Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alphax (talk | contribs) at 14:37, 2 January 2005 (→‎January 2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

January 2

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 has already been deleted. Joyous 03:14, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Nigerian vs american civil war

Original research, unencyclopedic, nonsense, marginal speedy but I don't think it qualifies tbh. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: original research, and needs a lot of clean-up to boot, almost a top-to-bottom rewrite. Maybe it can be condensed into a paragraph or two for the Nigeria article? 23skidoo 00:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: not nonsense, just terribly misguided original research. Despite the title, it's mostly about the Nigerian civil war, mentioning the American civil war only in passing. Some of this might be salvageable for the main article, but not without rewriting, and a redirect makes no sense — so no point in voting Merge. JRM 01:15, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Rje 01:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Neutralitytalk 01:53, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Illegible. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research fails Google Test. Megan1967 03:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Original research TigerShark 03:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Someone's unencyclopedic school paper. Szyslak 05:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research with no evidence of peer review and just about the poorest excuse for writing I've read all year. What a disaster. Wyss 04:08, 3 Jan 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 on 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/clean up. Joyous 03:16, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Aurora tower

Copyvio. Might be slightly notable but probably not worth listing on cleanup for months on end. Neutralitytalk 01:51, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm confused... If it's a copyvio, shouldn't it be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems instead of here? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Coyvio? Then list as such. Otherwise seems to be an excellent subject and a reasonable (if slightly breathless) article. Keep --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I wasn't able to find the copyvio with several google searches (whether the spelling was corrected or not). I've replaced the VfD tag, which the original anon author had removed, though. No vote from me. —Korath (Talk) 05:37, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Potential copyvios belong on Copyright problems. Don't attempt to rewrite policy on your own. 119 07:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is notable. Text is rubbish, but so is that for Southbank Parklands as well. I'm going to be starting up a WikiProject for Brisbane, and will make cleanup of these articles a priority. Lacrimosus 08:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; send to clean-up. Should never have come here. Dan100 15:44, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. Absolutely no valid reason for deletion given. Dr Zen 01:24, 5 Jan 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 on 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 03:23, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Gregory Jacques Durand

Vanity article: 16 year old student with a collection of photos. --LeeHunter 02:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Rje 02:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page. --Viriditas | Talk 03:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Megan1967 03:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. He seems to be just a regular kid, albeit one with a website and a knack for taking pictures. Ливай | ☺ 05:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Lacrimosus 08:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity Smurf. Cleduc 07:27, 3 Jan 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 on 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.

Comment: Whoever formatted the discussion this way PLEASE DON'T DO IT AGAIN!!! These discussions are hard enough to figure out when you can match comment to counter-comment. This reduces us from logic, facts and policy to popularity-counting. Rossami (talk) 02:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Logarithmic timeline of current events

I don't get it. Neutralitytalk 02:12, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Keeps

  1. Strong keep Fucking brilliant idea, let's give it a chance to grow. Kudos to whoever came up with the idea. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Weak Keep, needs some further explanations on article for its value. I can see merit in the concept though but anyone who doesn't know anything about logarithmic timescales would be stumped. Megan1967 03:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Keep I don't think "I don't get it" is a very good reason for deleting a page. If that's the case, I will just go a head and put vfd on half the pages on this site. ;-) Earl Andrew 04:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Keep. People are maintaining it, and it's not doing any harm. It could certainly use an explanation about the time scale and the theory behind it though. Ливай | ☺ 10:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Keep. Potential to be very useful tool -- monitor it for some months to see that it is maintained properly. Certainly explain background of the idea on the page. --mervyn 11:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Weak keep. It somehow managed to exist since March 2004 and be edited by lots of people. It seems very interesting, but I still haven't fully decided whether it's encyclopedic. Vacuum c 02:26, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Keep interesting variation on the "current events" page. Kappa 13:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Keep Not sure how this one will pan out and how useful it will be, but I think it is worth taking the chance to nuture this idea. TigerShark 14:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Keep What a good idea! I say keep and run with it. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Keep. Fantastic idea. Thanks to Neutrality for giving it publicity. BTW apart from Neutrality not understanding it, what were the suggested grounds for deletion? Dan100 15:43, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Keep This page is useful and puts an interesting slant on the way important issues fade over time. Some of the 'Delete' comments might better be taken as suggestions for improvement. Labour intensive? No matter as long as someone cares to do the work. And those who don't like the choice of events are free to comment on the talk page or, of course, just make some changes. Chris Jefferies 16:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. Keep Agree with many above that with a better explanation and choice of events this could be an enlightening approach to a timeline. At worst it's no worse than many of the lists of left handed Hungarian snooker players etc that exist and proliferate. Redlentil 16:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. Keep, really good idea. --Goobergunch|? 20:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. Keep, good idea. Bush Me Up 00:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. Strong keep. I don't understand the objections. If people disagree with the selection of events to include, anyone can add to or delete from the set of events linked to, so POV mistakes can be corrected. Arguments that this is not encyclopedic would have to apply to the entire Current events section of the wikipedia. Eric Forste 02:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. Keep. DJ Clayworth 05:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  17. Keep. As for "impossible to maintain", Maybe. Lets find out. Maybe archive periodically? Maybe construct these for key dates in history? (Great way to summarize longterm vs. proximate causes of a war.) This is a great idea. If it's somehow voted out of main space, let's at least put it in Wikipedia space and work out what we can do with the concept. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Keep. Change to base e --SPUI 07:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. Keep. Oh, I get it. I'd say keep it, at worst its mostly harmless. -Ld | talk 21:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  20. Keep. Gives a different perspective. Only let it go if it dies from lack of interest/maintenance. Not encyclopedic? hmm... this ain't your grandpa's encyclopedia. Vsmith 23:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  21. Strong Keep. It's a really good idea, so let's give it a chance to grow. Scott Gall 22:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  22. Keep. Bryan 08:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  23. Keep. Give the idea a chance. Alfio 15:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  24. Keep. Think of it as a classification system for part of wikipedia, and it's supposed to be fine to have lots of those Philip 03:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  25. Keep. Ha! Do you people really think the delete votes would win?
  26. Keep. Great idea for keeping perspective on current events / news. Properly used/maitained can help bridge the gap between those parts of Wikipedia and everything else. NB is there (or could there be) a way to put individual (event-related) articles onto a timeline using a {{timeline|1883|Krakatoa}} type approach? approach? Rd232 14:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  27. Keep. Great idea for putting events in perspective, and updated frequently. Andrew pmk 23:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deletes

