Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 11
March 11
[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 redirect to New York. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- New York already exists as the article for the state, and there is no need for a duplicated article with a dis-ambiguation suffix. Delete if no one can think of a disadvantage of having the article for the state at New York. Georgia guy 00:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as duplicate Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:55, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Make a redirect and cancel the needless vote. Some people will (and do) link to this title anyway, so it's not useless as a redirect.--Pharos 00:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, as per "What links here", the only two things that link to this article are this VFD discussion itself and the WP:RFD discussion for the entirely useless New York (U.S. state) (disambiguation). Uncle G 10:26, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
- Delete....how is this not a speedy delete. Oh well. Do whatever except keep. Cburnett 01:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Make a redirect in agreement with Pharos. Courtland 01:26, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
- This isn't a speedy delete because it should be redirected. Kappa 02:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect. Why not? DaveTheRed 03:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect. JamesMLane 04:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect. Srcastic 06:22, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Being bold, I turned it into a redirect. Move along, please; there's nothing to see here. Thank you. --Plek 06:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Actually you're being underlined here :)
- Redirect. Duplicate, useful title for redirect. Sjakkalle 12:18, 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.
VfD tag should be removed as article survived VfD. Should not be put back unless relisted. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
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) 01:16, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
I recommend this Australian psychedelic trance project's article should be removed if the following can be established: That playing "to countless festivals & parties around the globe including Japan, Portugal, Sweden, New Zealand, Switzerland, Holland, France & Belgium" since 1997 does not count as an international concert tour. Because otherwise it meets none of the Music notability criteria. It has 536 unique google hits, but that is the approximate number of psychedelic trance junkies who log into blogs. The sole individual behind the artistic project, Paul McCosh, gets 39 unique google hits. The project released two albums on Boom! Records, a label which has released a total of 19 albums. It is not mentioned on All Music Guide. 216.119.136.157 02:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets the 2 album requirement (see here for complete discography). I hereby disclose that I am the author of this article. -Ld | talk 02:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The criterion's requirement is fulfilled not just by the artist releasing two albums. The label on which it is released must be major or an important independent label with other notable artists. As I already said, Boom! Records, Fractal Glider's label, has released a total of 19 albums including Fractal Glider's two, and not including, I should add, any other notable artists.
- Of course, using circular logic you assume other artists who have released on this label are not notable as well. In fact, those artists include Rastaliens, Logic Bomb, Battle of the Future Buddhas, Chi Ad, Cosmoon, and Ubar Tmar. -Ld | talk 04:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- How is that circular logic? Do any of those bands satisfy the notability guidelines for musicians? Android79 04:48, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed. For instance, Logic Bomb has 2 albums released on TIP World and Spiral Trax (two of the bigger psytrance labels). Chi Ad has 3 albums released 2 of them on Nova Tekk (a well-known German label). Finally, Fractal Glider is fairly represantative of the psychedelic trance scene in Australia. -Ld | talk 04:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Neither Logic Bomb and Chi Ad have released individual albums on Boom! Records, they have only allowed some of their songs to be released on compilation albums, so Boom! Records is still not an "important indie label" according to the criterion. And being "fairly represantative" of the psychedelic trance scene in Australia is not the same as having "become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both)" which is the text of that different criterion. Wikipedia has to draw a line at creating new entire music articles somewhere. 216.119.144.33 08:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed. For instance, Logic Bomb has 2 albums released on TIP World and Spiral Trax (two of the bigger psytrance labels). Chi Ad has 3 albums released 2 of them on Nova Tekk (a well-known German label). Finally, Fractal Glider is fairly represantative of the psychedelic trance scene in Australia. -Ld | talk 04:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ld, you haven't established the notability of the bands you've listed as "notable" on Fractal Glider's label, you've only made articles for them. What's more to the point is the actual text of the criterion: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable) [emphasis mine]. You list 6 bands. Only 4 of them have released actual albums for Boom! Records (FG's label). The other two have individual songs on compilation albums for that label. Of the 4 with actual albums, they all have fewer google hits than Fractal Glider does [run with the name of the band and the word "trance"]! Ubar Tmar, admittedly is in the All Music Guide and the only one there, but he no longer releases albums with Boom! Records and besides, he would be only one notable performer rather than the many that is required for meeting the criterion. 216.119.144.33 08:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- How is that circular logic? Do any of those bands satisfy the notability guidelines for musicians? Android79 04:48, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Of course, using circular logic you assume other artists who have released on this label are not notable as well. In fact, those artists include Rastaliens, Logic Bomb, Battle of the Future Buddhas, Chi Ad, Cosmoon, and Ubar Tmar. -Ld | talk 04:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The criterion's requirement is fulfilled not just by the artist releasing two albums. The label on which it is released must be major or an important independent label with other notable artists. As I already said, Boom! Records, Fractal Glider's label, has released a total of 19 albums including Fractal Glider's two, and not including, I should add, any other notable artists.
Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines for musicians.Keep. Recent edits establish notability, particularly the international tour. Android79 16:02, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)- Keep, though it would have been easier to vote this way if there was more there there. For an outfit of this type, "festivals and parties" is exactly how one measures success. Jgm 04:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Two albums is more than enough. And also, I would say that playing multiple gigs on several continents in the course of a year or two counts as the equivalent of a tour. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:36, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- But it's not over the course of a year or two. Its over the course of eight years. McCosh says he started in 1997. 216.119.144.33 08:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 05:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, if just under the bar of notability, but still together/producing music, and meeting the musician criteria of 2 or more albums, should keep. Srcastic 06:27, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- But it doesn't meet the criterion of notability, because Boom! Records isn't an important enough label according to the same stated criterion you mention. See above. Should we change your vote to delete to reflect this? 216.119.144.33 08:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No, but thanks for asking - I still vote to Keep. I admit that from the newspaper research I have done, it seems that they are more of a regional group, notable for their influence in an underground genre of music (that I know little about), but that they are considered influential in that genre seems to weigh for keeping them in. There may be an argument for merging them with the genre they are a part of, but there is little argument for eliminating them altogether. Srcastic 09:10, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- But it doesn't meet the criterion of notability, because Boom! Records isn't an important enough label according to the same stated criterion you mention. See above. Should we change your vote to delete to reflect this? 216.119.144.33 08:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable band, albums should be released by an established label or they don't count. Just like books published by 'vanity press' do not count for a writer. Radiant! 08:49, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Note updated references. Srcastic 09:10, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, passes my own notaility criteria, which is "there are people outside Australia who heard them". Grue 10:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I have expanded the article with additional information, references, and links. -Ld | talk 14:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Arevich
- Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. --GRider\talk 18:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, because they've done an international tour. DaveTheRed 19:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No allmusic.com entry for Fractal Glider or Paul McCoosh. Gamaliel 19:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, internationally known. Kappa 20:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep it. Wyss 04:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:22 Z
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 02:03, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete This is a very not notable conference. When I put Barcelona Conference on a google search it came up with a conference on AIDS. When I put up Barcelona Conference Solana I got a lot of religious sites claiming it was a part of Javier Solana's antichrist work. This site was almost certainly written by User:Cumbey, a self-confessed Solana is the Beast believer. She also wrote Barcelona Process[4], which was speedily deleted 2 weeks later. The only reason this piece exists is to offer evidences to Christians who think Solana may be the Beast. The fact that Google doesn't easily offer any information about it that is not from a Christian point of view indicates to me that it is not noteworthy except to Christians who think Solana may be the Beast. --SqueakBox 02:50, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC).
Keep. I have changed my mind, based on the efforts of Kevintoronto especially, and the keep faction. Can I remove the delete notice?
