< June 29	July 1 >

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 15:51 (UTC)

This article is a hoax, and it is a repeat hoax at that. Google doesn't know about this rather silly "James Montague". func(talk) 30 June 2005 01:33 (UTC)

• P.S. And it was posted on April 1, sigh. func(talk) 30 June 2005 01:44 (UTC)

• Delete. func(talk) 30 June 2005 01:33 (UTC)
• Delete Not even a very good fake -Harmil 30 June 2005 02:01 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:55 (UTC)
• Delete big time hoax. Metromoxie 30 June 2005
• Delete hoax. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 22:40 (UTC)
• it will be noted that the characters about which the user writes (Detective Drone, Pheasant, Prune) have occurred in other articles previous to this, usually occuring in 1903-04 literature. (Unsigned comment by 62.254.0.30)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 15:54 (UTC)

So very vanity and so very unknown. Denni☯ 2005 June 30 01:37 (UTC)

• Delete. "...and only perform at the school at which they attend...." func(talk) 30 June 2005 01:51 (UTC)
• Delete and the Chad Gibson redirect should go too. -Harmil 30 June 2005 02:03 (UTC)
• Delete, and erase its little redirect, too. Doesn't clear the notability bar. As an aside, this might be an excellent reason to amend the speedy deletion criteria: see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 30 June 2005 02:52 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:56 (UTC)
• Delete this band vanity and its Chad Gibson redirect. -- BD2412 ^talk June 30, 2005 15:16 (UTC)
• Delete very nn band vanity. Kids, sigh. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 22:42 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 15:57 (UTC)

Vanity Denni☯ 2005 June 30 01:41 (UTC)

• Delete vanity -Harmil 30 June 2005 02:04 (UTC)
• Delete barring proof of notability. --Scimitar 30 June 2005 13:58 (UTC)
• Delete. The only thing Google turns up on this person is her LiveJournal. - Thatdog 30 June 2005 20:47 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 22:44 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 7 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)

Vanity Denni☯ 2005 June 30 01:52 (UTC)

• Delete not notable -Harmil 30 June 2005 02:05 (UTC)
• Delete: Dancer in dishabile, not awfully notable and probably not her real name. Geogre 30 June 2005 16:47 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Tempshill 30 June 2005 21:00 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Possibly she may be in the future, but not now. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 22:46 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk July 7, 2005 13:49 (UTC)

This article meet the speedy deletion criteria and still does. It only lists the location and that is all it has contained for the past 30 days. Deleting will lose nothing and when someone writes an real article it can stay. Vegaswikian 30 June 2005 01:56 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 30 June 2005 02:04 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 30 June 2005 02:15 (UTC)
  • RaD Man, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles sections 1 and 3. -- Bcat (talk | email) 30 June 2005 02:18 (UTC)
    • Please try being bold in updating pages rather than casting them aside for deletion. —RaD Man (talk) 30 June 2005 02:25 (UTC)
• Speedy delete unless expanded. -- Bcat (talk | email) 30 June 2005 02:16 (UTC)
  • And you should know damn well this is not even remotely a speedy deletion candidate. —RaD Man (talk) 30 June 2005 02:27 (UTC)
    • Cool down, man. I thought that it was as speedy candidate or I wouldn't have said so. (Remember to assume good faith.) -- Bcat (talk | email) 30 June 2005 02:34 (UTC)
    • BTW, my vote refers to this version of the article. -- Bcat (talk | email) 30 June 2005 02:36 (UTC)
  • No kidding, Bcat knows better. As to the version difference, that just proves that the time you spend arguing here could have been spent making the article better. SchmuckyTheCat 30 June 2005 02:37 (UTC)
    • • reminder. The policy against personal attacks is quite clear, even if the speedy deletion policy is not. Dystopos 3 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)
        • what.SchmuckyTheCat 3 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)
    • One might point out that "speedy delete unless expanded" never makes any sense. Jgm 3 July 2005 12:37 (UTC)
  • No longer a speedy candidate. Weak keep. -- Bcat (talk | email) 30 June 2005 02:47 (UTC)
• Keep valid stub. SchmuckyTheCat 30 June 2005 02:37 (UTC)
• Keep most schools. Does need expansion though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 30, 2005 02:38 (UTC)
  • Note I expanded it a little, it's certainly well out of the speedy realm now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 30, 2005 02:55 (UTC)
• Keep. Good stub on a notable topic. Factitious June 30, 2005 07:09 (UTC)
• Merge with Leander, Texas. Improved from the almost contentless substub level, but still a stub and notable only at a local level. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 09:35 (UTC)
• Keep. Inherent notability. Unfocused 30 June 2005 12:34 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely good information here. Metromoxie 30 June 2005
• Strong delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 30 June 2005 16:08 (UTC)

• Delete: A box with students and teachers in it. There is no character assigned or described, no individuality to the place at all. No more notable than a gas station or pizzaria. It sure was a speedy delete candidate. Please do not accuse VfD nominators of acting in bad faith when they bring legitimate candidates to this page. Just because you think every school is sacred, that doesn't mean that speedy delete substubs should be left around on this one subject (but none others). [1] [User:Geogre] 30 June 2005 17:00 (UTC)
• Keep - good start. DS1953 30 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)
• Merge with the article on the school district. --Carnildo 30 June 2005 20:44 (UTC)
• Delete, as with 99% of all high schools. What happened in the last round of the debate on listing schools? Would be nice to make a policy decision, and not have to have this thread every single day. Tempshill 30 June 2005 21:05 (UTC)
  • Keep It would be nice if the deletionists accepted that they always lose these votes now and moved on. CalJW 30 June 2005 21:15 (UTC)
• keep please as with 100% of all high schools this deletionism is pointless Yuckfoo 30 June 2005 21:21 (UTC)
• Keep. This article has gone from a marginal keep-and-cleanup to a pretty good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 30 June 2005 22:19 (UTC)
• Merge with the article on the school district, unless notable alumni with articles in Wikipedia (which are not on VfD) are listed. --Idont Havaname 1 July 2005 08:00 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a school directory, and this school is not notable. Isomorphic 1 July 2005 08:02 (UTC)
• Keep as per agreed schools guidelines/policy. James F. (talk) 1 July 2005 10:22 (UTC)

We have a policy on this? Cool, where is it? Jgm 3 July 2005 12:37 (UTC)

• Keep — same reasons as always. — RJH 1 July 2005 16:49 (UTC)
• Keep. Per previous debates, all High Schools have potential for notability. Though best practice is to keep it on the city or town page until sufficient information is contributed to merit a separate article, we are better off not wasting our time rehashing old arguments here. Dystopos 1 July 2005 23:10 (UTC)
• Delete high school articles that don't indicate notability, not that anyone's listening. Gazpacho 2 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. Notablility is not a deletion criteria but I believe schools are inherently notable. I will be civil, assume good faith, and not claim that you aren't listening to that argument. DoubleBlue (Talk) 2 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 7 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web directory. --W(t) 30 June 2005 02:03 (UTC)

• Delete even a list of notable RSS feeds is hopelessly too huge to maintain a list of. Inclusion of the RSS availability on the subjects pages may be appropriate. SchmuckyTheCat 30 June 2005 02:32 (UTC)
• Delete. Unmaintainable list. Nestea 30 June 2005 02:41 (UTC)
• Comment: Is there any similar list on the Internet? — Instantnood June 30, 2005 08:16 (UTC)
  • There's lots of various RSS lists and directories on the web. Feedster, which calls itself an "RSS search engine", claims to index over 10 million RSS feeds. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 30, 2005 13:12 (UTC)
• Delete. Unmaintainable list. utcursch | talk June 30, 2005 08:36 (UTC)
• Delete No way could this be maintainable. There are countless millions of RSS feeds online, with some 5 million on LiveJournal alone. It can't be saved just by tacking on the word "notable", because just about everyone who has one considers it notable. Maybe this can be merged into the main RSS article, as a section on examples. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 30, 2005 12:38 (UTC)
• Delete web guide Ashibaka (tock) 30 June 2005 18:18 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Starblind about moving notable examples into RSS (file format). Thatdog 30 June 2005 20:51 (UTC)
• Comment - what about restricting it to "List of RSS news feeds"? --TheGrappler 30 June 2005 23:17 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia isn't a web directory of news feeds either I'm afraid. --W(t) 30 June 2005 23:21 (UTC)
• Delete Its as unreasonable to maintain as something like 'list of all active .org websites' --SirNuke 4 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 7, 2005 23:44 (UTC)

Unverifiable vanity page about some amateur videos made by schoolchildren. Previously contained some misleading interwiki links - I'd be surprised if there weren't more inaccuracies in the content. Lupin 30 June 2005 02:05 (UTC)

• delete agree with Lupin. Please note than a anon user tried to circumvent the VFD procedure by deleting the notice from the article, and this page. --TimPope 5 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)

• At least read the whole article before making slanderous comments about something you know nothing about. Why delete this article, just because you dont know anything about History Videos, doesn't mean that other people don't love and enjoy them. -- Ian42 6 July 2005 18:47

• Delete, vanity page jamesgibbon 6 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)

• Keep, as TimPope said, someone deleted the VFD procedure, so obviously people want it kept up and running. -- Ian42 6 July 2005 20:59

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk July 8, 2005 04:43 (UTC)

Reason 1, merge it to stilt house and redirect. If it ever becomes more than a section at that other article, maybe it should be split. That is years away. Reason 2, use english. It's nearly a direct translation to stilt house where we already have another stub waiting for regional variations like this one. SchmuckyTheCat 30 June 2005 02:28 (UTC)

• merge is my nominating vote. SchmuckyTheCat 30 June 2005 02:28 (UTC)
  • Then Be Bold, darnit. VfD doesn't need to vote on whether to merge things! This cluters the page, and wastes time, since now we have to wait 5 days to merge it. It is better to seek forgiveness than ask permission. humblefool® 30 June 2005 06:37 (UTC)
    • If you view the history, you'll see that I've done so. My persistent foil engages in a revert war to prevent it. Watch as he will gather his puppets to vote keep right here. The clear answer, for me, is to bring it to the community to gather consensus. SchmuckyTheCat 30 June 2005 14:21 (UTC)
      • Please don't label anybody as puppets. :-) — Instantnood June 30, 2005 17:08 (UTC)
• Redirect to Stilt house. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:57 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pang uk has its own history, and is a significant symbol of what the Tanka culture has remained. — Instantnood June 30, 2005 08:27 (UTC)
  • Oppose what? Deletion, or keeping? ~~~~ 30 June 2005 15:35 (UTC)
    • Oppose deletion or merging. — Instantnood July 1, 2005 14:16 (UTC)
• Redirect to Stilt house, if it remains as a stub. If it has its own history, then be bold to expand it.--Huaiwei 30 June 2005 08:56 (UTC)
• Keep separate per Instandnood. Kappa 30 June 2005 13:06 (UTC)
• This is possibly related to the Instantnood debacle presently on WP:RFAr. (if not, my vote would be to merge). Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 14:21 (UTC)
• Keep Has a separate history. Metromoxie 30 June 2005
• Merge and redirect per GFDL. Proto t c 30 June 2005 15:25 (UTC) Changing my vote to keep, providing the main stilt house article is improved. Proto t c 4 July 2005 08:25 (UTC)
• Merge Keep Ashibaka (tock) 30 June 2005 18:17 (UTC)
• Comment: If this article has to be deleted, it'd better be merged into Tai O and Tanka. My vote remains a keep vote. — Instantnood June 30, 2005 20:24 (UTC)
• Merge and trim some of those external links. --Carnildo 30 June 2005 20:51 (UTC)
• keep as an individual topic, and expand the miserable stilt house. By the logic of 'mergists', everything may be merged in house. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 21:34 (UTC)
• Keep. You are informed that there're different kinds of stilt house. Those in Hanoi, Bangkok and Hong Kong are all entriely different. Furthermore, a documentary produced by TVB few years ago, just after the great fire in Tai O where abounded in loads of Pang uk, suggested that the techniques of building such construction was dying out. Pang uk is of grave historical (mind you, Hong Kong WAS fishing villages), ethnical (particularly to Tanka) and cultural significance to Hong Kong. (PS Pang uk is also a location in Hong Kong.) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 2 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)

It makes sense that "stilt house" is just a general category which can describe many independently developed types of house. So, I'm changing my vote. Thanks for the research, Jerry. :) Ashibaka (tock) 2 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)

Thanks for your appreciation. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 2 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 8 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)

Not notable. --W(t) 30 June 2005 03:30 (UTC)

• Delete non notable almost speedy material. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:58 (UTC)
• Keep, article establishes notability. Kappa 30 June 2005 13:03 (UTC)
• Delete nn, two google hits for "ronald larkins" and "hey dj"--Sophitus June 30, 2005 13:39 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to Honey (Mariah Carey song). Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 14:13 (UTC)
• Delete Elfguy 30 June 2005 16:52 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy delete: There is nothing in the article, and this is not a biography, which is what a name article should be. A fact is not an article. Geogre 30 June 2005 17:20 (UTC)
• Delete nn, unless expanded. Has he written other songs? Only six hits on just "Ronald Larkins" are him. Doesn't appear to have written anything else famous. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 22:51 (UTC)
• Delete helped write something that was later sampled by someone else. Have we sunk so low? -R. fiend 1 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 8 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)

Not notable. --W(t) 30 June 2005 03:33 (UTC)

