could think up :P --Klipper 21:57, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
- Comment: Klipper, this isn't a discussion about whether Sean or rantradio are entertaining; no doubt some people think they are. It is about whether the website or its talent are notable. I spent quite a long time last night trying to understand how one would determine whether an Internet radio channel, or its on-air talent, were notable, and it seems to be very hard. Arbitron and a couple of other similar services are doing ratings of audio streams on the internet, similar to their ratings of conventional radio stations. According to Arbitron, the Top 15 networks twelve months ago included AOLRadio Network, Yahoo!'s Launchcast,MSN Radio, Virgin Radio, and several regular radio stations that stream their content on the internet. Rankradio was not in the list; so who knows what its listenership is? Even the 15th on the Arbitron list had only 38,000 listener-hours during the measured week. Rantradio also didn't make it onto the list of the Top 20 stations that was released by Webcast Metrics. On the Webcast Metrics, the 20th ranked station, only had a daily CUME of 11,485, meaning that only 11,485 unique IP's were recorded as listening for at least 5 minutes during the measured day. Since being 20th on this list isn't too impressive in absolute terms, one has to wonder about the notability of a station that isn't even on the list. --BM 21:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep While some of the Radio sites you refere to here may have more listeners than RantRadio, I think you're forgetting that Mr. Kennedy is involved not only with RantRadio but also with Rantmedia as a whole. There is a community affixed to RantMedia, this includes not only the listeners, but also people who download the episodes and read the forum and books. Along with a couple of other personalities Mr. Kennedy is one of the kingpins. As stated above, the Rant* comunity has been there since 1999 and we are not talking about a couple of friends listening to a radio station someone they know started, we are talking about people from all over the world who are listening, reading, and viewing what Sean Kennedy has produced. And people are really inspired by Mr. Kennedy, if you do not believe me, then read the forum (e.g. the Patrolling Forum on RantRadio). I do not see why this entry should be deleted at all. It is obvious that stations like AOLRadio Network, Yahoo!'s Launchcast,MSN Radio and Virgin Radio are used by a greater audience than RantRadio, they have the money to do the advertising and people know they're there because of this. How could one prove that Sean Kennedy is a great inspiration to those who listen to him? Well, we could cite the mails he gets from people in NewsReal, we could qoute what the users of the forum says or even tjek the IRC-Channel, but would that be enough? If Wikipedia had been aroung while Edgar Allan Poe lived then the same arguments for deletion could have been applied if he had had an entry. I tjekked what the entry about Sean Kennedy said and it matched with what can be found on RantMedia, so if the entry isn't fake, why should it be removed? I thought the idea was to type in what you wanted to know something about and then you would get the entries for that search word. --FRUGT.O5 17:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note: this is FRUGT.O5's only edit. --InShaneee 18:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, and if rantmedia is the many-tentacled empire behind rantradio.com, and it is actually the fount of notability for Sean Kennedy, how come its website www.rantmedia.com has an Alexa rank of 4 million and www.rantmedia.ca an Alexa rank of 2 million? My wife's website where we put up the artwork of our five-year old daughter and family pictures has an Alexa rank of 1,028,539, so these ranks are ultra-pathetic. I've never actually seen an Alexa rank that low before.
- Looks like BM forgot to sign. --InShaneee 15:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- what does alexa's rating of rantradio.com have anything to do with rantradio or sean kennedy's notability? --Klipper 02:52, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
- it means the web site and its talent doesn't have any audience to speak of, which is rather consequential for a radio station or a talk show host. You have intimated that their might be some other basis for notability, and I asked you to explain your reasoning, but you haven't. Make your case, man.
