< May 19	May 21 >

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dicdef, not an entry that would belong in Wiktionary either. Definition already mentioned in the three words which derive from it (cybernetics, government and governor). Chris talk back 00:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Chris sums it up nicely. Thing is, this is a vocabulary stub, and when you look at the stub list you see a lot of articles with similar problems. What's going on here? Why does this stub category even exist? ---Isaac R 00:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Category:Substubs was being deprecated, it became clear that there were a lot of stubs that would either have to be dumped sight-unseen on Move to Wiktionary or would require a "holding pen" until we had time to go through them all to check which ones needed transwiki-ing. That holding pen is Category:Vocabulary_and_usage_stubs. The list is slowly being winnowed, and you are likely to see a lot of them turn up here or at the Move to Wiktionary page. In other words, it's a temporary thing. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--MarSch 17:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not even spelled right (would be kybernêtês if you want to indicate the vowel length, I dunno what the è is even supposed to mean)... DopefishJustin (・∀・) 20:43, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it wouldn't. Uncle G 23:01, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• It's not even spelled correctly because it is in the wrong alphabet. Delete. Uncle G 23:01, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
  • I'm still in the delete camp, but I have to correct this. There's nothing "incorrect" about Latinizing a Greek word. You'll find lots of reputable authors doing so. Nowadays, it's easy to provide text in non-Latin alphabets, but it wasn't always so. And there's something to be said for accomodating readers to whom Κυβερνητης is just chicken tracks. ¶ Incidentally, the "correct" spelling of my last name requires use of Cyrilic -- but since I can't spell it that way myself, the rest of you are exempt as well! ----Isaac R 00:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there is, and those "reputable authors" (which classification apparently does not include the authors of any Greek language dictionaries, since they don't do this) and you are both wrong. The Greek word is in the Greek alphabet. It's that simple. Uncle G 11:42, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
      • It isn't that simple. transliterated words are valuable in their own right, we are trying to make the most complete and most useful resource that we can, and transliterated words are commonplace on the internet as well as in some published works. - TheDaveRoss 19:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict with Dave)However, on Wiktionary, the Latinised form should be redirected to the Greek form. Why? Regardless of prescriptivist values of 'the right form' (which in this case I subscribe to), the Latinised form is used often enough, especially in an online context, which is precisely what Wiktionary is. Also, many dictionaries list Greek words in etymologies in their Latinised forms, which annoys me at times, but that doesn't mean it isn't done. --Wytukaze 19:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you're going to go all prescriptivist, the only correct way to write classical Greek is ALLCAPS, no accent marks, and no spaces between words. That's the way the Greeks wrote! ----Isaac Рабинович 06:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Microstub with very subjective opinion and duplicates the true entry (notice the period at the end of the page name) drini ☎ 01:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. As noted by Drini, there's already a My Chemical Romance. Quale 01:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete I don't think this is even an attempt at a real article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. My Chemical Romance already exists. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Stancel 04:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possible attack page - the lead singer is male not female. Megan1967 07:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems an attempt at an attack. Jamyskis 09:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Ridiculous substub and page rank boost. The Alchemical Romance of Christian Rosencreuz is the important band. Geogre 10:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but don't tell the uninitiated. Barno 12:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A redirect isn't of much use. Capitalistroadster 11:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no need for redirect. -- Lochaber 14:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like an attack page. Sjakkalle 13:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to My Chemical Romance. Grue 18:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ...as said above -max rspct 19:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All made by the same person who made Yebbo Travel Agency, which was deleted. Perhaps these should be speedied? Non-notable, spam. --Golbez 01:24, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as spam and block this persistent spammer. Jamyskis 06:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, not notable, spam deluge. Megan1967 07:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, spam. --the wub (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam. JamesBurns 09:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam. This person also posted the now deleted Ethiotrans, also spam. Warn and block this spammer. — mark ✎ 07:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Artist's request for deletion -Nick W, NWE Management

• I take it you mean, "I represent the subject of the article, and he would like it to be deleted." I'm not sure if that's a valid reason for deletion, and I'm also unsure of the subject's notability, so no vote for now. android↔talk 02:36, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm not sure what they mean by that either. It wouldn't be a valid deletion reason for a truly famous subject, but I figure that for a truly borderline (at best, see below) case like this one, we should probably take their advice. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:40, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just 26 Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:37, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- why request for deletion ? What's wrong with the entry ? --Simon Cursitor 07:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. 35 g hits--MarSch 17:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. Not notable; weak because of the odd request. android↔talk 20:23, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I count 8 "delete" votes to 4 "keep" or "merge" votes (one probable troll vote discounted). The current article is an orphan which, seeing that it's a technology topic and Wikipedia has a known bias toward the creation and linking of such articles, I take for weak evidence that comparatively few people are interested in this topic.

I am going to call this one as a "delete" decision but without prejudice if someone wants to add the reference into the America Online article. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chatrooms are not inherently notable. Delete as such. Denni☯ 02:26, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable, likely vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:34, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (Although unenthusiastic about the article quality.) Any AOL (and prior, Q-Link) RPGer of the last fifteen or twenty years has been here. While the UNIX elite were MUDding away, or haunting IRC channels, the general RPG public came here. This is an icon in the history of online pop culture. --Unfocused 05:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone has the time, I think it would be appropriate to just go ahead and Merge it into America Online. I didn't realize how litte was in the main AOL article, relative to the size and influence of the service. I normally check these things, I apologize for being a bit lazy this time. This article should be at home there. --Unfocused 15:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep -- borderline notable in its milieu; active board; I'd reckon higher than average chance of a search being made; possible potential for cross-linkage --Simon Cursitor 07:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Unfocused and Simoncusitor, sounds very notable in its field. Kappa 09:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity Proto 10:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, chat-room-cruft. — JIP | Talk 10:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mikkalai 15:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I'm not part of the RPG community in any way (well, I play Zelda, does that count?), and yet I somehow recognised the name the moment I saw it! However, despite an outsider (me!) recognising it, is it encyclopedic? Not its current form, nono, but will it *ever* be encyclopedic? THAT is the question. And I really don't know how notable chatrooms are, it's not the same as a forum and the keeping of those is strict too. Also, since it seems only AOL users can use the chatroom (? I assume due to the aol:// protocol) it may have too a narrow perspective for our global encyclopedia. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 15:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Actually I was mistaken, I was thinking of THIS Red Dragon Inn, not that one. Delete, unless it can prove to me why it's interesting and encyclopedic. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 15:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow. Blast from my past, for sure. Keep or merge w/AOL. --Badlydrawnjeff 17:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge with AOL. I've been in this chat and it's definitely not notable. There are other chats, like "Beliefs Atheism" which could be considered to have a bit of notability, but not this one. Stancel 20:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as a seperate article it seems notable by itself Yuckfoo 02:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If delete fails, merge to AOL. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible hoax - is this verifiable? ``WCFrancis 02:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I cannot find any credible third party references. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Appears NWO/Faction blurb, and possibly (if he exists) defamatory --Simon Cursitor 07:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 07:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unverifiable and sounds like a hoax. Jamyskis 09:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No googles for a person called Raymond from Africa . --IncMan 13:03, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete very probable hoax. --Marianocecowski 16:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a little local news like every local paper reports breathlessly, but has no bearing on anything. Orphan, and totally non-notable. Delete Sabine's Sunbird 02:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Extremely limited regional interest only (if any at all). Quale 04:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lack of notability is not a criterion for deletion, and its orphan status is the fault of other articles rather than inherent in this article itself. Bryan 07:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable - local event. Megan1967 07:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of notability. Refer to wikinews if they want it. Radiant_* 08:56, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article doesn't even fully establish what the incident was, much less notability. Gamaliel 08:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to be a very localised affair, no suggestion in the article that it had any permanent affect nationally. Average Earthman 09:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I count 4 explicit "delete" votes and 4 "move and cleanup" votes. The clear concensus is that an article on this topic would be acceptable but the current content is not it. The decision comes down to a question of whether Wikipedia will get the desired article by starting over (deleting) or by leaving this as a starting point. Looking again at the content and noting that no one has made any edits (other than the VfD tag) since the article was created over a month ago, I am going to exercise my discretion and delete this version. I will update any inbound links to the correct location.

