Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 14

March 14

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 USERFY. jni 15:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Michael E. Shea

Clearly a vanity page. --EQer 23:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed, but it seems like it might have been an honest attempt at a user page. I'm moving it there. - Lucky 6.9 22:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. jni 15:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tricks Upon Travellers

Delete Looks like a vanity page, or at least advertising. It's particularly the first sentence I react to, change this and the article might have the right to live (I did find a few entries when I googled the name). - Eixo 00:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Ad page, shows no sign of third-party verifiability - David Gerard 01:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see how it passes the Notability and Music Guidelines. Zzyzx11 02:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE --ZayZayEM 03:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 04:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:40, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn vanicruft. ComCat 03:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Robinoke 17:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. jni 15:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aamer Sarfraz

As far as I can tell, he is a minor political advisor in the UK, no potential to become encyclopedic at this point--nixie 00:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless some third-party verifiability shows up. Then keep - David Gerard 01:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well [1] lists him as a contact for the All Party Parliamentary Committee on Entrepreneurship. Still not very exciting though, and APPCs are unofficial. Kappa 01:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Politicians, no matter how minor (a POV-issue) are notable (public figures). Delete. Misunderstanding.--ZayZayEM 03:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Er... politicians might be notable but this person isn't one. Minor political advisors aren't notable. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Haham hanuka 09:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:40, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Prashant Sharma

Not evidence of notability. Delete.-gadfium 01:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - vanity, no verifiability supplied - David Gerard 01:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see any evidence of notability. Zzyzx11 02:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, belong on userpage instead. Tygar 06:12, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Birthplaces of music

A list of places (3) where types of music may have started. Unverifiable--nixie 01:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Even if those 3 places are verified, the other question we need to consider is should this list even be in Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 02:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming that those kind of details that can be stated as fact are already in History of music, I fail to see the need for this list.--nixie 02:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't think this list is necessary. Delete. Zzyzx11 08:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary list. Megan1967 04:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, extraneous list. Tygar 06:13, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep could be interesting if cleaned up and expandedAndrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivia. Radiant! 15:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As far as I know, music is generally not "born" but evolved from other genres, hence trying to pinpoint a single place as the "birthplace" is dubious, at best. -R. fiend 15:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A lot of this is already covered on List of places after which musical genres have been named or whatever it's called. Grutness|^hello? 10:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it's rubbish. Robinoke 17:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Star Patel

Non-notable dog. Delete. For some reason I find this tribute very moving.-gadfium 01:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see how this dog deserves its own encyclopedia article. Zzyzx11 02:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the memorial wiki, and thereby counter its systemic bias. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 02:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I hope we don't hurt the author's feelings by deleting this, and it is a moving tribute, but unfortunately not an encyclopedia article. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • And a German Shepherd/Lab cross as well. Possibly my two favourite breeds of dog. There ought to be a proper memorial wiki for things like this. Does anyone know if Wikicities has one? — Trilobite (Talk) 03:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the memorial wiki was specifically for memorials to people who had died in the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks. DaveTheRed 03:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yup. That's quite a systemic bias there. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Is it systemic bias to create a wiki with a narrow scope? If I created a wiki dedicated to square-shaped objects, would I be guilty of systemic bias because my wiki contained no articles on circular objects? DaveTheRed 05:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It's called irony, honey. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 06:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Ok honey, explain to me what part of this conversation is ironic, cause I sure don't see it. DaveTheRed 08:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• (Subsequently taken offline...)

• Delete, not notable dog. Megan1967 04:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Weirdly enough I find this more sad than most of the human memorial articles I see here. It still can't stay though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Awwwww. That's so sad. My condolences to the Patel family; Star sounds like he was a wonderful doggy. The article needs to be humanely put to sleep. DS 03:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Very sad, but still not notable. Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Sad, but no, it doesn't belong here. Perhaps someone should suggest to the owner that he puts it on a page on his website. Otherwise I'll be tempted to add my old cat (1982-2000). Grutness|^hello? 10:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dog died, owner sad, this is not the place for it. --StoatBringer 12:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If this was 1999, I would suggest an internet startup for ONLINE PET MEMORIALS! NASDAQ, here we come! We're going to be rich! --AStanhope 17:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blake Sills

This article is about a teacher in Texas who was arrested on drug charges. It's rather mundane and does not seem encyclopedic at all. Carbonite | Talk 01:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• No, I think Carbonite misses the point. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, but it also transcends the values of traditional encyclopedias. This article contributes to local history in Fort Worth. I believe we should not be so pessimistic as to aspire to attain the merit of Britannica. Wikipedia can be much more. Note: Added by User:Morris181340
  • Wikipedia isn't paper, but it's also not a newspaper. Sadly, a teacher being arrested on drug charges isn't uncommon or especially notable. If the arrest of Mr. Sills is really a major event in Fort Worth history, perhaps a case could be made for inclusion in the Fort Worth article. Carbonite | Talk 03:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A great example of something that is verifiable, but does not belong in Wikipedia. DaveTheRed 03:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people in the United States are arrested on drug-related charges every year, are they not? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 13:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a police blotter. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• The only way I would vote to keep is if further information regarding the protests were included demonstrating some higher level of significance then they seemingly have now. Or assertion that incident was somehow important in Fort Worth history as a whole, some broader significance, or some importance to his life or career behyond this. Unless and until this something else is added, delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Influence on the concentration of biologically active substances and drugs and Biologically active substances and drugs

