This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikibooks (bartending section of the cookbook) Rossami (talk) 05:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Screaming Orgasm[edit]

Recipe. --W(t) 06:03, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

• Speedy WP is not a recipe book. --Xcali 06:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Then you should delete Soviet cocktail too. -Not a registered user yet, 64.179.14.26 06:21 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) (according to edit history. Uncle G 07:04, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC))
  • Funny you should mention that specific example, see Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#cocktails. --W(t) 06:27, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• It's a recipe, not an encyclopaedia article. 64.179.14.26, please contribute your recipes directly to the wikibook on bartending. Wikibooks then Delete. Uncle G 07:04, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Comment Does anyone else think we should leave a link there, mentioning that it's a cocktail, and directing users to post any recipies for the cocktail to Wikibooks? This would discourage the recreation of this and explain to the author(s) why it's gone. If we redlink these, I'm sure we'll be VfDing them again. In this case, a tiny one-line article with an external link may be the proper solution. --Unfocused 19:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • We could certainly be clearer at list of cocktails, where these things have tended to grow from, and at cocktail, which still says that list of cocktails, rather than the Bartending wikibook, is where the recipes are. Uncle G 22:10, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Redirect to cocktail, or list of cocktails, or something relevant, and that page should have a link to the wiki recipe collection. SchmuckyTheCat 19:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, all food is notable for a truly great encyclopædia.

Grue is the name of a high protein oatmeal-based concoction used in Arkansan prisons for punishment rations- edible and nourishing, but revolting.

Grue was also at the center of a 1970s Supreme Court case -- prisoners claimed the food was unconstitutionally bad, and the court agreed that the grue-serving prison was violating the 8th amendment, inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. It is mentioned in an NPR article on a currently suspect prison dish "the loaf." ^[1]  Grue  05:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki, all food is notable for a truly great WikiCookbook. Radiant_* 12:21, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki ··gracefool |☺ 03:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:41, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:A Question of Spor/old[edit]

Seemingly a page-move artefact, from A Question of Sport Alai 06:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Check: Talk:A Question of Sport It was moved from there for some reason. This article does seem pointless, so I'm voting delete until someone can give a reason for why it should stay. Sonic Mew 13:35, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• This has something to do with me, but I can't remember what was going on. Dunc|☺ 19:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ZLibrary[edit]

I'd call it ad/recruitment/group vanity. The site was founded a month ago, it hasn't yet become notable. Google for ZLibrary and Bulgaria gives 2 hits. --Xcali 06:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, promo. --W(t) 06:20, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Delete ad. Not the place to announce your mission. Good luck to them, though. --Etacar11 23:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Pavel Vozenilek 20:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evvieco[edit]

No evidence of notability, probably webcomic vanity. --W(t) 06:31, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

• Delete --Xcali 06:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Is not webcomic vanity, the authour of the article has nothing to do with Evvieco. Is noteable, it is part of a variety of webcomic lists.--LeroyJenkins

Note the previous vote is by a brand new user whose only edits are to this VfD entry, the article in question, and to create a user page.

• Delete. Webcomic vanity. Gets less Google hits than my own real name... Sarg 13:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Tabor 17:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Any common real name is going to score more google hits than a completely made up word.--Cheryyl 13:53, 5 Jun 2005

Note the previous vote is by a brand new user whose only edits are to this VfD entry and to create a user page. Also, he apparently knows my real name is common (??). Sarg 18:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete If my site's presence in wikipedia's archive is causing even the slightest problems for wikipedians I wish it deleted. It is hardly a notable site. --Evvie 15:57, 5 Jun 2005
  • Thank you for understanding. Kappa 20:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trollhunter[edit]

Two neologisms in one, for your VfDing ease. --W(t) 06:34, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

• Delete particularly lame double-neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but let's be fair. If you look at the history of the article, you'll see that the original author just defined "trollhunter" as somebody who trolls trolls. Which would actually be a useful word, except I've never heard anybody actually using it. Anyway, the second definition is obviously a prank by a different user. ----Isaac R 19:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 20:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus --cesarb 20:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Normative legal thought[edit]

This seems to be just someone's philosophical rant. Though I'd like an article on Normative Legal Thought... I'd prefer that this be simply rewritten instead of deleted. Tadanisakari 06:51, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for POV. The entire content of the article, as suggested by the title "my rant", seems to be original research. Xoloz 06:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If you don't want it deleted, Tadanisakari, why are you nominating it for deletion? Why aren't you using the appropriate cleanup mechanism? Uncle G 07:36, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
  • Sorry guys, I'm a bit new to Wikipedia. I've added an "attention" template to the article and I added it to the Cleanup list. I guess that means a Keep, cleanup is more appropriate. I'm learnin' the ropes, thanks for being patient. Tadanisakari 19:11, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Don't delete articles which should exist for NPOV concerns - as Uncle G points out, this should simply be rewritten. If you don't have the expertise/time/whatever to do it yourself, there are mechanisms for this. Keep and send it through those mechanisms. ESkog 08:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:54, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
  • My problem with keep votes is that, without other qualifications, "normative" legal thought is inherently a POV concept. Common law (Anglo-American, the Commonwealth) and Civil Law (mainland Europe and former colonies) are too vastly different to be subsumed in a single "Legal thought" article, imho. This is in addition to any problems with "normative" concepts generally. Xoloz 21:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree. We have articles on certain ethnic slurs, for example, which are inherently POV, but the article addresses the origin and use of the term itself. Clearly there are people who believe that certain legal thought is indeed normative. We should have an article examining the origin and use of that concept, much as we examine Eurocentrism not from the perspective that Europe is the most important continent on earth, but from the perspective of examing why Eurocentrists think that it is, and how this bias has affected the wider world. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:20, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
      • I have no problem with your suggestion, except that I am unaware of serious scholarly (or even widespread common) criticism of "normative legal thought" as such. The closest I can come to such an argument would be one frequently encountered in law schools, that the common law is inherently and blindly capitalist, materialist, and acquisitive. If I ever become really bold, I might write such an article myself, because it would be a useful one; but, I would call it "Criticisms of the Common Law" or "Socialist Criticisms of the common law." In any case, I would happily entertain such content, but it isn't here now. Even if it were, it would have a bad title -- one simply cannot speak of "normative legal thought" unqualified -- the article must at least be renamed "normative common law thought" or "normative Anglo-American legal thought." Otherwise, this article will be the equivalent of writing an article on "normative philosophy" and discussing only thinkers from England -- a gross misnomer. In short, I'd love to see loads of criticism of conventional legal thought, but it needs better classification. Given that this piece is both ranting and under a horribly imprecise title, I see nothing of value in it. Xoloz 10:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If an article of this name is to exist, I can't think of anything NPOV to put there. It is unlikely that the POV rant currently there can be reworked into something worthwhile, so it's better to delete for now with the possibility of starting afresh sometime later. arj 22:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the current text - though a page on that subject would be nice, I don't think there's much worth keeping in that article. I have no idea on that subject, but it seems that those here that do want to scrap it. Flammifer 12:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because there's nothing on the page worth keeping. If anyone wants to write an article on this subject, great, but what's the point of keeping this self-described "rant" while waiting indefinitely for that to happen? Russ Blau (talk) 18:20, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per RussBlau.carmeld1 22:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to vesicle (disambiguation). — Trilobite (Talk) 15:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vesicle disambiguation[edit]

I have created a Vesicle (disambiguation) article because I moved Vesicle to Vesicle (biology) and created a stub for Vesicle (geology) and I believe the topic required disambiguation. I did not know that this disambiguation page existed when I took this action, however I believe that the disambiguation page I created offers more information than this one. I only found this page when fixing all of the existing Vesicle links to go to their appropriate Vesicle (biology) or Vesicle (geology) articles. Jared81 07:42, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Harmless as a redirect. Kappa 07:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why bother? Nothing links to it. Shouldn't we encourage the use of the more functional article? Jared81 08:22, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect - that will encourage the use of the more functional article. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:53, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Redirect. (Unless Jared moved Vesicle disambiguation to Vesicle (disambiguation), I think it can be deleted as well). Mgm|^(talk) 21:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect ··gracefool |☺ 00:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Saga[edit]

This appears to be an article about a fan fiction novella. I can't find evidence that it's particularly notable of its kind. Kappa 07:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete pretty much all fanfiction. This one in particular has an Alexa score of 3,417,499 Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:29, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Didn't we vfd a similar article earlier? Mgm|^(talk) 21:15, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Samuella[edit]

