Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 18

April 18

Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:40, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Odili

Notability not established, and odili naija -".net" jordan gets no relevant hits, and no other combinations seemed to find this individual. Or, if you'd rather, 'unverifiable'. Niteowlneils 23:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Notability not established. Vegaswikian 06:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as vanity. Pavel Vozenilek 09:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Could this be referring to Chuck Odili, the maintainer of Nigeriaworld.com? There seems to be some controversy on his actions. Still, I don't see the notability. Wipe 10:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic and non-notable. Hermione1980 23:15, 23 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. —Xezbeth 19:38, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

HackCam

• Seems to be advertising. Delete. Slac speak up! 00:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. ✏ OvenFresh² 01:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the article about the engine if we have it. 131.211.210.15 07:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, forgot to log in. Mgm|^(talk) 07:42, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The article may be written as a promotion for the product, but it's factual enough to be useful. Nor is a merge called for -- HackCam is used with Counterstrike, not a feature of it. ---Isaac R 19:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I asked the creator of HackCam to write something about it in wikipedia to provide further detail to this relatively new tool. Added criticism to make the article a bit more balanced. Dabljuh 06:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete videogame trivia CDC (talk) 20:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The article talks about how the software detects cheats. Interesting even to a non-gamer like me. ---Isaac R 21:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please Yuckfoo 00:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Despite User:Dabljuh's efforts, the article still needs a bit of NPOV-editing, but the article seems to be encyclopedic enough aside from that. Hermione1980 23:19, 23 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 Aardvarks (band) CDC (talk) 18:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aardvarks (band)

Notability. Vanity/advertising. Amateur church band. Delete along with Jamming in the Aattic (2004) and Written & Recorded (2003) --The JPS 00:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Redirect to Aardvark. The JPS 08:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to aardvark like the first edit on the page. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 02:54, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Aardvark. Not notable band vanity. Megan1967 07:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Since the redirect already existed in the edit history, this does not require a VfD, I have been Bold and reverted to the redirect. Dsmdgold 15:05, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, sorry I didn't realise that. Unfortunately someone else has since been bold and reverted it back again. I've done the honours. The JPS 15:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I've moved this page to Aardvarks (band) and will make Aardvarks a redirect, this should keep the anon. editor who reverted the redirect happy. As for the bands page Delete Dsmdgold 17:20, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Aardvarks (band) per WP:NMG. (Keep the redirect at Aardvarks.) —Korath (Talk) 19:24, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• oh, the vfd is getting complicated. Agree with Korath. The JPS 20:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Aardvarks (band) as nonnotable per Korath. (Closing admin should note that the original VfD was for Aardvarks, hence the "redirect" votes at the top of the VfD.) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 22:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Assuming that this the consensus is for deletion, the references in List of songs whose title does not appear in the lyrics and List of protest songs need to be rooted out. Dsmdgold 23:36, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:45, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Jamming in the Aattic (2004)

Notability. Vanity/advertising. Amateur church band. Delete along with Aardvarks (band) and Written & Recorded (2003) --The JPS 00:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, reasoning as said above Master Thief Garrett 22:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN Dsmdgold 23:34, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons above. Hermione1980 23:21, 23 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. Joyous 17:46, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Written & Recorded (2003)

Notability. Vanity/advertising. Amateur church band. Delete along with Jamming in the Aattic (2004) and Aardvarks (band) --The JPS 00:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, reasoning as said above Master Thief Garrett 22:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN Dsmdgold 23:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons above. Hermione1980 23:22, 23 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. Joyous 17:47, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

List of Interstate that started out with multiple discontiguous segments

• I'm not oppossed to articles about highways per se, but if someone were to ask me for an example of an unencyclopedic list, this is what I'd use. Slac speak up! 00:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• An utterly meaningless list -- any Interstate highway that was built between multiple states would have been built in segments. More interesting would be such a list of currently discontinuous such highways -- I-95 would be one good example. It has a break in New Jersey and is likely to stay that way for at least the next decade. Haikupoet 00:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • See List of gaps in Interstate Highways. --SPUI (talk) 12:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• There was a time when some Interstates had discontiguous segments (e.g. discrete freeway segments). When I-75 started, it had an independent segment between Grayling, MI and Michigan State Highway 32 near Gaylord, MI, so keep. --SuperDude 01:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• That's not a reason for keeping. How is this information notable? Slac speak up! 01:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Many Interstates had, or started with, discontinous segments, plus the exact definition is a bit nebulous. Also problematic title. Particularly notable or unique Interstates in this regard could probably be mentioned on the main Interstate Highway article, instead of a separate article. Niteowlneils 01:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Please, please don't let Wikipedia degenerate into the sum of all trivia. -- Dcfleck 01:41, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Delete. An article about the building of the Interstates, describing the process of integrating multiple segments, could be encyclopedic. This list, however, has virtually zero information content. FreplySpang (talk) 02:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Roadcruft, trivial, etc. android↔talk 02:22, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated. I'm more convinced than ever that SuperDude115 and SamuraiClinton are one and the same. Result: More cruft on VfD. Sigh... - Lucky 6.9 02:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, almost every Interstate fits here. The information could be included in the articles about the Interstates, along with opening dates. --SPUI (talk) 12:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per SPUI. RussBlau 19:09, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. RickK 21:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but perhaps list as requested article something along the line suggested by FreplySpang, unless (s)he can start it. Maybe it should just be a section in the parent article as Niteowlneils suggested, unless there are enough reference materials available to write a good non-copyvio article. Barno 00:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Who would look this up?! --Idont Havaname 15:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Such lists are joke w/o encyclopedic value. Pavel Vozenilek 09:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into List of Interstate Highways, or list on that page's talk page. Clearly someone found this information useful. Have you asked them why they added it before voting it for deletion? Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it's not important in a certain field. Babe Ruth is a baseball god but if you don't know anything about baseball then you might think that he's unencyclopedic. If you are into highway construction or highway history then this list may have value. Any highway construction experts want to confirm or refute this? - Pioneer-12 12:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The only thing to merge would be one line saying every Interstate of sufficient length has had discontinuous segments as it was being built. And the creator (SuperDude115) commented above. I am a roadgeek and know a lot in this area, and this list is rather useless. --SPUI (talk) 13:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I defer to SPUIs expert opinion as a roadgeek. Changing my vote to Delete - Pioneer-12
  • SPUI is right. The thing is that while Interstates were built with 90% Federal funding, they were built by state highway departments, so there would be discontinuities anyway until the various parts were connected. Moreover, within states they were often built in segments. Haikupoet 16:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that something like this page would be useful, as it documents the specific cases when the in-between nonupgraded sections were actually signed as a TEMPORARY Interstate. It might be useful to have a page with more details of that (probably actually combined with a list of Interstates signed as FUTURE). More details would be nice, as some of these may have only existed on maps, while old signage photos could prove the existence (and believe me, those signage photos do often exist, though they are many times very hard to find - the state DOT is one option, as many have photolog systems). --SPUI (talk) 17:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, for instance [1] has two photos of temporary I-15 and I-15E shields. --SPUI (talk) 17:03, 23 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. Joyous 17:48, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Queen Feril