Identical articles, the content reads like a college project, it also lacks refs making it difficult for other editors to verify the content--nixie 01:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The article titles are very tenuously related to the article contents. Perhaps some of this stuff can be merged into drug metabolism? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete these two articles. Merge any useful information that is not in the appropriate articles.--ZayZayEM 03:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to Drug metabolism, no redirect. Megan1967 04:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research? This is hard to tell. Tygar 06:14, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as Tygar said. Fuzheado | Talk 09:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete these, uh, whatever the hell they are. Edeans 03:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 - made into a disambig page - SimonP 15:02, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

The Quest for the Historical Jesus

Original research, personal essay. No sources given for any of the statements in it. Nothing wrong with it, all sensible stuff, but all presented on the sole authority of the contributor. Should not be kept in its present form. (By the way, this is not a re-creation of the previously deleted material under this title).

The topic is encyclopedic—and is presently dealt with in the article Historicity of Jesus.

I personally think the disposition of The Quest for the Historical Jesus should simply be delete, because I don't think this is an appropriate title, and not one that anyone would be likely to type in when looking for this material.

However, two redirects are worth considering. One is to Historicity of Jesus. The other is to Albert Schweitzer, because the title is extremely similar to Albert Schweitzer's famous book on this topic, The Quest of the Historical Jesus and is a plausible mistake for someone looking for Schweitzer's book. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect as suggested above. Android79 02:04, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • To which target? Historicity of Jesus or Albert Schweitzer? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Err, both! :o) Sorry, wasn't thinking... I'd say Schweitzer, because I think the searching-for-book-title mistake is more plausible. Android79 02:33, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Historicity of Jesus. Lacrimosus 02:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It could even conceivably be a disambig for Schweitzer and Historicity of Jesus, though a redirect to the latter is quite acceptable. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, that's all very well, but what to do with the existing content? It appears to be a well-written essay with very little POV-pushing, and it would be a shame to just delete it. I suggest merging some of the background material into Historicity of Jesus, to offset that article's fragmentory nature. Or transwiki to wikibooks. Keep as the current disambiguation page. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 02:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It's more than just a plausible mistake for Schweitzer's book title; there are numerous references on Google to Schweitzer's book that do give the title as "for". Should probably redirect to Schweitzer. I'd also suggest that the book appears notable enough that maybe an article on the book itself might not be a bad idea; if there already is one or somebody wants to write one, redirecting this title there might be an even better idea. Bearcat 02:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree, but I'm not that person... BTW I assume Schweitzer's book was written in German so the title is a translation, but all sixteen copies in several editions in my local public library network's online category use "of." and it has stuck in my mind precisely because "for" would seem more idiomatic... just as On the Edge of the Primeval Forest" has always sounded odd because "Jungle" would seem to be the natural term... Dpbsmith (talk) 11:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Schweitzer is probably best. I wouldn't bother merging any of the material. It reads like a personal essay, and I think a merge would cause more trouble than it's worth. DaveTheRed 03:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Albert Schweitzer. Megan1967 04:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• We now have at least four articles:
  • Historicity of Jesus
  • Cultural and historical background of Jesus
  • The Jesus of History
  • The Quest for the Historical Jesus
• the neutrality of at least two of which is disputed. This seems too many and too much non-neutrality. Uncle G 09:38, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

---

• Comment I've rewritten it as a disambiguation page. The original essay to which the above comments refer is here. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Comment And Megan1967 failed to notice Historical Jesus, which I've now added to the dab. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • I failed to notice or are you just wanting to start a fight? Just about every other editor has suggested what I just said. So I dont understand what context you brought that comment up with considering the majority of comments so far. Megan1967 05:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I think Mr. Smith misattributed Uncle G's comment (the bulleted list with four entries, missing Historical Jesus as noted) to you instead. No need for fightin'. :o) Android79 05:37, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay I'll take your word for it, Android. Megan1967 06:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Whoa! I screwed up bigtime. a) Wrote what should have been a thank-you so that it sounded like criticism and b) misdirected it. My apologies. Still haven't got the knack of this newfangled "on line" communication, it would seem. Let's try this again.
• Comment My thanks to Uncle G for pointing out two other articles on the "historical Jesus." I've since found a third one, named, oddly, Historical Jesus which would be another candidate as a redirect, reinforcing my feeling that it should be a dab. I've added it to the page.
• Keep in its present form as a disambiguation page. Good work, Smith.--Christofurio 15:55, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• This should be about the book and the book only. If there is enough info on the book make it an article. If not redirect to Albert Schweitzer. DJ Clayworth 17:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Schweitzer. -Sean Curtin 02:46, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

As the author of the piece, I am heartened by the response. I wrote it only because I did not find the historicity page, which goes far beyond what I wrote, off the cuff, but did find a page whose author read the Bible with little critical appreciation. Redirect it anywhere it should go.