This decision should not be used as precedent to delete a future version of this article. Rossami (talk) 00:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. non-notable, vanity. Tufflaw 02:51, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, she is a notable singer; this article is just in the wrong place and rather bad. Redirect to Caleigh Peters and cleanup/expand. -- Grev -- Talk 07:29, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Caleigh Peters, and expand. 9,000 Google hits, see [1]. Megan1967 07:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup in a big way. Jamyskis 09:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I understand that the singer is notable. However, the article is kiddie wiki mess. If rewritten at the proper article, well and good, but there's no need to make this redirect, when we have to essentially create the article. Delete and place on requested articles. Geogre 11:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Caleigh Peters and cleanup/expand--MarSch 17:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too much of a mess to try to build a good article on. --Carnildo 20:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there is no point keeping and moving this mess--nixie 14:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity page. Denni☯ 02:53, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

• Delete drini ☎ 02:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.66.247.147 is trying to change the votes drini ☎ 03:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is interesting and real. The author is real. Check the links they are real. palm9999
  • This post was made by User:67.66.247.147 the vandal of this VfD and author of the article. Wikibofh
    • Palm9999 is part of the website adress of the forum. Hmmm I think this is Christopher Wayne Collins. T.A Stevenson 19:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a real User: Palm9999 is this him or not? T.A Stevenson 19:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • User: 67.66.86.142, probably the same as above anon typed the name of the micronation he founded on to the appropriate category (he dosen't know how they work) in January 2005 when it was founded. T.A Stevenson 10:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was just being impatient trying to speedy it. Svest 03:01, May 20, 2005 (UTC) ^{wiki me up™}
• Delete - non notable nonsense. -- Mariocki ^TALK 03:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete nonsense. Wikibofh 03:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - vanity page for vandal that keeps blanking this page. His own links (spam) at the bottom of the page (both at free hosting sites) -
  1. "Official site" says he was born 1993. Do the math.
  2. The forum link goes to a forum with 2 entries. Both by Christopher Wayne Collins.

---WCFrancis 03:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Trilobite (Talk) 03:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- vanity - Longhair | Talk 06:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity and send author to Wiki-Hell for trying to distort vote. Jamyskis 06:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, tedious and unexceptional biography. Yet another micronationalist and author of unpublished books. Average Earthman 09:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as complete nonsense. C W Merchant 19:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as complete nonsense, vanity, self promotion and so on. T.A Stevenson 19:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all micronationscruft. RickK 20:25, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, vanity - I found about 15 or so hits on Google. Tufflaw 03:01, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Band vanity, first sentence is a fragment (lacks an object), unsigned. Geogre 11:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree .--IncMan 12:56, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No google evidence of this claim. Denni☯ 03:08, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

• I had tagged it speedy for the same reason. Delete - - Svest 03:12, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • 0 google hits is not yet a criterion for speedy deletion, LOL. Kappa 03:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable acronym. Megan1967 07:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sounds made up. Jamyskis 09:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Neologism. We needn't say more than that. Geogre 11:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible hoax. Is it verifiable? --WCFrancis 03:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Apparent hoax. Nobel laureates are verifieable. Mr. Hemmerich is not. Dystopos 03:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nathan Himmerich and Karl G. Zimmer published results in 1935 while he was born in 1943! Delete before May 21th, 2005. Svest 04:07, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete candidate as vandalism. Forget the birth date and look at the last two sentences. This is a common prank: absurd claim + paste from another article + equine humor claim. Geogre 11:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as vandalism. --Carnildo 20:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. --Laura Scudder | Talk 21:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity, or a rude friend Denni☯ 03:16, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

• Delete. Some friend. NatusRoma 06:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Friendship is a wonderful thing, don't you think? Jamyskis 09:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Tribute page. Geogre 11:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pure vanity, even if it is second hand.Donovan Ravenhull 11:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No matter what, I still don't see how this is noteworthy, despite what Brookshawn has said. Donovan Ravenhull 10:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obvious attack page or rude prank at best. Uppland 13:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Author mis-spelled windshield. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:44, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  • I vote that this reason be added to the list of valid reasons for deletion! Looks encyclopaedic to me Delete with all prejudice. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.This is a legitimate page and not an attack nor a prank. To my knowledge, all statements made on this page are true. Even the tampon decoration. Brookshawn 20:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I also mention that this page is favored by the person who it is written about, and has not been made as a means of making fun of. More information can be added to make it more meaty, which i have been doing before it was marked for deletion. Thanks

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it deserves an entry in WP. --Svest 03:50, May 20, 2005 (UTC) ^{wiki me up™}

• Delete. Looks like advertising to me. --Randolph 03:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable enough. -- Mariocki ^talk 04:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advertising. --the wub (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam. Jamyskis 09:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- POV vanity. - Longhair | Talk 14:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sjakkalle 08:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A dicdef with delusions of grandeur. You take the dicdef, add a pointless discussion of exactly what "Continental United States" means, then throw in a totally redundent list of statistics about the Lower 48 plus DC. That's it. Proof that every possible article has its partisans and hard-working contributors -- but not every such article deserves them! ----Isaac R 03:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 04:37, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
• Keep. Topic is notable and widely used. Article appears to be in reasonable shape. Capitalistroadster 04:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Articles don't have to be arcane to be useful. --Unfocused 04:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move to Wiktionary as it is a (self-evident?) dictionary definition. --Fazdeconta 05:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For disambiguation, if nothing else—or at least pointing out the ambiguities, and less ambiguous ways of expressing this. Gene Nygaard 05:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is more than a dicdef. Svest 05:41, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not self-evident what it means; as the article says, sometimes Alaska is included (since it's on the continent), sometimes it isn't (since it's an exclave). And considering the large number of pages that link to that page, and the fact that even the Slovene Wikipedia has an article on CONUS, I say deleting it would be a mistake. --Angr/_comhrá 06:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful encyclopedia article. -- Jonel 06:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, much more than a dicdef. Useful article. the wub (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, used in federal law. Kappa 09:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep legitimate article, although maybe it could be improved e.g. explain the exact meaning of the term in various laws, more research on history of the term. PatGallacher 10:37, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
• Delete: Duplicate information. Needs only to explain that it is the contiguous 48 states (i.e. dictdef). Geogre 11:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the article. That's not the only meaning. --Jerzy~t 15:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, extremely redundant with United States (for instance, the list of states with total area and population, minus the few non-continental states). Radiant_* 12:14, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • The purpose of the article is to clarify the concept, not to provide that info. That info may or may not belong here (i am of two minds on that), but arguing for deletion bcz CONUS is just part of US is like VFDing Human anatomy because leg of child is so less often cooked than leg of lamb. --Jerzy~t 15:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deserves to be in a encyclopedia by all means . (Continental US is a diff way of sayin Mainland USA .)--IncMan 13:07, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Will be even more relevant when Puerto Rico becomes a U.S. State. ;-) -- BD2412 ^talk 14:29, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons implicit in my various rebuttals above, and because, contrary to the abusive nominator (who implicitly calls, above, me and several colleagues fools) this a term used in contexts likely to have legal impact not understood by those who see it used, and (like f***, thou, and ye) has aspects that cannot adequately be treated in a dic-def. --Jerzy~t 15:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Ummm, merge with "United States" ...err, keep...I feel a better distinction might be between "east of the Mississippi" and "west of the Mississippi"...however, since there is much reference in everyday life to the Lower 48, then we might as well keep the page. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful article on a US law quirk. Harro5 00:23, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful article. If it's not kept, redirect to United States or something, since it appears to be a valid search term. JYolkowski // talk 00:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Widespread term better served by an article than by redirecting or tranwiki'ing. Looks a bit thin at the moment, but should grow, given the opportunity. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I disagree with Grutness, though -- I think thin is fine for this one. Not much more needed. JamesMLane 09:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with United States. Too much imbellishment about the different terms (coterminous vs. contiguous, etc.) Sammo 07:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. At the very least merge, but keeping would be better. I'd love to see more information about how the idea is used in law. kmccoy (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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, transwikied. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dictdef, has been transwikied, almost no content. Has potential to become encyclopaedic, but the potential article would be redundant with others such as flight attendant. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 04:36, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

• Comment - might it be useful as a disambig page? -- Jonel 06:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate, concur with Jonel. Megan1967 07:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Wiktionary, move it to the Dictionary. I don't see no disambiguation porpoise. Not an Enciclopedy article. --Marianocecowski 16:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It already has. That's why it's up for deletion. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 06:29, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
    • then Delete. --Marianocecowski 10:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 20:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh name; not notable →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 04:42, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