- Comment by BM --InShaneee 21:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No basis to believe this internet radio on-air person is notable. Probably self-promotion. --BM 01:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- self promotion?! i'm not sean kennedy. --Klipper 02:48, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
- Delete I love internet radio to death, and I think we as internet users really need to do our part to foster its growth. However, as of yet, it's still in its infantcy. I've been holding back an opinion on this, but the fact is that there's just not any notability here yet. The guy's got potential, but so do a lot of podcasters out there. Maybe in a few years, all of rantmedia will have a place here.--InShaneee 16:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: oy gevalt! if you want to see its notability, CHECK IT OUT! check out the forums (over 1000 members,) check out the IRC (usually about 100 people sitting in there,) check out some of the shows! --Klipper 18:33, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
- Notability shouldn't be determined by what the editors of Wikipedia who vote in VfD think of the guy. It is determined by whether he has beome sufficiently notable that people are going to expect to find him the subject of an encyclopedia article. By the way, 1000 people on a forum site is not very impressive. And an Alexa rank of 582,000 suggests that it is not very busy. --BM 18:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: oy gevalt! if you want to see its notability, CHECK IT OUT! check out the forums (over 1000 members,) check out the IRC (usually about 100 people sitting in there,) check out some of the shows! --Klipper 18:33, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
- Comment. It concerns me the number of people on here citing the lack of Alexa Rank. Have any of you actually seen how these ranks are generated? According to thier own site www.alexa.com "Alexa's traffic rankings are based on the usage patterns of Alexa Toolbar users over a rolling 3 month period" So to put that much fait in a bunch of Alexa Toolbar users choice in webpages is neglegent and irresponsable. A more (although arguable still not 100% accurate and notoriously out of date) way to judge popularity would be google's pagerank. However it does not rely on a toolbar to gather it's information. You "Could" sumply use the argument that an intelligent audience does not use toolbars. All in all Alexa rank is in no way a good measure of popularity let alone a measure of relevency --CMoZ 03:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note:User CMoZ has only edited this page and Sean Kennedy (the page in question). --InShaneee 04:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Alexa is widely cited as a way of determining the notability of web sites; but it does have problems. The rankings are based on data gathered from the few million people who have installed the Alexa toolbar, and if a website's visitors for some reason were under- (or over-) represented among Alexa toolbar users, its rank could be mis-stated. That said, if you think Alexa data isn't accurate for rantradio.com, the burden is on you to cite some other evidence that the site has notable traffic. It is one thing to question quantitiative indicators like Alexa, but I don't see CMoZ providing any quantitative data. By the way, an Alexa of 580,000 is very low. The Alexa data would have to be wrong by an order of magnitude or even two orders of magnitude, just to get rantradio.com into the ballpark. Intimating that rantradio is underrepresented because its visitors are smart and Alexa toolbar users are stupid is not going to cut it. --BM 15:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: i agree that Alexa is an extremely poor way to judge a website's popularity! how many of the people on the internet use Alexa? i don't have the humble privilage of using Alexa due to my use of Linux and Firefox. as far as i know, only IE users are vulnerable to Alexa, and more and more people are switching over to the light side of the internet (using Firefox). if you're all so hell-bent on rating web sites' popularity, try google... i'd bet you a million that more people have heard of google than they have alexa! --Klipper 17:10, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
- Comment: not only is Alexa an extremely poor way to judge a web personality's popularity, but it would be an even worse way to judge Sean Kennedy; the two groups "people who follow Sean Kennedy" and "people who use Alexa" are very likely mutually exclusive, if not violently so. The people effected by the people who follow Sean Kennedy may not be so mutually exclusive, but the point still stands.themusicgod1 8:32ish 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: here is what I can see the google hits. The first two hits are the rantradio website itself. The next hit looks like a blog created by someone involved with rantradio. The next hit is for a user on deviantart named "rantradio", who is probably also involved with rantradio. The next one is some place selling t-shirts for rantradio, i.e. an affiliate of rantradio. Then there are couple related to rantradio meetups. On the subsequent pages, one has wikipedia and its mirrors due to the article here for rantradio. A lot of them are just quick mentions of rant radio in articles about internet radio, where a lot of other stations are also mentioned, and generally other stations get more prominence. And so it goes: it looks to me like these google links are just the result of intense self-promotion since 1999. Google Groups, which is a more stable indicator for Internet topics has only 42 hits, by the way. I can see why you want to discount all other indicators of notability except for google, but do you actually have anything to establish notability aside from google-spamming? How many listeners does the station have? How many listener-hours per week? How big is the Sean Kennedy audience? I find it very telling that you either don't know these numbers, or refuse after repeated requests to provide them. --BM 14:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: i'll probably have to check with Cimmerian for those numbers, but i know that the stream, and all its mirrors lag whenever Sean would come on, and right now, rantradio is begging for more streaming mirrors because they are growing so much in popularity. --Klipper 01:36, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