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. jni 15:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Betteruse

Neolgism and an advert for betteruse.org, I would redirect to recycling if I was convienced that people used the term--nixie 02:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism and ad. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An ad full of neologism. Zzyzx11 02:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--ZayZayEM 03:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tygar 06:15, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Current article is not informative. Thue | talk 08:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Haham hanuka 09:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not a common term at all Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:23, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn spamcruft. ComCat 03:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. jni 15:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Accountz

Advertisment--nixie 02:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless someone can provide notable information instead of just an ad. Zzyzx11 02:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--ZayZayEM 03:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Author apparently didn't read the warning above the edit box: "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business." — Trilobite (Talk) 03:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ads. Tygar 06:16, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Herbert Kornfeld Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adaptonym

Neologism, merge to text messaging if necessary--nixie 02:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism. No merge. DaveTheRed 03:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, definition; no merge. Tygar 06:16, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ruakh 04:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 - redirected - SimonP 15:05, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Aggridants

Phycological neoligism for a dominant individual, no reason given for the significance of this term or the theoretical context that it is used in--nixie 02:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Wiktionary candidate?--ZayZayEM 03:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. Megan1967 04:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • But it makes no sense without some theoretical context, it'd be just as odd in wiktionary as it is in wikipedia--nixie 05:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Abraham Maslow and delete. Tygar 06:17, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:GVFD#Incompatible_votes. Which do you actually want, deletion or merger? Uncle G 09:41, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
    • Hah... whoops. Thanks :) Tygar 09:48, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Abraham Maslow and redirect. If (unexpectedly) this got to be more than a paragraph or so, then it would be time to spin it back out. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:38, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Merge not significant enough in its own right SusanaeIII

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. jni 15:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ajay's house of pain and waffles

Appears to be an ad for the relaunch of what appears to be a non-notable personal website--nixie 03:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, ad. Besides, waffles should never be mixed with pain. DaveTheRed 03:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds gay. Now, "Kiki's house of pain and waffles" would be heaven--ZayZayEM 03:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This comment was offensive. Please think twice before posting such comments again. RickK 09:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • You are taking "gay" to be derogatory. I merely was suggesting it sounds homoerotic in a non-judgemental fashion.
• Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Can I instead have blueberry sauce with my waffles? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because of advert, but BJAODN the article name. Tygar 06:18, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hilarious website name though Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 10:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Oh, and by the way, RickK, kids these days use "gay" to mean "stupid," not necessarily 'homosexual.' RussBlau 20:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. jni 15:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

AllSnap

Is there anything that makes this particular piece of freeware worth of an encyclopeida article?--nixie 03:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Author apparently didn't read the warning above the edit box: "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business." — Trilobite (Talk) 03:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. Tygar 06:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Oh, snap! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:58, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Shildon Locomotion Museum

This article reads like it came straight out of a piece of promotional literature and is in no way an encyclopedia article. Information about the "children's play area" and "full parking facilities", totally redundant duplication of a section on the history of steam, and even the museum's phone number mean that this article is entirely composed of padding and once pared down to an acceptable standard would have nothing worth keeping, except for the fact of the museum's existence, which could get a sentence in the Shildon article. The author appears to have failed to grasp the nature of Wikipedia and doesn't appear to have read the warning above the edit box: "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business."

I'm listing for deletion on the grounds that the museum is not especially notable, the article is irredemably POV, and that anything worth keeping could be easily merged into Shildon.

— Trilobite (Talk) 03:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article has been significantly improved. I withdraw the nomination. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hence noticed removed from article - Mike. 12:30, March 17, 2005 (GMT)

• Keep and Cleanup.--ZayZayEM 03:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. All museums are notable. --Gene_poole 03:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I fail to see anything in this article that couldn't be merged into Shildon. Cleanup would eliminate virtually all of its content. Trilobite (Talk) 04:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, most musems are notable, especially with respect to their cities. Tygar 06:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean up. All but the smallest museums are notable. DaveTheRed 06:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Almost all museums are notable and there are plenty of relevant facts in this article. Kappa 09:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. But tidy - Wikipedia is not Wikitravel. -- RHaworth 10:22, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
• Keep. I wager you, trilobite, to quote one instance from the article when I expressed a personal opinion. I kept to the cold, hard, fact. User:Mikesc86 12:43, March 14, 2005 (GMT)
  • In addition, the only duplicate information is the mention of the bio-diesel bus, which was mentioned twice. Mike.
• Keep with extensive cleanup. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 13:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This article has now ben cleaned up. Mike. 13:37, March 14, 2005 (GMT)
• Keep I wouldn't quite go as far as to say that all museums are notable, but the vast majority are. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Pavel Vozenilek 19:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This nomination showed a lack of grasp of the category system. I have recategorising the article. Wincoote 01:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 21:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. jni 15:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Familiar (fanzine)

A zine for role-playing gamers published for just two years; Google searches mostly turn up Wikipedia forks. Probably non-notable. /sɪzlæk˺/ 03:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The familiar is not familiar. Delete. Tygar 06:20, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fanzines unless spectacularly famous Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 03:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How to Heal Traumas