• Keep - it is also a word meaning "inspiration" in Druidry and/or Welsh tradition. I think it has potential for expansion in this direction. FreplySpang (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there are other articles on names. Bryan 07:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, is a dicdef and has already been transwikied. --the wub (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Historic name. Megan1967 07:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per The Wub. Radiant_* 08:57, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Etymology entries have a place on Wikipedia. Jamyskis 09:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that's what Wiktionary is for. Radiant_* 12:13, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Etymology is a lexical function. It is part of a dictionary entry. Articles "on" first names should simply be disambiguations for all the figures known solely by that name. Otherwise, Wiktionary does accept articles on names, and that's where these articles should go. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Geogre 11:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this dicdef. ESkog 14:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a dicdef. Mikkalai 15:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Wiktionaryfy--MarSch 18:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Mythological symbolism in Welsh Druidic culture goes well beyond the capacity of Wiktionary to discuss. Next time try learning something about the term before rushing to judgment. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:52, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  • Here, read this: Awen - The Holy Spirit of Druidry. You learn something new every day (especially editing Wikipedia!). -- BD2412 ^talk 19:12, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
• Keep as re-written. --Carnildo 20:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable term in Welsh culture. Capitalistroadster 00:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not all that important. And I say this as a bona fide Welsh person, and a speaker of yr hen iaith (a punning in-joke for any compatriots around). I can honestly say that what this article describes is nothing more than a footnote to the grand mythological scheme of things, and tender an expert[0] opinion that it's not really worth keeping anywhere. [0] Expert, relative to the discussion, in the absence of any mythology professors from Aberystwyth or Bangor. Chris talk back 02:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  ON: Most of what people think of as "Welsh Druidic culture" is bogus, invented by a recreational drug user by the name of Iolo Morgannwg. Much of what the real "druids" did is sadly (TTBOMK) undocumented, and thus not likely to be available to WP. Chris talk back 02:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, you're right about that. The Druids were preliterate. Julius Caesar wiped them out first, and Hengest and Horsa bashed them later, and then Augustine the Lesser after that. There is a tremendous amount of poppycock claiming to be Druid or "white goddess" stuff floating about. Anything that uses a Tolkein term and was "described" after Tolkein needs to be closely scrutinized. A scholarly reference would be a huge help. Geogre 12:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you suggesting that the word "awen" is a derivation from Tolkien? It's worth bearing in mind that he based Sindarin heavily on Welsh, so it's actually the other way round. :) As for a scholarly reference, my dictionary ("Y Geiriadur Mawr", 1989 ed.) states (with no mention of druids): awen, eb. ll.-au. 1. afwyn, llinyn ffrwyn. REIN. 2. athrylith neu ysbrydoliaeth farddonol, dawn, talent. POETIC GIFT, THE MUSE. Vashti 22:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Chris--nixie 14:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a fellow Welsh-speaker of Chris, I'd suggest adding the reservations expressed to the entry - whether or not the original prechristian Druids would have recognised the term, if it has a present-day use, doesn't it still merit an entry? I also have a feeling that I've heard this term used in English as a borrowing from Welsh, meaning "inspiration" or "muse", and not by Druids either, as far as I know. You'd say that something or someone has "awen". I can't substantiate this, though, so it may be a figment of my imagination; annoying. Vashti 22:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously more than a dicdef.. cultural info, visual/symbol content as well. Some more knowledge that could be lost..but article could do with more referencing. -max rspct 19:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 04:44, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

• Delete -- Agree. Longhair | Talk 06:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Should be awesomely deleted as neologism. -- Jonel 06:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 07:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, on a scale of one to awesome, this is zero.--the wub (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pointless. Jamyskis 09:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh gosh, this is frightfully interesting stuff, what? No, terribly interesting? Um, no it isn't. Don't transwiki to Wiktionary, just zap it. -- Hoary 00:40, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
• Awesomely delete-worthy. Chris talk back 02:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to VH1 and delete. — Phil Welch 20:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted nonsense about the component words of the title. Kdau 05:21, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

• A load of drivel that has likely been copy-and-pasted in from wordy online dictionaries. Hose it away down the drain. Anthony Appleyard 05:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It would appear that Mr Gray wasted his ten minutes of research by copying three dic-defs rather than an article on a coordinate measuring machine, whatever that is. The article is not what it claims to be, and is probably a copyvio as well, since it looks like the dicdefs were just copied from a dictionary. Average Earthman 09:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ten minutes of research, indeed. --Yoshi348 20:21, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

If someone wants to move this into BJAODN, go ahead. I have not. Likewise, if someone wants to take the time to transwiki this to Wikibooks:Jokebook, contact me or any other admin to have it temporarily undeleted long enough for you to move it. Rossami (talk) 22:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense.

• Delete joke. Gazpacho 05:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Neologism of sorts. --Durin 05:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODNise, this is pretty funny. --bainer 06:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN. NatusRoma 06:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN. Some of the jokes are quite good. Sjakkalle 06:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN. Megan1967 07:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, in the past this would have been minor usenet humour. Average Earthman 09:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. A Borgism is a known word for a joke relating to the "We are Borg - Resistance is futile" phrase. Jamyskis 09:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Proto 10:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it!

• Wikisource. Radiant_* 12:12, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Embrace, extend, assimilate, and delete. Joke, no encyclopedic content. Barno 12:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN - I am BJAODN of Borg. You will be BJAODNinated. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:28, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
• Delete along with link on Borg page. — RJH 16:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• google has 96 hits [2] so we can't keep it at this title. Keep somewhere --MarSch 18:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN. - Bleep! Boop! blip! Nice try, R2, but the Borg are from Star Trek, not Star Wars. You are such a nattering bunch of nuts! Pretty humorous... even if I sometimes consider Borgism to be Islam. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody but you, erroneous-insult-boy, cited Star Wars or even made a discernable reference to it. Please do not use Islam or any other religion as a pejorative here. Barno 14:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN. --Carnildo 20:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. RickK 20:28, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Random nonsense. Harro5 00:22, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Resistance is useless. Chris talk back 02:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, we have other lists of jokes. Grue 18:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep [in BJAODN], true, there are other lists, however, delete, because it's silly Ouro 06:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN. JamesBurns 09:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This isn't an encyclopaedia article about "I am X of Borg" jokes. This is a collection of such jokes themselves. Wikibooks to the Wikibooks:Jokebook, where collections of jokes belong. Uncle G 22:26, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
  • Transwikied. Delete. Uncle G 22:40, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems like a notable enough word, such jokes are fairly common and I dont see the problem in documenting them. -CunningLinguist 03:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this doesn't even rate Wiktionary. --Rev Prez 20:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Serves no useful purpose Gblaz 18:53, 1 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. (nomination withdrawn as well) Sjakkalle 08:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has changed mind to speedy keep/withdraw nomination Kappa 12:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting a commercial website. A Wiki entry that does nothing but summarize the contents of another website does not belong. Internally linked here as a "notable example of satire," alarm bells should go off when you see it next to the likes of Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain. Suggest delete or possibly put into a list of parody/satire/mockery websites --Fazdeconta 05:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'd say this is a quite well known parody site. -- Jonel 07:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, decent Alexa ranking, almost 100,000 Google hits for "landover baptist". sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 07:07, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why shouldn't an encyclopedia article about a website summarize the contents of that website? Other information beyond that can be added later, over time - Wikipedia is a work in progress. Bryan 07:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawing my nomination for deletion. Perhaps I was a bit trigger happy, this is actually a useful entry about a notable website. Speedy Keep. --Fazdeconta 07:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 12:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, per withdrawn nomination (and notability of site). -- BD2412 ^talk 14:25, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
• Keep very well-known parody site. Stancel 20:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Laura Scudder | Talk 21:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well known site. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Band of only local interest, fails WP:MUSIC. Nine Google hits for "The Charley Family" +bluegrass. Bad URL. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nonnotable. --Angr/_comhrá 06:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, band vanity. --the wub (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This band fails all seven Wikipedia music notability requirements. C W Merchant 19:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Staff Writer for JerseyPolitics.com and Communications Director for New Jersey State College Democrats. Born 1985. Non-notable nobody. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- vanity. - Longhair | Talk 06:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 the rewrite. Sjakkalle 08:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another contribution from the author of the attack page Michelle Klawans: "What is 'Middle Eastern Studies': Simply put, the study of the Culture, People, Economy, and Geography of the Middle East" Well, that was obvious from the title. The article goes on to explain what the Middle East is, which is already discussed in other places. Subject is articlable, but this article contains no useful information, and starting from scratch is probably a better option. Uppland 06:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge what little useable information there is to Middle East. Fork. Megan1967 08:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand- many universities do degrees in it, it isn't the topics fault that the article was written by a moron Cynical 13:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rewrite, expand, per Cynical's wise counsel. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:10, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What's the point of saying "keep and rewrite"? All that means is someone will slap a ((cleanup)) tag on it and it will stay in its crappy condition indefinitely. Might as well delete it and when someone's ready to rewrite it, they can start from a redlink. I'll change my vote if someone turns it into a decent stub before its VfD expires. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. Would that this happened every time someone voted to "keep and rewrite". —Wahoofive (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure. The only link to this page is from a university program on Islamic studies. But there is a separate Islamic studies page. So is "Middle Eastern Studies" a valid university program somewhere? If so, then I vote to keep. — RJH 16:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the programs at U.C. Berkely, theUniversity of Chicago, and the University of Manchester for starters (and also the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies). -- BD2412 ^talk 18:07, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup. Middle Eastern Studies is a valid university program in plenty of places. A Google search [3] gets 643,000 results with the first page showing the University of Texas, Harvard, Berkeley and the University of Chicago having Centers for Middle Eastern Programs. After 9/11 there was a push to expand funding for these courses.
• Keep and Expand - this is a legitimate academic subject--Sophitus 17:06, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It is bloody obvious that this is a valid subject; I said so in my nomination. It exists under various names at many universities. But if the article is kept just because a bunch of people say "keep and rewrite" without actually doing anything about it, I will nominate it for deletion again. Uppland 17:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Uppland has a valid point. To this end, I have added some information about contentious issues in the area raised by people such as Edward Said and Daniel Pipes. According to the history, BD2412 had already added to the article. In my view, we now have a usable article on the topic with plenty of room for further improvement. Capitalistroadster 06:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good work. Keep after Capitalistroadster's rewrite. Uppland 07:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: This is a very important subject. Stancel 21:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. --Laura Scudder | Talk 21:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GabrielF 04:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The community concensus was clearly to delete this article. However, an anon user converted it to a redirect to the subject's webcomic on 23 May. I believe that was an acceptable solution and am going to exercise my discretion to override the strict vote count. I am going to leave this as a redirect. Rossami (talk) 22:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity. Not notable. --Fazdeconta 06:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Vanity, Delete, not notable. Radiant_* 12:10, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the vanity and Redirect to Gluemeat. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I originally came across this article, I thought that it could become a good article if substantially cleaned up. However, I realized that the term "Caucasian terrorism" is irreparably POV when used to describe terrorism committed by Caucasians. Moreover, see this google search for evidence that the term is almost always used to refer to terrorism related to the Caucasus. NatusRoma 06:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, POV, not notable neologistic phrase. Megan1967 08:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I strongly suspect that this is the next chapter of Judeofascism /Americofascism disruption. Note the phrase "political and religious ambitions" in the intro—what is the "Caucasian religion"? The intro was probably ripped from Islamist terrorism. Delete or rewrite at White racist terrorism, covering only private terrorist acts where racist ideology was the motive. Gazpacho 08:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV probably designed to be disruptive --Doc Glasgow 09:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Inexplicably moronic. There is terrorism in the Caucases. Is this what's meant? Duh, 'course not. Bad, bad, bad. Geogre 11:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV title, nobody ever grouped these events together (or gave them a collective name) except for the author of the article Cynical 13:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the article that should be written on Terrorism in the Caucases. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:09, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  • Caucasus.
• Delete. WP:POINT for one. Also, it may well be a sign of racism in our society that Islamist terrorism is referred to under a blanket term but this isn't. However, it's not Wikipedia's place to correct the ills of society - but instead to record society as it is. ESkog 15:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Now let's not assume bad faith. This article was created by an anon with a substantial edit history, but I'm not sure if it's all the same person, or several different people, so there's no reason to assume that this person was purposefully disrupting Wikipedia. NatusRoma 15:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Furthermore, this article was created last October, so it certainly isn't a response to the VfD of Islamofascism. No vote—Wahoofive (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — topic already covered by Ethnic terrorism. — RJH 16:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Use of "Caucasian" within the meaning of this article is a misnomer. Martg76 17:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per BD2412, as there is terrorism in the Caucasus Mountains. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this could be an article about terrorism in the Caucasus. RickK 20:31, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename White racist terrorism or merge with ethnic terrorism. Stancel 21:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to ethnic terrorism. -Sean Curtin 05:44, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete topic already covered by Ethnic terrorism. JamesBurns 09:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per JamesBurns. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Filecloud is a newly created file site, with free membership and a wealth of applications" and isn't encyclopedic. -- Longhair | Talk 06:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 06:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 06:50, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like advertising. Sjakkalle 07:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to be self-promotion. — flamingspinach | (talk) 07:11, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
• ?NPOV? --Simon Cursitor 07:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Heavily advertised at SA, but I see no reason why it should be advertised here. Delete. Radiant_* 08:10, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This is very unusual...most spammers I see on here are small, non-notable firms looking for some cheap advertising. FileCloud is by no means small. Could be a fan write-up. I'm going to abstain on this one. Jamyskis 11:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is a fan write up. It really is a very good service, and I was really impressed with it. And the guys are really nice people - they don't have those auto response emails you get with some companies.. Olix 17:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on previous comment: User:Olix has no edits other than to this page.
    • Comment]incorrect - I have edited/written a small handful of articles before, but I registered to comment in this section. Olix 15:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity. I go to the school he supposedly went to (if it was in fact the University of Scranton) and have never heard of him. Delete this. --Penta 06:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- whats a header? - Longhair | Talk 06:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