A Runescape character and the webmistress of a Runescape website. Doesn't seem notable in either capacity. Meelar (talk) 00:49, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Runesource only gets 54 google hits and any MMOG avatar is almost by definition non-encyclopedic in and of themselves (particularly major avators may deserve a mention in the respective articles, but not articles of their own). Rje 21:06, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, reasoning as said above Master Thief Garrett 22:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable and unencyclopedic. Hermione1980 23:25, 23 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. —Xezbeth 19:40, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wendell Cox

apparent autobiographical page Delete AYArktos 00:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, apparent vanity. Tempshill 23:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep--I've heard of this guy from browsing through the myriad forums at Skyscraperpage forums. His website and his opposition are both notable in the transportation and urban planning communities. --Combuchan 01:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) Edit--fixed the link.
• Keep. What Combuchan said. - Pioneer-12 12:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Secretcurse 14:34, 23 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 22:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joelville

Non-notable website. 25 displayed hits, many of which are for other uses. Alexa rank of 2,329,618 and falling fast. Anon's only contribs--likely 'auto-biographical'. Niteowlneils 01:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 07:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, reasoning as said above Master Thief Garrett 22:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 09:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Hermione1980 23:42, 23 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, merge, delete. (already transwikied) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Edmeston, New York (Subarticles)

Subarticles:

Edmeston, New York

Edmeston, New York (People)

Edmeston, New York (Schools)

Edmeston, New York (Churches)

Edmeston, New York (Houses)

Edmeston, New York (Businesses)

Edmeston, New York (References)

Edmeston, New York (Chronology)

Edmeston, New York (1760s)

Edmeston, New York (1770s)

Edmeston, New York (1780s)

Edmeston, New York (1790s)

Edmeston, New York (1800s)

Edmeston, New York (1810s)

Edmeston, New York (1820s)

Edmeston, New York (1830s)

Edmeston, New York (1840s)

Edmeston, New York (1850s)

Edmeston, New York (1860s)

Edmeston, New York (1870s)

Edmeston, New York (1880s)

Edmeston, New York (1890s)

Edmeston, New York (1900s)

These 20+ articles about the town of Edmeston, New York contain very detailed data about a small New York town over the past 250 years. Some of the pages contain oddly-formatted or frivolous text; letters, poems, pov comments glorifying the town. Others contain one-line bios of major town figures (and list where those figures have been referenced in the wider world).

Pre-VfD History of deletion dispute:

• One of the articles was listed as a speedy deletion candidate by Dom ([207.99.6.125]).
• Danny mentioned this on IRC, starting a prolonged debate; he then deleted all of the Edmeston subarticles as "non encyclopedic."
• Over the course of the debate, Terryfoote and Raul654 concurred strongly that they should be deleted; others thought they should be kept in some form, merged down to only encyclopedic content, or generally debated on-wiki. I'm undeleting and listing them on VfD as they were not proper speedy-deletion candidates.

I am not sure how I feel about these articles yet, but I think creating this set of articles was a great effort on Nonenmac's part. Thanks for putting time into wikifying this stuff and making it beautiful, even if it's not all appropriate for WP. +sj + 01:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Votes

• I agree that these articles should probably be moved to a more appropriate place. I will do it but give me a week to get everything copied out. We have put a lot of work into this and don't want to lose it all. Nonenmac 01:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AND whoever removed the Edmeston, New York (Chronology) article and all the subarticles, please put it back long enough so I can copy it. I was given no notice that they would be deleted Nonenmac 01:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for puting the articles back. I will copy them out and find another home for them. Then you can delete them if the votes direct it.Nonenmac 02:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Where do I vote Keep? Much information. Refactor, trim, clean up, redirect as necessary, but do not delete per se. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 01:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. ✏ OvenFresh² 02:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• From reading through a selection of the articles, it looks like this is a compilation of primary sources on Edmeston. As such, it would be a prime candidate for transwikiing to one of the other projects, either Wikisource or Wikibooks. --Carnildo 02:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Traswiki and delete from the Wikipedia namespace--nixie 02:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete ; Move it if you must, but this is not at all appropriate here. Most of the stuff is a bunch of signed letters - looks like a good candidate for Wikisource. --mav 02:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• There is no question that this should be deleted. On the other hand, this is excellent material for Wikisource, and the author has agreed to that, at my request, I might add. Delete and move to Wikisource. Danny 02:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--however, do not treat this vote as a precedent. If someone created encyclopedia articles on these topics, I would vote to keep. Meelar (talk) 03:03, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into a single model article at "Edmeston, New York."
  Delete leaf pages.
  Transwiki to Wikisource as appropriate. +sj + 03:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Why not a separate "History of Edmeston, New York" article? Because the town isn't important enough for people to expect to find an article by that title.

  Why not a subpage? Because subpages are often considered harmful in the main namespace.

  How easy will the merge be? The source material is not in a very natural format for merging; different sections have wilely varying tones. But the sectioning into people/schools/businesses/churches/houses is excellent (and a model for future city articles), so an improved outline would not be difficult.