Barely coherent, New Age-ish, unreferenced essay with a special guest appearance by Medusa. In cleanup for more than 6 months. Completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Delete. --Plek 03:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Some sort of odd combination of personal essay, original research, unencyclopedic article, and patent nonsense. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Isn't this nonsense? Perhaps a redirect to First aid?--ZayZayEM 03:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I wouldn't even say it qualifies as *barely* coherent, frankly. RidG (talk) 04:17, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If the article is incoherent, please make it coherent. This article is based on the book "Waking the Tiger" (which I read). Medusa is a METAPHOR not a special appearance. The book on which this article is based on has helped many people to heal, control fear and paralysis. Pls don't just delete but contribute or improve on it. I have placed a request for peer review, ideally to any psycologist, so far no response. Since I am not a psychologist, it is an amateurish article but so is great portion of wikipedia, and open source itself. Linux was created when Linus was only a student.--Jondel 04:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The book Waking the Tiger by Peter Levine (1997) has a respectable Amazon sales rank of 1409. [2] If you want to write an article about it, I'd suggest you start anew and write something that is comprehensble to the average reader at Waking the Tiger (currently a redirect). --Plek 12:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree to rename/write anew Waking the Tiger.--Jondel 07:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy, I say. Even if it was somehow made coherent, it would still be patent nonsense. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Nonsense. Delete. RickK 05:44, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Patent nonsense, POV, non-encyclopedic, etc. Binadot 05:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no original research. Tygar 06:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, odd content. Fuzheado | Talk 09:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Postdlf 12:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It's not patent nonsense or original research or an essay; it's an explanation of the contents of Waking the Tiger by Peter Levine. That being said, however, I think I've had this article on my own watchlist for most of the six months it's been on cleanup and I haven't been able to tackle the task of taking it from what it is to something more encyclopedic. So while I support a "Waking the Tiger" article, I'm not sure this is the base to work from. Weak keep and strong cleanup; I'll start the cleanup with an intro that assumes it will be moved to Waking the Tiger. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • You assume, of course, that the contents of Waking the Tiger are themselves not patent nonsense! Still the book is notable enough, so an NPOV discussion of its place in the greater scheme of things would not go amiss. I hereby change my vote to rename to Waking the Tiger. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 23:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree ->rename (will work on this a bit later )--Jondel 07:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete wierd and useless to anyone actually looking up this topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Book critiques and recommendations' their place is Amazon.com, not Wikipedia, unless the book ios so notable as to warrant its own article. --Zappaz 02:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The book is notable to warrant its own article and is very relevant, I believe. As suggested by Plek and GeorgeStepanek, renamimg or rather rewriting Waking the Tiger as a book review (paraphrase amazon.com?, in 1 or 2 weeks?) and removing seems to be most feasible option. I will be creating See-also links from articles on or related to Healing and Fear. I don't feel the need to push for this article anymore if the above is well done. The contents of Waking the Tiger might become a total rewrite (or borrowed from this ). I am definetely going to push for the survival of the contents of WTT (as a form of therapy). I've read the book, find it applicable and feel this should be read by many more people.--Jondel 07:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this new age pap. Please. Edeans 04:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have copied the contents to Waking the Tiger and will place a redirect after this. Unless even the redirect should be removed, I don't see anymore use for this vote. Thank you for your participation. Pls feel free to remove the How to heal traumas redirect.--Jondel 09:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The vote was 10 votes for deletion, NOT to redirect. Jondel's unilateral action of moving the article to a new page does not meet the voting consensus. RickK 10:08, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I 've reverted it to that of Antaeus Feldspar--Jondel 10:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. —Korath (Talk) 00:58, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

General Social Survey

Seems promotional-ish. Creator says "the coolest thing on the web". This is not a reason fora dding something to Wikipedia.--ZayZayEM 03:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• STRONGEST POSSIBLE KEEP and EXPAND!!! Next to the census, the GSS is probably the most frequently used dataset in all modern American sociological research and writing. It is much more than just a survey; it is a comprehensive examination of American points of view, conducted at regular intervals and asking thousands of participants the questions about religion and politics that the census just doesn't. I will note also that it gets 66,300 Google hits. --BD2412 04:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--GSS is very significant in much of American social science. I'm sure this deserves to be in, but I'm also sure I'm not the man to write it, unfortunately. Cleanup. Meelar (talk) 04:26, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 04:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 10:21 Z
• keep Yuckfoo 21:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:00, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

