Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 13

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. – ABCD 01:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable character in non-notable short story by non-notable writer. RickK 04:39, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• He appears to be a recurring character in many of the stories by Rita Maria Felix da Silva, for whom we don't have an author. Her full name gets only 40 googles, so I'll provisionally say she's not notable, but I'm not sure how good their coverage of Brazilian authors is, especially because I'm not sure when she lived. Provisional delete, but I'll change my mind if someone convinces me she's notable. Meelar (talk) 05:02, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • If this goes, we may also want to delete San Juan Romero, about the short story itself. Meelar (talk) 05:02, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neologism, do not transwiki, delete--nixie 05:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism. Dave the Red (talk) 06:44, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 08:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. I forget what that word means, but if it means "vague useless semi-dictionary crap" I'm all for deleting it! Master Thief Garrett 05:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Joss Stone. – ABCD 02:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity or harassment. unencyclopedic either way. Rhobite 05:08, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Turn it into a redirect for Joss Stone, who seems to get a few Google hits with this incorrect version of her name. Certainly more than any "lesbian poet" called Jess Stone. Grutness|^hello? 06:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with Grutness. Meelar (talk) 07:24, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Joss Stone. Megan1967 08:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• But since this is a likely attack page, delete before redirecting. Samaritan 16:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. ugen64 21:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ALigned + water + theory on google gets no hits, hoax, delete--nixie 05:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect Not a hoax but pseudo-science. This is the "theory" that water molecules can be aligned resulting in all sorts of magical things like homeopathy being possible. In this case, the article's author claims that Meridian_(TCM) are circuits of "Aligned water" that flow in the body. Redirect to Homeopathy. Klonimus 07:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I was about to agree, but got stuck trying to decide if it should redirect to Homeopathy or Meridian_(TCM). This article is more than a directionary definition, has a fair level of detail, and mentions a source but unfortunately does not cite it. On the whole I think it should be a redirect and merge with Meridian_(TCM). Oddly, a search on "aligned water" meridian yields only one hit and one on "aligned water" homeopathy yields none, making me wonder whether this theory has some other name. If it is invoked in contexts outside traditional Chinese medicine, I'd be incline to say keep, if the reference to Shui-Yin Lo is properly sourced. It needs some NPOV-tweaking. I think it's already fairly clear that the theory is not accepted by mainstream Western science or medicine, but this could be clearer. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sure that there is some other more "scientific" name for the thoery the underlies homeopathy. Perhaps a small article could be writen that explains the alleged theory that liquid water molecules can be aligned to form super structures, and that this theory undlies homeopathy, and is a proposed mechanism for the existance and actions of Meridian_(TCM). "aligned water medicine" scores 0.95 megagoogles. With links to such gems as Klonimus 19:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Primordial M-Water™ is a Perfect Living Water concentrate that is imbued with super coherent life supporting primordial vibration and energy as well as super coherent molecular clustering. With Primordial M-Water™ there is an integration of advanced scientific theory and profound functional health benefits that go beyond limited medical mechanisms."

I only get 178 Google hits on the phrase "aligned water" and most are irrelevant. I only get 16 on "aligned water" medicine. What search exactly are you using? Dpbsmith (talk) 12:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Shui-Yin Lo citation may refer to this: [3]. Brona 01:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Uh...primordial vibration? Booyah! I wanna take a bath in the stuff!! Oh, and delete as tinfoil hattery unless the term can be better supported. - Lucky 6.9 04:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh, read the article. It's pseudoscience, but it does not say anything about primordial vibrations. That's Klonimus making a worthwhile effort to try to put it into pseudoscientific context.

The question to my mind is whether "aligned water theory" is a term in real use. I don't think it is and accordingly I'm voting for deletion. By the way, I don't think the concept is automatically utter bosh, as water molecules are very high polar and I'm sure I learned in chemistry class decades ago that they do cluster in some way, perhaps like "magnetic domains" in magnetic material. Water is not normally considered to be a "liquid crystal" but it may exhibit some kind of crystalline-like behavior. It's a looooooonnnnnng way from there to any explanation for acupuncture, but it's much more convincing pseudoscience than "primordial vibrations" are.

By the way... there's a 1950s story by Jack Finney, called, IIRC, "Such Interesting Neighbors." The narrator talks about his neighbors who the reader quickly recognizes as time-travellers from the future. He makes a living out of amazing "inventions." One that still sends a chill down my spine is one that he demonstrates to the narrator. It looks like a flashlight, but it measures distance. He pushes a button on it and a beam of light, in Finney's words "a special kind of light" comes out, and it reads off the distance in feet and inches. When asked how it works, the neighbor replies "On flashlight batteries." What gives me the creeps is that at the time I read it, I said to myself "A special kind of light? What nonsense!" I ask you, if someone had tried to describe lasers and coherent illumination light to you in the 1950s, wouldn't you have thought it was nonsense or pseudoscience? Dpbsmith (talk) 12:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I was only kidding about the bath part. Really. :) - Lucky 6.9 22:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. The question to my mind is whether the phrase "aligned water theory" is a recognized term in the acupuncture and/or homeopathy community, and I don't think it is. I have merged the relevant material into Meridian_(TCM) and added a comment on the Talk page that preserves history for GFDL purposes, allowing this article to be deleted without violating GFDL. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) Changed vote, see below

• • Comment Remember polywater? Whatever happened to polywater? (show preview... no redlink... click click) Ah, we have a very good article on it. Somebody should try re-running those cold fusion experiments using polywater!Dpbsmith (talk) 12:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to water memory, if this is the theory behind homeopathy and not a different branch of pseudoscience. Reading the article, it's kind of hard to tell. Shimmin 17:21, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, "water memory" is what I was trying to uh, remember. Works for me. Accordingly:
• Redirect to water memory, add a brief mention there that a similar theory has been advanced to explain Meridian_(TCM), making sure to link to that article. Only a mention is needed as I have merged the current contents of Aligned water theory with Meridian_(TCM). Dpbsmith (talk) 19:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. ugen64 21:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even if the awful title was fixed – Girlfriends (pornographic actor websites)? – all this article says is that adult film performers use reciprocal links. If someone wanted to write an article about pornographic actor websites, this would be notable to that, but this bit of information would presumably be obvious on looking at such websites. ("Subliminal?") Samaritan 05:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Not everyone who wants to find out about pornographic websites also wants to look at them. Kappa 08:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree! I'm saying I suspect it's too granular. And that the author of a hypothetical article on pornographic actor websites would have no trouble accessing this information. (Or, as Starblind puts it below...) Samaritan 14:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with main 'girlfriend' page, as alternate usage of the word. Radiant_* 09:16, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Girlfriend, concur with Radiant. Megan1967 10:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Make a "glossary" section in Internet pornography and merge it with that. This usage is not worth a mention on the main girlfriend page. Kappa 10:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Internet pornography. This has nothing to do with the general meaning of "girlfriend" but is a specific pornography term. — JIP | Talk 11:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I think it's a stretch for this to even warrant a merge. Since it's basically a dicdef (and unlikely to evolve past that), the glossary idea is the most sensible, but that's also a stretch since the term pretty much defines itself. I can't imagine anybody browsing a porn site and exclaiming "GIRLFRIENDS?! What on earth does THAT mean?! I'd better check Wikipedia!" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • The term doesn't explain itself, because the word normally means "female friend" but in this case it means "someone who's part of a mutually promiting web ring, but is described as a friend to mislead visitors". Kappa 19:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Kappa has a point, but I'd still merge with Internet pornography, as advised by — JIP | Talk above. Also, the description is wrong - this is not subliminal, but superliminal. -- 8^D ^gab 22:12, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Delete, Concur w/ Starblind. Slac speak up! 22:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Samaritan. GeeZee 04:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Francisco Franco. – ABCD 21:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do not mistake this for an article on Franco's Spain (which is already covered btw here Francisco_Franco#Spain_under_Franco), this is gamecruft and possibly vanity. Delete and redirct to Francisco Franco--Halidecyphon 05:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity, NationStatescruft, very oddly formatted. RickK 06:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect. Gamecruft. Dave the Red (talk) 06:42, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't redirect. Individual users of any particular game are not notable enough to be redirected. RickK 23:10, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe the redirect is done to the page on General Franco, just incase someone does not type in a ' between the o and s. Zscout370 00:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, I misunderstood. Never mind. RickK 04:16, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• So he finally was destroyed? Cool. As a former player of the game I have to say that the facts stated in the article are mostly true. His dictatorship of one of the largest regions in the game was notorious and longstanding. Grue 19:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Self-promotion or hoax (unverifiable), I couldn't find anyting on political activist D. J. O'Connonr from Ohio --nixie 05:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Dave the Red (talk) 06:39, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Sjakkalle 11:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep it and categorize it to vanity. Agasides 11:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Stroke by Agatharhides)
  • User has about 30 edits, and self-proclaimed sock of controversial User:Iasson.
    • Do you think so? If it was really Iasson who did this, I think he is doing it because he hate us and he wants to abuse our public account. Maybe he wants to take revenge, because he was judged by ArbCom as responsible for the creation of our beloved Acestorides-Faethon public accounts case and he was banned for 3 months due to this. Anyway, we, the Acestorides public account series, we are not going to tolerate Iasson's vandalisms in Vfd. We are commited to reverse any Iasson's stupid peculiar vote that is casted through our beloved ancien greeks series public account. Agatharcides 21:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I am sorry Agatharcides-grammarian, but currently you are NOT a legitimate descedant of the ancien greek series! Currently, the correct descendant account from the series is myself, the well known Agathar-ch-ides the historian and NOT yourself, the pathetic Agathar-c-ides-grammarian!!! Who are you trying to fool? Agatharchides 21:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh, goodie, Iasson's talking to himself again. --Calton | Talk 11:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • How many times I have to tell you? We are not Iasson. We are Faethon. Iasson may use our public account once in a while, but we are trying to get rid of him. We are constantly deleting whatever he is saying, and especially his stupid peculiar votes. Agatharchus 16:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Radiant_* 12:32, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete uber-vanity. Oliver Keenan 19:16, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Briangotts 18:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 01:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Link broken and comic nowhere to be found. Possibly self-promotion. Unimportant and unnotable comic. Out of almost 2500 comics in my VFBLOSC, why this? Nestea 06:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think Nestea pretty much covered all that needed to be said about this vote for deletion. The entry itself seems like shameless self-promotion through an obscure medium, in addition to being something that lacks any real following anywhere, as far as I can tell. Just look at some of the other Wiki topics, then compare the followings between this and any other. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't seem important enough to need a Wikipedia topic. . . Joseph Collins 06:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN webcomic. Radiant_* 09:15, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Nestea. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete, there is absolutly no reason to. First of all, The link is not broken. Second of all, it is unlikely that this is self promotion. It is a webcomic on the internet that many people view for their enjoyment. There for, this article deserves to be on Wikipedia. Give me one good reason why you think this is self promotion?
• Do Not Delete Hello, I am the creator of this comic. So what? It isnt as popular as Bob and George but it dosn't deserve to have its article deleted because of that. Just think about. I plan on building my website to the popularity of Bob and George one day. Just because it isnt very well known now dosn't mean it won't be someday. Also, I did NOT write this article for self promotion. Not once do I say to visit the site. I made this article because SK&F is a part of the huge world of media. It deserves to have an article. SwordKirby537 16:01, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, so it might not be self-promotion. It's still vanity. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for things popular and/or notable, not for things that MIGHT BECOME popular and/or notable! If you want to make your site popular, that's alright. But for now, don't think that just because you try to make your site popular doesn't mean you can go rank yourself up with Bob and George and 8-Bit Theater. Nestea 21:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and doesn't carry articles because their subjects will be famous "one day". --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 22:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well since it looks like it will wind up being deleted let me say this: This article WILL be back someday. Just you wait.
    • Actually, we hope it does some back someday, once notability has been established. As for why we don't take articles based on potential future notability, just think: every kid in preschool right now could grow up and be the one to find a cure for cancer... but obviously we can't have articles on them all just because they might do something someday. Anyway, you've got a good start to a quality web comic. Work on it, promote it, and keep at it. I hope to see you (and it) back on Wikipedia soon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 21:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are no Google results for this term. I can't find any similar terms based on a search of nationality and recipe ingredients.