  1. Delete, personal essay or original research (since the choice of events to be listed seems arbitrary). Does not illuminate the nature of time or the nature of current events. And is the page is very, very unlikely to be properly maintained. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Delete. Interesting idea, but doesn't work for me. And events listed do seem arbitrary as suggested.Sc147 02:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Delete. Interesting, but doesn't quite belong here. LostCluster 02:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. delete, not encyclopaedic. And while the idea is nice, it's awfully labour-intensive. --fvw* 08:11, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  5. Delete. I like the idea, but not encyclopedic. MpegMan 09:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delete. The importance of the events on the timeline is subject to the author's personal point of view. While an interesting idea, this has no place on wikipedia. Phils 11:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delete. There are already timelines for all sorts of things and people can go through them in logarithmic progression if they want to. The selection of items listed is POV and it's original research if it's being suggested that there's anything significant in the events. Dbiv 17:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Strong delete. Are these really the most important events of the last ten years or just cherrypicking the stories that were most heavily covered by one segment of the US media? As it stands now this list is heavily biased towards America and technology and I don't see any way of fixing it. Issues that may be terribly important to one group (SCO vs. IBM??) will always be considered insignificant to others. --LeeHunter 21:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Delete, fascinating idea, impossible to maintain. Wyss 03:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Delete. Original research, not encyclopedic, no evidence that this idea is used elsewhere and no real point. --G Rutter 11:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Delete. This is pure POV. GRider\talk 18:53, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. Delete. Somebody's personal idea of which events are important, would require repeated editing to keep current. RickK 00:05, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Delete. Agree with many of the above statements and as proof of it not being updated I came across when there wasn't a change between the 8th of December 2004 and the 1st of January 2005. violet/riga (t) 12:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. Delete, as above. —Korath (Talk) 13:35, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Abstentions

  1. Abstain. Not necessarily original research. It's apparently based on an old theory by Heinz von Foerster [1]. --Viriditas | Talk 03:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  1. Move to Wikipedia: namespace. Ropers 02:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. While an interesting idea, which I don't actually want deleted, this is the sort of thing that is only worth keeping if regularly updated. At the moment, I see gaps of more than a month in the editing history, suggesting that this has not been the case in the past, and since I am not volunteering to patrol it myself I'm unwilling to vote keep. Average Earthman 14:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Abstain. I agree with Average Earthman with the addition that it would need more universal coverage than its current Western focus. Perhaps if more Wikipedians from outside the US could be convinced to contribute? Rvolz | Talk 19:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Could be useful or at least interesting if properly maintained. Like Current events and the year articles, subject to unconscious bias on the part of the editors. -Sean Curtin 01:21, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't understand the reason for the logarithmic approach. Why chose that approach? What is it supposed to achieve that is different from a non-l timeline? Note that I'm not attacking this approach - I geuninely don't get what it is supposed to do. It would be helpful if the page made more of an effort to explain what it is for, though personally I doubt whether the selection of 'important' events can really be kept NPOV. Mattley 09:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: How about creating separate pages for the most important events on a weekly, monthly and annual basis? O

Running Totals

Keeps - 27

Deletes - 14 (+ original request)

Abstentions - 4

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 on 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 03:28, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

21 society

Not verifiable or not notable. --fvw* 02:21, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. Rje 02:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverified. --Viriditas | Talk 03:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verified by Cavalier Daily. Noted in relevant student organ. Noted in official University of Virginia library press release as "one of the university?s ?secret? philanthropic societies". Why not list them? Because they don't do Greek letters? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Hold on, this secret society gave a press release? --fvw* 03:50, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
      • Well, masonic lodges issue press releases, but that doesn't mean they'll ever divulge the secret word IAOM. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personally, I've been itching to put entries on various student clubs and societies on my campus on the 'pedia, but I'd struggle to make them worthwhile articles. Besides, being secret an' all, they probably don't want the entry :) Lacrimosus 08:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. My sister attends UVA and has told me about the 21 society before. Besides, everyone knows about the KKK and they're a secret society.--66.210.102.254 12:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Anonymous votes are generally not counted. Secret societies are, by definition, unverifiable. Delete. RickK 00:03, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. The current article does not cite any references at all! And there have to be references; personal testimony by a member of the society would be deletable as original research. An IP address saying "My sister ... has told me about [it]" is not a verifiable reference unless the sister is named and there is a means of contacting her and assessing her credentials as an informant. Tony Sidaway|Talk says above that he has references but he unfortunately neglects to cite them. I suggest that he add them to the article in proper form. Will reconsider when and if evidence is presented that this is only a pro forma "secret" society (like the Elks or Delta Kappa Epsilon or the Knights of Columbus) and that there is good, open, verifiable information about who is in the society and what they do. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whether this is verifiable or not, I do not find it notable enough. Indrian 04:23, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Individual campus organizations are not inherently notable, and the secret nature of this one only raises additional viability concerns. RadicalSubversiv E 13:24, 6 Jan 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 on 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 has already been deleted. Joyous 03:29, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