- Delete, not notable, rantish. Megan1967 05:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Strangely, this article now reads as being a well-written account of something that may well be notable. I suspect that this is the result of SqueakBox's edits. I don't know why it would be deleted when there seems to be so very much room for articles about Star Wars and Star Trek characters and characters and items from Nintendo and Xbox games. Kevintoronto 14:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
At least we can find information about Lieutenant Uhura, etc. I cannot easily find anything about this conference except on Christian sites, so cannot even confirm whether or not what is here is true. --SqueakBox 17:32, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless considerable independent verification provided. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:16, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
This [5] is an article from something called the "Official Journal of the European Communities", and seems o back it up. I found this by googling "Common Strategy on the Mediterranean Region". And here is the Barcelona Declaration: [6] from the website of "The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN)", a network of more than 60 human rights organizations from over 20 countries in the Euro-Mediterranean region. "The EMHRN was established in January 1997 with the following main objectives: to support and publicize the universal principles of human rights as expressed in the Barcelona Declaration; to strengthen, assist and co-ordinate the efforts of its members to monitor the Partner States’ compliance with the human rights principles in the Barcelona Declaration; to support the development of democratic institutions, promote the rule of law, human rights and human rights education, and to strengthen civil society in the Euro-Mediterranean region." And from the UK Office of the European Parliament: [7] I haven't waded through all of this euro-bureaucratic babble to see if the article represents it correctly, but it does seem to eb very real. Comments? Kevintoronto 22:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This is a very obvious keep. The Barcelona Process is a very real thing, and I had written a bit about it a long time ago in Third country relationships with the EU. Calling it non-notable is ludicrous. Here's a very recent BBC article that refers to it: [8]. Squeakbox, instead of "Barcelona Conference Solana" you should have googled for "Barcelona Conference EU", which would have given you this official page instead: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/euromed/bd.htm Aris Katsaris 03:59, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but this thing needs to be sheared, way... sounds like it was written by another bloody bureaucrat in Brussels. Wyss 04:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well we certainly have some sources now, so I may change my mind, but will wait and see if there is other input first. --SqueakBox 14:49, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Not very well-written, but that's not a VfD issue. Clearly actually happened, clearly notable. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:10, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The Barcelona Process is certainly notable, and very real. I am a freelance translator, and as chance would have it, I've been translating documents related to this project for the EU this past week. I understand the initial scepticism if the person who wrote the entry originally holds the peculiar belief that Javier Solana is "the beast". I'll try and spruce up the article as soon as I get a bit of time to do so. -- Jez 12:54, Mar 17, 2005
- Clearly KEEP. SqueakBox hatcheted the article and removed the external references. This is a ten year old process which Solana himself has so often said deserves celebration for this anniversary coming on November 28, 2005. [9] There is absolutely no rational reason to delete it other than for disinformation -- not information! It was SqueakBox and NOT Cumbey who tried to integrate this with "Number of the Beast" and other assorted unprofessional references which emanated from his work, not mine, Cumbey's! --
- I have a perfect right to bring Solana to the Beast article as there are people who think he is the Beast, including Herb Peters and Fulfilled Prophecy.com, amongst others. That is not unprofessional, that is doing good, irreproachable wiki work. What is unprofessional and in my mind unaccepatable is to try to offer proofs that Solana is the Beast. I have certainly not brought Barcelona Conference to the Beast article; I am not sure why Cumbey brought the issue up here? --SqueakBox 04:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Can we drop the whole "Solana is the Beast" thing, please? It's patently ludicrous and not worthy of anybody's time. This is an article about a noteworthy social/political process and should be kept. Jez 17:42, 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 speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 02:05, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable troll organization. Author reverted speedy delete tag, so it's now on VFD. jdb ❋ (talk) 03:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted as trolling. Neutralitytalk 03:33, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and protect from re-creation it's apparently been re-created. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:50, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Support speedy delete. Trolling. jni 09:29, 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. — mark ✎ 09:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Non notable, same for their unpublished book Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A Lynching and a Pastry Stand -- Chris 73 Talk 04:14, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Should have been speedily deleted. Unverifiable original research. If it is about a real family, it is possibly libelous material (IANAL). -- Decumanus 04:16, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
- Delete—I was just about to list this (thanks for doing so, Chris!). I could not verify any part of this article, about a supposedly "famous" family with a "dark past" involving genocide. There are several "Schmidt Barkery/Bakeries", but none of them appear to be the one mentioned in the article. Even if this isn't a hoax, I question its notability and its suitability in light of Wikipedia:No original research. The "references" aren't exactly up to snuff and do nothing to help verify the article's contents. The author has attempted to insert allusions to this article into several other topics, but I've removed them. -- Hadal 04:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I vote to keep this page. This family's history was completely unknown until I publicized it. I believe it should be kept as the family needs to be recognized more widely. I do not disagree with the removal of the unpublished book, but the family is very notable as they have a fascinating history. I believe that the history of the family is important because so many people would be fascinated to hear the history behind their little eateries. Also, it is a notable business whose history deserves to be documented. The Schluegenkopfs are legendarily famous through much of their homeland region and much of Austria. The Schluegenkopf are also make for interesting bits of trivia about Oregon and especially Portland. I believe the page is notable, and by far notable enough to remain on Wikipedia. And to Hadal, I completely do not disagree with the removal of the links. The research had been done priorly, mainly in family history documents only distributed among the family itself, but I am the first to put it in anyway onto the internet.
- Note: Vote above by User:Eddyrichards, formerly User:4.5.89.46, whom I have asked to get a login for voting. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:44, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Even if what you say is true, it does not change the fact that your article is original research, which is not the type of material Wikipedia exists to host. Since you stand by the veracity of your article, could you explain this? It seems you took text from the supposedly misspelt Schluedenkopf article to create the Schluegenkopf article. However, you then changed some important aspects of the story: "Dover Corporation" becomes "Schmidt Bakery" and "Dmitri" gets renamed to "Gregorio". True, the original text was submitted by a different IP, but if s/he got so many other basic facts right (dates, etc) I doubt s/he would fudge up the name of the company itself! -- Hadal 04:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- CommentAlright, I suppose it is considered original research. And for the SchluDenkopf thing, it was from a very botched oral tale that I heard and posted after discovering the site. It sparked my interest enough to thouroughly research the company and discover the truth. After contacting my original source, they admit the used some "imagination" in the retelling of the story. I do apologize for originally posting such an erroneous document, but it did lead me to the truth about the Schluegenkopfs. I thouroughly researched them before posting and continued to make minor edits as I talked to more of the family and came across more documents. After compiling significant research, I finally remembered to post it onto this site.
- OK! Delete, but enough embarassment. Eddyrichards 05:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- CommentAlright, I suppose it is considered original research. And for the SchluDenkopf thing, it was from a very botched oral tale that I heard and posted after discovering the site. It sparked my interest enough to thouroughly research the company and discover the truth. After contacting my original source, they admit the used some "imagination" in the retelling of the story. I do apologize for originally posting such an erroneous document, but it did lead me to the truth about the Schluegenkopfs. I thouroughly researched them before posting and continued to make minor edits as I talked to more of the family and came across more documents. After compiling significant research, I finally remembered to post it onto this site.
- Even if what you say is true, it does not change the fact that your article is original research, which is not the type of material Wikipedia exists to host. Since you stand by the veracity of your article, could you explain this? It seems you took text from the supposedly misspelt Schluedenkopf article to create the Schluegenkopf article. However, you then changed some important aspects of the story: "Dover Corporation" becomes "Schmidt Bakery" and "Dmitri" gets renamed to "Gregorio". True, the original text was submitted by a different IP, but if s/he got so many other basic facts right (dates, etc) I doubt s/he would fudge up the name of the company itself! -- Hadal 04:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Take your pick: likely hoax, unverifiable, original research, not notable... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:01, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research. Unverifiable. Non-notable. Gamaliel 05:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, original essay. Megan1967 05:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non notable. This idea that we are here to promote subjects so they become famous is ridiculous. --Woohookitty 06:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Starblind. Radiant! 08:48, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Jonathunder 23:15, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
- Comment Please, No more insults to the beautiful article. It is all true, i'm sorry you all feel the need to erase it, but I understand your argument. Now that I better know the policies, I see why my article needs to be deleted. And yes, it is an original essay. If it wasn't that would plagarism. It is not completely original research, but pulled from other documents and interviews and compiled altogether, mainly from the unpublished book. Eddyrichards 01:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as vandalism, possible slander. Wyss 03:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
COMMENT: Wyss, in what sense is it even possibly be considered slander, kind sir?
- Delete. Patent nosense. And a warning to the poster not to try to create more hoax articles like this. RickK 00:18, Mar 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 DELETE. — mark ✎ 09:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable -- Chris 73 Talk 04:14, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if this book exists—which wouldn't be easy to ascertain—it's unpublished. See my comments regarding the related Schluegenkopf article at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Schluegenkopf. -- Hadal 04:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete suspect hoax... if a book connects the owners of a bakery to a lynching a century ago, would it make any sense that the bakery would display the book, as the article states? On the tiny sliver of chance that this article is truthful, an unpublished book about an obscure bakery wouldn't be notable enough for an article anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:44, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Unpublished book. Zero google hits. Gamaliel 05:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 05:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as vandalism, this is a hoax is all. Wyss 03:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Patent nonsense. RickK 00:19, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Oh dear, mere whimsy. (If you're going to attempt a hoax, less whimsy and more wit, please!) Delete. -- Hoary 04:54, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-Notable. (The book exists, but its not notable enough for wiki)-Eddyrichards 23:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 04:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
At first I thought it was vanity, but I'm not 100% sure. was a game developer for a year - some 600 google hits. Even if not a vanity I doubt he qualifies for notability. Grutness|hello? 
05:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or merge with Liero which he developed during that year. Kappa 05:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete programmers/developers unless legendarily famous (i.e. Bill Gates, Sid Meier, etc.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:01, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Liero, since that's the only thing he's notable for. Radiant! 08:48, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable author of non-notable hobbyist computer game. jni 10:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Liero. The game seems to have several fan-sites even 5 years since it stopped being developed, thus it's notable. Grue 10:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, codercruft. ComCat 02:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, programming one obsolete (even when it was created) game that made it onto WP doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. Wyss 03:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Author of a real-time Worms game that is still included with some linux distros today. Seems notable to me. It had a large community at its peak, and derivatives of it are still being developed. What harm does this entry do? Edogy 02:13, 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 - deleted - SimonP 04:45, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
- DeleteAmazing what you can dredge up sifting through the stubs... 374 google hits for what seems to be a soft-porn blogger. You'll need to convince me this is worth keeping. Grutness|hello?
05:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) - Delete Google hits quite low for someone whose major claim-to-fame is internet blogging. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:03, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 03:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, Keyra is famous and her is sensation like JenniCam. Mateusc 18:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not even a kilogoogle for two topics that tend to be overrepresented on the web (i.e. porn and blogs). Vanity. Radiant! 13:53, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, she is very famous now and was named in Howard Stern Show as the Internet Girl of the year. Henry 3:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The above User is actually anon user User:24.91.150.202. RickK 07:30, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, no demonstration of notability. So stubby that if she is, indeed, notable, we might as well start from zero. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:13, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
- No evidence of notability. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 14:12, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, Let's see Kerya on the wider perspective. She is not just some webcam girl . We are not talking here of just a person, but a phenomenon. She has become a celebrity and thus she deserves mention in the Wikipedia. Let's keep that single paragraph, and let's even improve on it to make it more "encyclopedic."greedlax 18:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- User's first (and only) edit. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I count 332 unique Google counts. Not notable. RickK 07:29, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, Keyra is becoming more and more of a legend, it's a bit like "All Your Base Are Belong To Us. Hoo Hoo Nick 18:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- User's first (and only) edit. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not encyclopedic. FliiP 13:00, 26 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. — mark ✎ 09:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm transferring this from CSD because there might be something behind it. However, it looks like a hoax, unverifiable at best. Neither "Ant ha" nor "Ann ha" are typical ways of romanizing any Japanese words. Kappa 05:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 07:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, patent nonsense. - Mustafaa 08:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- A cure for cancer that has been around since the 12th century? That can also be used for committing suicide? Hoax. Delete. Uncle G 12:01, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
- Made no sense to me. Delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:23, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as probable hoax, the text makes little or no sense. Wyss 03:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete never heard of it; can't find article or text in Japanese WP Fg2 07:38, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 20:05, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Zingg is not notable enough to have a page.Saopaulo1Saopaulo1 01:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:32, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 03:22, 12 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.