Nonsense. --W(t) 07:51, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense. Nateji77 08:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense, verfiably false (did not play Vincent Vega in Pulp Fiction), maybe speedy as possible attack page. Kappa 08:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Didn't play Junior in Problem Child either. Last name not provided and I'm quire sceptical about this person actually being gay. I've speedy deleted it as verifiably false and possible attack page. Mgm|^(talk) 21:23, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• I can guarantee you that Sammy is gay. I'd also like to know why you people think that saying someone is gay is an "attack." I think you're all a bunch of homophobes.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Phillips[edit]

No evidence of notability, only one google hit for "Barbara Phillips" "Tympanic Mysteries". --W(t) 07:52, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

• Delete wikispam. --nixie 07:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, --//-- Pavel Vozenilek 20:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Who? Not notable! Next! ShureMicGuy 19:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Account created today, all edits are to VfD. RickK 22:56, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete -Several entries with google--check again. Tansy Lisek 2:43 12 Jun 2005

• • Um, no, care to check again?: [4]. Delete, vanity. RickK 23:21, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

World Armed Forces Forum[edit]

Question of notability and seems like advertisementCunningLinguist 08:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Totaly agree. (John Melendez)

• Delete, wikispam. --nixie 07:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the original poster just wanted to do something fun. I doubt advertising was his/her intention as that person is not connected with those running the forum.

• Delete. Contentless wikispam. Kelly Martin 07:04, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, especially seeing that the VFD tag was removed. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 02:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pinkcrave[edit]

Neologism. --W(t) 08:49, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. Karol 08:50, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh gren 09:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition/neologism. Might be convinced to vote differently if sources of wide use are provided. Mgm|^(talk) 21:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per gren. the wub (talk) 08:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Syringer[edit]

Not notable. --W(t) 09:00, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

• Delete -- No. - Longhair | Talk 09:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- No. No. - gren 09:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pointless. --Etacar11 23:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep, but move to the proper capitalization Adverbial clause. (And create a redirect at Adverb clause as well.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adverbial Clause[edit]

Dictdef, move to wiktionary and delete. --W(t) 09:08, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

• Keep This isn't a dictdef.... It can have a full article like noun, however, it should be moved to Adverbial clause or maybe Adverb clause? Not sure of the proper name, but it surely can have a full article. (the evolution of clauses in language, etc.) But, for now it is not a very good article. gren 09:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• As per Grenavitar, Rename to Adverbial clause. Uncle G 15:17, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Keep and rename as suggested. It's very badly written, but even so it's more than a dicdef. Important grammatical constructs rate their own articles, even in a paper encyclopedia. ----Isaac R 19:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep, important concept in linguistics. Kappa 20:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Adverbial clause and cleanup. Create redirect from Adverb clause. --Tabor 20:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per Tabor. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename as per Grenavitar. Notable grammatical concept. Capitalistroadster 23:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move per Tabor. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ··gracefool |☺ 23:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ahem. How does a Move differ from a 'Rename'?Fabartus 05:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Cheryl ann simm[edit]

Unnotable.

Delete - Sadly, not special enough for an encyclopedia gren 09:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --W(t) 09:24, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 09:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Apparent Vanity. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:35, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The only real detail is that "when she was born her parents knew she would be special." The same can be said for a lot of babies, so that doesn't make her particularly notable. Sonic Mew 15:01, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as short without any encyclopedic content besides name and year of birth. Mgm|^(talk) 21:26, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete parental vanity. Let the kid grow up first! --Etacar11 23:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep due to no consensus. (4 deletes and 3 keeps), even though one of the keep votes was given without reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DarkMateria[edit]

Fails to pass WP:MUSIC guidelines. Sarg 09:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -WP:MUSIC are rough guidelines, and not meeting them exactly does not mean the article should be deleted. In particular I think DarkMateria has established itself as notable, first of all for spawning an internet phenomenon with the Picard Song and the accompanying animations/music videos others have made, but also for the unique combination of music they make which in my opinion is rather notable. Please remember Jimbo Wales comments on tolerating trivial articles if they are factual and have some inherent notability, and arent harming Wikipedia as a whole. -CunningLinguist 23:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The reason WP:MUSIC was created is that every band thinks they have a distinctive "sound" everyone should know about, and as for creating an "internet phenomenon"—give us a break! —Wahoofive (talk) 04:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What do you mean give you a break in reference to the internet phenomenon? The Picard Song and its various animations/music videos were widely distributed and known about. I was in fact introduced to it by my Economics teacher, which shows just how wide its audience was. I dont see how this article is flagrantly non-notable. In my opinion I agree with those that beleive trivial articles should be kept and I think that when deciding what articles stay and what articles go, it is a matter of proving an article merits deletion, not proving that an article merits inclusion (assuming the article is factual). -CunningLinguist 06:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • What I meant is that everybody claims they have buzz on the Internet, so that's an inherently suspicious statement. I have no knowledge one way or the other. I will change my vote if you have evidence beyond your Econ teacher that this Picard Song is notable. For alleged vanity articles the burden of proof is on inclusionists to show notability. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. ----Da 'Sco Mon 06:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the only verifiable thing in the artilce is that he made a single song that is famous on the internet --nixie 07:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Redirect to Final Fantasy. Radiant_* 12:23, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per CunningLinguist and for making a song that is famous on the internet. Kappa 21:44, 10 Jun 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. Seriously, we're begging you. Don't be an asshole like the guy who added text after reading "Please do not edit this page"

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Redirect; merge already existent. Golbez 08:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Bentley Park College[edit]

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 09:41, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

• Delete There are millions of these -- gren 09:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain - I read WP:SCH and... yeah.... gren 20:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Bentley Park, Queensland--AYArktos 10:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 12:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, like all the others which have survived nomination. Oliver Chettle 18:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Cairns, Queensland, where it already has a mention. Or, if it grows significantly before end of VfD, keep. JYolkowski // talk 18:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. RickK 21:44, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for preference or else Merge and Redirect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Vegaswikian 02:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the appropriate geographical article, to keep the school inclusionists happy. --Carnildo 02:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or barring that merge. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:39, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
• Merge with Bentley Park, Queensland. Doing this right away have been a whole lot easier than listing this on VfD which is bound to produce a no consensus. Then again, expanding the Bentley Park article would have been preferrable to creating a separate school article in the first place. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Radiant_* 12:23, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. I agree with WP:SCH. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. --Unfocused 15:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 01:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or if that fails, Merge. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep why isn't a reasonably-sized school notable? ··gracefool |☺ 23:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with redirect. --Cyberjunkie 16:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Redirect. If it's a term for something else, then make an article when you can put info in about it. Golbez 08:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Youngling[edit]

Delete Useless. The Jedi article already has information about Younglings. Besides that, there isn't exactly a whole lot of information about them. Kross 09:53, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Jedi. -- Marcika 13:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• To Jedi, redirect. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:59, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• As above, redirect. JYolkowski // talk 19:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 21:27, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. No vote. Youngling isn't an exclusive term for Star Wars or whatever it is. It's just one of those vaguely Scandinavian-sounding words that shows up in a certain kind of gothic fiction. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. All this has to do with Star Wars is that the word was used in the movies, and by that logic, "and" could be a Star Wars term too. — JIP | Talk 07:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oh darn, I was hoping this would be about the USA's oldest active brewery, Yuengling. Delete, not encyclopedic, not primarily a Star Wars term to merit a redirect there. Barno 20:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jedi ··gracefool |☺ 08:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki as per User:JIP, it's not just a SW term. -- Lochaber 14:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Current surveys/Polls[edit]

This appears to have been created to make a point, not to be a genuine survey. Do we want to archive it or is it cruft? (My vote's for the latter). --W(t) 10:48, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

• No one voted, set up by now banned User:Cheese dreams. Delete. Wikipedia isn't a democracy. We can poll, but only sparingly. It's certainly useless to poll it if you think polls shouldn't be used. Looks like WP:POINT. Strong delete. Mgm|^(talk) 21:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• LOL! We can create facts now by voting on them? BJAODN. Radiant_* 12:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not policy nor used meaningfully in determining policy, nothing but WP:POINT material. Barno 20:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but move to BJAODN ··gracefool |☺ 08:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 08:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Manu Prasad[edit]

Google doesn't have any hits on this bloke - it seems to be a vanity page more than anything. Craigy (talk) 11:29, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - smells strongly of vanity, and no good encyclopedic style text anyway. andy 11:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - definitely vanity. -- Marcika 13:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vol au vent[edit]