PHASE-16

This item does not seem to be anything even slightly encyclopaedic. SECProto 02:39, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, possible speedy. Lacrimosus 08:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like a speedy to me. Also has complete lack of context. Mgm|(talk) 11:32, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy no context. Rje 13:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, zero context here, fragment. Wyss 03:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speed deleted as patent nonsense. Ftr here is the complete text: Kira fights the people, and Cagilli comes to help. >w< Then, Flay breaks up with Sai and tells Sai how Kira and Flay and together. :o -- Wile E. Heresiarch 07:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • After looking at various articles related to another delete request, I've found out that this means episode 16 of Gundam Seed. There is another page, PHASE-01, just like it. There's a boatload of useless overspecific fancruft at Category:Gundam Seed. 132.205.45.110 19:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • At least they're not all in separate articles. Pray that the SEEDcruft flood slows down as the as the show ages a little. hfool/Roast me 03:37, 8 Jan 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 on 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 03:31, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ricky Royce

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 04:13, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Ливай | ☺ 04:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Rje 13:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; vanity. Newfoundglory 13:40, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Megan1967 00:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. vanity smurf. Cleduc 07:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above and no content. Salazar 02:50, 10 Jan 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 on 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 03:32, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Goldin

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 04:16, 2005 Jan 2 (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 on 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 03:34, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Nick Stano

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 04:19, 2005 Jan 2 (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 on 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 03:35, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Vagrant World

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 04:23, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Ливай | ☺ 04:53, 2 Jan 005 (UTC)

  • Keep it, please. It seems very bias that you decide to keep information about big companies, such as Xerox etc and straight away want to delete information about small companies, such as ours. Keep in mind that all information is factual. Another argument for keeping this entry is the entry for Prous Science. Judging from user comments, Prous Science is likely to be kept, so if Prous Science is allowed Vagrant World should also be allowed. Vagrant World does not have to be non-notable, it depends who you ask doesn't it? If there is anything we can do to make the entry for Vagrant World more notable or tolorable to you, please tell us.User:vagrantworld 16:04, 2 Jan 2005 (CET)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not for advertising. Big companies are included because they affect the lives of millions and are therefore encyclopedic. Small companies do not tend to be included as this isn't the Yellow Pages. Average Earthman 22:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The difference is that Xerox is a well-established company that has become a household name. This makes it notable. Vagrant World is not yet two years old and has, seemingly, no particular accomplishments or noteworthiness. This makes it not notable. If there is in fact something that makes it noteworthy — publishing a book that's become regarded as important in its field, for instance — then that should be mentioned in the article. Shimeru 23:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, it could do with a major clean up though. Megan1967 00:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not (yet) notable. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:04, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: spam. Clean up the redirects too. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable ad. Delete redirects as well. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Greaser 07:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spam for non-notable small publisher. Article reads like an outline draft of a press release. — Gwalla | Talk 23:59, 8 Jan 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 on 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 already deleted. Joyous 03:38, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Timmy Wong

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 04:25, 2005 Jan 2 (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 on 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. Joyous 03:39, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Nero (music)

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 04:34, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

  • Delete, either non-notable or if notable the article doesn't say why. It looks to be a text dump from a message board post. Ливай | ☺ 04:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, now that I know why. Ливай | ☺ 03:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, well-known local band. Dan100 10:02, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstaining for now. Dan100, in what circles are they well-known in? —RaD Man (talk) 11:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to keep based upon Tony Sidaway's commentary. —RaD Man (talk) 19:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Jazz fusion band. They've toured in more than one country, 150 gigs in one year, they've had write-ups in the print media of their specialty, you could read about them and attend one of their gigs (although they're on hiatus as of New Year's Eve), and you can buy their albums. This is not just a garage band, they're serious musicians with a presence in their field, so they meet my criteria for notability. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep great canadian Jamband that i'dsay rank in the top ten for canadian jam bands and thats good enough for me. --Jrdoubledown|Talk 16:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've cleanup/npoved. Samaritan 07:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks notable to me. bbx 08:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tuf-Kat 23:58, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm okay with keeping if that's the consensus, but the title needs to change to Nero (musical group) or Nero (band) or something more clear than just "music". Bearcat 05:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. Spinboy 05:27, 15 Jan 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 on 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 already deleted. Joyous 03:42, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Japanpalacehotel.com

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 04:48, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Comment: Agreed. Incidentally, is notability still required? And if it is, have the criteria for notability been changed? I asked because Neutron Stampeder, a weapon used in a "Gundam" series, has recently been judged notable, encyclopedia-worthy, or whatever. Or is there one standard for items in TV serial fiction, and another, tighter one for items in "real life"? Hoary 07:52, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
Generally, whether something is notable is decided by how many people know about it (for most kinds of articles). I'm not saying this is a good or a bad thing, but it does mean that topics related to fictions will be sufficiently notable at a much lower level of importance than other things, as they reach a much larger audience. --fvw* 08:03, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
I think that is a pretty bizarre proposition for a deletion advocate. The real world is way more important than pop culture Philip 03:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just an advertising text dump from the webpage itself. Wikipedia is not a web guide, and this hotel seems pretty non-noteworthy. Ливай | ☺ 10:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Rje 13:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; Newfoundglory 13:37, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Megan1967 00:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is an ad, reads like an inept puff piece in a travel rag. Wyss 03:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, rhine 14:07, 5 Jan 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 on 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 already deleted. Joyous 03:43, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Cameron Clark

typical vanity page. tiresome. Michael Ward 08:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm curious - how do they IQ test babies? At any rate, no amount of "consulling" can save this entry. Delete. Lacrimosus 08:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I have heard IQ is defined as mental age / chronological age * 100. So at chronological age 0 you can pretty much have any IQ you want. Delete. --fvw* 08:30, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
    • Or your IQ doesn't exist, technically speaking. Can't divide by 0. hfool/Wazzup? 02:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is that pile of dirt all his IQ of 147 can produce? Phils 11:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. vanity. Rje 13:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And vote to expand speedy deletion. --Wikimol 14:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as especially bad pimple puff, teen vanity, hoax. Wyss 03:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. vanity smurf. Cleduc 07:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as obvious hoax... after all, if he really had a 148 IQ he could spell "intellectual" in his own vanity article. And anyone who claims Mensa as a point of encyclopedia notablity doesn't understand statistics. DreamGuy 22:41, Jan 6, 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 on 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 03:44, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Platapussman