[[~~~~]]
[edit](sorry to have to do it this way, but it doesn't seem to work normally - presumably because of the tildes). Please see: {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/~~~~}}
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 20:04, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
- delete. Originally contained two items, but likely intended to serve a Pov. Delete unless populated with a real representative sample.-gadfium 08:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Title inherently POV. Entries need references. Mgm|(talk) 10:40, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Created by the same user as List of Human Atrocities (nominated for VfD on March 9). Both articles seem to have been created to present a specific POV following an edit skirmish at List of terrorist incidents. Also duplicates content at List of massacres. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 13:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Was created to make a POV point by including only two items; if it were ever expanded properly, it would duplicate material at List of massacres, but it's unlikely to be expanded and it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia as it stands. Either way, it should go. SlimVirgin 17:10, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Inherantly POV. What next, Table of Human Atrocities? DaveTheRed 19:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, fork, watch out for Template of human atrocities. Wyss 03:18, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. POV fork. RickK 00:34, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)".
- Delete. Too inherently POV, too duplicative, just too "too". Rlquall 04:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. A good example of a POV fork. --Zappaz 02:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. POV article. Carioca 03:31, 15 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) 17:54, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
- DELETE. There's nothing relevent to an encyclopedia about this book. It's just a synopsis. I doubt there's anything more that can be used.Saopaulo1 08:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep books by best-selling author Meg Cabot. Kappa 12:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The book itself was a bestseller too. Keep. --iMb~Mw 14:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. --GRider\talk 17:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep published book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:32, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, author is also responsible for "The Princess Diaries," and has numerous bestsellers along with this title. Badlydrawnjeff 23:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, even though I was hopin' she might run into a boy named Sue but whatever. Wyss 03:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but expansion needed. 23skidoo 03:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep. By notable author, needs cleanup. RickK 00:35, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:39 Z
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 20:02, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Hopelessly little content, non-encyclopedic and probably vanity. All this article tells of Nur Amalina Che Bakri is that he, or she, scored 17A1's, whatever that means, in the SPM exams, whatever those are. (The link goes to a disambig page). — JIP | Talk 08:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Say no for deletion please, because this is an important content. User:ARGOU 10:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete for complete lack of context. Possible vanity. Also, having a certain score in an exam doesn't merit a wikipedia entry. Mgm|(talk) 10:45, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Not vanity, but it's the highest score in the country I believe. She's on the local newspapers and news for these past few days but I'm sure that it'll fade eventually.Weak delete for topic being unencyclopedic.--Andylkl 19:40, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)- Now if you could only tell me which country it is? — JIP | Talk 08:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ah... It's over here in Malaysia. --Andylkl 14:25, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm changing my vote to delete because it is vanity and not encyclopedic. --Andylkl 09:07, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, the expanded version is clearly vanity. It reads like Nur Amalina Che Bakri's entry out of a "my school friends" book. Wikipedia doesn't list what HRH Queen Elizabeth II's favourite music groups are, or whether she likes to chill out with her homies. So why should that info about a less notable person be encyclopedic? — JIP | Talk 08:28, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'm changing my vote to delete because it is vanity and not encyclopedic. --Andylkl 09:07, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Ah... It's over here in Malaysia. --Andylkl 14:25, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Now if you could only tell me which country it is? — JIP | Talk 08:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nice test scores are not inherently encyclopedic Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:33, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 23:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, speedily for little or no content, lack of context, else vanity. Wyss 03:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity. RickK 00:38, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Don't Delete, I know she's my very good friend and I have met her before. We also studied in the same school. 218.208.199.79User talk:218.208.199.79 08:08, 17 March 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but she doesn't deserve an article on Wikipedia just because of her SPM marks, highest ever or not. --Andylkl 09:09, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Nur Amalina Che Bakri, again
[edit]The article has been rewritten after deletion, with identical content. I vote delete. — JIP | Talk 09:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- If the content is identical, it is an obvious candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 09:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, and give a warning to the author. Phobophile 10:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've already tagged it for speedy deletion and left a message on the author's talk page. — JIP | Talk 10:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 20:00, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity page, jeffsterz.com is reported as "under construction" -- Schultz.Ryan
- Pure vanity, delete--Boothy443 04:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete it, it's just a vanity page. Roger - 4th Feb, 2005
- Delete. Should have been processed already, but nomination was orphaned by vandal. jni 10:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Vanity, website doesn't even exist. From article: There is only one true jeffsterz© in all of cyberdom. If all else fails, delete for copyright issues. Mgm|(talk) 10:48, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- This dood soundz siriusly kewl! Delete. -- Hoary 11:24, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 15:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete JeffK? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:38, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity copyvio. Wyss 03:09, 12 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. Joyous 20:00, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity page.--Boothy443 04:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Nonsense, delete. - Vague | Rant 05:01, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Blatant vanity. jni 10:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity. utcursch | talk 12:00, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanizzzzzzzzz... Wyss 03:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:27, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Userfy. If. Possible. Tygar 03:58, Mar 12, 2005 *Delete, delete and furthermore, delete - David Gerard 18:14, 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 transwiki to Wiktionary. —Korath (Talk) 18:03, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
delete question relevance, better on wikitionary? --Boothy443 05:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki, I've heard of the term, but I doubt it warrants an encyclopedia entry. Mgm|(talk) 10:56, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Wiktionary takes acronyms, subject to the usual attestation requirements. And this article is close enough to being in the canonical dictionary entry form already that I'll Wiktionarify it in preparation. (So please don't "correct" the missing template!) Uncle G 12:34, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
- Transwiki. Megan1967 23:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki, please. Wyss 03:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki, delete, just get rid of it - David Gerard 18:13, 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. Pending deletion. Joyous 19:58, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete scored 0 on google [1], is vanity as well. --Boothy443 10:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The band i hope to make, will be a SKA-Funk band, with metal and punk influeneces... Delete article on non-existent band. --Zarquon 11:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Why wasn't this speedy deleted as patent nonsense? gK ¿? 20:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Sam Hocevar 23:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Patent nonsense.
Speedydeleted.That didn't work (software problem). Nevertheless, delete. Kosebamse 11:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) - Speedy delete, patent nonsense. - Mailer Diablo 14:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - concur is nonsense. Fawcett5 19:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 23:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, it's not a speedy (falls through the cracks), but it is a vanity ad babble rant. Wyss 03:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 18:12, 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. Joyous 19:56, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete notable?, seems like vanity to me. --Boothy443 06:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- count me in. If you like yourself that much, why not put up a User page, right? mu5ti/✏ 19:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I know Bryan, and while he is a bit vain, I've found him to be an important contributor to the philosophical dialogue and the development of a vital community project called Crosstown Coffeehouse, which is a test run of what will be a national phenomenon. ~ Dave Nederhood
- Dave, while your defense is appreciated, I don't think a test-run community project is sufficiently notable for inclusion. Perhaps when (and if) this indeed becomes a "national phenomenon," the biography of Bryan Gower will go up on Wikipedia - until then, I recommend a delete. RidG (talk) 09:58, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- 'Delete - insufficiently notable. Will reconsider if evidence of notice in national press.