- Comment: i agree that Alexa is an extremely poor way to judge a website's popularity! how many of the people on the internet use Alexa? i don't have the humble privilage of using Alexa due to my use of Linux and Firefox. as far as i know, only IE users are vulnerable to Alexa, and more and more people are switching over to the light side of the internet (using Firefox). if you're all so hell-bent on rating web sites' popularity, try google... i'd bet you a million that more people have heard of google than they have alexa! --Klipper 17:10, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
- Delete, under the bar of notability for me, possible self-promotion. Megan1967 05:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Probable self-promotion, definately not notable enough. Let's see some external proof of notability: interviews, news articles, etc. in the mainstream media. Gamaliel 07:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: for the last friggen time, ITS NOT SELF-PROMOTION! you want to see mainstream news coverage? how about WIRED? http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,37854,00.html or maybe The New York Times, The Langley Times, Exclaim Magazine, Globe And Mail, Spin Magazine, Vancouver Sun? had enough media coverage? well, there's MORE! had you taken maybe 5 minutes and CHECKED IT OUT, you would have found your evidence... http://rantmedia.ca/media.php and when i said there was more, there are media interviews in certain SK shows and WTH shows. --Klipper 17:04, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
- You'll discover people are more willing to change their votes when dealt with politely. Gamaliel 17:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment:Unfortunately for Sean, politeness in action, is if anything not what he preaches; and those like Klipper are going to have a hard time stepping away from that. Klipper's behavoir is part of the rebellion against social convention that Sean would exactly support.themusicgod1 8:33:21 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- People should vote their conscience and nothing else. GRider\talk 00:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You'll discover people are more willing to change their votes when dealt with politely. Gamaliel 17:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: for the last friggen time, ITS NOT SELF-PROMOTION! you want to see mainstream news coverage? how about WIRED? http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,37854,00.html or maybe The New York Times, The Langley Times, Exclaim Magazine, Globe And Mail, Spin Magazine, Vancouver Sun? had enough media coverage? well, there's MORE! had you taken maybe 5 minutes and CHECKED IT OUT, you would have found your evidence... http://rantmedia.ca/media.php and when i said there was more, there are media interviews in certain SK shows and WTH shows. --Klipper 17:04, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
- Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 00:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: Sean has just recently come back from an invitaion to speak at the Adirondack Community College in New York, he has spoken at a few DEFCONs and has been invited to the next one, he has had major media coverage, there is a growing community of support for Rant Media, the Alexia popularity contest argument has been overcome, it is not self-promotion as there are obviously others who would keep it (as well as he did not create the article), and the photo was used as it is the most recent. It should not matter how many pages a person has edited under the current username, as I thought from editing many articles that it could be done anonymously, and before it is posted, this is the first document I have edited under this username. I have only done so for this article as I want to be able to watch the page and recieve an email if I am replied to. As for Google Groups, unless they completely changed everything about it in version 2, I thought that it was a way for people to search newsgroups as a whole. So I would want to know how many people use usenet regularly, I would exclude of course *.bin.*, and company use of newsgroups (such as Microsoft), as these are there for specific reasons that would have nothing to do with popularity. I would be for another request for deletion if Rant Media became defunct, or if Sean Kennedy quit the show as then any relevance would not matter.Just my two cents on the issue.-- <+=Jijinmachina 20:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note: this is Jijinmachina's only edit. --InShaneee 02:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note: I have stated this already, see above, so why did InShaneee post it? I normally edit anonymously as I hate being tracked in any way. Once this is over I more then likely will not log in under this account again. <+=Jijinmachina 02:19, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note: this is Jijinmachina's only edit. --InShaneee 02:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. See criteria for inclusion of biographies. --Pjacobi 00:52, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