  • Initially I was excited to see such a well-crossreferenced collection of local information, but then I saw there were places where the subarticles had random text that suggested someone (the uploader? the authors of some original source material?) was just fooling around. And clearly the pages need extensive sourcing to avoid being removed as original research. I'd like to hear Nonenmac weigh in on these points.
  • Re: Wikisourcing raw content -- Nonenmac, is this actually source material from some archive? If so, please list the source and move it to wikisource; you can still link out tne Wikipedia articles with w:Article name instead of Article name. +sj +
• Merge into Edmeston main article. Capitalistroadster 04:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this stuff should be submitted to Wikisource. --Michael Snow 05:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge either to Edmeston main article or to a single article on Edmeston (history). I prefer merge-and-delete because I don't think the individual article names are useful as redirects, but they can be left in place if it's too much work to perform a proper GFDL-friendly merge-and-delete. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to see us cut Nonenmac some slack. I see no harm in unevenness of coverage, that's endemic to Wikipedia, so the fact that Edmeston is covered ten or fifty times more thoroughly than other towns is OK. I do not like to see the material splattered around a score of separate articles. Given that 32K is hallowed by tradition as an acceptable article length, and that there's general agreement that 32K is not a hard limit—I think George W. Bush is over 70K now—I'd suggest that the information be merged into as small a number of articles, preferably one, that the merge be done as soon as possible, and gradually cleaned up and trimmed of extraneous matter over time.

One humongously long undisciplined article that needs cleanup is perfectly acceptable to me.

Many of the source quotations, "oral-history-like" material should be trimmed down or omitted. They should illustrate some point that's being said about the town, not just appear unexplained on their own. The full versions can go in Wikisource.

I don't think there could be any possible objection to Nonenmac keeping any or all of this material as subpages of his user page while he's working on it, as the work is obviously Wikipedia-related.

In the Wikipedia main namespace, the final result should look like a long, detailed article about Edmeston, not like the loose contents of an "Edmeston historic archive" file drawer in a dusty cabinet in the back room of the public library. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into a comprehensive article. Articles by city AND by decade are a bit superfluous. Radiant_* 14:28, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. JYolkowski // talk 18:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any encyclopedic information into the main Edmeston article, I don't think redirects are really neccessary. Rje 21:08, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki the source documents, merge the articles back into the town article, and viciously prune. RickK 21:20, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki pretty much everything to Wikisource. Like Sj, I at first thought this was totally legitimate, though vastly detailed ("1901: Steam heat was installed in the Gaskin House."), but then I saw some of the more ridiculous and non-encyclopedic, non-POV stuff ("All these brave, hardy, adventurous, fearless, industrious pioneers endured many hardships and sacrifices while clearing the land and paving the way for our comfortable homes today.") and decided to vote transwiki. Thanks to Sj and various others in #wikipedia for championing the VfD-ing of these articles, rather than their straight-out deletion, as per Danny. #wikipedia is great - I feel proud to have participated in such a momentous discussion. I believe this is a rather important topic, and one that may come into more scrutiny once Wikipedia and its sister sites grow a little more. Hopefully such detailed articles of the future will not also contain the sort of content unfit for Wikipedia that is found in this set of articles. — flamingspinach | (talk) 23:03, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Transwiki the source documents, viciously prune and merge what's left back into the town article, and delete the original articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I've copied the contents of all of these subarticles to Wikisource, where I agree they should be. I'll try to intgrate some of the pertinent information into the Edmeston, New York article in the future. I wonder how many man-hours were wasted on this discussion. If someone had just suggested that Wikisource was a better home for this stuff, I would have done it long ago. Nonenmac 12:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I like Dpbsmith's analogy: like the loose contents of an "Edmeston historic archive" file drawer in a dusty cabinet in the back room of the public library, but I can assure you that cabinet is not dusty. Nonenmac

• Transwiki, merge, delete subarticles as per Jayjg. (Exactly as I said in IRC. How'd I miss this listing until now?) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki, merge, delete, as per previous suggestions. Since Nonenmac appears to have already copied the appropriate subarticles to Wikisource, merge and delete should be the only steps necessary. I think this three-step process adequately addresses all the major concerns. --MikeJ9919 22:46, 23 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. —Xezbeth 19:41, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sabine Ehrenfeld

Tagged with {{cleanup-importance}} since February. The article just says that this person is featured in Overstock.com television commercials. Her listings on IMDB only lists a few minor roles. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, does not meet the criteria for biography --nixie 03:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not even close to encyclopedic. Rje 21:12, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• delete Pavel Vozenilek 09:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The commercials have gotten some press coverage recently, but she's a very minor figure even with that in mind. Delete unless someone wants to significantly expand. Secretcurse 14:41, 23 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 tropical cyclone. Postdlf 00:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Climate

Entire page consists of:

Hurricane climate refers to both the climatalogy of hurricanes and to the role climate factors play in modulating hurricane activity. For more information go to Hurricane Climate

So, one very unclear and poorly-written sentance, followed by a promotional link. Delete. -- Dcfleck 01:37, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

• Delete. Link spam. - Lucky 6.9 05:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only is the article uninformative, but the anon who wrote it originally has been flagrantly flouting the VfD notice--it's been edited eight times since the notice went up. Kill it.Dave1898 12:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There's nothing inherently wrong with trying to fix up an article up for deletion — in fact, the prospect of imminent demise has improved many pages greatly. However, I don't see that the changes that have been made to this article have improved its coherence. There's nothing here that hasn't been better said at Hurricane or Climatology; at best, this article could be a redirect.

The promotional link is gone now. -- Dcfleck 12:31, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

• Ask some climatologist about importance of the term Pavel Vozenilek 02:36, 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 keep rewritten article. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Smith Hinchman & Grylls

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}} for two weeks, there is so little information about this company in this article that it looks like an ad. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Without cleanup Delete Vegaswikian 06:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Without cleanup Delete Master Thief Garrett 07:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If notable someone will create it and better. Pavel Vozenilek 09:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Call off your dogs, I just cleaned it up now. This is a pretty major company, history in this Architecture Week article. Please, could people just do a little research instead of just listing stuff because they haven't got a clue about it? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It is NOT about whether it is notable or not! Please understand that! At the time of listing it looked like an ad. The User therefore did the right thing, WP does not allow ads. Whether or not it was about a valuable company is entirely immaterial, an article on Microsoft would be put up for Vfd if it looked like an ad, *unless* the article was cleaned up in the duration of the Vfd. Since you have cleaned it up, it is now fine. If the article had been at its current state at the time the User came across it, it would not have been listed for Vfd at all. I hope you understand. Have a nice day. Master Thief Garrett 02:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If an article looks like an ad, edit it so it no longer looks like an ad. Is that so difficult? But on the subject of the article as originally listed, it said this:

Founded in Detroit, Michigan in 1853. Known as the first architectural firm in the U.S.