- When his project is national phenomenon, we will have an article on him. Meanwhile, lets do a test run of our delete code. --BM 00:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 02:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Are you a... gower? Say no more. Say no more. Nudge, nudge, wink wink. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:29, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Crosstown Coffeehouse doesn't rate an article, so why should this guy? RickK 00:44, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete without more verifiability - David Gerard 18:12, 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. Joyous 19:55, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
notable?, seems to be vanity delete --Boothy443 09:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vanity? Mike is the first guitarist to have his own website and free MP3 music - zender@fijihosting.com
- I am assuming good faith here, but this is really a claim that needs to be backed up with facts; at the very least, this is an assertion that should be signed by a registered Wikipedia user. Unless that is produced, I suggest a delete as non-notable (102 Google hits with many repeats). RidG (talk) 09:53, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Unless above claim can be backed up, I recommend delete for advertising. Mgm|(talk) 10:58, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- I suspect nothing more than vanity. Will change to Keep if claims are proven. - Longhair | Talk 18:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable and vanity. Fawcett5 18:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 23:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity. Wyss 02:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete without third-party verifiability - David Gerard 18:12, 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 - deleted - SimonP 04:57, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Listed for speedy by Hedley, because "Only Google hits are on pages containing this Wikipedia content or entries into 'Ivan' or 'births' lists labelling him a child prodigy. How is this person notable? Saying their IQ is 'much higher than 200' probably means they added themselves, his book gives no results bar those contexts just displaying the article shown on Wikipedia. I nominated for speedy delete because I see 'self-vanity' articles nominated all of the time." , then anon changed it to vfd and forgot to actually add it. From talk page: "How notable is this person? There is exactly 1 Google hit which is another wikipedia article. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 10:16, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC) - Definite hoax, no relevant hits in Cyrillic. Grue 20:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)". Delete. Grue 09:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Seems like in Ukrainian Wikipedia no one heard of him either. Grue 15:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
These accounts were created after the vote began:
- Delete. I am pretty sure I saw this as VfD yesterday or the day before, but I can't seem to find it. At any rate, after this is deleted, the links the editor added on the pages Child prodigy, List of people by name: Chb-Che, Generation Y, and 1991 should be deleted as well. RidG (talk) 10:11, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Needless to say, as the nominator for speedy, I vote delete. Hedley 18:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I am plain citizen of Ukraine. My name will not tell you anything, but name of Ivan is known in all corners of out country. I hope you'll excuse me for my poor English. I with my friends was very glad and proud of our country when we saw this article. I was confused and ashamed when I encountere this VfD - this article shows facts, not "hoax" or some other fraud. Hedley, Grue and RidG are trying to make their guesses to be facts. But is there really any reason to delete Ivan Cherevko article? What the honorable criticists are negating? Fact, that Ivan finished the school at eleven years ( [10] - article in a "Russian advertising - Russian newspaper New York", [11] - Kiev's education)? That he is studying in one of the elite Ukrainian universities in such a young age ( [12] - article in big Ukrainian newspaper "the Day")? That Ukrainian Academy of Sciences has published his book when he was ten years old ([13] - "Pleyady" publishing house article)? Fact, that he is an author of his own published ecological theory (Seventh International University Conference in field of Applied Mathematics and Informatics, Lviv, Ukraine, 2004)? You accuse this article of hoax and vanity. Hoax is anything deliberately intended to deceive ([14]). There are links from independent sources listed above, that prove almost everything that Ivan Cherevko is about. I hope there is a lot of Wikipedians that speak Russian and Ukrainian. Vanity is an excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or archievements ([15]). If there is only one such kid in Ukraine, country with 50-million population, where does "excessive" pride can came from? I stated before that everything in this brief article is correct and corresponds with my image of Ivan Cherevko, child prodigy from Ukraine. Keep - --Mykola Petrenko 18:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Look, there are NO Google hits for both Russian and Ukrainian spelling of his name, a few lines about him in newspaper isn't enough, a book written under a pseudonym could've easily been written by anyone else and a statement about IQ is completely unverifiable. Obviously he's not as notable as you want him to be, even in Ukraine. Grue 18:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Anyone so 'notable' nationwide would have a more vivid set of Google results. The first article mentions Ivan/Vanya Cherevko - Even if that is the same person, how does that justify inclusion? Another article I translated is about young scientists - Nothing to do with Cherevko. I assume you must be affliated or the article writer - I'll be voting delete until you can prove his notability. Furthermore, the article was originally written by 'Yanus' who only edited a few articles, the majority adding Cherevko's name. Possibly self-addition/vanity.Hedley 19:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- First of all - there is yandex.ru for russian spelling. Timofei, you have to know that Google does not support case endings so is very limited in russian/ukrainian search, and both russian and ukrainian version + Vanya Cherevko + Ivanko Cherevko and variation yield quite a linksome, and you also could help Mr. Hedley by adding that Ivan and Vanya are the same, and that second article clearly states in fourth paragrsph: "Close idea [to the one of Alexei Bondar] was submitted by the youngest participant of competition, Ivan Cherevko, 13-years-old sophomore student of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy..." (full text in Russian for you, Timofei: Близкой по идее оказалась и работа самого юного участника конкурса Ивана Черевко, 13-летнего студента второго курса Киево-Могилянской академии. Иван проблему утилизации бытовых отходов, в частности пищевых упаковок, предложил решать на уровне создания технологий их производства, где бы заранее закладывался экологически чистый способ их уничтожения. А так как в будущем Иван готовится стать экологом и очень переживает за «чистоту» пространства своего государства, он разработал серию игр для детей, которые бы с малых лет приучали молодое поколение не только быть экологически грамотными, но и придерживаться правил экологической культуры в своих разнообразных действиях.). If you were more attentive, you could read at link number [2], that Cherevko and Kowchuk is the same person: "Під псевдонімом Ковчук написав книгу "Мої десять". Це його перша книга , в якій відтворено бачення минулого, оцінка і характеристика теперішнього, а також погляд у майбутнє.", or 'Under pen name Kowchuk has weitten book "My ten". This is his first book, in which vision of past, analysis of present and view into future are united". And yes, from some point of view I am Ivan's affiliate, as I am one of Albert Einstein and Lewis Caroll. I am fascinated by his affairs, just like Einstein's and Caroll's, but I haven't met neither of them in reallife. Assuming such a serious accusement to the Ukrainian Academy of Science that have supported him in fraud you should have some serious proof to support it - not just "possibly". As was stated on one of the "Wikipedia:" pages, deletion is not an easy affair. You can't just say "delete-because-I-want-to". You proof is too light, I need to say? Need more links? Oh, I have handsome of them just near me, starting from homesite ([16], I guess.... Yes, exactly), and right to the text of interview at BBC russian. I want to add, that I've done not so much work gathering those links, and plain unattentiveness should not be your guideline at voting.--Mykola Petrenko 20:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I happen to read Russian, and some Ukranian. This "он разработал серию игр для детей, которые бы с малых лет приучали молодое поколение не только быть экологически грамотными, но и придерживаться правил экологической культуры в своих разнообразных действиях" basically says that he created a series of games for children designed to promote knowledge of proper ecology, etc. - that hardly qualifies him as a child prodigy. I see absolutely nothing in the links you've posted that supports your contention that he has published his own ecological theory. I think that in this case, the burden of proof lies upon you to lend factual credibility to your assertions. I would be more than happy to review other links you post, whether in English, Russian, or Ukranian. RidG (talk) 21:12, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, what we've got: Child prodigy states that child prodigy is the kid that at age of 10 doing just like adult. He wrote a book at year of 10 (nobody objects this by now, I hope). Dudes, I am 19 and could never write anything like this even at the price of my life. Notability - in the meaning of google hits - is not matter of article. It is interesting (for someone), it is true and it hasn't violated any Wikipedia rules. Why delete?--Mykola Petrenko 20:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I happen to read Russian, and some Ukranian. This "он разработал серию игр для детей, которые бы с малых лет приучали молодое поколение не только быть экологически грамотными, но и придерживаться правил экологической культуры в своих разнообразных действиях" basically says that he created a series of games for children designed to promote knowledge of proper ecology, etc. - that hardly qualifies him as a child prodigy. I see absolutely nothing in the links you've posted that supports your contention that he has published his own ecological theory. I think that in this case, the burden of proof lies upon you to lend factual credibility to your assertions. I would be more than happy to review other links you post, whether in English, Russian, or Ukranian. RidG (talk) 21:12, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- First of all - there is yandex.ru for russian spelling. Timofei, you have to know that Google does not support case endings so is very limited in russian/ukrainian search, and both russian and ukrainian version + Vanya Cherevko + Ivanko Cherevko and variation yield quite a linksome, and you also could help Mr. Hedley by adding that Ivan and Vanya are the same, and that second article clearly states in fourth paragrsph: "Close idea [to the one of Alexei Bondar] was submitted by the youngest participant of competition, Ivan Cherevko, 13-years-old sophomore student of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy..." (full text in Russian for you, Timofei: Близкой по идее оказалась и работа самого юного участника конкурса Ивана Черевко, 13-летнего студента второго курса Киево-Могилянской академии. Иван проблему утилизации бытовых отходов, в частности пищевых упаковок, предложил решать на уровне создания технологий их производства, где бы заранее закладывался экологически чистый способ их уничтожения. А так как в будущем Иван готовится стать экологом и очень переживает за «чистоту» пространства своего государства, он разработал серию игр для детей, которые бы с малых лет приучали молодое поколение не только быть экологически грамотными, но и придерживаться правил экологической культуры в своих разнообразных действиях.). If you were more attentive, you could read at link number [2], that Cherevko and Kowchuk is the same person: "Під псевдонімом Ковчук написав книгу "Мої десять". Це його перша книга , в якій відтворено бачення минулого, оцінка і характеристика теперішнього, а також погляд у майбутнє.", or 'Under pen name Kowchuk has weitten book "My ten". This is his first book, in which vision of past, analysis of present and view into future are united". And yes, from some point of view I am Ivan's affiliate, as I am one of Albert Einstein and Lewis Caroll. I am fascinated by his affairs, just like Einstein's and Caroll's, but I haven't met neither of them in reallife. Assuming such a serious accusement to the Ukrainian Academy of Science that have supported him in fraud you should have some serious proof to support it - not just "possibly". As was stated on one of the "Wikipedia:" pages, deletion is not an easy affair. You can't just say "delete-because-I-want-to". You proof is too light, I need to say? Need more links? Oh, I have handsome of them just near me, starting from homesite ([16], I guess.... Yes, exactly), and right to the text of interview at BBC russian. I want to add, that I've done not so much work gathering those links, and plain unattentiveness should not be your guideline at voting.--Mykola Petrenko 20:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems non-notable. ral315 21:13, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:34, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's true that the references found are from the local newspapers, but they do exist in Russian/Ukrainian and I can't see any other source that could be the proof on notability. He's only a kid, right? --DmitryKo 09:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Did you mean to vote keep? Your comments seem to suggest your for deletion. Hedley 19:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hedley, why are you so interested in deleting this article? I see in your contributions list that pages deletion is your main Wikipedia occupancy. --Mykola Petrenko 20:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I have a real problem with ego trips. My editing habits don't come into play here. Indeed, your only contributions are on this VfD, and so I don't see how you can talk about my intent to keep/delete an article. Hedley 19:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Why you hadn't VfDed pages such as William Shakespeare, George Washington or Elizabeth II then? They are ego trips just like Ivan Cherevko.