• Delete non notable almost speedy material. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:58 (UTC)
• Keep, article establishes notability. Kappa 30 June 2005 13:04 (UTC)
• Delete nn, two google hits for "larry price" and "hey dj"--Sophitus June 30, 2005 13:38 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to Honey (Mariah Carey song). Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 14:13 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy delete: Not an article on a subject who is not notable enough for a biography. Geogre 30 June 2005 17:21 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Tempshill 30 June 2005 21:20 (UTC)
• Delete nn, same as Larkins. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 22:53 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk July 8, 2005 04:47 (UTC)

Not notable. --W(t) 30 June 2005 03:33 (UTC)

• Delete non notable almost speedy material. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:59 (UTC)
• Keep Is notable music producer, it seems. The Mariah trivia deserves to die, but not brave enough to do this myself. Morwen - Talk 30 June 2005 11:19 (UTC)
• Keep. If I'm reading Chartwatch correctly, he produced several UK Top 10 singles for several different artists, including Pet Shop Boys' "West End Girls," Erasure's "A Little Respect," and New Order's "True Faith" (and some of his UK hit singles were also hits in the US). He has an Allmusic entry which backs this up. [2] Although he is a producer rather than a performer, a track record like that ought to be considered to satisfy WP:MUSIC. --Metropolitan90 June 30, 2005 14:00 (UTC)
  • I suppose I should note that WP:MUSIC is really aimed at determining whether performers are notable, not producers, but my vote still stands. I may try to expand this article later. --Metropolitan90 July 1, 2005 06:03 (UTC)
• Keep 531 000 results on google. Elfguy 30 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)
• Keep if expanded further; otherwise delete: The figure is notable, but the facto at the end is irrelevant. The paragraph above the facto seems to have been written by VfD voters, for which I applaud them. The person deserves an article, but I don't think it's long enough yet to be a stub. Geogre 30 June 2005 17:23 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, if expanded. More notable than the other two. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 22:55 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable figure in the music industry.Capitalistroadster 1 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)
• Keep. Now changed into a decent stub about a notable person. / Alarm 1 July 2005 10:02 (UTC)
• Keep. James F. (talk) 1 July 2005 10:22 (UTC)
• Keep please. NSR 1 July 2005 12:21 (UTC)
• Keep. Individual is a notable producer in the music industry. Hall Monitor 1 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)
• Keep.Is notable music producer

• Keep, certainly sufficiently notable jamesgibbon 6 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete.. Woohookitty 8 July 2005 05:35 (UTC)

Non-notable, vanity. Amateur filmmaker. Note that the subject's website is twoceo.tripod.com, and the primary editor is User:TWOCEO. Suspect original anon contributor is subject or friend of subject. — Gwalla | Talk 30 June 2005 03:29 (UTC)

• Delete or move to user page. --W(t) 30 June 2005 03:55 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:59 (UTC)
• Delete but I put a userfy on the page, just to see Lectonar 30 June 2005 13:21 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable. Tempshill 30 June 2005 22:05 (UTC)
• Delete nn filmmaker vanity. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 22:58 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't userfy - these people never stick around. Also tried to promote his film on the terrorism article. — Trilobite (Talk) 2 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk July 8, 2005 04:50 (UTC)

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 30 June 2005 03:53 (UTC)

Very weak keep at this moment. What is the notability bar for a Professor and historian?[3] [4] Hiding 30 June 2005 13:35 (UTC)

• That would be WP:PROF (professor test). I'd say she falls short, so delete. Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 14:13 (UTC)
  • Blimey, they're quite tight. If them's the rules though, delete. Hiding 30 June 2005 15:35 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under criterion #1. If not, delete for being Random J. Professor. She might have produced enough of an effect on the world to deserve a bio, but there's no way to tell from this (or Google). Geogre 30 June 2005 17:24 (UTC)
• Speedy delete if possible as per Geogre, otherwise delete as non-notable. — Bcat (talk | email) 30 June 2005 19:17 (UTC)
• Keep. I've just rewritten the article - please re-read it. She is well above the notability bar for a college professor and historian. She currently holds an endowed chair at a major university (U. of Michigan) and was used to be a dean at another (U. Cal. Davis). Her book 'A Concise History of India' is well known and widely read in the field. Sheldrake 30 June 2005 20:28 (UTC)
• Keep based on the rewrite. Good job. By the way, the test for professors at WP:BIO says "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included." At most American universities (if not all), far fewer than half of the professors occupy an endowed chair. By definition, virtually any professor in an endowed chair "is more well known and more published than an average college professor" because the professors who are less well known and less published than an average professor are not typically going to get the plum appointment. That doesn't mean that the author of the article shouldn't do his or her homework, however, just that it is likely that if you look into it, a professor with a named professorship does meet the test for inclusion. DS1953 30 June 2005 20:54 (UTC)
• Abstain I'm in over my head on this one. Hiding 30 June 2005 20:57 (UTC)
• Keep as re-written. I've heard the name before, but I can't recall where. In any case, seems to be an above-average professor. --Carnildo 30 June 2005 21:04 (UTC)
• Weak keep might be notable enough but could do with some expansion. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 23:03 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Well done Sheldrake. It is now a good stub on a notable Indian historian. Capitalistroadster 1 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)
• Weak keep as rewritten. (I'm still not quite sure about the notability of this one.) — Bcat (talk | email) 1 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)
• Keep as re-written, as per DS1953. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)
• Keep. Oddly, I had heard of her beforehand (and no, I'm not a historian). James F. (talk) 1 July 2005 10:22 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough. Gamaliel 7 July 2005 01:37 (UTC)
• Keep Even if notability were an agreed-upon standard for deletion, she would qualify. Dystopos 8 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 8, 2005 18:45 (UTC)

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 30 June 2005 04:09 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. As for the dude with the bad manners, I have no opinion except that he's ephemeral. Geogre 30 June 2005 17:26 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a web guide. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a site to post POV reviews. — 131.230.133.185 6 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 8, 2005 18:48 (UTC)

Vanity. Delete. Visviva 30 June 2005 04:50 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Mr Tan 30 June 2005 06:14 (UTC)
• Delete: Sunday school teachers. I'm glad they work there, and I'm sure they're loved by their church, but they are not notable in the world at large and needing (not "deserving") an article. Geogre 30 June 2005 17:27 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 23:39 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied already. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)

Marked for speedy, but possibly not a candidate. Appears to be a list of old pro wrestling shows put on by the Calgary Stampede promotion. Not sure what the significance is. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 30 June 2005 05:37 (UTC)

• Delete, but would not oppose speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Scimitar 30 June 2005 13:59 (UTC)
• Concur, speedy delete as simple waste of space. --Habap 30 June 2005 14:02 (UTC)
• Delete, no context, no coherent information, no definitions. Who are these people? Delete. --DanielCD 30 June 2005 14:39 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete both. CDC (talk) 9 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)

(and George Lindgren)

Both Pro Invidia and George Lindgren tell us that George Lindgren is owner of "Pro Invidia" Inc. established in June 2002. Meanwhile, Google has no hits for "George Lindgren" "Pro Invidia". This eBay page, by "George", is an introduction to the "Pro Invidia" banknote store. My guess is that this is what it's about. Anyway, both pages are unverifiable; delete. -- Hoary June 30, 2005 05:48 (UTC)

• Delete, likely advertising; an eBay vendor w/o anything else is not notable enough. Why the deuce would he call his store "For Envy," anyways? Seems wicked. Smerdis of Tlön June 30, 2005 14:18 (UTC)
• Delete both: Insignficant subject advertised. Geogre 30 June 2005 17:30 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/self-promotion. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 23:50 (UTC)
• delete both, self promotion. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:11 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was close - delete. CDC (talk) 9 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pro Invidia. -- Hoary June 30, 2005 05:43 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 9 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)

User clamis to own the copyright to this piece of vainity, delete--nixie 30 June 2005 05:50 (UTC)

• Yes, it looks like vanity, and his main claim to fame is part-ownership of a team that doesn't yet seem to exist. (See also Springfield Desperado and Carroll "Buddy" Randolph.) Delete. -- Hoary June 30, 2005 06:22 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. ~~~~ 30 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)
• Delete all three for vanity. Geogre 30 June 2005 17:30 (UTC)
• Delete blatant vanity. Note photo and fax number. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 23:53 (UTC)
• Comment "[He] wrote the damn thing, its not a viloation!" [sic] Dystopos 1 July 2005 23:13 (UTC)
• Delete not because of copyright issues, as Dystopos's quote from Talk:Ralph Christ seems to imply, but because it is blatant vanity. See deletion policy --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)
  • oh, I have nothing to say about copyright. If that was the problem it would be on copyvio, not vfd. I just thought it was funny. Dystopos 4 July 2005 14:42 (UTC)
    • When I realized it was the editor who misunderstood the nature of the VfD and thought it had to do with copyright ("I wrote the damn thing..." as justification), I added that for clarity. I find his spelling of "viloation" amusing as well.--WCFrancis 5 July 2005 13:08 (UTC)
• Comment It is also interesting that Mr. Christ's web site says that there is a $25 charge to try out. Is this a common practice in bush leagues? --WCFrancis 5 July 2005 13:11 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 9 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)

Vanity, or so it would seem, for a rich guy who buys and sells American sports teams. -- Hoary June 30, 2005 06:13 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. ~~~~ 30 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity and/or hoax. Geogre 30 June 2005 17:32 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 23:55 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was keep as a disambig. -- BD2412 ^talk July 8, 2005 04:54 (UTC)

This article has been marked as in need of cleanup for some time; upon reflection, I don't see how it can ever be anything more than a dictionary definition. Right now, a number of anonymous contributors are attempting to hijack it and turn it into POV veiled flamage at people who don't like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but this is merely the last straw. wiktionary:quagmire already exists and looks good, if lacking in etymology. so my vote is Delete Zack 30 June 2005 06:18 (UTC)

• Delete. Sure fire target for POV pushers, and it isn't an article as much as a rant. Harro5 June 30, 2005 09:15 (UTC)
• Delete - un-encyclopaedic - nobody has managed to salvage it. Cutler June 30, 2005 11:01 (UTC)

• comment. I've made a stab at salvaging it in a way that I don't think invites further POV pushing. I invite voters to reconsider their votes in light of its current state. Dystopos 2 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)

• Redirect to Glen Quagmire - the dicdef and POV sporking are worthless Proto t c 30 June 2005 13:13 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary. Peter Grey 30 June 2005 14:04 (UTC)
  • It's already there. Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 14:14 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to Swamp. Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 14:14 (UTC)
• Quagmire is, of course, also the site of Ben Dunn's comic series Ninja High School (120 issues and still going), as well as the title of 2 spin-off mini-series, all of them published by Antarctic Press. --Simon Cursitor 30 June 2005 17:36 (UTC)
• Cleanup. In recent years, "quagmire" has become virtually synonymous with "failed war", and there should definitely be something in Wikiworld reflecting that usage. Since that's probably not appropriate for a dictionary because it's not the technical definition of the word, Wikipedia seems like the place to do that. Dcarrano 30 June 2005 18:57 (UTC)
  • If "quagmire" has a meaning of "failed war", then the dictionary entry for the word should reflect that. It's not our job to make up for the shortcomings of Webster's. We're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, dammit! --Carnildo 30 June 2005 21:04 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to swamp. --Carnildo 30 June 2005 21:04 (UTC)
  • Keep the disambig page. --Carnildo 6 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
• Delete/redirect per Carnildo. — Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)
  • Keep disambig. — Gwalla | Talk 2 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)
• Delete and disambiguate per Carnildo and Proto. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)
• Delete POV, not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)
• Delete but, per Dcarrano, the Wiktionary should should have a third definition reflecting the more colloquial usage Wertz 1 July 2005 06:21 (UTC)
  • And, since Wiktionary is freely editable by anyone even if anonymous, ((sofixit)). Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 08:24 (UTC)
• No vote I'm not sure outright deletion is called for since the political usage of the term is quite common, but the article has little potential to be more than a dicdef. Best bet would probably be to turn it into a disambiguation page. Kaibabsquirrel 1 July 2005 07:23 (UTC)
  • Change vote to Keep now that it has been redone as a disambig page Kaibabsquirrel 4 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)
• Delete This is dicdef for sure. I have yet to see how this article adds to the usefullness of the WP other than a dicdef which is grounds for deletion. Perhaps if the authors could create a list of quagmires, with the history of the term, and perhaps a VfD argument here to keep it; there might be a case. As of yet, I don't see one. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 19:27 (UTC)
• Keep I've removed the POV material and a useless reference, added Joshua Quagmire, Quagmire McDuck, and a link to The X-Files (season 3) which had an episode entitled "Quagmire". It is now, in my opinion, a useful disambiguation page. Dystopos 1 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)
  • Agreed, good re-write. Dcarrano 2 July 2005 00:03 (UTC)
• Keep in light of Dystopos's rewrite. – Seancdaug July 4, 2005 04:39 (UTC)
• Keep Dystopos's rewrite as disambiguation, watch to keep POV from slipping into to military metaphor entry.--WCFrancis 4 July 2005 10:15 (UTC)
• Keep I am also satisfied with Dystopos' rewrite. I'd like to draw people's attention to the discussion page, though, which confirms the need for an ongoing POV watch (as WCFrancis points out). Zack 4 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)
  • I'll be watching. Also, I think the article should be quagmire in lower-case. I'll take care of that after the voting process to avoid having to change the link here. Dystopos 4 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)
    • Ah... isn't it Wikipedia style guidelines to capitalize the first letter of every article name? Is it even possible to have an article that starts with a lower case letter (see, for instance EBay). – Seancdaug July 4, 2005 21:35 (UTC)
      • Right you are Dystopos 4 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 9 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

Future-tense basketball team based in Springfield, Missouri, owned by Ralph Christ and Carroll "Buddy" Randolph (both also being VfD'd), whose uninformative article sports a giant graphic (also uninformative). Vaporteam advertising, it would seem. -- Hoary June 30, 2005 06:19 (UTC)