Lotsofissues 06:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Though I dare say it is a real recipe, I too can't find any evidence of such, and the article fails to establish notability. DDerby 07:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 08:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: "Gaymeh" appears to be a real sort of food, the chicken part is news to Google and Altavista. --Cuervo 11:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete recipes are not valid articles, and this sub-stub doesn't even give me an idea of what kind of dish this is. BigFatDave 23:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was move. ugen64 21:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling that that this article is bordering on advertising for a boot manufacturer, although it seems disguised as an encyclopedic article. I am not at all an expert on fashion, but the articles makes no statement as to who is recognizing Australian boots as a unique style, I seem to remember something called "peacock term" or "weasel term". Sjakkalle 07:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ugg boots. -- Hoary 08:06, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
  • They are not the same thing as Ugg boots, they have been made since the 1860s and are uniquely Australian, the article should be moved to Australian work boots and kept. The odd claim about fashion should be removed unless someone has a source. --nixie 11:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and rename to Australian work boots as per nixie. Definitely not the same as ugg boots. --bainer 13:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Nixie is right, they are not Ugg boots (eew) nor are they known as Australian boots, but rather work/worker boots. In context, the article title should be Australian work boots. I vote KEEP so long as the name change occurs, and the article is significantly improved/expanded. As it is, the article does not warrant inclusion.--Cyberjunkie 13:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Clearly nothing like Ugg boots—read the description. Rename/keep. Rossi call them Work Boots - ELASTIC SIDE; Blundstone seem to just call them Originals; R. M. Williams just call them elastic-sided boots. I had no idea they were uniquely Australian until this came up. --ScottDavis 15:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If we can have an article on aglets or Flip-flops, I don't see a problem with this. My prefered title might be elastic sided boots, which seems to be the industry term. Oh, and here's a link about fashionability in Canada [4]. Securiger 17:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per nixie. --InShaneee 19:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per nixie . Alphax ^τεχ 06:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Australian work boots. Megan1967 07:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Australian work boots. I don't think there's an Aussie alive who doesn't know RM's. (Yes that's what we call them). --Chammy Koala 16:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, happy to have renamed as per suggestions above (prefer elastic-sided boots) but not to redirect as Ugg boots. I also had no idea that they were Australian until reading this article. --AYArktos 08:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as Australian work boots. They are distinctive and notable enough to have their own entry. One colloquial name used for them is blunnies (derived from the dominant brand Blundstone) --Takver 07:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as AWB (or blunnies ;) Felix the Cassowary 06:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as AWB or blundstones (effectively used as a generic (ala Hoover) in Australia).Fifelfoo 02:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not really encyclopaedic - more link spam / vanity? Geldart 07:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. "Not really encyclopedic" is an understatement. Sjakkalle 08:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Dave the Red (talk) 19:41, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)\
• delete as per DTR BigFatDave 22:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 21:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Bryan Schwor is a 2004 movie directed by Neil Vanos.... but IMDB hasn't heard of it (or Vanos), and Google seems not to have done so either. The budget is minuscule (we are told); perhaps the noteworthiness of this film (if it even exists) is correspondingly minuscule. -- Hoary 08:02, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 08:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notable films always have some sort of presence. Even festival films are listed somewhere. This one isn't. Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I have personally seen this film. The films lack of budget is quite obvious. It is about 45 minutes long and is relatively amusing, though the editing is less than perfect. The Silly Goose group are students at Washington State University in Pullman, Washington. Their company has no affiliation with the university, although their films are known on campus. While not incredibly notable, I would say it doesn't deserve deletion. Jim8675309 16:45, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • User has 4 edits. --InShaneee 19:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, unverifiable. Xezbeth 16:49, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, appears to be vanity. --InShaneee 19:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable indie film. Dave the Red (talk) 19:39, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not incredibly notable = Not incredibly notable, possible vanity. VladMV ٭ ^talk 22:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I live in Idaho, near Pullman. I haven't seen the film, but have certianly heard of it. This is somewhat of a local cult film, but to persons living in the northwest this would definately be interesting. ...posted anonymously (and at the very top) by Zechenia edit: sorry for the top post thing, I am kind of new to the editing feature
  • Comment: this is Zechenia's sole contribution to WP so far. -- Hoary 02:15, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
• Keep I saw Bryan Schwor at a Spokane theatre, though I live in Pullman, about three hours away. I drove to Spokane specifically to see Schwor after it became the topic of discussion on the WSU campus and in Pullman coffee shops (I am something of a small-budget film nut--there are a lot of gems hidden out there, and Bryan Schwor rates high on the list of films produced locally). I would estimate that 95% of WSU students and people living in Pullman have heard of or watched the movie, not to mention all the rural communities in the PNW. MooVluvr 21:17, 13 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All MooVluvr's contributions to WP so far have been to this single VfD. -- Hoary 04:37, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
• Keep Eventual Inland Northwest cult classic!!! JoseMonzako
  • User has two edits.
• Keep.saw this film at the lewiston fair. Relevance is minor, though I can corroborate that it does exist. CalveroTheFlame
  • User has ten edits.
• I exist too, as far as you know. Delete as sockpuppet-supported vanity. - Lucky 6.9 05:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Non-Voting Comment: All newbs votes shouldn't count. I mean, if they haven't had their accounts longer than this discussion it's inconceivable that they have edited articles without having accounts. They must be sockpuppets.