Supposedly a cult icon, based on an underworld book [...] that only sold 2 copies. Looks like vanity to me, but I am not familiar with the cult -- Chris 73 Talk 08:28, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

RotfY (rolling on the floor yawning); these jocular articles have been submitted before. Delete. Hoary 08:38, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rje 13:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as crufty, cruftating cruft. Wyss 03:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur, with extreme predjudice. Edeans 22:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Anyone remember Platypus Man, the pointless mid-90s UPN sitcom with Richard Jeni? No? Count yourself lucky. Delete. Samaritan 05:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cleduc 07:31, 3 Jan 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 on 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

List of famous republicans

There is already an article at List of Republican celebrities. This appears to be a copy/paste from somewhere. DCEdwards1966 08:49, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or Merge does look like a copy and paste, would try to merge it with the current list, also better verification on if they are republicans or not, just because of donation does not mean you are a party member.--Boothy443 08:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: the second person on the list is Republican by virtue of having attended Reagan's funeral. If I remember right, Clinton attended Reagan's funeral. Even if this isn't a copy/paste from elsewhere, it needs a lot more work. Hoary 09:34, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Merge any verifiable information and redirect. Ливай | ☺ 09:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Dan100 10:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. In order for the poll to be legitimate, after 4 days voters' participation should exceed 2% of the active voters population. The decision method that should be used in order to decide what to do should be the majority rule method. Whatever the poll's decision is, it should be irreversible. Iasson 10:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect. Rje 13:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect Jm51 18:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, there is already a pre-existing list for Republicans. Megan1967 00:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 00:22, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. -Sean Curtin 07:00, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. GRider\talk 18:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Xtra 12:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another ultimately unverifiable list. --Calton 02:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a cut-and-paste of an old version of List of celebrities with links to the US Republican Party, which survived its own VfD not too long ago at about the time it was at this stage. Anyone who wants to see this old version of the main list can check the history, and there's nothing much to merge, so this list serves no real purpose. Szyslak 07:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur. Edeans 22:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Salazar 02:51, 10 Jan 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 on 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 - merged and redirected

Gl hf

dictdef DCEdwards1966 08:56, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • merge with internet slang (which is a pile of crud, but I daren't touch it) and delete. --fvw* 09:10, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, both terms are already listed seperatly on internet slang, I don't see the point in further cluttering up that page. Rje 13:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to internet slang. Megan1967 00:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Bah, delete the damned thing. Anyone looking for it with a space in the name would surely realise that it was internet slang; that article was responsible for me discovering Wikipedia. Alphax (talk) 13:52, Jan 3, 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 03:46, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

The Resistance Manifesto

Possible hoax. No evidence for this on Google. DCEdwards1966 09:17, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. The name of the author (John Conner?) sounds like the protagonist from Terminator. Delete as hoax. Alphax (talk) 14:58, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable or a hoax. Probably a non-notable hoax which gets us double our money's worth. --fvw* 16:34, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • That's what I thought. Delete. <KF> 17:04, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, hoax, and an unhealthy dose of POV to top it off. Ливай | ☺ 19:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. Megan1967 00:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible vanity, possible hoax, surely nn. Wyss 03:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn hoax. Cleduc 07:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not sure what it is, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • ISBN 0-96734663-0 Registered with Books in Print. Legit. keep. 06:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)~.
  • ... but not on the shelves at Amazon. I've checked a couple of other catalogues as well. Your assertion is not verifiable. Also, you are 68.7.217.249 the author of the articles under discussion who has been removing the {{vfd}} notices and blanking these VfD discussions. Uncle G 13:39, 2005 Jan 11 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

I count 5 keep as is (one of which was opened since the VfD nomination and is discounted as a possible Wikipedia:sockpuppet), 2 keep as redirect and 9 delete (two of whom took the time to say they would also support the redirect). Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, this decision defaults to keep.

Reading through the arguments and supporting links (and filtering out the personal attacks on both sides), I find myself agreeing that, to the extent that Mr Villeneuve has attained notability, it is right now almost solely derivative from his relationship with Permanent Defense. I am going to exercise my discretion as an ordinary editor and make this a redirect. Rossami (talk) 03:55, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Villeneuve