- I have a real problem with ego trips. My editing habits don't come into play here. Indeed, your only contributions are on this VfD, and so I don't see how you can talk about my intent to keep/delete an article. Hedley 19:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hedley, why are you so interested in deleting this article? I see in your contributions list that pages deletion is your main Wikipedia occupancy. --Mykola Petrenko 20:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Did you mean to vote keep? Your comments seem to suggest your for deletion. Hedley 19:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Radiant! 18:18, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Kolya Petrenko asked us to vote for Ivan if we support him. I saw him personally, when he was in our university and can definitely vote Keep.--Passwd 09:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This is the user's third edit, account created after beginning of the voting. Grue 10:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly. I've registered just because Kolya sent message to our university's forum to support Ivan. But you could notice, that now I am actively editing some stubs in my field of expertise. I hope to become respected memeber of Wikipedia some day.--Passwd 12:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This is the user's third edit, account created after beginning of the voting. Grue 10:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I am Nikolay Smertnykh, student of National Technical University KPI. I red interview with Ivan and I want to support him.--K-n04 19:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Account created after VfD nomination. Grue 20:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Since when was Jimbo Wales a Ukraine-related stub? This users first edit was making it one. Bizarre but i'd sense they've been here before if that was their first port of call. Hedley 22:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Account created after VfD nomination. Grue 20:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Very big, old, smart are all notable. This doesn't seem to be a "vanity" article. Google hit counts don't prove anything by themselves. —Michael Z. 2005-03-15 02:30 Z
- No Google hits prove it's unverifiable. Grue 06:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Don't you think that the above testimony of several wikipedians verifies that this was published? Or are you saying that information on the Internet is True, but information in Ukrainian newspapers is False? —Michael Z. 2005-03-15 14:57 Z
- The links User:Mykola Petrenko posted don't tell anything extraordinary about that person. A _single_ _brief_ mention in regional newspaper is the _only_ press coverage he got. Neither Google nor regional Ukrainian and Russian search engines know nothing about him (<=2 hits). How the HELL can this kid be notable??? If this article gets kept, it will probably have the least notable subject ever. Grue 20:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- One more fanatic of Holy Google Church. I can see, country with underdeveloped internet does not deserve to be covered in Google-based encyclopedia. Of course, Gay Nigger Association of America (43300 hits) is much more important, than, say Peter Seisenbacher (917 hits) or The Raging Wrath of the Easter Bunny (5780 hits)--Mykola Petrenko 09:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ukraine is NOT a country with underdeveloped Internet. Ukrainian version of Wikipedia is one of the most successful. Ukraine-related news appear in the Internet within seconds. Be honest and admit, that Ivan is just not notable enough for the encyclopedia. Grue 10:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, let's be _very_ honest - there are only Ukrainian news from one point of view, one of the Yuschenkoist, and the whole uk.wikipedia.org should be marked with NPOV template. Go look for yourself. Grue, how do you describe 'notability'? There is no definition on 'Wikipedia:' pages. Go on, define it and we'll see. --Mykola Petrenko 11:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ukraine has Internet access and high usage rates, but I've been told there are entire cities with zero access, especially in the East. I don't know if there's any high-speed available to private individuals; even in Kiev I think access is limited to modems. —Michael Z. 2005-03-17 15:46 Z
- Ukraine is NOT a country with underdeveloped Internet. Ukrainian version of Wikipedia is one of the most successful. Ukraine-related news appear in the Internet within seconds. Be honest and admit, that Ivan is just not notable enough for the encyclopedia. Grue 10:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- One more fanatic of Holy Google Church. I can see, country with underdeveloped internet does not deserve to be covered in Google-based encyclopedia. Of course, Gay Nigger Association of America (43300 hits) is much more important, than, say Peter Seisenbacher (917 hits) or The Raging Wrath of the Easter Bunny (5780 hits)--Mykola Petrenko 09:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The links User:Mykola Petrenko posted don't tell anything extraordinary about that person. A _single_ _brief_ mention in regional newspaper is the _only_ press coverage he got. Neither Google nor regional Ukrainian and Russian search engines know nothing about him (<=2 hits). How the HELL can this kid be notable??? If this article gets kept, it will probably have the least notable subject ever. Grue 20:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Don't you think that the above testimony of several wikipedians verifies that this was published? Or are you saying that information on the Internet is True, but information in Ukrainian newspapers is False? —Michael Z. 2005-03-15 14:57 Z
- Contrary to your beliefs, i'd probably say anyone who is 'sending messages to a University forum to support' (see above) is probably not notable. Google hit counts prove whether a person is or isn't important, and in this case, I haven't seen anything to show that he is. Hedley 13:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Your truth. I am really not so notable - there are millions of students, chess-players and cat-lovers outta there. But I haven't put the goal to show off myself, and I still haven't got any google hits. But I will defend the right of any one that I admire - be it Ruslana or Andy Warhol, Ivan Marchuk or Ivan Cherevko. And if anyone will try to VfD those articles, I will be there to defend them. As I've red somewhere recently: if you'll burn books, you'll start to burn people some day. Don't burn books. As always, two dashes, four tildas, --Mykola Petrenko 12:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No Google hits prove it's unverifiable. Grue 06:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: at the risk of being a spoilsport, just being a child prodigy is probably not, in and of itself, encyclopedia-worthy. I've known child prodigies. It can be a tough life or a great one, but it's not inherently notable. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:35, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Marginal keep. It is a best practice to err on the side of inclusion and in this case there is substantial notability to justify retention of this article. --GRider\talk 17:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- There is no evidence of notability. All the facts in the article are unreferenced. Grue 20:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Now they are referenced. Go, check by yourself. If you are too eager, Kiev is not so far, go to local library and check it. --Mykola Petrenko 09:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Thats like me adding the Fig Roll Monster of Doom and saying it exists because theres references in a cave located on one of Jupiter's moons. If there are references you should supply them to the VfD consensus. Hedley 15:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- So Google is The Authority, and a library in Ukraine doesn't count as being on Earth? Are sure you want to say this, because it sounds completely bigoted to me? —Michael Z. 2005-03-17 15:46 Z
- That was not what I implied. What I was stating is that it is very easy to say a library in Ukraine contains information on him, but nobody can check that, thus it is like me saying information proving the existance of Fig Roll Monster of Doom (in example) exists, but that I can't show you it. In the case of a VfD, information in a Ukrainian library isn't available, and so Google has to be the authority as there is no other alternative. Hedley 02:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Nobody? heh, uk.wikipeia can. In the [:uk:Іван Черевко|ukrainian page]] discussion Maksim Ye (long-time contributor with thousands of edits) supports article, and I guess, he knows a bit about existence and deeds of [[[:uk:Іван Черевко]]]] --Mykola Petrenko 11:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- So Google is The Authority, and a library in Ukraine doesn't count as being on Earth? Are sure you want to say this, because it sounds completely bigoted to me? —Michael Z. 2005-03-17 15:46 Z
- Thats like me adding the Fig Roll Monster of Doom and saying it exists because theres references in a cave located on one of Jupiter's moons. If there are references you should supply them to the VfD consensus. Hedley 15:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Now they are referenced. Go, check by yourself. If you are too eager, Kiev is not so far, go to local library and check it. --Mykola Petrenko 09:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- There is no evidence of notability. All the facts in the article are unreferenced. Grue 20:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I believe that instead of a full article, a mention should be made in the Child prodigy article, like it was made for Jessica Constant or Alia Sabur. What I feel I must say is that there, in fact, are 2570 Google hits for the Russian spelling of his name ([17] - Grue, if you didn't find any, thats probably because there's some weird sort of thing going on with codepages when cyrillic characters are used in the actual URL), and that Russian search engines do return a few results, yes. But all of those pages have already been mentioned here; its something like a dozen, or less, pages. Jashiin 13:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- He shouldn't be in the child prodigy article. His article is a blatant ego trip, which should have been speedied in the first place. If Cherevko stays the entire membership of MidYis and organisations of 'geniuses', assuming Cherevko is one (after all, he needs to get people from a University to 'support' him on this VfD, note all the new users voting here), should also be added to Wikipedia. Hedley 15:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- First, you didn't put quotes around the name, so some of these are "Cherevko Petr, Aisuk Ivan, ...". Second, there is a saxophonist, a former worker of a factory, a diver and a lot of other people who share his name. All not notable. Grue 15:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Agreeed on both points; but then I was merely reacting to your "there are NO Google hits for both Russian and Ukrainian spelling of his name" phrase. I was just trying to be helpful, okay? Jashiin 16:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- See User:Mykola Petrenko. If Cherevko is so notable why is Mykola campaigning about this VfD? Hedley 15:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - I learned to read when I was three too. This is just vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 09:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, this guy is less notable than I AM. ALKIVAR™
09:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Results 1 - 33 of about 52 for "Ivan Cherevko" -wikipedia. (0.43 seconds)
- Results 1 - 100 of about 695 for "Alkivar" -wikipedia. (0.68 seconds)
- Move to User:Yanus. anthony 警告
- Voters may want to consider that User:Mykola Petrenko is now campaigning for votes on user pages. His recent contributions contain a lot of them and to me it signifies the unimportance of this article. An example of his campaigning for help is here.
Keep the topic, rewrite the content. --Easyas12c 19:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)Changed my mind to Delete. --Easyas12c 22:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)- Abstain. Jashiin's mother tongue is Russian so I strongly value his vote. While his google search does appear to indicate there are some hits relevant to this person's name, I don't feel qualified enough in русский язык to vote either way. —RaD Man (talk) 20:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I dislike self-advertising campaign. He is not that remarkable. In Ukrainian Wikipedia on the same article votes are
- Problematic question
- Delete, as author don't have argument for importance of this article
- Delete, until this child does something more remarkable.