- Comment: As the inclusion criteria for biographies has still not been accepted for use as a guideline, it does not have to be adheared to. <+=Jijinmachina 01:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I am the one who started the Rantradio article, because I and many friends listen to it and it has survived long enough as a web station to show it's viability (It has expanded a great deal since I started listening). I believe that both Sean Kennedy and James O'Brien, as the creators, are significant enough to have their own article. The Steve 05:30, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion with a block compress error. Joyous 18:16, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. Description of an IRC battle bot with extensive thank you list. --Radiant! 10:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete agreed this is vanity, lets lose this cruft. ALKIVAR™ 06:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete vanity. Vain, vain, vain. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:51, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Company vanity. Just one line and a hyperlink. --Radiant! 10:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) Request withdrawn. Radiant! 08:17, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. $409 million turnover, $1.4 billion market capitalisation company. I've heard of it and I'm neither American nor in the IT sector, although I do read the New York Times business section on the web. I have expanded it slightly and categorised it. Philip 13:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. a Fortune 1000 company. ALKIVAR™ 06:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and Expand. Significant company. Capitalistroadster 06:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. A significant company. In business terms and technology terms. A lot of the Internet backbone runs on equipment manufactured by these guys. --BM 15:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, point taken. Since consensus seems clear (and the article has been expanded already), can I just withdraw the VFD marker I placed for this article? Or does that require a mod's attention? Radiant! 08:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The general ettiquette is to show your desire to remove the nomination by striking through your comments above (using <s>text</s>). Removing the VfD tag early is severely frowned upon. Too often, it is a tactic used by vandals to try to disrupt the process. At the end of the 5 day discussion period, the nomination will go through the Wikipedia:Deletion process. If the consensus is still an overwhelming "keep" at that point, anyone (including you) can follow the process to close the discussion and remove the tag. Rossami (talk) 20:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, done.
- Comment: The general ettiquette is to show your desire to remove the nomination by striking through your comments above (using <s>text</s>). Removing the VfD tag early is severely frowned upon. Too often, it is a tactic used by vandals to try to disrupt the process. At the end of the 5 day discussion period, the nomination will go through the Wikipedia:Deletion process. If the consensus is still an overwhelming "keep" at that point, anyone (including you) can follow the process to close the discussion and remove the tag. Rossami (talk) 20:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 23:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Very short review of a band album. Should instead redirect to that band. Individual album isn't notable, not sure if the band itself is. --Radiant! 10:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete POV, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep 1) Nas is a single rapper not a "group" 2) the fact that you are unaware of this fact means you shouldnt be VfDing this without at least googling it. 3) album went gold 4) album sub-stub, give it time to become a full album page. ALKIVAR™ 06:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Cleanup. Xezbeth 12:43, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Alkivar Kappa 14:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, notable album by extremely notable rapper Tuf-Kat 03:46, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and Expand I cleaned up the stub and made the proper corrections. This is a very important, successful, and critically acclaimed album from one of the most important hip hop music performers of the modern era. (I'm sensing a trend/agenda here; I hope I'm wrong). --b. Touch 18:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Legitimate subject. deeceevoice 20:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 00:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 23:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[[Grandes_%C9xitos_%28Shakira%29]]
[edit]Tracklist of an album. Not encyclopedic. --Radiant! 10:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 01:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Article cleaned up and expanded. Megan1967 05:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well done to the person who cleaned up this article. Keep. Capitalistroadster 05:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep a concise album page without going fancrufty, should be kept. ALKIVAR™ 06:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, album. Xezbeth 12:42, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Tuf-Kat 03:48, Feb 14, 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. dbenbenn | talk 00:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Tracklist of an album. Not encyclopedic. --Radiant! 10:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- keep. This is one of thousands of album articles, including five by this act, which has apparently topped the German charts. It's hard to see why it should be singled out for deletion. Philip 12:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Wasn't singled out as such, I just happened to come across it from the Dead End Pages. If not deleted, it should be marked as stub. --Radiant! 