Continues practice under the name SmithGroup

Then there was a link to http://www.smithgroup.com/.

In other words a perfectly normal business stub giving the barest essential information on a corporation. This article was wrongly listed, and very nearly deleted because the deletion policy was not followed and nobody could be bothered to look beyond their nose. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:15, 28 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. Postdlf 00:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Somashiandan Software Solutions

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}} since January, it currently looks like an ad. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vegaswikian 06:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 07:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:34, 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. Postdlf 00:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Somesh jena

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}} since January. I cannot find anything that is notable about this person. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 08:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I had forgotten about this. Still non-notable. jni 08:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 09:29, 23 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. —Xezbeth 19:43, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Bulbapedia

Vanity. ✏ OvenFresh² 01:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I see no reason to delete it. I created the article mostly because it was already linked to, also I have seen articles for other wikis on Wikipedia. Just because Bulbapedia is relatively new doesn't make this a vanity article. I say it stays. Jeff02 03:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Actually, if you use the "what links here" tool, you'll find that no other articles link to it besides the List of wikis, VfD pages, and Jeff02's user page. (Did you mean something else by "already linked to?") The entry on List of wikis ought to be enough for a relatively new Wiki. android↔talk 04:23, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 08:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:WIN. Radiant_* 15:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Just to clarify, I know this is not a place to advertise, and I am not trying to. I just saw the link in list of wikis and decided to add the article. I'm new here and I don't want anyone to get the wrong impression of me.Jeff02 20:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unfourtunately. I had no idea it was on the list of wikis, so I think that's adequate. There's really not much to say about it, to be honest. MToolen 00:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep please, please, please (Ryan) — (Ryan is 4.4.46.192; his first edit.)
• Merge into pokemon (if notable), delete rest. Pavel Vozenilek 02:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't understand, this is a separate Wiki of its own, why talk about it here? Its content is ever-changing, it's not like Encyclopaedia Britannica where you can detail each edition and whatnot. If anything, list it on one of the "lists of Pokemon" pages. It appears to me that you two are wanting this to be kept here purely as an advertisement. I'm sorry, but that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Master Thief Garrett 07:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if other Wikis have articles; otherwise, delete. Ketsy 19:31, 23 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. CDC (talk) 19:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spouff

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}} since March. This is a fantasy world created by an 18-year old Australian author, K.J. Taylor, whom I cannot find any credible and notable third party references about. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• According to her website, she has yet to be published. Wait for the book to demonstrate its notability before creating any articles about its contents. Delete Slac speak up! 03:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete, as said, until the author becomes noteworthy. Master Thief Garrett 03:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 09:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until she is published. Secretcurse 14:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, after it's published we can argue about whether it's notable enough. --Dcfleck 23:00, 2005 Apr 23 (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. CDC (talk) 19:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sprayway

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}} since February, it currently is a three-sentence ad. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vegaswikian 07:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial advert. Megan1967 08:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, an ad, as said above. Master Thief Garrett 03:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 09:30, 23 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Suidakra

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}} for two weeks, there is no music notability. The last paragraph in this three-paragraph article is more suited for a POV personal editorial. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:04, 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Syuzin

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}} for two weeks, it is more of a three-sentence promo. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 08:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vain. Master Thief Garrett 09:41, 23 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The Fully Down

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}} since March, the content for this one-sentence substub has not changed since December. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no improvement. Vegaswikian 07:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 08:08, 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. CDC (talk) 19:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tina Chow

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}}, this three-sentence substub really has not changed since it was first created back in November. There is nothing that is encyclopedic about it. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, short memorial that may or may not be true--nixie 03:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 08:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, millions of people had dies from AIDS. Pavel Vozenilek 02:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless Michael Chow is someone of importance, then neither is his wife. Also may not be true, or if it is then it may be POV. And, as above, this isn't Wikibituaries! Master Thief Garrett 00:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - who are these people? Grutness|^hello? 05:42, 28 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?) 19:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Empirical solution of the Monty Hall problem

I doubt this is encyclopædic. Would it be more suited to WikiSource?

If it is kept I don't see why it shouldn't be merged into Monty Hall problem.

• Nominated by Blotwell
• Merge with Monty Hall problem. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, Cleanup so it is less technical. The technical stuff and the PERL source code makes it more intimidating to read. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • On second thought, Transwiki to Wikisource. Monty Hall problem already has a non-technical explanation to its solution. Zzyzx11 | Talk 07:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikisource – Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place for source code. (Also, consider a rewrite in a more accessible language. This problem is often studied in math curricula, and I don't think it's common for math students to learn Perl.) android↔talk 04:13, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Send the source code to Wikisource, but mention empirical testing in the Monty Hall article (not necessarily this solution) and redirect. Meelar (talk) 07:26, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Megan1967 08:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I think something like this would be very useful in Monty Hall problem as a last resort to settle doubt. However, it is too long to merge as is. I've written my own version of the concept and will post it in Monty Hall problem. Gazpacho 09:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a similar program in Java is already listed under Monty Hall problem. Radiant_* 15:23, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikisource and put a link in the Monty Hall problem article. RickK 21:24, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. I noticed that there was a category for source code in Wikisource. This would fit perfectly there. Chris 02:04, Apr 23, 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Torpedo Moskau

A one-sentence substub that has been marked as {{cleanup-importance}} for three weeks. It just says, "Torpedo Moskau is a German punk rock band from Hamburg." So what? Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a single-sentence non-article with no content. I've hung a {{del}} template on it. Funny thing is, there's more content in the templates! - Lucky 6.9 03:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless compliance with Wikimusic Project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 04:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but not speedy--this clearly has content, namely that Torpedo Moskau is a German punk band. That's enough for it to escape speedy. Meelar (talk) 07:05, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Doggone loopholes.  :^) Just so long as it goes bye-bye...which seems likely. - Lucky 6.9 18:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to FC Torpedo Moscow, a football club from Russia. Grue 18:37, 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Western Hupeh