- Ilya K 09:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. User:Mykola Petrenko asked me to "help out" on this page. Well, if there was anything to include, I would say keep, it might be useful one day. But there's nothing there. I wonder if Mykola just went down the meta:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians roster and started leaving messages. Judging by the fact that Easyas12c, another recent member of AIW is also voting here, that's my guess. Matthewcieplak 10:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, I think his desperation of doing that, among other things, didn't help his argument. Hedley 17:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Many here read at 3 or younger.. vanity page. Will not be remarkable until the kid makes a fusion reactor out of an old watch battery, a packet of iodized salt, and a toothpick. Then again, this might make him a toddler MacGyver rather than remarkable ;) --Aika 21:36, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:55, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Website vanity. Delete. utcursch | talk 11:55, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Concur. Delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - advertisement. Fawcett5 18:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete.com ral315 21:12, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, website advert. Megan1967 23:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, 'cause I found myself gritting my teeth reading it, ad. Wyss 02:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete!. Tygar 03:59, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete POV advertising. -- Infrogmation 05:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete ad - David Gerard 18:11, 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. Joyous 19:54, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
This is more in the same vein of what is being discussed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/PlayStation Portable 2. User:SamuraiClinton again. Uncle G 12:58, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
- Delete as mere speculation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Megan1967 23:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, mariocruft. ComCat 02:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vaporware, mariocruft. Wyss 02:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Mariocruft?!? I love it! Delete for reasons stated, even though that DS is a hot little piece o' work. "Super Mario 64" has to be seen to be believed. - Lucky 6.9 09:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete speculation - David Gerard 18:11, 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. — mark ✎ 09:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Anyone got any idea what is behind this? Deb 12:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Hoax or zanies. --Wetman 13:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is no place for some kid's prom pictures. Danny 13:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Go get yourself a geocities page to play emperor on, kid. Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Remember to delete Image:The Emperor.gif too. -- Infrogmation 17:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- As the article has been deleted, I have deleted the image. -- Infrogmation 14:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Hoax. Jayjg (talk) 17:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Transparent Hoax. Fawcett5 18:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 23:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete "Stage Magician" Halloween costume, child size: $20. Roll of Polaroid film: $7. Putting the picture up on the internet as the emperor of something-or-other: Priceless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:44, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, speedily as vandalism, vanity prank... oh, and the sash. Wow. Wyss 02:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 18:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Patent nonsense. Even worse, the author has mixed his past and present tenses. Delete. --Gene_poole 04:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- So this is the new meaning of "The Emperor's New Clothes?" Add a cape and fake vampire teeth and he can go to his next Halloween party as Dracula. Delete as patent nonsense, possible vandalism and just plain general ick-ness. - Lucky 6.9 03:22, 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) 18:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Non-notable, google only returned 28 hits. - Mailer Diablo 14:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article doesn't estabilish anything. Grue 14:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)- Keep the new article. Grue 17:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
delete, non-notable. Warning: vfd was removed. -- Aleph4 15:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)I retract my vote. Still have doubts whether this company is notable; cursory search at google does not find their web page. -- Aleph4 22:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)- Maybe disambig? There's whatshisname Matsui from the Yankees, and probably others. -65.96.107.222 17:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Article modified — I have replaced this with a stub article about an electronics company called Matsui, which is certainly more deserving of the article title. I doubt the good doctor has sold millions of TVs and HiFis yet. Chris 17:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm. It's worrying how difficult it is to find information about the company when Google doewsn't even turn up an official website for them ... Chris 21:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ahhh, that's much better now. :) - Mailer Diablo 04:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as rewritten. Kappa 20:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as rewritten about the low-end 'lectro mark in the UK. Wyss 02:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - what Wyss said. Grutness|hello? 07:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep rewrite - David Gerard 18:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as rewritten. Has potential. --A D Monroe III 00:01, 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 delete. Joyous 19:45, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
This is an unencyclopedic article about a high school basketball team that has been rather successful. It appears to have been written by someone associated with the team since it uses the phrase "In which we have won 7 district finals..." (emphasis added). Delete. Carrp | Talk 15:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, possibly vanity and Google returned 2 results. - Mailer Diablo 16:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, what they said. -- Infrogmation 17:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not a topic for a general encyclopedia. Apparent vanity. --BM 21:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 23:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, small town high shool basketball teams with members who may, in the near future, be baited by college recruiters with the services of sex-industry workers, cash and scholarships are not inherently encyclopedic. Wyss 02:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete without independent verifiability that anyone will ever care - David Gerard 17:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This is the only edit made by this anon user that wasn't a straightforward piece of childish vandalism. The same user has just blanked this page, in fact. It's not at all clear that this team even exists, and certainly nothing in the article can be trusted. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: If it really is notable than why is the article written in first person? (a no-no for any encyclapedia) Deathawk 02:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:44, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
This seems like something from a newspaper or something?. Nothing but an opinion. If it is good enough to stay why is it not on the Los Angeles Lakers page? Why a whole new 2004 page? Twthmoses 16:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete — It reads like an editorial piece. Pure PoV. — RJH 19:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. We have an article on the Los Angeles Lakers. I don't see a need for a separate article on each season, and if we did, this wouldn't be it. --BM 21:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, POV duplication. Megan1967 23:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, PoV fork. Wyss 02:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Agreement with everything said previous. Tygar 04:01, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Concure with everyone else. Sounds like someone else's work.Saopaulo1 08:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete POV rant - David Gerard 18:02, 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. Joyous 19:44, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Google gets zero hits. Seems like vanity. Non-notable. Delete.
- Delete. Not notable... Twthmoses 16:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, possible vanity. - Mailer Diablo 16:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable or verifiable. Reads like vanity. --BM 21:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 23:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity. Wyss 02:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, unverified vanity - David Gerard 18:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, probably a prank by a pal - Eixo 01:57, 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 redirect to Jamie Zawinski. —Korath (Talk) 18:08, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A minor eastern egg that is not worth as an article of its own. I've merged the content to About:, so nothing will be lost. Edited I chose "delete" so as to save a redirect. There are TOO MANY redirects! --Minghong 16:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- redirect to About:. Thryduulf 17:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- or redirect to Jamie Zawinski. Thryduulf 04:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Would anyone ever conceivably search for this? Consensus seems to dictate that redirects are cheap, no matter how trivial, so why not? --GRider\talk 18:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If you've merged content, then you have to preserve the history to satisfy the GFDL. The quick, easy, no-VfD-required way is to turn the article into a redirect. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Jamie Zawinski, which already had more information about this easter egg than this page, and is... about JWZ. --rbrwr± 20:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Trivia. Does not merit a separate article. Probably wouldn't even be an entry in our index, if we had an index. --BM 20:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Jamie Zawinski. Megan1967 23:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect, since redirects are not a substitute for an index. Kappa 00:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirects are cheap. Wyss 02:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Jamie Zawinski - David Gerard 18:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect → Jamie Zawinski. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:28 Z
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:43, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Non notable, possible hoax; zero Google hits for "good luck beed". See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset Studios. sjorford →•← 17:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, unverifiable, possible hoax. (To be throrough, no imdb entry either.) -- Infrogmation 17:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Ditto --BM 20:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 23:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity of some sort. Wyss 02:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete.. hoax? Not notable for a stubbed encyclopedic article, either. Tygar 04:02, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:43, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Non notable, possible hoax; nothing found on Google for "sunset studios" "good luck" or "sunset studios" "one step beyond". See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Good luck beed. sjorford →•← 17:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, unverifiable, possible hoax. -- Infrogmation 17:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable, although there is a "Sunset and Gower Studios" facility in Hollywood. 23skidoo 19:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I couldn't verify it either. --BM 20:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 23:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, looks dodgy to me, too. Wyss 02:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 18:04, 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. Pending deletion: the block compress error rears its ugly head. Joyous 19:41, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Non-Notable also Vanity Page article subject is unknown publication, see also advertising and spam.Classicjupiter2 17:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Google for "Blue Feathers" -Wikipedia gets 13,100 hits, but most irrelevent to the subject of the article. "Blue Feathers" Surrealism -Wikipedia gets 105 hits [19]. -- Infrogmation 17:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:18, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, just under the bar of notability, magazine promo. Megan1967 23:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, probably part of the wider spam attack, else an ad stub. Let someone else try again sometime. Wyss 02:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless verifiability supplied - David Gerard 18:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Smells like promotion, and it's been nearly two years since its creation for some evidence of its notability to emerge. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. More surrealist spam. Postdlf 18:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:40, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. DJ Clayworth 17:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as not notable. Jonathunder 18:14, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Crystal meth is bad, folks. DaveTheRed 19:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, cautionary tale, not encyclopedic, just say no. Wyss 02:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 18:04, 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. Joyous 19:39, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Another apparent hoax perpetrated by some-times vandal 62.252.0.9 Fawcett5 18:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Does look like a hoax. --BM 20:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 23:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete hoax or not-notable. Barely matters which one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:03, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, speedily as vandalism/hoax. Wyss 02:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, speedy delete as part of prank would be okay by me. Zero google hits for "Abeed Visram", BTW. -- Infrogmation 06:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hoax, delete - David Gerard 18:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Gibberish, but give it the full # of days in case it can be translated into sense by anyone. Courtland 02:02, 2005 Mar 14 (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) 18:11, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Neologism. Is it notable? Not too sure if it should just be deleted outright, so I thought I'd float it for a vote. --khaosworks 18:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, file on cleanup. It's a fairly well-trammelled expression in the UK, and has potential to expand into a little demographic study like chav (with which it has much in common). -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 18:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's coming along nicely now. –Hajor 19:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep notable pseudo-accent. Kappa 20:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Appears to be a fairly widely used term in the English media (that's the media in England, not the media in all the variants of the English language). Old enough that I wouldn't count it as a neologism. A quick search shows the Guardian newspaper has used it in at least 188 articles dating back to 1999. Average Earthman 21:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, it's helpful. Wyss 02:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems like a British version of Wigger. RickK 00:59, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - real. - David Gerard 17:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep not just known to the UK English media - it's moderately well-known in other English speaking countries like here in NZ, presumably just not in the US. (Redirect to Jamie Oliver? ;) Grutness|hello? 02:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme Keep. Kinitawowi 12:29, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:38, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Your basic 'come visit our beautiful village' stuff, in German, about a Greek village. Topic is encyclopedic, if someone wants to write it, but this article isn't worth the trouble of translation. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:59, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Better for someone else to start over from scratch. --BM 20:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Notice the 'en' bit in this Wikipedia? Translate to English before the VfD period or go away. Average Earthman 21:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- After all of these surrealism articles, an article written in German about a Greek village is just the icing on the cake. I'll take the word of Jmabel that it was not worth putting this through the {{notenglish}} process first. Delete without prejudice to any future article. Uncle G 22:17, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
- Delete, ad, wrong language, zzzzz. Wyss 02:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, an advertisement, in German no less. Could be resurected though as a legit article someday. Fawcett5 02:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 17:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete in this form Lectonar 08:15, 15 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) 18:12, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Where does the minimum bar of notability lie for characters within the fictional universe of Harry Potter? At 529 google hits, does this figure merit inclusion on Wikipedia? Please discuss. --GRider\talk 19:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge or keep. Kappa 20:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Plenty long enough to have been split into his own article already. (Am I the only one weirded out by the template, by the way?) —Korath (Talk) 20:30, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable character in one of the most notable pieces of fiction ever. Xezbeth 20:36, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable character, not to mention that he's not widely known by his first name. A better search would be Karkaroff Harry Potter, which receives 7,430 hits. ral315 20:41, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable charecter from GOF. kaal 21:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Am I the only one scared that fictional characters such as this are of so much more interest than real people? Pointless vote to merge since I'm sure I'm in the minority. Average Earthman 21:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Red herring. Articles aren't of "more" or "less" interest than others; each is judged on its own merits. If there's enough to write to make an interesting article, there'll be an article. If not, it'll eventually get merged back into some larger list page. But having it here doesn't harm anything. It doesn't somehow lessen all of the other articles to have this one here.