13:13, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You are either saying that album articles are unencyclopaedic, in which case you have thousands of vfd nominations to get through, or you are voting for it to be deleted because it is a stub, which is not a valid reason. Philip 04:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sure user BM can help me get through a few thousand of them. Megan1967 09:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You are either saying that album articles are unencyclopaedic, in which case you have thousands of vfd nominations to get through, or you are voting for it to be deleted because it is a stub, which is not a valid reason. Philip 04:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, or could be merged. Kappa 05:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep although I HATE HATE HATE this group its a valid album stub and should be kept. ALKIVAR™ 06:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this and almost every other album article. Wyss 12:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I am wondering why only a few album articles out of thousands were put on VfD. Xezbeth 12:45, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Because they were listed on Dead End Pages, and had only a track list rather than more information on the album. Radiant! 08:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep notable album by notable band. Tuf-Kat 03:48, Feb 14, 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. dbenbenn | talk 00:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Stub describing a kind of t-shirt. Notable or vanity? --Radiant! 10:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, expand and perhaps rename. Google receives more hits using "Global Hypercolour" (no hyphen), so I'm assuming the correct name is the latter? Megan1967 01:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - I remember this fad. Had one of the shirts until my mom ran it through the dryer on a too-high setting and destroyed the color change ability. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I remember it, too. Someone once gave me some socks like this. Keep, Move as per Megan1967, and add a Redirect from Global_Hyper-Colour for good measure. Uncle G 03:57, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
- Keep notable, highly collectable as well if you can find one that still will change color. Problem is most of them stopped working after a few washes. Notable also for making you look like your arpits were soaked through the entire time you wore them. (For the record I still own a functional one that I wear to 1980s themed parties) ALKIVAR™ 06:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable. Damn, now if only I could remember the name of the Seattle company that made these. They had a short dramatic run & went broke. When I worked at Active Voice in the early 1990s, we were partly in their former offices. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:57, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep WLD 09:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 01:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Fails to establish notability. That is possibly because the article doesn't explain what band this guy is in. --Radiant! 10:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into UGK. Nateji77 12:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, article does not establish notability, possible artist vanity. Megan1967 02:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. You people are so full of it. UGK has sold over 2 million records. That means millions of people know who this guy is. You can't delete a page because you personally are not familiar with it. CPS 04:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into UGK this is a stub, so is UGK. A merge leaves us with 1 article thats improved. ALKIVAR™ 06:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and Cleanup. UGK has had six albums including a greatest hits album. All of these have charted on the Billboard HipHop Album Charts and most have made the top 100 of the Billboard album charts. They therefore qualify under the Wikimusic project guidelines. A search for "Pimp C" on Google shows 17,500 hits as well as 634 Google Groups hits and 2 Google News articles. It seems that he has a solo album coming out which suggests that he might qualify for an article in his own right. [7].
Capitalistroadster 06:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge agree with Alkivar.--ZayZayEM 14:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or merge Kappa 14:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep for meeting WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion. Tuf-Kat 03:50, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to UGK. The group is notable, but this individual is not notable outside of the group's context. Cleanup needed. — Gwalla | Talk 23:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP! Pimp C and Bun B both appear on Jay-Z's "Big Pimpin'", a monster hit single in 2000. UGK is one of the most popular acts in the Southern U.S., and are signed to Jive Records. Pimp C is notable on his own because he was imprisoned in January 2003. I cleaned up the Pimp C and UGK articles; the Bun B article is next on my agenda. I know a lot (most?) of people here aren't American, but...what's with nominating articles by well-known rappers for deletion (see Lil' Scrappy VfD nomination below)? --b. Touch 18:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Legitimate subject for Wiki. deeceevoice 20:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. —RaD Man (talk) 02:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep & clean up — Dewet 14:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 01:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Radiant! 10:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC): Tracklist of an album.