• That would seem more the sort of logic that (in certain contexts) people derride as "consipiracy theory." It's not inconceivable that people would edit articles without having accounts - I did so myself for a bit before I registered this one. But you are right that it is overwhelmingly unlikely that a whole bunch of new people would sign on just in time to vote on a VFD. Any one case could be coincidence, but a whole lot of them at once is very unlikely. Anyway - enough of my rant for now - I gotta run to class delete. --Blackcats 19:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Although many users outside of the inland northwest might not know the story, many people may want to keep this if they are searching for short films that have humor. Definite keepppp3
  • User has 5 edits. --InShaneee 21:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Though I have not heard of it, nor seen it, it is possible that it exists. This is how Napolean Dynomite began. Dr Ingel 01:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• User joined Wikipedia today. --InShaneee 21:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Non voting comment, Just because someone has new does not mean that they have not read the articles or have an honest opinion. It is for reasons like this that Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers was created
    • Those sub-comments aren't really intended as newby-biting, that just a side-effect. The idea is that admins and others can judge if something is a relatively neutral opinion from a regular user, or a possibly biased opinion from an outsider connected with the article. Kappa 21:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I notice that the article is now sprouting red links to not-yet articles on the otherwise unknown filmmakers. -- Hoary 03:52, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
• Keep Although I haven't heard of the film, it seems reliable enough, does it not? Or do people often post fake stuff? I'm new to this whole Wikipedia thing... posted at 04:17, 2005 Apr 15 by 4.191.36.22
• Delete. People post fake stuff all the time, and this is an example. IMDb never heard of it, and they'll list anything. "Brian Schwor" vanos yields 0 google hits. Article is awfully written to boot, and is less than credible. -R. fiend 14:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The Wikipedia:Vanity page describes vanity as an article which describes a person, but says "Articles about start-up businesses or musicians are not vanity pages and are considered acceptable, but it's preferable that the initial author not be someone affiliated with the project." This may be a small film companies movie, but by wikipedia's standards is not vanity. It should also be noted that "A page should not be cast away as 'vanity' simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Wikipedia, and therefore, lack of fame should be completely ignored in deletion debates." -Zechenia 11:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not a member so i dont know if my vote even counts, but i'll throw my two cents in here: its a small movie and small movie company. The whole point of wikipedia is you can find articles you normally can't find in other sources. Just like the articles on various California highways and their history: are they notable? If you live in the area, yes. Article worthy? Will some people find it interesting? Apparently yes. It's being snobish to say "It doesn't count because it's small, even though it meets the Wikipedia basic standards, it doesn't meet our standards." The Wikipedia-Masters out there might wanna just relax a little. Also, there's some sockpuppet stuff going on here though, which is stupid.
  • Comment I resent being called a puppet. Yes, I was new at the time I posted my vote, but I am still an active member. The Bryan Schwor article was just the first thing I saw that I thought I should contribute too after creating my account. MooVLuvr 19:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not on imdb, zero Google hits that are not Wikipedia and its mirrors. In fact, the first Google hit is this VfD page. Besdies, the sockpuppet level has been exceeded. RickK 21:36, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Funny movie. --168.212.126.126 21:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)~
  • Anon has 6 edits. VladMV ٭ ^talk 16:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep FroggyMoore 23:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. How can we take this movie seriously when it's movie company's web site is on GeoCities, a free web hosting service. [5] Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Oh? A Geocities URL is a superb bit of reverse snobbery and one of the few endearing features of the company. It's far better than the obvious alternative: www.veryimpressivename.com, mere vanity URL gimmickry leading (via the unnecessary complication of frames) to Geocities or similar. -- Hoary 02:54, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Delete vanity CDC (talk) 03:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Regardless of how noteworthy it currently is, I see no truly compelling reason why this article should be deleted. Cries of vanity seem like an excuse to silence these "Schwor" zealots. The film appears to be, and in all likelihood, a small student-based film by a new motion picture company supported by unusually devoted fans and their respective sockpuppets. We should notice that many great film makers have had similiar beginnings. For example: Trey Parkers film Cannibal! The Musical, which has origins very similiar to this film. --Fritz9000 07:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• And many insignificant filmmakers have had similar beginnings. Potential to become notable some time in the future does not make something encyclopedic. Gamaliel 18:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Fritz' account was created today. RickK 19:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Question: before we even begin considering keeping this article, can anyone offer any proof whatsoever that this film even exists? -R. fiend 13:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Nope. RickK 19:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. According to their website, you can buy the DVD. You have to mail them or e-mail them. --67.106.16.59 02:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • So, in order to verify that this film, which gets ZERO Google hits, exists, somebody has to send this fly-by-night company money and just HOPE that they actually send a DVD? RickK 20:47, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete due to non-notability and sockpuppet activity. Gamaliel 18:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This movie is so sweet. --67.106.16.59 02:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Anon has 6 edits. VladMV ٭ ^talk 16:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not notable. -- Curps 08:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity, delete. andy 08:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• speedy, speedy, speedy, delete. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Thue | talk 08:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity article.BriteHumer 10:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:BriteHumer is a known vandal. Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 21:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Silly Goose Productions is an independant [sic] movie studio founded in Spokane, Washington in 2004 by Neil Vanos, Mark Soissons, and Adam Van Hoy. The company has produced several popular comedy films... Google hints that something called "Silly Goose Productions" exists, but there's no hint that it makes movies. Googling for "silly goose" plus any one of "vanos", "soissons" and "hoy" is equally uninformative. This is either a hoax, or unnotable. (You may also be interested in Bryan Schwor, an article about a no-budget movie that it has allegedly created.) -- Hoary 08:15, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

• Delete as per Bryan Schwor. --InShaneee 19:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, unverifiable. Xezbeth 04:35, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Bryan Schwor, which I have seen.CalveroTheFlame
  • User has ten edits.
• Keep see Bryan Schwor Zechenia 10:24, Apr 13, 2005
  • Zechenia has four edits. User:148.63.153.45, who wrote the above comment, also has four.
• Delete. Radiant_* 08:26, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry, Idahoan socks, but it's delete from me. --Calton | Talk 11:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Brian Schwor. -R. fiend 14:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The Wikipedia:Vanity page describes vanity as an article which describes a person, but says "Articles about start-up businesses or musicians are not vanity pages and are considered acceptable, but it's preferable that the initial author not be someone affiliated with the project." This may be a small film companies movie, but by wikipedia's standards is not vanity. It should also be noted that "A page should not be cast away as 'vanity' simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Wikipedia, and therefore, lack of fame should be completely ignored in deletion debates." Therefore, does not deserve deletion.-Zechenia 11:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: that wasn't posted by Zechenia but by an IP number. Wikipedia:Vanity page isn't fixed policy -- which is good, because the last part that was quoted is very bizarre. (If there is indeed no consensus about the necessary value of X, this implies that the value of X is debatable. If the value of X is debatable, why should we unquestioningly follow the author when he/she tells us that it's zero?) As for This may be a small film companies movie, I thought it was claimed to be a company, not a movie. -- Hoary 06:54, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
    • I believe the debate over Bryan Schwor has spilled into this. Calm down. Actually, upon reading that, It looks as if someone went to the comment in Bryan Schwor felt it was important to be seen here, and pasted the code here(including my username). All though it isn't fixed policy it was posted because it is policy, and should be known by those who vote--Zechenia 18:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • "Calm down" -- who, me? I've calmly pointed out that that the policy isn't fixed (as you concede), that it's confused, and that this company appears to be of negligible notability. -- Hoary 08:41, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Comment You seemed to be over reacting to someones mistake. This article and Bryan Schwor seem to go in hand, so someone copied a point I made in the other article here. --Zechenia 19:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No harm in keeping something that is real, even if it is sort of small. The point of Wikipedia is that you find articles on hear that you wouldn't normally find anywhere else.
  • Comment: That was posted at 20:40, 2005 Apr 16 by 24.22.233.231, an IP number whose only contributions have been related to this company, its movie, and the person who inspired the movie. -- Hoary 03:59, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
    • Commment Just so you know, IP numbers can changed. User who have dialup will have a different IP address everytime they sign on -- Zechenia 17:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • That comment was not by Zechenia but instead made in three edits between 17:52 and 17:57 on 2005 Apr 17 by 148.63.153.45. -- Hoary 08:41, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Keep The Vanity Page does specifically say that pages about small companies or musicians are not considered vanity. This page definitely falls under the category of a small company. Disobeying the Wikipedia guidelines in order to improve Wikipedia strikes me as hypocritical. MooVLuvr 17:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Above user is actually User:MooVluvr. We don't have user named MooVLuvr. jni 08:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Oh no, he forgot the capital L. Some people seem overly critical. --Zechenia 19:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Of above user's 11 edits, 10 are to VfD and 6 of those directly related to this matter. And yes, it is extra work to cleanup after newbies who put their userpage to wrong location and cannot even spell their own account name. jni 04:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unable to verify this is encyclopedic. Too many sockpuppets. jni 08:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, somewhat notable. --168.212.165.131 15:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep FroggyMoore 23:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User has suddenly gone on a "keep every vanity article" spree. What's up with that? RickK 19:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. How can I take this movie company seriously when its company's web site is on GeoCities, the free web hosting service. [6] Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity CDC (talk) 03:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously there is interest in this and strong support for it. Though it appears small and hardly notable, I'll error on the side of preservation rather than destruction of something that appears to be so beloved that it has drawn such sockpuppetry. Furthermore, after continued examination into this site, I find they claim to have "financial difficulties" which have caused them to seek a "temporary" geocities site. For some reason, I doubt the "temporary" status of this site. --Fritz9000 07:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User's account was created on April 20. RickK 19:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Mocking someone for an error in the completing of their signature is inappropriate and unnecessarily mean-spirited. Don't ostracize someone like that again. If you notice they're having problems, message them privately. Commenting on it in a public forum with such sarcasm is not constructive; what you're doing is being a jerk. Don't take too much pride in being an expert at Wikipedia formatting. There are greater endeavors in life. --Fritz9000 07:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete due to non-notability and sockpuppet activity. Gamaliel 07:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Somewhat noteworthy. --168.212.165.131 17:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think that votes from IP numbers count, but anyway your IP number had already been used for a (would-be) vote: see above. -- Hoary 00:36, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