Local political activist of dubious notability. Permanent Defense, the group he founded to combat Tim Eyman (which, as a progressive Washingtonian, I very much appreciate) has gotten a little bit of press, but he's hardly a notable figure in his own right. 320 google hits, a healthy percentage of which are for other people by the same name. RadicalSubversiv E 09:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. Delete --fvw* 16:33, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Permanent Defense, which seems notable. Meelar (talk) 18:41, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Barring further material, I'm going to stand by my vote. It seems that most of Mr. Villeneuve's notability comes through Permanent Defense, and that he could be addressed in that article. Look at this article: it contains very few details about Villeneuve himself, and a lot of material about the group. Please don't take this as a slur; just as a comment that perhaps the material covered here should be put elsewhere. I'll change my vote if this article is rewritten such that it is clearly about Mr. Villeneuve, rather than Permanent Defense. Meelar (talk) 17:52, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, borderline notability and not much else. Megan1967 00:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, while local political activism isn't inherently notable, the level of interest in this VfD, along with some helpful input I've received from another user, have changed my mind. Keep, the overall issue seems notable in the NW US, and this individual seems to playing an active role. Wyss 00:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Wyss 04:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. Cleduc 07:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete I feel my biography has potential and that none of you have made much of a case for its deletion. Seanorthwest 04:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Editor is the subject of the article; I have responded to his concerns on Talk:Andrew Villeneuve. RadicalSubversiv E 06:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • You did not respond satisfactorily in my view. You further disparaged the man and treated him quite contemptuously. Libertas
  • Strong Keep He led an important aspect of opposition statewide to an initiative that would have seen the installation of over 18000 slot machines in Washington State. He succeeded against well-funded, well-organized opposition. This seems clearly notable by any measure, he was quoted representing the opposition in the Seattle Post Intelligencer[2]. The Permanent Defense article reads like a political pamphlet but that's another story. Villeneuve is clearly an important player not just in local politics but statewide and like him or not he warrants an article, with more facts and in more neutral form than the Permanent Defense article. It really should stay. I can help perhaps by adding to it, no one could allege I am sympathetic to his views, I'm not. Libertas
    • I suspect Libertas's vote has less to do with the subject matter than the fact that s/he is upset with me over several unrelated disputes (see User talk:Libertas for details). If Libertas had any knowledge of Washington state politics, s/he would understand that Eyman's latest initiative seriously unpopular almost from the beginning, and that Villeneuve's efforts (which, again, I support) had little to do with its overwhelming defeat. The only well-funded opposition to 892 came from the tribes. RadicalSubversiv E 06:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Radicalsubversiv makes another personal attack in order to diminish my position. I am more familiar with Washington politics than he might think. The initiative received 35% support did it not, hardly dead on arrival. I acknowledge others worked with Villeneuve, particular public sector rent-seekers who wanted to keep the taxes flowing. But to deny Villeneuve's role in it seems churlish and is most probably some nasty internal left dispute within the happy community of Washington liberals and marijuana activists. Radicalsubversiv misuses his role here to prosecute outside battles. I think he protests too much about supporting Villeneuve. I smell a rat. You're wrong about the funding sources btw, but why let facts get in the way of your story. Libertas
  • Vanity page says it pretty clearly. Such a thing is not considered of a good taste. --Menchi 09:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • That's very true, but it isn't a vanity page. He didn't write it. Libertas
      • I withdraw my comment since that's the case. --Menchi 09:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Hard to tell whether the man is notable in own right rather than just as a part of a campaign. User:Libertas, you seem to be using vfd to pursue a vendetta against another user. Not appropriate. I especially dislike the suggestion implicit in your argument above that since dissension is common on the "Left" no leftist can be trusted to comment on any left subject. Mattley 12:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Given your user page discloses an interest in British trade unions and revolutionary theory, you would indeed know. Please recuse yourself from this decision, left-wing activists, justice must be done and seen to be done. This is indeed a vendetta deletion proposal, it shouldn't be happening at all. Libertas
      • Yeah, and given that it also tells you I live in Birmingham in the UK I'm unlikely to be deeply involved in Washington left politics, wouldn't you say? I see absolutely no evidence that this was nominated in bad faith. The subject of the article is indeed 'of dubious notability' in that his notability outside of the group of which he is a member is questionable. You have not, despite all your contributions to this "debate", provided any evidence of personal animosity between the nominator and the subject. Even if you did it would scarcely make a diference as radical has commented on the article and its merits, as has every other contributor. You on the other hand have continually cast aspersions on other users and made ridiculous ad hominem attacks on users who differ from you in politics. You are bullying other users. Please mend your ways. Mattley 13:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I see a lack of any references or substantiation whatsoever. Delete unless some can be found - David Gerard 13:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • He has been quoted at length in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Not sure if that's enough but I thought it significant. Libertas
      • You deliberately left out the citation for the quote. It was not included in a story, but in a "readers sound off" feature on the editorial page, akin to letters to the editor. RadicalSubversiv E 23:50, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I deliberately left out nothing, he is clearly a prominent community activist and was first cited in the piece with a very long quote. I am not familiar with Seattle PI and in the circumstances think your unproven assertion is not acceptable. Libertas
  • Redirect to Permanent Defense. The person himself is not notable. RickK 23:11, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Permanent Defense. I see no evidence of notability yet. I'm also troubled by the use of vfd to persue grudges - take it to the talk pages and keep it out of here. Gamaliel 23:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not just that Gamalie, but a minority of users are claiming that because you vote delete it must be some conspiracry against left activism. I find such a stand by Libertas for example to be particularly insulting, I am neither left nor right and I dont believe politics should be involved in the VfD process. I still havent been convinced Villeneuve is notable enough for inclusion, plain and simple as that.
  • Weak Keep Looks notable but not fully explained - check google - very active. Miffed 23:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipaedia should err on the side of inclusion. If the article is biased, rework it, but minor American political activists seem like fair game to me. After all, we all want Wikipedia to be *the* place for people to read encyclopedia articles about pretty much everything, exept vanity pages.Zantastik 23:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This fellow isn't notable. I'm also troubled by the harassment of users on this page. Mackensen (talk) 07:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks noteworthy. Salazar 02:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • User joined Jan 9 2005.
  • Delete or redirect. —Ben Brockert (42) 06:17, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I have moved an extensive discussion to the Talk page. RickK 23:01, Jan 8, 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 on 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 03:50, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

IITB Bizarre Bazaar

This apears to be non-notable. It fails the Google test. If there is important information here, perhaps it could be incorporated into the IIT Bombay article. -- Dominus 09:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete not-notable. Many universities have similar services. Rje 13:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --fvw* 16:33, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Wyss 03:48, 3 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. 

all i can say is that i will never stop loving him,

no matter how you delite my words here, i will always have something to say..................................