In my opinion, the dominant article for deletion is not the fact that the article is a stub nor that it sounds like advertising. The real reason for deletion is the lack of verifiable content. The only reference that anyone found during the extended discussion period was the company's own website - in Norwegian. The might be sufficient for the Norwegian Wikipedia but presents problems in the English version. Noting that no one came forward during the discussion period to translate or confirm any of the alleged facts, I am going to call this one a delete but without prejudice against re-creation if the author comes forward with more verifiable content. Rossami (talk) 00:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

advertising Bengt Olav Olsen 07:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable company . Article needs to be edited though .--IncMan 14:50, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Advertising as written. No way to assess if it could be otherwise from the state of the article now. Will check back toward the end of VfD voting to see if I can change my vote. Geogre 15:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, adv. --Marianocecowski 16:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity page. Deltabeignet 22:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Promotional, vanity. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Geogre's rule of lower case surnames holds - delete Grutness...wha? 10:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 10:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Grutness is right - a lowercase surname in the article title is an almost certain sign of vanity. — JIP | Talk 12:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Geogre's law failure, promo for a geocities site. The person is not yet notable. Geogre 15:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I also have a similar rule that if a business can only afford to put their web site on a free web hosting service like Geocities, it cannot be noteworthy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Xezbeth 05:53, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion as vanity/advert, but does'nt look like a CSD to me. I think it should be kept as notable to English-speakers in Berlin. Kappa 09:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, cleanup and expand. Borderline notability, [4]. Megan1967 10:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Appears genuine publication: on that basis, keep --Simon Cursitor 12:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It is genuine, I've read it. Keep. Jamyskis 14:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Clean up to expand its notability. Circulation figures would help, and a little less on "you can find a party." Geogre 15:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will do when this VfD is over. Jamyskis 15:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't have to wait, although I suppose the article might still fail this vfd and your work would be wasted. Kappa 22:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Expand and improve the article ASAP. Harro5 00:18, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I guess. I'm an English speaker in Berlin and I've read it (once) too. It's not a good newspaper, but it's a newspaper. --Angr/_comhrá 04:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 with Side-quest Sjakkalle 11:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless article, possible candidate for merging with Role-playing game and/or Computer_role-playing_game. Jamyskis 11:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Bengt Olav Olsen 11:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redir to the latter (where it's most appropriate; pen-n-paper RPG is more freeform). Radiant_* 12:08, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Not Delete -- sort-of neologism for which searches might be made, esp by those whose 1st lang is not English, but are trying to read an Engrish game manual --Simon Cursitor 12:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Side-quest, which is a more common version of the same term. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:57, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (and probably redirect) to Side-quest. The term is used in both pen-and-paper and video RPGs. Not a neologism; commonly used in the 1970s, when video gamers could role-play nothing more complex than a tennis ball (PONG). Barno 13:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Side-quest. The term is still used in video RPG's, but it would be so nice if all of the matter in Side-quest were merged and redirected to Role-playing game. With redirects, people can still search, and we ought not be so very granular. Is there really something to say about genres, development, and history of the side-quest? Geogre 15:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Side-quest per Andrew Lenahan. — RJH 16:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• merge and redirect per Andrew Lenahan. I would oppose merging side-quest, though. Meelar (talk) 21:03, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to side-quest. -Sean Curtin 05:53, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Andrew. This is a big enough aspect of RPGs to warrant it's own article, but not big it's already got an ok page there.-LtNOWIS

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 and redirect. Rossami (talk) 00:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not notable. We shouldn't create an article for every single Mozilla/Firefox extensions. --minghong 11:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Firefox extensions. These are probably more notable than any other group of software extensions, but not enough for each to have an article on its own. Barno 13:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The article doesn't mention Firefox by name, so the rather than the non-existent "List of ..." article mentioned above, a merge into Extension (Mozilla) might be more appropriate. --TheParanoidOne 16:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 05:48, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