• Keep. First off, it's unfair to not count IP address votes. If anything they prevent sockpuppetry because it's easy to see who is on a computer. Second, I love this. --67.106.16.59 02:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to their site, they charge $29.95 for a DVD copy of their film. Talk about overpriced...--Fritz9000 06:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 21:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is not encyclopedic. It is too long and does not contain a logical build up of neutral factual information. I suggest deletion or a total rewrite of this article

This article is not encyclopedic at all. It does not contain neutral unbiased information presented in a logical and concise build up. (history of the political party, founders, members, party programme, participation in elections,...) The article is clearly being dominated by one or a few contributors, containing dubious research and discussions of non-events. Furthermore, the article in its present form is too long to be of an encyclopedic nature. I suggest deletion or a total rewrite of this article. --Ratatouille 07:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. There's enough factual info in there to at least reduce it to a viable stub. I prefer you'd take it to the discussion page rather than VFD. BTW can you explain this deletion? I would've thought at least the cats and interwiki links were keepable in a content dispute. Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)`

I feel this article should be completely overhauled and rewritten from scratch. That is why I put it up for deletion as in its present form I think it is too long and certainly not encyclopedic like. (e.g. why all the ramblings on nazism, while this party is barely one year old?) --Ratatouille 10:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because it's a party that split from the Flemish Block. Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, no. It is the same as the Flemish Block, only the block was recently deemed an illegal organization, so they cleaned up their act to some extent and started under a new name. I believe this sufficient grounds for merging both, since they basically are the same people with the same aims and goals. Radiant_* 12:30, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say they were the same. I meant it was formed as a result from the Flemish Block (see the Dutch entry). Besides, if they're different, I don't see a reason to merge them. Mgm|^(talk) 21:44, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 10:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the subject is clearly encyclopedic, even if the article in it's current state is not neutral. clean it up and make it unbiased, don't delete! -- Joolz 14:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, VfD is not the place to resolve NPOV disputes. Martg76 15:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, The recent major rewrite by Joolz was successful. BTW, the article in its current state is certainly neutral.--Jvb – April 15, 2005
• Keep, this article is informative. Goferwiki 15:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was all three articles moved to userspace. ugen64 21:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, Boxing at the 2006 Commonwealth Games and Basketball at the 2006 Commonwealth Games.

I think this article is a little bit premature. Delete, but allow for restore when these games actually start. Sjakkalle 08:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WIN a crystal ball. Radiant_* 09:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) Userfy per the below. Radiant_* 08:27, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, too premature. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Also, if you're going to add it, write an article, not a placeholder. Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comment, check the contributions of User:Ianblair23, he's diligently made templates for all the 2006 events too, although wikipedia is not a crystal ball there is some provision in that poilcy for templates etc being put up in advance, it uses the US presidential election for 2008 as an example. I'm not sure what to do in this instance, no vote. --nixie 12:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Template nominated for deletion. Radiant_* 12:16, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

G'day fellas, this Ianblair23 here, what have I done!! All I was trying to do was get ready for the Commonwealth Games. I was so impressed with the 2004 Summer Olympics layout, I was simply trying to lay the ground work for ready for next year. With a huge event such as this coming up surely there is no harm with templates sitting there ready for the results to go straight in? 13:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to move these placeholders and templates (they are nice by the way!) to a subpage of your userpage? Then you can restore them in 2006 without having to manually recreate them. Not quite sure if that is in accordance with policy, but apart from things like profanity and personal attacks, most people are fairly tolerant of what you put on such pages. I appreciate your efforts Ianblair23, and I hope these nominations were not too discouraging. Sjakkalle 15:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy, in agreement with Sjakkalle. Credit to Ianblair23 for a good effort; it's just premature to put these things in the article namespace. Barno 16:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If Ianblair23 were to userfy the templates before the expiry of this VfD, I don't think anyone would be bothered.... --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy I'll assume good faith and say the creator just wasn't clear on policy. --InShaneee 19:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy userfy. I agree that the article was made in good faith. - Lucky 6.9 20:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. If it can be demonstrated beyond doubt that the article was created by the original author, I'm all for userfys. Megan1967 07:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see that userfy is, or nearly is, the unanimous opinion here. Who should actually carry out the userfication? Ianblair23, the admin who closes the debate or anyone? Sjakkalle 11:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. ugen64 21:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Term pulled from the movie matrix, seems like Matrix-funcruft, i could see if the term in it's context was uses widely but i dont belive it is, unless your refering to the battery Duracell. Plus seems like a ploy just to get people to go to the websites that are listed, delete and redirect. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The article seems to be assigning a definition and trying to promote a neologism. I would support a redirect to Duracell, else delete. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. --InShaneee 19:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. matrix/battery-cruft --Bucephalus talk to me 19:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Duracell. -- 8^D ^gab 22:02, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• as it is, it's a matrixcruft dicdef. I'm amazed this title isn't already a redirect to Duracell, but it should be. BigFatDave 22:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Duracell. Megan1967 07:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Duracell. Well spotted that that was possible BTW. Sjakkalle 07:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested. - Lucky 6.9 05:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An item from a video game, nuf said. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Isn't there a policy on these somewhere? Anyway, merge or keep it, game fans might want to look it up. Kappa 09:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, there's a policy. It's called gamecruft. Delete. Oh, and it's a custom item from a custom map for Warcraft 3. That makes it less important. Nestea 11:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a sad day when wikipedia has a policy with a name that's inherently POV and uncivil. Kappa 12:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Then cheer up. Category:Wikipedia official policy and Category:Wikipedia semi-policy reveal no such name for a policy. ☺ Uncle G 19:02, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
  • That would make it fan fiction, which I do believe is excessively not notable. Writing an article on it is basically vanity. Delete. Radiant_* 12:13, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually that does make it reasonably non-notable. Wish people would say these things in their nominations. Kappa 12:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • "gamecruft" is a description used by some people, and not the name of a policy. We have WP:FICT, which is a semi-policy. Perhaps that was what you were thinking of. Uncle G 19:02, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Delete as non-canonical. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:30, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete along with the rest of the DOTA articles being flooded upon us. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --InShaneee 19:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic. Dave the Red (talk) 19:36, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Cruft. Unencyclopedic. Etcetera. --Bucephalus talk to me 19:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Who cares about the in-game items?--sometimes they change with every version of the map. (For my money, I'd rather have a Burize do Kyanon anyway.) (PS I'm new to the whole VfD thing, apologies if it's somehow not appropriate for me to comment.) Marblespire 07:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Too minor of topic and subject doesn't really exist -Naif 09:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The subject will have to be better documented to survive this process. Delete. Fire Star 13:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unless documented. Dsmdgold 00:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 07:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As described in the entry - there is no notability. Also look at his other edit. Nonsense vandalism: [7] Lotsofissues 08:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Obvious. Naif 09:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. I also vaguely remember another VfD a few months back about a non-notable Andrew Chester (or similar name) so it might be a recreation. Thryduulf 10:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 10:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• delete extremely NN, except in that he is unique just like everyone else. BigFatDave 22:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Although some one should take note of a person who believes that making molotov cocktails is a community service. Dsmdgold 23:38, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This dude is a legend. Now, I live in the Boston, Massachusetts general area, and he has his own collumn in the MetroWest Daily News. It frequents the cover. He is in the news a lot, and to my knowlage has anti-pryo orginazation urging kids not to play with fire - and uses demenstrative maltov coktails. User:NewGuy4

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion because "it is obsoleted by vassa, and Lent is a spring holiday besides.". I don't know what should be done here, but speedy deletion isn't appropriate. Google search for Buddhist Lent. Kappa 10:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and redirect. A google search for {"Buddhist Lent" -Wikipedia} gets more than 10,000 hits. - Nat Krause 10:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I think what the speedy-nominator meant is that this article is made obsolete by the one at Vassa; judging from the content, that's probably correct. So, redirect (as there's nothing left to merge). Radiant_* 12:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Fire Star 13:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, nothing here left to merge. Megan1967 06:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Mark¹ 04:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Band vanity. Sjakkalle 11:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• A one-hit wonder so far, but definitely a notable Canadian musician. Nominated for New Artist of the Year at the 2004 Junos. I've heard his song in regular rotation on contemporary hit radio, hot adult contemporary, alternative rock and rock format radio stations and seen him on TV, and not even in his other job as co-host of Sports Car Revolution on SPEED Channel, a major U.S. cable channel. You may have heard his song in international hit movie The Italian Job (2003). Signed to Epic Records. Yes, I will add this to the article if y'all keep it. :) Samaritan 17:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Now unrecognizably expanded. Samaritan 17:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Spinboy 17:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --GrantNeufeld 17:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep -- ElBenevolente 18:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Webgeer 22:58, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nicely expanded article and I withdraw my nomination. Sjakkalle 06:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Markaci 2005-04-16 T 00:53 Z

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Sjakkalle 12:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More of a short story than an encyclopedic article. Sjakkalle 11:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Article is clearly nonsense, should be speedied--nixie 11:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) Probably needs to be moved to a more conventional name, keep with the improvements--nixie 12:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Article has now been repaired, and is probably valid, we may want to keep it now. Sorry for being a little hasty with the vfd, should have given it more than ten minutes. Sjakkalle 11:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that I have copyvio concerns about the image, see [8]. I don't know how to handle that... Sjakkalle 11:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Copyright problems--nixie 12:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am shutting down the vfd now, this is clearly not the same article as the one I nominated.