SuicideGirls

This article is nothing but pure SPAM for a website. If you cannot SPAM websites with external links in articles, you certainly should not be allowed to write articles that exist in order to promote web sites. -- John Gohde 04:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE this SPAM immediately. -- John Gohde 04:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:POINT continues to elude John. As a note, the site in question has an Alexa rating of under 4000. Snowspinner 04:56, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • You persist in stalking my votes for deletion. SPAM is SPAM, and you were clearly editing SPAM. I believe in getting rid of SPAM, when I find it. -- John Gohde 05:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • You tagged an article on my watchlist that I've made edits to for deletion. Am I supposed to not vote? Snowspinner 05:05, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • Pornography is the most popular reason for using the web. So, so what about the Alexa rating of 4000? But, thanks to your comment, I have filed a complaint with Amazon.com by way of Alexa. I was actually the 2nd person to publicly point out this problem on Amazon.com. -- John Gohde 16:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • The Internet is for Porn. Note also that Wikipedia is not censored for minors (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.)Snowspinner 17:32, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
          • The adult content of Wikipedia is its Achilles' heel, which could be exploited by anyone so desiring, IMHO. -- John Gohde 09:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Care to elaborate on that statement/belief? Djbrianuk 23:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • Ever notice how green slime grows under rocks? -- John Gohde 01:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                • I'm going to assume (in good faith) that refers to your opinion of the article and/or it's subject, rather than me. Doesn't really answer the question though. Djbrianuk 03:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs major cleanup. SuicideGirls scores 1,680,000 Google hits, see [3]. There is also a published book by them on Amazon, see [4]. Megan1967 05:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep , i don't see how this is spam, any more then an article on a corp has a link to it's website, ah-la Amazon.com, i find the article very well written and informative, though it could use some clean up. This leads me to question the motives behind John Gohde listing of this article on VFD. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, you have got to be kidding me. Huge well-known site. Rhobite 05:10, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; this is an example of a well-known site being mentioned in Wikipedia, not an obscure or new site trying to use Wikipedia to get known. Article should be checked regularly for potential copyvios and should not be permitted to become an unapologetic advert, but John, it's not necessarily spam just because it's about a commerical product that you don't particularly seem to like. (Doesn't wrap me particularly tightly, either, but you know, "different strokes" and all that.) Rlquall 05:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, adequately notable. -- Curps 07:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 08:48 Z
• Keep. This has been featured in Rolling Stone, Wired, The New Yorker, on HBO, and on Nightline. Zzyzx11 08:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Haham hanuka 09:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Trolling is trolling, and SHOUTING is SHOUTING. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 10:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• (Note: Article author) Keep. This is an indefensible VfD listing, as the website is highly notable. I also don't think anyone who's been on here for awhile would honestly believe that I am taking payola from the site, nor do I even have a membership on it. From the edit summaries of the VfD poster attempting to tag the article as nonencyclopedic, it is clear that he objects to the subject itself, seeing it as "trashy". Perhaps it's a genuine misunderstanding as to wikipedia policies. Perhaps. Postdlf 11:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I have seen that you authored this article on a web site. [personal attack removed] See the modern pedagogic technique known as journaling discussed on this critique of Wikipedia.[5] -- John Gohde 16:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • And you could try explaining yourself rather than resorting to ignorant personal attacks. Postdlf 17:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • [personal attack removed by Theresa Knott (ask the rotten)] -- John Gohde 09:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh yeah? Well, [personal attack removed in advance by author]! — JIP | Talk 10:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:57, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. Notable, famous website with significant media coverage. Gamaliel 17:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:POINT - David Gerard 19:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. Xezbeth 20:36, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Major performance group (recently featured during a play festival here in Calgary) and a major website. Controversial, yes, but worthy of an article. 23skidoo 21:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting article Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 22:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep - Definitely a notable site. John Gohde is clearly biased. If you have a problem with Wikipedia's policies, debate them somewhere else. Don't attack individual articles. (And good luck with that.) - Omegatron 04:25, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep. I'll just pretend this little ordeal never happened. It's better that way. —RaD Man (talk) 10:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable. John Gohde appears to have decided to express his views on this review of Wikipedia on Amazon. - BanyanTree 16:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • How funny that he also chose to single out Bomis. Is he unaware of its relationship to Wikipedia? There's also the ironic fact that he's complaining about the "soft core porn" picture from the SuicideGirls hardcover on a website that displays the same picture.[6] Postdlf 17:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't make a fuss over John Gohde expressing his displeasure at us on Amazon. Remember: Wikipedia may contain objectionable content and Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. There is always going to be people who will hate our policies. Zzyzx11 21:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Everyone should check this out: meta:End-user image suppression - Omegatron 22:08, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable Website and organisation. The fact it's adult material is irrelevent. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. If someone wants to start ChildSafePedia, good luck to them Djbrianuk 23:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Clear Keep An article about a company isn't necessarily spam, after all. Zantastik 02:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. If there were only 100 things related to pornography, etc., that merited articles, this would certainly be one of them. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:42, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Major website known by many. I just used this article to learn more about the site, and was apalled to see it was marked for deletion. Siliconwafer 04:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see how this is spam; the website in question has been popular and well-known long before this article was posted. Psychonaut 10:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. -- Infrogmation 17:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The only "reasonable" argument for listing this in VfD seems to be that Wikipedia should not have adult content, and this is actually not reasonable. vlad_mv 22:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Potentially Biased Keep, as I am a member. Though also an avid Wikipedian.  ;)
• Keep Hedley 03:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Robinoke 17:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As long as it's NPOV, how can it be spam? SG is a significant site, and clearly there is interest in the article, so I say keep. -- Klparrot 19:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd never heard of this site before now, but the other responses convince me that it's a popular site, and hence deserving of an article here if popular Web sites in general are deserving of articles; if this is removed, then I guess all articles about Web sites should be. It being an "adult" site shouldn't have any bearing on this. The person who put this vote up seems to be a crusading crackpot with a personal agenda. Dtobias 19:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it's porn, but it's nice porn. -Ashley Pomeroy 23:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 - SimonP 15:07, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Haketsi

Substub I can't verify, has been sitting around since October 2004 without any references or anything else being added. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge (what little there is) to Georgia (country), and add redirect. Megan1967 05:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I was going to merge, but I can't verify it. If it's not true, we don't want to be merging it. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:08, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Chuffed

A dictionary definition that has been since moved to Wiktionary. --Alexs letterbox 05:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• If already in Wiktionary, delete. Radiant! 12:14, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The transwiki process has not been correctly performed. There is no mention of this article being transwikied in either the Wikipedia:Transwiki log or the Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Transwiki log, and edit history has not been recorded in the new article. Delete. Transwiki process performed. No need to keep this dictionary entry in the encyclopaedia. Uncle G 00:30, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
• Whoops! I was unaware of the transwiki process. So until I learn how to do that. Keep --Alexs letterbox 08:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have listed the article on the Wikipedia:Transwiki log and I have copied the history to the new article's talk page. --Alexs letterbox 08:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kevin Rector 14:53, Mar 15, 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 - redirected - SimonP 15:10, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Athasastra

The content of this article is original research and or copyright violation--nixie 05:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, POV essay, book promo. Megan1967 06:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Arthashastra, where the article already is. (Some of it may be mergeable.) Antandrus 06:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Antandrus, and while you're at it get other spelling variants like Arthasastra as well. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:03, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Altovis