This article was listed for deletion by 81.178.101.133. -- Longhair | Talk 11:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- and cleanup. They're available here in Australia. Longhair | Talk 11:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic. Relevant. Non-obvious. -- Marcika 13:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, non-obvious, and delicious. Kappa 15:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd certainly like to try one. ¶ If I had spotted this, I would have just deleted the VfD template. If somebody can't be bothered to explain why they want something deleted, a debate is a waste of time. ----Isaac R 19:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep article is perfectly fine and anon didn't provide rationale to prove otherwise. Mgm|^(talk) 21:34, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable food. Capitalistroadster 23:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and eat. Mmmmm...vollervonts! Grutness...wha? 02:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and eat as above :p ··gracefool |☺ 08:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and eat. Don't see anything wrong with this entry. Have just used it to validate a quiz question. Ringbark 09:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, eat and expand. Where is the history, the diferent sizes you can buy, etc?--Takver 02:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but the article needs to be cleaned up. Dr.frog 14:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Filmi song[edit]

Listed for deletion by 81.178.101.133. I'm only listing it correctly and not voting. -- Longhair | Talk 11:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Filmi. -- Marcika 13:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Gransazer[edit]

Not notable. r3m0t ^talk 11:58, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice. I disagree with R3m0t's judgement of "not notable" especially as frankly a lot of Wikipedians tend to prejudge Japanese series as not notable without actually knowing anything about whether it is or not (the classic of this tendency, I think, being when an entire 50+ episode TV series was dismissed as a "minor character".) However, this is an exceptionally uninformative stub, written in poor form, and I have to think that any good article written on Gransazer would be just as easy to write starting from scratch as from this stub. so, I vote delete, but a cleanup would probably change my mind. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Petticoat Punishment[edit]

Nonsense and not encyclopedic. -- Longhair | Talk 12:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 12:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Rewrite/Expand: It was put up for vfd when it was only an hour old! 53,900 Google hits suggest that it is more than nonsense. Sonic Mew 13:28, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Well, I only find 4,580 Google hits [5], but it seems to be a valid topic. However, if this stays, then parent topic - the fetish of petticoating - should have an article as well, I think. -- Marcika 13:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with appropriate fetish. --nixie 13:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That would be transvestic fetishism then, i guess. -- Marcika 15:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Petaholmes and Marcika. -- Captain Disdain 17:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Don't merge. This is not a fetish but a very interesting form of discipline that, fortunately, seems to be in relative disuse today. This article is not very well written but I found a very good description at A Short History of Petticoat Discipline. DS1953 18:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You have obviously never been in a leather bar. Many fetishes involved being "punished". In this case, the fetish is for an ancient punishment that seems to have beenr revivied. Anyway, this article is just an advertisment for a site the celebrates this fetish. It's amazing all the different ways people can get off, but I don't think every little one rates its own article. ----Isaac R 19:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • But the point is that this is actually used as a real punishment. It can easily be compared to spanking: Though it is used in an erotic form, it is also used as real discipline on children. The question is whether this deserves its own article like spanking, or should be merged as a section of the fetish article. Sonic Mew 20:13, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • There are many stories of parents punishing a child caught smoking by forcing them to smoke a large amount; likewise with drinking alcohol. Do these all warrant encyclopedia articles? The interest in this particular case seems to be only due to its fetish associations. --Tabor 20:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this disturbing fetish or punishment or whatever, doesn't seem to need merging anywhere. Kappa 20:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lovely subject but it needs to be NPOV'd a bit. Petticoat punishment is a prominent feature of transgender erotica and D/S roleplay, and is a lot of fun and an excuse to dress up. It has probably been attempted in real life also, but I'd like to see references for that. There are plenty of anecdotes by fetishists who claim they were started by being petticoated but this isn't enough because obviously everybody likes to make up fantasies about their fetish. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ··gracefool |☺ 08:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this is real fetish redirect. Pavel Vozenilek 21:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Issy Buddin[edit]

Vanity. -- Longhair | Talk 12:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 12:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable vanity entry. -- Marcika 13:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete rampant vanity. --Etacar11 00:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Randy - The Hedgehog Psychiatrist[edit]

I'm certainly doubtful about this one... What are the criteria for notability regarding web comics? Generika has probably more readers than this one, and it doesn't have an article. Sarg 12:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Alexa rank 1,685,519. --Tabor 18:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity/advertisement page, created by Swizec himself. No evidence of notability. (Or humor.) Criteria for web comic is the same as for any other comic. It's just a lot easier to publish a web comic, which is why there are so many lame ones. ----Isaac R 19:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Meh, if it's bothering you that much just delete it, guess I didn't read the rules well enough.
  • That unsigned comment is from the article creator. That's enough for a speedy delete, so I'm going to change the tag. ----Isaac R 02:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, not funny. Denni☯ 02:31, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nik Youdale[edit]

Vanity. -- Longhair | Talk 12:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 12:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable 17-year-old. -- Marcika 13:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. Zac Cohan appears to be the creator of Soulv but no verification of Youdale being connected with it. --Etacar11 00:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Elysia Clapin[edit]

Vanity -- Longhair | Talk 13:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 13:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable 16-year-old. - Marcika 13:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete teenage vanity. --Etacar11 01:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brendan james ryan[edit]

• Vanity biography article for non-notable 16-year-old. Delete Marcika 13:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Miscapitalisation strikes nine out of ten, delete. --W(t) 13:27, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Delete teenage vanity. --Etacar11 01:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Unsigned comments by 62.252.64.16 — Phil Welch 22:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • no delete' having this hear isn't hurting anyone, so whats the problem
  • marcika and etacar, both your pages are vanity pages, If you delete the Brendan James Ryan, then both your pages should be deleted!
  • i agree, there should be no deletion with this article
  • here, here
    • All of the above unsigned comments are by 62.252.64.16, who clearly doesn't know the difference between an article and a user page. --Etacar11 19:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • no deletion 11:57, 10 jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Phil Welch 22:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Bjr, you can register and have all the info in this article, and more, appear in the Wikipedia as your user page. -- Picapica 05:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Brotherhood of The Bakerites[edit]

I have been unable to verify this information with an external source. If it is proved to be a hoax, the text in David Baker should go too. Feel free to prove me wrong. Sarg 13:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unverifiable. Probably attack article/juvenile prank. --Tabor 18:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Pavel Vozenilek 20:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LITFA[edit]

Non notable neologism. I don't think it even deserves a Wiktionary entry. Sarg 13:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Not sure what wiktionary's inclusion standards are. The few google hits where this was used as an acronym were coy references to "LITFA method" to allow body piercings to heal (not computer systems, as stated in article). --Tabor 18:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete More like a saying than anything... ins't encyclopedic material Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 01:06, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 20:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Calcino[edit]

In my opinion this is nonsense. Andrew Calcino has not received a Nobel Price (most definitely not for Kick-Boxing). Googling turned up nothing on an Italian dynasty of Calcinos. Delete. -- Marcika 13:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is nonsense. Wish it could be speedied, but oh well. -- Captain Disdain 17:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Good fiction, lousy article. ----Isaac R 19:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. --Etacar11 01:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, borders on patent nonsense. Martg76 22:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted as copyvio (listed as copyvio since June 5) --cesarb 20:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nine Famous Irishmen[edit]

Nothing against the Irish - but this ain't an article, it's an anecdote (probably circular e-mail cruft). The title is hopeless - the facts suspect (Australia didn't have a PM in 1874). Some stuff here may be suitable for merging elsewhere- but the article should be deleted. --Doc (?) 14:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• At least one of the references (Thomas Francis Meagher) is consistent with the reported history in his individual article. Keep (and clean up) for now. Kelly Martin 14:56, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep an article on the incident, but move to a better title. Otherwise it seems to invite articles on "X Famous Foomen". -- BD2412 ^talk 19:01, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• There are probably places where the verifiable content can be merged, though that is likely to be in more than one place. From a cursory examination of external sources, these do not all appear to be a part of a single incident, at the article implies. Needs some research to determine if the grouping is appropriate, and should moved to a better title if a clearer relationship is discerned. --Tabor 19:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, researched further. Appears to mostly be copyvio of [6]. Whoever copied it here left out this part:

The story of the Irish rebels is popular in Ireland and Australia. Elements of the story are factual and elements of the story are myth.

Despite not being the whole truth, the creation of the mythical aspects is a fact in itself, and so reflects the wants and spiritual aspirations of vanquished generations.''