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. – ABCD 02:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What makes this book different from any other scare book out there? "Skinner Box Effect" and "Grundner" (the author's name) together get just 461 hits on Google. Nearly the entire text of the "article" is simply the text off the back cover, and the about-the-author blurb, verbatim, which means that if it isn't a copyvio, it's less an article about the book, and more about the book's jacket. Delete the current article and it's not necessary to create a new one until someone can demonstrate that this book is in some way different from the thousands that have and will come out chanting the same "OMG Internet pornography SO BAD even more dangerous than other kind OMG OMG" refrain. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like a book review by someone who hasn't read the book. Sjakkalle 13:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Amazon sales rank is ~140,000 DDerby 08:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ...a book? It's not Lord of the Rings. It's not very noteworthy. Plus I'd say Wiki's own Sexual Addiction and Online Pornography related article(s) would be more readily accessible to visitors than some single-run book would be. Good luck finding this in your local bookstore! EDIT: note they only discuss the front/back/inside cover, something you could find scans of on Amazon etc. If you're going to make a page about a book, at least READ THE THING, even if it's only borrowed from a library. Master Thief Garrett 05:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This has been speedy deleted once, but someone has recreated it. I say delete because Norwegian first names do not make good encyclopedic topics. (I believe there is a policy for this one.) Sjakkalle 11:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Feel free to delete it. I recreated it because i believed i just had made a mistake on the first one. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Forconin 12:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary. They're happy to take entries for given names. —Korath (Talk) 12:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Forconin if you want to make an article on a given name, its original language and meaning, and its etymology, please go directly to Wiktionary:Eivind and do so, right now if you like. You'll save us the hassle of transwikification by submitting your content directly to Wiktionary. (A list of people with that given name is just padding, by the way. You don't need that padding to justify a dictionary article on a name.) You can even then list it on Wiktionary:Wiktionary Appendix:First names male e. Here on Wikipedia, articles on names are either navigational aids (Madonna, Cher) or articles about people/things commonly known by only one name (Houdini, Dannii, Britney). We tend to discuss the people/places/concepts/things that the names represent here in the encyclopaedia, and the words themselves in the dictionary. (Compare Wiktionary:cher with the above, for example.) Hopefully presupposing that you will make a contribution to Wiktionary directly, I'm voting Delete. Uncle G 19:29, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. Megan1967 07:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

unnotable SqueakBox 18:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose- its already been on AFD and the consensus was to keep. Perhaps you should have looked at the talk page before nominating. Astrotrain 18:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - girlfriends of royalty, especially those who receive extensive media exposure, are inherently notable. This article can be condensed a little - we don't really need to know her grades. 23skidoo 19:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• definately keep her media exposure has been to big to ignore - fdewaele 21:16, 18 October 2005 (CET)
• Delete per nom. Molotov (talk)
  19:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I was obviously aware of the previous Vfd as I had to move it to make way for this one. It was 6 months ago. If you take much more away from the article there will be nothing left other than unfounded speculation that should not be in an encyclopedia. I must admit it being such a crummy article did affect my decision to have it Vfd'd again, and I would oppose a speedy keep, SqueakBox 19:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She was mentioned on the BBC national radio news this evening. Millions of people have heard of her, and doubtless some of them will look her up. This is the sort of topic which Wikipedia should be able to cover better than traditional sources. CalJW 20:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, media exposure makes her notable. Thue | talk 22:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for the reasons given above and (1) so that it won't have to be created again; and (2) toward a "keep" result so that further VfD efforts will be less likely. -Acjelen 22:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others: ongoing romantic relationship with second in line to British throne = notable. Haeleth 22:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and in the future please do not move existing AfD/VfD archives; simply create a new one and append the string "(2nd nomination)" to the end. Moving these pages leads to confusion and invalidates existing links to previous discussions. Hall Monitor 22:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as longterm girlfriend of heir to the British throne. There are 45,400 hits for a search on "Kate Middleton" many of which relate to her. [9] Fortyone articles on Google news reflecting her current high profile. Capitalistroadster 01:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons cited by others. This woman is very well-known. Crypticfirefly 04:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is very well known among all broadsheet newspapers, etc. Blnguyen 05:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.--Kross | Talk 16:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As all above comments. --OorWullie 08:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She might end up becoming the Queen Consort — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.39.226 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 23 October 2005

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

This page is an archive of the 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. – ABCD 02:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A web designer that gets 7 google hits is not encyclopedic. --nixie 13:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NEV - Non-enciclopedic vanity. José San Martin 13:38, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I concur. --Coolcaesar 19:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Note that page creator has been modifying this VFD page. FreplySpang (talk) 20:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nixie. VladMV ٭ ^talk 17:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 21:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joke/vanity. Should be deleted. Thue | talk 13:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• He will never die! Isn't that very notable? But let's delete this article anyway, I agree with Thue. Sjakkalle 13:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if proven that he will never die. That's not provable, only disprovable, so let's Delete to prove that the vanity article will die. Barno 17:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as obvious vanity... No, I haven't got anything witty to say. Mgm|^(talk) 17:32, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity of the worst sort. If he won't die, we can at least kill his page. --InShaneee 19:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, obvious vanity. Megan1967 07:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. He may never die, but his page hopefully will. VladMV ٭ ^talk 17:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 21:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

High school club, not encyclopedic, delete--nixie 13:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 13:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Thue. Mgm|^(talk) 17:33, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• delete aerticle does not establish notability (or much else, for that matter) BigFatDave 22:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 21:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Appears to be a minor pop band of no particular significance. Possible Vanity page. Article created by a anon IP at a school with a history of vandalism. -- Solipsist 13:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, allmusic doesn't know them, apparently never released any records, fail to meet Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines. VladMV ٭ ^talk 22:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable Dsmdgold 01:01, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dr Ingel 01:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Winners of the game shows are not inherently notable, there isn't an article on the American version of the show to redirect this to, delete--nixie 13:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I am inclined to agree. Thue | talk 13:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• So he won something. What else is there to say? Nothing. Delete. (It can be redirected to the show if someone's interested in keeping a list of the winners). Mgm|^(talk) 17:35, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a great example of something that is verifiable, but does not belong in wikipedia. Dave the Red (talk) 19:21, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• M & R to show. A listing of big winners is interesting in the context of the show. Shimmin 03:31, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I don't know if winning the top prize on this show is easier in other countries, but from watching the Norwegian version, winning the top prize is a very rare event (it has only happened once in Norway), and with so many watching, that's enough to make the winner a small celebrity. And if Carpenter is the first top prize winner, then that counts in the article's favor as well. So I will give this article the benefit of the doubt. Sjakkalle 08:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete, how is this more notable (even if it's based on skill rather than luck) than winning the lottery? Radiant_* 08:41, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Lotteries happen in utter anonymity, gameshows are broadcast to a million people or more. Sjakkalle 09:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Where I live we do have extensive TV shows for lottery winners. Not sure how many people actually watch that though. But anyway I found Kelv's argument below rather convincing, so weak keep and tag for cleanup. Radiant_* 09:09, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep but this needs to be completely rewritten. 23skidoo 13:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. First Millionaire winner in the United States. Still notable, even if it's for his fifteen minutes of fame. Mike H 16:53, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, famous, used skill and courage not just luck to get to his position. Kappa 21:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, on par with Ken Jennings for game-show notability &#151 FoodMarket&nbsp&nbsp^talk! 22:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, while I'd have to disagree with the Ken Jennings analogy; if he were as notable, why is there such a disparity in his Wikipedia coverage? --DanielNuyu 22:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • haha probably because someone is trying to delete the whole article. wikipedia is by no means complete, and the length of articles is not an indication on the importance of subjects. For example, an article on an episode of a tv show might be of the same length as an article on renaissance art, for example. &#151 FoodMarket&nbsp&nbsp^talk! 20:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Carpenter is notable in the respect that he was the first notable big money winner in the so-called late 90s quiz show revival, so an article about him should exist, but this article really really needs a whole lot of work for it to be keepworthy. kelvSYC 03:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to WWTBAM - Sure, he was the first, but he certainly wasn't the only one. Not really notable outside the game show itself. Ken Jennings may deserve a bit of mention in his own respect for setting a record on Jeopardy!, a long-running game show deeply embedded in US culture (though I might debate whether he deserves an article, too), but John Carpenter really falls more under the "First of many" category for a game show with far less cultural impact (i.e. most people nowadays will beat you over the head with large blunt objects if you ask them "Is that your final answer", but humming the Jeopardy! theme when observing someone in deep thought is far more acceptable). But, at the VERY least, if this is kept, the article needs a drastic rewrite. Most notably, to include the infamous last question. Sock it to ME? CaptainSpam actually remembered to sign it this time 22:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or maybe merge, but just being the first winner on the show does not make him worthy of an article. Ken Jennings is a different case, as he was on the air for months. sjorford →•← 14:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • They stopped my high-school dance to announce that Carpenter had just won the million... it was a big deal back then and it did signal the arrival of the game-show renaissance.