• Delete, nonnotable at this point; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 30 June 2005 06:39 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. ~~~~ 30 June 2005 15:37 (UTC)
• Delete: It has all the marks of a joke/prank, but, were it true, it would be a vanity article. Geogre 30 June 2005 17:34 (UTC)
• Delete nn, wait until they do become. --Etacar11 1 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)
• Delete non notable promo. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)
• Delete w/extreme prejudice, probable hoax. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rewritten already. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 08:36 (UTC)

Appears to be an ad and at least has non-neutral POV Koffieyahoo 30 June 2005 07:17 (UTC)

• Wait to see if the content is improved. If it doesn't improve, Delete --Daedalus-Prime 30 June 2005 16:08 (UTC)
• Rewritten: I've replaced the ad with a small stub. — Bcat (talk | email) 30 June 2005 22:15 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 9 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)

Sounds like a great guy, but wikipedia isn't a memorial. Delete. (Was put up as a speedy, but it's not patent nonsense as claimed). - Mgm|^(talk) June 30, 2005 08:40 (UTC)

• Comment - oh dear, I am beginning not to like this. John Yang is associated with the True Jesus Church which seems to be the root of an exponential growth of associated POV articles. Needs watching. Cutler June 30, 2005 10:55 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:16 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. -- Hoary July 4, 2005 02:48 (UTC)
• Delete less than notable, less than NPOV. Evangelical articles are not neutral. (as Cutler pointed out).--69.173.44.195 4 July 2005 11:39 (UTC) -- Oops. that last was mine, account timed out and I didn't realize I was no longer logged on. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete.. CDC (talk) 9 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)

Short vanity article. Contents: "Peter Bellew is the owner of an electronic components disposal company called VBNETS. This was formerly Ireland's leading innovator in wireless internet WiFi hardware. He also consults for Kerry Airport. see www.vbnets.com". Written by an anon; asuming this is written by Peter himself. Harro5 June 30, 2005 08:48 (UTC)

• Delete - Actually gets 1700 Google hits [5] but nearly all tend to confirm that he is a shameless self-publicist but lacks anything notable or encylopaedic. Cutler June 30, 2005 10:37 (UTC)
• Delete Peter Bellew +vbnets only gets 36 unique hits. Formerly innovator? Just doesn't seem notable. --Etacar11 1 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Already speedied. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 08:34 (UTC)

Vincent might say he's a lot of things, but unfortunately being notable isn't one of them. This is the sort of stuff that belongs in a local newspaper "15 seconds of fame section", but that ain't Wikipedia. Harro5 June 30, 2005 08:53 (UTC)

• Speedy -- Delete. Has been deleted via VfD before [6]. Manages to sneak an entry back in every now and then, along with The Last Memento Of The Beatles. No more notable than the last time around. - Longhair | Talk 30 June 2005 09:44 (UTC)

• Delete - Sorry Vinnie, but you don't cut the mustard for me. Jgritz 30 June 2005 09:46 (UTC)
• Speedied Cutler June 30, 2005 10:31 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Already speedied. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 08:34 (UTC)

Written by the same guy who wrote the Vincent Ruello piece - the only article linking to this piece - this is indeciferable nonsense. The URL given is pretty shifty looking, and this isn't informative. Delete Harro5 June 30, 2005 08:57 (UTC)

• Delete - Jgritz 30 June 2005 09:48 (UTC)
• Speedy -- Already deleted via VfD [7] - Longhair | Talk 30 June 2005 09:56 (UTC)
• Speedied Cutler June 30, 2005 10:33 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.Woohookitty 9 July 2005 08:32 (UTC)

It might be tempting to want to WP:Cleanup this article but the concept of "Manufacturers survivial" (sic) does not appear to exist in any encylopaedic sense. Though it scores plenty of Google hits, they are just the ordinary English usage of the two contiguous words. Reading the article carefully reveals that it is simply advertising copy, intended to point to a website. Cutler June 30, 2005 10:26 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I'm just not sure it is encylopedic. These steps are nothing more then sound business practices that most companies should be following. Of course the formatting of the article does make it harder to read. Vegaswikian 1 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)
• Ugh, a poor translation. I see it's been cross-linked with a pair of other articles on manufaturing, but the entries there are also poorly written. Perhaps archive somewhere for a re-write. Right now it's in delete territory. — RJH 1 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is nothing but promotional material for the editor's own websites. It's also very hard to comprehend and would require a lot of work to fix the English. —MementoVivere 4 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep NSR (talk) 8 July 2005 15:08 (UTC)

• Delete. It's not informative and makes little sense. BJ 30 June 2005 10:43 (UTC)
• Keep - the article makes no sense, but Putu Mayam is a popular Indian/Malaysian/Singaporean sweet, also called Putu Piring. Google brings up a bunch of variations on this topic. No paper and string involved, I think. Certainly no Aztecs! Noodles, rice, jaggery, coconut, etc. --Mothperson 30 June 2005 15:49 (UTC)
  • Please rewrite theis if you know what Putu Mayam really is. Just delete what's there and put in two or three sentences of your own. Be bold in editing. DJ Clayworth 30 June 2005 17:03 (UTC)

I don't know what it is, really, but I intend to rewrite it. Just not immediately. But I will throw something on for the moment. --Mothperson 30 June 2005 17:12 (UTC) Okay - there's something there. --Mothperson 30 June 2005 17:47 (UTC)

• Keep as rewritten. I know the Aztecs made it to Gallipoli, but Malaysia seems a stretch. Smerdis of Tlön June 30, 2005 18:40 (UTC)
• Keep as well-known Malaysian dish. Well done Mothperson. Capitalistroadster 1 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)
  • Hey - as much as I don't like inane stubs inserted by idiot vandals, I'm not complaining about this one. The vandalism from Singapore threw me into some riveting chat sites about southeast Asian snacks. There's some truly great stuff out there. It was my pleasure. Now, if only we could get one of those stunning images of putu mayam --Mothperson 1 July 2005 02:15 (UTC) (As for the Aztecs, they could have come around from the other side!)
• Keep. Looks like it's only a copyediting issue. -- Natalinasmpf 1 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)
• Keep, as per reasons above. - Mailer Diablo 5 July 2005 12:10 (UTC)
• Keep, too delicious to be deleted. Mandel July 7, 2005 02:37 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep as rewritten. CDC (talk) 9 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)

Currently context does not match the title (talks about a different person overall) and I do not see enough material to expand it. Penwhale 30 June 2005 11:47 (UTC)

Keep. it needs a serious scrub but Li Jing is Nezha's father. i'll see what i can do with it later this week. Nateji77 30 June 2005 13:20 (UTC)

By nominating this article at present, I was trying to point out that what's written at the moment does not refer to him. And since it's a deadend article, it sits on the borderline. Penwhale

a lot of people have been putting vfd tags on articles before they put cleanup tags on them, or post to the article's talk page. generally, if someone starts a bogus article in the namespace of a valid topic, i thinkwe should try to fix it before we move to delete it--especially now that we're expected to argue a case for recreating an article with the same name as a deleted article.

but yeah, this article as is is pretty bad. it says the character is a character in a different character (sun wukong is a character, not a work). Nateji77 30 June 2005 14:20 (UTC)

The original context, if anything, needs to be moved to a new name and expand. We have to re-write this particular article. Thus, for the current text, move to Hong Hai Er and reworked or total delete then rewrite. I do agree with you that VfD might be a bit harsh, but the text -might- belong at Hong Hai Er for now. In any event, there is quite a bit to do. Penwhale

Li Jing at zh wikipedia is a stub, but fixed the article here. will check out Hong Hai Er. Nateji77 30 June 2005 14:41 (UTC)

Don't we also need to add subsec for them in respective articles for diffrentiate the real-life- and novel-based parts? Penwhale 30 June 2005 15:42 (UTC)

• Cleaned up--there are now proper stubs for both Li Jing and Hong Hai Er. i'll work on them more, but will be out of town over the weekend, so monday, maybe tuesday. i dont think the vfd was harsh, just premature. :) Nateji77 30 June 2005 15:00 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - look forward to Nateji77's rewrite. Notable Chinese general. Capitalistroadster 1 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 9 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)

If there's an article on level of effort I would've redirected. There isn't. Penwhale 30 June 2005 11:54 (UTC)

• Delete - dicdef type thing Cutler June 30, 2005 12:10 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef. Sietse 30 June 2005 15:28 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree that it should be a redirect to Level of Effort, which doesn't yet exist. I do think that Level of Effort is a legitimate topic that should be included in Wikipedia. --Daedalus-Prime 30 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 30 June 2005 22:32 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:28 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to effort. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 08:25 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE.

Stub entry, suggested by myself to transwiki to wikitionary; has been done. I think we can delete this article now. Penwhale 30 June 2005 12:00 (UTC)

• Keep, valid enough stub. Smerdis of Tlön June 30, 2005 14:22 (UTC)
• If it's been transwikied already, should be speedy delete. Proto t c 30 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)
• Keep, describes a real thing, not just a word. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 21:27 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef already in wiktionary. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)
• Delete being a real thing is not the issue, it's the chance that this could be an encylopedic article. This sounds like a heading in a press article. Saying media are covered, covers who this is for, no need to list they classes of workers. This information would probably read better in the press article when you read it in context of how it is used. Vegaswikian 1 July 2005 05:23 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to journalist. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 08:25 (UTC)
• Keep. NSR 1 July 2005 12:19 (UTC)
• Delete unless expanded beyong a dicdef. -R. fiend 1 July 2005 14:51 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was FAILED TO REACH CONSENSUS.

Dicdef - the article even admits it. Cutler June 30, 2005 12:07 (UTC)

• Sigh. The article includes a reference to one of the sources used to write it, which happened to be a dictionary. Shock horror. Penfold June 30, 2005 12:16 (UTC)
• It doesn't even have the sense of pensioner that nearly all the articles linking to it mean. (only Abraham de la Pryme uses it like that). Morwen - Talk 30 June 2005 13:11 (UTC)
• I've added some info about what it actually does mean. Still stubby, but worth keeping. Proto t c 30 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)
• Wiktionary - It needs Cleanup on the way, but it's more appropriate for Wiktionary than Wikipedia. --Daedalus-Prime 30 June 2005 17:54 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Well done Proto. I think that pensioners are a notable enough concept to warrant expansion especially distinction between old age pensioners and self-funded retirees. Capitalistroadster 1 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)
• Keep Weak It rests on the fringe between dictdef and a genuine article. It needs expansion to move my Keep Weak to a general Keep. A suggestion would be to relate the article to other retirement articles. Retirement-related articles will probably get more popular as American and UK baby boomers start to retire, and this is an appropriate stub article until then. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 22:29 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 9 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)

Looks like a verbatim copy of the function's man page. I don't think that counts as a copyvio, but it does make the article unencyclopedic. Delete or rewrite as shorter and more layman-friendly. — JIP | Talk 30 June 2005 13:00 (UTC)

• I was going to say: Keep but rewrite/reformat a bit. definately NOT rewrite in layman terms. No layman would ever care about multithread programming. before i vote, i got to ask a question: is there a wiki-man-pages project or something? if it does, it should be moved there. Project2501a 30 June 2005 13:20 (UTC)
  • Wikibooks takes all of the free instructional manuals anyone cares to write. It doesn't take copyright violations, so the copyright status of this text should be ascertained. Uncle G June 30, 2005 19:12 (UTC)
• Delete because Wikipedia is not a collection of source material (please disregard this vote if someone converts the man page material to an article before this VfD is closed). Sietse 30 June 2005 13:44 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't picture this being encyclopedic. Maybe redirect concurrent programming? Peter Grey 30 June 2005 13:53 (UTC)
• Delete - There are better places to find online man pages that Wikipedia, ex. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi. --Daedalus-Prime 30 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)
• Delete. Depending on which man page it's copied from, it could even be a copyvio -- I don't think the GPL is compatible with the GFDL. --Carnildo 30 June 2005 22:34 (UTC)
• Delete — ABI man pages belong in a book somewhere. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia. — RJH 1 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE.