--Tabor 19:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but perhaps move to simply the "Nine Irishmen". The anecdote, whether true or not, seems to have a real life of its own. There is a pub and restaurant Nine Fine Irishmen in the New York New York casino in Las Vegas. Also, see "Notes Over the Air Waves", The Lowell Sun (March 8, 1938), p. 15, col 3, which reported that

Ripley Will Remember St. Patrick...

Bob Ripley, presents an all-Irish program, appropriate to the approach of St. Patrick's day on his "Believe It Or Not" program over the NBC-Red network on Saturday, March 12, at 8 p.m., E. S. T.

The guest star will be Rev. Thomas J. Wheelright, half-brother of the Irish patriot Eamon de Valera, who will tell an hitherto unrevealed story about the latter.

The Ripley players will dramatize the story of nine Irishmen sentence to death for treason in the middle of the nineteenth century. Pardoned by Queen Victoria, they were exiled to Australia. The amazing destiny of each one will be revealed during the dramatization.

The word "famous" does not appear to be standard in the story. However, the number "nine" does seem central to identifying this particular story.

- DS1953 19:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: If kept, clarify its notability as a popular story, rather than presenting it as historical fact. --Tabor 20:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• No vote, since copyvios are an entirely different process and this article should be dealt with through that process. RickK 21:49, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Appears to be copyvio. I note that the text from which the article was copied referred to an Attorney-General of Australia being occupied by Morris Lyne and Michael Ireland being Attorney-General and Sir Charles Duffy as Prime Minister of Australia. The Commonwealth of Australia was not formed until 1901. Charles Duffy was Premier of Victoria in 1871 not 1874. However, he was jailed as part of the Young Ireland movement but freed after his fifth trial. He served a term in the House of Commons from 1852 to 1855 but became disillusioned and migrated to Victoria in 1855 where he was elected to Parliament in 1856. On the other hand, the Australian Dictionary of Biography does not have entries for either Morris Lyne and Michael Ireland. If they had achieved any notability in colonial Australia such as being Attorney-General of Victoria, the Australian Dictionary of Biography would have an entry for them. You could possibly justify an entry as a prominent hoax but it should clearly note that it is a hoax not factual. Capitalistroadster 01:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand with more context ··gracefool |☺ 08:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nowacka[edit]

This smells like a hoax. It is from the same IP who wrote Calcino, listed above. -- Marcika 14:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Well, I don't want to leap to conclusions here or nothin', but frankly, any treatment on a supposedly ancient Tibetan family name that has its roots in English and Polish and was also adopted by a bunch of very nice Vikings who threw the best parties in the neighborhood and sported a tribesman named "the Mighty Bubba" smells like bullshit -- excuse me, nonsense -- to me... -- Captain Disdain 17:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all articles based on Anglo-Polish-Tibetan puns attributed to "the Mighty Bubba". ---- Isaac R 19:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Terrible writing and is almost definitely fiction -- Acyso 19:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete funny, but nonsense. --Etacar11 01:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Richard meredith[edit]

Total vanity, no evidence of encyclopedic content. Kelly Martin 15:27, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Geogre's Law strikes again. This is not Richard C. Meredith the science-fiction author. Delete. Uncle G 15:55, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
  • Maybe a delete and redirect to Richard C. Meredith? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Richard C. Meredith ··gracefool |☺ 08:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Create page Richard Meredith and redirect it to the sci-fi author. Pavel Vozenilek 20:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ninjad[edit]

Neologism, and not even all that good of one. Kelly Martin 15:30, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism. --Tabor 20:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed - neologism, Tobycat 06:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

6,000 to 10,000 years[edit]

Tagged by user:Ghepeu but I'm happy to complete the nomination. Already covered by Young earth creationism so simply delete this --Doc (?) 15:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork of young earth creationism. Revolución 15:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Wasn't this deleted before? Delete either way. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 16:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I believe it was. Delete it again. --Whimemsz 23:37, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • User Truthteller created the article, and I believe that it is the same person who created the old one, as the same kind of rubbish is on his user page. Revolución 01:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The old VFD discussion --Whimemsz 01:06, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Revolución. As a second option, a redirect would be harmless. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:03, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Redirect into Lightfoots dating system. Falphin 21:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This [insert demeaning phrase here] individual has been turning Wikipedia into his own personal underwear stain. --brian0918™ 04:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Creation science isn't science. Haikupoet 04:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What a pointless, POV statement. ··gracefool |☺ 08:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - Creation science gets an article, and verily deserves it. This article, however, is just a range of dates, a conclusion rather than an explanation, as it were. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:28, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

• Delete — redundant, highly PoV, and lacking credibility. Judging by his user page, he is "on a mission from god"®. So we'll probably see many more like this one. — RJH 20:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This is POV, redundant, and infinitely deletable, but I don't like the temperature of these remarks either. What happened to 'no personal attacks'? This user is entitled to his unpopular opinions (although not to push them in this manner). Why is it that certain views produce such spleen from otherwise fair-minded people? The 'Church of Reality' POV nonsense got an easier time - despite its sock puppets. --Doc (?) 21:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Vitriol reflex, I guess. People on the rationalist side get tired of trying to defend their positions against people who selectively examine the evidence and refuse to listen when they're being called on their tactics. It's as if, in the middle of a boxing match, the opponent switches to taekwondo or Brazilian Jiu-Jutsu instead of following the rules; therefore their responses come out in a frustrated and rather nasty manner. Haikupoet 22:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I hate to sound so negative, given some of the nasty comments above, but if Truthteller makes another article like this, there needs to be an RFC or mediation request. →Ingoolemo← ^talk 23:57, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect, and protect. -Sean Curtin 03:12, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but see Doc's comment. ··gracefool |☺ 08:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP

With 6 valid delete votes and at least 40 valid keep votes, consensus is clearly to keep

Race and intelligence[edit]