• I just re-wrote the article to a much better version. &#151 FoodMarket&nbsp&nbsp^talk! 20:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as a recreation of 9/11 open questions. Rhobite 02:38, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Crackpot conspiracy theory, combined with spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 14:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I concur, not really an encyclopedic reference. delete - TheDaveRoss 14:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, substantially similar to 9/11 open questions, an article created by the same user and deleted based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/9/11 open questions. --Michael Snow 16:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete recreated deletia. This may be sourced, but the sources, aren't all as reliable as they should be. Mgm|^(talk) 19:39, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Substantially this a recreation of a previously deleted article. Dsmdgold 23:23, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as re-creation of 9/11 open questions --Carnildo 23:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as re-creation of 9/11 open questions, with the only apparent differences being for the worse. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Had been merged with Palestine 500LL 15:32, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Deletion is not the last step of an article merger. Redirect. —Korath (Talk) 16:45, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Korath is right. Come on! Be bold and redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 17:40, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • A redirect page is used to guide the user when typing an abbreviation, an other name or a misspelling of an article into the search box (see Wikipedia:Redirect). I can hardly imagine that someone will type a title this long with respect of punctuation. Also, this redirect will be wrong, because it won't redirect to a page with the same subject. 500LL 18:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's also how we preserve author attribution and edit history after a merge, a requirement of the GFDL. —Korath (Talk) 01:27, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, someone might have a bookmark or link from another site to it. --SPUI (talk) 00:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Seems like an obvious case for a redirect. Had that been done, it would have prevented unnecessary VFD bloat. JYolkowski 01:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 21:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An ad for (what I assume is) a non-notable website. Thue | talk 16:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not even a domain-level site, totally non-encyclopedic article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:36, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. You don't need to assume, I know it's not notable. Mgm|^(talk) 17:44, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. No consensus on suitability or validity of listing. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not nominate this for VfD. DO NOT NOMINATE THINGS IN MY NAME! Radiant!Radiant_* 07:36, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

This was nominated on WP:TFD for the following reason:

Just like the NN template below, this one is used for voting-by-rote. Is that seriously a good use for templates? Does it matter whether the template is in user space or not? User:Netoholic closed that on the grounds that that mechanism is only for entries in the Template: namespace and suggested VFD as the only mechanism for user subpages.

My vote as originally cast at WP:TFD is below. Thryduulf 14:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Restored: Consider it renominated by me. Snowspinner 16:22, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Note: Dr. Zen has just e-mailed me to ask that it be deleted. I'm assuming that's allowed as it's on a user subpage. He said he doesn't want to be a source of further contention. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • If so, I'm willing to accept that since it is his userpage, but how can this be verified? —RaD Man (talk) 06:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Radman, it's not something I'd be likely to make up. ;-) He says you should e-mail him and he'll confirm. I'm assuming you can do that via the e-mail function on his user page, but if there isn't one set up, let me know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:18, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • Done deal, I dropped him an email, gracias. —RaD Man (talk) 01:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Note: Radman1 has re-created the template in his userspace; I've put the VfD tag on that and directed it to this discussion. --Carnildo 07:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've deleted Dr Zen's from the top of this page as it no longer links to anything. Hope that's okay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:39, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, user space. If other people start using it, bitch-slap them. --SPUI (talk) 08:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Other people are using it - check 'what links here'. Radiant!Radiant_* 12:19, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • As Radiant! points out, this template is still in active use. It was last used yesterday, in fact. Uncle G 14:08, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Delete VfD is not a voting, but a discussion. Mindlessly slapping templates is against the spirit. Grue 09:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The first words on this page are "This page is for deleting things in the Template namespace". --iMb~Meow 09:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, the first words on this page are "Wikipedia:Templates for deletion". This is a template. Uncle G 14:08, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
  • Okay, so we don't have a strict policy for that, but last time I checked Wikipedia was not a court of law. Are you saying we should have User:Templates/Dr_Zen/Templates for Deletion? Radiant_* 12:19, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I was saying, of course, that TFD is for items in the Template: namespace. Since a page in any namespace can be used in the same manner as a template, the line needs to be drawn at the namespace or anything is game for TFD.
• Delete, and this is the proper place for it. Do you really want every one of Radman1's school votes for the last month to have vfd headers on them? —Korath (Talk) 10:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you really want every VfD subpage listed here? They're transcluded, after all. --iMb~Meow 11:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • ...there's reason to delete VfD subpages? —Korath (Talk) 12:09, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • There's a reason to delete a user page that's already included in a bunch of places and not getting in anyone's way, especially considering that the user is no longer active? --iMb~Meow 12:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes. Uncle G 14:08, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• I find it appalling that some editors are now putting so little thought into their discussion contributions that they feel able to use templates for them. The fact that this template provides no way to address the article actually being discussed is exceedingly ill-considered. But perhaps the most ill-considered thing is that the editors using this template have not only given no thought to the article being discussed, they haven't thought about the simple consequences of using a template. There's a strong argument to be put forward that any such transcluded votes should be discounted from discussions entirely, for the simple reason that they are unsafe. The person closing the discussion has no idea (without a significant amount of cross-checking work) whether the current content of the template reflects the actual opinion of the person employing it, since someone else could have come along and modified the template contents. (A mildly WP:POINT change would be to modify this template to read "Abstain. The user of this template has unwisely allowed xyr professed opinions in many discussions to be changed en masse with a single edit.") And no, the name of the template is insufficient rationale by itself for some judgements, especially with respect to the decision between a keep-with-merger and a keep. In that way, this is a significant new burden on those who are closing discussions, and arguably crosses the same "too much complex work to determine what the voter's opinion actually is" threshold that the "peculiar votes" crossed. Delete to encourage the use of this template to cease, or, failing that, Modify to read as an abstention vote after substituting in existing uses up to 2005-04-12. Uncle G 14:08, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
  • My vote above was cast on WP:TFD, and in terms of what deletion means to templates, which involves the process of orphaning the template. As this is now a WP:VFD discussion I modify my vote to Keep and substitute in any existing uses up to 2005-04-12. I confirm my agreement with Netoholic, Thryduulf, Radiant!, and (apparently) SPUI that subsequent transclusion of this template should be discouraged. Votes transcluding it after 2005-04-12 should be considered unsafe and consequently be discounted. (The fact that a big VFD notice has just appeared in the middles of several VFD discussion pages should have brought this issue to the original users' attention forcefully enough for further notice to be considered unnecessary. ☺) I concur with Netoholic that the best course of action is for the users of this template to voluntarily individually orphan it themselves. Uncle G 15:28, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• delete and strike out all votes made using it. Thryduulf 14:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Highly inappropriate use of user space and the template mechanism. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I agree with everything TenOfAllTrades said above. Jonathunder 01:25, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

• Keep - we give wide latitude to user sub-pages, and this same text can be inserted via copy and paste. Essentially, there is no way to stop this sort of thing, so why try. I suggest that the school-deletionists pick their battles more wisely. That being said, on NO occasion should this be used as a template, but only used as with subst: . -- Netoholic @ 14:41, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

With a SUBST? What, so it's impossible to tell that someone is too lazy to even type in their reason for keeping? Snowspinner 17:39, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Query. What happens to the relevant VfD votes if this template is deleted? Will they then be blank, except for the signature? android↔talk 14:54, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • They will be left with a red link to that page. At the conclusion of this vote (no matter keep or delete), I would strongly suggest that we inform voters have them immediately correct their votes to use simple text only. I also could assist with a bot that would do the text replacement, but I'd rather the voters fix it themselves. -- Netoholic @ 14:57, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
  • Or, put another way: Largely the same thing that would happen to those votes were Mr Pelican Shit to come along today and vandalize the template to read "Pelican shit. All school articles need more pelican shit.". Uncle G 15:28, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Keep, agreeing with previous Keep voters. Samaritan 15:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Still Keep, but updating my reason since it is now on VfD. Again, this page is not some sort of menace, since removing it would do absolutely nothing to prevent copy-and-paste voting. --iMb~Meow 15:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• My delete above stands. My reasoning for it, which got sidetracked by petty jurisdiction issues, was later articulated quite eloquently by Uncle G; I also refer to Template:Nn's discussion on WP:TFD; it's exactly the same case, and looks to be overwhelmingly deleted. I suspect that this template will be kept only because those inclined to vote keep on everything like its POV better. That aside, all these issues seem to be more a matter for RFC, and neither TFD nor VFD. —Korath (Talk) 15:21, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inappropriate and a slap in the face to what VfD is. This should, frankly, be speedied. Snowspinner 16:22, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• {{subst:User:Geni/delete}}Geni 16:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Normally I would insist that User namespace be sacrosanct, but this is a Bad Thing for both technical and philosophical reasons:
  • Transcluding multiple votes from multiple users onto the already-large, already heavily-used VfD page represents a substantial unnecessary draw on Wikipedia's servers.
  • Multiple votes may be changed after they are cast simply by editing the template, either by a well-meaning but misguided individual or a malicious vandal. (Both of the above can be avoided by 'subst:'ing, but it is apparent that many template voters are not doing this.)
  • Template encourages copy-paste voting. Knee-jerk votes from editors who don't read the articles in question and can't even be bothered to type a comment themselves are not helpful to building consensus. If you can't be troubled to even find a VfD comment you agree with and write "Keep per reasoning of JohnDoe", what are you doing here?
• --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I too am frustrated by the inclusionist tendency to vote keep seemingly without actually reading or weighing the quality of the article in question. However, disallowing templates will not magically make people change the way they approach voting on schools, nor will it prevent people from merely cutting and pasting in the same vote, nor will it prevent people from merely typing "Keep. School." over and over again. I don't think template security is much of an issue - templates can be abused just like anything else can be abused here. The issue here is schools, and one that should be thrown open to the whole of wikipedia for a final stab at consensus instead of arguing the same issue over and over again. The reason people are using templates is that the same arguments are coming up over and over again, because all of these schools and school articles are almost exactly identical. It is not avoiding evaluating an article, it is a response to the very nature of the issue. Gamaliel 17:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It makes a mockery of the purpose of VfD. --Carnildo 18:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's such a tempting vandalism target -- I could turn all those annoying "keep" votes into "delete" votes -- or personal attacks! -- with a single edit! --65.101.119.25 18:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and refer to Rfc--I agree with Gamaliel. The fact that something like this even exists is a sign that something has gone wrong over schools that cannot be fixed by vfd. This template won't stop people from cutting and pasting or other tactics, as Gamaliel says. What's really needed is a genuine consensus on school articles, which clearly doesn't exist. It might be impossible, in which case I suppose we get the status quo, but there should be a sustained push from the people who actually care about this on both sides of the issue (read: not me) to come to some sort of agreement and avoid this divisive argumentation. Meelar (talk) 18:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with everything Uncle G said. Dave the Red (talk) 19:18, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just what we need. A mechinism which would allow the rabid deletionist/inclusionists to vote in a matter of seconds without reading the article in question or the VfD discussion. This is NOT what templates are for, and this is dangerous regardless of where it is. --InShaneee 19:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep although I am not in favor of using a template to vote, I think this sets a bad precident. User space is supposed to be just that USER SPACE, unless its a direct personal attack or a requested deletion by that user, it should remain inviolate.  ALKIVAR™ 20:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