This is linked to from Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). Impossible to verify, because Google comes up empty on "Battle of Western Hupeh" (or Hubei, the modern spelling). Likely vandalism because this anon 63.26.218.73 (talk · contribs) simultaneously also created now-deleted Honan-Hupeh Campaign with contents hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. -- Curps 02:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: the article Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) probably needs some editing, to trim some battles whose existence can't be verified. -- Curps 02:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable to put it mildly. Beijing isn't even near Hubei. Can't find any reference to this battle on the Chinese or Japanese Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) pages. Kappa. P.S. I guess there might have been a battle in western Hebei that fits this description. 18:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. Dsmdgold 19:46, Apr 25, 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 to Ubiquitous computing. – Rich Farmbrough 16:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Ubiquitous Software

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}} since February. There is nothing that is encyclopedic or noteworthy in its two sentences. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to Ubiquitous computing Gazpacho 06:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• redirect to Ubiquitous computing Pavel Vozenilek 02:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• merge/redirect as above. Master Thief Garrett 00:46, 23 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. Postdlf 01:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Joe Garden

No evidence of notability - not-encyclopedic Johntex 03:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete appears to be a ad to get votes on his website--nixie 07:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 08:13, 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. The article cannot be deleted at the moment due to block compression errors, but has been blanked and protected. Postdlf 00:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Slogan 'Death to the Kikes'

Article about a particular use of a particular phrase, perhaps newsworthy several years ago, but just an expression now that nobody would look up.}} --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Individual hate slogans generally don't need their own articles. Firebug 04:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable phrase. Gazpacho 06:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or have a limitless number of "Death to foo" or "Die, foo!" articles (surely every conceivable epithet has been used in some march, protest, or other occasion of at least passing notability). -- 8^D ^gab 13:23, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Death to this article —Wahoofive | Talk 16:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not even the real slogan, it's a translation, and the article itself gives other possible translations (and frankly, "Death to the yids" is probably closer). Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anti-semitic edits should be eliminated on sight for the good of society. --Elitcher 03:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the information in the article is correct, although the slogan "Beat the kikes, save Russia" ("Bey zhidov, spasai Rossiyu") is more widespread. Yep, antisemitism is commonplace in Russia, what a shame. Grue 18:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't you think zhid should be "yid", not "kike"? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • And just out of curiousity, what is the non-pejorative Russian word for "Jew"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • "Yevrey". And yes, "yid" is a better translation for "zhid". Grue 11:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, "yid" is a far better term, both technically and connotation-wise. When I read "Kike" it meant nothing to me, but "yid" makes me think of "Yiddish" and thus I have an idea of what the article's about. So *if* (big if!) this is to be kept, it should be renamed "Death to the Yids!" or similar. Master Thief Garrett 00:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article on Tatyana Sapunova is better written, researched, and NPOV. Plus the bad translation, the anti-Semitic title, and the unlikeliness of anything else ever happening involving the phrase. The phrase is not encyclopedic; the event is — and the event already has a page devoted to its protagonist, Tatyana Sapunova. So there's no reason to keep it. (I also agree with [[User:BD2412] that it's about time we devoted an article to the intricacies of "Freeze, rebel scum!")

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 rewritten article. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Valley Arts Guitar

A one-sentence substub that has been tagged with {{cleanup-importance}} since March. It just reads, "Mike McGuire and Al Carness founded Valley Arts Guitar in the early 1970s in North Hollywood, Los Angeles, California." So what? Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It seems to be a store formerly frequented by a few VIPs [2] No vote —Wahoofive | Talk 04:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails to establish notability. Megan1967 08:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't establish notability, smacks of advertising to me. Rje 00:14, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment-expanded this, although I think a merge and redirect as a section of Gibson (the current owner) would be appropriate until such time as a Valley Arts fanatic chooses to expand it even further. Soundguy99 16:45, 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 delete. – Rich Farmbrough 16:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Lisa Pilcher

Vanity biography

• delete Obvious vanity biography by a student Samw 03:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. The JPS 08:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 'cos her friend Ben rocks!!! err, on second thoughts Delete as vanity. Rje 00:16, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. vanity. - Marcika 23:22, 23 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Vita Andersen

This person's only claim to fame is that she is the half sister of Erwin Neutzsky-Wulff and that she wrote some minimalistic autobiographies that are not specified in that article. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable Ejrrjs | What? 22:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:28, 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 no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Aage Neutzsky-Wulff

Just because a person is a father of a notable author does not necessarily mean that he is notable enough to have his own article. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable in his own right. Mgm|^(talk) 07:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The article does indicate that he wrote poetry, the only question is, how important of a poet was he? Knowing nothing about Danish poetry makes me reluctant to vote. I will note that the Danish language Wikipedia, which has 24,223 articles does not have an article about him. Dsmdgold 14:52, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Ejrrjs | What? 22:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with his son's article if not notable in his own right. Parents are somewhat influential in their children's development. Kappa 19:47, 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 no consensus Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

DKU

A video game neologism. It also doesn't help that a "See also" contains a link to Stephen Hawking. --Chill Pill Bill 03:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. android↔talk 04:07, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 08:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Donkey Kong. —msh210 17:45, 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 keep. – Rich Farmbrough 16:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Ninja Strike Force