- I don't think you are familiar with general Vfder's thinking. Kappa 08:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No, it's not a red herring - basically, a fictional character only has their appearence in the work of fiction - they do not exist outside of it, while real people exist in a wide range of ways. A secondary character who appears to have had their entire appearance in the work isn't expandable. Average Earthman 20:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Red herring. Articles aren't of "more" or "less" interest than others; each is judged on its own merits. If there's enough to write to make an interesting article, there'll be an article. If not, it'll eventually get merged back into some larger list page. But having it here doesn't harm anything. It doesn't somehow lessen all of the other articles to have this one here.
- Keep. Same idea as Ted Tonks. grendel|khan 21:30, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
- Merge. Karkaroff is only a secondary character in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Based on the comments of He-Who-Must-Not-Be Named we are unlikely to see any more of Karkaroff either. --Allen3 22:08, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge it. Wyss 02:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - David Gerard 17:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:36 Z
- Keep -- Jmabel | Talk 08:43, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I advocate merging many of the HP articles, but this is not one of those. It contains enough information to merit its own article, unlike many other characters which are indeed of little importance. Solver 22:36, 15 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) 18:13, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This fiction piece is undoubtedly well written. But is it encyclopedic? Subject returns 580 googles. Contrast and compare to Dobby which returns over 83-thousand googles . --GRider\talk 19:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep notable Harry Potter house elves. This guy is very important to the story, due to the possibility of betrayal Kappa 20:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable character, notable book. Xezbeth 20:37, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep major characters in notable books. —Korath (Talk) 20:45, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep actually, more pivotal to the story than even Dobby. ral315 20:48, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Would you agree that in this instance the Google test is irrelevant? --GRider\talk 20:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I notice in your google comparison above, you stated the amount of unique hits for Kreacher, but not for Dobby. Not very fair and balanced of you. In your search, Dobby gets 773 unique hits [22]. The unique hit metric is meaningless for searches with large number of hits. Keep, as Kreacher is a major character in the series. DaveTheRed 21:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Would you agree that in this instance the Google test is irrelevant? --GRider\talk 20:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep He is one of the most important charecters in OOTP. kaal 21:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Involved in any other books at all? If not, Merge. Average Earthman 21:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into House-Elf. I find it more useful to collect information. This guy deserves about one paragraph. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge it, then. Wyss 02:05, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - book and character are well enough known I suppose. Fawcett5 02:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge if there's a really good place to merge it to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:50, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Important character. тəzєті
- Delete As I have said before Wikipedia is not a fan site! TAS 09:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - David Gerard 17:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- Jmabel | Talk 08:44, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into House-elf or Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Shimmin 20:12, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Extremely non-notable Vanity Page Article was created today by user Daniel C.Boyer as means for advertising and spam for his friends on Wikipeida. They run free (do-it-yourself website building) geocities site as indicated in link on article page.Classicjupiter2 20:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I have no friends in the Honolulu Surrealist Group. Calling it a "vanity page" when I am not a member of the group and have no connexion to it is dishonest. Calling it "advertising and spam" likewise. That is has a Geocities site may be evidence of a lack of notability, but is not determinative in and of itself. Your anti-surrealist vendetta continues. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Dan, I sincerely disagree. This is no vendetta, just facts.Classicjupiter2 20:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting how you, similarly to a large number of anonymous IPs, repeatedly protest "facts" or "just facts" (in addition to a number of other commonalities of expression). But I digress. Clearly it is not "just facts" to call something non-notable; it is a matter of interpretation, regardless of how obvious anyone may find the interpretation. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Dan, I sincerely disagree. This is no vendetta, just facts.Classicjupiter2 20:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I have no friends in the Honolulu Surrealist Group. Calling it a "vanity page" when I am not a member of the group and have no connexion to it is dishonest. Calling it "advertising and spam" likewise. That is has a Geocities site may be evidence of a lack of notability, but is not determinative in and of itself. Your anti-surrealist vendetta continues. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, part of a wider, sometimes stealthy spam attack on WP. Once they have these toeholds, the plan is to slip in links, bios, promos... at this point, these can probably be speedied as vandalism. I would add that one of the hallmarks of classic surrealist activity is self-promotion. However, WP is a reflection of cultural impact, not a vehicle for creating it. Wyss 02:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)Wyss 01:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:52, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- I,agree with Wyss 100%. Starting off with a geocities website, then trying to establish notoriety and notability, (along with the benefits of unlimited and free exposure on here) upon having an article on Wikipedia is a shortcut to notability without having to produce the long term results that have a significant cutural impact. Anyone can get a geocities website and build their site and try to promote it on here.Classicjupiter2 03:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Another one? More spam! What makes the Honolulu group as notable as the Portland or US overall group (or notable at all)? Each article I see is usually one or two sentences about where the group exists, with external links :( Wyss is right.. Its speedy delete time. Tygar 04:05, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Only 6 google hits for "Honolulu Surrealist Group"; article gives no evidence of notability. -- Infrogmation 05:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless third-party verifiability exists - David Gerard 15:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as probably vanity/spam unless convincing, verifiable evidence to the contrary is presented prior to expiration of VfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless evidence is produced of its notoriety and/or notability. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Postdlf 17:55, 17 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. Joyous 19:27, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
It would appear that the so-called "Google test" is a complete fallacy. How is any of this material useful or relevant to current practice? Why should this document be kept and how does it benefit the participants of VfD? --GRider\talk 20:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP. We use the Google test on VFD all the time. ral315 20:52, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, and censor GRider for wasting our time with what is now an admitted large-scale disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point. —Korath (Talk) 21:01, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- ... although, given that (even before GRider changed it) Wikipedia:Google test clearly stated that the Google tests were biased and that their results should be scrutinised in the contexts of how Google works and what is published on the World Wide Web and on Usenet, I'm not too sure what that point actually was, other than perhaps "This article is valuable, R. fiend's points on Wikipedia talk:Google test are probably worth incorporating into it, and GRider's own use of Google in VFD illustrates quite nicely what this article warns about and thus contradicts xyr own nomination for it to be deleted.".
Little tally boxes. Nominations for deletion of articles warning about the biases of the Google tests. What disruption is coming next? I advise those who haven't to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Iasson at this juncture, by the way. Uncle G 12:13, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
- ... although, given that (even before GRider changed it) Wikipedia:Google test clearly stated that the Google tests were biased and that their results should be scrutinised in the contexts of how Google works and what is published on the World Wide Web and on Usenet, I'm not too sure what that point actually was, other than perhaps "This article is valuable, R. fiend's points on Wikipedia talk:Google test are probably worth incorporating into it, and GRider's own use of Google in VFD illustrates quite nicely what this article warns about and thus contradicts xyr own nomination for it to be deleted.".