why?Geni 23:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Template voting is not a good idea, but userspace is inviolate unless its a direct personal attack or obviously and egregiously violates wikipedia guidlines.
  There has been a disturbing trend recently, of deletionists targeting the userspace of school inclusionists (I.e User:GRider ) to remove material that they find objectionable. Klonimus 20:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I realize you're still very new here, but you may want to read the relevant pages before incorrectly telling us what they say. Calling people names isn't going to win you any friends, either. —Korath (Talk) 21:16, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, wikipedia would be a much more comfortable place if we respected each other's user pages. Kappa 22:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia would be a much more comfortable place if people didn't abuse the deletion processes. Thryduulf 22:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur. Kappa 22:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur. Klonimus 02:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • ... and yet both these "concur" notes are by users known to be involved in abuse of the deletion processes. Chris talk back 21:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Messing about in personal space is bad, but making a template just for school-keeping is just silly and lazy. I suggest a third alternative: what if VfD could only contain plain text? BigFatDave 22:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Take a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Voting via templates. -- Netoholic @ 23:00, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• EXTREME KEEP. None of the votes here are a surprise really. As I just posted over at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/St. Joseph's Secondary School, the message remains the same whether it is communicated by way of template or not. The only difference is saving a few bytes of diskspace on Wikipedia's servers. If bandwidth is more expensive than diskspace, then I have no problem creating a macro in lieu of using Dr Zen's template. But the core of the issue here is that someone has nominated yet another perfectly fine template which exists in someone else's userspace — not cool. —RaD Man (talk) 01:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You might be interested to know that I also tfd'd Template:Not notable, which read "*'''Delete'''. Not notable." —Korath (Talk) 12:50, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you believe all schools are fit subjects for an encyclopaedia then your reason for voting keep is the same on each occasion. You could type exactly the same thing in for each vote. Why deprecate using a template to do it? I do not see the same commenters attacking those who vote: "Delete, not notable" for every school. (I don't see how that is a "discussion", frankly.) There is no difference. I don't believe it's an "abuse of the deletion process". That made me giggle. Naturally, only "the other side" ever abuses anything. It strikes me that VfD causes a great deal of strife and diminshes Wikilove to a great degree. I don't suppose the factionalism, which is, after all, powered by a desire on both sides to reach the same goal (although each side has a different idea of what the goal actually means), is much helped by having a page that encourages its expression. Perhaps you should have approached Dr Zen if you really didn't like his having a template and spoken to him about it, and to those who use it. Have we all forgotten that this is not a warzone and the way to resolve disputes is first and foremost to talk to one another? Grace Note 01:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding contacting the user – I believe it's supposed that Dr. Zen is currently inactive. android↔talk 02:03, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • He's not as active as he once was, but he is still active. See: Dr Zen's recent contributions. Grace Note is right, this recent maneuver by Radiant & co. should have been used as a last resort, if at all. —RaD Man (talk) 02:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I believe you are attributing far too much malice to Radiant. After all, he withdrew this nomination after it got out of hand, and has been advocating getting some sort of consensus going on the school issue for some time now. android↔talk 02:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd love to believe otherwise, but this is not an isolated incident. —RaD Man (talk) 03:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Please consider the fact that I did not make this VfD nomination. Radiant_* 11:06, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
            • Regarding the nominations, this is the sequence as I understand it:
              1. Radiant! nominated the template at TfD
              2. Netoholic closed the discussion there on the grounds that it is explicitly stated that TfD deals only with the Template namespace. This is in the user namespace.
              3. Netoholic put a note on Radiant!'s talk page explaining his actions.
              4. I have Radiant!'s talk page on my watchlist (becuase of our correspondence over the proposed restructuring of Categories for deletion), and saw I saw the message.
              5. I (Thryduulf) then made the VfD nomination, citing Radiant's reasoning from TfD. I did not make it explicitly clear that it was my nomination to VfD, not Radiants, although I felt I had implied this sufficiently, hindsight leads me to believe I was wrong.
              6. At various points the page was blanked, restored, large parts struck out, unstruck, rewritten and reverted, etc. At some point in all this, the vote was closed (I think by Radiant!)
              7. Snowspinner then reopened the debate, and renominated it in his name.
              8. Radiant! removed all attributions to him and doesn't want anything to do with it.
              9. Dr Zen, in whose userspace the template was, emailed SlimVirgin to ask that it be deleted.
              10. RaD Man quieried this, but the upshot was that it was deleted.
              11. Around the same time, an identical template was made by RaD Man in his userspace.
              12. Carnildo nominated that template for deletion (VfD), directing the discussion here.
            • So, the people responsible for the VfD are myself (Thryduulf), Snowspinner and Carnildo but not Radiant!, who has stated several times he wants nothing to do with it. I urge all parties here to read and keep in mind the No Personal Attacks policy. Thryduulf 17:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. First of all, it's in userspace. Secondly, until Wikipedia actually comes up with an official policy on whether schools are notable or not, every VFD vote is going to involve the exact same arguments. I can understand why school inclusionists might want to save time by using a template for each VFD on that subject. We need a real policy on school inclusionism/deletionism rather than argue the same thing ad infinitum on this page. Firebug 01:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't like seeing things deleted from user pages, but is it really that necessary to even use this template? Assuming people just want to vote on VfD without looking at an article and arguing on its merits, why can't they just cut and paste some text? The whole VfD on this seems like a waste of time and energy on both sides to me. --BaronLarf 04:35, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although in general, I believe that what's in a User's space should be left alone, in this case, this is simply a bad faith VfD vote process. The User should be required to at least read the articles in question. If I ever encountered this in a VfD vote page, I would delete it. RickK 05:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see this Vfd going anywhere; obviously there will be no concensus. The persons involved will vote yes or no regarding school articles, whether you delete the template or not (hopefully it saves them some time to make other additions to wikipedia). And, as many above already said, you can always use cut and paste. Let's rather try to shape some policy. Lectonar 07:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Makes a mockery of VfD and consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I remember seeing voting templates in user space way back in 2003, what's the fuss now? jni 05:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete[.] WP:POINT. El_C 09:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I presume you mean Delete this article because it contravenes WP:POINT, not that you want to delete WP:POINT - if the latter, then I suggest this isn't the place to do that ;) Thryduulf 09:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Heh! El_C 11:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, user space. However, remove from all VfD discussions. VfD discussions shouldn't have templates in them. If he wants to use a template from his user space for voting, he should use subst:. --cesarb 16:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Does no harm used sparingly. Chris talk back 21:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bad Thing. Bad, bad thing. This should never be used in VfD. Vote by rote should be discouraged, not encouraged. Add in the uncertainty factor and headache of trying to ensure votes haven't been changed by changing a voting template... No good can come of this, and much bad can. Delete it. SWAdair | Talk 09:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Why on Earth do people want to make templates for voting? There is not much typing saved by doing so. Besides, if people forget to use "subst:" they will be in a vulnerble position from people vandalzing their template (and thereby all their votes using it) to read "Delete A high school. No high schools are notable. Wikipedia is not a vanity site for high schools". Also, it appears to be the people who dislike school articles who keep voting to delete this template, but I really don't think it matters, why prevent your opponents from exposing themselves to template vandalism? Sjakkalle 09:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a mockery, as above. And Dr. Zen apparently isn't even with us any more. Master Thief Garrett 01:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 21:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a mirror for the wikibook Hockey_CBA. It is here because the wiki2PDF script at http://wiki.auf-trag.de/ does not grab articles from the english wikibooks site.