Delete Unbelievably POV article filled with racist stereotypes. No hope of becoming neutral. Revolución 15:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Probably the Wikipedia article with most references to peer-reviewed scientific studies. Very noteworthy (but controversial) area of scientific research. The results are not what the typical racists would prefer, for example, East Asians have higher average IQ scores than whites. The article does not claim that the differences are due to genetics, environmental factors may well explain all of the differences. Ultramarine 15:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Huge, long-standing, thoroughly-referenced article about a topic of social significance and increasing public scrutiny. This VfD is baseless. --Rikurzhen 16:38, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • This VfD is not baseless. I am simply nominating an article that has no hope of becoming neutral. The premise of this article is to try to "prove" that blacks and hispanics are less intelligent. That is b---shit! We don't need articles like this anyway. Revolución 22:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • you should consult the Wikipedia:Deletion policy and re-read the definition of Wikipedia:NPOV. you should also note that this topic has been an active area of public debate and research since at least 1969; clearly from the article's length there is a lot to report on. don't allow taboo to impact your intellecutal judgment. --Rikurzhen 23:09, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • I suggest reading the article before claiming that it is racist or non-neutral. There is no attempt in the article to prove anything. On the contrary a thorough discussion of several sides of the controversial evidence is presented. Dystopos 05:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • What is neutral? All people on earth are equal. They are as tall, as fat and as smart as each other regardless of gender, sexual orientation, class and race. If you see some people more often in a basketball court, that's untrue. You're seeing an illusion. It is undisputed known fact that East Asians, Whites, Latinos and Blacks are equally good at playing basketball. White men can jump and do jump very well. ... There are as many uneducated rocket scientists working for NASA as educated ones ... The fact is we are not equal. But that doesn't mean people cannot co-exist peacefully and help each other. That's why we need a good article with known facts to fight groundless racism. -- Toytoy 02:00, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This should be rather a featured article candidate than a VFD... -- Marcika 16:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I simply do not know what to say to that. Ugh. Revolución 22:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Nomination is politically motivated. Oliver Chettle 18:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The article is politically-motivated. Revolución 22:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Controversial subject still need articles so that both sides can be vetted. I skimmed this but it seems like an excellent article and we need more with its depth of coverage and citation of sources. But we should not sit in judgment of the nominator's motivation. Justt keep it. DS1953 18:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Does this mean that you also approve of articles like Gender and intelligence, Sexual orientation and intelligence, or Religion and intelligence? Revolución 22:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • religiousness and intelligence --Rikurzhen 00:33, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • So? I asked if you support such ridiculous articles, not if they existed... Revolución 03:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • If human intelligence is not determined at least partially by genetic composition, gender (including hormonal influence) and any other known but disputed factors, then by what? Astrology? (see Astrological signs and intelligence). Actually, I think this topic is much less politically incorrect because if an East Asian infant can be born today, so can a black infant. -- Toytoy 02:11, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Amazing article. Wikipedia at its best, and proof that a community-edited article can work even when the subject is controversial. Arbor 19:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you kidding me? You're calling a racist article "amazing"? Revolución 22:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it's great that Wikipedia's NPOV policy forbids censorship of unpopular views and taboo subjects; the encyclopedia is better for it. --Rikurzhen 23:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a forum that people can express their views. It's an encylopedia where factual and neutral information should be presented. Revolución 23:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • No, it's an encyclopedia where all information can be presented in a neutral manner -- not just "neutral information" -- NPOV means neutral presentation of POVs not no POVs. It's a forum for published peer-reviewed ideas: note the enormous number of references in this article to support and attribute facts/claims. Finally, VfD is not the proper procedure for a NPOV dispute. --Rikurzhen 23:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
        • I did not nominate it just because it was POV. I nominated it because it has no hope of becoming a neutral article, since the article's title itself sets up a premise that it will try to 'prove' a relationship between race/ethnicity and intelligence, and such a relationship does not exist. Revolución 00:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • a relationship between race/ethnicity and intelligence... does not exist -- I'd be fascinated to read a peer-reviewed paper that makes that claim. --Rikurzhen 00:29, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
            • What sort of relationship do you think exists between these two completely non-related things? I'd be surprised to see a neutral article that makes the claim the two concepts are related. Revolución 00:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • Then I'm guessing you haven't actually read the article you are proposing to delete. --Rikurzhen 01:28, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
                • If you define "intelligence" a certain way and define "race" a certain way, then you can find and state correlations between the two. The real question is whether it is a revealing relationship, and, if it is "revealing," then what it reveals. P0M 02:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • "it has no hope of becoming a neutral article, since the article's title itself sets up a premise that it will try to 'prove' a relationship between race/ethnicity and intelligence" - This is simply not so. The article's name implies a discussion of a relationship between race/ethnicity and intelligence, which includes the topic of whether such a relationship exists. If you think that the article doesn't adequately discuss this possibility, that's a problem with the article that should be fixed by editing, not by deletion. Daekharel 15:30, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree completely with Revolucion, the entire article seems to be based on a narrow political view. -CunningLinguist 23:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Against my better judgment (because this irrelevant), let me say ... as one of the current editors of this article ... I am a registered Democrat, I'm an atheist, I voted for Gore and Kerry, I live in a blue state, I donate to the ACLU, I work in academia, I ride a bike to work, I don't shop at Walmart, and my favorite political philosopher is John Rawls. But I guess that's not the "narrow political view" you were thinking of? --Rikurzhen 00:20, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • I dont beleive I ever stated this article had anything to do with Right-Left politics. I was referring to something Revolucion pointed out himself: that this article begins with the premise that there is a correlation between race and intelligence and attempts to prove it. I find such an article to be inherently POV and to be based on personal speculation/political reasoning/interest. Thus I feel this article should be deleted. -CunningLinguist 01:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Then I must apologize for being glib, but now it seems I don't understand your criticism at all. If you'd like to try to explain in detail, you could add a comment to the article's talk page. --Rikurzhen 03:06, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Thoroughly referenced NPOV article. Far from being racist, it highlights what might be considered racial bias in intelligence testing methods. Socio-economic, cultural, and geographic factors are discussed citing a variety of scholarly sources. If someone disagrees with this article he or she should bring in more peer-reviewed academic papers to include in the discussion. --Fazdeconta 00:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good thorough article. Political correctness should not be the basis for deleting articles. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. But a suggestion: the article would probably disturb people less if the graph was moved from the top to the middle. --Arcadian 02:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Even though I am acutely uncomfortable with the article and deeply question the validity of unstated assumptions that serve as the foundation of the studies upon which the article reports, disappearing the article will not make the issues that the article attempts to discuss go away. To make a satisfactory article would require that we engage in original research, or, at a very minimum, that we deeply think about and critique the fundamentals of the field. To do so, however, involves doing what I have been told over and over again is forbidden to us. If we are forbidden even to think about issues rather than to just report on what others have written about issues, then to make a more satisfactory article would require finding articles to cite that would go into the fundamental problems with this field. In brief, the article shows that if people define "intelligence" a certain way, and if people defines "races" a certain way, then certain correlations can be stated. My reaction to that report is, "So what?" But I have little hope that the anti-intellectual biases can be hedged well enough to permit a more penetrating article.