- Obviously a strong keep, and I do join Korath in his comment. I have seen a number of odd VfDs from GRider that are usually accompanied by completely unnecessary prompts to establish a concensus on previously decided upon issues. Korath, where can the evidence of the "admitted large-scale disruption" can be found? RidG (talk) 21:16, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Surely you must be joking. Just because you happen to dislike the google test doesn't make it invalid. This nomination was made to prove a point, so was therefore made in bad faith. Censure nominator. DaveTheRed 21:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If you can provide conclusive evidence that this test is used without bias I will respectfully withdraw my nomination. As always, please refrain from making unsubstantiated personal attacks. --GRider\talk
- There is a huge difference between saying that something is sometimes biased, and saying that it is worthless and should be outright deleted. And how is anything I've said either unsubstantiated or a personal attack? DaveTheRed 21:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Clearly we disagree (on all points), and you are entitled to your own opinion. To claim I am nominating this or any other article in "bad faith" is a blatant personal attack; sorry you don't understand this. --GRider\talk 22:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Stating that the nomination was made in bad faith is not a personal attack. I am simply stating the percieved motives of the nomination. I've said nothing against you personally. Besides, you've been around VfD long enough to know that it is bad form to nominate something for deletion to make a point. DaveTheRed 23:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Clearly we disagree (on all points), and you are entitled to your own opinion. To claim I am nominating this or any other article in "bad faith" is a blatant personal attack; sorry you don't understand this. --GRider\talk 22:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- There is a huge difference between saying that something is sometimes biased, and saying that it is worthless and should be outright deleted. And how is anything I've said either unsubstantiated or a personal attack? DaveTheRed 21:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If you can provide conclusive evidence that this test is used without bias I will respectfully withdraw my nomination. As always, please refrain from making unsubstantiated personal attacks. --GRider\talk
- Weak keep, 592 hits for wikipedia + "google test" Kappa 22:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, only 592 hits on google? Hardly notable. —ævarab 23:52, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
- Keep. The article explains the degree of reliability (or the lack thereof) that we can expect from the so-called "Google test". The fact that people misuse this is not cause to delete it. (People also misuse references to quantum mechanics, which is generally much trickier to apply appropriately.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Have you read the text? Where in the referred to documentation does it state how to apply any sort of test evenly and appropriately? Please discuss. --GRider\talk 00:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- There are five headings. The last two are entitled "Google bias" and "Validity of the Google test". Anyone who reads that page and doesn't realize that Google may not give unambiguous or 100% valid results is probably hopeless. -Aranel ("Sarah") 04:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Have you read the text? Where in the referred to documentation does it state how to apply any sort of test evenly and appropriately? Please discuss. --GRider\talk 00:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It's in Wikipedia namespace, not article space. The fact that the Google test may sometimes be used with bias isn't the fault of the test; it's the fault of the people who apply it that way. There's no valid reason to delete this. Keep. Bearcat 00:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, subtrivial deletioncruft. --iMb~Mw 00:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. No case to answer, patently absurd request given the number of Google tests on VFD right now. - RedWordSmith 00:57, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Improve as needed. Google is a very good way to check for the existence of something. Despite occasionally expressed opinions to the contrary, so far I have not been able to find anything that I can verify as existing that doesn't at least show up in Google. You may not be able to find out anything useful, but someone, somewhere, will have mentioned it. 8 billion pages is a lot more than is indexed in any print encyclopedia, or the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature, or what have you. Google has obvious problems when used to evaluate the notability of unlike things (pop music stars versus classical composers). Google web searches have obvious problems because anyone can create a web page and Google will usually index it, and because there are well-known techniques for increasing Google ranking. This is much less of a problem with Google Groups. This is still subject to the problem that anyone can create content that Google will index, but relatively few people bother to do this. There is much less commercial push going on in Google Groups. Finally, Google News is only useful for recent material but it, too, casts a very wide net, and unlike other Google searches, the content that is indexed is not under the direct control of a would-be self-publicizers. Wikipedia:Google test useful in describing practices that Wikipedians use. It can be tweaked and NPOVed by consensus, like any other page. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, Google is way helpful, it's up to the user to apply it intelligently, this should never have been VfD'd. Wyss 01:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nn googlecruft. ComCat 02:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I only came across this because I was trying to figure out if there's some sort of standardized target for the Google Test... Does it count as notable at 1000 hits? 3000? 20000? I'm simply confused as to what's considered to be the norm for calculating the Google test... and this seems as good a place to ask as any. Wakuseino 02:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- There are no standardized rules because the same guidelines won't work in every case. Google is primarily useful for a first approximation, except in certain specialized circumstances (such as, say, self-proclaimed "Internet phenomena"). -Aranel ("Sarah") 04:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I'd be making a clever comment and saying Delete, but I'm not clever tonight. :( Mo0[talk] 03:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. People don't kill people, googles kill people. —RaD Man (talk) 04:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. If necessary, clarify that Google scores should be evaluated with topic and time frame in mind (events that occurred before the widespread usage of the Internet will have fewer webpages that those that occurred in the Internet era). However, the page should be kept and clarified if necessary, not deleted.
- Keep. WP:POINT. -Sean Curtin 06:15, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This is but 1 tool to use during the VfD process, if this is ALL your using for proving "notability" you need to get beaten upside the head with a clue by 4. ALKIVAR™ 08:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- what Alkivar and Wyss said. Tygar 09:22, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- What the... Keep. Also, what is that random selection of WP articles that were kept in spite of low google scores doing there? Radiant! 18:41, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Google testing is best done in comparison... when googling a band, google some other bands and see if the band you're looking for gets significantly more or less hits. For instance, a kilogoogle (i.e. 1024 hits) would be far below the bar for a 'web phenomenon' but would be quite a lot for a Spanish writer. Radiant! 18:41, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. More of a collection of "best practices", much like Wikipedia:Votes for deletion phrases. cesarb 00:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I think that it is a good piece of information to ensure that Google isn't relied on too heavily in certain cases. --Colin Angus Mackay 03:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:POINT - David Gerard 15:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's true that the Google test has its drawbacks, but it's also a very useful and notable tool. Carbonite | Talk 15:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, however this is the biggest contradiction I've seen. An article Vfd'd on the Google Test, by the person who uses it religiously. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:36, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong delete. The Google Test is misused and abused almost every time that it is used in a Wikipedia discussion and should be abandoned. BlankVerse ∅ 08:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:09 Z
- Keep. I agree with BlankVerse about the frequent misuse of the Google test; given how frequently it is harmful and how rarely it is useful, the Google test should probably be abandoned in RFDs. However, the Wikipedia article on the Google test should remain; having an article on a topic does not inherently endorse the topic.
- (*&#$. Above vote is from me. I forgot to sign my vote, yet again. Sorry. --Jacobw 18:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This seems like a totally valid article on a common Wikipedia phenomenon. There's obviously a lot of controversy surrounding the method, but that doesn't give its detractors the right to deny its existence. They should simply add a section on flaws, criticisms, etc. (and I believe such a section already exists). In any case, even if the google test method is totally discredited, this page should remain for historical purposes. If we delete it, we would also have to delete the articles on WikiMoney, etc. Binadot 19:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, Dispite the fact that using search engines to determine whether perfectly okay articles (as in not hoaxes or neogilisms) can be VfD'ed JUST because they don't have a high hit count. To keep this article there must be a warning sign telling users that using Google to prove articles are wrong because of their hit count is low and that using google isn't alway justified for deleting topics.
Louisisthebest_007 20:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. If there is a problem with the "test"... {{sofixit}}. Deleting it doesn't solve any problems. Also, this "test" is a good measure for anything heavily Internet related. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- Jmabel | Talk 08:46, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Very few people go to the trouble of Google bombing unless they stand to make money from it. Alphax τεχ 23:44, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Google test is great for checking new pages - you can check whether the subject matter exists or not. You can also catch many copyvios by the means of a Google test. Yes, Google test can be misused and should not be the sole reason to base decisions on, but it needs to stay. Solver 00:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. As contentious and crappy as the Google Test is, this isn't the place to do something about it. Kinitawowi 12:30, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the article,
delete the nominator--Carnildo 21:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) - Keep A google test might not be legally binding, but its a good litnus test --Uncle Bungle 00:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It is a real phenomenon, and is used. Perhaps it should be an article as well... -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 01:16, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
- Keep and ban GRider for continually trolling VFD. — Dan | Talk 01:29, 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. Joyous 19:16, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Appears to be vanity, or at least in need of a rewrite by someone who can make it a viable article. How it stands it looks like someone made a CD and put themselves into wiki. --Foryst 20:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone can demonstrate notability/influence. A quick google doesn't find this individual among the first few pages, suggesting his musical career hasn't exactly taken off (one page in first 30 suggests it may link), and that link doesn't impress me. Average Earthman 21:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No allmusic.com entry. Gamaliel 23:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 23:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity ad. Wyss 01:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nn vanicruft. ComCat 02:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Borderline delete. I would vote keep if there were any verifiability given or it were better written. K Records is a real label, someone who gets an album or two on K definitely gets in - David Gerard 15:01, 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. Joyous 19:14, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Obviously not notable. Should be deleted. Thue | talk 20:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, sadly never famous or influential. Kappa 22:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. "...Walls Just Pretending was short-lived..." as this article must be. Jonathunder 23:02, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
- Delete, cute vanity tribute, let it have its five days. Wyss 01:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, agree with Wyss. Tygar 09:24, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, delete and the vote formerly known as delete - David Gerard 15:03, 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. Joyous 19:13, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Advertising for run-of-the-mill web hosting company. No evidince of notability. Spam. Delete. JeremyA 22:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Doesn't sound like spam to me. Tone is quite neutral, and fact oriented. Enochlau 00:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, ad for web-related software development. Wyss 01:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, ad-related article. Tygar 09:25, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete ad - David Gerard 15:38, 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. The article contains a block-compress spell, and will be deleted when a counter-spell is created. Joyous 19:12, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Incoherent rambling that admits it has no relation to HP. Crash and burn. Extremely delete. JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdramán) 22:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as fancruft, patent nonsence and/or original research. Thryduulf 23:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, first sentence is Note: this article is pure speculation and has little or no actual scientific grounding. Babbling, nonsensical original research, yes, extremely. Wyss 01:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete due to ridiculous, "magical research" that somehow manages to make itself think it's a wild Harry Potter theory. I'm amazed that this page was listed as a "rapid delete" for patent nonsense. CryptoStorm 03:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I presume you mean wasn't listed. Thryduulf 04:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, for it is complete and utter nonsense, and isn't even relevant to the Harry Potter books Bonus Onus 19:40, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as nonsense, not even BJAODN quality - David Gerard 15:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, Mar 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 delete. Joyous 19:06, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Dicdef. Why oh why can't we speedy these? Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 23:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It's not even spelled right. - Mustafaa 23:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, dicdef. Problem is, sometimes dicdefs can become helpful articles (don't see one here though). Wyss 01:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, misspelt dicdef. - Mailer Diablo 04:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 15:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, reasonable subject, cultural note, apparently etymologically common; cleanup/move/expand. Everyking 15:50, 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. Joyous 19:05, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
The Catt-Day Permutation theorem doesn't exist (no Google, nothing on Google Scholar or www.arxiv.org), and it is wrong. It is a non-topic and probably "original research." Delete it. --Joke137 23:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Ancheta Wis 00:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, it's either original research or a vanity hoax, could be speedied as such, it does not exist. Wyss 01:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. If it's not an outright joke or hoax, at minimimum is dubious and unverifiable. -- Infrogmation 05:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Unverifiable. Tygar 09:34, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete hoax - David Gerard 15:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Amar 07:18, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:04, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable, possibly vanity. Delete--Millsdavid 00:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 01:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, ad or whatever. Wyss 01:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete ad/vanity-style article. Tygar 04:09, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm... a nightclub known for popularizing rap and rnb music in the capital of Australia, by famous rap groups that haven't been mentioned ANYWHERE on the net? I did a Google search for both group names, and came up with how many hits? 0. When the people they're claiming make the place notable with their frequenting there don't appear to exist, I'd say delete. Wakuseino 06:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless verification supplied - David Gerard 15:39, 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.