Wikipedia is not a web mirror - especially the main article space should not be cluttered with random articles... If you need it then create a subpage of your user page, or patch the open source pdf generator to be compatible with wikibooks. Thue | talk 16:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This is all kinds of wrong. It's content that's already on the proper Wikimedia project. It asserts ownership of an article. It's self-referential. It's using Wikipedia and Wikibooks as free wiki providers. Delete with extreme prejudice. —Korath (Talk) 17:43, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and it's mistitled, too. —Korath (Talk) 09:26, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No Guru 19:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Oy. RickK 05:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a mirror. Megan1967 07:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article does not convince me of the song's notability. Only 551 results from the Wikipedia:Google test for the phrase "vive la rose" many of which (including the first hit) do not refer to the song. [Note: I first consulted Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs, as most WikiProjects set guidelines for notability, but they have not come up with anything. Maybe this can serve as precedent?] --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:09, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, in reply to the previous one: Where do you think all the other google references to "Vive la rose" come from? From the song. Try googling "Frere jacques". It's the name of a song, but it was so commonly known that it's become the name of a restaurant, a computer virus, etc., etc. You'd be hard-pressed to find a Frenchman who had NOT heard the song Vive la rose. SonicSynergy 20:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not really convinced either. Shouldn't the article mention the performer? Mgm|^(talk) 19:23, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I can't see any justification for this article. Doesn't say why the song is notable. Not even enough information to properly categorise. --Moochocoogle 02:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It appears to be a popular French song by Emile Benoit. In fact, it was his last recording[10]. It was interpreted by several other musicians; this site refers to one such interpretation as "une vieille chanson française interprétée par la suite par Guy Béart pour les enfants"[11]. I wouldn't imagine that French-language songs would be too familiar to those outside the Francophone world, with the possible exceptions of "frere jacques" or "voulez vous couchez avec moi". SonicSynergy 04:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The article's not convincing, but if you check out some of the actual Google-hit pages, you discover: 1) "Vive la rose" is a 200-year old French folk song. 2) The primary artist mentioned (Emile Benoit) was a "genuine" folk artist (i.e. folk music wasn't his career, but he was the inheritor of an oral tradition of French-Canadian culture in Newfoundland [12]), and the subject of a study that sounds similar to Alan Lomax's field recordings for the Smithsonian Institution in the U.S. So I'd say Keep and let's go find some French or Canadian cultural historians to help turn these into 2 real articles. Soundguy99 07:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is borderline. Article does not establish notability. Megan1967 07:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. It seems that this song is of cultural significance in Canada. Capitalistroadster 02:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A 200 hundred year old folk song that is still being performed seems notable. Rx StrangeLove 03:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep popular songs. Kappa 19:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

See Also: Ladder match and Tables, Ladders, and Chairs Match

• Delete as dictionary definition. Feco 19:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition, gamescruft. Megan1967 07:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge this and Ladder match into Types of wrestling matches. Probably some other articles that could go there, but the Tables&c one is pretty big already. Radiant_* 08:32, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep this variation on a "sport". Kappa 11:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all wrestling-match type articles into one big one... easier for navigation, and links can always point to sections. -- 8^D ^gab 06:31, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article about a custom map of a video game. We already deleted Defense of the Ancients. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Defense Of The Ancients. Delete this for the same reasons. Dave the Red (talk) 19:33, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, all you need to know about a map can be put in the game article. If kept, it should be rid of jargon. Mgm|^(talk) 20:12, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. Also note that everything that points to the article was either speedied or is now on VfD. --InShaneee 20:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Well, if this is just the recreation of something that is deleted, then it should qualify as a speedy delete. Zscout370 22:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ahh, but its a different article than the one that was deleted. Same subject, different article. Dave the Red (talk) 02:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Redir Defence of the Ancients (which have just cleanup'd). Feel that the map SHOULD have an article--is pretty notable w/in the Warcraft III community--but anything more than slight detail is totally unnecessary. Marblespire 22:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Defence of the Ancients. Megan1967 09:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seems like if you guys don't even know about the map, why should you be passing judgement on it? DOTA is a *huge* part of WC3, and deserves it's own page.

• Redirect to Defence of the Ancients. The map is notorious enough for an separate article. But the other article is cleaner. --vininim 22:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 21:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Previously deleted as nonsense. Can some verify this exists? If no evidence shows up I vote delete strong delete. Also see attached talk page. Mgm|^(talk) 20:08, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Additional research with clusty shows no relevant hits for Ganish, Kwiarizian, or Wangish. Mgm|^(talk) 20:18, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• They want an apology? Hold your breath, fellas. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 20:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't, unless you want to suffocate. Patent nonsense, not good enough for BJAODN. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 06:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete MGM's research was convincing enough without having to see that rediculous demand. --InShaneee 20:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The deletion log, in particular the article content, makes for interesting reading:
  • 18:20, 2005 Apr 13 Mikkalai deleted "Talk:Elections in Kwiarizia" (content was: 'I plead with you not to delete article this because even though there is no such place, we are an unrepresented people who actually do have an electio...')
  • 18:19, 2005 Apr 13 Mikkalai deleted "Wangish" (nonsense)
• Admitted hoax. And I concur about the research. Delete. Uncle G 20:53, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Delete. No credible third party sources. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, patent nonsense. No relevant google results: [13]. Also, those characters look dodgy - the first one is pi with a couple of squiggles, the second is 'J' and '3' stuck together. --bainer 23:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 07:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as an obvious hoax. — JIP | Talk 10:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 21:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article about ghost sightings at a university. Considered merging, but notability is shaky at best, and this article is 3 times the size of the university's. --InShaneee 20:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, notability not established, speculation, original research. Megan1967 07:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Claim to fame was dying aboard the Titanic. Hardly seems notable, and most of the article approaches cruft anyway. --InShaneee 20:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No, he didn't. According to the article he survived. Nevertheless. It's misspelled cruft, unless he ran a notable company or is one of the living survivors. Move to Hugh Woolner and abstain about further actions until more info surfaces. Mgm|^(talk) 21:33, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete unless notability further established (I do not think surviving a disaster makes you automatically notable). Radiant_* 08:31, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 21:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete article is pure speculation Foodmarket 20:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball--Halidecyphon 20:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Come on, Ragnarok, Mother Nature, or Bill Gates are possiblities to start World War V? This has to be a joke article. --Anonymous Cow 20:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It doesn't even deserve a rewrite. I can't verify that it exists - if there is widespread speculation about a world war that brings about the end of the world, it isn't given the specific number V as far as I can tell. What about WWVI, WWVII, WWXLVII? If anyone can argue that it is a popular and notable term, I maychange my vote, but for now, delete. DDerby 20:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy, nonsense, recreation of deleted content. —Korath (Talk) 20:57, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Extremely delete. Effectively a list of random names. Eric119 21:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for every possible reason. Note though that we do have an article on World War IV, but that seems to be based on actual recorded usage (however tenuous). sjorford →•← 21:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Also note Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/World War IV. Uncle G 22:52, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Delete for all the reasons given above. Pure speculation. Mgm|^(talk) 21:35, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• delete WW-IV is barely legit for an article, as speculation, WW-V is sheer nonsense. BigFatDave 22:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Why not? Stupidly non-enciclopedic.José San Martin 22:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if World War IV is war on terrorism then my candidate for WW-V is the horrible war in central africa (Second Congo War) but not this nonsense v8rik
• Delete. Although I did enjoy the section on 'possible starters of the war.' --bainer 23:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for all the reasons given above. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Someone's spending entirely too much time on extremist websites. - Lucky 6.9 04:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nateji77 04:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, speculation. Megan1967 07:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Am I right that Albert Einstein tried to predict what weapons they would use in WW4? Something along the lines of "I don't know what they'll use in WW3, but in WW4 they'll use sticks and stones." But if even Einstein would not predict WW5, neither should we. Sjakkalle 07:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Glad we can all agree on some things! --Halidecyphon 09:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too vague, speculation. Let's get the next two world wars done with first before we start thinking about No. 5, please. 23skidoo 13:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 3 and 4 might come all too soon; let's not be eager. Barno 19:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Tydaj 23:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Non-encyclopedic. Stupid too. K1Bond007 23:40, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 21:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable, seems to be a CV. Original Poster: If you create an account and log in, this would be great for your user page. Geldart 21:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. -- oo64eva (AJ) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 22:22, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a subpage that was moved from the article space, after having not been worked on since late January. I think it is now extremly unlikely that it will receive further attention. This is not a speedy candidate as I am not the only person to have contributed to it, and the user page policy also says that matierial moved from a different namespace is specificaly not eligable for speedying anyway. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Internet/Self-destructive subcultures (proposed) - the VfD that resulted in the move to my user space. Thryduulf 22:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 21:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also check out another article created by the user, User:Jonsim86: Jonathan simpson. Pure vanity. Such an ego. :-) --Anonymous Cow 23:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity/not notable. Delete --Henrygb 00:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per vanity. Nateji77 05:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. jni 05:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ditto -- Mwanner 00:06, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Elected officials should have content so constituency has direct information. I do not appreciate the personal attacks by Anonymous Cow. Nothing in this content is inaccurate. It is simple and gives the constituent information about me, as well as links to other helpful information. This page is not vanity. 141.165.125.121 00:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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