Wikipedia is not for advertisments or consumer advice warnings--nixie 06:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 10:19 Z
• While I don't like the tone of the article or the overdose of external links, I think the topic should deserve a mention (if only because people reading about the drug may want to get more info on it from WP). So remove superfluous material, mark as stub and keep. Radiant! 12:16, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep products backed by major advertising campaigns. If you are going to imply something is fradulent, you need external links to back it up. Kappa 12:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Added a few minor updates to the article from the available sales information. -- Arevich 20:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • • Comment -- Removed fraud allegations from article. Fraud should probably not be alleged unless there has been a conviction in a court of law. Arevich 21:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 - redirected - SimonP 15:12, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Kromulent

23 hits on Google. - BanyanTree 06:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Made-up words in The Simpsons. RickK
  • Agreed. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary. Pwqn 07:18, 2005 Mar 14 (according to history Uncle G 13:02, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC))
  • DO NOT move invented words to Wiktionary. RickK 09:53, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Especially since Wiktionary already has cromulent. ☺ Uncle G 13:02, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
• Delete - Cromulent, the "right" spelling of this fictional word, already exists. No real need for this odd misspelling. Fuzheado | Talk 09:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Cromulent is a redirect as I indicated above. RickK 09:53, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • That doesn't negate xyr point, though. What negates xyr point is to note that there's little evidence that "cromulent" is the correct spelling and "kromulent" is not, given that the word is only said and not written and especially given the various other "K" for "C" substitutions that occur in the programme. Uncle G 13:02, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
      • No, but fandom (and consistency with other English words) would imply a "C" spelling. For comparison, Cromulent gets 38800 googles, while Kromulent gets 23. Radiant! 15:16, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect → Made-up words in The Simpsons. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 10:16 Z
• Redirect DJ Clayworth 17:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn fancruft. ComCat 09:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Made-up words in The Simpsons. It's a perfectly cromulent misspelling. --Carnildo 03:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. Article cannot be deleted at this time due to block-compression revisions BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Amp3.com

AMP3.com had over 50,000 artists at it's peak (1999 to 2002). Created the Emerging Artists stage at THE Concert of 1999 Woodstock 99. Was the first sight to actually pay artists for sponsored music and audio downloads in the Internets history!

The online community was the facebook and myspace of it's time.

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. —Korath (Talk) 01:04, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Babes in the Wood

• Putting this up for deletion. No real facts included, does not provide a good overview of the play , nor an informative review. It appears to be a childrens play by a Dave Buchanan, so I am not sure how much Encyclopedia material that is. --Mceder 02:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) Dang, nice rewrite. Sorry for the ignorance on this piece, but I guess in the end something good came out of it. Kudos to you sir!Keep --Mceder 04:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, more then likely should be a speedy. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) Much better now, Keep --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 00:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete

From article: (It sucks for children)realllllllyyyyyyy !!! :P:P:P written by ???? Victor is so funny he was the only cool person in the play.

BABES IN THE WOOD SUCKSS!!!! -- Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep the rewrite. Nice save. Mgm|^(talk) 18:15, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• It's actually a traditional children's tale, a popular pantomime story, and a story by Michael Arlen. This article doesn't do it justice, by any stretch of the imagination. Delete but let the redlinks stand so that a real article can grow some day. Keep because of rewrite. Uncle G 09:48, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Uncle G. Keep. Rewrite is well done. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 10:09 Z
• Keep. This is a classic example of an article that would have been just as easy to clean up as to nominate for deletion. I've removed the ranting and the gibberish, and added in Uncle G's information as well as the fruits of a quick Google. My revision is far from definitive, and the article could stand fleshing out and verification. But I say we keep it and let it grow. --Jacobw 16:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but on the other hand, no Wikipedia editor knows everything, and the original article hardly did a good job of persuading any editor who had never come across the story that what it was talking about actually existed. The rewrite is not perfect, but is enough. I'll try to improve the article in a bit. But I'm fresh from reading Hungarian and trying to fathom descriptions of sub-sub-castes written in broken Indian English, so I might not be up to much for the remainder of today. ☺ Uncle G 18:05, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
• Keep now. Xezbeth 16:32, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now. DJ Clayworth 17:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now, and agree that cleanup would have been a good alternative to Vfd. Wasn't it linked from "pantomime"? Kappa 18:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Goodness. Well done, Uncle G. Voted keep. DS 03:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Credit for the rewrite should go to Jacobw, not to me. I just expanded it a bit afterwards. Uncle G 10:23, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
  • Uncle G is too modest--my initial article was a stub (which was based partly on info Uncle G had supplied in the first place.) His rewrite made it an article. --Jacobw 09:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:06, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

• 09:07, Mar 14, 2005 Bearcat deleted PolCan (do NOT use Wikipedia to play political simulation games)

PolCan

Don't think this belongs in wikipedia. Earl Andrew 08:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unencyclopedic. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 08:56 Z
• Earl, Earl, Earl...this is speedyable as patent nonsense. Bearcat 09:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. jni 15:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Naughty Boys of Finchley