This page is probably vanity. After folowing the links, it seems that this article is not worth keeping. --Happyfeet10 01:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happyfeet10 nominated this article for deletion, but it wasn't submitted to the VfD page, so I am submitting it now. I noticed that Happyfeet10 is the only one listed in the article's edit history, but the Newpages page shows that 69.114.7.176 is the creator. Article has already been speedy deleted once. To me the article looked silly, so a clear delete from me. Sjakkalle 11:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete! Bengt Olav Olsen 12:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete all articles on specific RPG/MMORPG player characters. This one is even worse than most, as the whole thing centres on an event (a botched raid) which is far from unusual, rare, or notable even within the game itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:51, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all player characters from MMORPGs, CRPGs, and pen-and-paper RPG campaigns. See also Leeroy. android↔talk 13:32, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it and the horse it rode in on: This actually made me physically ill. This is a vanity page for someone's character. I'm not sure there is any depth below that, and I don't want to find out if there is. Geogre 15:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as a previously speedied article. Otherwise, just get rid of it. Blatant vanity, non-notable. --InShaneee 15:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This event is a notable event in internet/gaming pop culture and should be kept, just as much as should the entries on YTMND, All Your Base, and Star Wars Kid. This article is about the event itself, not the MMORPG character. — (Unsigned comment by 66.57.83.6; user's 4th edit.)
• Keep it, well known event in gaming culture, not mere vanity at all! — (Unsigned comment by 210.49.170.242; user's 8th edit.)
• I just want to say that that video is ridiculously hilarious. Everyking 14:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely worth keeping. I've seen references to a "Leeroy Jenkins" all around the internet, and, as usual, Wikipedia was the quickest, easiest source to get an answer as to what it was that caused talk of this event. Wikipedia, serving as the useful be-all-and-end-all info depository, does its best services in cases such as this.
  • Anon (User:68.205.195.83) vote. User's first edit. Sjakkalle 12:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a keeper I too saw this referenced around the internet and had no idea what it was about at first. I did a search on wikipedia and got the leeroy jenkins page where I got all the info I needed. This page shouldn't be deleted, its a good record of internet culture.--Sakebalboa 04:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC) — (User's 4th edit.)[reply]
• This is a Definitely a keeper Fantastic video, and a landmark in mmorpg culture. Judvrd 13.30 23 May 2005
  • Vote was not made by Judvrd but by User:81.136.182.49 Sjakkalle 12:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a notable and popular recent internet meme. Please knock it off with the sockpuppets, you're not helping your case with that nonsense. Gamaliel 18:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's recent. Far too recent for an Internet/gaming meme to be catalogued in an encyclopedia. AиDя01DTALK 22:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US" can have it's own Wikipedia page, so can this. — (Unsigned comment by 66.144.41.232; user's 86th edit.)
  • When this gets as big as AYBABTU, come back and write an article about it. Also, please add comments in chronological order. AиDя01DTALK 22:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is my first edit of a wikipedia article. One of my gamer buddies sent this link to our group, to provide additional info, after another buddy sent out the link to the video. I read the "what Wikipedia is not" page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT), and I can't see why this page would be deleted. It is clearly not a vanity page . . . at least not now that Leeroy has made his way around the Internet. terrynie 10 PM, CDT, May 23, 2005
  • User's first and second edits. [5] Sjakkalle 06:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete. Very recent, very minor event in an MMOG. For a supposed "internet meme", it only gets 1200 Google hits. AYB, for comparison, gets in excess of 200,000. --Carnildo 07:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It did take place, and having it on here isnt hurting anything.
  • Vote by User:Mgunit. User's first edit. Sjakkalle 08:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Read this first before casting a vote as a sockpuppet: I will advise that casting all these sockpuppet votes annoys everybody greatly. You are wasting our time, and you are wasting your time. All such sockpuppet votes will be ignored when the administrator makes the verdict. Sjakkalle 08:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. If people are still talking about this in 2 years, it should be mentioned in WP. Quale 19:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeper!. Most definitely an entry worthy of posting, due to the fact that it is a widely-used and recognized phrase/person in gaming circles. It has been mimiced ever since its creation, and I do believe that it is only valid to post a wp entry detaling just what it means, so that others may see just what all these people are talking about. — (Unsigned comment by 66.177.45.112; user's 1st edit.)
• Keep it. As discussed above, this is sort of like an AYB-sort of deal. I found this article quite handy when I wanted to know what all this "Leeroy" stuff was all about. --Ncdoyle 20:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC) — (Ncdoyle's 7th edit.)[reply]
• Keep. The article does a good job of explaining the video to thosw who don't play WoW (me included). ---Mr. Qwert — (Mr. Qwert's 11th edit.)
• Delete For reasons others have already stated, this is not notable. Xcali 21:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sock puppet limit has been exceeded. RickK 21:31, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Exactly what is the limit for sockpuppets? :-) Sjakkalle 08:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My personal limit is 3. RickK 23:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • I would have said 0. Xcali 03:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to World of Warcraft. Someone above stated that this only gets 1,200 google hits. In fact, I got 2,750...which is pretty darn near my notablity scale for a thing like this. In any case, if its a redirect, it will cut down on the vandalism that this page has been getting non-stop. func(talk) 02:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too many socks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a minute, you're voting to delete because you don't like some of the other votes? I don't have a strong feeling about whether the article should be kept or not, but I do feel strongly that a vote made on those grounds shouldn't count. Everyking 02:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP! — (Unsigned comment by 65.13.119.2; user's 1st edit.)
• Keep. Leeroy recently got airtime on G4 TV. The phrase "Let's make like Leeroy and do this thing" was said during an aired unreal tournament piece. If THAT doesn't say Leeroy has seeped his way into gaming culture, then I don't know what does. Secondly, there's really no reason to remove the page. Anyone looking for information on Leeroy Jenkins can easily show up here; and as previously stated, there have been people looking for information. Removing this page is a disservice to the citizens of the internet. The same goes for any other popular internet meme entry in wikipedia. — (Unsigned comment by 155.246.15.34; user's 25th edit.)
• Keep. As has been previously stated, "Leeroy" is now a popular term in online gaming. Definitely a useful wiki article. — (Unsigned comment by BigBoss, user's 15th edit.)
• Keep. Just as the many users before have said, Leeroy could be considered widely-used in online circles. I, myself, got information on Leeroy from this article after seeing it referenced on a website. This should definately be kept. Zig 01:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If "all your base are belong to us" deserves a page, this does too.
  • User's third edit. RickK 04:06, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to World of Warcraft. As Leeroy is well known amongst the gaming community, this should definitely be kept, but I personally don't think something this specific deserves its own article. Ikusawa 02:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's second edit. RickK 04:07, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I googled over 13,000 results today — (Unsigned comment by 64.42.102.221; user's 1st edit.)
  • Well, that's funny, because I only get 294 unique hits for "leeroy jenkins". A search without the quotes is meaningless. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:22 26 May 2005 UTC
• Merge and redirect to the World of Warcraft page.. Those of you argueing that this event should only have reference on Wikipedia if it is notable in a certain amount of time have an invalid arguement. Wikipedia browsers should not be restricted from obtaining information because the Wikipedia editors are waiting to see if a topic is still significant in "2 years". Ridiculous. The Tsunami of 04' was not omitted from the Tsunami Wikipedia page simply because someone said it may not be significant in "2 years". Also, I don't see how you have the authority to decide that a search is meaningless simply because it does not contain quotations. Leeroy Jenkins without quotations returns 13,600 results on a Google Search. "leeroy jenkins" generates 294 unique results out of the total 3,040 results found using the Google search engine. Also if you follow the "show omitted results" link at the bottom of the search for "leeroy jenkins" you will come up with 10,400 results. I do agree that the event is not large enough yet to deserve it's own article but I do believe this event should be mentioned on the World of Warcraft page. Also, the article is expressed from a neutral view point in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. The article is also not expressed in a way that the subject of the article, "Leeroy", will experience any personal gain from this article.--65.40.72.15 19:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A search without quotes is meaningless because it doesn't search for the exact phrase "leeroy jenkins" – it finds any pages that have instances of the terms leeroy and jenkins, no matter how far apart they are in the page. Since Leeroy and Jenkins are rather common names, this is going to generate a lot of false-positive hits. Also, unique hits are a better overall barometer for web "presence."
  • Comparison of this little movie to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
  • If you want to try to convince the regular editors of World of Warcraft that a blurb about Leeroy would be appropriate in that article, go right ahead, but it's my guess that it will not be desired. Repeating the same arguments over and over in this space is pretty pointless. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:09, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP THIS Perfectly explains what Leeroy Jenkins is about. And let's face it, Leeroy is the newest internet phenominon. --Chef — (Unsigned comment by 24.215.52.234; user's 8th edit.)
• Keep. My friends have been going on and on about it, and even linked to the video that I can't view because my dialup sucks. Finally I looked it up here to figure out what they were rambling about, so it has its use for the clueless like me. --Koji 05:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Karol 05:47, May 27, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a way to get linkspam into wikipedia after those links in RSS (file format) have been removed. Delete. --S.K. 12:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Carnildo 20:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Yoshi348 20:28, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not a web directory and such. Spam. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 11:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smells of vanity from a kilometre away. Delete. — JIP | Talk 12:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As you may have guessed, all the "keep" votes are by the same anonymous user, who hasn't signed any of his comments. This counts as sockpuppetry, so the votes should be disregarded. — JIP | Talk 06:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:That is a lie Lilkimloving 17:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to this, many are on the same campus and as such all appear to have the same external IP address 129.67.43.240 13:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Funny and true - and should therefore stay...anyway, it is hardly entirely flattering

• True -- possibly ? Funny -- to whom ? Wiki-worthy -- beg leave to doubt. Delete, even if he revises his mile-high standing. --Simon Cursitor 12:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Funny to all - wiki-worthy fo sho...