Non-notable subgroup of a contestably notable hacker group. In other words, vanity. Delete. --Sn0wflake 03:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. CDC themselves are noteworthy, largely because of the extremely popular Back Orifice program, but this subgroup isn't. Firebug 04:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm a member of cDc (we've done a lot more than BO, btw), though, so maybe that should be taken into account. --Myles Long 04:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I doubt it. The fact that you are a member of CULT OF THE DEAD COW doesn't seem relevant at all. The fact that CULT OF THE DEAD COW has done more than Back Orifice would be relevant were we discussing the CULT OF THE DEAD COW article. But we aren't. We're discussing Ninja Strike Force. Are you a member of Ninja Strike Force? Can you include in this article, which currently reads like a combined membership roster (Wikipedia is not a directory) and community noticeboard (Wikipedia is not a free hosting service), any reason that it is encyclopaedia-worthy? Remember that stuff that is too secret for Wikipedia won't help. Uncle G 11:21, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
    • Yawn. No, I'm not a member of NSF, but I do have a vested interest in its well-being, that's all I meant. The NSF isn't a subgroup, either...it's more like a semi-autonomous collective under the cDc umbrella. But whatever. I didn't mean that cDc's having done more than BO was relevant to this discussion; I was merely responding to the previous "delete" vote that seemed to imply that it did. I was actually about to suggest that the NSF article be reverted to a redirect to CULT OF THE DEAD COW, but I see that you've already suggested that. So, that's my vote. Redirect for now, until when/if there's ever more notable content. And what does Sn0wflake mean by cDc being "contestably notable?" Just curious. I have no interest in arguing about this. --Myles Long 12:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • It becomes clear now. Your original paragraph can be read two ways. I read it as your putting forward the fact that you are a cDc member as the actual rationale for keeping this article, rather than as your simply providing full disclosure of a personal bias. I cannot answer your question about what Sn0wflake wrote; but it wasn't really addressed to me. In turn my second question still stands, addressed to the world in general. Uncle G 16:37, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I realize that my original comment was ambiguous. I just meant to disclose personal bias. And no, right now, I don't think the NSF is particular encyclopedic. Hence my vote for redirect. That isn't to say that it will not someday be encyclopedic. --Myles Long 17:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo.Megan1967 08:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Take out the membership directory and the community noticeboard, and the only content that is left is either content that we can already find in CULT OF THE DEAD COW or a nearly-substub description of an apparently less-than-stellar low-budget martial-arts film. Redirect (nothing to merge) to CULT OF THE DEAD COW unless someone writes something worthwhile about the movie. Uncle G 11:21, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • Given GRider's recent additions to the article (which I think constitute someone writing "something worthwhile about the movie"), I am changing my vote back to Keep, where my vote shall stay. --Myles Long 18:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • May I ask why? Just curious. The movie seems to warrant its own article now, in the very least.--Myles Long 19:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, at least the movie should stay. Grue 17:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand the movie. merge the CULT OF THE DEAD COW stuff to that article, leaving only a link at the top of the page. I also don't understand why the disambig template is there. Thryduulf 23:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please its a real movie Yuckfoo 00:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand the film and merge the cDc content into its parent article. Next. —RaD Man (talk) 07:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, now that the movie information is there, merge the cult stuff to its article. (I can understand why this page was originally nominated, and would have voted to delete if the page had remained the way it was when it the tag was added)--BaronLarf 08:26, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, at least as a movie (GRider's been doing some good after all). If the CDC stuff is merged with the CDC article, then a link should remain at the top of the page --Kieran 13:47, 24 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

National-Anime

Non-notable website vanity. Delete. --Sn0wflake 03:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 08:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Del notability not established. —msh210 17:45, 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 delete. – Rich Farmbrough 16:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Online Storytimes

Interesting, but not exactly notable. Delete. --Sn0wflake 04:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Advertisement. Ejrrjs | What? 22:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Del advertisment. —msh210 17:45, 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 merge and redirect to Robert. – ABCD 00:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Robert (disambiguation)

None of the articles linked on this disambiguation page actually need disambiguation. They all refer to people named Robert, but none of them are people who are known simply as "Robert" --- Isaac R 04:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Robert. The list of "famous Roberts" is pretty useless though, don't merge. We've got dozens of similar pages; this one's more legit than Joan, for example. —Wahoofive | Talk 04:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • So you want searches for "Robert (disambiguation)" to redirect to "Robert"? That doesn't make any sense. ---06:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Above unsigned comment by Isaac R —Wahoofive | Talk 16:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that it's silly, but redirects are cheap and harmless. Anyway, no one's actually going to search for "Robert (disambiguation)". Maybe you meant wikilink. —Wahoofive | Talk 16:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I mean "search". The main purpose of a redirect page is to help with searches. If the name of the page is something nobody ever searchs for, that purpose isn't served. You could still link to it, but you usually want to avoid linking to redirect pages. Especially when the name of the redirect page is "Robert (disambiguation)"!!!! ---Isaac R 20:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: Searching is one of the purposes for a redirect page but hardly the "main purpose" and certainly not the only purpose. Redirects also preserve attribution history (a requirement of GFDL), prevent broken links, aid in accidental linking, etc. See Wikipedia:Redirect and meta:redirect for more. Rossami (talk) 22:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • You're right. My statement of the purpose of redirects was much too narrow, and there are many other purposes. But you haven't demonstrated that any of those purposes is served by having a redirect page named "Robert (disambiguation)". ---Isaac R 23:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Robert. Wikipedia not being paper and all, I see no harm (and maybe some utility) in having the famous Roberts on the page. -- 8^D ^gab 05:52, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • The harm is that this is doesn't follow the rules for when to disambiguate. It may sound terminally anal, but there have to be some limits on what we include -- and this is well outside them. ---Isaac R 06:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I stumbled across this when trying to write up Saint Robert. In most cases, given name articles go to the most famous person known only by that name if there is only one. Otherwise, they're disambiguations. After I saw the wretchedness of the Robert article, where it wasn't a dab but rather yet another bar-bet trivia game "List of," I decided to manually merge in the people who needed to be disambiguated, and then let the silliness go forth. If Robert is a proper dab, then there is no need for Robert (disambiguation), and it should be deleted as duplicate content. Further, I would love to see the "list of favorite Roberts" have a mysterious accident in the night and disappear from the Robert page as well. Geogre 20:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW, no articles link to Robert (disambiguation). Geogre 20:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, I realize now that the above was not clear. Here is a chronology, as best as I can see it:

Someone wrote Robert as a "List of Famous Roberts."

When that conflicted with the usual Wikipedia practice, the answer (!) was to create a new page called Robert (disambiguation) rather than knocking the stuffing out of Robert.

When I went to write up the saint, I was full of outrage, so I looked up all the "Robert of" people I could find and listed them in Robert above the silly list. I left the silly list as something not worth fighting over.