Self-promotion. Non-notable. Delete -- The Anome 11:15, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I'm a Wikipedia newbie, although have recently started using WikiMedia in our business, please forgive me if my entry here isn't 100% as it should be. Granted there are only 12 members of the Naughty Boys of Finchley Association although we do have grand ideas of expanding. If others think it's not worthy of an entry then so be it, we'll rely on our website. There a are number of us who are web users and would have contributed to a growing Wikipedia entry... Keep --Naughtynick 11:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I don't think you are famous, and you need to be famous first, wikipedia second. Please use your own website until that time. Kappa 12:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. They seem like nice fellows, but a group of guys whose only claim to notability is their regular pub attendance.... --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 13:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Kappa. Radiant! 13:38, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Postdlf 13:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity of Vanities, but if I'll ever be around, I'll drop in...Lectonar 14:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 (also copied the contents to user's talk page). jni 15:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tidusover14

Some player in an online game. sjorford →•← 14:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete any and all online game player articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mrwojo 17:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Tidusover14 8:52, 16 Mar 2005 No such user exists, this is 207.136.254.210 here. jni 14:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy to User:Tidusover14. jni 14:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy to User:Tidusover14 Hedley 03:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. jni 15:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Greek Nap

Slang dicdef, no potential to ever become an article -- Ferkelparade π 15:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Little more than vandalism. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. But is it not a candidate for Speedy? Rich Farmbrough 16:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I would have speedied it. Binadot 17:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I would've speedied it too. Tygar 19:16, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's terrible. Robinoke 17:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:07, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Prison education

Delete Original research. My hat is off to you, Mr. Etitis. A Keep from me, as well. --InShaneee 16:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The problem is the content, not the topic; I've replaced the old content with the first draft of a new article. Any help/contributions/suggestions welcome. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now. The first version was unfortunately becoming an essay, rather than an aricle. Kappa 17:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Rewrite looks fine. Mgm|^(talk) 18:48, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An interesting subject (in the whole retribution vs. rehabilitation deabte). A.K.A.47 19:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--nice work to Mr. Etitis. Meelar (talk) 21:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewrite. ComCat 03:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:09, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Lighting farts

Too high brow? Without referring to the Wikipedia:Google test, please explain how this is encyclopedic. Or not. --GRider\^talk 18:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• There's nothing in there that would duplicate if there were a Merge to Flatulence. Tygar 19:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Hmmm we have to do this without the google test? 6 or 7 references to notable comedians/shows demonstrate that this is a significant phenomenom in popular culture. Works better separate from Flatulence. Kappa 20:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge → Flatulence, or maybe move it to a different title. Either way, keep it. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 20:17 Z
• Keep proper encyclopedic article. Grue 20:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Rename → Flatulence ignition. While there are clearly sophmoric overtones to the article, that does not disqualify it from being encyclopedic (see Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors). If anyone can provide a more "noble" title I would not object to a rename The google test does seem to indicate Flatulence ignition is a more academic alternative to the current name. --Allen3 20:31, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a well-known phenomenon that's been around for a significant period. (Probably since the invention of fire, but I doubt it can be proven...) grendel|khan 21:17, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Unusual articles. It's a well-known article that has been around for a significant period. After the little tally boxes, the nomination of Wikipedia:Google test for deletion, and the re-opening of discussions 11 hours after they are closed, I suspect more WP:POINT here. Uncle G 10:51, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
• Keep. Scatalogical humor, but has been a pop phenomenom for decades. Arevich 21:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, certainly a widespread and well-known enough phenomenon to be encyclopedic. 69.165.92.123 02:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops, that was me. I just forgot to sign in. (P.S. renaming this to flatulence ignition is probably a good idea IMHO) — Ливай | ☺ 02:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Lupin 04:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, you know when Wikipedia has reached new depths when there appears to be a majority of votes for articles such as these and Donkey Punch. Megan1967 05:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn fartcruft. ComCat 07:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. And strongly disagree with Megan1967's comment. The documentation of bizarre phenomena and practices is one of the things that makes Wikipedia worth reading and contributing to. Those who want to bore themselves to death can go read Britannica. --Gene_poole 22:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Strange but verifiable and, dare I say, encyclopedic...not to mention hilarious. Agree with Gene that offbeat articles are what make this site stand out. - Lucky 6.9 03:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A Wikipedia landmark since Feb 2003. Sometimes strange cultural practices can be written about encyclopedically. -- Infrogmation 04:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A pretty complete article, considering the subject matter. --Cwolfsheep 05:00, Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename article to flatulence ignition (I like that name! xD). Topic is rather strangely encyclopedic I'd say. --Andylkl 08:52, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep, and rename to flatulence ignition. I also disagree with Megan. DaveTheRed 00:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and rename to flaturlence ignition but add a redirection from lighting farts to flatulent ignition. Gordonfan --24.228.22.170 02:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Please sign in to Wikipedia if you have an account before voting on articles. --Andylkl 04:42, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as is. References in populr culture should definitely also mention the first volume of Spike Milligan's war memoirs. Grutness|^hello? 10:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, renaming to flatulence ignition if you feel like it. The subject, while offbeat, is a notable practice and the article describes it adequately. To be fair, though, I'm biased in favour of Unusual articles material. -- Kizor 10:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep ... it's become a staple of bathroom humor, and is therefore notable. --BD2412 16:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• No thank you - call me an old prude, but really! You people are the limit. 213.175.233.9 16:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This vote by 213.175.233.9 (talk • contribs) --Smoddy (_t^g_e^c) 16:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge → Flatulence. We have an article about kerosene, but we do not have a seperate article about the act of lighting kerosene. --NoPetrol 18:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Flatulence. If we are to have fart articles, let's keep them as concentrated as possible (no pun intended). Edeans 19:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As crude as it may seem, it IS a comedy subject. -- Old Right 00:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 21:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:15, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Obelisk the Tormentor