- Keep Kappa 10:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment pages for albums should probably have a little substance than a track list and a potentially copyrighted image. a summary of critical reception, description of the sound of this album vs others, etc. Nateji77 13:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Ideally yes, tracklists should stay on the artist's page until they become articles, but there are far too many albums stubs to bother merging. Kappa 17:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep valid album stub. needs work but its worth keeping and being fixed. ALKIVAR™ 06:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, unencyclopedic fork. Wyss 12:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I think its been established by now that albums are worthy of articles (there's thousands of them, in case you haven't noticed). Xezbeth 12:20, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Mine's just a single vote, a single opinion. :) Wyss 18:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Tuf-Kat 03:51, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 14:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Duplicates the slightly fuller Hatton Garden. Philip 12:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect Radiant! 13:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I've boldly redirected this, VfD is kinda full at the moment. Substub content was already included the target. Kappa 13:35, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep all real places -RickK^H^H^H^H^H and Your redirect went the wrong way. Our typical standard is to be more specific. Move Hatton Garden -> Hatton Garden, London and keep this thing. ALKIVAR™ 06:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep all real places -RickK^H^H^H^H^H and Your redirect went the wrong way. Our typical standard is to be more specific. Move Hatton Garden -> Hatton Garden, London and keep this thing. ALKIVAR™
- It is not standard to disambiguate articles which are not duplicates because it looks messy and does not call things by their usual names. Wincoote 21:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 14:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. We can't have an article on every soldier in every war. – flamurai (t) 12:53, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. the references in Ledo Road suffice. Nateji77 13:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep He was a general. Philip 13:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with an article about a war he fought in. Radiant! 13:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Tentative keep. Unless he's Douglas MacArthur then there probably isn't room for him in the main World War II article. In principle he could be merged to Ledo Road, but I'd like to give the General time to fill out a bit. TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep; A general involved in significant campaigns during wartime. Kappa 13:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. as a general he certainly passes the notability standard for biography, but it definately needs a ton of work, someone list it on COTW. ALKIVAR™ 05:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Needs to be cleaned up but a World War II General is definitely notable. We also need an article for John Arrowsmith who was a founding member of the Royal Geographic Society and who produced the London Atlas which was rated as the best world atlas yet produced. Capitalistroadster 06:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, there were lots of generals back then. Wyss 12:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Reasonable to think about having an article on every general in WW II. RickK 21:52, Feb 13, 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. dbenbenn | talk 22:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. We can't have an article on every soldier in every war. – flamurai (t) 12:54, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. The events are encyclopedic but the personal history of this colonel is not. Delete Radiant! 13:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I think wikipedia has space for everyone who co-wrote the Pick-Sloan Plan. Kappa 13:27, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. decorated military record "Pick was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster" not too many people earn TWO of those medals (the oak leaf signifies multiple recipient). ALKIVAR™ 06:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and Cleanup. US Major-General. The Pick-Sloan Plan created a series of dams on the Missouri River and the issue is still a significant issue today. See Minnesota Public Radio story for example. [10] Capitalistroadster 06:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, helpful article about a civil engineer whose life had some encyclopedic qualities. Wyss 12:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I've categorised it. Wincoote 21:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Are we sure these aren't copied from somewhere? RickK 21:54, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd check very carefully for copyvios, since we've had articles on both Lewis Pick and John C. Arrowsmith before which turned out to be copied from other sources. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 22:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not noteworthy - returned no Google hits Brookie 13:41, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You're obviously better than me! - but does 1 count as noteworthy? 14:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know; maybe put a kiwi stub and a cleanup req on it, see what happens/ Nateji77 14:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You're obviously better than me! - but does 1 count as noteworthy? 14:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Has four valid outgoing wikilinks to bands. (Alternatively review the whole of Special:Contributions/Ross-c with a view to VfD. A piecemeal nomination of one article is pointless.) -- RWH 17:42, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable - 25 Google hits. Megan1967 02:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, barely. Wyss 12:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- keep - member of four of New Zealand's top bands of the 1980s, and writer of at least one chart-topping song. The small number of Google hits may be largely because he was known as Andrew McLennan for much of his career. Grutness|hello?
06:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 22:32, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
at the very least belongs as a section on the album page. Nateji77 14:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep successful singles. Kappa 17:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect with Meteora (album). -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 20:10, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect Radiant! 23:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. It's a notable song now, but it might not be in a few years. Wait a while and then see if it's worth its own article. My guess is that it probably isn't. --Idont Havaname 00:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 02:09 Z
- Delete, trivial, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- merge and redirect. ALKIVAR™
- Keep and expand. Notable world wide hit. If the mood is that it doesn't warrant being kept, then merge and redirect to Meteora. Capitalistroadster 06:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, it doesn't belong here. Wyss 11:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. RickK 21:58, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, probably merge would be best, at least for now Tuf-Kat 03:53, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE or REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 22:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- A non-notable, non-genuine prefix that (IMHO) has never been practically used. How is this article useful?? Georgia guy 23:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to Zetta and redirect to HEPA. Gazpacho 10:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Can someone verify if this saw some relatively widespread use? If so merge, if not delete. Radiant! 23:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to HEPA. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to HEPA. Megan1967 02:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to HEPA. Cleduc 04:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge as trivia footnote to Zetta. Disambig link from HEPA, if necessary. — RJH 04:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- delete content and redirect. ALKIVAR™ 05:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, will mislead as a redirect. Wyss 11:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to HEPA; a brief disambig notice (pointing to Zetta) on that page would be acceptable. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to zetta and dismabig to zetta and HEPA. — Gwalla | Talk 00:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 22:53, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this meets customary Wikipedian standards for notability for biographies. Entire page content is "Dean of St. John's College, Annapolis MD. Frequently lectures on the Conics of Apollonius. Notorious for delivering lectures in multiple parts. See also St. John's College." Wikipedia is not RateMyProfessors.com. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- He's only notable for teaching lectures in multiple parts. Delete Radiant! 23:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep passes our published standard for biography on wikipedia as he is above an average professor being dean of a college. although this bio is crap at the moment. ALKIVAR™ 05:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The "professor test" is "an alternative that has been proposed." Clearly someone less notable than the average professor should not be included, but I don't think anyone ever meant to suggest that Wikipedia should include biographies of about half the professors in the United States. Or even all the Deans. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and Cleanup. Has written a book The Effective Republic. Capitalistroadster 06:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, it'll grow. Wyss 11:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I wonder what proportion of professors are more notable than average. It depends on the skewness the distribution. For example, if the vast majority of them are non-notable, but there are a few extremely notable ones to raise the average, then the proportion will be quite small. Kappa 13:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No evidence presented that he exceeds the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. (Holding the administrative position of Dean is insufficient evidence that he passes the "average professor" test. Publishing a single book which as an Amazon sales ranking of 1,599,470 is also insufficient.) Unless further evidence can be found, delete. Rossami (talk) 14:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability not established. I don't think the "average professor" test is meant to be taken literally and to require that we have articles on half the professors. The vast majority of them aren't notable, their pretensions otherwise notwithstanding. --BM 17:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Absolutely nothing notable here. Gamaliel 07:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 00:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. See criteria for inclusion of biographies. --Pjacobi 00:53, 2005 Feb 21 (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.