Given that the Robert article now has that disambiguation, there is no need for the disambiguation page as a separate entity. I'm not responsible for the "Famous Robert" stuff, and I would love to see it go away altogether. Any editor can do that, of course. Once the disambig. page goes away, the Robert page should get the dab tag, and then it will be in order to delete all that trivia contest stuff. Geogre 23:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Robert. Tony Jin | (talk) 23:49, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's two votes to merge with Robert, but still no positive statement to justify having a list of people named "Robert". What's the utility of list of people whose connection with each other is their first name? ---Isaac R 23:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this kind of list belongs anywhere, it should be named List of people named Robert. However, I think Special:Allpages/Robert does a much better job of listing the more than 3,000 articles on people named Robert. Gdr 22:36, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

• Comment: Ok, so folks were arguing that Robert (disambiguation) should be merged into Robert. That has been done. Now that it has been done, the only question that remains is whether or not to have a redirect from Robert (disambiguation) to Robert. I assume no one thinks such a thing is logical? Since no articles link to Robert (disambiguation) and there is no unique content and it is a secondary search term, I will, if I see no objections, delete it as in process. Geogre 22:09, 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 CDC (talk) 22:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Atlasia

The US Presidential Atlas site may deserve an article, but I do not think Atlasia deserves one. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP. --MAS117 21:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The whole concept of "micronations" is lame -- most of them are nothing more than social clubs, and none of them have any legal basis. That said, a lot of people take them seriously, so they have at least the importance of the imaginary planets of Star Trek. So they're entitled to articles. I would like to see articles that don't assume that Micronations have exactly the same status as "real" countries. They need to present themselves to a sceptical outer world. That means more talk more about what they're trying to accomplish, and less about their organizational trivia. (Is there a template for that?) ---Isaac R 07:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • As I say below, I'm happy to expand the article at some point, but I haven't had a chance yet. If its allowed to stay, it will get done by me and other members. I'm also open to suggestions on presenting it in such a way that is realistic to the fact its not real. --New Progressive 21:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • As much as I would like to agree with you, the general policy on wikipedia is to delete articles such as these. We have deleted other micronational articles that were just as deserving. Plus, as I have discovered today, there is a micronational wiki, and Atlasia is already on it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The imaginary contents of fictional universes are not automatically entitled to articles. Read Wikipedia:Fiction. Your premise is flawed, therefore. Also read the following:
    • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/R. Ben Madison
    • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Talossan language
    • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Principality of Sealand
    • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nova Roma (Micronation)
    • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Societas Via Romana
    • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Empire of Septempontia
    • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Atlantium
    • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Almea
  • Uncle G 11:47, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
    • Be nice, Uncle, and don't strawman my arguments. I said nothing about "automatic entitlement". I simply pointed out that we have articles for imaginary planets. Wikipedia:Fiction allows that if the article on the imaginary universe needs to be broken up -- and given the obsessiveness of SF fans, that need is inevitable. ---Isaac R 22:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I didn't strawman your argument. Your very words were "So they're entitled to articles.". Moreover, we don't have articles for all imaginary planets, only some, and subject to Wikipedia:Fiction. (See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Synnax, for example.) Again, your premise is flawed. Further: No, the need for an article to be broken up is not inevitable. Not even the most obsessed sci-fi fan can find more that can be said about Synnax, for example. Again, your premise is flawed. Uncle G 15:34, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
    • Not having month or two to spare, I can do no more than skim your list. Maybe there's a strong precedent for not giving Micronations articles. If so, I'm not inclined to fight the trend -- as I said before, I consider the whole concept lame. Still, I notice that, after a lengthy battle, the most notorious micronation, Sealand, retained its article. Indeed, that article would be a nice model for other Micronation articles, since it takes the time to document the scepticism over its premise. Another model: the Republic of Texas.---Isaac R 22:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Maybe there's a strong precedent for not giving Micronations articles. — The precedent is mixed, because the issue is complex, and varies from case to case. I gave a selection of precedents from across the spectrum precisely to demonstrate that. Uncle G 15:34, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
      • that article would be a nice model for other Micronation articles — You're thinking about this in the wrong way. You're talking about model articles, and clearly thinking that the criteria are whether the article has been polished to some standard of presentation. The actual criteria applied are far more to do with the subject rather than the quality of the article. Note that Republic of Texas and Principality of Sealand both stake claims to physical territory, and indeed have both been in (somewhat one-sided) conflicts over those claims, whereas the Republic of Atlasia has no claimed geography at all, for example. Uncle G 15:34, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
    • Bottom line: silliness is not grounds for exclusion. ---Isaac R 22:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The bottom line, given your leaping to false conclusions both here and elsewhere in other VFD discussions ("why are we giving the Micronationoids such a hard time?"), is that perhaps you should sit down and read the prior discussions thoroughly. Uncle G 15:34, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
        • As long as we're criticizing reading habits, perhaps you should take another look at the civility rules? ---Isaac R 23:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This article basically summarizes the constitution of a 100-member club (if we are to believe this article, rather than the empty Citizens of Atlasia list) that some people have created with the help of some web hosting. There's nothing whatever here about the club's achievements, history, features of interest, or goals. Delete. Uncle G 11:47, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • For the record, the citizen page is a problem we've been having issues with: Please go here to view the genuine list of citizens whose pages have been put on the AtlasWiki. I'd also happily fill out the details of the country at some point but I cannot write novels at a time. --New Progressive 21:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all micronations. RickK 21:27, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable micronation. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete only coz of 2 hits on google which are both to wikipedia Yuckfoo 06:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Note: I'd like to point out that there is another micronation on Wikipedia, the Virtual Commonwealth of Cyberia, that is much smaller than our own, and yet their page is for some reason allowed to remain. The reason Atlasia is not generally well documented on Google is that we've only really just started to branch out to advertise to the wider world to recruit new members. Previously we had never bothered to register stuff with google to recruit, so it won't show. For the record I am the article's author and a member of the nation. --New Progressive 21:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It looks like Cyberia has never been on VfD. I shall put it on too. I am familiar with both Atlasia (I am a forum member) and Cyberia to know that neither deserve articles. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep New Progressive raises good points. --Ilikeverin 22:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 22:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Advertising. Non-notable micronation. Wikipedia is inconsistent. The existence of other micronation articles is not a reason to keep this one. Nominate the others for deletion if they are not notable. I don't think a traffic court would revoke a ticket for going 15 mph over the limit just because other cars were going 20 mph over. In fact a good reason for deleting this article is so that future micronation promoters will not cite this one as precedent. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Most certainly not notable. Indrian 05:20, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What dpbsmith said. Plus, only hits are Wikipedia and a mirror. Niteowlneils 17:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Xezbeth 18:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As above. Slac speak up! 03:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable "internet micronations" CDC (talk) 21:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Personally, I don't think the true Catholic Church should be accorded an article, either, but that's my personal bias. I understand that the information may prove informative or enlightening to others, and I see this situation as similar. As long as someone is proclaiming their willingness to expand and improve the article, I think the deletion discussion should be tabled. --MikeJ9919 23:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • An interesting comparison. There probably aren't that many more True Catholics than there are Atlasians. They only have two priests, one of which is their Antipope. On the other hand, the True Catholics are a lot more interesting than the Atlasians. ---Isaac R 23:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• On what basis do you make such an assertion? --New Progressive 17:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for all the reasons Dpbsmith said. --Dcfleck 23:04, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
• Delete all micronations. 7 Google results is not major enough. Master Thief Garrett 07:04, 24 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?) 04:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Abe Froman