• dab the figure skater and the folk musicain. The vain child should do try to do something notable. Dunc|☺ 13:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation: both of the unsigned "Funny" comments above were contributed by the same anon, 129.67.43.240, who should at least learn to sign his/her entries with ~~~~. RussBlau 13:57, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 14:49, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Contributor should go play outside, as Wikipedia is not the bathroom stall for writing your self-praise upon. Geogre 15:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I didn't write it myself - it was one of my many, many fans...PK

unsigned comment by anon user User:129.67.43.240. — JIP | Talk 06:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Moronic and irrelevant. Scimitar

Keep Wikipedia may not be "the bathroom stall for writing your self-praise upon", but who decreed that it has to be a forum only for those without a sense of humour? I happen to know that it was NOT the illustrious Peter Kennedy himself who contributed this article, and I think we who claim to be his fans have as much a right to celebrate our idol as anyone else.

unsigned comment by anon user User:129.67.43.240. — JIP | Talk 06:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Moronic? The author of this article actually produced some fairly subtle and intelligent humour. I would challenge any of the "delete it" crowd to produce something which would bring a smile to as many people's faces. Irrelevant? Um, last time I checked every article on this site was irrelevant to almost all of the population. The reason things merit a Wikipedia entry is because they are important to SOME people. As this article clearly is. I say it should stay.

unsigned comment by anon user User:129.67.43.240. — JIP | Talk 06:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable, obvious vanity. Megan1967 01:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless every member of the mile-high club can get a page. Vegaswikian 07:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the current nonsense--nixie 14:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep How can this be vanity, re-read it! This needs adding to, not deleting. Possible title-editing to avoid confusion with other Peter Kennedys. Links to this page would be broken if this is deleted - surely for the sake of protecting the cross-linking, this must be kept! lilkimloving
  • lilkimloving (talk · contribs)
  • Comment: Some of the links-to appear inaccurate and possibly both irrelevent and damaging to Wiki --Simon Cursitor 07:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - irrelevant nobody and his "fan club" just proves that - Skysmith 07:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Quale 07:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Evidently not vanity (see keep comments) - should be kept and added to. Shpanda 14:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's first edit - Skysmith 07:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC) NOTE: User:129.67.43.240 removed this comment and has been messing with this page many times. He is likely to to do it again. Could someone check any connection? - Skysmith 09:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Not the figure skater. Not the musician. College prank attack article. Delete. Uncle G 23:28, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Delete. Gosh. And I've met him. James F. (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Why was this even put on VfD? This is a text-book example of a speedy delete. Seriously, I know the guy. ed g2s • talk 22:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; what a waste of time. A2Kafir 16:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

coming from someone that has created entire wikipages dedicated to Asteroids and the Constitutions drawn up for future inhabitants of said asteroids...

Our anonymous friend is referring to the page "9491 Thooft," I believe. A2Kafir 18:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable band. Four google hits Sjakkalle 12:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Advertising, and the band is unsigned. Geogre 15:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails notability test, band vanity. Megan1967 01:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a bit strong, asking for User:Dvanity to be banned ;-) (Oh, and delete for failing WP:MUSIC while we're at it). Chris talk back 02:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability (or lack thereof). -- Krash 19:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete, the band, although unsigned, is mentioned on the Music of Portugal page and therefore reserves the right to an article
  • Can you read up on WP:MUSIC and point to which one of the criteria for notability Purocracy fulfills? Sorry, but if it doesn't fulfill any of those, Purocracy deserves a mention on the Music of Portugal page and not much else. Sjakkalle 06:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity page with no meaningful content Freyr 20:40, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Submitting VfD from May 16, process wasn't completed. -- Longhair | Talk 12:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 12:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity. — JIP | Talk 12:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: DJ Vanity, unsigned, not significant. Geogre 15:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not notable, self promoting etc. 130.88.173.117 13:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cynical 13:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No such article. No speedy deleted revisions either. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the link. I think it can be speedied, though as a recreated previously deleted article. But can someone check on that? --Dmcdevit 07:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - now that we know what it is, I can see that it needs to be killed with a very large axe. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barneyboo 10:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 all. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Entire content of the lead article is "See Free market and Conservatism." The other two are redirects. RussBlau 13:49, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect all to Free market. Cross-section of two valid topics is not generally a valid topic by itself. Radiant_* 14:10, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Radiant — RJH 16:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I thought all modern conservativism (if not most major political parties in 'developed' world) was free market.. - max rspct 17:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, most first-world "conservative" parties pay lip service to Free market principles while practicing mixed economies, even where they hold enough governmental power to change to pure free market policies if they really wanted to. Delete per RussBlau and Radiant, no content worth preserving if any legitimate attempt at writing an article is made. Barno 17:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • well i meant to say 'pro-free market' - i entirely concur with you... and i say that mixed economies are such as it facilitates industrialisation and capitalist development. -max rspct 22:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable, band vanity, seems to have been created solely to whine about some Nepalese charity Jdcooper 14:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems like vanity to me and I only found several hits on google, the rest related to a swedish band of the same name--Sophitus 17:13, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 01:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity/rant copied from http://www.diaboliqueband.com/bandinfo1.htm. Does not appear to be the Diabolique listed on allmusic.com as that band has three albums and this one doesn't seem to have any releases. Gamaliel 01:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep and move to properly capitalized title. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The author's definition of "ancient" seems slightly skewed. St. Paul's Cathedral and Cologne Cathedral at the very least are definitely not ancient. Ancient history in my book is around the time of Christ and prior to that, although the article states until around 476AD. This would leave the Colossus (spelt incorrectly here so it links incorrectly too), Pyramids and Lighthouse, all of which are in Seven Wonders of the World. Delete. Jamyskis 14:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Put a limit of built before 1300 (or another year if that's better) and keep. It is possible to create an objective criterion for inclusion in this list. Sjakkalle 15:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, with ancient defined. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:56, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
• Keep with definition in article. Capitalistroadster 17:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, or retitle (decapitalize last two words) and add definition of "ancient", for which 476 C.E. is better than 1300. Why are these structures sorted by height, and why is height data included rather than who built each structure, or estimated year of construction, or purpose of each structure? List may not be completable, unless a minimum size of "structure" is defined; in any case it's incomplete, as there are many surviving pyramids from various Egyptian dynasties, plus some Assyrian ziggurats and Inca pyramids and such, that are older and larger than most of these entries. Barno 18:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the Lighthouse at Alexandria no longer stands, this article if kept would also need a consensus on whether it includes structures surviving to the present. If so, there would be tens of thousands of structures to list, and hundreds would be notable (the equivalent of City Hall in ancient city, probably replaced once or twice per century), and very little of the information would be verifiable. 205.247.102.130 18:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't really know what year draws the line for "ancient", but I just put in an arbitrary year and landed on 1300. If 476 is better I have no problem with it. Sjakkalle 07:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the 476 definition and some agreement on other inclusion criteria (although you can't include every nonstanding structure, the library is very notable). Also I agree that the title should be fixed. --Laura Scudder | Talk 21:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, fix, and expand. I should be able to find ancient structures in wikipedia. Kappa 22:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep but decapitalize it Yuckfoo 02:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

del non-notable. Mikkalai 15:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there's ten million web forums out there, and this "article" doesn't give us anything more than a web directory entry (which Wikipedia is not). -- Cyrius|✎ 21:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all but the most notable forums. --the wub (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, forum promo. Megan1967 06:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I count 9 "delete" votes (one anon vote discounted), 3 "keep" votes (one probable troll vote discounted) and one too ambiguous to call. Rossami (talk) 22:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