Delete. Is this for real? I cannot find any referral to this except on conspiracy websites. Article says it was reported in the Washington Post, but methinks it may have been some other tabloid publication. — Fingers-of-Pyrex June 30, 2005 13:13 (UTC)

• Comment. There is apparently some substance here although the date of the Washington Post article is incorrect. A search of the Washington Post archives for "craig spence" in 1989 turns up an article on Nov. 12, 1989 titled "Craig Spence, Figure in D.C. Sex Case, Found Dead in Boston" and other news coverage earlier in the year. (Search at [8].) Whether the allegations in the Craig J. Spence article are true is another matter. --Metropolitan90 June 30, 2005 14:13 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)
  • Apart from the "it is rumoured" last sentence, which bit do you say is without verify,. please ? Abstain for the present --Simon Cursitor 1 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)

I believe the Craig Spence story was "broken" in the Washington Times. This was also of interest as the Washington Times had always been a "conservative" paper. Many believe it was a way for Rev. Moon to get the attention of the Republicans in the White House at the time and gain support for the Unification Church. Here is the URL to check one's own research: http://www.thelawparty.com/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 08:30 (UTC)

Non-notable and America-centric Ameri-CentricPatrol

• Keep Frank Field was a very notable meteorologist from a generation ago. Actually, he was more of a TV personality in the spirit of Al Roker than a meteorologist. However, this article does need more information/cleanup. Metromoxie 30 June 2005
• Keep. This article is about an American meterologist, but I'd hardly call it America-centric. Even if it were, that wouldn't be a valid reason to delete. Carbonite | Talk 30 June 2005 15:24 (UTC)
  • Comment - omg - the anti-Toastspotconey has risen!!! --Mothperson 30 June 2005 16:22 (UTC)
    • What is your problem why are you accusing me of being other people? - ConeyCyclone 30 June 2005 19:01 (UTC)
• Keep The guy is a broadcasting legend and I will clean it up provided certain loose cannon administrators behave. - ConeyCyclone 30 June 2005 19:01 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I removed the single 1st-person sentence, so now it looks less like three sentences out of a personal essay and more like a microstub. --Scimitar 30 June 2005 19:45 (UTC)
• Keep, a well known and distinguished American meteorologist. Hall Monitor 1 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)
• Keep This is a misuse of the concept of US-centrism. Nearly everyone could be deleted on the grounds of mainly being of interest to people in their home country and there is no need to be stricter with articles about minor American personalities than minor non-American personalities. CalJW 2 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)

This article in (I assume) Indonesian has been on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for over two weeks. It has not been translated, except for one sentence and some section titles. I'm listing it here so we can decide what to do with it. Sietse 30 June 2005 13:33 (UTC)

• Send to Indonesia Wikipedia and delete from here. Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 14:15 (UTC)
• Delete, it's been through the translation process and no one has stepped forward. Smerdis of Tlön June 30, 2005 14:27 (UTC)
• Delete and send to original author. Penwhale 30 June 2005 14:34 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Slippery slope. Keeping this opens the pandora's box. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)

Mispelling are not enciclopedic items Cate 30 June 2005 14:09 (UTC)

• Merge into Pronunciation spelling as an example of a deliberate mispelling made for purposes of emphasis. Nateji77 30 June 2005 15:11 (UTC)
• Merge per Nateji77, as this is otherwise a dicdef. -- BD2412 ^talk June 30, 2005 15:19 (UTC)
• Merge per Nateji77. Sietse 30 June 2005 15:22 (UTC)
• Delete, no merge. JFW | T@lk 30 June 2005 15:40 (UTC)
• Merge with Misspelling and Pronunciation spelling. Its relevant to both. The Redirect would best go to Mispelling since thats what it is. Falphin 30 June 2005 16:22 (UTC)

do we really need a redirect? Nateji77 30 June 2005 16:28 (UTC)

Well not really, since it will probably be on the first of the list anyway. Falphin 30 June 2005 17:14 (UTC)

• Delete, because what's to distinguish this from "waay" or "waaaay"? Too slippery a slope. Dcarrano 30 June 2005 18:52 (UTC)

nothing. but i dont see why we would need to distinguish between the two. pick one, use that one, forego the redirects. Nateji77 3 July 2005 09:38 (UTC)

• Delete as per Dcarrano. --Carnildo 30 June 2005 22:37 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dcarrano. Waaay too slippery. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)
• Delete. Is this entry useful? No Waaay. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 12:00 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 08:25 (UTC)

Not relevant, since it seems to be a very minor player. Google finds 12 distinct hits for "Pinnacle Migration Group", one of them being Wikipedia. Delete. S.K. 30 June 2005 15:31 (UTC)

• Delete - This article looks like an ad to me... Daedalus-Prime 30 June 2005 18:14 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 08:25 (UTC)

Dicdef. We already have it in Wiktionary. - Sietse 30 June 2005 15:35 (UTC)

• Then, speedy? Penwhale 30 June 2005 15:44 (UTC)
  • No, because it is not a copy from Wiktionary. Sietse 30 June 2005 17:19 (UTC)
    • I've lost count of people who mistake Wikipedia for a dictionary. In Finnish, the words for "encyclopedia" and "dictionary" are nearly identical, but Finland is not the whole world, so I can't explain why so many people make that mistake. — JIP | Talk 30 June 2005 18:36 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree that this is a Dicdef as written. However, I could see a case for an expanded discussion of e.g. Pro Rata Voting, in which case I would say Cleanup Daedalus-Prime 30 June 2005 19:07 (UTC)
• Soft redirect to Wiktionary. This is linked form a few places, so we should point people in the right direction. — Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef already in wiktionary. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 08:21 (UTC)

This is about a psychopathic murderer whose only claim to fame was that he killed his parents. Will every madman now get a Wikipedia article? If he'd gone through medical school and killed people like Harold Shipman did, perhaps he would have been notable. Delete please. JFW | T@lk 30 June 2005 15:37 (UTC)

• Comment. This is fresh in the news as Brian Blackwell was only sentenced yesterday. He may become a famous murderer, and therefore notable, or he may be forgotten, and be non-notable. I don't think we know yet. David | Talk 30 June 2005 15:39 (UTC)
  • Someone who is jailed for life to become a famous murderer? True, stranger things have happened... JFW | T@lk 30 June 2005 16:38 (UTC)
    • This may divert from the topic under immediate discussion but Who's Who long ago removed their prohibition on those with serious criminal convictions from appearing, on the explicit basis that the criminal are often no less distinguished than the law-abiding. The old DNB had one or two articles, which included the famous example of Eugene Aram whose article began "Eugene Aram, criminal, born 17..". The new Oxford DNB has many more notorious figures in it including some semi-fictional and others such as Jack the Ripper whose identity is unknown. David | Talk 30 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)
• Perhaps cleanup then? Or ((current))? Penwhale 30 June 2005 15:53 (UTC)
  • What will cleanup achieve? He's in jail! JFW | T@lk 30 June 2005 16:38 (UTC)
• Very much a keeper. Pcb21| Pete 30 June 2005 16:31 (UTC)
• Keep - thank goodness murdering both your parents under such circumstances is still unusual enough in the Uk to be notable, IMHO. Naturenet | Talk 30 June 2005 16:40 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm tempted to agree with Naturenet: this is an unusual occurrence in the UK, not just a run-of-the-mill crime -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 16:43 (UTC)
• Keep, I concur with Naturenet and Francs2000. Sietse 30 June 2005 18:26 (UTC)
• Comment -- this guy was on the front pages of major British newspapers today (June 30, 2005), so he's definitely notable. 131.111.223.26 30 June 2005 20:34 (UTC)
• Keep. The case has received coverage in Australia. I read about it today. A Google News search shows 142 articles showing the case has been covered throughout the world. [9]. Capitalistroadster 1 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)
  • Abigail Witchalls anyone? Isn't this what Wikinews is for? JFW | T@lk 30 June 2005 21:04 (UTC)
    • As far as I am aware no-one has a written a proposal on the extent and form of the overlap of 'pedia and 'news. I'd've thought that having news report day-by-day events "Abagail regains movement" etc but 'pedia having an overall bio on her and the attack would be fine. Certainly that seems to be existing practice. Pcb21| Pete 1 July 2005 08:49 (UTC)
      • Wikinews relies upon Wikipedia for what, in other news services, would have to be explicitly supplied background articles. It's one of the strengths of Wikinews that it has an encyclopaedia, a dictionary, a list of quotations, and so forth ready to hand to call upon, which other news services do not. However, note the case of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maureen Faibish. Not everyone who is newsworthy warrants a biography in the encyclopaedia. Uncle G July 1, 2005 11:33 (UTC)
• Keep. James F. (talk) 1 July 2005 10:25 (UTC)
• Strong Keep this made front page news. A very notable and shocking murder. NSR 1 July 2005 12:16 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikinews but also keep here. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --Carnildo 22:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) Was deleted once in March

Nonsense.Delete page and history 80.80.160.30 12:24, 24 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 proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE.

This article brings nothing but a 1-liner about a game. If anything it should be in the game's article. Elfguy 30 June 2005 15:37 (UTC)

• It should stay because how would it fit into the article on Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas? I say Keep. --130.111.96.155 30 June 2005 15:39 (UTC)
• Delete or atleast merge into a subarticle of GTA:SA on all of the geography of GTA:SA. Dunc|☺ 30 June 2005 16:06 (UTC)
• Merge into the GTA SA article. All cities and counties should be merged. --130.111.96.155 30 June 2005 16:11 (UTC)
• Merge Penwhale 30 June 2005 16:15 (UTC)
• Delete non notable fictious town. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:39 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamecruft. (Though Rodeo, California is certainly real). --Calton | Talk 1 July 2005 04:59 (UTC)
• Merge or delete. Not a worthy separate article. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 21:29 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 08:16 (UTC)

Non-notable rock band. Could find no published albums, concert tours, website, etc. NymphadoraTonks 30 June 2005 15:53 (UTC)

• Delete all nn band vanity. --Etacar11 1 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)
• Delete all, non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:40
• Keep Nothing wrong here. (UTC) (Unsigned vote by 142.227.138.20)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. FCYTravis 9 July 2005 07:23 (UTC)

non-notable American weather presenter Ameri-CentricPatrol 30 June 2005 15:51 (UTC)

• Delete. one-liner. Elfguy 30 June 2005 17:12 (UTC)
• I have heard of him, but that's probably only because I happen to live in the city he works in. I'll go with Delete. Dcarrano 30 June 2005 18:49 (UTC)
• Keep Storm Field is a known guy. Hey Mothperson, aren't you going to challenge me to have the sockpuppets you think I am a part of vote to keep him? Or even better have them vote against me. - ConeyCyclone 30 June 2005 19:08 (UTC)
  • WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:FAITH. If you have a problem with Mothperson, talk it out or take it to WP:RFC. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 08:27 (UTC)
• Delete an exact copy of information in Frank Field (meteorologist). This single sentence therefore adds nothing to Wikipedia. Delete and redirect to his father. --Scimitar 30 June 2005 19:50 (UTC)
• Keep a well know TV person in a major market. Albeit, not as good as his father. However in it's current condition it is a clear Delete so that is what should happen without cleanup. Vegaswikian 1 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)
• 40 google hits. Notability is not inheritable. Delete, redirect to father. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 08:27 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does not have a president" . . . so why have an article on this nonexistent office? There are no links to this page and most of the 600-odd hits are for things like "president of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association".—Charles P. (Mirv) 30 June 2005 16:08 (UTC)

• Delete - Uk doesn't have any active volcanoes either, but I don't see a list of them. A silly article devoid of purpose. Naturenet | Talk 30 June 2005 16:17 (UTC)
• No vote The article shouldn't have links to it because of it is. I could see how it would be useful for the average American searcher. Then again that is just US-centric type of article so I'm not sure. Falphin 30 June 2005 16:19 (UTC)
• Delete pointless article. David | Talk 30 June 2005 16:22 (UTC)
• No vote. The original text of this article before its first deletion read "I want to find out the names of the Presidents of England." A case can be made that if one user was trying to look up the names of the presidents of England, then others might. It's a plausible mistake by someone poorly informed or U.S.-centric or both, and arguably it's useful to have some kind of dab or redirect in place, much as we do for frequent or plausible typos. It's not a very strong case. The biggest problem is I'm not sure why they would be likely to type "President of the United Kingdom" rather than "President of England" (or, given assumptions about the kind of user doing the typing, "Prezident of Ingland.") I don't care whether the article is deleted or not, so no vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 30 June 2005 16:40 (UTC)

• Sounds like the original was a speedy candidate under the 'attempts to communicate with title' criteria. David | Talk 30 June 2005 16:48 (UTC)

• I'd be concerned if we started accepting all articles for all possible mis-spellings, misconceptions and mispronounciations. That would open up an infinite, and unhelpful, article space. The user who is competent to search for, say, the President of England, will almost certainly find the answer to the question they failed to ask properly on Wikipedia (or elsewhere) soon enough by looking at the existing, correctly titled resources. Naturenet | Talk 30 June 2005 16:50 (UTC)
• Delete Elfguy 30 June 2005 16:50 (UTC)
• Delete DJ Clayworth 30 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)
• Delete. Comes off as anti-monarchist POV. Maybe a redirect to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom can be left behind for anyone who doesn't know better. 23skidoo 30 June 2005 18:17 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Dcarrano 30 June 2005 18:50 (UTC)
• Delete. We have a decent page on Prime Minister of the United States, but unless some usage of the title "President of the UK" can be demonstrated this should go. - SimonP June 30, 2005 19:04 (UTC)
• Delete as non-verifiable. After all, Queen Elizabeth II is not exactly an obscure person. Capitalistroadster 1 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)
• Delete, seems silly K1Bond007 July 1, 2005 02:45 (UTC)
• Delete until the UK becomes a republic - unverifiable. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Oliver Cromwell? Lord Protector is close to President. Pburka 1 July 2005 04:48 (UTC)
• Delete, the term is an oxymoron. Hiding 1 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)
• Redirect to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom since a few schoolchildren may look for it and redirects are cheap. Jonathunder 2005 July 1 21:14 (UTC)
• Delete (though the temptation to say "keep for the benefit of Americans" is rather overwhelming...) -- Francs2000 | Talk 2 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)
• Delete, and PLEASE no redirect to "Prime Minister", that would be misleading jamesgibbon 6 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE.

Unclear what this page is, or if it's notable. But it dosnt appear to be a full article. Naturenet | Talk 30 June 2005 16:15 (UTC)

• Move or merge, but to what? Penwhale 30 June 2005 16:19 (UTC)
• Merge. it is a duplicate of Yu-Gi-Oh! media and release information Elfguy 30 June 2005 17:10 (UTC)
• Delete as duplicate content. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:44 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)

Non-notable online chat/community. Gorrister 30 June 2005 16:44 (UTC)

• Delete. Not many results about it on google. Elfguy 30 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
• Delete nn, just self-promotion. --Etacar11 1 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:44 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Ahoerstemeier (vanity nonsense) --cesarb 30 June 2005 20:54 (UTC)

Non-notable student vanity. Delete. — P Ingerson (talk) 30 June 2005 16:45 (UTC)

Forget it. Someone's just speedied it. — P Ingerson (talk) 30 June 2005 16:53 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE AND REDIRECT.