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. Joyous 03:54, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

HP 200lx

non-notable early 90's PDA DCEdwards1966 09:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Wait. WHAT?!? Have you just completely lost it now DCEdwards ninteen sixty-six? What are you thinking? EXTREME KEEP —RaD Man (talk) 11:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Really, this was a bad call and you should've known better. 69,500 Google hits -> [3] —RaD Man (talk) 11:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Should've known better? Is Wikipedia a product catalog for old technology? What kind of impact has this thing had? If it has had any it should be mentioned in the article. Otherwise, its just an outdated PDA. DCEdwards1966 14:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • By the way, the person that wrote the article linked to his own personal wiki. DCEdwards1966 14:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • External links can always be changed or deleted, although this one seems to have legitimate information on the topic so I don't see what's wrong with it. What are your criteria for a notable enough PDA that Tapwave Zodiac, Dell Axim and CLIÉ fulfill and this one doesn't? That they're not outdated? I don't see that as being much of a factor since we cover all sorts of things that are outdated (like, say, Chevrolet Biscayne). It doesn't look like an advertisement for the product, it's doing no harm, and it's definitely more encyclopedic than all the Digimon minutiae we insist on keeping. — Ливай | ☺ 18:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • People keep saying it is notable. If so, please add what is notable about it to the article. Otherwise, it is just an old PDA. As far as other PDAs that have articles, if they were to come up one VfD I would vote on their merits. I found this one while patrolling Special:New Pages. DCEdwards1966 22:15, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I still remember those keyboards and yes it passes the Google Test. Megan1967 00:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The HP LX machines have a substantial following even now. iMeowbot~Mw 12:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I use one. Keep. Dan100 21:07, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems notable. This one's a keeper. — Ливай | ☺ 02:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • EXTREME DELETE unless some notability is established. DCEdwards1966 14:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) Changed to keep. The article now appears to establish some notability for the product. I will still put product articles up for deletion that are only spec sheets. DCEdwards1966 17:16, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. This product line is notable. GRider\talk 18:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • How so? DCEdwards1966 22:15, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • While the 69,000 google hits cited by RaDMaN do lend a great deal towards the notability of this handheld, so does the number of websites explicitly dedicated to the 200LX. IIRC there used to be a paper-based magazine also for HP Palmtops geared towards the 200LX. As Livajo also points out, we have articles for Tapwave Zodiac, Dell Axim and CLIÉ as well. Most outstanding is that this is a long expired piece of hardware and still it is garnering a relatively very high hit count. There is no point in the senseless deletion of this article, bytes are cheap and Wikipedia is not paper. GRider\talk 22:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • So, it is encyclopedic because it has fans? Was it the first to use some new technology? Did it do something better than any other PDA? Saying that one article belongs because we have articles about other equally non-notable subjects is not a very good argument. Rather than adding more non-encyclopedic articles we should be removing the ones that already exist. DCEdwards1966 04:50, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
          • The Grateful Dead has fans, should we delete them too? Please do not twist my words around. Yes, the number of "fans" is a good beacon for how notable something may be. My argument isn't how many fans they have, but that this article has an excellent opportunity for growth and expansion and there is no clear advantage to the slashing and burning of valuable Wikipedia articles. What was yours? GRider\talk 21:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • My point was that the article is a spec sheet. There is nothing about how this particular is different from any other PDA of the time. DCEdwards1966 22:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
              • None of these suggestions are valid reasons for deletion. VfD is not Cleanup. GRider\talk 23:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • NOTHING IN THE ARTICLE SUGGESTS NOTABILITY. DCEdwards1966 01:51, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
                  • It sold well? It is well-known in its field? It has a substantial following of users, and continues to be sold popularly even though HP doesn't actively advertise it [4]? I fail to see how this does not make it notable and what harm is being done by keeping these pages on specific PDAs (has it occurred to you that somebody might be interested in this information and might expect, or be pleasantly surprised, to find it in a comprehensive encyclopedia?) — Ливай | ☺ 12:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • And by the way, the suggestions are obviously not reasons to delete. My suggestions, if implemented, would be reasons to keep. Also, I did not twist your words around. I have been asking for some sign of notability for this product. The only thing you said that even remotely seemed to be answering the question was that fans existed. DCEdwards1966 01:57, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Alfio 16:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Easily clears the bar Philip 02:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I own one and it seems notable to me. --JuntungWu 04:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I made the topic. =p I own one and have never been able to find a comparible device. Small, qwerty keyboard, rugged, very expandible (at least for its time), runs DOS. All that aside, it was a highly notible landmark in palmtops at the time, and a moneymaker for HP right up until they pulled the plug in preference for ce machines. Yes, it was profitable and they stopped production anyway. This topic should remain because of the historical placement the device has in the history of palmtops. Yes Wikipedia is a catalogue of old products, especially uniquely notible and highly influential ones. Yes I linked to my own work. To that end, i'm willing to donate all the info from there here if there is sufficient interest, although all the various rough notes probably don't belong here. My own website plug is not vanity, I'm quite proud of this device and apparently others are too. -- Sy 22:17, 11 Jan 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 on 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 01:44, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Devious" Diesel

Character from Thomas the Tank Engine. Possible merge. DCEdwards1966 09:39, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd love to see this get merged somewhere yeah, though it's no worse than a lot of the f*ncr*ft currently floating around. I'm voting for the merge destination some wise editor is bound to suggest beneath this vote. --fvw* 16:21, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. not notable. Cleduc 07:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Merge" basically means "keep". It would be interesting to know just how many of these articles which are retained after a VfD where the preponderance of votes is either merge and/or delete, actually get merged, rather than "kept" or "no consensus" (meaning kept). Anyway, as the father of a 5 year-old, and therefore (temporarily) an expert on Thomas the Tank Engine, I can tell you that Diesel is a very minor character, who appears in ony a couple of the episodes, of which there are dozens. By the way, most of the biggest fans of Thomas the Tank Engine can't actually read the Wikipedia, never mind expand articles like this. --BM 21:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Very noteworthy, should retain it. Very popular subject. Salazar 02:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • User joined Jan 9 2005.
  • Delete, per BM. —Ben Brockert (42) 06:18, Jan 11, 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 on 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 The article has been added to WP:DA. Joyous 16:31, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Bridge of Death