Ideally, the article should point out the lack of a fundamental critique that goes beyond finger pointing, and the fact that regardless of the good intent of some of those involved in the field, the assertion (true or false) of a correlation between race and intelligence very definitely serves racist purposes. I support the feelings of Revolución -- I just don't think that scrapping the article is the way to straighten things out. And you can blame me too, because I've been through too many partisan and mean-spirited debates in Wikipedia to barge in where I have no depth of research knowledge and where the simple act of thinking is met with vituperative responses.P0M 02:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • P0M, since you pointed that out I've done the best I can to make that POV even more prominent by quoting the abstract of a recent Robert Sternberg review paper. --Rikurzhen 04:20, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but if the guy you cited stands as an expert in the field it only strengthens my impression that the field makes assertions that "aren't even wrong." I can see why Revolución goes ballistic, but his problem would seem actually to be with the field and not to the article (that only reflects the field since that is all good Wikipedians are permitted to do). I'm feeling extremely grumpy, but please do not take it personally. You've never told me to stop thinking or to stop trying to explain things to people like Revolución who have (IMHO) the right idea but the unclear way to put it. P0M 05:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. It's certainly notable. It's covered at length in pretty much any introductory psychology class. Whether or not we'll ever get it to be POV, I doubt it. But it's just as important as any other controversial issue out there. --Idont Havaname 03:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Is it covered in any philosophy of science courses that you know about? That's the only place it is likely to get an adequate going-over unless there is a top-rate researcher like Milton Diamond who is interested in this field.P0M 05:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment this article is just ridiculous. Anyone can start an article called "--- and intelligence". What if someone created an article called "Music choice and intelligence" and attempted to prove that listeners to one genre of music are smarter than the other. This is the kind of insanity I see in this article. I don't know why all these people are voting keep, it just baffles the hell out of me. Hey, I thought this was the damn 21st century, not the 1400s. Revolución 03:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Just take a class in psychology, and you'll see that it's an important issue. Making a comparison to other stuff, you don't delete the Boston Red Sox or George W. Bush just because there are people who don't like them. --Idont Havaname 03:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess it's an important "issue"....to racists. The facts are, no connection exists between race/ethnicity and intelligence. The articles on "Boston Red Sox" and "George W. Bush" are real things, while the supposed "connection" between race and intelligence does not exist. Revolución 03:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • In a way I agree with you, and in another way I disagree. First, suggesting that this person or that person is a "racist" isn't likely to get us to anything except defensiveness. Second, the conceptualization of [race] is so murky, with hardly any two identifiable people actually defining the word "race" the same way, that it is difficult to think about clearly -- especially since people are generally unwilling to dig down to brass tacks and then build back out. To make things worse, [intelligence] is not conceptualized clearly either. It has regularly been used in these discussions as though it were a thing, no? It is an abstract category and a moving target depending for its actions on who is pointing the gun, and yet it is discussed as though it is a simple entity "out there somewhere" just waiting for somebody to take a snapshot of it. It's even been given a "true name" to identify the ens realissimus behind all manifestations of [intelligence] -- the simple letter g. So now people are trying to correlate two "entities" hypostatized out of subjectively determined abstract categories. There's nothing particularly immoral about that approach. It's just (IMHO) stupid. But it does give racists a golden opportunity. The only good thing (from my point of view) is that white racists are beginning to have to deal with a their own reactions to a cartoon in which the white guys are second string (or maybe third rate, who knows since its dependent on how you play the game). P0M 05:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Keep I think you, Revolución, are as just as narrow-minded as those "racists." There clearly is a racial gap that exists in the United States, and whether it is due to "genetics" or "environment" is of another matter --they are both very arguable as seen with statistics. Even though this article is controversial, there is no reason to delete this page for its controversy. We do not delete articles on Adolf Hitler or Stalin or Andrew Jackson, just because of the controversy that surrounds those two figures. The "connection between race and intelligence" has not been disproven completely, nor has the connection between environment and intelligence been completely proven; and thus, there is an argument for both that exist. There are clearly very educated and intelligent --perhaps more open-minded than you-- people who argue for one or the other, and to ignore one or the other is very dilletante. I believe you, Revolución, are as narrow-minded as those "racists" whom you claim you are against. Just because this article is extremely controversial, it does not mean that it should be deleted. One should be open-minded to all view points of a matter, and this matter is very important and very visible in the United States.Bezant
      • Please do not make personal attacks. I'm unabashedly not racist, by the way; I have friends of all races and a wide range of nationalities. Now back to the article we're discussing, controversies of this scale are in themselves notable, see for example our articles on creationism and evolution, or pro-life and pro-choice. Regardless of whether or not you agree with something, if the debate is this major then we need to show all major sides to remain NPOV. Granted, it's harder to show NPOV on something like this, but as long as all major viewpoints are well thought out and included with the article, we've done our job in making the article unbiased. --Idont Havaname 03:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Revolución, I've added references and quotations that I believe will more clearly express your POV in the article. --Rikurzhen 04:22, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What Religiousness and intelligence ought to become. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:20, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a reasonably fair treatment of an extremely controversial issue. Illustrates, with extensive references, reasons why such a relationship may exist and what criticisms that theory has. I, too, am troubled by the theory on one side of this issue, but I don't see the article as really POV for either side. ESkog 04:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (but if necessary, clean up for NPOV). Well written article about a notable, controversial subject. Race and intelligence has lately been on the news here in Finland, because of a book that our prime minister's father wrote in co-operation with some American dude, which dares to claim that perhaps whites are not the stupidest race in the world after all. — JIP | Talk 04:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Pretending that a debate doesn't exist does not make the debate go away, nor does it fulfill our mission of providing a comprehensive encyclopedia. --FCYTravis 06:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Shouldn't that be "pretending a debate doesn't exist"? — JIP | Talk 06:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Annoyed grunt! Kids: Don't drink and Wiki. Thanks --FCYTravis 06:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - The topic is notable both from a societal and historical standpoint. Clean up the POV, but in my opinion, The Bell Curve covers a similar debate with a neutral POV, so it's quite possible. I'd love to see this topic end up like Phrenology some day, but deleting something because the debate might seem to support racism is not the way to go. michael 07:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The only reason you might think this article has a racist undertone, is likely because you are a racist. Content is portrayed nuetrally, research is confirmable. R Lee E 18:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think there should be a place for racism on Wikipedia! This article clearly tries to say that blacks and hispanics are less intelligent, and that is bullshit! Ugh! Revolución 21:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If it tried to say black and hispanics were more intelligent, would that be all OK with you? — JIP | Talk 04:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Keep As a practical concern, it's problematic to change science articles too much in response to them offending laymen. The article's meticulous references and committment to neutral treatment make it a model article for other Wikipedia articles. It is inaccurate to say "blacks and hispanics are less intelligent," as individuals from each group can be found everywhere on the IQ scale ('IQ' is not a synonym for 'intelligence'); the issue under discussion refers to the averages between these groups. Furthermore, "neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause."[7] That being said, yes, we're all deeply uncomfortable with the topic. --Nectarflowed ^T 23:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Maybe this article could be smoothed a little bit, but overall, it's an important contribution. Revolucion, it doesn't say that blacks/hispanic are innately stupid, so don't bother with your canned self-righteousness; it says, as do most other similar studies/articles, that their lower level of functioning is due to outside constraints like nutrition, education, &c. Read Guns, Germs, and Steel. --67.161.115.23 22:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep subject is of enormous contemporary interest from several points of view. NPOV is a (difficult) task for editors, not a criterion for VfD. Comment An analogy for the broader topic: 17th Century ethicists were dismayed by the perceived implications of astronomical observations and attempted to censor the entire endeavor. We in the 21st century are dismayed by the perceived implications of race/intelligence research, but we should know better than to censor the endeavor. Perhaps our assumptions about the implications are flawed. We will have to find out by continuing to do research and to report the results without biased preconceptions to a wide audience. Dystopos 23:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This article is pretty neutral and the subject is very significant. --Tomazrui
• Keep Many articles are going to be inherently POV problems, and this doesn't make them unworthy. Interslice
• Keep, although it is clearly very POV ··gracefool |☺ 08:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'd be willing to edit the article for POV, but I don't see what's non-neutral about it. Should I add "but this is bullshit" after every presentation of scientific evidence that appears to support unpalatable beliefs? Dystopos 13:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Probably the Wikipedia article with most references to peer-reviewed scientific studies. Very noteworthy (but controversial) area of scientific research. The results are not what the typical racists would prefer, for example, East Asians have higher average IQ scores than whites. The article does not claim that the differences are due to genetics, environmental factors may well explain all of the differences. [[User:JV] 14:22, 8 Jun 2005 (EDT)

• Extreme keep. This article does not seem to overtly take a side, and while I can see a little bias toward the existance of a link it's something to be cleaned up, not deleted. This article can be made perfectly NPOV by making it simply describe the controversy. If you want to get political, denying that such a link is possible or that people believe in it is not a good idea. Nickptar 18:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If we get rid of pages that are this well researched and manage to stay anything like so neutral (not that it's perfect) on a controversial topic, what hope do we have for anything other than the very blandest of useless, politically correct waffle. --Douglas 19:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article cites numerous sources, presents data in an unbiased fashion, and summarizes itself without drawing biased conclusions. Yes, it's a controversial topic, but the article handles the controversy well. It's also not particularly politically correct, but last time I checked, NPOV doesn't equal PC. --Dachannien 21:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Facts, figures, and research presented in a calm and painfully NPOV way. Howls of outrage from dogmatic egalitarians should not be allowed to cause articles to be deleted. LeoO3 22:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Absolute Keep. Well-referenced article which throughly illustrated the ongoing controversy based on sound scientific evidence.
• Keep. Well-written and extremely well referenced article — should be linked from the Wikipedia:Verifiability project page. I believe the VFD creator unfortunately suffered an (understandable) knee-jerk reaction to any idea that such a topic could even be discussed, took one look at the top graph and assumed that the article was created to prove a racist idea. If he had read the article, though, he would have seen that it is as much about the controversy as it is about anything else, and the one thing it certainly doesn't to is try to prove anything about race and intelligence. Whatever the case, there is no question that something that has been scientifically examined and debated for almost fifty years should have an article here. We're here to write about things which are notable, and this debate is certainly notable. — Asbestos | Talk 01:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well written article. Nothing inherently POV about it. If you think it's POV the answer is to make edits where needed, not delete it. Kaibabsquirrel 05:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is well-researched and well-written. To delete it is the ultimate victory of PC and censorship. -- Toytoy 18:07, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I am Chinese. I belong to the group that's supposed to be the brightest on earth ONLY LESSER THAN ASKENAZI JEWS :). So what? That doesn't matter a goddamn bit. If I am stupid, then I am stupid. If I can't make money, then I can't make money. Even if ALL OTHER Chinese are smarter than Albert Einstein, if I am stupid, I am stupid and no one else can donate his/her brain cells to me.