This first-person-voiced article simply is not encyclopedic. We already have an article called Press up, with a redirect from Push up. "Pushups" is original research, and doesn't even really have much to bother merging into Press up. func(talk) 30 June 2005 17:32 (UTC)

• Isn't that a copyvio from [10]? Anyway, if it's not: redirect to press up because this is original research. Sietse 30 June 2005 18:18 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. -Sean Curtin June 30, 2005 18:33 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect, assuming this isn't copyvio - If it is a copyvio then Speedy Delete. - There is some added value to this expanded description of Press Ups/Push Ups. The single-word "Pushups" redirect is probably valuable too. Daedalus-Prime 30 June 2005 19:34 (UTC)
  • On the talk page, an anon, (presumably User:Weaselic125) states: "I have obtained written permission from the author of the source to use this content before actually writing the wiki entry. Though I must admit, I only gave reference to the author in the summary of the pictures. I also neglected to fully understand the GNU license, and will taylor the entry if given the chance to do so." func(talk) 30 June 2005 20:03 (UTC)
• Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:45 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to press up. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 1 July 2005 05:49 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect. The vote was for merge, but I see no space in the Neopets article for stuff like this, so I will make it a redir for now. Woohookitty 03:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does a character from a card trading game belong in an encyclopedia? Personally I don't think so, especially when the article is so poorly written. Bobbis 30 June 2005 17:49 (UTC)

• merge what is salvageable into list of Neopets. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 20:32 (UTC)
• Merge to some related Neopets article. Not list of Neopets, though, because that's a list of Neopet species that users can create, rather than a list of specific characters in Neopia. Though I'd really like to keep all of the Neopets stuff in its own articles if we have all of this Pokecruft lying around here. How long is too long for the list of Neopets articles, anyway? --Idont Havaname 1 July 2005 04:55 (UTC) See below. --Idont Havaname 3 July 2005 04:14 (UTC)
• Comment. There are actually three articles on Hannah the Usul: Hannah the usul, Hannah and the Pirate Caves, and Hannah (Neopets). Hannah the usul, the subject of this debate, is copyvio and has now been tagged as such. Hannah and the Pirate Caves is also copyvio and has been tagged as such. Hannah (Neopets) is the only valid article of the bunch, and should probably just be merged back into Neopets. --Idont Havaname 3 July 2005 04:14 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slang definition. Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Sietse 30 June 2005 17:49 (UTC)

• keep. Don't be fooled by the term "slang". These are real, specific, things, sold under this very name. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 18:29 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 30 June 2005 22:44 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. 1) Not a slang term; 2) Considerably different to gaiters, and almost certainly with a rich history. Grutness...wha? 1 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. However, I will make it a redirect to Household chore since someone could be looking for that if they just type in chore. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 08:09 (UTC)

Slang/foreign language definition. Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Sietse 30 June 2005 17:50 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, but there should be an article on household chores, and this should eventually be a redirect to it. -- BD2412 ^talk June 30, 2005 18:04 (UTC)
• Delete foreign lang, unused in English (in this meaning). mikka (t) 30 June 2005 21:19 (UTC)
• Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:48 (UTC)
• keep but point to household chore. There are nonhousehold chores that should be discussed here (I am at work right now and should be doing that most unpleasant of professional chores: filing, not doing this ;-). I'm writing an article on the mathematical problem of chore division and I need a link to chore as in household chore.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 08:07 (UTC)

Not notable. --Tabor 30 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)

• Delete - Notability not established. Sietse 30 June 2005 18:23 (UTC)
• Delete Elfguy 30 June 2005 18:32 (UTC)
• Delete I'm all for it, but nn. Good luck to him. --Etacar11 1 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to Leiden University. That's because the central students' center of Leiden University is named Plexus. Or disambig with anything else named Plexus. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 21:22 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 08:05 (UTC)

Sadly not a speedy. Blatant advertising. smoddy 30 June 2005 18:02 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. Sietse 30 June 2005 18:20 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 08:01 (UTC)

Neologism. Google returns mostly irrelevant content and Wikipedia mirrors (see [11] and [12]). Sietse 30 June 2005 18:10 (UTC)

• del. no such word. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 20:47 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:49 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 9 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)

I dcided to question the notability. Google search results show only 109 unique hits. The article itself does not show notability either. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 18:25 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable webcomic that's been around for just 6 months (26 weeks). Alexa rank 316,478. Does not meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines. — Gwalla | Talk 30 June 2005 23:44 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was CONSENSUS NOT REACHED.

one-liner with no context Elfguy 30 June 2005 19:07 (UTC)

• keep,' wikify, cleanup. There is context, and it is not a one-liner. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 20:14 (UTC)
• Delete. I know it's an album, but I don't know who by or anything useful about it. --Scimitar 30 June 2005 22:44 (UTC)
• Delete unless cleaned up/expanded by its VFD processing date. "Track listing" and a bunch of song titles certainly doesn't fit my definition of 'context'. Niteowlneils 1 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
• Delete non notable release. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into band page — album went gold in Germany in 1994 with sales of 250,000. [13] — RJH 1 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)
• Keep - Great album by a great band. Track numbers added. Carlmckie 1 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was CONSENSUS NOT REACHED.

This page includes no notable text that isn't already in Windows XP, Product activation, Microsoft product activation debate, and half a dozen articles on Copy prevention, piracy and the like. This article constantly attracts people adding the entire key to the article. Wikipedia is not a cracks database. It has 29,000 google hits, but that reflects the popularity of pirating Windows XP, not this particular key on its own SchmuckyTheCat 30 June 2005 19:08 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect with/to Microsoft product activation debate. Daedalus-Prime 30 June 2005 20:01 (UTC)
• Delete and protect from re-creation. --Carnildo 30 June 2005 22:47 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: The information in the article is of significant encyclopedic value, and offers no material assistance to pirates (as if this should even be a factor in the decision!). The key was disabled by Microsoft three years ago, and is of real historical value. Alereon July 1, 2005 03:44 (UTC)
  • It can't be disabled in software that has already been shipped, and you yourself added the key [14] that's material assistance to piracy. There is nothing encyclopedic in the article that isn't presented in other articles. SchmuckyTheCat 8 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)
• Keep: What seems to be the problem with keeping an article about the historical use of a product activation key. The key has been disabled so it isn't an ongoing situation which means it does not really belong in the current article 'Microsoft product activation debate', it belongs in its own article. --ShaunMacPherson 1 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect with/to Microsoft product activation debate. Although I agree that it contains useful information it is misplaced under this title. --Deelkar (talk) 1 July 2005 03:58 (UTC)
• Keep : Same opinion as Aleron. Frankchn 1 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)
• Keep : As per above. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 09:08 (UTC)
• Keep as per Aleron. JamesBurns 06:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - same as Aleron. ---AM088 01:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Moved content to BJAODN. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 07:55 (UTC)

Delete. This article is just complete nonsense. There is no "Misterteapotism" religion. - Necropenguin 30 June 2005 19:01 (UTC)

• Delete or perhaps BJAODN -- patent nonsense, but funny. Daedalus-Prime 30 June 2005 19:44 (UTC)
• Delete joke, what the hell Yorkville has to do with this, I don't know. --Etacar11 1 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)
• Strong delete, probable absurdistcruft. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 01:04 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Grutness...wha? 1 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
• Then the teapot religion can just bow down to its place in BJAODN. --Idont Havaname 1 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)
• BJAODN. carmeld1 3 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 07:46 (UTC)

NN, D. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:38 (UTC)

• keep. Marginally notable. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 20:44 (UTC)
• delete. Not notable except for some humor which got him fired. Groeck 30 June 2005 22:17 (UTC)
• delete non notable. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to Mortal Engines. -- Jonel | Speak 02:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NN, D. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:37 (UTC)

• merge into Mortal Engines. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 20:46 (UTC)
• Delete non notable cruft. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:56 (UTC)
• Having read the article, I'd prefer keep (the city also features in a small way in Predator's Gold), otherwise Merge and keep the redirect. I see no good reason to delete the material itself, which is an excellent summary of an important location in a popular, award-winning book. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)
• Merge into Mortal Engines. Dcarrano 01:12, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 9 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)

NN, D. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:37 (UTC)

• del nonnotable: 19 unique google hits. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 20:52 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. CDC (talk) 9 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)

NN, D. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:37 (UTC)

• keep. A frivolous nomination. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 20:39 (UTC)
• delete. Copyright violation. See page. Groeck 30 June 2005 22:23 (UTC)
• Weak keep (not copyvio). All three hits for "The name GNAV is probably an imitation" are Wikipedia mirrors. Definately needs Cleanup, tho'. Niteowlneils 30 June 2005 23:24 (UTC)
• It certainly has some of the distinctive marks of a copyright violation. However, this appears to be a a real game that is widely played by ordinary people around the world. Keep Rewritten article at the better titles of either Gnav or Cuckoo (game). Uncle G July 1, 2005 12:48 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable Rlitwin 04:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A prior version of this article went through the deletion process and the result was delete. The reason was non-notability. The new article may have some new content but the person in question hasn't grown greatly in notability since then. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lorenzen (prior deletion). Rlitwin 04:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Considering the subject as an academic, he does not appear to be more notable than the average professor. See WP:PROFTEST. --Metropolitan90 07:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Metropolitan90. Dionyseus 09:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This person is well know in the library instruction field and meets the criteria for a noted professor or academic. He has 64 citations at Google Scholar on the search (lorenzen "library instruction"). I think that is notable. LarryQ 04:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article similar to Jessamyn West which survived a vote for delation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessamyn West? Most Wikipedia users have no clue who is important in the library world but a Google search quickly shows notability. LarryQ 05:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessamyn is noted in the library world primarily as a blogger, and also as an ALA Councilor (she just finished her three year term). I am in the library world, and I have never heard of Michael Lorenzen. If you want to use a Google test, I think you will find there is no comparison between Jessamyn West and Michael Lorenzen on that basis. (You might check my results as well - "rory litwin" - and you will see the kind of results a non-notable can get in the library world.) Michael Lorenzen is one of thousands in the library world in terms of notability. Lots of people write articles. If you look at Jessamyn's articles for deletion discussion, you'll see that it was close, and a deciding fact seems to have been that she was selected as one of a dozen or so bloggers invited to attend the 2004 Democratic National Convention as bloggers in the press corps. So, it seems to me that Jessamyn survived the articles for deletion vote mainly because of her notability as a blogger. She was one of the earliest bloggeres and is very well known in the profession for that. There aren't any other Wikipedia articles on contemporary librarians who are as non-notable as Lorenzen; his article is really an exception, in my opinion. The others are either actual professors, ALA past-presidents, historical figures, etc. Rlitwin 13:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I don't think 64 hits in Google Scholar meets the professor test. Compare professor Kathleen McCook, who I think is notable in the library world. (kathleen mccook library gets 292 hits in google scholar.) Rlitwin 13:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, most of Lorenzen's articles were published in state and local publications, not national publications. He is probably very well known locally and somewhat known nationally, but notability requires a little more in an encyclopedia, IMO. Rlitwin 14:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 9 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)

NN, D. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:36 (UTC)

• Delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 30 June 2005 20:40 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic cruft. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:58 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 9 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

NN, D. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:36 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)
• Delete being a company director is not by itself encylopedic. Vegaswikian 1 July 2005 06:06 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 07:44 (UTC)

NN, D. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:35 (UTC)

• Delete looks like advertising designed to look like a stub. The edit history is interesting. Vegaswikian 1 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)
• Keep and expand or Merge into The Weather Company article. As noted on the requests for expansion entry, someone has volunteered to do an expansion/merger into a larger article based on Weatherzone's parent service; it hasn't been done yet due to his studies, he wrote. Copy of the comments are as follows:

• Weatherzone - Article right now reads like a dicdef or an advertising blurb. While it may be important to Australians, not being one I don't see how it is; if it is significant, it needs to be exanded so it doesn't end up on VFD listing.--Mitsukai 15:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm a weatherzone user, and I don't think the weatherzone website itself is significant enough to warrant an article. It's just a glorified version of the Bureau of Meteorology website. I do think there would be a case for creating an article on [www.theweather.com.au The Weather Company], which manages weatherzone, and also is the main distributor of weather information to TV stations. I'll see what I can do about it, though I really should be studying for exams now :) -- Graham 03:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Granted, while I agree in its current incarnation it's wikispam (I said as much in the history, and I actually considered VFDing it earlier in the week before I checked the RFX pages), I'd think this would be useful enough to give some Aussies a chance to update it before we kill it off. I'd expect the same, if we were talking about, say, The Weather Channel's weather.com here in the US.--Mitsukai 1 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)

redirect to The Weather Company article. I've just created the article for The Weather Company, as I suggested on the aforementioned Requests for Expansion page. Its mention of weatherzone should be enough, and it is not necessary to have an article entirely devoted to Weatherzone. Graham 2 July 2005 11:13 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)

NN. D. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:34 (UTC)

• del. Dead and nonnotable. Merge what is salvageable into Dave Winer. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 20:54 (UTC)
• Delete non notable log. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:02 (UTC)
• Delete and merge if there is anything of value. Vegaswikian 1 July 2005 06:07 (UTC)
• Merge. AlistairMcMillan July 2, 2005 00:16 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted already. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity. Briangotts 30 June 2005 19:49 (UTC)

NN, D. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:57 (UTC)

• Delete - who else was born in San Jose ? JoJan 30 June 2005 20:36 (UTC)
• speedy. "little or no context". Content was: Majeed was born in San Jose, CA in 1984.. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 21:10 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted already Woohookitty 9 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)

Looks like vanity to me Jeff Anonymous 30 June 2005 19:51 (UTC) NN, D. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:56 (UTC)

• Delete - vanity, non-notable JoJan 30 June 2005 20:35 (UTC)

Speedily deleted; occupies place of a Mayor of Saint Louis. Content was: Daniel Page, a.k.a. Guy Potttz, is one bad motha-shut-yo-mouth. He has an incredible plethora of accomplishments, including, but not limited to, Parliamentarian of NHS at Mustang High School in Mustang, OK, leader of the Tuba section in band, and an avid guitar player.'. If you like it, you may restore.mikka (t) 30 June 2005 21:07 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, vanity Briangotts 30 June 2005 20:30 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable JoJan 30 June 2005 20:33 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 1 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)

Questionable notability: supposed "effect" named after somebody mentioned in a documentary, claiming that he ended up tarnishing his reputation further by suing for defamation. While this likely occurs, never heard of this fellow, the film in question, or this name for it. Google knows only Wikipedia clones. Granted that this happens, shouldn't it be named for someone really famous, like William Westmoreland or Ariel Sharon; or better yet, discussed in libel and slander? Smerdis of Tlön June 30, 2005 20:44 (UTC)

• delete Groeck 30 June 2005 22:29 (UTC)
• Delete this term doesn't appear to be in real use. The film and the guy are real, though. (Check IMDB) --Etacar11 1 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)
• Delete NN. written by Luke Weil perhaps? carmeld1 3 July 2005 05:14 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry about this, I wrote the entry after reading about someone's opinion of what happened in the movie in some webpage somewhere. I should have provided the link, but i've still long a long way to go before i'm a "Wiki Expert", and I came a long way since then. This article should probably be deleted.