Python cruft. I'm sure there is somewhere to merge it. DCEdwards1966 09:45, Jan 2, 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 on 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 has already been deleted. Joyous 04:12, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

August 27, 1990

Everything worth saying here can be found at Stevie Ray Vaughan, August 27 and/or 1990, and nobody is going to search for this as a title, or make a link to this in an article. We ought to just eschew it. Ливай | ☺ 09:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, there's no need to duplicate dates for specific years for exactly the reason mentioned above. We have a standard date format and we should stick to it. Mgm|(talk) 11:26, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Of course it has to go, it's non-standard and unnecessary. Deb 12:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rje 13:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yup, a no-brainer, delete. --fvw* 16:18, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Francs2000 | Talk| (Graham) 19:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-standard date duplicating. Megan1967 00:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ugen64 00:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a tribute and a fork. Wyss 03:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete should be nominated for speedy deletion/consensus in VfD later on. Brownman40 07:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. fork. Cleduc 07:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Rafał Pocztarski 10:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Huh? When? How? Why? Can we have a deletion log entry? Is the voting period over yet? Alphax (talk) 13:50, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, this wasn't a speedy delete. Could someone undelete please? --fvw* 16:47, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
The speedy deletion tag was added to it by Brownman40 and it was then deleted by Rafał Pocztarski. I have restored it. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 19:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is the deletion log entry as requested. Please do not add messages saying “This page is a candidate for speedy deletion, because: there was a consensus to delete the page at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/August 27, 1990 ” [5] when it is not the case. Thank you. Rafał Pocztarski 05:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • comment: Better yet: don't take speedy tags with invalid reasons at face value. Consensus for deletion on VfD does not make something a candidate for speedy deletion; VfD and CSD are distinctly deparate processes. Doublecheck the validity and applicability of {{delete}} notices before speedying. — Gwalla | Talk 00:32, 9 Jan 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 on 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 04:18, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

667 Dark Avenue

A page dedicated to someone's message-board. Non-notable. AlistairMcMillan 12:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:67.39.75.195 attempted to removed vfd tag. Mgm|(talk) 13:25, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • And borders on patent nonsense in its current state. Delete -- Ferkelparade π 12:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. Rje 13:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable or popular enough for Wikipedia. David Johnson [T|C] 14:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • [Personal attack (however harmlessly intended) on multiple colleagues deleted here by Jerzy (t) 18:01, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC). Intent may have been "Should be embarassing to its creators."] ehm... I mean: delete. --fvw* 16:18, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web guide. Ливай | ☺ 19:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are untold thousands of larger forums, and none of those deserve mention either. Xezbeth 22:04, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Somebody in the WWW 05:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. promo. Cleduc 07:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (though I don't fully agree with Xezbeth above) Hoary 08:29, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  • Delete Users of the board keep changing the pages and removing the VfD tags, they don't deserve a mention in the Wikipedia Switcher 14:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertisement for a message board. Please Delete --sp00n17 05:17, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If you look at the first sentence, it says "a gathering of intellegent people". This is obviously self-promotion. 05:37, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A promotion. Salazar 02:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: "In summary, a great place to talk about..."? Mmm. [maestro] 06:21, 11 Jan 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 on 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. Joyous 04:20, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Polar Trappers

This really should go into a Disney article, or just be deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, this has not failed any deletion criteria. There are articles on other Disney animated shorts. Rje 14:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to delete. Xezbeth 14:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think there's a good case to be made for merging these, but I'd rather have it happen as part of policy-making than one article at a time. --fvw* 16:17, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Keep for the reasons listed above thus far. —RaD Man (talk) 19:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's helpful. Wyss 03:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • We're whalers on the moon... well, it appears notable, but could probably do with a ==See also== Notable Disney Short Films or similar. I'd like to say M/R but I don't know where too. Alphax (talk) 13:57, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, no reason to can it. Dan100 21:07, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: "It was the first cartoon which featured Donald Duck and Goofy together without Mickey Mouse." Samaritan 06:58, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:09, 6 Jan 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 on 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. Joyous 01:47, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

AJHL

Delete

Seems non-notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Hands off the sticklers! Delete anyway. --fvw* 16:15, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article doesn't establish notability. Wyss 03:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. not notable Cleduc 07:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article has no notibility. At all. --WikiFan04 02:24, 20 Jan 2005 (CST)

Keep

  • About as notable as the Lower Darling Cabertossing Historical Sticklers Society, I think. Delete for lack of content. Oh wait, it's a substub. Delete anyway. Alphax (talk) 14:54, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Rewrite since I saw it first looks good, keep and expand. Alphax (talk) 14:02, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Junior A leagues are notable enough. JYolkowski 17:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Junior hockey leagues are quite important in the hockey universe (and hockey fans need SOMETHING this year.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep, notable and worthy of inclusion. —RaD Man (talk) 19:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 4840 Google hits for "Alberta Junior Hockey League" as a string, and it seems to lead the first page of "AJHL" hits. First page for the long form includes NHL.com draft rankings, articles in general newspapers not only in Alberta but Burnaby, British Columbia, Grand Forks, North Dakota and Madison, Wisconsin. 16 teams each in a major Alberta town or city, playing in arenas with total spectator capacity from 900 to 3500; average over 2100. Samaritan 07:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep "Noted alumni such as Mark Messier, etc..." deems it notable right thereEarl Andrew 10:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but consider moving to the new Canadian Junior A Hockey League (CJAHL) page and merging the Alberta content with it for the time being. None of the other CJAHL teams seems to have a page. However, the Junior A leagues are important -- alumni include both NHL greats and current NCAA high scorers and the NHL sometimes calls up players from the CJAHL. --Westendgirl 06:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Can we merge this AJHL information with CJAHL, or at least repeat it there? It would mirror the level of detail in the BCJHL section of that article. What's the consensus? --Westendgirl 07:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I support repeating it there (and moving with redirect, as below). Alberta Junior Hockey League is still more than expandible on its own, as well. (Applause for all your work on this, btw, Westendgirl) Samaritan 23:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If kept, then we should change the redirect relationship - AJHL should redirect to Alberta Junior Hockey League. We really should avoid acronyms as title names unless the acronym is more widely known than the thing it stands for. kelvSYC 04:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'll second that motion. --Westendgirl 06:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I came across this vote for deletion because I was looking for the article on the league. -- JamesTeterenko 03:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Actions