Yu-gi-oh-cruft or encyclopedic content worthy of note? Which is it? --GRider\^talk 22:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, if the 200 articles on each Pokemon species aren't fancruft, cards as important in this series as the 3 Gods shouldn't be either Goplat 22:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Big article Kappa 22:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep agree with Goplat and Kappa. Also, 29,300 Google Hits Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:42, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• You tell me: clearly write what action you think should be taken for the nominated article to assist others in determining consensus. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 22:43 Z
• Delete, fancruft. Megan1967 06:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn yugicruft. ComCat 08:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not separately notable. Average Earthman 16:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and if you really want to keep these game guides, I'd suggest transwiki this game manual to Wikibooks. Average Earthman 09:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep "fancruft". Xezbeth 18:56, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep
  1. An article on one of the most important aspects of the TV series.
  2. This article has been here for more than a year, and has received a generally high level of editing from numerous people.
  3. If deletion is confirmed, move the appropriate sections to Egyptian God Cards, along with Osiris the Sky Dragon and The Winged Dragon of Ra.
  4. And while you're at it, move Battle City, Orichalcos and Duelist Kingdom into the main Yu-Gi-Oh! article.
  5. Not forgetting the category Category: Yu-Gi-Oh! cards and Blue Eyes White Dragon. You see how ridiculous this sort of thing can become? Setokaiba 22:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this information is necessary to gaining a complete understanding of the Yu-Gi-Oh! phenomenon. Q.Diddy 04:20, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - being the most frequently seen God card in the Yu-Gi-Oh! universe, this article is ranked fairly high up there in importance. kelvSYC 00:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep as it is more notable than some Pokémon items which are kept, but at the same time Yu-gi-oh doesnt (to my knowledge) have a large following on Wikipedia and so this isn't likely to be part of a project, which is essential for fancruft to work here. Hedley 03:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to God Cards. cesarb 21:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:18, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Square root day

With just 43 non-wikipedia Google hits, I'm not sure this is really notable enough. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 22:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You get 115 hits when you remove the celebrate or celebrated part. Check it out. Coruscus\^talk

Yes, but some of the references aren't relevant, e.g. "The volatility units are % per square-root day." Still, even 115 isn't very many, and Google shows only 46 that aren't duplicates. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 23:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Please cite notable references other than Google. Zzyzx11 23:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, silly as it may sound it's an existing (if jokey) festival for mathematicians. Radiant! 08:31, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems local to that teacher in Redwood city. Maybe if it caught on nationally. DaveTheRed 20:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I talked about it with my math teacher today. He celebrates. Plus, it's not like it can take up very much disk space to leave it on. Maybe we can mark it as a stub and ask for improvement. Coruscus\^talk
  • Hi Coruscus, welcome to wikipedia. You'll need to build a bit more of an edit history if you want your votes to be fully counted. Kappa 00:42, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep weird Californian festivals also mentioned in the New York Daily News Kappa 00:42, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.It's encyclopedic.Lkjhgfdsa 00:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 21:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:18, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Krystyna Kuperberg

Resume cruft, or encyclopedically noteworthy? To best assist the deciding admin and fellow voters, please clearly state what action you think should be taken for the nominated article. --GRider\^talk 23:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• No, You tell me: clearly write what action you think should be taken for the nominated article to assist others in determining consensus. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 23:10 Z

• Multiple-award-winning mathematician. Keep. DS 02:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I can't really fathom why this was nominated. She also has a number of recent journal publications.--nixie 03:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 21:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. jni 15:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Faithforum.org

Christian-cruft? Web vanity? Or notable and encyclopedic? If you bought into the whole "Alexa test", would a traffic rank of 1,054,643 mean anything? For the sake of fellow voters, please clearly state what action you think should be taken on this article. --GRider\^talk 23:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, self-promotion of a non-notable website--nixie 01:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Well, for the sake of my fellow voters, I will now clearly state that the action which should be taken in regards to this article would be to delete it. A forum of 5000 members is not notable. DaveTheRed 02:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 06:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn religioncruft. ComCat 08:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per author's request. Is probably right about the other webcruft, though. Edeans 19:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:22, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Scalpelling

How has this "rare" body modification technique achieved encyclopedic notability? --GRider\^talk 23:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• GRider, please tell me what you think should happen to Scalpelling. It is your responsiblity as nominator to clearly tell your fellow Wikipedians what you think should happen as a result of the nomination. —Markaci 2005-03-15 T 00:05 Z
• Keep, google results appear to indicate this is a real and reasonably well-known technique. Kappa 01:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a real phenomenon that is known in the piercing community. DaveTheRed 02:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it never ceases to amaze me how some people consider themselves the gatekeepers of human knowledge -- as Markaci says, the nominator has a clear responsibility to present an alternative. Earpol 11:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it happens, it's a form of body modification, it's of interest to enough of us to have an article Kierano 17 Mar 2005

  The only possible reason I can see for the proposal, following the Deletion Policy, is that it is too small a part of Body modification to warrant its own article. The deletion policy page clearly states that in this case, the page should be assimilated into the parent article, and a redirect put in its place. As far as I can see, this page should not have even been put up for deletion. Kierano 17 Mar 2005

• Bizarre? Yes. Disgusting? Quite possibly. Not notable? *sigh* No. Keep. Edeans 19:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 21:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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