P.S- I'm not Luke Weil ;-) --Karmafist 8 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was CONSENSUS NOT REACHED.

link spam ➥the Epopt 30 June 2005 20:48 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. They have done an amazing job, and Jesus is the greatest person of all. Tempshill 30 June 2005 20:49 (UTC)
• Keep but redirect to a proper title and clean up. Deb 30 June 2005 20:52 (UTC)
• Keep, sort of. Focus on the Family radio productions are widely syndicated, sold in Christian bookstores, and series such as "Adventures in Odyssey," which already has its own page, have many fans outside of religion, merely because of the stories and voice acting. And many of their productions, like "Anne of Green Gables," are non-religious (though family oriented), and I seem to recall the latter being syndicated outside of Christian radio stations as well. Speaking as a radio fan/scholar and how few radio dramas are produced in the US these days, it's probably notable enough for an article. One might argue that it be merged with the general Focus on the Family page, but that focuses on the organization's religious agenda and history, so I think a seperation is not uncalled for. However, I agree, it would *definitely* need strong cleanup to avoid the vanity, the POV religious statements, provide more actual information and history, and of course, the lower-case. Sorry for going on, so, I guess keep if someone actually volunteers or is able to fix it within a short period; otherwise delete and let someone start a new page with the proper title and info. Aleal 30 June 2005 21:08 (UTC)
• merge into Focus on the Family. Separation (argued in the prev. vote) may be easily done by sectioning. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 21:13 (UTC)
• Delete promo. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per Aleal, and rename to Focus on the Family Radio Theatre. Certainly notable, because of what Aleal said; programs like Unshackled get their own articles too, due to their relative uniqueness among radio broadcasts today. --Idont Havaname 1 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)
• Delete, promo, vanity, not an encyclopedic topic on its own. Merge whatever can be merged into the Focus on the Family article. Kaibabsquirrel 1 July 2005 06:45 (UTC). Comment: This is a far cry from Unshackled, which *is* notable as a long running (~50 yrs) radio show produced by a venerable rescue mission in Chicago. Unshackled is notable, this one is not.Kaibabsquirrel 1 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)
• Delete, promo, perhaps make brief mention on Focus on the Family article. Ithacagorges 7 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 07:10 (UTC)

If people really do say this, they're guilty of tautology. Deb 30 June 2005 20:47 (UTC) (Ah...I should have known it was an American expression. As opposed to "standing in repose" no doubt. Deb 1 July 2005 11:54 (UTC))

• Delete. Never heard it. Never said it either, and I'm about as pompous as they come... So it might be a term. Still a dicdef. smoddy 30 June 2005 20:53 (UTC)
• Delete. Real expression. Dicdef, tho. -- BD2412 ^talk June 30, 2005 21:41 (UTC)
  • Change of vote - keep, good expansion. -- BD2412 ^talk July 1, 2005 17:52 (UTC)
• Keep- I've expanded the article. I knew I had heard the term in classical literature, and couldn't for the life of me figure out where I had heard it recently . . . until Google reminded me of the Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan. --Scimitar 30 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)
• Keep, notable aspect of presidential funerals. Kappa 30 June 2005 23:21 (UTC)
• Keep although I edited it further to keep Scimitar's work and get rid of the orginal nonsense. DS1953 1 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)
• Keep. Wll done Scimitar and DS1953. Capitalistroadster 1 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)
• Keep; and note, current page is at lying in repose. Smerdis of Tlön July 1, 2005 03:57 (UTC)
• Keep NSR 1 July 2005 12:11 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)

Vanity, no notable information Bobbis 30 June 2005 21:21 (UTC)

• There's an allmusic entry for a band called the cartels, but I don't think it's this band. If someone wants to write about that band, they should, but this entry is vanity. 28 google hits for "the cartels" +monmouth (their hometown), most unrelated. Delete. Meelar (talk) June 30, 2005 21:34 (UTC)
• Delete for failure of the article creator to supply indicia of encyclopedic notability. -- BD2412 ^talk June 30, 2005 21:45 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 1 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)
• delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 06:43 (UTC)

This page has been added to the Mushroom Kingdom article because it is too to small on it's own...

• Cruft. Delete both. Martg76 30 June 2005 21:55 (UTC)
• Delete both, nn cruft. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:09 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 06:42 (UTC)

Delete -- The article describes itself as fictional/satirical, hence non-encyclopedic. Google has very, very little to say about mynetics. FreplySpang (talk) 30 June 2005 21:52 (UTC)

The sole contributor blanked the page. Speedily deleted. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 22:12 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 03:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 30 June 2005 22:02 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:10 (UTC)
• merge and redirect- it's actually a sub label of V Recordings, one of the largest Drum and bass record labels. The discography for Liquid V can be found here [15]. illWill 5 July 2005 11:58 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- Jonel | Speak 02:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is obviously to keep. Let me point out, though, that Wikipedia is still too young (at 4 years old) to have created a policy on articles about contributors who are somewhat well-known outside of Wikipedia. I only know of 2 or 3 other notable people who have contributed, like that guy who started Disinfopedia and some minor gay celebrity. The other 99.99% of us are just amateur volunteers.

We need to create a policy for this. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 13:44 (UTC)

You mean a policy "like don't create a page on your mate"? Or "admins should never close the VFDs on the unencyclopedic pages they created in the first place"? Oh never mind. Dunc|☺ 8 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)

del Nonnotable average scientist. No notable accomplishments mentioned. I have 20x more publications. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 22:08 (UTC)

• Delete. It says something when he can't list his achievements but only a patently obvious statemnt global environment change is supported by the scientific community. It would make a good user page for User:William M. Connolley; better than the one he has already, though I know his name well enough around here that he should have known not to have written about himself. Wait until he gets a professorship or accidentally discovers yet another hole in the Ozone layer that the boffins at NASA missed. Dunc|☺ 30 June 2005 22:17 (UTC)
  • In fairness to the subject, Ed Poor started the article, not him. --Scimitar 30 June 2005 22:34 (UTC)
    • Oh yes, I hadn't noticed, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/William Connolley. Nevertheless, the only page from special:whatlinkshere/William Connolley is his blog, the rest are just talk pages. My vote stands, though I now think Ed Poor should'nt've written about his mate. Dunc|☺ 30 June 2005 22:40 (UTC)
• Keep on the general principle that an article that survived VfD four months ago should not be back on VfD when it is essentially the same article wiht some additional edits. DS1953 30 June 2005 22:31 (UTC)
  • NB. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/William Connolley did not reach consensus (only 5 votes). Dunc|☺ 30 June 2005 22:40 (UTC)
    • NB. The nominator of the previous VfD didn't actually vote, so there were only 4 votes, of which 3 were "keeps" which would be a consensus (and mikka should not have edited the closer's conclusion in the archive to change it to "no consensus"). However, I would feel the same way if it survived a 3:2 vote that was called no consensus. There are better things to do than put up articles for deletion over and over again. DS1953 30 June 2005 22:59 (UTC)
      • NNBB. Many maintain that the default vote, based on the intention, of the nominator is delete, unless stated otherwise. Yes, I know there are much more useful things to do. But I am widely known as [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Bureaucratic_Fuck Bureaucratic Fuck], when I am not writing articles about soviet political repressions. mikka (t) 1 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)
• Keep, do a bit of NPOVing and userfy the list of publications. Subject is notable and it is not a case of Autobiography. David | Talk 30 June 2005 23:00 (UTC)
• Keep, notable figure in Antartic research. Kappa 30 June 2005 23:43 (UTC)
  • Proofs of notability into the article, please. At first glance, "William Connolley" -wikipedia" gives 135 unique google hits, and he is not the only william there. Geez, my own (real) name fares much better, and I even dont have blogs. mikka (t) 1 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)
  • Just to show my good will, here are some hints: was he elected to lead some organizations/committees, etc? Are his articles frequently quoted (as opposed, to plain graphomaniacs)? Was he honorably awarded for his work? If you cannot provide any of these, sorry folks. Keep him if you like, but I detest such "friendly" attitude.

Just look at his buddies from RealClimate, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann (scientist), and weep. mikka (t) 1 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)

• • • Quite see Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies/Academics. Spectacularly fails the professor test. Dunc|☺ 1 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)
      • Spectacularly fails? How many "professors" (US definition, not UK) have Science papers? Guettarda 1 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)
• keep pointless re-listing; its not autobiog. William M. Connolley 2005-07-01 08:51:36 (UTC).
  • Please answer my questions about your notability (assuning you are the man). Just point where the ifromation is, and I will gladly update the article. Unless I see this, I have no reasons not to question the notability. The article sat here for quite some time with nothing better than someone's POV that the guy believes this and believes that. mikka (t) 1 July 2005 22:55 (UTC)
    • Its not "someones" POV. Its my POV, of course. Its a direct quote from me, hence entirely appropriate in the article. William M. Connolley 2005-07-03 21:00:42 (UTC).
  • We don't normally let people vote on themselves. [Dunc, presumably]
    • Sez who? I'm expressing my opinion, which is that this re-listing is pointless. I'm sure whoever tallies the votes will take account of the fact that I'm me. William M. Connolley 2005-07-01 10:18:19 (UTC).
      • I don't believe there is any rule that says people can't vote on articles relating to themselves. There is a prohibition on writing autobiography but that's an entirely different matter. WMC is entirely in order in voting. David | Talk 1 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be more notable than an average scientist with the publications and the blog. Also, there is no rule saying that people are not allowed to vote on themselves. (I remember there was one nomination which went along the lines of "I am the subject of the article and I am not notable", can't remember where it was though.)
  • Sorry forgot to sign. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 12:01 (UTC)
• Keep. James F. (talk) 1 July 2005 10:30 (UTC)
• Comment. I am really bothered by the fact that Connolley has contributed to the article. He really shouldn't, and it weakens his position here in voting on this VfD, as it brings with it the suggestion of vanity. Secondly, I read over the link Dunc provided, Wikipedia_talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics. It is not an official policy nor an official guideline, indeed, Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies merely describes it as an alternative test that has been proposed. VfDs like this one always confuse me. Jimbo states that the 2 primary rules are Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. Connolley appears to be entirely verifiable, and the article does not actually read like vanity, per se. I really wish WP had a stronger set of official guidelines for situations like this. func(talk) 1 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)
  • What makes it worse is that, as Wm Connolley has admitted to me, Ed Poor created the article in order to bolster his position in a Wikipedia edit war somewhere on global environment change. Dunc|☺ 2 July 2005 10:51 (UTC)
• Keep - for involvement in "Real Climate" alone he is more notable than a minor Pokemon character or an episode of DS9. His pubs make him (look) more notable than the "average" colllege professor (since this is based on American standards, and third author on a Science paper blows most of them out of the water). Guettarda 1 July 2005 22:18 (UTC)
• Keep I could see it being non notable if there were no publications or anything but the publications and all seem to establish a fair amount of natability. Jtkiefer July 2, 2005 05:13 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I think WMC is notable for his position as a scientist involved in public advocacy (e.g. RealClimate), but I would really appreciate seeing something more tangible than a list of publications for the purpose of establishing notability as a scientist. How about an explanation of what WMC has done in his academic career that was important to our understanding of climate? Dragons flight July 2, 2005 22:33 (UTC)

• Keep. I thought this was over and done with. -- Natalinasmpf 3 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)
• Keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 6 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)
• Delete. Article doesn't establish notability. Fredrik | talk 7 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough. Gamaliel 7 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)
• Delete, why should this article be kept? Phoenix2 July 8, 2005 01:24 (UTC)
• Keep. It should be kept because the subject is verifiable and meets the threshold of bare notability (recently set at a new low with Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten.)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 06:38 (UTC)

Ad. --W(t) 30 June 2005 22:12 (UTC)