racist, NPOV and, most importantly, there is no evidence this group even exists.--jenlight 16:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete What source is there that this group even exists? This person is the same person who disputes that the The Nation of Gods and Earths article is NPOV. He/She has some greivance against the group. This article is a way to get some point across. It is false information at best.--jenlight 13:16, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• (unsigned nomination by User:Jenlight —Wahoofive (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep — appears to be an existing organization, albeit highly racist. — RJH 16:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hardly any Google results, mostly WP mirrors. Maybe RJH can tell us why s/he thinks they exist. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Possible confusion with The Nation of Gods and Earths, aka Five Percenters. -- Grev -- Talk 16:36, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there's only an article Mugged by Reality by Eugene H. Methvin on the net. He talks about a Dirty Seven Percenters, but not as an organization. Maybe they took the name from there, but I did not find anything connected with a racist group (all Google hits are copies of the Wikipedia). Then there's something about a white guy call Speed that doesn't seem to have anything to do with this. and that's about it. --Marianocecowski 16:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and remove POV. POV is not a criteria for deletion. The is a real orinization. The problems that the article has are all correctable. There is no need for deletion.--Heathcliff 11:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, remove unreferenced, unverified statements and leave as a stub for future expansion. --Fazdeconta 16:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep after fixing up the pov Yuckfoo 02:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. JamesBurns 09:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax, unless evidence of group's existence is shown. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 18:00, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This IS confused with the actual group; the 5%. My source is that I am one. So is the Rap group Brand Nubian, Rakim, Poor Righteous Teachers. It is easy to confuse the name because we use the "7" in our Flag to represent the 7th letter, which stands for "God". The "5%" is used in a symbolic sense to describe how few people know of the True and Living God. 10% refers to those who know, but they do not teach because they "profit" off of the ignorance of the remaining 85%; the Blind, Deaf, and Dumb ... the masses.
• Well. If it's real, keep, if it's not, delete. I'm not in a position to say whether the group exists or not. Everyking 21:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax. Leanne 05:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence that this isn't a hoax, not verifiable and not necessarily notable anyway. Quale 21:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 00:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that this is going to work as an article. Whilst Nazi antisemitic propaganda is undeniable - just about anythng else will be POV (note that the creator's reference to US portrayals of Germans in WWII has already been removed - a POV dispute) Israeli portrayals of Arabs (Arabs of Jews) - Greeks and Turks - Scots and English ....?? Sorry, but I think this should go --Doc Glasgow 15:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC) (or redirect to Propaganda--Doc Glasgow 16:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Valid topic - POV problems are a reason to watch the article carefully, not to keep it out. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:14, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
• Delete — already covered far better on the Propaganda page. — RJH 16:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with RJH--Sophitus 17:13, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I'd have to say that it's better covered at its master topic (propaganda). Propaganda is state-sponsored, so "racist propaganda" is a little strained. Racially based state propaganda is quite possible, but that's too long a name. Plain old racist caricature and stereotyping isn't propaganda. (And yes, the US did try race-based propaganda against the Chinese with the Yellow Peril, and of the Japanese, but state-sponsored and designed racial typing for propaganda purposes is rare in the US, even as casual and private racist slurs are far too common.) Geogre 18:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Propaganda. Stancel 20:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable sub-type of Propaganda, which has grown too large, hence the need to split it out. Klonimus 22:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, already covered in Propaganda. Megan1967 01:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep' it is a real type of propaganda
• Delete already covered in Propaganda. JamesBurns 09:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete content duplication fork. Leanne 05:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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, fittingly enough. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 11:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum.. and it's nn to boot (although I think I could be converted)--Doc Glasgow 15:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect to the creator of this page, THIS is the Tao of Delete. And to that anonymous creator, I'd wait until the term gets at least a hundred Google hits before i'd write an article about it. Right now, it's just a neologism. -- Grev -- Talk 16:17, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete term invented May 11, 2005. Promo. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete any item that is not obviously and immediately necessary is removed or deleted — apply that philosophy to this article! --TimPope 16:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unread it in the process. (Neologism.) Geogre 18:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only if the real, original name is found. Mosquito 04:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems to me that the logical end-rpocess of this is a Wiki containing one article -- this one -- since all other knowledge can be obtained by a phone call (to whom -- now that is the question). --Simon Cursitor 07:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I count 8 clear "delete" votes. I count 6 "keep" votes but three of those were problematic. The anon voter got an id, behaved consistently and shows no evidence of sockpuppetry. I counted his/her vote. I did not grant the same benefit of the doubt to the probable troll. Nat Kraus's opinion was impossible to determine. He explicitly voted "keep" at the top of the list but endorsed deletion at the end. I was forced to consider his vote as too ambiguous to call. That leaves the decision at 8 to 4.

To further complicate matters, it was partially rewritten on 3 June (well after the discussion period ended) to make it more neutral. I am going to call this one as a "no concensus" which defaults to keep for now.

I will add my own opinion that this is not the right place for this content. Despite the current length of the Anarcho-capitalism article, this content belongs on that page. The two articles should be edited until it can fit. Rossami (talk) 01:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Full of POV written only by anarcho-capitalists/ORIGINAL RESEARCH - max rspct 16:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC) (maybe we should have a wiki-debating-chamber-project)[reply]
• Keep or Merge with Anarchism and Capitalism. It's conjecture that it was written by anarcho-capitalists. One who edits an article about anarcho-capitalism isn't necessarily an anarcho-capitalist. Even if it is written by anarcho-capitalists, that should not matter. If it's written POV, then that's what the "edit this page" button is for. RJII 17:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Incidentally, it's not true that this page was written entirely by partisans of one side. Most of the second paragraph, at least, was written by User:23x, an anti-anarcho-capitalist edit warrior. This page was created as a break-out from the anarcho-capitalism article, for the purpose of cutting down on size and making that article flow better. Its existence should be entirely a question of what the most expedient placement of this information is (although it might be better with a different title). I think it kind of conflates two different issues by including both the "a-c vs. rest of modern anarchism" issue and the "disputed ties to 19th century individualists" issue. But that, as RJII say, is a problem that you solve with the Edit button. - Nat Krause 18:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'm not to keen on the title either. Maybe it should be moved. RJII 19:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV and it's not really a comparison anyway, just a list of things that "anarcho-capitalists" believe. Or merge any worthwhile info into Anarcho-capitalism. Stancel 20:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete! Irrelevant, POV, and not worth comparison. Comparison is for things that are similar, they are not similar. Vote to delete! --Fatal 22:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs some cleanup and a more encyclopedic title. Klonimus 22:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and for reason's sake Don't Merge with anarcho-capitalism article. 66.94.94.154 22:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC) (Saswann 00:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment The single biggest problem with Wikipedia is that some topics are filled with POV disputes that never end. This is one of them. This VfD and the problems addressed therein are only symptoms of this larger problem. — Phil Welch 22:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we don't need articles comparing every subject to every other subject. Although Apples vs. oranges would be kind of neat. --W(t) 23:01, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  • The whole point of having this page -- or addressing the subject elsewhere -- is that some people are afeared that the one will be confused with the other. Certainly, if there was a chance that people would get the impression that apples and oranges were the same, it would make more sense to have an article or section discussing the differences. - Nat Krause 02:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - To be honest I'm tempted to say keep it purely to keep the argument in one place. But I agree with the above comment. --JiFish 00:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This appears to be a significant ideological conflict, as judged from all the heat it's caused on the various anarchism-related articles here. Maybe it can actually serve its intended function of getting some of the acrimony away from the other articles. *Dan* 00:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Klonimus 04:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge into Anarcho-Capitalism article. Says nothing new. --albamuth 18:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep this please Yuckfoo 02:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, far too many pages are already being wasted on this. It is important in the context of ancap claims, but not important enough to warrant its own article. Trim to one or two paragraph and reinsert into the ancap article, where it belongs.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 10:53, May 23, 2005 (UTC) (sorry, I forgot to sign at first)
• Delete - As was said above, this is not really a comparisan of the two, more like an advertisement for just one, anarcho-capitalism. Its also pointless as much of this has and could be said on the anarchism and anarcho-capitalism pages themselves. Seems like an unncessary extension of the debate. Delete -CunningLinguist 07:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How about merging with Anarchism and capitalism? 66.94.94.154 12:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC) (Saswann 00:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Too dissimilar - why don't u create an account name? (if your serious about wikipedia) - max rspct 12:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment loging in is a pain 66.94.94.154 19:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC) (um, see? Saswann)[reply]
      • It may be a pain, but it's necessary for voting. You need to sign the votes you made above or they don't count, and you need to vote only once, and qualify the rest as comments. You voted twice above I think, without logging in.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 23:24, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment is that better? (The second wasn't a vote, but a suggestion on what to do with this if it decides to hang around.) Saswann 00:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Much better, I'm just trying to make things easier for you, because it is common practice to dismiss anonymous votes. You don't need to put "comment" on the replies you put, just freestanding comments that aren't indented and could be misconstrued as a vote :P-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 07:04, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Anyway, my point is that this was removed out of the anarcho-capitalism article because of length (like anarcho-capitalist literature and crypto-anarchism) so it shouldn't merge back there. Saswann 20:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forget rewrite it may as well get deleted. starting with the title and then.. Each paragraph (5) - starts with anarcho-capitalism except 4 which has 'other anarchists' just before. Tis created by and is the jot-pad of anarcho-caps who can't get their un-encyclopedic POV ramblings into other articles. -max rspct 23:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I would be happy to see this material deleted. - Nat Krause 04:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 since there was no consensus. I am surprised. Sjakkalle 08:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not much meaningful content, extremely poor wiki-practice in article

• Delete. If the school in question turns out to be important enough and someone wants to contribute, "Technology High School" is hardly appropriate for the title of the page. Hardwick 16:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete does not establish notability --TimPope 16:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, maybe there is a technology high school out there that is notable, but this article isn't the way to write about it.--Sophitus 17:15, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, article has been improved a bit, needs expansion now--Sophitus 11:14, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under criterion #1: A sentence fragment is not an article. (Space below provided for the usual group to come along without reading the article and swear that it's a great and vital piece of information because it has "school" in its name.) Geogre 18:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All schools are notable, and articles on them must be kept at all costs! Speedy delete as above. --Carnildo 20:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as above. Keep. All schools are notable, and articles on them must be kept at all costs! User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 22:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and continue to expand. Kappa 21:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep' please and expand too Yuckfoo 21:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Now a stub containing interesting info although would have supported deletion of substub. Capitalistroadster 00:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is nothing unique about this school. "Project-based learning" is not at all unusual. Rossami (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• School looks like it might be notable, but the article is distinctly lacking in evidence, not to mention easily exceeding its bullshit quota. Withholding judgement for now. Chris talk back 02:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Gamaliel 04:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand, as with all short school articles. --Zantastik 06:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect with Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District. — RJH 16:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, school. Grue 18:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, valid school stub. —RaD Man (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. NPOV and verifiable. Good subject, article getting better with time. Schools belong here. --Unfocused 06:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District and delete - Skysmith 07:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As is typical of a school stub, this one doesn't even clearly tell you where the school is, but instead makes you go to Sonoma State before you can tell even what country it's in. The three sentences in this article could be usefully merged into Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District. Quale 07:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this stumpy little article Lupin 14:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. If you have a problem with information not being included in the article, add it to the article, don't delete it. Secondary schools are notable. --BaronLarf 14:39, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 11:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by BaronLarf, but never placed on vfd; later changed to a redirect. I'm placing it on vfd now, although I made this an article and think it should be kept - the subject was a powerful and important figure in the school system, and there was some controversy over a school being named after him while he was still serving on the board. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:47, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