So what's wrong with this article? We all want to be smart, rich and beatiful. We may belong to the group of top dogs, but that doesn't matter. I can still be dumb, poor and ugly. Even if I belong to the lowest of the lowest gruops, if I am smart, rich and beatiful, I am smart, rich and beatiful and that's not deniable. So who cares about the average number? I only care about me, myself and I. Race and intelligence does not make me proud. It does not make me shame of myself. I cannot rule out the fact that many blacks are smarter than I. Race and intelligence is a real scientific subject. If people tend to abuse it, we need a good article like this to show people the best available information. -- Toytoy 18:24, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Aboslutely right. And I think this is briefly covered in the public policy section: There is substantial overlap in the distribution of IQ scores among individuals of each race. Jensen (1998, p. 357) estimates that in a random sample of equal numbers of US Blacks and Whites, most of variance in IQ would be unrelated to race or social class. From one POV, this research is a strong reason to treat people as individuals, rather than members of a group. --Rikurzhen 20:01, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. This is the same idea as the study of genetic differences between races. While there can be shown to be statistical differences, the veriation within the group is far larger than the differences between the groups. — Asbestos | Talk 21:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment to Toytoy's above post: Ashkenazi Jews, not East Asians, are the most intelligent group on Earth, at least in terms of an average IQ figure (typically the average of spatial and verbal IQs). East Asians do have the highest spatial IQ though, slightly higher than those of Jews according to one study (I'd have to dig around for the reference). Dd2 02:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's a saying in my country: "You don't tax people when they make wild claims" (吹牛不用納稅). I'll keep the money in my pocket. I am not going to buy you beers. :) -- Toytoy 03:17, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete drini ☎ 18:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Agree that deletion == censorship. Properly referenced, properly POV-checked, etc. --Kiand 18:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Too well referenced to delete. —thames 19:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This VfD is ridiculous. - Nat Krause 22:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An important topic, extremely thorough but needs to become NPOV. (ugh don't edit at 2 A.M., you'll say the weirdest things)--Bash 06:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but work on balancing viewpoints. And move to Race and IQ, whilst we're at it. -- Karada 09:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • While moving to Race and IQ has some merit, I think it rather highlights something this article needs to be broadened into: that measuring intelligence is, itself, difficult and inexact and a difference in IQ is not necessarily a difference in intelligence measure by other means. --Douglas 11:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Assuming this information was obtained in a scientific manner, then let's not censor this information on the grounds that it will offend certain groups. --Katsumoto 18:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep EdgarEdwinCayce 18:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this article is POV; but that will eventually be fixed. This article is important to wikipedia. Phoenix2 01:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if there is valid scientific evidence for or against correlation of race and IQ, this is the place to present or refute it. EDIT: I'd also like to note that this is one of the few truly well-cited articles on Wikipedia. Kudos to the editors. Peter Farago 02:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The extremely controversial subject of racial differences in IQ has been electrifying public debate for decades and deserves its own entry many times over. Rather than being deserving of deletion, I consider this article to be one of Wikipedia's finest, precisely because it demonstrates that Wikipedia is willing to present the facts as they stand rather than running in terror from those facts out of the fear that someone, somewhere, may become offended by them. Harkenbane 03:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Anyone interested in the topic would do well to start with this article; as such, it's a model encyclopedia entry. --DAD 05:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. NPOV is not the same political correctness. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Provided that the article mentions that it is unknown as to whether it is nurture or nature promoting the differences. GeorgeBills 13:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There exist studies showing statistical correlations between race and IQ; there is controversy over the interpretation of these results; there are various POVs on this subject. Therefore, it is a valid subject for a wikipedia article. Whether it is currently POV is utterly irrelevant. Maybe it should be renamed to Race and IQ, but that won't happen while it's on the VfD list, will it? Daekharel 15:30, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a subject of legitimate inquiry, and shouldn't be suppressed on the basis of political correctness. *Dan* 19:33, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is exceptionally NPOV and well written, especially considering the controversial nature of the subject—Trevor Caira 21:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. NPOV dispute. And that's really all I need to say about it, isn't it? NPOV disputes are not VfD material.
  But I'm going to say some more anyway. Saying that an article has "no hope of becoming neutral", when it's established that the topic itself is notable enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia, is tantamount to saying Wikipedia just can't handle it. That's one opinion, but it's not something we're qualified to judge here. Surely you're not arguing that all information in the article is false and/or irrelevant, that is, the sources we quote don't really say what we report or none of them express notable viewpoints. That would mean the article is a complete hoax, and it would be the only reason you could justify outright deletion with. Wikipedia does not report on what is true, only significant views on what is true. Claiming that "race" and "intelligence" are unrelated concepts is just another POV, one that can and should be addressed in the article itself. It does no good to pretend that the POV that race and intelligence are concepts that can be meaningfully related is not significant. The article clearly establishes that it is. JRM · Talk 23:40, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
• Keep. "Race" is an arbitrary term used to denigrate groups different from the groups in power in a given society. Once knowing that, however, one can say studies like this are not wholly irrevelent; these sorts of inquiries show how disenfranchised members are affected by prejudiced societal institutions, poverty, and other related social issues. The article should shed more light should be put on the fact that race is not an absolute construct but one based on subjective perception. RP 0:42, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. I'm worried that this page will become ammunition for racists. I realize there are good arguments for not censoring, but consider this: was it right for the United States to censor or withhold information about the atomic bomb? Of course it was. In the wrong hands it could be deadly.
  • Note that the above comment was made, unsigned, by an anonymous user at IP 68.202.118.66. I don't believe it has ever been, or ever should be, Wikipedia policy to suppress truthful information simply because it might be misused by somebody. The whole "That's information too dangerous for anybody to know" bit is just not what this site is all about. Fortunately, the PC crowd seems to be vastly outnumbered here. *Dan* 22:38, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Note - this anonymous user vandalised this VfD by editing anothers comments shortly before posting this - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Race_and_intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=15086258 --22:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note - YOU'RE the vandal. Those comments were obviously my own and you removed them. I stand by what I said. Anyone that swallows this crap is a racist and psuedoscientist -- 23:24 Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Indented to the exact same level as comments below and unsigned - sounds like an impersonation attempt to me, and would indeed sound like one to any other long-term editor here. Oh, and Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks might be a good thing to read. Accusations of being a 'racist' definately fall under that. --Kiand 23:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. --Rikurzhen 05:41, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• • The topic has been an issue of public discussion since at least 1969. Most of the research has been secondarily reported somewhere on the Internet. Deleting this article won't change that. --Rikurzhen 23:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for all the reasons mentioned above: good scholarship, graphs, easy-to-read language. We should only hope that all articles on Wikipedia were this thorough. Justin (koavf) 23:19, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Very well written article but doesn't change the fact that it is utter crap. --Kulkuri 09:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Surprisingly well written and balanced article. I would vote to definitely keep this article. I learned a lot reading it and it would be a shame to delete a piece that is so comprehensive and well documented. You know, plugging your ears and going "neener, neener, neener...," is not a way to engage in scholarly debate. IQ is interesting but not the complete measure of man. I just took an IQ test online and it differed not a whit from my IQ converted from an SAT score from 1973, fascinating... an anecdote that is supported by evidence. So there will never be a bumper sticker that says, "Don't like your IQ, then change it." so what? But there might be one that says "People not smart enough for you? Then change the world". George Bernard Shaw said, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man." Unsigned vote by 66.30.138.100
• Strong keep. Factual claims should be assessed on their own merits, not by the political motivations of those who defend them. Sir Paul 22:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Article makes the controvertial assumption that members of the population groups we label white, asian, black, hispanic are more genetically similar with each other than with other members of other groups. Hugely unfounded. But that's something that can be fixed within the article, which is otherwise pretty good. Don't know why this is listed under VfD instead of being discussed in the Talk page. --Cypherx 02:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cypherx, I have tried to find the claim about genetic similarity you are (correctly) criticizing. Could you help us find it? Arbor 10:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The background info starts out noting the objections to classification by race (which is a pretty good summary of the objections). However the rest of article then treats races as well defined meaningful things. At the very least there should be some acknowledgement that since most of these studies occurred within the US they don't accurately portray Hispanic intelligence or European intelligence, but rather the subpopulations of the United States that are identified as White or Hispanic. --Cypherx 10:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Woops! I didn't finish the article and missed this: Most research has been done in the US and a few other developed nations.. So nevermind. No objections to the article, definitely silly that its being voted for deletion. --Cypherx 10:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess I still question the racial labels employed in many of the studies cited (how do they determine who's of what race? why is it treated as if there is some clear cut standard?) but I guess that falls into the domain of academic argument rather than something universally accepted. --Cypherx 10:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Unbelievably strongly researched and many-sided article. The attackers seem incapable of commenting on the article on its own merits in accordance with the deletion policy. Even if there was absolutely nothing in intelligence that was genetical in its nature, that would clearly be implied in the research the article is based, so the disputation of the connection between race and intelligence is no basis for deletion of the article. --Tmh 11:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think there is no such thing as a white, asian, hispanic or black race. This is an oversimplication of reality that has no scientific base. Why don't you do a "pure english" against "pure german"... Are Rusians asian ? What about Filipinos ? And Mongols ? Where are the Arabic ? What about the hispanic/Peruan ? and the hispanic/Argentinian ? Which date will you use to determine the purity of a German, an English or a French? Considering the black, how many mixes of black/white/asian/hispanic are enough to stop considering him black ? Is a single black in the tree enough to consider all below black ? Same for white ? Why ? I mean, you can't be serious about this. You guys are funny. --[Jorge Daza]