• Comment This seems to be copied verbatum from the official site.-LtNOWIS 30 June 2005 22:16 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but it's too short to be a copyvio. Which I'm bloody grateful for, because there's no way in hell I'm copyvio-tagging all of these. --W(t) 30 June 2005 22:18 (UTC)
• Delete non notable promo. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Really should have been a speedy since its basically just a link. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 06:32 (UTC)

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 30 June 2005 22:14 (UTC)

Oh dear, there's piles more where those came from: Special:Contributions/166.32.232.121. Any suggestions as to what to do with those? Mass-VfD? speedy as Ads? --W(t) 30 June 2005 22:16 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:12 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

• Delete Completely idiosyncratic non-topic -- not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I think it should be deleted. At best this merits a brief entry on a page about hoaxes or perhaps on a page about bizarre social engineering projects.--csloat 30 June 2005 22:20 (UTC)
• Keep This reason for deletion is idiosyncratic itself as it bears no resemblence to reality. This article is supported by a book, a movie, a nonprofit organization, and provides a well known example for new Wikipedia general categories of monetary reform, and tax reform. Modeled after the Fair tax article, it could be submitted that this article on NESARA be split into two articles: one about the NESARA internet hoax, with a reference to the legitimate version; and then a seperate article about the legitimate NESARA bill itself as currently under review by the Presiden't Commission for Tax Reform at www.taxreformpanel.gov; and presented to many congress persons over the last decade. I am currently not aware of any Wikipedia litmus test for legislative proposals as being limited only to proposals that are submitted to congress and have a bill number. Though some NPOV issues are raised due to the lack of arguments against NESARA, that can easily be addressed by expanding the appropriate section.--Inigmatus 30 June 2005 22:28 (UTC).
• Comment No vote yet, but the germs of the arguments are in the article's Talk page. -EDM 30 June 2005 22:39 (UTC)
• Delete Pure nonsense. Read the content. Hoax sounds about right. Groeck 1 July 2005 04:02 (UTC)

The article is now split into two

• Keep I split the article into two, one for the conspiracy theory, one for the legislative proposal. I was uncomfortable with this information being mushed together in one article from the onset, and this makes so much more sense. Especially now that it's being considered for deletion, and the reasons for or against deleting one are so much more different from the arguments for and against deleting the other. So this discussion is on deleting the article containing information on the legislative proposal. I vote AGAINST deleting it, but I do think it really needs to be compressed to about 20 percent of its current size, and needs more balance. - sednar (talk · contribs)
• Keep both articles -- this, so that there is a "fair comment" NPOV articel on NESARA, for those who want to know about it; and the conspiracy/hoax page so that people who hear about it can find out the (relatively NPOV, though Ms.Goodwin would not agree) objective view of NESARA-the-patent-nostrum --Simon Cursitor 1 July 2005 07:08 (UTC)
• Delete both, not significant enough for more than a brief mention in an article about social engineering projects proposed by minor non-governmental organisations. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)
• Keep both, especially after the split. In the legislative sense, NESARA does seem to one of the thousands of proposals. Regardless of one's opinions about the viability of the proposal, it is now very famous proposal in some circles, connected to hoaxes, fraud, etc. If somebody would come to WP looking for information about it, these articles can really clear things up. No doubt there is the usual risk that pro-NESARA folks will try to vandalize them to adovacate their POV, but it has not lead to deletion of even more controversial places. - Skysmith 1 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)
• Note: to people voting keep both above: the other half of the article is being discussed on another VfD, so just saying keep both here will not have the intended effect. --cesarb 1 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)
• Cleanup, MASSIVELY. This should be an article examining the conspiracy theory (the "conspiracy theory" fork should be deleted)... not a lengthy ramble describing specific provisions of a bill that does not actually exist. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)
  • Comment The draft does exist in the public domain here: It does not have a THOMAS locator registry number since it has not been submited to Congress for review, however the draft of the bill does exist in 24 pages available to the public, drafted by Dr. Harvey F. Barnard. Inigmatus 1 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
    • Some random person drafting a bill and publishing it on the Internet does not mean Congress has ever considered or will ever consider it, any more than if you or I did the same. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)
      • First NESARA was drafted in 1991 before the internet. It's in a published book called "Draining the Swamp", a movie is being made of the hoax version of it, and it is under official review by the President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform at http://www.taxreformpanel.gov.
    • Second, I was not aware that entry on the offical THOMAS Congressional record was a WP requirement for a legislative proposal, let alone a litmus test for such an article's removal. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 20:18 (UTC)
  • Trolling accusations are inappropriate; assume good faith. The thing is that I don't believe there is any "legitimate" NESARA bill. Sure, a few private citizens in a country of 250 million people might support such a bill, but that doesn't make it a bill "under consideration by Congress." Therefore, there should only be one article, discussing the conspiracy theory surrounding this phantom bill, and it should be under the NESARA label. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
    • Good faith assumed, if not trolling, then certainly the reasons for VfD seem to be a matter of POV regarding the article's validity. One only need check out the references to be convined the validity of the article and its necessity in a public encyclopedia. If you wish to propose a change to VfD guidelines, feel free to do so. Currently, there is no rule limiting articles on proposed legislation to only articles submitted in the Congressional THOMAS record. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 20:40 (UTC)
      • Please demonstrate that the President is actually reviewing this bill, beyond simply linking me to a generic government agency website. Otherwise, a legislative proposal that has never been, and most likely will never be, actually considered by a legislative body is not notable. The conspiracy theory, however, is. Article should reflect that. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)
        • In an email received by Dr. Harvey F. Barnard on May 2, 2005, he told me he has spoken with the Vice-Chair of the panel, former US Senator John Breaux from his home state of Louisianna, and sent him a copy of the book "Draining the Swamp" at John's request. I can provide this email, if necessary.Inigmatus July 1, 2005 20:41 (UTC)
          • Okay; reasonable minds may differ at this point. I suspect Mr. Breaux was simply being polite ;-) However, I cannot prove a negative and prove that Congress will never consider it; that would be impossible. Still, evaluating how truly radical the bill is and what little solid evidence there is IMO that it truly is a "legislative proposal" in the sense of anyone in the legislature actually caring about it, I still maintain that the proposal itself is not notable, and that the NESARA article need discuss the proposal only in the context of the notable conspiracy theory. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)
            • Perhaps you can explain what makes the bill any more radical than the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, or the FairTax Act of 2005, and therefore not worthy of inclusion in WP; if not only to serve as an article of reference from which a large internet hoax was based from? At this point, I am sure you can agree we are merely discussing a POV difference on the merits of the bill. We are really not talking about its legitimacy, or validity, or about any particularly applicable VfD WP deletion rule. Splitting this article was the most appropriate solution to the debate between text overload, and I agree that the NESARA article could use some better summarization, but no more I would expect than to see in FairTax. Because there is no real VfD rule infringed here that can not be addressed by its splitting, I would appeal to the community to consider this VfD irrelevant and closed. Of course, in the spirit of the community, I'd still like to hear of any recommendations for cleanup of these split articles, if you feel they need it. After all, this is wiki. :)Inigmatus July 1, 2005 20:58 (UTC)
              • Agree that article "to serve as an article of reference from which a large internet hoax was based" is appropriate; see my "cleanup" vote above. Disagree that we're not discussing applicable VfD WP deletion rules when, IMO, one of the subjects of the two NESARA-related articles is not notable. But perhaps that is better discussed in the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/NESARA conspiracy theory VfD, since that is the one I feel should be deleted, with its content largely ported over here. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)
                • I'm glad we can agree on keeping NESARA. Now as to NESARA conspiracy theory I will leave that discussion on that page. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 21:14 (UTC)
• Keep, this VFD is ridiculous, see my comments @ Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/NESARA conspiracy theory. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 1 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)
• This article is a split of NESARA that was performed by 67.168.88.65 (talk · contribs) during that article's VFD discussion, apparently intended to address the concerns brought up in that discussion. (See this explanation and this explanation by that user.) For GFDL reasons, if for no other, its deletion should be brought under the umbrella of that VFD discussion. Uncle G 2005-07-01 19:23:01 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. Wikipedia is not the place for detailed description of a legislative proposal not championed by a legislator, but it deserves an entry as a semi-legitimate idea co-opted by scammers. --Tysto 2005 July 2 01:37 (UTC)
• Delete the crackpottery and legislative vaporware, include the scam/hoax part from NESARA conspiracy theory --Calton | Talk 2 July 2005 12:33 (UTC)
  • So far no one has been able to explain what makes it crackpot. Perhaps you can back up your statement with fact? 168.103.83.38 2 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)
    • Put as briefly as possible, and listing only the most obvious reasons, the proposal is crackpottery because: it is written by one individual, an autodidact, and promoted through an organization that is purely web-based; it has been around for years and has not found a single legislative sponsor; the bill and its promotional literature uses the lingo of fringe groups such as tax protesters, survivalists, and marginal populists. Despite all this, still no vote. -EDM 2 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)
      • First, may I remind you that it is the reason the hoaxters coopted the draft that it has a hard time finding Congressional support, and second the "lingo" is used by supporters of the FairTax and other tax reform proposals that have Congressional sponsorship. I think you present a weak case on it being "crackpot" so far. Besides being crackpot, I still don't see how it yet has to violate a Wikipedia deletion rule. So far no one has presented a proper case. Inigmatus July 4, 2005 03:31 (UTC)
    • I'll also offer the following as further support for the proposition that the NESARA proposal is crackpottery, on the related principles of "the company they keep" or "by their fruits shall ye know them." It was posted on a NESARA discussion board here by a supporter of the NESARA proposal, and it pertains to the Terri Schiavo (or Terri Schindler Schiavo, depending on your POV) fuss of a few months ago:

An innocent woman has been publically executed after 13 days of court-ordered torture. Our judicial system has failed the higher law. The other two branches of government should have followed the higher law, just as people disobeyed the Nazi order to not harbor Jews during WWII. At the very least, if NESARA was law, it would have helped foster a culture of governmental honesty and openness that could have shed the light on the conflict-of-interests so rampant in this case - and maybe even prevented her murder by court-ordered dehydration. May she become a martyr for real change.

There are fine arguments on both sides of the right-to-life/right-to-die debate, but I suggest that it's only the crackpots who would address those arguments through a legislative proposal ostensibly directed at monetary and fiscal reform. -EDM 5 July 2005 16:49 (UTC)

• • • • I think you're getting desperate, and still have yet to prove its crackpottery. You've gone to fishing on my message board and all you can find is some obscure quote I wrote on my own message board months ago. Besides, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that in a government were honesty is fostered as a culture, that it would also permeate its judicial system, and that in principle, had such honesty been more forthcomming in the Shiavo case, the judge would have been pressured to recuse himself from it due to his conflicts of interests in the case. And no one will say it's "crackpot" to believe government should try to be more honest with its citizens. If you think this is a crackpot comment, well, ... I let your beliefs stand for what they are. You make the case against yourself, and fail to align your previous statement as having anything remotely to do with this VfD - and I might add, your statements about my own quote are way off this topic. Besides, I have yet to meet another NESARA supporter who shared my particular view in that quote anyways, so you have yet to make a case that even NESARA supporters in general are crackpots (or even myself for that matter).
  • On a related note, just because you deem maybe one supporter of the bill a crackpot (which you still can't prove), doesn't mean the bill itself is crackpot, which is what you have yet to prove - and is the point of this VfD discussion - and is what I'm still waiting to hear. You should judge the idea on its own merit, and let it stand by itself, for the article is not about me, nor about you, but about an NPOV on a bill responsible for one of the most well-known internet hoaxes still ongoing. I'm still waiting, and I'm sure those following this conversation are still waiting to hear a valid case too. We're at day 5 of this VfD and still you have not presented a valid case for deletion. If you have no further response in regards to the merits of this bill, and can't produce valid arguments in favor for its deletion according to the WP Deletion Guideliens, then I rest my case. Inigmatus July 5, 2005 18:55 (UTC)
    • As I've stated repeatedly, I haven't taken a position on whether this article should be deleted or kept, so it's not really accurate to say I'm "desperate" one way or the other. I've only posted a bit of information and commentary and it's all seeming to take on a life of its own. Based on Inigmatus' last post immediately above, I'm more convinced than ever that NESARA is one of the crackier pots around. Still, I'm leaning toward a keep vote on this article, for its amusement value if nothing else, assuming it can get cut down to a paragraph or two. -EDM 5 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)
  • And back to something that does actually have to do with this VfD discussion: NESARA is not a bill. Until it gets introduced in Congress by an actual member of that august body, and thereby becomes a bill and acquires some notability, NESARA is simply somebody's idea (good or bad). That is one of the reasons that this article, if it is to be kept, should be substantially reduced in size. -EDM 5 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)
• Just a note on notability - I posted this to the other vfd page too - I did a lexis/nexis search for the word "nesara" -- fulltext, not just titles -- for all dates available and found only one use of the word, in a letter to the editor from 2001 written by some guy in denver. That seems to be very non-notable. And the creator of this page keeps insisting that this is one of the "most popular internet hoaxes" which first should have no bearing on the page about the economic theory but second is simply not true; there is nothing about it in the Snopes urban legends database. So I am even more convinced now that this article and the other one refer to items that are not yet notable in any significant way.--csloat 5 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)
  • I think there is some confusion in terminology that it would be as well to make an effort to clear up, involving the three distinct concepts of (1) Internet hoax; (2) Internet scam; (3) tin-foil hat delusions. Concept (1) is the kind of thing you find on snopes, like the tourist on the World Trade Center with the airplane heading at him. Those are spoofs deliberately manufactured to amuse or deceive. Neither NESARA item ("Dr." Barnard's idea nor the "secret bill to be announced imminently which will pay off all our mortgages with space alien currency") is that. The NESARA item in this VfD—Inigmatus' NESARA, found at [16]—is very marginally concept (3) and does not appear at all to be concept (2). The "other" NESARA item—Dove of Oneness's ravings at [17]—is very heavily concept (3) with a bit of concept (2) showing up as well. If either one is notable, or delete-worthy, it's for different reasons.
• One other data point: Inigmatus says he is in the Denver area. -EDM 5 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)
• It's just a bill, not a law. There are many thousands of bills every year. We neither need nor want articles on every one of them. Worse, it's not even a bill yet. It's an unsponsored "draft proposed bill" which, if the article is to be believed, espouses a fundamentally flawed theory about money. Unless someone can show much better evidence that this proposed bill is getting considerable public discussion or that NESARA has entered the public discourse, I have to vote "delete". Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you can back up your statement that the article espouses a "fundamentally flawed theory of money"? The hoax about serves as the appropriate level of public discourse. The purpose of this ariticle re-make was to make it clear to seperate the two since it would be in the public's best interest in investigating the hoax/scam or the proposed bill.168.103.83.38 6 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)
    • I can but it's not relevant to the discussion because being a "fundamentally flawed theory" is not a deletion criterion. My comment was an opinion that I probably should have reserved to the article's page. The only relevant question to the deletion debate is whether or not this theory (flawed or not) is sufficiently in the public debate or historical record to justify an encyclopedia article. So far, I have seen insufficient evidence. No change of vote. Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)
• Comment: If this article is deleted, the related articles Harvey F. Barnard, NESARA Institute and the incorrectly named [[[Dr. Harvey F. Barnard]] should probably also be considered for deletion. Rossami (talk)
  • I agree these should be deleted too. I looked on lexis/nexis again and "Harvey F. Barnard" gets 0 hits; "Harvey Barnard" gets two but neither are relevant (a name in a long list of names). I also note that Inigmatus is the user who uploaded that photo and there is no copyright information on it; I wonder if it is from a private collection and this is some sort of vanity page? The page says he died in May so Inigmatus probably is not Dr. Barnard himself though. I'm curious to see how Inigmatus responds next.--csloat 6 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)
  • The information on the NESARA Institute website is public domain.168.103.83.38 6 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)
    • That photo is from the NESARA Institute website. So was essentially all of the text of the Harvey Barnard article, verbatim, till I cleaned it up. -EDM 6 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)