• • In case it's not clear, the above is a vote to keep! -- BD2412 ^talk 00:31, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
• Comment I'll reserve a vote until the article contains enough notable information about why Michael Krop should have his own article. If his importance is due to his stature in a local school board, then I would think his profile would best belong in the article on the school (where it already is) or an article on the school district.--BaronLarf 17:49, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Miami is a big enough school system for mine to make this notable. Capitalistroadster 17:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The only criterion for removing him that I see is notability, and I figure he's notable- Scimitar
• keep this person is encyclopedic Yuckfoo 21:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being on the local school board is very much like being a director of the Education department over here, a role which is equally short of the "You must be this notable to ride Wikipedia" mark. That, and no evidence presented of having done anything other than being on the school board. (I've sat in on a few meetings of the education committee in my local council - nothing that they do separates them out from other local councillors). Chris talk back 02:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'd point out that Miami-Dade County is one of the largest counties in the U.S., with a bigger population than many U.S. states... so this particular position is probably a step up in authority and responsibility from your local education director. And Krop was on the board far longer than the average member - most board members don't get high schools named for them (a pretty hefty honor - even if he did have a hand in the naming). -- BD2412 ^talk 04:59, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
    • Well, I find none of the members of the School Board for the 6th largest school district to be noteable. So being a bit larger probably does not make much of a difference. Delete Vegaswikian 07:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect with Dr. Michael M. Krop High School article, as needed. — RJH 16:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not establish notability, 44 google hits (for "National Elite Underground Alliance") only --TimPope 16:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The group very rarely referred to itself by its expanded acronym, which is why the article title is NEUA and not "National Elite Underground Alliance". NEUA returns over 37,000 google hits, many of which are referring to a type of Thai beef dish. I have disambiguated the article. —RaD Man (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete, warez groups are not notable. Martg76 17:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A moron-magnet article, and it celebrates a group with no verifiability at all. (If it's secret, then we can't prove there are people in it.) Aside from that, it is not an encyclopedic topic. Geogre 18:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the group should become more notable (or widely known, or provable) first, then it can gain a Wikipedia entry. I have no idea what a "warez group" is; if you know, post the definition on my talk page. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - you might want to take a look at List of warez groups and Category:Warez groups... DopefishJustin (・∀・) 20:29, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for historical posterity, the article contents are both verifiable and NPOV. Google serves as a poor barometer in this case because it is an underground group from the early 1990s, before the internet was commercialized. —RaD Man (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Radman, failing that merge somewhere. Kappa 23:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and expand. Concur with Radman. Megan1967 01:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Disambig since Neua is a common word in some places either a location or something about food. Leave the dictdef as one of the entries. Vegaswikian 07:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a disambig is necessary since the other meanings aren't ALL CAPS... DopefishJustin (・∀・) 20:28, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep agree 100% with rad, this is from the pre internet boom era... BBS timeframe data is sorely under represented by google.  ALKIVAR™ 08:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and everyone wait a minute. . . . . . FIFTY PERCENT of this entry is quotes by "other rival competing warez groups" talking shit about NEUA. It's not encyclopedic and it doesn't belong here. We should think twice before allowing entries for online groups/communities because their size/importance/notability is nearly impossible to establish and their membership usually anonymous. With a computer, an Internet connection and a strong pot of coffee I could probably create another NEUA-like cyberentity that might appear to some to be Wiki-worthy. --Fazdeconta 17:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure you could, if you possessed the ability to travel backwards in time. If you are unimpressed with its brevity, then by all means, please expand it; I know I will. —RaD Man (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Where else do you get to read about Warez group, even though the notability is questionable, the disambig page will lead many people to other warez topic --Bobbagum 19:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please these are real subjects Yuckfoo 02:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 12:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent eccentric with a PhD and one journal publication. May be vanity (contributor's only edits are to this page). Not notable. Delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:10, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

• Delete. 55 Google hits, some are mirrors. Owns a company, but I don't think it meets notability criteria. Scimitar
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Quale 08:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedy. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 04:26, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Another NN internet forum. Spelled wrong, too. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy as a recreation of a previously deleted article. android↔talk 18:46, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied. RickK 20:34, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The strict vote count would lead to a delete decision. (I count 8 delete to 4 keep as merge or redirect.) The current content is a mere dictionary definition and, based on the evidence presented during this discussion, is a neologism. Personally, I see no possiblity of expansion past the dicdef. The exact content is in the bisexuality article (though that is a recent addition to the article and may not last).

I am going to call this one as a delete decision with a qualifier. If the definition remains stable in the bisexuality article, please contact me so that I can restore the article and turn it into an appropriate redirect. (This is necessary to preserve the attribution history - a requirement of GFDL.) Rossami (talk) 02:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

nn neologism--Doc Glasgow 17:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - already covered by bi-curious — Rickyrab | Talk 19:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 20:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to bisexuality. There's a section there on terminology, so I added this term to it. Bi-curious is a little different. -- Beland 02:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this one-sentence dicdef into bisexuality. Jonathunder 03:28, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
• Delete - do not merge - do not re-direct. No googles neologism - it is unverifiable that this term has ever had even moderate usage. --Doc Glasgow 10:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Bisexuality. Megan1967 03:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no merge or redirect, per Doc Glasgow; the Google test should find a contemporary English sexual neologism with any usage at all. Samaritan 02:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neologism with no evidence of any usage at all. Quale 19:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bisexuality. Leanne 05:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neologism with no evidence of any usage at all. Axon 14:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- if Beland already added the term to a section of Bisexuality, that should be sufficient. Frankly I find the term a little ugly.

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 11:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• COMPLETED MERGE, NEED ADMIN to set as complete on Vfd page. Thanks <>Who 17:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete substub about a non-notable episode of an insignificant cartoon series. Stancel 20:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Deeeeeee-lete! — Rickyrab | Talk 20:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Ed, Edd, and Eddy; no real reason not to. --Yoshi348 20:39, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh lord, every single episode listed there has had an article created? (p.s. delete) DopefishJustin (・∀・) 21:06, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 22:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A similar VFD discussion concerning another article about an Ed, Edd, and Eddy episode can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Ed-Touchables. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know the show, but I believe television shows are per se notable, and we have a well established practice of articles on individual episodes. So why not... But it might as well be merged and redirected into Ed, Edd, and Eddy while it's such a tiny little stub, to be expanded back out later when someone can write more. If it has been expanded by the time this vfd is complete, you can interpret this vote as "keep." Postdlf 22:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• merge all episodes, by season if you like. No need for separate articles. Sabine's Sunbird 00:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all episodes. Martg76 12:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just out of sympathy with the one closing the debate. If the result turns out to be merge, the one closing this debate will be merging Ed, Edd n Eddy articles until Christmas. Sjakkalle 08:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, perhaps with one page per season. - SimonP 22:46, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• SEE TOP
  • Please don't put comments at the top. They just get lost during the closing process. Now moved to the bottom where they belonged. Rossami (talk) 00:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Consenus was made to merge all ep's into season pages. Admin please place this page in "completed" status, thank you. <>Who 17:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have any problems with the merge, please see this VfD debate, as the consensus was originally to keep, however other seasons/episodes were to merge. Therefore in order to keep cohesion, all of them are being merged.<> Who 07:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 and redirect. Rossami (talk) 00:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not notable. We shouldn't create an article for every single Mozilla/Firefox extensions.--minghong 20:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of news aggregators.----Isaac R 21:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Nateji77 07:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. (If someone else wants to move the content to BJAODN, feel free. I have not.) Rossami (talk) 22:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apparent joke, most references are to Wikipedia article or part of tech joke pages, like [6] (scroll down to #8). A2Kafir 20:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Joke/hoax, though since it "remove[s] all unimportant data from the data set," it would be useful on Wikipedia... android↔talk 20:32, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:46, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Megan1967 02:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN. Must be a hoax, since we still have all those one-liners about schools. Chris talk back 04:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 11:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a vanity page. --Laura Scudder | Talk 20:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The resemblence is striking. Delete. --W(t) 20:28, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
• Delete Scimitar
• Delete as vanity. — JIP | Talk 06:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: If advertising on Wikipedia is a demonstration of her tech savvy, she needs to go back to school and turn off TechTV. Geogre 12:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.