Delete. Band vanity. Does not appear to meet any one criterion listed at WP:MUSIC. No entry at allmusic.com. Band's apparent official site is hosted at a University. 957 Google hits for "abe froman", but I would imagine a lot of those are references to Ferris Bueller. android↔talk 04:50, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 08:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep wiki guidelines say non notable means less than 100 people would be interested in them; they are definitely bigger than that. i've heard of them and i am not particularly interested in their subset of punk. "abe froman" + lansing results in about 500 hits on google. 141.151.160.53 09:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines says nothing of the sort. It talks about tours, albums, hits, famous members, and awards. The only parts of this article that meet those critera are those that are talking about some other band. The article contents fail to satisfy the criteria. Delete. Uncle G 11:53, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Delete, not Romanian. NazismIsntCool 09:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Uhh, what? android↔talk 03:23, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Randolph 06:45, 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 speedy delete. – ABCD 00:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Andres Cassinelli

Delete as vanity. FreplySpang (talk) 04:58, 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 merge. Now the big question... what shall we merge this with? Two want this merged with chess variant, the remaining merge votes who say what it should be merged with, want it merged with an "appropriate list" or "appropriate article" per WP:FICT. An "appropriate list" does not really exist at the moment. The closest thing is Expanded Universe (Star Wars) which is what I'm going to merge this with. Sjakkalle 13:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Dejarik

Becides it being star wars cruft, is their realy any possibility that this artile could ever be sigificantly expaned, or that it played such a role that in warrents it won article. As it stands now it really tells me nothing more then what could be said about it 0 articles it links to. Merge and redirect or delete into some other Star Wars related article. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into the appropriate article on Star Wars trivia. -- 8^D ^gab 05:50, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Delete. Insignificant trivia. jni 06:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Chess variant. Chess variant article lists fantasy variants. Megan1967 08:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Someone please check whether starwarswiki (there might be a hyphen in there) already has this; if so, transwiki, then merge to a parent article and redirect. If they don't need it, skip the transwiki part and do the rest. Per WP:FICT, this is trivia of some interest within the fiction universe's fans and maybe to chess-variant buffs, I don't know, but not culturally significant enough for an article in WP. Barno 00:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Stuff from Star Wars, Things in Episode Four of Star Wars for five seconds or similar... Seriously though, if no useful general Star Wars article exists for this to be merged into I think is should be deleted (who's going to look specifically for it?). Rje 00:24, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into appropriate list of minor SW topics. Anyway, if a miscellaneous Star Wars stuff article were created, there would probably be tons of entries that could be added, so that remains a feasible merging option. There's about 5,210 Google hits, and it was a part of one of the most major films of all time.-LtNOWIS 01:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I suggest a new strategy, Artoo. Let the Wookiee Delete. android↔talk 05:09, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 12:44, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Agree with Megan on this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:12, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• merge' seems ok Yuckfoo 00:56, 23 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam and Fuzzy

Webcomic, questionable notability. Firebug 06:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Before voting, please see my notes on Talk page. Tedzsee 19:18, 18 Apr 2005 (PST)
• Keep. I believe that it passes Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines, but that web traffic is just, uh, barely sufficient. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 02:37, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, been around in regular updates for three+ years. Radiant_* 12:45, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please it seems notbale Yuckfoo 00:57, 23 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 —Xezbeth 06:55, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Steven Schimmel

Vanity. Was nominated for speedy deletion; I don't believe it meets the criteria so switching to VfD. A Google search reveals several Steven Schimmels; the second link appears to refer to our Mr. Schimmel. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This same user also created a nonsense vanity article that was speedied - after he removed the {{delete}} tag from it twice. Firebug 06:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Good call to bring it here instead of speedy. Also a good call to delete this vanity article. The anon user is welcome to create a user page. Rossami (talk) 22:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. --MikeJ9919 23:09, 23 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; already made into redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The Way I Am

• Delete. Not notable in terms of its impact on hip-hop, or in terms of its record sales. See also its Talk Page where I discuss this same thing. It's just another out of thousands and thousands of unnotable rap songs. Note that this is not the similarly titled song by Eminem, which is more noteworthy, one can say. This is a single by Knocc-Turn'Al (featuring Snoop Dogg) that was released last year or so, without making much of a buzz. Decius 05:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, and someone should add info about the Eminem song. The fact that other rap songs don't yet have articles is not a valid justification for deleting this article. Also, please remember to properly follow the instructions when nominating an article for deletion. Rhobite 06:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

• As I said, this song is a lame-duck, and it shouldn't have an article. I know my Hip-Hop, and this song is literally nothing. But aside from that, the "justification for deletion" is that it is not notable enough to have an Encyclopedia article: like I said, it has virtually no significance in Hip-Hop, and its sales were sluggish. I'm in Los Angeles, and nobody blinked an eye over this song when it came out (and the artist is from Los Angeles). Dj's in Los Angeles Radio Stations barely played the record for a few weeks, then dropped it in the bin. Decius 06:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I have a compromise: the single "The Way I Am" is not notable to have an article, but this single is contained on his Album, which was also titled "The Way I Am". The Album, though it was modest in sales & impact, is worth having an article, so I'm going to redirect the song article to the new Album article. Decius 07:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. Merge/redir. Radiant_* 14:31, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• keep this one please Yuckfoo 06:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It's been settled---the article is now about the Album. If someone is interested in this artist, then please expand the article and format it as other Album articles are formatted. And I would hope that next time a person thinks before starting an article about an inconsequential song. The former article about the song no longer exists, and we are no longer taking votes on it. The new article about the Album is not being voted on here. Decius 08:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless rewritten about Eminem song. Grue 18:42, 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 CDC (talk) 22:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

DO YOU COME FROM A LAND DOWN UNDER?!?!

I R TEH HAX)R!NG JoO!!! LolZ