What "you think" is clearly POV, and not a valid basis for policy decisions here. *Dan* 15:07, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Copied from the article: "People labeled Blacks have most of their ancestors from...". Well, "most of their ancestors" doesn't sound very scientific to me. Does it to you ? Where I said "I think", you can actually remove it, because these days that's a fact. If you like the article, name it something like "What_we_think_are_American_races_and_IQ". Because you can't neither make asumptions about races on countries you haven't made studies on. And I have to remember you that people from different countries refer to the wikipedia for information, and you can't make universal asumptions on that. Have you considered distance and motive why people from different races is there ? Really, you have to be joking if you want to make something like this look like serious. I mean, I would keep the article in a different place and with a different name. But this is meant to be an Encyclopedia. Refer to the meaning of that in case of doubt. BTW at least put a notice like the one in Sex_and_intelligence. --[Jorge Daza]

Hi Jorge, this VfD page really isn't a good place to learn about genetics. Maybe you want to take your objections to the talk page? Anyway, I found [8] to be a good overview of the basic arguments one should be familiar with; do have a look. Maybe the current article should make a better job of explaining this, even though it basically belongs to Race. The tacit American assumptions about race that permeate the article are one of my own few concerns with the current state of the page (I'm European), and as you can see I have put that very issue on the Todo-list yesterday. I would be happy if you kept a look on this page and see if it evolves in the right direction. Arbor 16:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Arbor, was the people subject of the IQ test also subject of a genetic mapping ? I don't doubt about the science of genetics. I doubt about the article's based-on "science". And sure, we can move to talk. I'm European too. Copied from the link you posted: "No serious scientist, in fact, believes that genetically pure populations exist." There can't be real science on such a thing like "white/hispanic/black/asian" races. Thus, until such a study exists this article cannot be considered science or knowledge. -- [Jorge Daza]

Jorge, I wrote the sentence you're discussing. It is a painfully simplistic summary of a very complicated topic. But a fuller treatment can't fit in the intro of this article, which is why we prominently direct people to the race article. About that particular sentence: notice it is cited. Here's a summary of the paper I referenced. [9] --Rikurzhen 16:44, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the conventional idea of "race" is simplistic, but this article is talking about studies and ideas relating to that concept, not asserting that the concept or any of the studies or ideas referenced are true. Wikipedia is not for pushing your point of view, or anybody's. Nickptar 17:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Extremely well researched and balanced article. It's good that Wikipedia is able to handel as controversial issues as this with objectivity. --Stabuh
• Strong Remove. The IQ test is not reliable. Hispanic is not a race. Plus, this is the combination of two ideas. It shouldn't be one article.
• Request will an editor with more experience managing Vfd votes than me please act on the consensus. This has been going on long enough. Dystopos 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I understand the racism involved may be controversial, but doesn't hte article explicitly state that? This article is about scientific studies and theories, not racist philisophies or politics. Believe the studies or not, is up to you. --greekmythfan 19:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Max Lewy[edit]

Hoax, possibly created by a repeat hoaxer. No appropriate Google hit. Possibly releated to the author of Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Charles Mason (Revolutionary) and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jonathan Sharpe. func(talk) 15:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. func(talk) 15:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. DS1953 18:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete either hoax or nn vanity, take your pick. --Etacar11 01:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Choob[edit]

• Delete neologism. Revolución 15:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I concur with the above -- Acyso 19:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, --//-- Pavel Vozenilek 20:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've never heard of this before... Neologism. Herrhav0k 14:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:47, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Emerging Issues in IT Audit[edit]

More of an advertisment than an encyclopedia article. Craigy (talk) 16:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for now. Not vanity. This is part of a class project and several related pages have been put on VfD over the last week or so. See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/IT_Audit_Resources. Let's give it a little time. The topic is certainly legitimate although the presentation is very un-wikilike. - DS1953 20:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why should we keep articles just because they're class projects? Articles have to stand or fall on their own merits, and if the article is deleted, that should be an indication of the student's grade, hm? Delete unless cleaned up to a Wikipedia-level article by the end of the voting period. RickK 21:51, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Emerging Issues" articles bring to mind Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly. Anything worth keeping can be put in Information Technology Audit, which should be renamed to proper capitalization and calls for heavy cleanup. --Tabor 22:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Material not in form of an encyclopedic article, given the title and scope, doubt it can be. Dysprosia 00:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. The annual American Institute of Certified Public Accountants technology watchlist may be mundane, but it's a notable and credible information sourch. The article itself needs to be transformed into encyclopedic style.Tobycat 05:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Reasons given above are reasons for cleanup, not deletion. ··gracefool |☺ 08:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopaedic. Comes off like a term paper and would need a lot of copy editing to make it encyclopedic. There are nuggets of useful information throughout, but more as notes for other articles than in some rehabilitated form of this one. I'd vote keep if "This article should be transwikied to Wikitermpapersource" were an option; anyone up for starting a new sister project ... :-) 66.167.141.93 04:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) (contributor since May 2003).
• Delete - For the purposes of this paper (research), Tone is huckster selling rheumatism medicine, Topic by it's nature will be out of date in a few months regardless. Fabartus 06:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, emerging issues topics are not encyclopedic. Rhobite 17:56, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bardicledar[edit]

Non notable. Zero Google hits. --TheParanoidOne 16:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Who wrote it? Are they local to the area? If they are then it's a valuable iece of local information. Perhaps merge it with a more general article though. It could be incorporated into the Charlton article possibly. Celestianpower 16:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, not verifiable, possible hoax/attack. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:05, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Merge if true. Delete if false. Sonic Mew 20:02, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable. --Tabor 20:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete whether true or not. Not even Wiktionary-worth, this is what some people call some other people's language? How is that encylopedic content? RickK 21:53, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete anything that has 0 google hits. --Barfooz (talk) 22:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a pretty dodgy policy. Just because Google hasn't found it doesn't mean it doesn't belong here. ··gracefool |☺ 08:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and merge. It is verifiable. Just not yet verified. ··gracefool |☺ 08:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Back-space.org[edit]

Badly written Page about non-notable website, that hasn't even launched yet. Delete. Kafuffle 16:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete First it says it was started in 2003, then that it will be launched in the future! I smell a hoax. The vagueness of the end is horribly unencyclopediodic, but re-writes are not needed, since this is aimed straight for the bin! Sonic Mew 20:05, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.now --Tabor 20:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity Chill Pill Bill 20:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad/promo. --Etacar11 01:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Steve Jarvis[edit]

Delete: subject is not notable as secondary school teacher and hockey coach. Article apparently written by his favourite pupils. Cleduc 17:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity article (the vain one being undoubtedly one of the 'favourite pupils'). Average Earthman 18:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. UkPaolo 20:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete student vanity. --Etacar11 01:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE; Someone else do it. :P Golbez 08:49, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Consequences of the Rwandan Genocide[edit]

Delete (see below). Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Even ignoring the poor quality of the writing, and with all due respect and empathy to the subject, this is just not an encyclopedia article because it doesn't contain any information. -- RoySmith 19:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Wait, what? How is this a soapbox at all? As you pointed out, its empty. I wonder what this VfD hopes to accompish. Its clearly an important topic, it's part of the ((Rwandan Genocide)) series, and clearly a work in progress. So rather than delete it, why don't we encourage its expansion. --Dmcdevit 19:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Why is Template:Rwandan Genocide a series instead of a single article? Many of the sections don't seem to be encyclopedia articles on their own. (e.g. Bibliography_of_the_Rwandan_Genocide, Glossary_and_supplements_for_the_Rwandan_Genocide). --Tabor 20:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed, this is being done bass-ackwards. Write everything in one article first; when it gets too long, then split it out. That said, VFD isn't the right forum to fix this. No vote.—Wahoofive (talk) 05:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Rwandan genocide - Skysmith 10:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now, and check back in a year to see if the series mess is straightened out. — RJH 20:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Rwandan genocide ··gracefool |☺ 07:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Rwandan genocide. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• After reading the above, I'm changing my vote. When I proposed this VfD, I didn't realize it was part of a series. Merge this and the rest of the series into Rwandan genocide and stick a cleanup tag on it too; hopefully somebody will be willing to undertake a massive rewrite. --RoySmith 13:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge this and most of the series don't merge Role of the international community in the Rwandan Genocide as its probably developed enough to have its own article. Falphin 13:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jared Tron[edit]

Delete. Looks like self-promotion to me. -- Yoghurt 19:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. ~~~~ 19:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ··gracefool |☺ 07:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Atri Rohan Banerjee[edit]

Non-notable person. If anything should be a user page, not an article MarkS 19:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy and delete - looks like a newby. - DS1953 20:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if he wasn't an anon, it would be user page material. --Etacar11 01:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)