      The information taken from the NESARA Institute website is public domain, and I did post verbatim the bill description since it did a better job than I could have. Thanks for cleaning the article up. Guys, look, I'm not out to defend the thing to the death, I'm just pointing out that there is relevant information that this article, and now the split article also addresses in full what I think is perfectly within the public information scope of this wikipedia. This article was originally about the NESARA conspiracy theory and I thought I was doing a public service by pointing out that it was based from an original bill proposal that does have merit, and it would serve the public interest to know the difference.

      Unfortunately, I can't motivate hoax and urban legend websites to update their information as easily as I can wikipedia. If you advocate for the deletion of this article, then you're advocating for something that goes against the founding idea of this wiki: namely the suppression of relevant information. It doesn't matter who or what I am, (but I'm not with the NESARA Institute, and I'm not Dr. Barnard). I like the NESARA proposal, and I spent three days pouring over the information after first hearing about it from WorldNetDaily to see if this guys was legit or crackpot. I found he was legit. Moreover, when I spoke and corresponded with him just weeks before he died, the more I realized this guy has faced an uphill battle since the hoax came out in force 5 years ago. After taking the time to read his recently published book, which was also requested by members of the President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform, I offered to do what I could to set the public record straight wherever I found it, so when people start looking for it they don't see only info about some hoax, but also info about the legit bill. Now I see just how fustrating his own work was in this regard as I find people here in WP who without researching the issue simply now want to delete an article I modified with info about the legit bill, and so also now delete an entire article that has stood uncontested for over a year.

      Granted, this is wiki, and mercilessly information is modded and changed. However, I will do what I can to keep this relevant public information up in respect to a dying man's wish, and available to the pitifully duped uninformed NESARA community that has sprung up around the hoax version, and available to the public and Congress persons that NESARA is more than just a lame hoax, but is based off of something that is legit, and the public would like to be informed if they too knew there was a difference. There, I've said my two cents. Inigmatus July 6, 2005 04:38 (UTC)

• I think there is enough substance and bare notability to the NESARA proposal to warrant an article of about two paragraphs, but certainly not more. If the article is slashed to that length (a task I may undertake, though not imminently) my vote would be keep. But as others have pointed out, the decision is bound up with the decision on the other NESARA article, the one dealing with the conspiracy-theory version of this proposal, which I personally don't have the will to deal with as just reading it makes me ill. -EDM 6 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)
  • I've put a draft revised article text on the article's Talk page. -EDM 6 July 2005 05:59 (UTC)

    Nice - I think that seems reasonable given the arguments made here. Much better than what was here.-csloat 6 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)

    I agree and re-iterate my vote to keep. I expect the possibility of a minor editing war that might settle on something slightly longer eventually (which I won't take part in, my interest is with the conspiracy theory), but it accomplishes Inigmatus's apparent goal of distinguishing the proposal from the conspiracy theory and providing some background on the legislative proposal that originated the whole thing. -- sednar (talk · contribs)

    Consensus Reached I like the changes too. My edits would be to only add about two or three NESARA bill specific terms to the paragaphs. Otherwise, EDM go ahead and update the page with the changes, as it appears now there is a consensus. If no one else objects, I consider this VfD resolved in favor of Keep with EDM's revision. Anyone else concurr?Inigmatus July 6, 2005 14:36 (UTC)

• Page edited and NPOV tag removed. I vote keep and invite Sednar to do something similar to the conspiracy theory article. -EDM 6 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
• Page updated with 50% more relevant information. What remains in the article is basically NESARA in a nutshell, and hopefully still true to NPOV form unless otherwise referenced.Inigmatus July 6, 2005 16:46 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 06:22 (UTC)

Be polite, I know her online, but do vote delete. Not notable outside iichan community. humblefool® 30 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)

• delete Groeck 30 June 2005 22:44 (UTC)
• Politeness requires that I just say Delete, not notable, and not more than that. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL June 30, 2005 23:05 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 07:18 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 06:25 (UTC)

Vanity; hardly notable. Groeck 30 June 2005 22:41 (UTC)

• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 1 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:14 (UTC)

If it's non-notable, why delete it?--The Author

non-notable: Not worthy of note or notice. Groeck 2 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)

Ad. --W(t) 30 June 2005 22:46 (UTC)

• Delete. Ad; cut and paste from his company's Web site. Doctor Whom 30 June 2005 23:22 (UTC)
• Delete both, self promotion. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:14 (UTC)
• Delete adspam. --FCYTravis 4 July 2005 17:33 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)

Delete--Wichita, Kansas already exists and this page has insufficient notable content to be worth merging. Naturenet | Talk 30 June 2005 22:47 (UTC)

• Redirect to Wichita, Kansas Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 30 June 2005 23:11 (UTC)
• Delete — Do we have a need for redirects in ALL-CAPS? Probably not. Not useful content. :) — RJH 1 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)
• Delete nothing worth merging. And we definitely don't need redirects in all-caps. carmeld1 4 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)
• Delete, as per RJH. --Nabla 2005-07-06 16:33:02 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Redirect NSR (talk) 8 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)

Dictdef. --W(t) 30 June 2005 22:50 (UTC)

• redirect Weather vane CDC (talk) 30 June 2005 22:51 (UTC)
• Redirect per CDC. DS1953 30 June 2005 23:23 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)
• Redirect Hiding 1 July 2005 09:29 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)

Don't appear to be notable. --W(t) 30 June 2005 22:56 (UTC)

• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 1 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:17 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)

Much like Telemundo Square (which the anon who created this also recreated), no trace of this square can be found. --W(t) 30 June 2005 23:01 (UTC)

• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:18 (UTC)
• Delete - usps.gov doesn't even recognize the address. -- Norvy (talk) 2 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete all. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)

Looks like an ad... Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 30 June 2005 23:09 (UTC)

• Yup. Added Shoshkele and (Shoshkele). Delete. --W(t) 30 June 2005 23:10 (UTC)
  • And Shvitzer. --W(t) 30 June 2005 23:14 (UTC)
• Delete all, advertising. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:19 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 06:11 (UTC)

The current article is awful, not listing any sources whatever and just presenting a list as a fait accompli. That in itself is not sufficient reason to delete. However, the impossibility of creating an accurate list (let alone keeping it up to date) precludes this from ever becoming a useful article. Please refer to the Biggest-selling female musician article, and you will find that it is not even clear who should be number one on any such list, with at least five possible contenders! Compiling an accurate list of the top 10 bestsellers while it is so contentious as to who should occupy the number one slot (and this is not a dispute that is easy to resolve, depending greatly on both the definitions and sources being used) is simply impossible. If anything, the article ought to be replaced with a redirect to Biggest-selling female musician. I do not see that an accurate and verifiable list can ever be produced. --TheGrappler 30 June 2005 23:11 (UTC)

• Delete. There are no references to back up these number. Record sales numbers are notoriously unreliable, as they mostly come from the record labels' marketing departments. Additionally, there are no links to this page. Pburka 30 June 2005 23:22 (UTC)

• DELETE NOW. This is just a lame attempt by the fans of particular artists to make their artist seem as the best selling. No sources have been provided and the record numbers are grossly exaggerated. 69.196.65.35

• Keep, expand and remove numbers, except 1,10,20 etc.. - Vorash 4 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus - Jonel | Speak 03:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, also mostly an ad. --W(t) 30 June 2005 23:14 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. Commercial software company with 9,000+ google hits. They invented an annoying technique for restoring deleted cookies. Notable for being highly irritating. :) — RJH 1 July 2005 16:22 (UTC)
• Delete advertising, along with Mookie Tenembaum and about five more spammy articles. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Henrygb --Allen3 ^talk July 7, 2005 23:29 (UTC)

No Google hits in quotations, no relevant hits. Might be wrong, though. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 30 June 2005 23:21 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 7, 2005 23:27 (UTC)

Delete as unverfiable. Google search on: "Simon Fransman" + jazz returns no hits. Author claims the article to be unfinished, but haven't touched it for three months. bbx 30 June 2005 23:34 (UTC)

• Delete nn teen vanity. --Etacar11 1 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
• Delete as there are no Google hits, thus not notable. -- Elisson | Talk 1 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:21 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. / Alarm 1 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)
• Keep because he it appears to be a serious attempt by a 15 year old to write an article, and because we need to fill the hard drive with something --Fred-Chess July 1, 2005 10:05 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was CANCELLED. This debate was ended shortly after it was started and the article was kept. This page is retained merely as a record of that latest nomination. An editor wishing to renominate this article should first study Template:VfD-GNAA, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (see multiple attempts in the history), Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America Deletion (5th nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America attempt 6. The should then study them again. Then, if they are absolutely sure of their course of action, they should ask on WP:AN for this page to be unprotected. -Splash^talk 19:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable trolling organization DickStallman 03:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per six distinct findings - see Talk: Gay Nigger Association of America. ESkog 03:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the seventh nomination of this page. Here's one and another, among more. It's not going away no matter how offensive. --CastAStone 03:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and protect the VFD page. Zach (Sound Off) 03:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 06:04 (UTC)

What's the policy on website articles? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 1 July 2005 00:50 (UTC)

Unless I get some links, I vote delete for this article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)

• Delete, redirect to Cheapass Games. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 08:32 (UTC)

• Comment These are not the same thing. Cheapass Gamer (cheapassgamer.com) is a page that alerts visitors to specials on video games. Cheapass Games (cheapass.com) produces low-budget board games. -- Norvy (talk) 1 July 2005 10:02 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk July 7, 2005 22:51 (UTC)

del. average professor. No notability presented. mikka (t) 1 July 2005 00:50 (UTC)

• Weak delete - but bordering on weak keep - the linked website indicates that he's had an awful lot of small things published (listed here), including book chapters, but no books. Still, that strikes me as a more significant body of work than the average prof. Needs verification as to accuracy of the list and importance of the work. -- BD2412 ^talk July 1, 2005 01:39 (UTC)
• Weak keep based on article, but probably a clearer keep if it would be expanded. His name gets 8,860 Google hits, at least the first few of which all appear to concern the correct SR, and he is a professor at a German university, which automatically puts him a few pinholes above the "average college professor" level. Also: "In 1999 Rahmstorf was awarded the $ 1 million Centennial Fellowship Award of the US-based James S. McDonnell foundation."[18] Is that award something they give to anyone? Uppland 1 July 2005 08:22 (UTC)
• Keep - obviously. Mikka, is there some malice in these VFDs? [Also: added some pubs. 9 pubs in Nature/Science is fairly good going]. William M. Connolley 2005-07-01 09:07:11 (UTC).
  • I think there must have been some discussion concerning the criteria for keeping a particular professor, but I can't find it on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Conclusions page. Nor can I find any criteria concerning notability on the Wikipedia:Deletion policy or the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not pages. So I can't locate a clear policy regarding whether a particular professor should be kept or not. Personally I'm in favor of keeping any pages that are of good quality and have a decent and interesting information content. So I to vote to keep. — RJH 1 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable professor. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:17 (UTC)
• Weak keep due to his appearance in Marquis Who's Who. Gamaliel 7 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Fire Star as an Offensive hoax. --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 15:25 (UTC)

Is this necessary? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 1 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)

• Speedy nonsense. --Etacar11 1 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a joke. -- BD2412 ^talk July 1, 2005 01:34 (UTC)
• Consider it speedied. Fire Star 1 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.