I reversed the redirect, so that AJHL now redirects to Alberta Junior Hockey League. I also pasted the AJHL content into the CJAHL article. I'm not sure the AJHL needs its own page, since the content is scant. Perhaps someone can expand the article? --Westendgirl 07:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And I added a redirect to here from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Alberta Junior Hockey League, since the actual content in question is now at Alberta Junior Hockey League, and that is where the VFD notice is. -Rholton 19:57, 14 Jan 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 on 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. Joyous 04:23, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

AM New York

Free newspaper, and doesn't seem notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Depends. Free newspapers can be notable. Metro is, but it seems like it doesn't have an article - Jeltz talk 14:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I dunno, printing a daily newspaper, no matter how trashy, does hint at notability. Anybody from new york care to comment? --fvw* 16:15, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for now. —RaD Man (talk) 19:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, borderline notability at best. Megan1967 00:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's run by Newsday. See [www.nynewsday.com/other/special/amny link]. --JuntungWu 02:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Wyss 03:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. A daily newspaper in New York City must clear the bar. Samaritan 05:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Clear keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:08, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Kensho 06:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) I live in NYC and this newspaper is great!. Its very small and has a nice collection of articles. It's like an express version of the NYT or the Post but without the editorials.
  • Keep ~ mlk ✉♬ 06:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) ~
  • Keep. GRider\talk 18:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The phenomenon of free daily newspapers is expected to grow. The Boston Globe just reached an arrangement with the Boston free paper, so it can use some Globe content and will help promote Globe stories. We should not only keep this article, we should add specific articles on the publications referred to generally in Metro International, including the one in NYC. JamesMLane 09:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Salazar 02:59, 10 Jan 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 on 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 04:25, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

APTA

"APTA is the contrived name of a computer software company in Tucson, Arizona". Nonnotable and may be patent nonsense. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Rje 14:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This gives a whole new meaning to patent nonsense! The name "came from the root words Apt and Active. The combination successfully conveys cutting edge, moving forward, ahead and advanced."[6] An accounting software suite may not make for a promising encyclopedia article, but no vote here. iMeowbot~Mw 14:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I think "successfully" is highly POV and disputed. Delete. --fvw* 16:12, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad. Wyss 03:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: spam. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spam. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:33, 7 Jan 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 on 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 04:28, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't seem significant enough to have its own article. Heck, it doesn't even talk about what sort of communications its talking about so I don't even know which article to merge it with! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Seems rather inactive. Delete. Alphax (talk) 14:50, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not all that common a term, I'd say merge into Telecommunication glossary if we had that, but delete as I'm not really sure I think it's a good idea to create that article. --fvw* 16:08, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete as jargon. Wyss 03:39, 3 Jan 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 on 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 04:30, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Adam Clark

Doesn't seem notable, the company doesn't even have an article! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity. Rje 14:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Delete. Alphax (talk) 14:54, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --fvw* 16:06, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, probable vanity, ad. Wyss 03:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. vanity. Cleduc 07:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most probably vanity... Greaser 06:04, 8 Jan 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 on 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 already deleted. Joyous 04:31, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ord Ibanna

This page is about a planet from the Star Wars Episode One Racer game. The game itself doesn't seem to have a page, so I'm sure we don't need a page on every single planet... perhaps it could be merged into an article on the game if there is one or if someone creates one. [it's also a copyvio]. David Johnson [T|C] 14:36, 2 Jan 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 on 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. Redirect has been deleted. Joyous 04:32, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Bonnie McKee,

This page is a useless redirect to Bonnie McKee. It's obviously not a common mis-spelling. I did mark it as a speedy, but apparently it isn't a speedy candidate. David Johnson [T|C] 14:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Not a vfd candidate either, move to WP:RFD. Dunc|☺ 15:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't know there was a RFD page. Just ignore me :-) David Johnson [T|C] 15:21, 2 Jan 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 on 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 reached: default to "keep" . Joyous 04:34, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

The Reformed Church of Newtown

I find the second anon's contribution most dubious; how can they be certain that God does not exist? Have they ever not met them? Anyway, unless I'm mistaken, this is really bad spam, so delete it. Alphax (talk) 14:31, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • If this specific church was founded in 1731 there might be some notability, though the article certainly doesn't establish it. If it's just the american reformed church then this church is just another one among many. Delete unless/until things get clarified. --fvw* 16:05, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, Megan1967 00:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Wyss 03:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Leaning toward keep, but please: someone rewrite to demonstrate notability. I'm almost certain that this church is notable, but the article only hints at it (There aren't many NY-area institutions with continuity back to the Dutch. How did a Dutch Reformed Church end up with strong Asian connections? There's got to be an article worth having here...) -- Jmabel | Talk 06:12, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this important part of its community.Dr Zen 01:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yet another notable, encyclopedic public institution.--Centauri 04:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's said to go back to 1731. How can an institution that has lasted for 274 years not be notable? Philip 02:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep although I agree with JMabel: it must be rewritten to establish more factual information Peter Shearan 13:59, 15 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_January_2&oldid=9041636"